To Grow as an Objectivist

[Alfonso Jones]

Since joining this forum, I have self-noted that many of my posts often appear to take up positions contrary to standard Objectivist assertions. These contrary positions include attempts to recognize the good in religion, to support environmentalism, and to understand what is really meant when people claim to be altruistic.

But keep in mind that objectivism is based on atheism. Rand's atheistic belief is the main pillar her philosophy rests on. Imo one can't be an objectivist without also being an atheist.

Xray -

That's a three sentence post with AT LEAST two of the sentences being fundamental misstatements.

Bill P

Which sentences exactly? Please elaborare on why you think they are misstatements. Be as specific as possible.

Misstatement of first sentence: Objectivism is not BASED on atheism.

Misstatement of second sentence: Atheism is not "the main pillar her [Rand's] philosophy rests on."

Where do you get these ideas about Rand's thought? Was she an atheist - yes. Did she think that a thoroughgoing Objectivist would be an atheist - yes. But that does not mean that atheism is the BASIS of Objectivism or the MAIN PILLAR on which Objectivism rests.

Can you cite the specific passages in Rand's writings which tell you that atheism is the MAIN PILLAR on which Objectivism rests? Which tell you that atheism is the BASIS of Objectivism?

Bill P

[Xray]

Misstatement of first sentence: Objectivism is not BASED on atheism.

Can you imagine objectivism not based on atheism?

Rand claimed that belief in god is incompatible with rationality - right?

Can you cite the specific passages in Rand's writings which tell you that atheism is the MAIN PILLAR on which Objectivism rests? Which tell you that atheism is the BASIS of Objectivism?

Many of Rand's (and her disiciples') attacks are directed against believers in transcendence. For example, TVOS pb, p. 15, 41-42, 28, 38, 40-48, 108, 120.

She considers religion as extremely detrimental because it enslaves people. I constitutes an obstacle for what she wants man to be. So yes I would say her atheism is - I'll modfiy it - one of the main pillars of her philosophy.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

As far as I've ever seen/heard/read atheism isn't just a pillar, but a requirement. At least officially speaking. It is unenforceable, of course.

Also, there has always been somewhat of a difficulty in how that message went out. For instance, it is a fact by its definition that atheism does not exclude spirituality, or for that matter other types of religious thought. Just no theism. There's lots of other stuff outside of theism.

Edited April 19, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Christopher]

My post was in response to Christopher who wrote that he attempts to see the good in religion.

Imo Rand woud have denied that there is ANY good in religion and would have fought Christopher's position tooth and a nail - don't you think so? For atheism is an integral part of her philosophy.

Rand was not a god, therefore she was fallible.

As for discussions of God, there are a lot of things man cannot "prove" through the use of logic. N Branden commented that an orgasm cannot be logically proved. There is an excellent dialogue between Nathaniel Branden and Ken Wilber addressing the reasoning of subjective content, titled: Exploring the Rational Reconstruction of Trans-Rational Mysticism. You can download this through IntegralNaked.org or IntegralLife.com if you are a paid subscriber. I would definitely try out the one-month free membership on Integral Naked just to listen to this conversation.

Btw, for those interested here's a free audio conversation offered by IntegralLife.com between Branden and Wilber, entitled My Years With Ayn Rand:

--> http://integrallife.com/node/38254

Peace,

Chris

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Imo Rand woud have denied that there is ANY good in religion and would have fought Christopher's position tooth and a nail - don't you think so?

Xray,

Rather than repeating this stuff about what Rand thought over and over, why not look at what Rand wrote and stated in public and actually find out what she thought?

The following quote is from Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, p. 63. It is from the Q&A of her lecture, "Political Vacuum of Our Age," presented to a group of women in journalism in Indiana in 1961.

Q: If religion is instrumental in spreading altruism, can we fight altruism in America without fighting religion?

AR: In America, religion is relatively nonmystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense. They would not stand in our way. The majority of religious people in this country do not accept on faith the idea of jumping into a cannibal’s pot and giving away their last shirt to the backward people of the world. Many religious leaders preach this today, because of their own leftist politics; it’s not inherent in being religious. There are many historical and philosophical connections between altruism and religion, but the function of religion in this country is not altruism. You would not find too much opposition to Objectivism among religious Americans. There are rational religious people. In fact I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion; but that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it.

Here is the rest of the reply by Rand to that question for those who are interested (from the Q&A book, same place). I find it a bit off-key to read Rand quoting Christ benevolently, but there it is.

Of course, one should not forbid religion. Today’s culture is such that the moment you oppose something, people believe you want to forbid it by law. If we get that, we return to the dark ages. Leave people the right to be wrong in their own way. So long as they don’t force their ideas on you, you cannot forbid religion to anyone. Further, it’s not difficult to fight religion when you have a good philosophy.

In America, you would not find it difficult to divorce religion from altruism. After all, Christ said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” So you must love yourself. After that, you can argue about your neighbors.

Disagreeing with Rand is OK. But if you want to do that, it is far better to get her ideas down correctly before disagreeing than simply repeating an oversimplified opinion.

Michael

[Xray]

Rather than repeating this stuff about what Rand thought over and over, why not look at what Rand wrote and stated in public and actually find out what she thought?

I did look at what Rand thought about a specific issue. And that was all what was needed for this specific topic.

Rand verbatim claimed that belief in god is incompatible with rationality.

What she wrote about e. g. religious leaders or religion in America is irrelevant for the specific discussion here since her position remains clear: objectism is irreconcilable with religion.

From your quote

Rand: "If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion." (end quote)

Edited April 19, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Rather than repeating this stuff about what Rand thought over and over, why not look at what Rand wrote and stated in public and actually find out what she thought?

I did look at what Rand thought about a specific issue. And that was all what was needed for this specific topic.

Rand verbatim claimed that belief in god is incompatible with rationality.

What she wrote about e. g. religious leaders or religion in America is irrelevant for the specific discussion here since her position remains clear: objectism is irreconcilable with religion.

From your quote

Rand: "If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion." (end quote)

Yeah, but it's rationality Objectivism is based on, not atheism. Atheism is a consequence of being rational. Objectivism is not a consequence of irrationality, tho some would disagree.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

All human knowledge is contextual. Within the evidence of the senses human beings presently have, it would be incompatible to claim the existence of something that cannot be verified. Like I mentioned earlier, should a God arrive in this reality in a form that is verifiable to the human senses, Objectivists, by definition, could no longer be atheists. Reason demands otherwise.

In other words, reason (i.e., rationality) ALWAYS trumps denying something—whatever it may be—as a premise. Conceptual rationality based on the senses plus volition is the foundation of this philosophy. Objectivism is not defined in terms of a religion. It is defined in terms of itself. Only after that does the question of religion become examined.

That may not fit your pet theory, but that's the way it is. If you insist otherwise, you might be critiquing some philosophy, but what you are critiquing is not Objectivism.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Misstatement of first sentence: Objectivism is not BASED on atheism.

Can you imagine objectivism not based on atheism?

Rand claimed that belief in god is incompatible with rationality - right?

You conceded that my last statement "One can't be an objectivst without being an atheist" is correct.

Misstatement of second sentence: Atheism is not "the main pillar her [Rand's] philosophy rests on."

Where do you get these ideas about Rand's thought? Was she an atheist - yes. Did she think that a thoroughgoing Objectivist would be an atheist - yes. But that does not mean that atheism is the BASIS of Objectivism or the MAIN PILLAR on which Objectivism rests.

Can you cite the specific passages in Rand's writings which tell you that atheism is the MAIN PILLAR on which Objectivism rests? Which tell you that atheism is the BASIS of Objectivism?

Many of Rand's (and her disiciples') attacks are directed against believers in transcendence. For example, TVOS pb, p. 15, 41-42, 28, 38, 40-48, 108, 120.

She considers religion as extremely detrimental because it enslaves people. I constitutes an obstacle for what she wants man to be. So yes I would say her atheism is - I'll modfiy it - one of the main pillars of her philosophy.

In respect to your first question: Yes, I can. Objectivism is NOT based on atheism. So it is easy to "imagine" it that way.

Please cite where I agreed with your last statement. Where did I say that I agreed with it??? SPECIFICALLY.

Again, you're not dealing with the issues. The "Rand" you are dealing with is an object of your imagination.

Regards,

Bill P

[Selene]

Oh hell, I have been avoiding getting in on this thread, but so much for that.

"About Christian Objectivism

The purpose of the Christian Objectivist is to reconcile the key principles of Objectivism with the existence of a Creator within the classical framework of Christianity. The working model is based on the following foundational elements:

* Reality exists as an objective absolute. Man's beliefs do not define reality. Man's errors of perception do not define reality. Reality is subject to man's discovery, not his invention.

* Reason is man's only fundamental method of perceiving reality. Other means of perception, such as faith and emotion, are dependent methods for organizing, interpreting, and expressing previously perceived information. As such, rational perception is the only source of knowledge and must be treated sine qua non in relation to secondary sources.

* Man's perception of reality is an evolutionary process. What was perceivable yesterday does not limit what may be perceivable tomorrow. Things that exist may not be fully perceived, and things that exist may be perceived only indirectly, leading man to draw reasonable conclusions regarding reality.

* Man's rational self-interest in pursuit of happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. Rational pursuit of happiness, as opposed to emotional, hedonistic, or other whimsical pursuits, is premised on the realization of value from the actualization of man's capacity. Put simply, man's highest purpose is to become a more valuable man, both to himself and to those with whom he would interact for mutual benefit.

* The exercise of personal liberty is foundational to the rational pursuit of happiness. Any collective or dictatorial action that subjugates one man's value for the sake of another man's need is contrary to the pursuit of happiness, as the result is a mutual destruction of value. Submission by free will for mutual benefit is the only rational subservience that can lead to happiness and self-actualization.

* The existence of a Creator or universal prime mover is reasonable if man perceives evidence, whether direct or indirect, of the Creator's existence. Blind faith in atheism is as irrational as blind faith in theism."

http://christianobjectivist.net/index.html

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

* The existence of a Creator or universal prime mover is reasonable if man perceives evidence, whether direct or indirect, of the Creator's existence. Blind faith in atheism is as irrational as blind faith in theism."

Adam

Atheism has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with lack of faith.

--Brant

brutal, too, and too brutal for many

[Xray]

Please cite where I agreed with your last statement. Where did I say that I agreed with it??? SPECIFICALLY.

Sorry, I got the quote frames mixed up. It was not you, but B. Gaede who wrote

"However, your last statement is correct." (end quote)

The statement was:

"One can't be an objectivst without being an atheist" (end quote)

What do you think?

Again, you're not dealing with the issues. The "Rand" you are dealing with is an object of your imagination.

Rand is quite adamant in her atheistic position. I don't think I'm imagining this.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

Oh hell, I have been avoiding getting in on this thread, but so much for that.

"About Christian Objectivism

The purpose of the Christian Objectivist is to reconcile the key principles of Objectivism with the existence of a Creator within the classical framework of Christianity. The working model is based on the following foundational elements:

* Reality exists as an objective absolute. Man's beliefs do not define reality. Man's errors of perception do not define reality. Reality is subject to man's discovery, not his invention.

* Reason is man's only fundamental method of perceiving reality. Other means of perception, such as faith and emotion, are dependent methods for organizing, interpreting, and expressing previously perceived information. As such, rational perception is the only source of knowledge and must be treated sine qua non in relation to secondary sources.

* Man's perception of reality is an evolutionary process. What was perceivable yesterday does not limit what may be perceivable tomorrow. Things that exist may not be fully perceived, and things that exist may be perceived only indirectly, leading man to draw reasonable conclusions regarding reality.

* Man's rational self-interest in pursuit of happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. Rational pursuit of happiness, as opposed to emotional, hedonistic, or other whimsical pursuits, is premised on the realization of value from the actualization of man's capacity. Put simply, man's highest purpose is to become a more valuable man, both to himself and to those with whom he would interact for mutual benefit.

* The exercise of personal liberty is foundational to the rational pursuit of happiness. Any collective or dictatorial action that subjugates one man's value for the sake of another man's need is contrary to the pursuit of happiness, as the result is a mutual destruction of value. Submission by free will for mutual benefit is the only rational subservience that can lead to happiness and self-actualization.

* The existence of a Creator or universal prime mover is reasonable if man perceives evidence, whether direct or indirect, of the Creator's existence. Blind faith in atheism is as irrational as blind faith in theism."

http://christianobjectivist.net/index.html

Adam

Really nice post.

Since we're talking about religion, I'm going to quote Wilber on "Belief, Faith, Experience, and Adaption" from A Sociable God:

Belief: "the lowest form of religious involvement... embraces a more-or-less codified belief system that appears to act most basically as a fund of immortality symbols."

Faith: "The person of faith... will usually have a series of beliefs, but the religious involvement of this person does not seem to be generate solely or even predominantly by beliefs... the person somehow intuits very God as being immanent in (as well as transcendent to) this world and this life."

Experience: "goes beyond faith into actual encounter and literal cognition, however brief... Experience means peak experience, a temporary insight into (and influx from) one of the authentic transpersonal realms."

So beliefs are not based on perceptions, but faith and experience cannot be so easily dismissed.

Chris

[Selene]

Chris:

Thank you.

Ken Wilber, A Sociable God: A Brief Introduction to a Transcendental Sociology

"Ken Wilber, a prolific independent scholar, also finds these signals of transcendence. He labors to construct a sociological theory that incorporates various stages of religious awareness. Far from the “methodological atheism” of much of modern sociology, Wilber’s methodology could be called 'methodological pantheism.' As such it is a sophisticated effort to integrate an Eastern mystical world-view with modern social science."

This is the statement of Douglas Groothuis, of whom I know nothing as to his qualifications to critique Wilber, who I also did not know about until you advanced him to support your argument.

Is the above quote a fair statement of what you are arguing?

If so, is this the Siddhartha type approach?

Check your chakra's with the concepts in your mind?

Adam

[Xray]

Xray,

All human knowledge is contextual. Within the evidence of the senses human beings presently have, it would be incompatible to claim the existence of something that cannot be verified. Like I mentioned earlier, should a God arrive in this reality in a form that is verifiable to the human senses, Objectivist, by definition, could no longer be atheists. Reason demands otherwise.

Imo in that case objectivists could no longer be objectivists since their thought system would completely collapse should a God show up. For the "ultimate value, that end in itself, man's life" credo would go up in smoke confronted with a superior supernatural being.

Rand claims that there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: "existence and non-existence." What would be left of the objectivist philosophy should it turn out that there is another form of existence - an "afterlife", as claimed in many religions?

No, imo objectivism would not survive the 'encounter' with any God.

In other words, reason (i.e., rationality) ALWAYS trumps denying something—whatever it may be—as a premise.

Which in its consequence means that Rand's philosophy too must be tested using one's reason, to see if it stands up to rational scrutiny.

Rational assessment of her 'values and virtues' catalog leads me to conclude that it is a subjective selection, her own personal choice.

I invite anyone who believes that objective values and virtues exist to a debate here. A fair debate which for me implies respecting the feelings and beliefs of the 'opponent' in the debate. I have nothing at all against tough questions and challenge - that's part of a debate. But fair play is an essential.

Objectivism is not defined in terms of a religion. It is defined in terms of itself. Only after that does the question of religion become examined.

Objectivism may not be define itself as religion, but can be treated as religion by fervent followers.

B. Branden for example commented: (bolding mine)

"Objectivism and Rage

by Barbara Branden

A lecture presented at the TAS 2006 Summer Seminar, July 4, 2006, Chapman University, Orange, CA

One cannot avoid recognizing that we live in a very angry age. At one time, people spoke to “My worthy opponent” when addressing someone who disagreed with their views. That attitude of respecting differences has long disappeared. Today, in discussions of politics, of religion, of environmentalism, of war and peace, of abortion—of all the issues that concern and often divide us—we hear little but raised voices and enraged insults coming from all sides of every issue. Speak to an opponent of the Iraq war and suggest that it might have been a good idea—and a torrent of abuse washes over you. Say that Israel is morally superior to the Palestinians—and statistics about Israel’s supposed “atrocities” of the last 2,000 years fly furiously at your head. Say a kind word about George W. Bush—and you had better take to the hills at once.

Objectivists are by no means immune to this rage. On the contrary, I find it to be increasingly prevalent among Objectivists. We see everywhere—particularly on the Internet—the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes—even questions—their convictions.

But what I call “Objectivist Rage” has a peculiar twist to it, unlikely to be found anywhere else except, paradoxically, in religion. It is almost always morally tinged. Those who question our ideas and those who oppose them, we are told, are not merely unintelligent, ignorant, uninformed; they are evil, they are moral monsters to be cast out and forever damned."(end quote)

[Excerpt taken from Article's thread OL, post # 1]

That may not fit your pet theory, but that's the way it is. If you insist otherwise, you might be critiquing some philosophy, but what you are critiquing is not Objectivism.

I'm no follower of any philosophical school - "sapere aude" alone suffices imo.

I have been in many discussions and debates on forums, the gamut ranging from religious fundamentalists to fervent Marxists. The more rigid the system, the more ferocious the defenses were. Whether it was the Bible, the Koran or Capital - these sources usually went completely unquestioned by the supporters. Marx never made a single mistake of course, his infallibility had god-like proportions, etc.

I find it very interesting that Rand called Dominique Francon the "perfect priestess" of Howard Roark. Priestess it a religous term. By calling Dominique a priestess, Rand clearly places the male above the female, and elevates the hero Roark on a pedestal to a god-like status.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

"I find it very interesting [sic] that Rand called Dominique Francon the 'perfect priestess' of Howard Roark. Priestess it a religous [sic] term. By calling Dominique a priestess, Rand she clearly places the male above the female, elevating the hero Roark to a god-like status."

No shit, really! WOW I never heard anyone make that point about Ayn!

I find it very interesting that you, an "educator", selectively distort and selectively retain "ole" crazy Ayn's words and then solder them together and claim to have provided insight.

"Dominique Francon is me on a bad day!" Ayn Rand - so this means what my great Randian oracle?

Adam

[Xray]

xray:

"I find it very interesting [sic] that Rand called Dominique Francon the 'perfect priestess' of Howard Roark. Priestess it a religous [sic] term. By calling Dominique a priestess, Rand she clearly places the male above the female, elevating the hero Roark to a god-like status."

No shit, really! WOW I never heard anyone make that point about Ayn!

I find it very interesting that you, an "educator", selectively distort and selectively retain "ole" crazy Ayn's words and then solder them together and claim to have provided insight.

Adam

Cool down a bit. Why are you so upset? I'm not distorting anything. Did Rand call Dominique a "perfect priestess" or didn't she?

Why did Rand use that word in your opinion? What do you think she wanted to convey with it?

"Dominique Francon is me on a bad day!" Ayn Rand - so this means what my great Randian oracle?

I prefer logic to oracles. So going strictly by Rand's words, it would mean that "Ayn Rand on a bad day" would have made the perfect woman and priestess for the "noble soul par excellence" (her own words), Howard Roark.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Yes you are.

We disagree. Move on.

"I'm not distorting anything."

I chose not to cool down.

Adam

[Xray]

We disagree. Move on.

You have evaded my question about the priestess.

I chose not to cool down.

That's quite obvious.

But keep in mind that anger often prevents us from thinking clearly.

Edited April 20, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

So does condescension. Pride. Arrogance. A whole bunch of "stuff".

Secondly, I am 100% Italian we have no thermostat.

Adam

[Alfonso Jones]

Please cite where I agreed with your last statement. Where did I say that I agreed with it??? SPECIFICALLY.

Sorry, I got the quote frames mixed up. It was not you, but B. Gaede who wrote

"However, your last statement is correct." (end quote)

The statement was:

"One can't be an objectivst without being an atheist" (end quote)

What do you think?

Again, you're not dealing with the issues. The "Rand" you are dealing with is an object of your imagination.

Rand is quite adamant in her atheistic position. I don't think I'm imagining this.

Your third statement, on which I had given you no response, was that : "Imo one can't be an objectivist without also being an atheist." Rand was clear on this, and I'm not certain what about it you find so confusing. ULTIMATELY a thoughtful Objectivist will end up an atheist. (Note the major difference between this and your incorrect claims in your first two statements.) However, that's a matter of as one works through the details of one's philosophy, the implications, etc... Not a pillar, not a foundation, etc.

Bill P

[Christopher]

Chris:

Thank you.

Ken Wilber, A Sociable God: A Brief Introduction to a Transcendental Sociology

"Ken Wilber, a prolific independent scholar, also finds these signals of transcendence. He labors to construct a sociological theory that incorporates various stages of religious awareness. Far from the “methodological atheism” of much of modern sociology, Wilber’s methodology could be called 'methodological pantheism.' As such it is a sophisticated effort to integrate an Eastern mystical world-view with modern social science."

This is the statement of Douglas Groothuis, of whom I know nothing as to his qualifications to critique Wilber, who I also did not know about until you advanced him to support your argument.

Is the above quote a fair statement of what you are arguing?

If so, is this the Siddhartha type approach?

Check your chakra's with the concepts in your mind?

Adam

I would agree with the quote above. Wilber attempts to address all religions from a state-of-consciousness perspective, arguing that differences in religions are a matter of hermeneutics.

Not a Siddhartha approach. It's a thinking book, not a feeling book. Wilber has one chapter defining all the ways the word "religion" is used in modern society.

Chris

[Selene]

Interesting. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

BA'AL Come to the analysis desk please.

Talmudical Hermeneutics

main article Talmudical Hermeneutics

Talmudical Hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, as well as rules by which Jewish law could be established. One well-known summary of these principles appears in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael.

The methods by which the Talmud explores the meaning of scripture include

* grammar and exegesis

* the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes

* the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points

* the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gemaṭria)

* the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Noṭariḳon)

* the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization

* the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels

* the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law

It's important to remember that the rabbis of the Talmud were the receivers and transmitters of an oral law as to the meaning of the scriptures. They considered this oral tradition to set forth the precise, original meanings of the words, revealed at the same time and by the same means as the original scriptures themselves. Therefore, many of the interpretive methods listed above, particularly those involving word play, letter counting, etc., were never used as logical proof of the meaning or teaching of a scripture, but rather as an asmakhta, a validation of a meaning that was already set by tradition, or a homiletic backing for rabbinic rulings.

[BaalChatzaf]

Interesting. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

BA'AL Come to the analysis desk please.

Talmudical Hermeneutics

main article Talmudical Hermeneutics

Talmudical Hermeneutics (Hebrew: approximately, מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) refers to Jewish methods for the investigation and determination of the meaning of the Hebrew Bible, as well as rules by which Jewish law could be established. One well-known summary of these principles appears in the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael.

The methods by which the Talmud explores the meaning of scripture include

* grammar and exegesis

* the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes

* the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points

* the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gemaṭria)

* the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Noṭariḳon)

* the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization

* the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels

* the logical deduction of a halakah from a Scriptural text or from another law

It's important to remember that the rabbis of the Talmud were the receivers and transmitters of an oral law as to the meaning of the scriptures. They considered this oral tradition to set forth the precise, original meanings of the words, revealed at the same time and by the same means as the original scriptures themselves. Therefore, many of the interpretive methods listed above, particularly those involving word play, letter counting, etc., were never used as logical proof of the meaning or teaching of a scripture, but rather as an asmakhta, a validation of a meaning that was already set by tradition, or a homiletic backing for rabbinic rulings.

Here is a system of talmudic or midrashic inference rules for deriving elaborations of halakcha (Jewish law) from previous Talmudic or Torah items:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XsyCBrfsg...num=4#PPA250,M1

or even better

http://tiny.cc/tyhoc

which is excerpts from:

The Rabbinic "Enumeration of Scriptural Examples": A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse With Special Reference to Mekhilta D'R. Ishmael (Studia Post-Biblica,)

This is essentially a set of modal logic inference rules based not only on the form of Talmud or Torah verses but on their meanings and the interrelations of the meanings. It is an example of a kind of Modal logic. It was developed independent of Greek logic (Aristotelian or Stoic) and it was a way of expanding Halakha to situations not specifically given in either the Talmud (oral law) or Torah (written law). Basically it was an algorithm for invoking the Will of the Almighty.

In addition to all this, a method of cross referencing items in the Babylonian Talmud was invented by R. yosef Karo (a S'fardic rabbi) who lived around the time of Columbus. It was the first example of hypertext pointers that I know if. Given an item in Talmud one could "pull up" all related items which may occur throughout the Babylonian Tlamud (some 5 million Aramaic words long). This was all done without computers. Just pure brain power.

Mastering all this technique improved the status of young rabbinic scholars in the community and made it more likely that they could marry the daughters of prominent men (generally businessmen). Thus, advanced intellectual acumen lead to matches with the daughters of the Brightest and the Best.

It was inadvertently a breeding program to produce intelligence. That was not its intent. The intent was to know the Will of Ha'Shem (a sobriquet for the Almighty) and be governed more perfectly by G-D's Laws and Judgments. The means invented was not an exercise of Faith in the Pauline sense, but doing Works which required all of one's wits and might. Hence it fulfilled the commandment that one should love G-D with all of ones heart, soul and mind and be ready to do according to His judgments. This fortunate accident produced a means of cranking out Very Smart People. Hoodathunkit? As the old saying goes, G-D works in mysterious ways.

When I am asked what is the one of main differences between Judaism (on the one hand) and Christianity (on the other hand) I answer thus: One is not required to park one's brains in the synagogue parking lot before going in, rather one is strongly urged to bring ones brains and wits inside. Jewish Law requires a commitment which includes disciplined thinking and an exercise of the ability to abstract. Incidentally, Judaism is a perfect religion for Aperger types like yours truly. G-D chose a society of Aspies to be a Light Unto the Nations. Hoodahthunkit? I am no longer committed to the supernatural aspects of Judaism. My interest is more ethical and philosophical. But my early childhood training (Torah and Talmud) has stood me in good stead to be a thinker and, yes, a mathematician. So I do not regret one second of my earlier, more observant life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

:

Your third statement, on which I had given you no response, was that : "Imo one can't be an objectivist without also being an atheist." Rand was clear on this, and I'm not certain what about it you find so confusing. ULTIMATELY a thoughtful Objectivist will end up an atheist. (Note the major difference between this and your incorrect claims in your first two statements.) However, that's a matter of as one works through the details of one's philosophy, the implications, etc... Not a pillar, not a foundation, etc.

Bill P

MSK wrote in the Epistemology section thread (bolding mine)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry67991

I have issues with her concept of moral perfection since I believe it is vastly oversimplified and has created a lot of mischief and suffering in the souls of many Objectivists. What started as her objection to the Christian original sin concept (which I believe is a horrible concept) became, in practice, a psychological straight-jacket and a form of original sin itself—i.e., we are born imperfect and have to choose to become perfect. The more I ponder that particular thought, the less metaphysical sense it makes.

So it looks like the rejection of a religious concept (the original sin) did play a large role in the forming of Rand's philosophy.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Xray