Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Checking Premises . ORG Statements and My Position

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

You would have to look up DH's Atloscon write up and her 05/31/2011 podcast to see what her argument was for eating brainless children. Effectively, she was stating that they didn't have rights and therefore could be eaten, which is a rationalistic argument, basically putting such children in the same category as cattle and chickens. She even elaborated and said we could have them in grocery stores and her and the audience celebrated the fact that we could have baby baby-backed ribs! As I said in my previous post, it overlooks the fact that such deformed children are born of human parents, that it would be a great tragedy for the parents, and that they would not drop that context and take the position that, "Hey, Johnny didn't quite come out right, so let's have him for dinner!" Her position drops a great deal of context of expectant parents. So, it is not a matter of me disagreeing with her conclusion that labels that argument as rationalistic, it is the fact that she dropped a great deal of facts and context in her processing of considering what to do with brainless children. And by the way, I am not morally condemning her for making that mistake -- I see it as an error of method -- and she ought to realize she made an error, acknowledge it, correct her mistake, and take down that portion of that podcast.

This is exactly the kind of ridiculous misrepresentation of what I said that motivated me to terminate any and all conversation with Thomas M. on this matter ... and any other. He consistently distorted my views -- even after I repeatedly explained that to him. And he continues to do so. It's deeply frustrating to me that he's running around the internet making these kinds of false claims about me.

I suggest that anyone interested in my actual views and statements completely ignore his claims. Go listen to what I said for yourself; go read what I wrote for yourself.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DH's reply to accusations: I don't claim to speak for Objectivism, nor do I regard my new philosophic work as part of Objectivism. (That's part of the reason why my webcast is "Philosophy in Action," not "Objectivism in Action.") I regard my philosophic work as compatible with Objectivism. But it is my own work, and others can and ought to judge its compatibility for themselves.

If DH is not going to claim that she is a professional philosopher speaking for Objectivism and not considering herself to be a professional Objectivist philosopher specializing in ethics, then part of the controversy is already over.

As for me misrepresenting her podcast on brainless children, she even reiterates the point in her reply:

DH on brainless children: On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that's not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person's thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It's a natural question.)

So, she will have to explain how my views in the previous post misrepresent her views. And yes, please do listen to that podcast and how she and her audience celebrated the fact that we could have human baby baby-backed ribs.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I would disagree with this. The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy -- it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter.

That argument isn't even internally consistent. You claim that the moral intrincisist elements in a religion with the features you describe will inevitably lead to religious totalitarianism, but there's a reason you limit yourself to Christianity during the Dark Ages: because it would be historically illiterate to make the same claim about Christianity during the Reformation or the Renaissance. And yet, during those periods Christianity still held that God created the universe and handed down absolute moral law. So what changed? Those elements will always be there, and the emphasis on faith, revelation, and moral intrinsicism will always create a tendency towards the type of political system you're talking about. However, this tendency does not make such a result inevitable, precisely because such a religion is internally inconsistent. Without internal consistency, interpretation and emphasis make all the difference in the world.

What changed during the Reformation and Renaissance was the interpretation and the emphasis of Christianity. The Bible didn't change, but the beliefs and the teachings did. For Christianity, those who stressed religious and political freedom gained ground on those who stressed revelation and authoritarianism. Isolating one element of Christianity and arguing that the tendency it introduces into the ideology is inevitable constitutes a rationalistic argument that ignores historical fact, and the argument is still rationalistic when applied to Islam. For Islam, as well as for Christianity, there are those who stress religious and political freedom and liberal values as well as those who advocate for authoritarianism, and both sides have to ignore some element of their religion in order to hold a consistent position one way or another. Islamic totalitarianism is a subset of Islam, one which faces strong opposition from the rest. If you're going to equate the two based on the fact that "The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy," then there is also no difference between Christianity and Christian totalitarianism; they are one and the same movement. After all, Christianity has these elements too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What changed during the Reformation and Renaissance was the interpretation and the emphasis of Christianity. The Bible didn't change, but the beliefs and the teachings did. For Christianity, those who stressed religious and political freedom gained ground on those who stressed revelation and authoritarianism.

This is incorrect. It's not that Christianity changed its focus, but rather that Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas changed the emphasis to reason rather than faith as a motivational factor in human existence. The Renaissance didn't just happen because Christians changed their minds without cause or because they were tired of theocracy. Without Aquinas and a new emphasis on reason, it never would have happened. Similarly, those Muslims who place a great emphasis on following reason rather than faith do seek freedom, and even move over here and are good people, by and large. I even worked for a company that was run by a Muslim and several Muslims co-workers who were quite rational and good to know. But they were only this way because they accepted reason over faith to guide them in their daily lives. The imams who run Iran and other Islamic States are not this way at all. In fact, when Aristotle was on the rise in Islamic countries pre-Renaissance, it was the imams who squelched it, leaving Islamic lands in a perpetual state of theocratic rule to various degrees to this day.

[added on edit] Keep in mind that the Dark Ages extended for many hundreds of years and nearly a thousand years by some estimations (depending on where you begin and end the time period). The Christians had plenty of time to check their premises on their own but didn't do so until the pagan influence came back on the rise after Aquinas.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incorrect. It's not that Christianity changed its focus, but rather that Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas changed the emphasis to reason rather than faith as a motivational factor in human existence. The Renaissance didn't just happen because Christians changed their minds without cause or because they were tired of theocracy. Without Aquinas and a new emphasis on reason, it never would have happened. Similarly, those Muslims who place a great emphasis on following reason rather than faith do seek freedom, and even move over here and are good people, by and large. I even worked for a company that was run by a Muslim and several Muslims co-workers who were quite rational and good to know. But they were only this way because they accepted reason over faith to guide them in their daily lives. The imams who run Iran and other Islamic States are not this way at all. In fact, when Aristotle was on the rise in Islamic countries pre-Renaissance, it was the imams who squelched it, leaving Islamic lands in a perpetual state of theocratic rule to various degrees to this day.

Of course the shift was driven through individuals within Christianity who placed reason over faith, including Aquinas. That's my argument. Christianity is what Christians practice, and the religion as a whole shifted due to the positive influence of Christians like Aquinas. And there is a similar tension between different kinds of Muslims, as you yourself note from personal experience. Islam =/= Islamic Totalitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diana Hsieh's reply to critics:

http://blog.dianahsi...troversies.html

Another observation regarding this reply: It was very long and she must have taken some time to consider it and to write it up; and yet, she doesn't make her case more clear for any of the controversial positions -- she doesn't use the objective method of going to the facts and reasoning from the facts to better explain why she is for property rights over the right to life in her NYC Mosque position. This would have been the time for her to do that. Likewise for transgenders. As to the eating brainless babies part, she does say it would be morally repulsive, but she doesn't explain why. If she can show that she is right by an objective standard, that would be great, but she hasn't done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the shift was driven through individuals within Christianity who placed reason over faith, including Aquinas. That's my argument. Christianity is what Christians practice, and the religion as a whole shifted due to the positive influence of Christians like Aquinas. And there is a similar tension between different kinds of Muslims, as you yourself note from personal experience. Islam =/= Islamic Totalitarianism.

Exactly. This contradiction was so clear in Thomas's post that I figured there was little point pointing out the obvious to someone who could put forward such a blatant logical flaw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are at war with Islam (or Islamic Totalitarianism, to use Yaron's words) for the same reason we were at war against Nazism and Shintoism during World War II.

Hahaha!

The U.S. was at war with the nations of Germany and Japan, not with Nazism and Shintoism. This is a fact of reality. You claim to be concerned with facts, no?

That our officials have not stated so openly shows their moral cowardice and their refusal to acknowledge that holding onto certain ideas and acting on them is dangerous to the United States.

So, your position is that officials should acknowledge the "eminent" danger to our "metaphysical survival" and do something daring and heroic to save all of our lives, such as prevent a single building from being constructed while allowing those who you're claiming are threatening our "metaphysical survival" to walk freely amongst us? If we're actually in "eminent" danger, shouldn't you be advocating killing those who are threatening us, rather than just taking actions against symbolism?

The irrational qua irrational (i.e. Kantianism) posses no direct physical threat to anyone, and hence we cannot take physical action against those who preach it openly. But when imams of Islam openly preach that the infidel ought to be slaughtered wherever they are and openly recruit terrorist acts against non-believers (suicide bombers in Israel), then yes, we can take specific physical action against them.

And by "specific physical action," you mean that we can prevent them from constructing a building in a symbolic location, but you're hesitant to arrest, imprison or kill the people whom you've accused of threatening our lives and posing an "eminent" danger. Illogical. Irrational.

[added on edit] I will remind you that inciting a riot is illegal and ought to be when one is directly encouraging others to take up violent acts against those not using force against anyone. Similarly, if an imam is directly encouraging his flock to take up arms against those not using force against them for the sake of spreading Islam, then yes , this, too, is illegal.

If someone is doing something illegal, are you not aware that there are proper procedures to deal with it? Do you understand that there are laws and a system in place for judging and punishing criminal's actions, and that you don't just get to declare that someone is an "eminent" threat to you and invent a punishment off the top of your head (such as that they will not be imprisoned or in any other way hindered, except that they won't be allowed to construct a building which you find offensive).

The acceptance of Islam practiced fully leads a man to turn away from reason as an absolute, to submit his own rational judgement to that of the religious leader, to make him submit; which is evil.

I think that you should be more concerned about what has caused you to turn away from reason. Your argument here is anything but reasonable.

By contrast, Objectivism understands that the mind is individual and that we are not to submit to either Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff or to any other man who claims to be an intellectual leader. One has to think things through on their own, judging the truth or falsity of an idea or a system of ideas by his own rational effort. And Dr.Peikoff has come out and stated that one does not have to agree with him on every topic, that neither he nor Ayn Rand sought blind followers.

But Peikoff has also taken the opposite position, which gives the impression that he is only giving lip service when saying that one does not have to agree with him on every topic. Many times he has made one assertion or another -- such as how one must vote, etc. -- and claimed that anyone who disagrees with him doesn't understand and is not practicing Objectivism. And look at the McCaskey ordeal. McCaskey privately offered constructive criticism of a project and ideas that Peikoff backed. As a result, he was run off. That's not how people are treated when blind followers are not being sought.

Yes, he is an authority on Objectivism -- the one most knowledgeable about it and what Ayn Rand taught...

By what means have you determined that Peikoff is the most knowledgeable of Objectivism? Have you tested him versus others? Have you exposed him to the open criticisms of others? Or are you just making an arbitrary assertion that you merely wish to be true?

And besides, if you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Peikoff, Binswanger, Yaron, or anyone else, then out with it and prove your case.

I've often done just that. I'd suggest that you look through OO's section on aesthetics for examples of posts and threads in which I've proven my cases.

However, if you are going to claim that Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires), anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected), God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts), Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), modern art ( no content smears on canvas), determinism (which rejects reason is volitional) or any other such thing is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught.

Actually, when it came to art, Rand had contradictory views. For example, she defined art as a selective re-creation of reality, yet she accepted architecture as a valid art form despite explicitly saying that it "does not re-create reality;" she asserted that utilitarian objects could not be art, yet she accepted architecture as art despite stating that it was utilitarian; she asserted that art works must have objectively intelligible subjects and meanings, and that if they cease to present intelligible subjects and meanings then they cease to be art, yet she classified music as a valid art form despite stating that it does not present objectively intelligible subjects and meanings; and dance also does not qualify as an art form by her stated criteria, yet she accepted it as valid.

In short, what is or is not art to an Objectivist depends on which of Rand's conflicting positions actually represent Objectivism. Must art be objectively intelligible and meaningful? If so, then "modern art" is not art, but neither is music, architecture, dance and perhaps many forms of realistic visual art, and maybe even quite a lot of poetry and literature. On the other hand, can certain things qualify as art because, like Rand, we want them to be in a special "class by themselves" which contradict our criteria, or because we believe that someday someone will discover an objective "conceptual vocabulary" for those art forms? If so then music, architecture and dance can qualify, but then so can "modern art."

Also, among the things that I disagree with Rand about but don't need to take your suggestion and "think it through again" is her claim that Kant was the "father" of the "modern art" that she disliked. The ideas contained in Kant's Third Critique are not the basis of "modern art" as Rand falsely claimed. As I've said on other threads here at OO and elsewhere, it would be closer to the truth to say that Kant's aesthetics are the basis of the Objectivist Esthetics, and more specifically of Rand's aesthetic "sense of life." His concept of the Sublime is the core of Rand's aesthetic style.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the shift was driven through individuals within Christianity who placed reason over faith, including Aquinas. That's my argument. Christianity is what Christians practice, and the religion as a whole shifted due to the positive influence of Christians like Aquinas. And there is a similar tension between different kinds of Muslims, as you yourself note from personal experience. Islam =/= Islamic Totalitarianism.

Since you and SN think this is a contradiction, I have to voice my disagreement. Christianity is not what Christians *do* or practice, it is what they think and then act upon. A man is driven by his conscious mind -- by the ideas he accepts -- and is not classified by what he does as a primary.

The point I was making is that there is no evidence that Aquinas was ever an Augustinian Catholic -- that he was an Augustinian and changed his mind upon reading Aristotle, coming up with his own philosophy. Likewise, his philosophy, Thomism, did not convert die-hard Augustinians, who thought Faith was the only way to truth. Similarly, we do not see modern day Kantian professors reading Ayn Rand and having an epiphany and shouting to the world that they have finally seen the truth and have become Objectivists. Philosophy simply doesn't spread that way. Once someone has twisted their minds away from reality sufficiently so, there is no going back. One cannot develop the epistemology of Faith as a primary -- or even rationalism as a primary (Augustine) -- and then take to reason by simply changing one's mind. So, it was not the fact that Christians suddenly changed their minds upon reading Aristotle or Aquinas -- it was changed by those who had not yet made up their minds, and were still open to reason. Similarly, it is not the imams who will change their minds about Islam, come to accept either Aristotle, Thomism, or Objectivism, and live a more rationally based life. No, it will be those (mostly the young) who have not yet become totally Faith oriented who will become a better person and disavow some of the more violent aspects of Islam. However, this does not change the basic nature of Islam, just as Thomism did not change the basic nature of The Bible. By and large, the Muslims in America are like the Christians in America, they give lip service to their religion, but ignore it most of the week, following a modern life based upon reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is time for a friendly reminder:

To Students of Objectivism

By Thomas M. Miovas, Jr.

02/14/2012

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an integrated system of ideas covering the nature of reality (metaphysics), how the human conscious mind works (epistemology), what one ought to do (ethics), how men should interact with one another in a social context (politics), and the nature of art (aesthetics). Being a philosophy, it is an integrated whole making it one thing in reality – one system of thought. It takes a while to understand this if one has not studied philosophy, but rather has started off with her novels. No part of Objectivism can be torn apart from any other part of her philosophy, and still be a philosophy. If one tried to break it down piecemeal and accepting some but not all of her integrated ideas, then one is not grasping the whole, nor is one an Objectivist. Similarly, if one tries to substitute one aspect of her philosophy with another philosophy or just “common sense”, then one is not an Objectivist.

A great many people read Ayn Rand’s philosophy already having some ideas about the nature of reality and man’s place in it, and hence argue with the points of Objectivism; which is fine, since there is a learning curve, and Objectivism is not a philosophy of commandments handed down from Ayn Rand. However, there are those who do believe that anything goes, so long as they agree with the axioms (existence, identity, and consciousness), and go astray from the philosophy with their own ideas not compatible with Objectivism due to errors of thought.

The primary methodology of Objectivism is objectivity – of remaining logically consistent with the facts of reality, rather than going by one’s emotions or being consistent idea to idea or following mere convention of word usages. It is this going by the facts in a non-contradictory manner (logic) that sets Objectivism apart from other philosophies. And this methodology is celebrated among Objectivists even over disagreements, so long as the disagreements are presented in a logical manner. Though it takes a while to learn how to do this method, Objectivism does encourage rational independence; so long as one is not independent of the facts of reality nor the facts about what Objectivism *is* as presented by Ayn Rand while calling oneself an Objectivist.

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Dr. Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook, or anyone else -- then out with it and prove your case. However, if you are going to claim that Libertarianism (rights based on wants and desires), anarcho-capitalism (competition of governments, which Miss Rand specifically rejected), God (for which there is no evidence), rationalism as an ideal (logic not based on facts), Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), modern art ( no content smears on canvas), determinism (which rejects reason is volitional) or any other such thing is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught. If you want to hold onto such ideas, you are free to do so, but calling yourself an Objectivist while doing so is to be involved in a contradiction; which should be rejected, one way or the other.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy -- it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter."

But this statement simply ignores historical facts. For starters, the Dark Ages (the period following the collapse of the Roman Empire) was not, in fact, a period of theocracy -- rather, it was a period of chaos of political governance characterized by smaller, tribalistic nation-states warring with one another and with the various barbarian forces who had overwhelmed the Empire. Christianity survived this (and preserved, through the monasteries, the legacy of the ancient Greek and Roman learning), but was far too dispersed to constitute a "religious totalitarianistic theocracy". Even in the medieval period, regional (national) differences were quite real, and the term "theocracy" would not apply.

Further, your statement "The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy" also ignores the establishment of the United States. Clearly, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the founders (a mixed lot theologically, but all deists) believed in a "God-created universe", but this did not result in a "religious totalitarianistic theocracy". Quite the opposite" -- we have a pluralistic society, and the Constitution specifically mandates the free exercise of religion without interference of the government. This in opposition to your "logical" assertions...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was making is that there is no evidence that Aquinas was ever an Augustinian Catholic -- that he was an Augustinian and changed his mind upon reading Aristotle, coming up with his own philosophy. Likewise, his philosophy, Thomism, did not convert die-hard Augustinians, who thought Faith was the only way to truth....So, it was not the fact that Christians suddenly changed their minds upon reading Aristotle or Aquinas -- it was changed by those who had not yet made up their minds, and were still open to reason.

That's great. I never implied otherwise. In fact, if you actually read my post, you'd see I put the emphasis on reason-based Christians replacing authoritarian-based Christians: "For Christianity, those who stressed religious and political freedom gained ground on those who stressed revelation and authoritarianism." I never implied that those who stressed revelation and authoritarianism changed their minds, but rather that they lost influence to those who stressed reason. If you can find somewhere where I made the ridiculous claim that most living people in the religion actually changed their minds, rather than the shift occurring over generations, please point to it. Otherwise, I hope we're done straw-manning and side-tracking; yes?

Similarly, it is not the imams who will change their minds about Islam, come to accept either Aristotle, Thomism, or Objectivism, and live a more rationally based life. No, it will be those (mostly the young) who have not yet become totally Faith oriented who will become a better person and disavow some of the more violent aspects of Islam. However, this does not change the basic nature of Islam, just as Thomism did not change the basic nature of The Bible. By and large, the Muslims in America are like the Christians in America, they give lip service to their religion, but ignore it most of the week, following a modern life based upon reason.

What is your support for the claim that radical faith-based Christianity is more faithful to the "basic nature" of the Bible than reason-based Christians, or that radical Muslims are more faithful to the "basic nature" of Islam than those that also support Western values? Both belief systems have self-contradictory elements, and yet you seem to hold the view that one side of such contradictions reflects the "true" religion and the other does not. How do you know this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your support for the claim that radical faith-based Christianity is more faithful to the "basic nature" of the Bible than reason-based Christians, or that radical Muslims are more faithful to the "basic nature" of Islam than those that also support Western values? Both belief systems have self-contradictory elements, and yet you seem to hold the view that one side of such contradictions reflects the "true" religion and the other does not. How do you know this?

Point to me a passage or passages in the Bible or the Koran that guides man to think for himself and to understand the world through reason.

As to waiting for generations; we are at war. We should insure that insofar as the Muslims who do want to kill us because we are infidel have no further generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is time for a friendly reminder...

...Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an integrated system...

...and the nature of art (aesthetics)...

...No part of Objectivism can be torn apart from any other part of her philosophy, and still be a philosophy. If one tried to break it down piecemeal and accepting some but not all of her integrated ideas, then one is not grasping the whole, nor is one an Objectivist. Similarly, if one tries to substitute one aspect of her philosophy with another philosophy or just “common sense”, then one is not an Objectivist.

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand...

...then out with it and prove your case...

...modern art...

...then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught. If you want to hold onto such ideas, you are free to do so, but calling yourself an Objectivist while doing so is to be involved in a contradiction; which should be rejected, one way or the other.

I also think it's time for a friendly reminder: I gave examples in post #58 in which Rand directly contradicted herself when presenting her views of the Objectivist Esthetics. And therefore Objectivism does not have a single, coherent position on the subject of aesthetics. Depending on which of Rand's contradictory positions actually represents Objectivism, Objectivism currently either accepts certain things as art despite the fact that they do not meet Rand's definition and criteria, or it arbitrarily rejects certain art forms despite the fact that they are no less objectively intelligible and meaningful than some of the art forms that Objectivism accepts.

Objectivists need to "think it through again" when it comes to aesthetics. Do you think that you have any solutions to Objectivism's problems and errors that I've identified, Thomas? If so, then out with it and make your case. Address my points rather than ignoring them and re-posting your comments that I've already addressed (if you prefer, you can review some of my more detailed criticisms of the Objectivist Esthetics in the aesthetics section here at OO and answer my points there if you think that doing so here would be off-topic).

[edited to add]:

You said,

"If you want to hold onto such ideas, you are free to do so, but calling yourself an Objectivist while doing so is to be involved in a contradiction; which should be rejected, one way or the other."

Well, since Rand blatantly contradicted her own statements on aesthetics, I take it that you think that it is improper to call her an Objectivist?

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy -- it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter."

But this statement simply ignores historical facts. For starters, the Dark Ages (the period following the collapse of the Roman Empire) was not, in fact, a period of theocracy -- rather, it was a period of chaos of political governance characterized by smaller, tribalistic nation-states warring with one another and with the various barbarian forces who had overwhelmed the Empire. Christianity survived this (and preserved, through the monasteries, the legacy of the ancient Greek and Roman learning), but was far too dispersed to constitute a "religious totalitarianistic theocracy". Even in the medieval period, regional (national) differences were quite real, and the term "theocracy" would not apply.

Further, your statement "The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy" also ignores the establishment of the United States. Clearly, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the founders (a mixed lot theologically, but all deists) believed in a "God-created universe", but this did not result in a "religious totalitarianistic theocracy". Quite the opposite" -- we have a pluralistic society, and the Constitution specifically mandates the free exercise of religion without interference of the government. This in opposition to your "logical" assertions...

It is not an essential distinction against applying the concept theocracy that the Pope himself did not command armies and rule personally but rather let the sovereigns of the distant kingdoms rule with his approval and endorsement, and would arrange wars against the rebellious and disobedient. Although the Catholic Church did not rule Europe directly it never permitted the existence of contrary, blasphemous thoughts on the topics it considered important. Heretics such as Galileo could be imprisoned or excommunicated, monarchs ruled following the "model of heaven" and the Reformation was a period of warfare because the thought that someone somewhere was not worshipping God correctly or tithing to the Catholic Church was not tolerated.

The English monarchy went from Catholicism to Church of England to Protestanism (no king during the time of Cromwell) and eventually settled on the strange compromise of a Protestant monarchy bound by law to be head of the quasi-Catholic Church of England. Centuries of conflict came down to an arrangement that nullified the power and influence of both sides, and this was the recent example of reducing the role of religion in government that the Americans relied on in writing their own non-establishment clause to the Constitution. There would be no non-establishment clause if it were not for the theocratic episodes of the past.

edit: There was also religious conflict during the Dark Ages proper to the extent that Christianity had spread because of differing theologies. There were different Bibles until after Constantine.

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to waiting for generations; we are at war. We should insure that insofar as the Muslims who do want to kill us because we are infidel have no further generations.

And the best way to prevent terrorists from killing us is to deny non-terrorists building permits in a single symbolic location!

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both belief systems have self-contradictory elements, and yet you seem to hold the view that one side of such contradictions reflects the "true" religion and the other does not. How do you know this?

"Philosophy is the hand maiden of theology" - Thomas Aquinas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy -- it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter."

I should have been more clear here, since merely a belief in The Bible as God's Word by itself may not lead to theocracy. Politics is based on one's metaphysics (the nature of reality), epistemology (how does man gain knowledge), and ethics (what is the right way to behave). This sets the ground rules for how men ought to be treated in a social context (politics). If one's metaphysics is that God rules over reality, which one knows by prayer or faith, and men should be held accountable for following His edicts, then one will get a theocracy. I did find an interesting article on the web concerning the Ancient Roman Theocracy started by Constantine, who gave the clergy significant political power to decide court cases according to God's Law:

"The Christian clergy were given all the privileges granted to pagan priests.” [16] In strengthening the Episcopal courts he decree that “…any man had the right, if his opponent agreed, to carry a civil suit to the Episcopal court, even after proceedings in that suit had already begun in civil court” [17] Later during his rule he increased the power of the Episcopal court even more in that appeals to the civil court could be made “…even after proceedings in that suit had already begun in civil court” [18] This essentially placed the Christian court above the civil court, as we see in further detail:

“(1) the decision of a bishop had to be accepted as final in cases concerning people of any age; (2) Any civil case could be transferred to the Episcopal court at any stage in the proceedings, even if the opposing side did not agree; [and] (3) the decisions of the Episcopal courts had to be sanctioned by civil judges”. [19]"

Regarding the Founding Fathers of America. Yes, some of them held that the Bible was God's Word, however there had been several centuries of intellectual battles as to whom could interpret The Bible -- only priests, or the common man? The Roman Theocracy was so vicious because only the chosen priests could interpret the true teachings of God, and hence their rule became unquestionable, and anyone else's interpretation of The Bible was not sanctioned at all. A lot of this "reasoning" was based on Plato and Augustine, who held that true insight into the Truth required special study by the "philosopher kings" and hence only they could rule according to proper principles. After Aquinas re-introduced Aristotle in a Christian light, the power of the *individual* reasoning mind was released, and though it took a few hundred years, Martin Luther was able to break the grip of the Roman Catholic Church by declaring that *anyone* could understand God's Word with his own mind; thus breaking the power grip the Church had on man's mind, leading to a splintering of the Church.

It took even longer for the idea that reason of the facts aside from the Bible could be a proper guide in a man's individual life, thus paving the way for The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason. The Founders were among these men who thought reason could guide a man's life, without necessarily conforming to God's Law; thus finally setting man's mind free of persecution of differences of thought regarding any topic. I can't give you the entire proof in one post, but that is the general outline.

The Founders had a this worldly metaphysics (God was placed in the background qua Deism), reason was held in the highest esteem (the discovery and knowledge of facts about the world became uppermost), there was an implicit egoism ( almost explicit in the Declaration of Independence "...pursuit of happiness"), and this all lead to a politics upholding the individual's right to be guided by his own rational mind -- thus a limited Constitutional Republic was formed.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the best way to prevent terrorists from killing us is to deny non-terrorists building permits in a single symbolic location!

J

I've been ignoring you because you keep giving flippant comments, like the above, which shows that you do not take ideas seriously.

As to your claim that part of Miss Rand's aesthetics was based on Kant, please provide the appropriate evidence from Kant's writing and from Rand's writing showing a similarity in thought. Since Kant's mind was so disconnected from reality that he never gave *any* concrete examples of what the hell he was talking about, good luck with that.

As to architecture, Miss Rand was clear, though there isn't much of a passage I can quote you from the online Lexicon: "The so-called visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) produce concrete, perceptually available entities and make them convey an abstract, conceptual meaning."

This becomes very clear simply by pointing to the obvious differences between a hut on the beach, a suburban home, a sky scraper, or a cathedral. Each type of building by it's shape, size, and visual outward design and inside spatial arrangements convey different meanings as to the nature of reality and man's place in it. For more details, read "The Fountainhead", a whole novel on the relationship of architecture to philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been ignoring you because you keep giving flippant comments, like the above, which shows that you do not take ideas seriously.

As to your claim that part of Miss Rand's aesthetics was based on Kant, please provide the appropriate evidence from Kant's writing and from Rand's writing showing a similarity in thought. Since Kant's mind was so disconnected from reality that he never gave *any* concrete examples of what the hell he was talking about, good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point to me a passage or passages in the Bible or the Koran that guides man to think for himself and to understand the world through reason.

Proverbs was always inspiring to me along the lines of seeking knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

My father, a Baptist minister at the time when I was leaving home, presented me with the following: "Always remember that education is really about learning how to learn."

Does it specifically state: "Think for yourself, and understand the world through reason?" No.

From Proverbs 15

1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. 2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright : but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness. 3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good. 4 A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit. 5 A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent. 6 In the house of the righteous is much treasure: but in the revenues of the wicked is trouble . 7 The lips of the wise disperse knowledge: but the heart of the foolish doeth not so. 8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight. 9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but he loveth him that followeth after righteousness. 10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die. 11 Hell and destruction are before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men? 12 A scorner loveth not one that reproveth him: neither will he go unto the wise. 13 A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the heart the spirit is broken. 14 The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness. 15 All the days of the afflicted are evil: but he that is of a merry heart hath a continual feast. 16 Better is little with the fear of the LORD than great treasure and trouble therewith. 17 Better is a dinner of herbs where love is, than a stalled ox and hatred therewith. 18 A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger appeaseth strife. 19 The way of the slothful man is as an hedge of thorns: but the way of the righteous is made plain . 20 A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish man despiseth his mother. 21 Folly is joy to him that is destitute of wisdom: but a man of understanding walketh uprightly. 22 Without counsel purposes are disappointed : but in the multitude of counsellors they are established . 23 A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word spoken in due season, how good is it! 24 The way of life is above to the wise , that he may depart from hell beneath. 25 The LORD will destroy the house of the proud: but he will establish the border of the widow. 26 The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the LORD: but the words of the pure are pleasant words. 27 He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; but he that hateth gifts shall live . 28 The heart of the righteous studieth to answer : but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things. 29 The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous. 30 The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart: and a good report maketh the bones fat . 31 The ear that heareth the reproof of life abideth among the wise. 32 He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding. 33 The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility.

While the word "reason" was not applied specifically in the KJV, the terms reproof and correction are forms of identifying error, a means of "refining" and "purifying" ones knowledge and understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been ignoring you because you keep giving flippant comments, like the above, which shows that you do not take ideas seriously.

Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that you would see my pointing out the irrationality of your position as being "flippant."

As to your claim that part of Miss Rand's aesthetics was based on Kant...

I did not claim that Rand's aesthetics was based on Kant. Rather, what I said was that it would be "closer to the truth" to say that Kant's ideas on aesthetics are the basis of the Objectivist Esthetics. In other words, there are many similarities between Kant's aesthetics and Rand's, especially his concept of the Sublime, where there are none between his views and the "modern art" that Rand hated and blamed him for.

Also, Kant's aesthetics had some influence over Romanticism, and obviously Rand was influenced by Romanticism, and therefore there is at least an indirect link between Rand and Kant via Romanticism.

...please provide the appropriate evidence from Kant's writing and from Rand's writing showing a similarity in thought.

Why? Aren't you aware of Kant's aesthetic views? Haven't you read his Third Critique and seen for yourself the similarities to Rand?

I'm more than willing to provide evidence, but, in return, will you do what Rand failed to do: provide evidence that Kant's Critique of Judgment is the basis of "modern art"?

Anyway, here's some of my evidence:

To Kant, the experience of the Sublime was our enjoyment of having our capacity to reason stimulated, to feel our will to resist whatever powerful forces man or nature may throw at us, and to adhere to our highest chosen principles. His view of the Sublime was that our experiencing mind-boggling magnitudes, seemingly infinite and therefore formless phenonena, and awesome, threatening powers allow us to feel our cognitive and moral superiority.

He wrote,

"Every affection of the strenuous type (such, that is, as excites the consciousness of our power of overcoming every resistance [animus strenuus]) is aesthetically sublime, e.g., anger, even desperation (the rage of forlorn hope but not faint-hearted despair)...

"Everything that provokes this feeling in us, including the might of nature which challenges our strength, is then called sublime, and it is only under presupposition of this idea within us, and in relation to it, that we are capable of attaining to the idea of the sublimity of that being which inspires deep respect in us, not by the mere display of its might in nature, but more by the faculty which is planted in us of estimating that might without fear, and of regarding our estate as exalted above it."

All of Rand's novels are excellent examples of Kant's notion of Sublimity -- they each contain overwhelming objects of terror -- especially political tyranny -- which is amorphous and of immense magnitude, and which threatens the novels' characters. Its terror stimulates readers' will to resist, to adhere to their highest principles, and to "regard their estate as exalted above it."

In other words, as I quoted Vacker and Johnson in this post on OL:

"Rand's aesthetic signature is captured better by the concept of the sublime, an experience in which elements of chaos — mind boggling magnitudes and fearsome powers — are incorporated into an elevating aesthetic phenomenon by the experience of man's cognitive mastery and moral superiority over them."

Clearly, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged express the natural and technological sublime, a modern aesthetic style born of post-Kantian aesthetics and industrial utopianism (Nye 1994). Rand's passionate explication of the sublime is the main reason those novels have become such revolutionary classics. Yet, What Art Is claims to present Rand's theory of aesthetics, not only absent the beautiful, but even without discussion of the sublime, the aesthetic style most emblematic of Rand's own writing.

Since Kant's mind was so disconnected from reality that he never gave *any* concrete examples of what the hell he was talking about, good luck with that.

Have you read his Third Critique? Apparently not. He gives plenty of examples.

As to architecture, Miss Rand was clear, though there isn't much of a passage I can quote you from the online Lexicon: "The so-called visual arts (painting, sculpture, architecture) produce concrete, perceptually available entities and make them convey an abstract, conceptual meaning."

Did you miss the part in my last post where I quoted Rand as saying that architecture "does not re-create reality"? Would you mind focusing on that point and addressing it?

Now, I would agree that people can find architecture to be "conceptually meaningful" -- just as meaningful as people can find abstract paintings to be -- but that doesn't mean that it complies with Rand's stated definition and criteria. She said that art is a "re-creation of reality," and that architecture is an art form that "does not re-create reality"! In other words, just like abstract art, its aesthetic means is not mimesis, but rather its abstract relational aspects (color, texture, proportion, etc.). I repeat: Rand's stated position was that architecture "does not re-create reality," but that it was somehow still a valid art form! Understand?

And, speaking of the online Lexicon, are you not aware of the fact that there is no entry for "architecture" because, according to Binswanger, Rand was having second thoughts about its status as an art form just prior to her death? She saw the contradiction! Isn't that enough to make you see it?

This becomes very clear simply by pointing to the obvious differences between a hut on the beach, a suburban home, a sky scraper, or a cathedral. Each type of building by it's shape, size, and visual outward design and inside spatial arrangements convey different meanings as to the nature of reality and man's place in it.

You seem to be saying that a beach hut, a suburban home, a sky scraper and a cathedral can't all have the same aesthetic meaning, or that they each have meanings inherent in their utilitarian function. Is that what you believe? Do you think that a beach hut, for example, can't be designed to express the glory of existence? If so, you're disagreeing with Rand.

For more details, read "The Fountainhead", a whole novel on the relationship of architecture to philosophy.

The Fountainhead offers no answers on how architecture can qualify as "re-creating reality" when it "does not re-create reality." It's a work of fiction which deviates from reality. It is not a philosophical treatise which addresses the problems of architecture qualifying as art according to Rand's criteria.

J

Edited by Jonathan13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great many people read Ayn Rand’s philosophy already having some ideas about the nature of reality and man’s place in it, and hence argue with the points of Objectivism; which is fine, since there is a learning curve, and Objectivism is not a philosophy of commandments handed down from Ayn Rand. However, there are those who do believe that anything goes, so long as they agree with the axioms (existence, identity, and consciousness), and go astray from the philosophy with their own ideas not compatible with Objectivism due to errors of thought.

And this methodology [objectivity] is celebrated among Objectivists even over disagreements, so long as the disagreements are presented in a logical manner. Though it takes a while to learn how to do this method, Objectivism does encourage rational independence; so long as one is not independent of the facts of reality nor the facts about what Objectivism *is* as presented by Ayn Rand while calling oneself an Objectivist.

If you think you have the facts and reason on your side in a disagreement between you and Miss Rand, Dr. Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Yaron Brook, or anyone else -- then out with it and prove your case. However, if you are going to claim that . . .Sophism (using pseudo-logic to justify anything you want to do), . . . is compatible with Objectivism, then you need to think it through again. Each of these is either a direct contradiction to what Miss Rand taught *is* Objectivism or does not logically (based on the facts) follow from anything she taught. If you want to hold onto such ideas, you are free to do so, but calling yourself an Objectivist while doing so is to be involved in a contradiction; which should be rejected, one way or the other.

How exactly do you go about separating when somebody is disagreeing with you on conclusions about the facts, especially if it goes on for quite a while, due to rational independence as opposed to mere "sophistry" as you described above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly do you go about separating when somebody is disagreeing with you on conclusions about the facts, especially if it goes on for quite a while, due to rational independence as opposed to mere "sophistry" as you described above?

You may have misunderstood what was saying about sophistry. The Sophists in Ancient Greece would come up with something they wanted to do or defend, and would manipulate premises to give the illusion that logic could either confirm or deny it or anything. I am not claiming that those who follow Miss Rand and have mistaken views as to what is or is not compatible with it are sophists. They tend to be rationalists who follow premises out of context, but they are not using pseudo-logic to affirm or deny anything that pops up in their mind qua the Sophists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be saying that a beach hut, a suburban home, a sky scraper and a cathedral can't all have the same aesthetic meaning, or that they each have meanings inherent in their utilitarian function. Is that what you believe? Do you think that a beach hut, for example, can't be designed to express the glory of existence? If so, you're disagreeing with Rand.

If you understand that these things can convey "the glory of existence [and man's place in it]" then you do grasp the idea of how architecture can be art, since it can convey a wide abstraction.

As to your claims about Kant and Rand similarities, you'll have to point to specific passages of both to make your point. The problem is that Kant was never specific enough and tends to mean anything to anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...