Yaron Brook and Christianity debate

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand made the little understood and not very well-elaborated point that 'concepts should not be multiplied beyond necessity'.

Phil,

Little understood by whom? Anyone who has read ITOE should be familiar with this and the information does not appear to so vague or esoteric that it is "little understood."

On the other end, I have seen the overuse of this rule of Rand's result in some breathtaking oversimplifications. Starting with several of Rand's (mis)understandings of other philosophical systems.

I do share your sentiments regarding excessive big words to effect a posture. I have lampoons of this practice here on OL (the Post Modern generator, some gobbledygook texts I come up with, etc.). I am not against big words, though. Acquiring a large vocabulary is something I strive to achieve.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

I will quote from a psych article:

Agentic refers to the need for autonomy, instrumentality, and dominance in relation to others.

Communion refers to the need for relationship, interdependence, and conection to others.

Chris,is your point that everyone belongs to one or the other category? If so, I disagree, I would say that I want autonomy, relationships, and a connection to otherrs-- but not dominance or, if I understand how the term is being used here, interdependence.

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

> I am not against big words, though [MSK]

Affirmative.

Nonetheless, in endeavoring to accomplish the aforementioned putative objective one must retain a prudential modicum of trepidation.

Lest one become inebriated by the exuberance of one's own arcane verbosity.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Philip Coates

[tjohnson]

Dr. Brook argued as follows:

1. The notion of self-sacrifice is antagonistic to self-interest, and self-interest is necessary for Capitalism

2. The self is the ultimate authority of choice, whereas Catholicism requires the acceptance of teachings by others

3. Faith is an emotion that is unreasonable

I don't know what Brook said but faith is not an emotion. 'Faith' represents assumptions and we all have to make assumptions in life. This applies to christians, objectivists, physicists, etc. The question is which assumptions do you want to make? In other words, where do you want to put your faith?

[Selene]

> I am not against big words, though [MSK]

Affirmative.

Nonetheless, in endeavoring to accomplish the aforementioned putative objective one must retain a prudential modicum of trepidation.

Lest one become inebriated by the exuberance of one's own arcane verbosity.

Phil

Seems like great gobs of galimatias.

Adam

[Christopher]

I will quote from a psych article:

Agentic refers to the need for autonomy, instrumentality, and dominance in relation to others.

Communion refers to the need for relationship, interdependence, and conection to others.

Chris,is your point that everyone belongs to one or the other category? If so, I disagree, I would say that I want autonomy, relationships, and a connection to otherrs-- but not dominance or, if I understand how the term is being used here, interdependence.

Barbara

Hi Barbara,

Always a pleasure to respond to your posts. Theoretically, everyone has both agentic and communal needs that are interpreted through separate phenomenal structures. Often, people are chronically in a state of one or the other, but there is still movement back and forth between these states in the absence of repression. That's one reason why we experience different emotions to the fulfillment of different needs. But also, we conceptually process information different in each state.

For example, research shows that agentic-oriented individuals tend to encode and recall memories better when that information is learned through a process of differentiation (focus on the differences); whereas communal-oriented individuals tend to encode and recall memories better when that information is learned through a process of integration (focus on the similarities). Another example exists within research on morality. There is strong evidence to suggest that agentic-oriented individuals focus on freedom and lawful responsibility concerns when considering morality; whereas communal-oriented individuals tend to focus on human experience, relational-responsibility and the prevention of psychological harm. I believe the reason the moral focus is different is because people are aware of different internal phenomena at different intensities when making moral choices.-- it's easier to be utilitarian when you don't have massive empathy, and it's difficult to give people freedom when you empathize too strongly will the welfare of those hurt by such freedom.

99% of the time, one set of motives has a greater intensity (and therefore has more dominancy) than the other.

Christopher

[studiodekadent]

If Brook really wanted to raise a point that attacked any possible attempt to reconcile Christianity and Capitalism at the level of Catholic theology, here's one:

Catholic theology regarding the Holy Trinity requires the faithful to accept moderate realism in the problem of universals (i.e. universals exist as an essence inside things).

However, if this is true, then exchange value (which is a universal) must be intrinsic to certain things. Goodbye Austrian School and really all neoclassical economics.

The only way they can avoid this is by saying that moderate realism is only true of SOME universals. Then the problem becomes how do they justify treating some universals differently from others.

[Christopher]

If Brook really wanted to raise a point that attacked any possible attempt to reconcile Christianity and Capitalism at the level of Catholic theology, here's one:

Catholic theology regarding the Holy Trinity requires the faithful to accept moderate realism in the problem of universals (i.e. universals exist as an essence inside things).

However, if this is true, then exchange value (which is a universal) must be intrinsic to certain things. Goodbye Austrian School and really all neoclassical economics.

The only way they can avoid this is by saying that moderate realism is only true of SOME universals. Then the problem becomes how do they justify treating some universals differently from others.

Very interesting take. I'm not at all an expert of Catholicism, but are you saying that subjective preference is not recognized within the Catholic Church? If so, my hesitation is that I can't think of a Catholic who supports this view.

I think we can assume that Catholicism recognizes certain things to have intrinsic value (to man). I think that it is reasonable to assume these perspectives arise from a unique ontological perspective about life. After all, Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Dalai Lama, and god knows how many dozens of other people have attributed value to certain aspects about life from a mindset very different than our everyday views. What is actually quite fascinating is that across time and across cultures, these people have in many cases attributed the same values to the same stuff, which is quite a strong and reasonable argument for declaring that their assertions of intrinsic value are indeed truths to the organism of man.

[studiodekadent]

Very interesting take. I'm not at all an expert of Catholicism, but are you saying that subjective preference is not recognized within the Catholic Church? If so, my hesitation is that I can't think of a Catholic who supports this view.

I'm not saying that Catholics don't recognize subjective preference. They quite clearly do. I'm saying that the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church requires (by implication) that Catholics accept Moderate Realism in the problem of universals. Note, of course, many Catholics don't grasp the full Catechism or its implications, but the Clergy generally do.

Now, if moderate realism is true, then the universal of "exchange value"/"economic value" must exist independently of any individual human beings. This is flatly contradicted any time a market price changes. The theory of economic subjectivism flatly contradicts it.

The only way out of this trap is to treat universals differently. Maybe some universals exist mind-independently, others mind-dependently. However, the problem is that you'd have to justify doing this. If you create seperate 'types' of universals then... well, you're making universals for universals... so your argument infinitely regresses.

Of course, part of the problem is that traditional philosophical categories are "mind-independent" (the post-Kantian definition of 'objective') and "anything that is even remotely related to the mind" (the post-Kantian definition of 'subjective').... the idea of "mind-independent" (Intrinsic), "reality-independent" (Subjective), "mind-and-reality dependent" (Objective) doesn't really get to most people.

I think we can assume that Catholicism recognizes certain things to have intrinsic value (to man).

"Intrinsic value (to man)" is a contradiction in terms, by the way. If value is intrinsic, that means it has value irrespective of its consequences for human beings.

[Christopher]

Studiodekadent,

I'm not really clear on Moderate Realism, and Wikipedia is less than helpful. Is MR the idea that everything in existence has a defined value as a virtue independent of the observer?

Regarding intrinsic value, my conceptual categories allow for me to say that objects have intrinsic value to man. In fact, values can only be established in reference to man, and intrinsic merely means that the value is universalized across all men. We currently have no valid reference point for saying that something has intrinsic value outside of man. Therefore, when someone asserts intrinsic value, it must be within a valid perspective whether the observer recognizes that perspective or not. To recognize that intrinsic value necessarily reflects "for man" takes some conceptual work, so when I hear Christians (or anyone) assert that an object has intrinsic value, I immediately recognize that the statement is conditional to "for man." Christians, etc. have not really thought so deeply as to recognize this, but I don't hold it against them. For example, Vitamin C has intrinsic value (for man).

Christopher

* You know, this brings up a very fascinating point - that when people speak, they generally are not openly lying. What people say has meaning even if they say it wrong, and often the educated listener must determine the precise truth of what a person is saying.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Christopher