Xray

I have bumped up this thread because of a recent PM I've had with poster Mike82ARP over the topic. I've asked Mike if he would allow me to quote from what he wrote in the PM exchange since it contains several points which would make for a good discussion/debate on the forum. He allowed me to do so (the same goes for me). Mike wrote: "I dont see atheism as a necessary tenet of Objectivism and think Rands analysis in this arena was incorrect." [end quote Mike82RAP] I replied: I have to disagreee here - I see atheism as one of the pillars Objectivism rests on, and recall quite a few controversial discussions I've had on OL with other posters over that." [end quote Xray] Mike: "I've read enough Rand to see that her views on Christianity are wrong mainly because she paints Christianity with a broad brush and commits a composition fallacy/straw man. As I read her works and specific criticisms on religion/Christianity I thought, I've never heard of what she is talking about preached or taught in my church." [end quote Mike82RAP] Mike: I disagree with the premise that God doesn't exist and have my reasons. Neither viewpoint can be proven. I've been through these discussions ad nauseum, but I'd be interested to read why atheism is a "pillar of Objectivism". [end quote Mike82RAP] Imo in examining the claim that Objectivism does not contradict the Christian religion(s), the key issue is not whether the premises of Objectivism/of the Christian religion(s) are correct/false - it is about whether they are compatible with each other. I think they are so incompatible that one would arrive at massive contradictions in trying to become a 'Christian Objectivist'. For Rand was clear as a bell when she said "No supernatural dimension exists." With such a clear position, how can the Jesus character (the product of a supernatural being) be integrated into Objectivist thought without arriving at a substantial contradiction? Not to mention that the Jesus figure is also the classic case of the 'sacrificial lamb', in a type of sacrifice which Rand spent a lifetime in attacking as 'irrational' and therefore 'immoral'. To avoid possible misunderstandnigs, Mike: I'm no Objectivist, I'm merely pointing out what I think are incompatible contradictions between the Christian faith and Objectivism.

Here's the free online dictionary definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jealous Jealousy is closely realted to envy but imo the fear of loss is emphasized stronger in jealousy than in envy. Envy is mostly about wanting to have what someone else has. Whereas in jealousy, the fear of losing to someone else what one wants to keep (e. g. the love of one's partner, the attention of one's friends, etc, one's position at work) is always a factor.

But can't Jim be jealous of Joe if Jim's wife is attracted to Joe because he has qualities which Jim lacks?

I think Rand would have called "rational" every decision she made. Imo admitting that she had been irrational was out of the question for her. At the beginning of her affair with NB, she was good deal more rational in her assessment though, pointing out that this was of course only going to be of limited duration because she was many years older than NB. But when years later the moment had come, she would hear nothing of it. Wouldn't this contradict the idea of individualism where people are free to decide for themselves?

But Ayn Rand herself had an extramarital relationship. I'm convinced that Rand fully supported her own "selfishness" regarding her affair with NB.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Imo an act which one would regard as 'evil' is always also connected to 'evil intent' on the part of the person committing it. If, for example, a person accidentally runs over someone else with his/her car, no evil intent lies behind the act. But in case the same act is committed on purpose, one would speak of evil intent.

Mike 82ARP asked: "Can ideas be in and of themselves be evil?" Ideas only exist within a context. Labeling an idea as 'evil in and of itself' I would connote with 'intricisism'.

Do you think Randian hero Rearden (who was married) violated Objectivist principles?

I miss him too. I loved it how he always hit the nail on the head with his comments, like (quotes from the video in post # 19): "In my view there's more morality in a novel by George Eliot than there is in any of the Four Gospels, or the four of them put together." "I don't think there is any need to have essay advocating selfishness among human beings. I don't know what your impression has been, but - some things require no further reinforcement. "

It would help if you were to describe your religious background as I would have a better context on which to address your comment. But here goes: I am not trying to “marry” Christianity to Objectivism as I view them as non-overlapping magisteria. Additionally, it all depends on how you define "original sin” as there are differences between denominations, then I would need to see which (some, all?) Objectivist premises are incompatible. I have no intention of proselytizing anyone here as I understand and respect other peoples’ beliefs. I only seek to further my knowledge of open Objectivism. I was born a and raised a Roman Catholic but no longer belong to this church. I have never been very religious (even as kid, I had certain doubts about elements of the catholic dogma). This has made it easier for me to finally leave not only Catholicism, but all other attachment to the Christian faith behind me. Over the years, I have become an agnostic currently leaning more the the atheist side of the fence. As for 'original sin' - I was referring to Adam and Eve's fall from grace, resulting in their expulsion from paradise. Jesus Christ is seen as the redeemer because he was 'sacrificed' in order to make god forgive our sins and thus erase the 'collective guilt' of mankind. He then 'rose from the death', ascended into heaven alive (the belief in the Resurrection of the Flesh is the key element of the Christian faith). Now one could argue: "But my Jesus is somewhat different! I couldn't care less what a dogma says. Instead I'm free to model this character as I see fit for my purpose." This is a form of patchworking which in some form or other has always occurred over the ages (otherwise, no new impulses would never be absorbed); But the consequence of this patchworking process is something dogmatists don't like: their organized religion is 'fraying at the seam', so to speak, with the dogma slowly becoming an empty shell devoid of sense because people just don't believe it anymore. The Jesus character is a good example to demonstrate what can happen in patchworking: let's disconnect, for illustration purposes, from the Jesus figure the idea of original sin, the idea of his resurrection from the dead, the idea of his being sacrificed to assuage the wrath of god ... taken to the extreme, one might as well then drop the whole religous context that goes with the Jesus figure. Jesus will be 'humanized down' to such a degree that he resembles more a psychological guru than a godsend.

Here is a link to Hitchens' assessment of Atlas Shrugged: "Atlas snubbed":

Ironically, scientists' seriousness in their quest for truth often makes them look 'bad' in debates because they lack the 'slickness' of their ideologist adversaries who have been rhetorically schooled in debate by their organizations.

But ideas like "reciprocal altruism" and "consequentalism" are not wishy-washy at all. They're very 'down to earth' actually, and can be illustrated by countless examples from real life.

- The Barrel of Sherry (Poe)

The term "Idea" is purely descriptive, whereas the term "evil" refers to a moral value judgement. The combination "evil idea" therefore only makes sense against the backdrop of a moral standard of value. Moral standards of value are man-made though. So there exist ideas which were regarded as "evil" in past times, but not in our time. And vice versa.

From the blog: I think it is the Christians who drop the context here by ignoring the premise their belief is based on: the idea of an "original sin", which then made the Jesus character necessary as the "savior"/ "redeemer". Since the idea of an original sin is completely incompatible with Objectivist premises, imo trying to 'marry' Christianity to the philosophy of Ayn Rand doesn't work.

Jmpo, but I would not teach "proper worldview" in a philosophy class. Philosophizing about the world does not necessarily mean that one will arrive at definite answers. The process of philopsophical question-asking can be very productive and dynamic; the journey is its own reward.

The Ring of the Nibelung was analog, not digital. Ba'al Chatzaf "Digital" --- from Latin digitus = 'finger'.

"Region in Czechia" = La Bohème (Giacomo Puccini) "The Winged Mammal" = The Bat (operetta by Johann Strauss) ND's: The Digital Ornament of the Nibelung = The Ring of the Nibelung (Richard Wagner) The Singing Doctoral Candidates of Nuremberg = The Mastersingers of Nuremberg (Richard Wagner) Ariadne auf Texas = Ariadne on Naxos (Richard Strauss) Aida Too Much = Aida (Giuseppe Verdi) Madame Butterball = Madame Butterfly (Giacomo Puccini) Enorma = Norma (Vincenzo Bellini)

... too often?

From AS: Wesley Mouch - "Wesley Pouch" (I've always visualized Mouch as having a pouchy face). Owen Kellogg - "Owen Cornflake" Balph - "Barf" Bertram Scudder - "Bertram Shudder"

"Region in Czechia" "The Winged Mammal" (operetta)

Futile or not, our attempt to prevent "bad" experinces is biologically hardwired. For "bad experiences" can be life-threatening. >> Every conclusion is a lie. (If you sense a contradiction in thisstatement, note that my conclusion about conclusions is at a different level of abstraction -- a meta-level.) lockquote>Terminological muddles will naturally result in contradictions. Hyatt obviously equates the term "lie" with 'error'. But as opposed to error, a lie is a conscious attempt to hide a truth. 1. You have a habit for rephrasing parts of the quotes as if you are arguing against them. "While all too human" is what you chose to rephrase this time, as if he didn't already implement that point into his overall theory. 2. I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent. I found the passage pretty insightful. That line about civilization being "organized cowardice and laziness" lacks context, but again, depending on interpretation, it is spot on. Civilization, for many people, is just that. How can the law be so corruptible if it were not for cowardice and laziness? Civilization may not have been the best target, but perhaps social organization (collectivism) of all kinds. Gift giving occasions are a big one for me... what level of organization we have accepted that we will be compelled by society to buy gifts on a schedule! What I was getting at: everything that is biologically hardwired, we have to work with it, not against it. This does not mean giving in to every impulse, but awareness of the feeling and why the feeling is there can be very helpful. Calling the attempt to prevent bad experiences "futile" is an over-generalization by Hyatt. It can be futile in some cases, but by no means in all. C. S. Hyatt's broadbrush attacks on civilization raise a red flag as well. For it leads to the question: 'What is (or 'was', since he died in 2008) his alternative solution? What was his vision of an ideal societey and - this would be especially interesting for Objectivists to discuss: what role did his occultism and magic play in all that?

That Neil Schulman thread is really something special. It offers an excellent study in the impossibility to 'prove' the existence of a god. "I prayed for proof. I then experienced what I regard as proof." Neil wrote in # 541 there. But a subjective experience does not qualify as proof.