JohnSRobertson

Some, but not all. The notion that every "is" has an "ought" thus making values objective truths is falacious. Values are subjective. It is not objectively true that one ought to endure excruciating pain to live another year; nor is the converse objectively true that one ought to end their suffering rather than live another year in excruciating pain. The determination of an objectively true value simply cannot be found. While it is demonstrable and almost certainly true that most of mankinds values are similar and may be commonly derived from objective facts, e.g., the desire to live is a survival trait genetically passed on to us by our ancestors, etc., such commonality does not prove the assertion that every "is" implies an "ought", and to assert the "good" of self-preservation as proof that every "is" implies an "ought" begs the question. Another aspect that I find worrisome if applied to individuals and groups as a whole rather than specific actions taken by them is the following: Note how the author talks about identifying the good or evil in men and their works and rewarding or punishing the behavior, not the individuals; yet it seems to me that many here are intent on condemning the individuals rather than the irrationality. In the end, however, I respect Leonard Peikoff's plea to those he refers to as "anti-Objectivists". As I cannot agree with the premise that values are objective when my every experience proves to me otherwise, I will remember never to refer to myself as an Objectivist, despite my agreement with what I believe to be somewhere close to 3/4ths if not 9/10ths of her ideas and philosophy. I can appreciate the desire to keep one's organization "pure" as it were, by excommunicating the heretics or at the very least, silencing them. My love of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, or more precisely, the ideals and principles upon which they are founded reminds me of the precious right of free association and tells me that no matter how much I might wish to create and exchange the product of my mind with others, it is their perogative to accept or reject my offer. I must not force it upon them. On this note then, unless there are protests that I respond further, I shall bid you all a pleasant and happy life. Namaste, John

My apologies for not making my understanding of objectivism clear in my previous posts. Really? Are you suggesting that the ONLY philosophy is Objectivist philosophy? Where have I embraced contradiction? In my hopeful skepticism? In my unwillingness to decide that absense of evidence is evidence of absense the way you have? Or was there some other position I have taken which you suppose to be contradictory? It is not a Mormon forum despite the fact that the individual most responsible for its existence is Mormon. To characterize it as such is to mischaracterize it. Surely an indivdual who prides themselves on logic and reason wouldn't want to mischaracterize something. That would be intellecutally dishonest and only serve to distract, right? As to my understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy, let me be as succinct as I can be about it. Ayn Rand's philosophy begins with the foundational premise of existence, or as she put it, "Existence exists." She followed this with the law of identity and its corrolary, the law of non-contradiction applied to existence. These are the foundation of logic. A = A and A != -A. From this starting point all of what is traditionally regarded as "informal logic" is also inferred. Her third premise of metaphysics is the axiom of consciousness: to be concious is to be conscious of something other than self. Rand, and Objectivism hold to the notion of the primacy of Existence, that is, that consciousness is dependant upon existence, and not the other way around as some religious teachings contend. Where many professing atheists depart from reason and logic is when they jump to the conclusion that the absense of evidence for the existence of God is logically equivalent evidence of the non-existence of God. If an objectivist is rational by definition, then an objectivist cannot hold an affirmative belief in the non-existence of God. On the otherhand, one can hold an affirmative belief in the non-existence of an irrationally conceived or otherwise logically impossible God. This is what Rand's Primacy of Existence philosophy asserts while ignoring the possibility of a God which is likewise dependent upon existence rather than the creator of everything material ex nihilo as many, perhaps most, religious traditions teach. There are in fact other conceptions of God which are not logically contradicted by Rand's Primacy of Existence argument. To assert otherwise merely demonstrates the ignorance of those who close-mindedly assert that an Objectivist is by necessity an atheist. Shall we go on? Namaste, John

Are you viewing yourself as "clean" and all non-Objectivists as "unclean"? That sounds awfully like religious self-righteousness. Perhaps I'm missing something here? Passion for the ideals of Objectivism I can understand. It is the apparent disgust and loathing for those who do not share your beliefs which I find rather diconcerting and disturbing.

Yes, a matter of opinion. You take the evidence given you by your senses, you weigh it in the balance of reason, and then you jump to the irrational conclusion that the absense of evidence is the evidence of absense. In other words, you take a handful of hay from the haystack and because you don't find the needle, you conclude the needle isn't in the haystack. That is far different from the person who remains open-minded, even hopeful in finding a needle in the haystack. Not quite. Affirming the arbitrary as fact is the rejection. Merely entertaining the arbitrary in the absense of conclusive evidence is requisite for progress. If you learned algebra and then closed your mind to the idea that there was anything more to learn in the realm of mathematics, you'd be missing out on calculus and more. If the mind is closes itself to possibility, it has declared itself finished learning, finished growing, closed-minded, and typically the human ego kicks in and the individual becomes proud, and self-righteous. What is the basis of your "moral" condemnation? I.e., what "good" have they violated with their liberty? And yes, condemnation is an initiation of force. It is the sentence which precedes execution. If condemnation has no force implied behind it, then the person or actions are not condemned, they are merely described or labeled. But it was stated that the person (not even the action) was to be "condemned", not "identified", not "differentiated', not even "pitied". Condemnation implies the justification of unkindness, even cruelty toward an individual. When rejecting reason becomes a crime, Liberty is destroyed. Freedom of thought and the liberty to express our thoughts and ideas, even if those thoughts and ideas are deemed irrational by one or all, is the most precious right we enjoy. If you are advocating condemning people for "thought crimes", perhaps you should change your name from Objectivism Online to the Ministry of Love.

Wow, that sounds awfully emotional and insecure for someone who is supposed to be operating on purely rational reasoning. If what someone else thinks is 90% correct and 10% error from your point of view, why should that be viewed as threatening? Or perhaps you have voiced your unconscious fear already -- that what you believe might just be completely useless dogma if it's not 100% unique and 100% perfect. Really? This is sounding more and more like the opponents to Gay marriage who claim that anything which has any similarity to marriage that isn't in fact the union between a man and a woman undermines the institution of marriage and all of Western Civilization. That's investing a whole lot of power over you into something else. No wonder you're acting so terrified by the idea. It does though, if only on those particular "political ideas" you believe to be so whimsical on my part. I agree. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Nevertheless, both I and the enemy of my enemy may agree that our mutual enemy must be defeated. I don't find it disgusting, I simply find it disappointing, and in specific instances very disconcerting. But not disgusting. You guys? I only speak for myself. Perhaps you are grouping me with everyone else who has not expressed an affirmative belief in the non-existence of God - a wholly irrational position by the way. Of course, such a generalization is simply a convenient way to pigeon-hole me rather than address the reasons for my hopeful sketicism, or your own irrationality. Really? What an amazingly compassionate and peacful society you imagine where people with religious beliefs must endure the shame of a hidden secret while living in fear of being discovered. Why would such fear exist unless the atheistic society they would be living in would treat them with ridicule, disdain, and disrespect simply for having a difference of opinion? It my hope that some day society will be such that each person will feel completely at ease in their liberty to enjoy their own beliefs according to their own conscience without fear of the ridicule or persecution of other smug, self-righteous, or supersitious individuals full of fear of any disagreement with their own world views. Namaste John

Really? That's an awefully emotionally charged word. What do you find so disgusting about the implication? Are people supposed to be all-or-nothing about embracing Objectivist philosophical principles? If you find value in 90% of a particular philosophy, but for whatever reason you don't value the other 10%, it's disgusting that you note that you value that 90%? Wow.

There is anecdotal evidence suggesting the continuation of consciousness after death. There have been numerous cases of "near death experiences" in which certain information is provided by the indivdiual after they have been revived which their physcial senses could not have detetected. While I find many reports of near-death experiences, especially the more grandiose and fantastic ones to be extremely questionable, and certain others to have questionable value as to demonstrating the persistence of consciousness after death, it seems to me that some reports nevertheless suggest such a possibility. Other examples suggesting the persistence of consciousness after death are the rare reports of reincarnation where a child provides details of a previous incarnation which the child would not have any way of knowing other than by having lived them himself or herself. These and various other examples are evidence. Not sufficiently non-falsifiable by me to cause me certainty of my belief, but evidence which causes me to believe that it is nevertheless a possibility. You are mistaken. While I concede that such evidence is hearsay and does not rise to the same level of evidence as say, the evidence for the existence of the nation of Taiwan (I've never been there, the only evidence I have for its existence is hearsay, but such hearsay is substantiated by a far greater number of observers than the NDE's and reincarnation reports, etc.). I hope you realize that your assertion is highly irrational. You are making an assertion which is dependant upon knowing my thought processes and emotional states better than I know them myself. I find the evidence compelling. That you do not consider it evidence, and that you do not find it compelling, is what you think, not me. Really? So a person ought to be condemned for wishful thinking? That seems to me to be far more pathological and dangerous a position than any innocent indulgence in fantasy. You're suggesting the initiation of force on those who engage in wishful thinking and you call others dangerous!!!? Really? A sincere seeker of truth would do that? Why?

You would probably consider me an irrationally hopeful skeptic. I hope that there is a continuation of consciousness after death, and I believe there is some reason to believe this is a possibility; nevertheless, I do not find the evidence sufficiently compelling to make this belief of possibility a belief of certainty.

Quit your job? I hope you're independantly wealthy or have some benefactor willing to support you. Or perhaps whatever deity you renounce your job for will provide for your lodging and sustenance? My hope is that if any deity responds, it is Bacchus. Now there's a guy who really knows how to party! ;-) I had to look this one up, and I did not find a word-for-word translation, but it would seem you are saying something to the effect of "the pleasure is mine". Is that correct? If that is the meaning or your intended meaning, let me simply reiterate that the feeling is mutual. Namaste

This is very close to the Mormon Mindset. In short, it is as follows: A person reads the Book of Mormon. AFter reading the Book of Mormon, a person ponders over what they have read and recalls what they have heard about God being benevolent to mankind. Next, one prays to God with the expectation of receiving a spiritual confirmation from God that what they have read in the Book of Mormon is True, i.e., the Book of Mormon is in fact a record of Israelites (and others) who came to America and established a civilization, had a visitation by Jesus Christ after his death and subsequent ressurrection. This spiritual confrimation is said to take the form of a burning (warming) of the bosom (the chest or torso area) or sensation of swelling, or some other similar sensation. Such a sensation is said to be accompanied by a general feeling of well-being and/or comfort. This alleged spiritual confirmation may be experienced in some small deviation from this, and may also be accompanied by a seemingly audible voice, or perhaps simply a voice in one's head one knows is not physically audible. Such an experience is purely perceptive, i.e., there is no tangible evidence that may be examined by a dispassionate observer. This method of seeking divine confirmation may be applied to other questions such as whether or not a particular individual is a prophet of God, whether or not a particular doctrine or tenet of faith is correct, and whether or not a particular decision one has ellected to make is reccomended or approved by God. This is the basic foundation of Mormons' testimonies. There may be some Mormons who will quibble over a few details, but you will find that this is essentially accurate. Many devout Mormons will claim that this formula works everytime, or that it works everytime it is performed correctly, i.e., the person applying the formula is sincere in their desire to learn the truth, intending to align oneself with Mormon teachings assuming a spiritual confirmation is received. What these devout Mormons routinely (though not all of them) reject is the notion that such a formula routinely fails to provide the promised results to those who are sincere seekers of truth. Instead, they place the blame for the failure on the individual seeking the confirmation, assuming some defect in the individual's sincereity, faith, or spiritual worthiness to receive an answer. Almost all reject the proposition that this exercise might (or is) fundamentally suspect or questionable, or could produce false-positives. Namaste John

Actually, no. Let's look at his question again. (emphasis mine) In short, he is asking you for the benchmarks you use for determining a rational belief for which the only justification he has for his own belief is purely experiential. The answer to this is quite simple. If the conclusions drawn from the experience are in accordance with the rules of logic, then the belief must be deemed rational. However, if the conclusions drawn from the experience are unwarranted, then the belief must be deemed irrational. In essence, all he is attempting to do is get you to agree that an argument may be valid (rational) without conceding that the argument in question is in fact sound (all premises are true, the argument is valid, and the conclusion is therefore also true). Yes, as hypothetical question only, that is precisely what he is asking. There's nothing wrong with that. Analogies and allegories are used this way all the time. The important thing is to understand the context of the assumption. If the assumption is simply hypothetical, accepting the premises doesn't matter. He could just as easily asked you to accept the premise that the moon were made of cheese. He was merely attempting to establish whether a person's belief could be established as being rational if the basis of the belief were purely experiential. Excellent! These are precisely the sorts of questions to be asked and examined with respect to Cap'n Regex's and others' claims about the existence of God. Another very important question is, what degree of reliability ought one to place on personal experiences where there is no tangible evidence for others to examine? What degree of reliability ought one to place on the testimonies of multiple witnesses to the same or similar events for which there is no tangible evidence for non-witnesses of the event or events to examine? Namaste, John