Mike82ARP

I wonder if Rand’s opinion of Reagan would have changed had she lived to see his entire presidency.

Thanks everyone for the feedback. I will hve to read some of Rand’s works to better understand her system.

If I am reading you correctly, then objective reality might be something like, “red is red” or "hot is hot”. My next question then: Is everything objectively demonstrable? It would seen that if it were, then there should be no dispute and reason would not be necessary. Does that make sense? Or is “reason" the process of assembling undisputed objective realities into a larger construct?

I’m not sure I understand this question. Are you saying that all realities are objectively (as opposed to subjectively) demonstrable? Please explain.

OK, but whose reality? The individual’s, the culture’s, the society’s? Isn’t the rest simply subjective relativism since it is the individual doing the observing, thinking, developing and reasonong? Therefore, the individual, using reason, may develop his own moral code. BTW, I am not a post-modernist.

I was watching an ARI YouTube video on “Reason vs Faith”. Dr Ghate made the comment, "we want man to live by reason alone”. How does one develop a moral code based on “reason alone” without integrating other philosophies like pragmatism, utilitarianism, relativism or just pain arbitrariness which would negate “reason alone”? Thanks.

I just finished watching the 8 part series on Reason vs Faith by the Ayn Rand Institute with Onkar Ghate and Yaron Brook representing the “reason” side of the argument. I found their arguments typically were predicated on a sophomoric understanding of the Bible (which Ghake tried to use in his arguments- Abraham and Isaac). They used straw men premises to build the “reason and faith are opposites” conclusions. THere are examples of reason used in the Bible, but it would be pointless to bring them up on this site. Their assumption that Christianity is “mystical” and irrational might be appropriate if one narrowly defines "faith" from a Kierkegaardian philosophy, but that is by no means a universal view in the Christian community. Piekoff’s diatribe in question 6 is almost laughable. Maybe being annoyingly condescending is an effective form of discourse in his mind. I wonder who his rabbi was? Furthermore, their moral/ethical compass axioms really boils down to relativism. Although I am impressed and in agreement with Rand’s political and economic philosophies, her positing atheism as integral to objectivism is weak as evidenced by the repeated challenges that part of her philosophy faces. These three- Brook, Ghate, and Peikoff fail to impress me.

Since you are still a student, I’d assume the “socialists” you are speaking about are other students. One of the best cures for socialism is getting a job. It’s easy to wax eloquent about the supposed virtues of socialism when your basic needs are being provided for by your parents, but when one has to start counting their own pennies the mind is often changed. I’ve observed this with my nieces and nephews and students I’ve had. Another way to influence them is to simply ask, “what do you mean by socialism?” and then “how did you come to your conclusions?” Few will be able to give you any cogent answer to those questions. A reductio argument should be easy to construct. As far as those who actually are supposedly mature adults but adhere to socialism, I’d simply challenge them to live in their own world by emigrating to a socialist country. I view these folks as mentally handicapped.

I tend to agree with you, but even though I’m relatively new here, for the most part I’ve found the people here are willing to discuss divergent or conflicting points. I’ve always found it somewhat silly to be too dogmatic on any point as they often change with time and experience.

I still think you do not understand the nature of logic. It is axiomatic- not subject to external means to validate it. When you say, "Logic makes generalizations ("all men are mortal”)”, this isn’t a correct example of logic. Actyally, it is your empiricism that may make the claim that "all men are mortal” and the individual may then go on to make a conclusion about his empirical observations. It is at that time that logic will determine if a conclusion is valid. I would say that logic is actually quite precise.

This is an interesting thread with everyone making some solid points, however, I think you redefine “logic” is an incorrect way. In your example of the syllogism “All men are mortal”, you note that is a scientist were to invent an eternal life serum, then that “contradict your logical generalization”. Maybe I misunderstand you, but the invention of the serum as a new premise will merely make the argument invalid. Logic still stands.

2046, thanks for the link. I will spend sometime reading it during my break.

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful answers. I am trying to get into Rand’s mind and figure out what axiomatic views she held and how she developed her philosophy. Excellent point Regulars. That’s something the Moral Majority/Religious Right never understood, hence their ultimate failure in politics. However, I can’t go along with your second point, "you having to admit you have no rational argument for these things,”. I know several rational and highly educated people in the creationist/ID camp and they can make that same assertion that those who believe in the eternity of matter and other evolutionary theories are not rational. Additionally, they can make a rational case (note, not proof) for a creator, albeit not a scientific case.

I’m new here and fairly new to Rand’s philosophy. I recently saw Atlas Shrugged and was blown away at the prescience Rand had in writing the novel. After beginning to get familiar with her philosophy, one thing I found puzzling was her atheism in view of her animosity of communism/collectivism. One of the hallmarks of these types of governments is an atheism mandate as part of the government’s scheme. This was clear in the case of communist Russia, Nazi Germany, communist China, etc. Can anyone elaborate on this feature of her philosophy. Thanks

My initial comment was more at the level of ridicule and ad hominem in the posts I listed. These types of posts add nothing to any discourse on the topic. That was the intent of my post.