Mike82ARP

You’re being a bit preachy here, aren’t you? Here’s my response to your recommended “paths for thinking” given the "vacuum of my imagination" #1 NSS* (key below) #2 NSS* #3 So what? I’ve been happily married for 33 years. #4 NSS* *- No $#!t, Sherlock.

Michael, you misunderstood me. What I meant is that Rand’s response on her discovering the Branden/Scott affair was irrational on her own part given her philosophy which rationalized her affair with Branden. I think her response was natural from a human emotional perspective. If I may ask, are you married? If so, how many times? Also, am I not permitted to philosophize about something I have no experience with? Could I philosophize about pedophilia even though I haven’t had any experience with it?

Bingo!!! Thanks whYNOT, Leonid, Michael and for the comments. They have been helpful. XRay. I think this resolved my initial question and I should have picked up on it myself. Especially since I am currently reading Kelley’s, Truth and Toleration in which he critiques intrinsicism at some length. D’oh!!!

Some good points. You then wrote, "the first, initial and primary betrayal is of oneself. In the absence of God, and the insignificance of society, judging him, the first witness that matters to a moral egoist is himself.” Maybe I’m not understanding this. If the moral egoist has no internal conflict with philandering and would not be betraying himself practicing such, then why should he be concerned with "the dishonesty and ensuing injustice to one's presumably beloved partner.”? Would then the philanderer be betraying himself, i.e., sacrificing his happiness, by remaining monogamous?

What I meant is that (in the context of my post on why lusting is not a good thing regardless of whether any action occurs) while Rand was able to rationalize her affair with Branden, she wasn’t so accommodating when Patrecia arrived on the scene. The latter is the reality of human emotion, the former is living in a fantasy.

That sent me to Bible Gateway (http://www.biblegateway.com/) which has versions and translations and originals, both early originals and later originals. (The oldest copies might seem more correct, but in truth, later copies may be truer to previous texts which have been lost.) It is clear to me that the Sermon on the Mount was prescriptive teaching, perhaps the most complete single statemet, of his views on how to live your life.I agree that Rand and Branden did summarize Christianity as outsiders. Moreover, as I recall, Nathaniel Branden claimed to have rejected going to church when he learned about the doctrine of Original Sin. I believe that this was myth - or at least mythic, if he considered converting. Over on Rebirth of Reason, Ted Keer was banned for pointing out an error in Ayn Rand's thumbnail sketch of Christianity. He was discharged for "defending Christianity," which he plainly did not do. (Ted was banned here for insulting MSK.) Ted only pointed out that Jesus was not "the ideal man." He was human. He had the same problems we all do, thus he was baptized by John. His crucifiction was not the sacrifice of the best to the worst. Personally, my interpretation of the sacrifice of the "Lamb of God" is different from that, but I understood Ted Keer's point and I agree (generally) with his assumption that the dual human/divine nature of Jesus is complicated in ways not perceived by Rand and Branden. You can say what you please, but it is not necessarily Objectivism. Rand's affair with Branden while being married to Frank O'Connor pretty much demonstrates that. Over the last 40 years, I have known (and do know) Objectivists who are "polyamorous" in their relationships. Love is not a commodity to be hoarded for its value. Like any living thing, it thrives when engaged with a supportive environment. No one needs to be threated or feel denigrated. In fact, such feelings are evidence of a lack of self esteem. We can discuss all of that in a different topic thread.Hi: Thanks for sharing. My comment about the Sermon on the Mount not being entirely prescriptive had to do with the “lust" topic. On six occasions, including the lust comment, Jesus prefaces his teaching saying, “You have heard it was said” as opposed to, “it is written”. Here is where he is correcting the Pharisees' teaching of the day. Recall there were no prophets for the 500 year period preceding Jesus arrival prompting a great expansion of Talmudic teaching where the intent of the commandments had been twisted. Of course there is some prescriptive teaching in the Beatitudes and elsewhere, Regarding your second comment, never mind the Rand/Branden tryst. I’m referring to the Branden/Scott affair. Rand didn’t take kindly to that, did she? Your final comment, "Love is not a commodity to be hoarded for its value. Like any living thing, it thrives when engaged with a supportive environment. No one needs to be threated or feel denigrated. In fact, such feelings are evidence of a lack of self esteem.” seem to support my contention. Based on Rand’s reaction on learning of the affair, seems to me Rand “hoarded” Branden’s affection. So it seems that my assessment is based more on reality \ than Branden’s.

Do you think Randian hero Rearden (who was married) violated Objectivist principles? I view Reardon as a weakling since he hated his wife and put up with she and her parasitic family. But he eventually sought a divorce, so there was no new threat to his marriage when he nailed Dagny at Wyatt’s place. So in that case, no, but he also later caved and signed over the rights to his metal even though it was ostensibly to protect Dagny’s reputation. Not the strongest character in the book. So I guess he violated Objectivist principles.

Thanks for your thoughts, MSK. There are a lot of Mikes here! Anyway, since you brought up the whole Branden comments on “lusting in your heart”, I find it comical that, Branden, a secular Jew thinks he has a sufficient understanding of a Christian text to critique it with any semblance of authority. I find the critiques against Christianity lame composition fallacy/straw men arguments and this is just another case. (FWIW, I got banned from the Objectivist Standard for pointing this out on YouTube. Biddle, Bernstein, et al, are some thin-skinned wimps who can’t defend their attacks. In my opinion, Branden’s lack of personal integrity gives him no credibility with me in this area. If his critique is as you wrote, then I’d say he lacks even an Objectivist understanding on this topic (as I will propose further down) and was only seeking to rationalize his own behavior. The fact that there were many bobbing heads there tells me his audience was composed of minions rather than thinkers. First, the passage you cited was from the Sermon on the Mount which is not intended to be prescriptive teaching on Jesus’ part. Much of that passage is a critique of the Pharisee’s hypocrisy and rationalization which was rampant at the time. This was not Jesus laying a guilt trip as you imply, but a corrective. Additionally, in Matthew 23 Jesus unleashes a blistering excoriation against the Jewish leaders and their practices. This supports the fact that Jesus had a contentious relationship with the religious leaders. Second, I would say that thoughtful lusting after another woman violates Objectivist principles in that this behavior denigrates a man’s feelings toward his wife therefore threatening the peace of a marriage. This type of “selfishness” I don’t think Rand would have supported. So in this case, lusting (i.e., not a quick admiring glance) is an evil on the basis of its content and not simply an philosophical error. This would apply whether Jesus preached it or not. There is so much that Rand got right, but her critiques against Christianity lacked scholarship. Although much of her critique might apply to some segments of Christianity, she painted with too broad a brush. Her criticisms of what she considered "Christianity" had already been addressed by Christian theologians who actually understood the kookiness she railed against (altruism, legalism, etc) and did a better job. Mind you, I belong to a segment often referred to as the “frozen chosen” in that we value reason and eschew emotionalism, spiritualism and subjectiveness in the practice of our faith.

I'm not sure your example applies. You wrote, "There are ideas that can be expressed to an adult and that is not evil; expressed to a child, yes." I understand your example, "Thou shall not kill", but that quote is anachronistic, i.e., Elizabethan English. Modern translations of the Bible show this Hebrew word to actually be "murder", not "kill". Therefore, if your example would have been used correctly, then there would be no evil context to consider. My question to you then is, how can an idea that is true be considered evil regardless of whom it is directed at? I can understand how untrue statements can potentially be evil.

Mike, I'd say all evil starts out as "an error in thinking..."etc. - but not all errors in thinking, etc. are inherently evil. Could that help? That makes sense, but will that explanation pass the Objectivist test? I makes me wonder why the Piekoff/Kelly schism occurred when Brook is currently doing essentially the same thing for which Kelley was ostracized (e.g., Brook debating Callahan from Demos).

Ayn Rand used an artistic trick which allows the reader to "read" person's mind. In reality any idea has to be expressed in some way . So long as person shut up about his ideas we cannot know them and judge, However when he expresses his ideas in public or in private he acts on them. In your approach anybody who openly supports terrorism is evil, but the idea of terrorism is not. What then makes such a supporter an evil person? I don’t think terrorism is an appropriate example in reference to my question. I was thinking more of an error in thinking, a misinterpretation of an observation of flaw in reasoning.

This conflation with Catholicism and Christianity does not bear up. However, I do understand your other arguments. A... Agreed. Having been raised in Roman Catholicism and leaving it as a teen, then 15 years later becoming a Christian (which is different than a Catholic), I can attest to the huge differences between the two.

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. 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. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I will respond shortly in a PM as I am busy with my kids.

I cannot understand why chiropractic (whoever coined this noun did a horrible job) is considered wonkish or "mystical" or whatever. I've perceived it to be much like stretching. Unfortunately, there was a mystical side to it when it first formed, but that has been ignored in the majority of schools of today. However, there is still a kook fringe as there is in most anything that’s around. I got fed up with the politics and ineptitude of the board of registration that I left the profession after 12 years. The word origin comes from the Greek- cheiros meaning hand + praktikos meaning practical. Usually translated to be “done by hand.”

Excellent comments above, but it brings me to the question (or as Obama recently said, "it begs the question"... LOL!!! Harvard, huh?) where do Objectivists tend to ally themselves politically? The Dems are too much into egalitarianism, wealth redistribution, etc., the Repubs are too closely allied with religious groups, anti-abortion, and Rand seemed to despise the Libertarians (where I generally fall).

As a former chiropractor I can attest to the hubris of the "medical Deities".

Thanks!!

Excellent!! thanks for posting. I sent this to my FB page for my students to read. Toward the end of his speech it sure did sound like Rand.

@William. I use the debate from Birmingham. True, but the topic does not involve "facts" nor "proof", but in fact, only "beliefs" as Lennox points out in his opening remarks.

Bette Davis said to always speak good of the dead...... He’s dead. Good.

I like Dawkins, but for a different reason. I use his debate with John Lennox in my logic class. Dawkins can barely get two sentences out of his mouth without committing a laundry list of fallacies or contradicting himself. A great learning tool for my students! Hitchens is/was much more engaging, but neither he nor Dawkins would be amenable to Objectivism.

In reading about the Kelley-Peikoff debate the question, "can an idea be evil?? seemed to be an issue. Your thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.

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. 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.

Michael, My post was directed at Aristocrates as he seemed to be having some conflict and being familiar with his folks’ denomination, was offering some advice. Myself and others have much admiration for Rand and Objectivism and our commonalities far out weigh the differences. I've often wondered whether Rand’s animosity toward religion, which seems primarily focused on Christianity, is a product of her exposure to the Kantianized segment sprinkled with some weirdness of Aimee Semple McPherson who was popular in Los Angeles during the time Rand was there. I deal with religious kooks on a frequent basis and dread it. From what I’ve read, Rand’s and Objectivism’s strongest criticism against religion was the church’s supposed view of altruism as a virtue. This is at best, a composition fallacy and at worst, a straw man. While Roman Catholicism (the segment I was raised in and left as a teen) typically holds that view it is by no means even close to being a majority view and I am somewhat surprised at the lack of scholarship by the luminaries of today’s Objectivism on this issue as well as the “faith versus reason” argument which simply a false dichotomy. Numerous Christian philosophers have addressed that at length. But as you wrote, working through ideas firsthand in the quest for truth is a messy business as is the continuing search for truth.

Getting back to the OP. You may want to try a church different than your current one. I fully agree that there are a bunch of Christians whose belief systems fall into the realm of “whacked”, but not all are like that. You might want to look at a friend’s blog, The Christian Egoist. Jacob like myself are Christian egoists and support much of what Rand stated. We also attend churches that eschew mysticism, anti-intellectualism, post-modernism (yes, it thrives in some churches), etc. The ubiquitous kookiness in the Christian community troubles me to no end. I would advise you to check his blog: http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/jesus-christ-and-ayn-rand/ Jacob is also writing a book which will be titled, “The Galt Like God. Meditations of a Christian Egoist" Also a new book which will be released any day, "The Soul of Atlas: Ayn Rand, Christianity, a Quest for Common Ground." http://www.amazon.com/The-Soul-Atlas-Christianity-Common/dp/0988329506/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid=1V5BV6AD84JQ7&coliid=I2WSDSF9RQ23TX