Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Recommended Posts

:) A guy claiming to be a Rand fan once told me that Objectivism ought to include a God component -- a mystical even irrational component. He topped off by saying "after all 'rational' is contained within 'irrational'"

 

I think something is stuck to the bottom of my shoe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT- if you were to ask me, who is smarter, more important to future generations, etc.. me or Elon Musk?

Do you mean to imply that a person's estimation of themselves needs to be judged or justified by others?

No, not at all. Just because Musk is 10000x better than me and everyone I know in practically every area, doesn't mean we should devote our lives to serving him. Similarly, just because he's one of the most important men on earth doesn't mean that everyone should sacrifice their lives to him for the 'greater good.'

 

My point is that it's easy to admire and respect a person like Elon Musk, because he's close to the ideal man- almost like a living Galt. And if I were to serve anyone, it would be someone like that- someone close to perfection (ie: the definition of deity). Garshasp telling everyone, "YOU ALL ARE GALTS!! GODS!!1!1" - is plain wrong because: 1. It isn't true on an individual level until it's true; that title has to be earned. 2. It makes the term subjective and degrades it's true meaning. If Mother Theresa is a god, how can Ayn Rand be a god? They're polar opposites. 3. Believing you're perfect in any area (when you're not) will likely make you stop caring about progress. Why strive to be better if you're already the best? 4. Like Nicky said, it ignores objective facts. To play DA,iIf Musk is closer to the ideal man than myself, why would I call myself a god? Isn't Musk more deserving of that title?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garshasp telling everyone, "YOU ALL ARE GALTS!! GODS!!1!1" - is plain wrong...

Maybe some of us are gods -- or at least demi-gods. Many have this potential. Just because most people are mediocrities or non-entities doesn't change this. The point is: the Holy Individual and the best within us alone should be served and worshipped -- not the collective or the deities.

 

 

**********************************************

'What is noble? What does the word "noble" still mean to us nowadays? What reveals the noble human being, how do people recognize him, under this heavy, oppressive sky at the beginning of the rule of the rabble, which is making everything opaque and leaden? - It is not the actions which prove him - actions are always ambiguous, always inscrutable -; nor is it the "works." Among artists and scholars today we find a sufficient number of those who through their works reveal how a profound desire for what is noble drives them: but this very need for what is noble is fundamentally different from the needs of the noble soul itself and is really the eloquent and dangerous indication that such a soul is lacking. It's not the works; it's the belief which decides here, which here establishes the order of rank, to take up once more an old religious formula with a new and more profound understanding: some basic certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which does not allow itself to be sought out or found or perhaps even to be lost. The noble soul has reverence for itself.' 

 

--Friedrich Nietzsche, 1886, Beyond Good and Evil 

Edited by Garshasp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I meant "god" metaphorically. I think there's a very deep human need to serve something like god. It could also be called "something above, beyond or greater than the self." And these two concepts -- religiosity and altruism -- have been closely linked historically. Objectivism may need to find a concept and sacred ideal to replace "god" in order to give people a properly full, rich, fulfilling, meaningful, purposeful life. I think a superior substitute for the deity is a noble and great One. If this isn't good enough I'm open to suggestions...     

Seriously?

What would you suggest?  I mean we could begin worshipping the titan Atlas (it's already been done, so we'll really only be renewing what's tried-and-true) but what would our commandments be?

We could forbid irrationality, altruism of any kind, antihumanism; we could even round up suspected altruists and torture them until they accept Galt into their lives.

 

You know what?  If such a religion existed I would have no part of it, Rand or no Rand; I'd oppose it any way I could.  If you take something good, fun, pleasant, et cetera, and you make it into an obligation, it will cease to be good.

 

"Fullness" and "Richness" and "Purpose" are all achieved through human values, things like inventing iPhones and playing video games and going on a trip with friends. Only a poor substitute for meaning is achieved by being mostly concerned with something other than yourself, wrought with eventual emptiness, bitterness, and confusion. How could you give your life meaning without actually affecting the particulars of your life?

Speaking as an ex-Christian, I can tell you that the religious solution of god and altruism don't produce their professed results, and once you give that crap up and start sinning instead, you begin getting that meaning you're after. Someone else would probably be better than me at guessing why religion and altruism have managed to keep such a stronghold on civilization.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25536

And I agree emphatically with the evaluation.  I really can't overemphasize this: whatever benefits you think mysticism can give people, they are NEVER worth it. 

You are part of reality.  When you reject reality, you reject yourself.  This leads to altruism and self-sacrifice.  Now that you've inverted your desires as evil and your unhappiness as good you have, in any situation, two choices: sneaky, oily, guilty pleasure or self-righteous pain.

There is only one real benefit that mysticism provides: at the end of their miserable existences it still allows its followers to die, as promised all along.

 

:) A guy claiming to be a Rand fan once told me that Objectivism ought to include a God component -- a mystical even irrational component. He topped off by saying "after all 'rational' is contained within 'irrational'"

We could build an altar and a temple to the great Galt, the man who wouldn't fake existence, and pretend to indulge in cannibalism once a week.  I like this idea.  The only thing it's missing is a Knight who says "Ni!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some of us are gods -- or at least demi-gods. Many have this potential. Just because most people are mediocrities or non-entities doesn't change this. The point is: the Holy Individual and the best within us alone should be served and worshipped -- not the collective or the deities.

I think I may see the trouble here.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

What you're talking about sounds very close to hero-worship and "man qua man" which are an indisputable part of Objectivism.  But it also sounds very close to LaVey and his Church of Satan.  I don't know if you've heard of LaVey before but some of the ideas here sound strikingly close to his, and after reading some Nietzsche recently it occurred to me how similar their ideas are.  (I suspect one might've based the vast majority of his work on the other)

 

'What is noble? What does the word "noble" still mean to us nowadays? What reveals the noble human being, how do people recognize him, under this heavy, oppressive sky at the beginning of the rule of the rabble, which is making everything opaque and leaden? - It is not the actions which prove him - actions are always ambiguous, always inscrutable -; nor is it the "works." Among artists and scholars today we find a sufficient number of those who through their works reveal how a profound desire for what is noble drives them: but this very need for what is noble is fundamentally different from the needs of the noble soul itself and is really the eloquent and dangerous indication that such a soul is lacking. It's not the works; it's the belief which decides here, which here establishes the order of rank, to take up once more an old religious formula with a new and more profound understanding: some basic certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which does not allow itself to be sought out or found or perhaps even to be lost. The noble soul has reverence for itself.' 

 

--Friedrich Nietzsche, 1886, Beyond Good and Evil 

"The noble soul has reverence for itself."  Absolutely true.  And you're thinking compatible with Rand, right?  (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)  But stop and analyze this for a bit.

 

What reveals the noble human being, how do people recognize him, under this heavy, oppressive sky at the beginning of the rule of the rabble, which is making everything opaque and leaden?

Disgust for the majority of the human race.  Understandable (these days, at least) but not in and of itself; only as disgust for those predominant traits, ideas and behaviors which are truly despicable.  Not a flaw here, but something to notice and evaluate later.

It is not the actions which prove him - actions are always ambiguous, always inscrutable -; nor is it the "works."

Someone shouldn't be judged by his actions or his work, as neither can show who he really is; that's James Taggart speaking.

Among artists and scholars today we find a sufficient number of those who through their works reveal how a profound desire for what is noble drives them: but this very need for what is noble is fundamentally different from the needs of the noble soul itself and is really the eloquent and dangerous indication that such a soul is lacking.

He scorns any attempt to actually achieve greatness, in reality, on Earth.  He scorns it on the basis that it's a need and that a truly great man needs nothing.

This, to someone who has only recently been introduced to Rand, may sound similar to Objectivism at first glance.  But it truly isn't.

What would cause this sort of feeling?  And, if this were accepted as the accurate and just depiction of artists and scholars, what effects would it have on someone's mind?

It's not the works; it's the belief which decides here, which here establishes the order of rank, to take up once more an old religious formula with a new and more profound understanding: some basic certainty which a noble soul has about itself, something which does not allow itself to be sought out or found or perhaps even to be lost. The noble soul has reverence for itself.' 

And there it is.  "The noble soul has reverence for itself" alone and out-of-context would be fully consistent with Objectivism and entirely true.  But that last bit amounts to: "A great man is great because he thinks so."

Stop and seriously consider that, for a while.

*********************************************************************************

I'd like to mention that I'm actually rather impressed with what progress Nietzsche did make at the time in which he lived.  He accurately identified religion as worthless and altruism as harmful, which in and of themselves are monumental tributes to his independence and intelligence.  (And it's always fun to read some good, old-fashioned Kant-bashing, from back when he was alive)

But he wasn't consistent and, having realized what's wrong with the whole of philosophy at that point, he wasn't brave enough to take the next logical step into Objectivism.

 

There is a difference between slavery and freedom, but still another difference between freedom and slave-driving.  (which Nietzsche seems to be getting at)  It's a very easy mistake; once you figure out that altruism is evil, hedonism seems like the logical alternative.

But it isn't.  The third option is Rational Selfishness; neither slave nor slave-driver.  And there is no possible reason why a rationally selfish person would voluntarily accept mysticism as true; nothing is worth that.

 

Irrationality is always bad for you, no matter why you do it or how justified you feel.  It's not so much a matter of good or evil (it does transcend the altruist anticoncept of morality) as a matter of survival, which is what Nietzsche needed to realize before he could become a Rand.

 

That's why a "Church of Objectivism" is an oxymoron.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...