Kane

Just to draw your attention to another Christian apologist making his estimations of Ayn Rand, here is a 5-part series that may need your critical attention. Mr. Jones is a gentle fundamentalist evangelical, but really doesn't understand Rand's philosophy, let alone represent it accurately. I cry foul. Who will join in the necessary rebuttals to this apologist?

The OP has 88 posts, so he may not be trolling. In any case, I agree that Rand was bristlingly clear about when people can accept help. Besides, wouldn't it be immoral of her to not accept the help when by not doing so she would be acting in such a manner as to not preserve her life (i.e., her highest value)?

Hitchens crushed Ramadan, plain and simple.

I would think a Ph.D would have more intellectual horsepower than to describe the plight of the American population, and then admit that he and his church emptied their coffers to overseas countries. Ph.D: There's so much starvation and economic destitution in the USofA. Me: Yeah, it's really too bad. Were you thinking of doing something about it? Ph.D: Yeah, I was planning on giving all our church's surplus food and money to people in India! Me: Er, right. And those that are starving in your backyard? Nothing? Ph.D: Oh. Hadn't thought of that. MORON! If you're going to be an altruist, then at least have enough peripheral vision to see what's happening around you, not what's going on somewhere you're not involved.

Blair was out of his league. Hitchens is far beyond the usual pedanticism of convinced Catholics. And even if Hitchens thinks altruism is the way to go, we certainly wouldn't be worse off taking up his position on the issue of God and religion. One step at a time, as the saying goes.

Yeah, but so what? Just means the good stuff is in more abundance for those of us who know better.

Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn Trilogy by Tad Williams Narcissus and Goldmund by Hermann Hesse The Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky David Copperfield by Charles Dickens Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco There are so many more... I just love good books. I don't hold Ayn Rand to the top of my list because I don't really feel enamoured of her writing style a lot of the time. She was certainly a much better writer than most, but I don't place her narratives in the category of "The Masters". Nevertheless, I very much enjoy the philosophical refinement I gain from her novels. She is, overall, I think, the best at solidifying a philosophical system in a fiction.

I just read the first chapter. I have a sudden craving for pablum. Well, if this is the stuff certain evangelical Christians are going to be learning and taking for an education, I suppose I don't have to feel guilty for thinking I'm intellectually superior to them. That book should be redistributed as toilet paper.

LOL! I have to say this (and I mean it in the nicest possible way): Nerd! Haha! It's okay. I still play Dungeons and Dragons, so I get the nerdiness.

Has anyone here come across the blog Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, by Greg Nyquist? It would be quite interesting to see some of you rip apart his articles. In his latest article, which is fairly well written, I noticed right away his tendency to hasty generalization. This makes me wonder what other illegitimacies he's popularizing. What are your thoughts about his blog?

Peter, I can't believe how unyieldingly similar our stories are (even the part about Goodkind. Though admittedly, due to some other shackles at the time, did not lead me on to Rand)! Wow. It was a pleasure to read your entry, and I very much look forward reading more of what you have to write. Take care, Kane

Hello! Lots of excellent thinkers here. Enjoy!

Your seeming desperation is easily detectable by women, even if you're the most gentlemanly, considerate man on campus. There's nothing wrong with your desire to engage in such a normal, human activity. But wanting to have sex simply because you feel your age matters to the issue, simply because you need it to bolster your self-esteem (it seems), is not a valid reason for having sex. Most easily stated, sex is a celebration between two people who have made a unique and irrefutable connection with each other. One-night stands are (presumably) easy, and lead to nothing that masturbation can't accomplish. There's wisdom, however, in having shared values, common goals, united visions, and deep, enduring friendship with your partner before having sex. Sex cannot necessarily make love. But love can certainly lead to sex. You're not Jephtha's daughter (Judges 11, Bible); you don't need to bemoan your virginity. Accept it as beautiful -- because it is! And save it until you have occasion to be with someone who is truly special, truly a gift to your life. Don't pawn that off on your notion of being young. Those are my two cents.

I think Hypocrates may have been right when he stated that "brevity is the soul of wit." Mind you his subsequent rambling in the same speech belies his expressed wisdom. In any case, here is what I think you could write if you didn't want to go along with the wisdom of the other members: Dear So-and-So, There's a saying: "Never argue with stupid people. They'll only beat you down with experience." It is for this reason that I admit you are more experienced than I am, and I cannot argue my perspectives with you anymore. With that in mind, fuck off and forget we ever knew each other. Sincerely, Imogen Too punchy? It's just a suggestion.

I suppose it could be asked, "What benefit does our friendship have for you?" That puts the ball in their court to answer to what they see as valuable in the friendship and, in turn, gives you the opportunity to contrast that silently with what you already know your values are. Then, when you have them clearly stating their (obviously) misinformed sense of reality, you could politely inform them that your values are so radically different that you cannot help but be in conflict with them. And, since nobody wants constant conflict, you could simply suggest that it would be better to stay apart. Sometimes it is better to find your solution in separation if by being together you are constantly in conflict.

Christian theists have a bevy of arguments on-hand to bolster their credulous claims that there is a divine superintendent pacing the universe everywhere at once. No doubt, dear reader, you have heard of such gaseous arguments as the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Aesthetics, the Moral Argument, et al. In the mind of the theist, these arguments suffice as sufficient explanations for the existence of God; a ‘proof’, more or less (I wager “less” since a ‘proof’, properly speaking, usually removes the barrier between doubt and certainty. But I digress!). To add to the miasma, however, I ran across a ‘proof’ that reads essentially like follows: 1. All natural desires can be satisfied; 2. Humans have an unquenchable desire that natural means cannot satisfy; 3. Therefore the unquenchable desire must be supernaturally satisfied (i.e., by God); 4. Hence God must exist. How sad that a theist has been brought so low in his frantic attempt to ground his fairy-tales in reality that he has morphed god into a cosmic vending machine. That aside, such syllogisms should be re-labelled ‘silly-gisms’ (with all the nuance such silly theological ejaculations suggest) if not for their abstruse logic, but for their abject contradictions. In the first instance, there is no reasonable reason to assume human beings have unquenchable desires that natural means cannot satisfy. How does one go about qualifying such a brash assumption? By the testimony of people who believe in like manner to the person attempting the above proof? What observable evidence suggests that people, who are a part of nature, spoil for more than nature? How does a person desire what is beyond the natural context that informs their desires in the first place? In the second instance, if we grant quarter to the theist advocating this argument from desire – if we assume that it is true that people yearn for something that only a supernatural being can fulfil – then, in the context of Christianity, we run adrift of an incendiary contradiction. Namely, Christians, along with all other sane individuals on earth desire peace, an end to hunger, the termination of suffering. They couch it in eschatological terms such as “I long for the peace in the new world to come, the new Zion.” But unless they are sociopathic, they desire the same sane things that pretty much everyone desires who cares to introspect for even an instant. The difficulty comes when that same Christian admits that his own god made such grandiose claims as “whatsoever you desire, when you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mk. 11:24). On bended knee, the sincere Christian petitions his god for an end to global suffering, an end to warring and strife. In effect, he expresses his ‘desire’ for a peaceful world where everyone can get on and play well with others. But does this god meet his petitioner’s prayers? No. One need only look about to see that sincere Christians everywhere are desiring a world free of pain, praying for the fulfilment of said desires – which can only be granted through divine agency – and coming up denied. What can we say then of such arguments as the ‘proof’ from desire? At once it assumes what it concludes: unquenchable desires can only be met by god, and therefore god exists. Furthermore, this same god, who, in turn, allows us to have desires that cannot be quenched, tells his followers that by petitioning him in prayer, their desires will be effected in reality. At the risk of sounding too critical, however, the collective desires and prayers of the faithful, the world over, and across the millenia, still have not moved the hand of god to capitulate to the faithful, even on his own terms. If this doesn’t place a floodlight on the flagrant error in the theist’s argument from desire, then it is doubtful that reason holds a place in the vocabulary of that same theist. It is clear to reasoning people that such paradigms as the ‘argument from desire’ beggars logic and defies sensibility. In the end, one simply cannot make the case for human temporal desires being directly correlated to eternal, divinely sanctioned, non-temporal satisfactions. I recognise that last sentence as a bit of a mouthful, but if you can excuse the sudden turn of tone and phrase, it at least avoids the trap of being a mouthfull of shit. A lamentable fate that arguments such as the one from desire cannot exculpate itself from.

By way of devil's advocate, if these über-rich are entitled to do what they will with their money, what is the difficulty in their choice to give it away to whom they will? Take care, Kane

Well, of course one cannot value anything when one is dead. But that gives impetus to pass on your values to those you love so that while they are still alive they might benefit from them. That is, if they choose the same values, as you've pointed out. Nevertheless, the transmission of values is not suggestive of a viral effect. Values are not transmitted like contagions from one host to another. But in valuing life, reason and virtue, I think that as a parent, I would be doing my children a disservice -- it would be immoral of me, in other words -- if I didn't present the context for values and expect that even after I am dead they would continue to operate with the values I have taught them. In that sense, the option to uphold the values I teach them is transmissible, even though they can choose otherwise.

I suppose that depends on the kind of selfishness you're talking about, doesn't it? Here at my home, we distinguish between rational selfishness (à la Ayn Rand), and irrational selfishness (i.e., the synonym contemporary culture uses to state something is 'evil'). To the rationally selfish person, having kids is simply part of doing what makes one happy in this life. That is, if two loving and rationally self-interested people decide to reproduce together, then they do so because it is what augments their enjoyment of the life they value. This would seem to me to be irrationally selfish. To hold to values that you truly understand are correct would necessarily include that you hope those values are continued in some fashion or another even after death. This is easily provable by the extroverted nature of values on the whole: all people, if they are not wholly insane, live their values. And by doing so, those vaules are observed and incorporated into the lives of others around them. More, some people set those values out on a formal level (e.g., ethical philosophers) with the express purpose that others can learn about them and incorporate them. In short, values are meant to be passed on, and to not be interested in their transmission because you will one day die is not rational at all. It is entirely irrational. Then you agree that it is irrational to "not give a damn" about the transmission of values beyond your death? Having a mit-full of kids myself, I can't say I've ever experienced any one of them not caring for me. This is where transmission of values comes in: I value them as dearly as I do my own life because they are an inextricable part of my life. All of my wee 'uns have received that care and reflect it back to me. Even if in the beginning days of their lives their reactions to me are immitative, they are immitating the care that I am showing them and thereby learning to care for me.

Haha! Yes, yes. I'm sorely mistaken. You are right. I should've seen her sermonizing as an insincere platform for her false perceptions on the world. Thank you for your corrective.

Bluecherry, Thank you for the warm welcome! I will be sure to try and avoid spoilers for Rand's other novels. Thank you for the heads-up. As to how long I've been aware of Rand's works, I'd say somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 years. However, I have only started to give any attention to her writings and philosophic ideas in the past few months. So, as you can easily reason out, I'm quite new to Objectivism.

"I am Kane [sic]. I can help." (Kung-Fu, the series) Alright. The quote is just a poor attempt at humour. And I also realise that David Carradine took on the wrong spelling of such an excellent name as Kane, taking on instead the Hebrew variant 'Caine'. In any case, I'm most likely off to a poor start being so given to rambling right away. So I'll attempt to tell you a little about myself in as much of a non-rambling fashion as possible. First, I don't know if I can help. I am actually rather nervous to participate here because I'm only just learning Objectivism, and can see already from my "learning lurking" that there are a brace of highly intelligent people here who really know their stuff. In a sense that is a comfort because it means that I can ask questions (and rely on the Search feature) to mine well thought-out answers. However, because I am coming from a position of a newly deconverted Christian (20 years of practice, and 2 years of ministry), I can honestly say that I am out of my depth despite being quite eager to learn. And that makes me slightly nervous. Second, my brain is a tad disordered. I'm severely ADD and a bit of a pain-in-the-ass to people of more efficient minds; being of the Jungian archetype INTP, I tend to explore positions I may not actually be committed to, even though I may speak/write with authority on the subject. Nevertheless, I don't mind people reigning me in from the ether of abstract cerebral gallavanting, so feel free (bit of an odd thing to say to Objectivists, "feel free"!). Third, I'm presently making my way through Ayn Rand's fiction, and enjoying them immensely. Previous to Rand, some of my favourite authors were Russians (Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, Turgenev), so I had already developed a healthy appreciation for the force and majesty of their literature. Rand has been no exception. I have finished Anthem, and am currently about half-way through We The Living. I must say, and without reservation, that they are exceptionally brilliant novels, and I can see her philosophy borne-out in wonderfully poetic ways. I look forward to reading her two masterpieces The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and then embarking on her more technical works Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. I'm sure I'll have questions as I go, so please be patient with me, and I'll try not to be too redundant with my queries. Cheers!