Xray

For the sake of discussion, I propose that:

1) You are a human being = A statement about the metaphysical nature of reality

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

I have 2 refrigerators packed full of lettuce, beets, and tomatoes, and nothing else. Do you think I give a rat's ass about nutrition?

Do you think I give a rat's ass about nutrition?

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.

One of my favorite meals is 1 head of leafy lettuce, a beet or 2, a whole bunch of tomatoes, all run thru the Omega juicer (pulp and juice together), and a dash of turmeric powder, and distilled water run thru the juicer to half-ass clean it and to add water to the mix.

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?

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.

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.

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

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.

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.

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.

Sam Harris: "If anything, I tend to be more critical of converts, whatever the color of their skin, because they were not brainwashed into the faith from birth."

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'?

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true?

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.

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

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.

One can choose to believe whatever one wants, but whether that belief conforms to reality - and to a particular philosophy, such as Objectivism - is an entirely different matter.

No conflict between Christianity and belief in God, and Objectivism? I'm afraid that there is. Big time. (see the quote below).

But why stop with Christianity? How about Buddhism and Objectivism?. I cannot think of a more diametrically opposed set of philosophies. Try the Dalai Lama, who sees no trouble at all with reconciling communism as an politico-economic system with his brand of Buddhism. How about "Islamic Objectivism?" Or "Jainist Objectivism?" For that matter, why not "Marxist-Leninist philosophy and Objectivism?"

Reminds me of what Dragonfly wrote in post #14:

"Christian Objectivist" sounds to me a bit like "vegetarian tiger". Probably there also exist socialist Objectivists or communist Objectivists, nothing can surprise me anymore.

@Xray. You wrote; “"Have you asked him how he builds in Rand's pronounced atheism into his recent conversion to Christianity? "

Well, he, like myself, thinks atheism is not an essential part of Objectivism. He also came to disagree with part of Rand’s metaphysics.

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

[N. Branden]: "Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism."

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true?

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")?

Well, an Objectivist can come to Christianity, but not Christianity to Objectivism.

--Brant

a man may have contrafdictions, but not a philosophy which rends them out

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?

[replying to tmj]To blame Christianity exclusively for the Dark Ages is rather short sighted. I’d look at the fall of Pax Romana as the primary reason.

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.

Additionally, you presume the rich young ruler amassed his fortune through laissez faire capitalism which didn’t exist in biblical days. :-)

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

Imagine all taxes are abolished and there are no taxes. Imagine government is support only by voluntary donations. Imagine you get to choose which part of government your voluntary donations go to. Would you voluntarily support mass murder war?

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

Here, you pull a verse out of context and then build a straw man.

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.”

Rand herself would have also condemned the young ruler, the character in this passage, as he was one whose covetous selfishness was of the pejorative definition associated with that word.

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?

If you knew the ten commandments

I know them. I'm an ex-Christian.

You would have noticed that Jesus left out the commandments about coveting and the first four which speaks of man’s relation to God. So in the context of this passage, a “rich man” is one who is egocentric and covetous.

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'.

You lack a fundamental understanding of scriptural interpretation.

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

What if the bad premises contained asbestos hanging from the rafters?

Good pun, lol!

1. Belief in God is not irrational. It may not fit into a materialistic worldview, but it is not irrational.

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.

2. Why would a Christian not support laissez faire capitalism? I’m sure some Christians who subscribe to altruism (which is unbiblical in my opinion) might believe that. Have you ever asked what is the basis for that belief from a Biblical perspective? I’d love to hear their answers.

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."

The simplest way I would put it is, people go to hell not for not believing, but for being sinners.

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

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God.

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.

My mother knows of my own beliefs (soft Atheism), but she still drags me along.

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

It has been established experimentally that neutrons not in nucleuses decompose. It has also been established experimentally that electrons and positrons turn into energy when they come into contact.

The experiments carry more weight that philosophical suppositions.

Facts rule and Theories (sometimes) serve.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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

To the Christian, it begins with God. It has to begin with God.

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.

Here’s mine. Do you have enough faith to believe in the eternality of matter in spite of recent scientific discoveries?

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