Matthew J.

[Matthew J]

So many rational human beings in one place excites me.

Salutations Peers!!

I mean really. I'm surrounded by alot of people who just dont get it. I keep expecting them to snap out of it, but in vain. willfully ignorant, subjectivist, determinist, irrational gits, most of them. its Great to find so many people who love reason as much as i do. Already, you are much more so my peers than they could be.

as is probably unavoidalbe, youve likely noticed my name is Matthew. the J doesnt stand for anything. thats why i cart it around so much. its just one letter long.

I am 19 years old, and something of a junior Objectivist Scholar. ive read every work published by Ayn Rand herself, and almost all of her post-humous publications as well. I've always been pretty darn rational, having been raised to glory in reason and competence in the LDS church of which I am still a member. O'ism eliminated some inconsistenices in my personal life and gave me intellectual ammunition to articulately define my views. i didnt have to change much. after about 6 months of constant reading, i began to teach, and have gotten several people interested in Objectivism, because naturally, they want to be happy.

I'm looking forward to talking with all of you, and welcome Eagerly any personal message, email or IM conversation that comes my way. i can always use more friends, and theyre in short supply sometimes.

My favorite book of Rand's is the Virtue of Selfishness, and my favorite concept is the benevolent universe premise, which i heartily exercise in my life. I love to work, and I love to date. but most of all, i Love to learn.

thanks for reading this. in fact, thanks for being here. thank you for your metaphysical life view. really.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Matthew J

[softwareNerd]

Hi Matthew. Welcome to the forum.

[JMeganSnow]

How do you square Objectivism with the Latter-Day Saints? Half of my family is Mormon and I've never noticed them to be particularly rational; in fact, they are for the most part a great deal worse than the Catholic side of my family.

[Matthew J]

Yes. I too know a great deal of irrational, and alot of (to be honest) really dumb mormons. If I didnt, I'd be on a mormon forum instead of an Objectivist forum.

However I am not one of them. I square quite easily actually. When reading all of Rand's works, the only tenet that I discounted was that God doesn't exist. Everything else is exactly similar with some reconciliation in definition.

As I state in all posts regarding religion, please PM me with particulars or start a new thread and i will address all supposed inconsistencies there. Again, I do not desire to pick fights or convert. I'm simply confident in my assessment of reality.

Edit: Caps

Edited February 16, 2006 by Matthew J

[Unconquered]

I square quite easily actually. When reading all of Rand's works, the only tenet that I discounted was that God doesn't exist. Everything else is exactly similar with some reconciliation in definition.

Will all due respect, that is like saying that everything is the same as long as you agree that A doesn't have to be A, or that literal division by zero is a permissible operation in mathematics. Rationality is not rationalization ("reconciliation in definition"). As with any other mythology, over and above the irrationality of positing a god, there's an enormous amount of silly nonsense in the beliefs of the Mormon religion. For example, some people may not be aware of the reasons why the church takes such an interest in genealogy. That's because in the religion, one's ancestors can be inducted into the church (as I've heard it, if you spiritually commune with them and ask for their permission )

[Matthew J]

Will all due respect, that is like saying that everything is the same as long as you agree that A doesn't have to be A, or that literal division by zero is a permissible operation in mathematics. Rationality is not rationalization ("reconciliation in definition"). As with any other mythology, over and above the irrationality of positing a god, there's an enormous amount of silly nonsense in the beliefs of the Mormon religion. For example, some people may not be aware of the reasons why the church takes such an interest in genealogy. That's because in the religion, one's ancestors can be inducted into the church (as I've heard it, if you spiritually commune with them and ask for their permission )

Thank you for your concern for offense, I assure you none was taken. You are absolutely correct to assert that A has to be A despite any rationalization. However, my reconciliations in definition are being falsely described as thus. What it means is that words litterally have different definitions in the two factions. When a Mormon says that God loves all mankind equally and is Just, they are telling the truth, even though an Objectivist would say that no one could love all mankind equally and be just and be correct as well. this is because of the definitions. For a Latter Day Saint, Love is "a care and devotion for the eternal well being of the person". A God could have equal care and devotion for everyone's eternal salvation and be just. however, no man could have equal love for all men and be just if you use the Objectivist's definition of love which is (paraphrasing for lack of my lexicon) an admiration and respect for a person in payment for the values which they possess. Indeed, a rational and well studied Mormon will agree that God could never love all men equally in that way, becuase it would not be just and God is perfectly just.

That is a reconciliation in definition. I did not rationalize. I did, however, point out a case in which an Objectivist would rightly condemn a Mormon doctrine for the sole fact that the words meant something different to them. An Objectivist who did not study the book of mormon would be rightly outraged when confrotonted with any number of statements about faith, unless he knew what faith meant in the book of mormon. They are outrageous, when taken out of context, wich I know that nobody would desire to do.

But I digress. this is not the place for this. Again, please PM me with your concerns or start another thread where I will be happy to address them, if they are proper questions or concerns like the one you have posed.

Edit: A full discussion of Pos-humous baptism belongs on a seperate thread, not on my introduction, and I will be happy to oblige if there is a sincere interest in my defense of it as a genuine and rational practice. however, I will be unable to do so tonight. If such desires exist, please pm me about them.

Edited February 16, 2006 by Matthew J

[Proverb]

Objectivist who did not study the book of mormon would be rightly outraged when confrotonted with any number of statements about faith, unless he knew what faith meant in the book of mormon.

Words have specific meaning and yes the scope of the context of any given word is different among people due to errors and differences in epistemology.

However, you can't expect to communicate anything meaningful if people realize that words are amorphous to you and carry changing definitions in any given situation. Your 'reconciliation by definition' is a false process and a circus in the world of concept formation.

If you do not wish your current views to be 'misrepresented' it is only you who can prevent this, and simply saying 'you don't know what it means to me' is not an adequate method by which to falsify an argument or opposition to said views.

[dark_unicorn]

So many rational human beings in one place excites me.

Salutations Peers!!

I mean really. I'm surrounded by alot of people who just dont get it. I keep expecting them to snap out of it, but in vain. willfully ignorant, subjectivist, determinist, irrational gits, most of them. its Great to find so many people who love reason as much as i do. Already, you are much more so my peers than they could be.

as is probably unavoidalbe, youve likely noticed my name is Matthew. the J doesnt stand for anything. thats why i cart it around so much. its just one letter long.

I am 19 years old, and something of a junior Objectivist Scholar. ive read every work published by Ayn Rand herself, and almost all of her post-humous publications as well. I've always been pretty darn rational, having been raised to glory in reason and competence in the LDS church of which I am still a member. O'ism eliminated some inconsistenices in my personal life and gave me intellectual ammunition to articulately define my views. i didnt have to change much. after about 6 months of constant reading, i began to teach, and have gotten several people interested in Objectivism, because naturally, they want to be happy.

I'm looking forward to talking with all of you, and welcome Eagerly any personal message, email or IM conversation that comes my way. i can always use more friends, and theyre in short supply sometimes.

My favorite book of Rand's is the Virtue of Selfishness, and my favorite concept is the benevolent universe premise, which i heartily exercise in my life. I love to work, and I love to date. but most of all, i Love to learn.

thanks for reading this. in fact, thanks for being here. thank you for your metaphysical life view. really.

Greetings Matthew and welcome to the forum, I myself am a recent arrival and also a non-Objectivist, though my disposition as a Thomist and a devout student of Aristotle's philosophy puts me a bit closer to the Objectivist philosophy than the Book of Mormon would. But you yourself have stated that our universe is a benevolent one and that you have a measure of respect for reason, that puts you ahead of a good number of our fellow Christians out there whom condemn Ayn Rand as some sort of threat to humanity.

You will find that Objectivism is a 100% reason based philosophy, and be careful not to confound the definitions of "Faith" and "Axioms", for they are not the same thing, as underscored by Ayn Rand's various non-fiction books, most of which I have read. So a word of friendly advice, don't be offended by any criticisms given towards your religion, they are not meant to insult you but represent a real difference in viewpoint in terms of metaphysics. Remember also that any debates that you enter here will strengthen your views of both reason and the benevolent universe, for the people whom belong to this forum are intelligent, well-read and well-versed; there is much to be gained by being here.

[Proverb]

...difference in viewpoint in terms of metaphysics.

A difference which may only propagate through three different scenarios: Wholly irrational metaphysics, a blend of rational and irrational metaphysics to any varying degree, and wholly rational metaphysics.

I find myself repeating the fact that it is not simply a difference in worldview that allots any amount of respect. "Because I believe it" is not an argument.

I don't mean to sound cold, I am just always put aback by people who propose to have 'squared' Objectivism with any amount of faith. To me, it seem those people are, in general, people who are devoted to the importance of reason but are too guilt-ridden to let go of past convictions.

[Matthew J]

I have recently stopped attempting to defend the entirety of my religion on objectivist forum, however I will attempt to defend myself to some degree on this point, especially as it is a thread about me.

I don't mean to sound cold, I am just always put aback by people who propose to have 'squared' Objectivism with any amount of faith. To me, it seem those people are, in general, people who are devoted to the importance of reason but are too guilt-ridden to let go of past convictions.

All I have to say to this is that I am much too personally happy to believe it of myself. Upon examining the Joy that I have felt nearly every day for the past few months, I do not feel it is guilted or in any way diluted, but genuine happiness which, as you know, comes only from "the attainment of rational values" -Ayn Rand. This is not proof in any sense and recognize that my happiness is fallible, but I certainly find it to be good enough. If I ever feel a guilt of evasion, I will certainly change something about my life until I am this happy again.

Dark Unicorn, Thank you for your kind post. I enjoy being here exactly because the majority of the members are intelligent and well read. I have no intention of leaving, only of being a bit less beligerant and more mindful of myself.

[dark_unicorn]

1. A difference which may only propagate through three different scenarios: Wholly irrational metaphysics, a blend of rational and irrational metaphysics to any varying degree, and wholly rational metaphysics.

2. I find myself repeating the fact that it is not simply a difference in worldview that allots any amount of respect. "Because I believe it" is not an argument.

3. I don't mean to sound cold, I am just always put aback by people who propose to have 'squared' Objectivism with any amount of faith. To me, it seem those people are, in general, people who are devoted to the importance of reason but are too guilt-ridden to let go of past convictions.

1. Fair enough, I would state the same case.

2. The "because I believe it" has nothing to do with what I was specifically talking about. Speculation on the extent of metaphysics has not yielded 100% proof of theism nor atheism, so to assert that absence of 100% proof positive of one senario automatically implies the other is correct does not hold up as rational. When we've explored ever crevice of this universe and find nothing beyond the basic elements and no evidence of an "origin to motion" and evidence towards a "universe in eternal motion", or vice versa, then we can talk about the error of point of view. Nothing scientific has proven that motion has been a constant, so I am not obligated to the axiom that "because it is" implies that "it has always been".

3. I'm not certain about some others here, but I have not advertized myself as an Objectivist, the only thing I recall stating was that I admired the firm principles on which the philosophy stands, and that I agree with the Epistemology and Ethics implied by Rand's arguement for reason. Furthermore, I can assure you that my affiliation with the Catholic Church has nothing to do with guilt, I geniunely have concluded based on my own deductions that the Objectivist view of metaphysics has some flaws in it. And if my deductive reasoning has lead me to an erronius conclusion, you will find me with zero guilt when I leave the church I belong to in favor of the correct answers to my questions.

[Proverb]

I am not interested in engaging in a debate at this point, especially on someone's intro thread. However, I wish to bring up a couple points.

"universe in eternal motion"

The universe subsumes all entities. Motion subsumes a reference from which to judge motion. If you wish to talk about the 'motion of the universe' you would have to give a point of reference. A point of reference would have to be an existent at which point the entity who's motion you are describing would no longer be 'the universe' but some subset of it. This is a common epistemological error and its use lies at the heart most "rational-theist's" errors.

Speculation on the extent of metaphysics has not yielded 100% proof of theism nor atheism, so to assert that absence of 100% proof positive of one senario automatically implies the other is correct does not hold up as rational.

"Proof" which is a rational prerequisite of knowledge is meaningless without an unavoidably necessary context, whatever that may be.

This is an example of the classic refutation on the basis of lack of omnisense. If you claim this argument, but what method do you claim any knowledge whatsoever?

Even the most innocent epistemological error that leads to theism (as described above) is still based on a nonsensical and irrational assumption.

I understand that you do not recognize your self as an Objectivist. However, if you in fact claim to agree with Objectivist epistemology I am obliged to point out any misconceptions.

If you wish to continue this conversation in any capacity, PM me and I will be happy to propose a debate line and continue in the debate forum, which incidentally will be the only appropriate place in this forum.

[RationalBiker]

Speculation on the extent of metaphysics has not yielded 100% proof of theism nor atheism, so to assert that absence of 100% proof positive of one senario automatically implies the other is correct does not hold up as rational.

That's not the argument however. The argument is that there is ZERO evidence (not somewhere between 1 to 99%) to support the existence of a "God" AND that such a being would otherwise violate physics as we know it. It's not an argument of probability. One needn't (nor could) speculate all the possibilities that NO evidence and physical impossibility can lead to.

I'm only saying this to clarify to you what the argument is, not that I want to engage in the argument. I think you have (unitentionally) misrepresented it, and in so doing created a strawman.

If I was going to speculate on some being such as a god based on NO evidence, my belief in a Giant Purple Space Goat is just as valid as the Christian belief of "God", and frankly I'd like a Giant Purple Space Goat better. Admittedly, the universe being pooped out of it's rear is a much less appealing explanation, but in the search for truth, one can't be sidetracked by what sounds appealing. (I really need a purple space goat emoticon)

Edited February 18, 2006 by RationalCop

[dark_unicorn]

At some point when I have more time we can discuss this on the debate forum, it is primarily my responsibility that this resulted in the beginnings of a debate because I jumped into metaphysical speculation upon responding to your last post. I will, myself, cease and desist on this topic because it does break with the forum's objective goal.

But on a side note, I may not be fully in agreement with the Objectivist Epistemology, as I have only read ITOE twice and am still working on Objectivism: The philosophy of Ayn Rand. I concur with the superiority to Aristotilean reason over any concept of faith, and have sought purely rational methods to conceptualizing the universe, though this may not be the full extent of the Objectivist viewpoint on it as I have obviously not come to the same conclusion.

That's all I'll say on the matter.

[Proverb]

Understood. The invitation also stands.

[Matthew J]

I love introduction threads