Xray

What is the difference between 'nature of reality' and 'metaphysical nature of reality'?

Absolutely. For all the evidence available on the various threads you have opened here on the subject indicate that you care very much about nutrition. You would not consume a head of leafy lettuce plus a beet plus a whole bunch of tomatoes if you didn't think they have nutritional value, would you?

Anyone familiar with Rand's work knows this. Or has heard a very elaborate argument at the least. But the opposite statement: "Happiness does not come come from making others happy" in its absoluteness would be a distortion of reality too.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with. I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'. From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets. I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma. In addition, eclecticism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill. That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end. There are no absolutes? Or only in certain contexts, categories? It depends on what kind of 'absolutes' you have in mind. I personally would restrict the use of the term 'absolute' to facts, where the function of 'absolute' is really no more than pure emphasis: "It is absolutely true that [insert any known fact]." When it comes to 'absolute moral values' though, independent of context, imo such values don't exist.

Why are you focusing so much on that one line? I brought it up simply as a reference point. Rand rejected the saying as immoral, but I wanted to look into what truth there was behind it and why people accept it as a moral guide. I used "that line" for demonstration purposes: to illustrate that statements like "Happiness comes from making others happy" in their absoluteness are a distortion of reality.

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/ Imo Sam Harris is judges converts quite harshly. For isn't it true that most people who convert to a religion were born into another religion, and have therefore already been subjected to a first 'brainwashing cycle'?

What are you referring to here by "accept as generally true"? Do you mean Rand's opinion about the maxim ("Happiness comes from making others happy")? Or do you mean the maxim itself ("Happiness comes from making others happy")? The maxim. I think many people accept it as true, which is why it's had such successful dissemination. If one inserts just one small term, imo there may be no need to discuss this controversially at all. How about "Happiness can come from making others happy"? This would imply that making others happy does not automatically make oneself happy every time, but it does not exclude the possibility of one's own happiness, in certain cases, being the result of making others happy.

You are both practising a form of eclecticism then, i. e. picking those parts of a philosophy that you agree with. I personally am in favor of eclecticism, of 'patchworking'. From Rand I have picked "Check your premises", which imo is one of the best pieces of philosophical advice one can give, but it would be wrong and cause misunderstandings if I called myself an Objectivist since I disagree with many other Objectivist tenets. I also think that eclectism is an effective tool to poke holes into ossified doctrines and dogma. In addition, eclecticism is in harmony with a universal cosmic phenomenon: permanent transformation. There is no standstill. That's why all attempts by orthodox grailkeepers (like e. g. Peikoff, orhodox Marxists, dogmatic religionists etc) to keep a doctrine pure and unaltered, and never allowing to question any part of the doctrine/ dogma must fail in the end.

Reminds me of what Dragonfly wrote in post #14:

Yesterday, in # 437, Jerry Biggers posted an interesting excerpt from Chapter 4,"The Concept of God," The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism, by Nathaniel Branden [2009, Laissez Faire Books/Cobden Press]) http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7060&page=22

What are you referring to here by "accept as generally true"? Do you mean Rand's opinion about the maxim ("Happiness comes from making others happy")? Or do you mean the maxim itself ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

I know one who recently did. He’s still a Rand fan, too! Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? I would put it this way: Christianity (all 'old' religions, in fact) are products of ages considerably 'darker' than the current age because they were founded in times when people had far less knowledge about facts. It is therefore no surprise that magical thinking and belief in the supernatural prevailed back then. It is also no surpise that the Biblical god is characterized as an almighty being who demands obedience and can destroy or show mercy at will. The image of such a god was probably modeled after the real-life potentates the people back in those times were familiar with. But all this is also the reason why the image of revengeful and almighty god, or promises like e. g. the resurrection of the flesh come across as increasingly odd in our scientific age. And if church leaders had not been hungry for political power over the centuries, and if no emperor had ever decided to impose the Christian belief on his subjects - I don't think Christianity would have survived at all.

But it was you who linked laissez faire capitalism to Christianity (see your post # 359).

Imo the idea of a government being supported only by voluntairy donations is absurd.

But giving the context weakens your case even more: Luke 18;22 "Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” I'm afraid Rand would have condemned the young ruler if he sold everything he had and gave it to the poor. Can you imagine John Galt doing that because someone promises him treasure in heaven? I know them. I'm an ex-Christian. But not to an Objectivst. On the contrary, a rich man deciding to keep his wealth (instead of giving it away to the poor to follow a guru who promises him 'treasure in heaven') would be considered as rational and therefore 'virtuous'.

I suppose the message is: "I want you to accept my preferred version of the many scriptural interpretations of that Biblical text passage."

Good pun, lol!

One can pick and choose virtually anything from texts like the Bible, which is a hodgepodge of writings from many contributors, over a time span dating from about 500 BC. C. to about 100 AD, which makes the various 'messages' as like as chalk and cheese in many instances. I suppose the Christians who subscribe to altruism have picked "the love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" passages. As for those Christian not supporting laissez faire capitalism, maybe they thought of what the Jesus character is quoted saying in Luke 18:25? "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

And you seriously think that believing in heaven and hell is compatible with Objectivism??

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist? For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god? Common ground: Laissez faire capitalism, reason, limited government, individualism, rational self interest. But doesn't the Objecivist philosophy reject the belief in a god as irrational, i. e. as 'anti-reason'? That would eliminate 'reason' as common ground. Also, I don't quite see why being a Christian would imply an endorsement of laissez-faire capitalism (?). I know quite a few Christians who think of laissez-faire capitalism as detrimental.

Just curious: what do you mean by "soft" Atheism?

Matter can be transformed into energy - what is your point?

But wouldn't the possibility of a common ground between Christianity and Objectivism already end here for an Objectivist? For isn't the Christian premise "It has to begin with God" diametrically opposed to Objectivism's rejecting as irrational the belief in a god?

Still, both mysticism and altruism do have a long tradition in Christianity. You’re correct, but the mysticism and altruism are not universal tenets of Christianity. You commit a composition fallacy to use that line of argumentation. I could say that atheism ultimately leads to socialist/communist/collectivist societies and cite examples such as China, USSR, East Germany, the socialist countries on Europe where only a small fraction of the population could be classified as religious. Would you find that objectionable? Yes. For it would be a non-sequitur to conclude from the fact that atheism is an integral part of the communist ideology that all forms of atheism will automatically result in a communist society.

I'm not a 'faith' type. What recent scientfic discoveries do you have in mind as alleged evidence of matter not being eternal?