Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Brandon

Galt's Gulch and the Producer Revolution

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I understand what the question is, and we need not even relate your hypothetical situation to God. You are asking me what one person can do to convince another of his claim without providing any evidence.
Actually, no. Let's look at his question again.

Remember the question is what it would take to convince you of his belief in God being Rational, not in him convincing you that God exists.
(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).

Huh? What? Are you seriously asking us to accept the premise that god exists?? That is very clever.
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.

...the questions ought to be: What exactly should a man conclude based on the evidence? What alternatives should a man consider that appear to also be compatible with that evidence? What principle should a man appeal to in choosing between different conclusions about the evidence? ...the bottom line is that failure to consider these three questions -- which are really the fundamental questions of epistemology -- and answer them correctly has led men to massive errors...
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exercise is to determine if you can differentiate between someone having a rational conclusion based upon evidence, and having everyone else agree on the conclusion without having experienced the evidence. Another angle is the understanding that rational and truth may not be the same depending on the evidence observed.
You're mistaken about truth: truth is not relative, and the notion "true for me", "true for him" is a corruption of the concept truth. Truth is recognition of reality, and reality is what it is, non-contradictorily. There may be some confusion about the distinction between "true for me" vs. "true about me", i.e. some statement it true but only if applied to specific individual people. The existence of god is not one of those statements. Either god exist, or he doesn't. God does not "exist for" you but not me, except insofar as you're saying that you have a mental construct that I don't have. We're only talking about things that actually exist; so the notion of truth being 'individual' is a corruption of the concept truth.

Rational refers to a method, and what is ration again depends not on the person but the evidence (it's a relationship between evidence and conclusion). So if for example you have never observed a meter-tall adult reindeer and had no evidence to indicate such a thing exists, then rejecting the claim that they exist would be rational, indeed proper if the claim were not accompanied with evidence.

Because my hypothetical was a test to determine if yall were capable of considering things rationally. From your response to y hypothetical I can tell that you are unable to differentiate between determining if my conclusions based upon the evidence were rational for me and if you coming to the same conclusions for yourself based upon my description of my observations.
That is an irrational conclusion, since it plainly contradicts the evidence of your senses. Now I will grant that there could be confusion if you're conflating the notions "rationally" and "rationalisticly". While we are not willing to engage in petitio principii, we are willing to engage in reason, i.e. rationality. The difference between rationality and rationalism is exactly that rationalism proceeds from no facts and reaches a conclusion, and a rational man would reject such a conclusion. Were we to have a fact plus a conclusion, we could judge whether the conclusion is rationally related to the facts. Now, for you to conclude that we cannot engage in reason because we will not engage in rationalism is a gross misunderstanding of reason.

To reiterate, reason requires facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, as hypothetical question only, that is precisely what he is asking. There's nothing wrong with that.
Well, yes, actually there is. Assuming the truth of a particular conclusion and then crucially using that assumption to argue for the conclusion is a logical fallacy. It's true that fallacies are engaged in frequently, but that doesn't make them right. Perhaps, if you understand his mode of argumentation, you can restate the hypothetical do that it doesn't depend on a blatant falsehood. For example, something about the color of your car (and it wouldn't matter if you don't have a car, because there is no rational denial of the existence of cars or their colors). BTW I suggest that you investigate threads on the epistemological arbitrary if you don't understand this, but this is a fundamental and recurring error in much philosophy, namely admitting the arbitrary, since it is, at heart, a repudiation of man's method of cognition (and that's why we have no truck with it -- it is illogical).
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.
Surely you mean something else: there isn't anything that is "pure experience". Experience has to be of something. There can't be "pure perception", there has to be perception of something. That's what's missing -- you have to reveal those percepts.
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?
That is also a possible question, but a highly derivative question which should not be raised without addressing the foundational questions. If you have a foundation of quicksand, the carefully erected temple will collapse. Nevertheless, here is a very rough outline of the answer. Testimony is useless unless it a report of a rationally based conclusion, which means that there must be objective fact and proper application of logic. This precludes our friend (i.e. enemy) petitio principii and must at all stages refuse to admit arbitrary conclusion as evidence / premises. If we know that a person follows these logical principles, and we know that the person has the necessary knowledge to reach a proper conclusion (e.g. he is not making stuff up about aerodynamics when he hasn't got a clue), then we have a perceptual basis for considering the claim. Stronger evidence will be required, of course, to prove the claim since we need to also know if, for example, the man is simply color blind and thus his conclusions are detached from reality in a known way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suffice it to say that my belief in God is as much based upon direct personal observation and reasoning upon those observation as the persons whoom I based my hypothetical example.

I too have to wonder why you're being so coy about revealing the evidence that leads you to your conclusion. Apparently you have had a "direct personal observation" of God. Can you provide us with some details of this observation? If someone tells me that a being exists who has created all existence (oops, that's a contradiction right there, isn't it?) and who manages our affairs, then it doesn't seem out of order to ask for some rational evidence of His existence. Can you provide that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Faith is belief leading to action.

Blind Faith = Faith without evidence.

evidence that has been faked. Their Belief is Rational, given the evidence.

real ( not faked ) evidence, and their Belief based upon that evidence is Rational.

So it's something like this?

Blind faith - acting upon a belief without assessment

Irrational faith - acting upon a belief that is incorrectly assessed (intentionally) as reality-based

"Real faith" - acting upon a belief that is correctly assessed as reality-based

Faked faith - acting upon a belief that is incorrectly (albeit unintentionally) assessed as reality-based

Suppose for a moment that a person did have a direct one on one, face to face conversation with God.

Let's also suppose for a moment that he wasn't deceived, and God showed him sufficient compelling evidence that he was convinced.

I understand that part; if a god went out of her way to appear/converse with me, I'd (after checking for microphones and hallucinogenics) believe that she existed. In that sense and situation, I suppose faith would be "real," and I'd have no need to detail to others exactly what Artemis said or how she appeared in order to justify my own conclusions.

But how would you move from the existential question of god to the moral questions? Isn't every god-based moral standard inherently either blind faith or irrational faith?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To describe my evidence, since you cannot observe it yourself, and you are unwilling to differentiate from my rational and yours, would be to ask you to accept my word on Faith.. I can't see how that would be a benefit to you, and I can't see how that would be in my self-interest to do so. Suffice it to say that my belief in God is as much based upon direct personal observation and reasoning upon those observation as the persons whoom I based my hypothetical example.

What sort of "evidence" is not observable by all?

This is the "God spoke to me, but not to you" argument.

The difference here is that any God who was rational, would not want his followers believing in him by anything other than by what you call True Faith, i.e. rationally induced by your own evidence. If he is capable of producing compelling evidence to you, but specifically withholding it from me for the prupose of requiring anything else than true faith, then there begins your trail of divergence from anything you would call Objectivist. (everyone on this board knows it. We've discussed with to many religionists and the argument always comes down to this - that's why you had multiple direct questions to the point - which as Mercury says, you're being awfully coy about answering as directly). Truth is truth, sir. And truth is linked to direct evidence for all people. So if you've got some evidence that is rational, out with it!

If I understand you correctly, what you call True Faith, might be called "reason" by Objectivists. All your other forms of "faith" are either errors or knowledge, insufficiency of knowledge, or outright willful mysticism - the only difference being the moral evaluation of each by Objectivists. As you probably also know, she said that reason is man's only means of survival.

So wouldn't Mormonism directly contradict this tenet of Objectivism? Some people get to perceive God directly. Others are required ethically to have "faith" in him?

What an epistemological train wreck calling all of these things "faith".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with that solution is that he was *shown* not given. He observed the evidence for himself, but he does not have the ability to show that evidence to another. He simply has the ability to describe his observations.

Wait, so if you suddenly had some random hallucination that God had come to you and was showing you things, you'd believe it? Wouldn't you doubt your rational self for even one moment that it might have just been a dream...that your desire to believe in a God caused you to dream of his existence?

Edited by Mimpy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, so if you suddenly had some random hallucination that God had come to you and was showing you things, you'd believe it? Wouldn't you doubt your rational self for even one moment that it might have just been a dream...that your desire to believe in a God caused you to dream of his existence?
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
There are huge numbers of studies in the area of medicine which indicate that a person can cause actual effects on the body by unaware use of the mind: the placebo effect is the most common example, which medical researchers count on, and then there is Munchausen syndrome, in fact most things known as "syndromes" are mentally induced. There are a number of ways to mentally induce warmness or the feeling of (indeed, objectively measurable) swelling in the body purely via the mind. So this "confirmation" is not, in fact confirmation (see my previous comments about alternative explanations, and none of this requires anything more than the well-known phenomenon of wishful thinking.
Such a sensation is said to be accompanied by a general feeling of well-being and/or comfort.
But I am a rabid atheist, and yet I experience a general feeling of well-being and comfort when I complete a paper or argument and see "That is a job well done!". How do you explain that, when it is not in response to a prior belief in god and a prayer for confirmation of the beliefs?
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 is a well-known phenomenon as well, known as an auditory hallucination. The most common causes are schizophrenia and drugs, but in fact any ordinary person can have low-level hallucinations a few times in their life. When you have full-blown whole-sentence awake hallucinations, that's when you should consult a physician. At any rate, as a responsible investigator, you have to establish that what you had wasn't an auditory hallucination.

I have a long-standing offer, which nobody has ever even tried to take up. I will quite my job and renounce my atheistic position, and spend the rest of my life extolling the virtues of whatever deity you want, if you can induce in me a replicable supernatural experience. Tell god to give me a call. If I hang up, tell him to give me another call. He knows my phone number, if he's god. If he needs help, I'm at 67.6709 N, and he can get the address and phon number from that.

Anugrhito' smi (if you're gonna sign off in Sanskrit, I'm gonna up the ante).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a long-standing offer, which nobody has ever even tried to take up. I will quite my job and renounce my atheistic position, and spend the rest of my life extolling the virtues of whatever deity you want, if you can induce in me a replicable supernatural experience.
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! ;-)

Anugrhito' smi (if you're gonna sign off in Sanskrit, I'm gonna up the ante).
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
I have a burning sensation in my gullet. How would I know that this is God and not reflux?

BTW, as someone who comes from India, I really wish all the Namaste types would simply migrate there.

Pranam

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or perhaps whatever deity you renounce your job for will provide for your lodging and sustenance?
I take it then that you don't really believe this god stuff, and thus don't actually believe that god can give me a call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take it then that you don't really believe this god stuff, and thus don't actually believe that god can give me a call.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would probably consider me an irrationally hopeful skeptic. I hope that there is a continuation of consciousness after death, ...
Well, a newspaper article today tells me that 25% of Americans think there's be a second coming of Christ, so your ideas themselves are no surprise...very run-of-the-mill really. THe disgusting part is the implication that your ideas have something in common with Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, a newspaper article today tells me that 25% of Americans think there's be a second coming of Christ,

Now that's just silly. He would have had to come a first time before he can come a second. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

No, I consider you confused on basic epistemology. There is no evidence - none - of consciousness after death. You have no reason to believe it. It is not a possibility, but an arbitrary assertion. You do not find the evidence compelling because there isn't any - just your wish, your wish that reality isn't what it is. Well you can go on wishing all you want to, but you ought to be condemned for it. Wishful thinking isn't an innocent indulgence, it is an evil pathology that has caused and continues to cause terrible problems for mankind.

If you were sincere in your search for truth, you would start by renouncing baseless, wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird... Im not exactly getting the reasons for their association with Ayn Rand and Objectivism, seems very contradictory... But therein is probably the answer... dogma = irrationality, so why not Ayn Rand... heh.

There is another site, which is completely not mormon... :thumbsup: It looks to be a new set up, nice little page layout... Cool little forum for Objectivists, seems to have a focus on Idealism... as opposed to pragmatic ism I would assume. The link is in my signature... Weird name though, memorable I guess, but a little weird... Cold Orb... hmm, anyway.

Hi all, Im new, obviously, I guess I should post in the intro page.

Edited by Shinjiku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I consider you confused on basic epistemology. There is no evidence - none - of consciousness after death.
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 have no reason to believe it. It is not a possibility, but an arbitrary assertion.
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.).

You do not find the evidence compelling because there isn't any - just your wish, your wish that reality isn't what it is.
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.

Well you can go on wishing all you want to, but you ought to be condemned for it. Wishful thinking isn't an innocent indulgence, it is an evil pathology that has caused and continues to cause terrible problems for mankind.
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!!!?

If you were sincere in your search for truth, you would start by renouncing baseless, wishful thinking.
Really? A sincere seeker of truth would do that? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THe disgusting part is the implication that your ideas have something in common with Objectivism.
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you find so disgusting about the implication?
The implication that there is something similar between my ideas and yours. The implication that the 90% rests on a faith, making all of it into completely useless dogma.

The 90% idea is a false claim. By accepting the idea of God, one undermines all of Objectivism. Just because your feelings and faith lead you to assert certain whimsical political ideas that happen, for the moment, to coincide with mine, does not mean you and I really "agree". As an analogy, the US aided the Taliban and Bin Laden against a common enemy; however, that did not make the US and the Taliban into even "10% friends". Those two remained intellectual enemies, and, later, real enemies.

As an aside, I find it very disgusting that 21st century people would still simply follow the faith of their forefathers, by an unthinking osmosis. Still, I realize that you guys are reactionary "turn-back-the-clock", luddite blimps in the otherwise upward progress of civilization. I'm pretty optimistic that my descendants will see a day where religious people will hide their beliefs as a shameful secret and hope they are never "outed".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"answer... dogma = irrationality, so why not Ayn Rand... heh."

I am an Objectivist, just in case my diction in the above could be misconstrued as associating Objectivism with dogma... I am not. :pimp:

Edited by Shinjiku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The implication that there is something similar between my ideas and yours. The implication that the 90% rests on a faith, making all of it into completely useless dogma.
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.

The 90% idea is a false claim. By accepting the idea of God, one undermines all of Objectivism.
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.

Just because your feelings and faith lead you to assert certain whimsical political ideas that happen, for the moment, to coincide with mine, does not mean you and I really "agree".
It does though, if only on those particular "political ideas" you believe to be so whimsical on my part.

As an analogy, the US aided the Taliban and Bin Laden against a common enemy; however, that did not make the US and the Taliban into even "10% friends". Those two remained intellectual enemies, and, later, real enemies.
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.

As an aside, I find it very disgusting that 21st century people would still simply follow the faith of their forefathers, by an unthinking osmosis.
I don't find it disgusting, I simply find it disappointing, and in specific instances very disconcerting. But not disgusting.

Still, I realize that you guys are reactionary "turn-back-the-clock", luddite blimps in the otherwise upward progress of civilization.
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.

I'm pretty optimistic that my descendants will see a day where religious people will hide their beliefs as a shameful secret and hope they are never "outed".
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

A difference of opinion? The matter of something existing or not existing is NOT a matter of opinion. Reality is what it is, without contradiction. A is A. This is exactly the kind of primacy of consciouness thinking which causes so much destruction.

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.

See above.

Really? A sincere seeker of truth would do that? (renounce baseless, wishful thinking) Why?

See above.

Entertaining the arbitrary is a rejection of man's only means to knowledge.

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!!!?

Yes, condemned. Exactly how is moral condemnation an initation of force? It is not as though someone suggestion the person ought to be stoned.

Rejecting reason is NOT an "innocent indulgence in fantasy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that sounds awfully emotional and insecure for someone who is supposed to be operating on purely rational reasoning.
Let me explain with another analogy. Go to YouTube and search for the illegal taping of Saddam's hanging. Put yourself in the position of those who think that Saddam deserved the death penalty for the many murders he committed. If you view the video with this mindset with the sound off and subtitles suppressed, you see justice being served. Next, watch it with the sound on and subtitles turned on. Now, you see the dancing, chanting Sadrists. That brings home the nature of these so-called friends. It's utterly disgusting to view even this implication that there is something similar between rational folk who want justice served on Saddam and these evil Shia who just want to be bigger thugs than he. It's disgusting to see evil people. It's disgusting to think that they attempt to associate themselves with one's own cleanliness. If you wish to call that disgust "insecure", ...whatever; throwing out words at random doesn't mean they make sense. It's not "insecure" to pull leeaches off one's body.

As for it sounding "emotional", this appears to be another part of that elusive 10% of Objectivism that you do not understand. You should read "Anthem", "The Fountainhead", "We the Living" and "Atlas Shrugged". You'll see heroes who are committed to their values with a passion almost too strong for the weak word "emotion". Emotions are not tools of cognition. However, they're not bad things to be repressed; far from it -- without emotions, happiness is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
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...