Sherlock

Someone complained that Ben Hur was a Christian movie: I would point out that several here have listed "Lord of the Rings" as one of their favorites, and that is definitely a Christian movie (implicit not explicit). Someone, (jlew?) mentioned "A Christmas Story"---heh, that's one that we watch every year. "It was.......soap..poisoning!!!" "Braveheart' was great. "Lawrence of Arabia"---a classic.

Free Capitalist, You wrote: "In regards to Deism and creationism, I don't see how their belief in Creation can be compared in any way to the Christian notion. Their notion is completely compatible with evolution, with scientific carbon dating, etc. They utterly reject the Bible, and they'll never say the Earth was created 6,000 years ago. I doubt they'll even say the Earth was created at all, only that the Universe was created, and the Earth could have formed fully through laws of nature alone." Well, if you're going to defend Deism, then I'll defend Christianity in this regard: not all Christians hold the positions you are accusing them of holding (a "young" earth; anti-evolution; etc)---except, of course, they don't reject the bible. It's very easy to argue against fundamentalist whackos, but don't make the mistake of assuming that all believe fundamentalism interpretations. I met a guy at a conference this past summer, a professor with a doctorate in physics, author of over forty books, who was also a Catholic priest.

Burgess, That is interesting information about Kant. I have not read any biographies, but obviously it would be worth my while. Thanks for the post.

Zoso, I'm curious: why didn't you consider abortion? Is your fiancee Catholic?

I'll second Toolboxnj's picks!

Sorry, Inquisitor, you're right: I wasn't paying enough attention to what you had posted. And no, it wasn't poorly written.

I don't agree that all stigmas are based off of religious doctrine. There is a stigma against having sex with your sister, and though it may be religious it's also just plain common sense, if one doesn't want to live in a society with dim-witted inbred individuals. I think that stigmas are useful for society, if unpleasant for the one incurring the stigma. Having large numbers of children born out of wedlock is a serious problem for a society (just look at stats), and society (and the individuals who comprise it), has a vested interest in its own stability.

Redfarmer, You wrote: "You used an abstraction to demonstrate that the Earth blowing up would be a bad thing." No, I did not. Using values that are observable in real life, I applied it to your hypothetical situation. The values I am referencing are not fictional, they are observable in reality. Your "value", that suicide is "life-affirming", is not based on any values that are observable in real life, but is based on fictional characters. You have given no examples of real-life "life-affirming" suicides. You wrote: "Based on the fact that a loved one is one of the most precious things on Earth to a person, most people would rather die than watch that person be tortured and/or killed in order to abstract information from them." If that were true, then history would be replete with examples of such suicides, but you haven't given any. I would argue that most people, in the situation you describe, would do whatever is necessary to rescue the beloved, even at the risk of their own lives, instead of stupidly killing themselves just when the beloved needs them the most.

Labrat, "Master and Commander" wasn't enough to hook me, either. However, I strongly recommend going through the next two books, and I think you will be rewarded. O' Brian really hits his stride after those books, and after you have gone through the series, you will probably discover that you will enjoy those first three books upon reading them a second time. Some of the last books, though, did disappoint... I too am a fan of Forester's "Horatio Hornblower" series, and also thought that the A&E adaptations were well done.

JRoberts, Excellent post! Thank you.

Redfarmer, You asked, "Please demonstrate that this will be a bad thing using real life examples of planets blowing up." In this case, it is easy to say that based on the values observable in reality (that is, those observable values held---rightly or wrongly--- by real, live human beings) that the earth blowing up and all life being extinguished would be a bad thing because it can be shown that humans value life. And not only human life, but other forms as well: science studies all forms of life because life itself is valuable and, in studying life, we gain knowledge that further enhances life. If human beings did not value life, there would be no reason to say that the earth blowing up would be a bad thing. Neither would there be any use in studying anything, let alone the life and death of planets. But humans do value life---it is observable in reality---and so it is reasonable to say that the earth blowing up would be a bad thing.

Redfarmer, You wrote: "If you wanted an explanation of what I meant, why didn't you just ask for one instead of playing games?" But I did! That's why I asked you who determines what a "proper" understanding is, as it was clear that merely agreeing with you that art "concretizes" values was apparently not enough. You wrote: "What I have been trying to get at is that you seem to be implying that the example from Atlas Shrugged is not valid for determining whether suicide could be life-affirming or not." No, I am telling you (I don't need to imply) that a fictional example does not provide what I asked for---an example from real life (reality). I asked for an example from real life---that was my request---and you insist on reading more into my inquiry than I intended. You wrote: "Your insistance for a "real life" example seems to imply as much and seems to be an indicator that you won't accept suicde can be life-affirming unless it is a person who has actually committed suicde. " You're right about that! I require some indication that a theory has some basis in fact. In this case, since suicides are unfortunately common, we can look at the reasons people commit suicide (which is not the case with the nuclear holocaust analogy that you attempted to make). I am merely asking for examples of "life-affirming" suicide. You wrote: "You're creating a false dichotomy between values in "real" life and values in a fictional story such as Atlas Shrugged." No, I'm asking that the values in a fictional story correspond to the values observable in reality, if I am to draw real-life conclusions and real-life lessons from the story. It has nothing to do with the characters, mind you: a space-alien story that reflects values that correspond to observable reality is perfectly fine. If the values in a fictional story are simply meant to entertain, or serve some other purpose, then I don't ask or expect the values to correspond to observable reality. You wrote: " You also have yet to explain why you think an example has to be from real life rather than a fictional story for it to be accepted (as you seem to be saying when you reject the example of Galt)." Because I like reality.

Alon, I've read them all, and in addition have listened to them on unabridged tapes for years now (great for long car trips). They are very, very good, though it took three books to completely hook me. They are the best historical fiction I have read, period. You do need to read them in order, by the way: the first book is "Master and Commander".

Rationalcop, You wrote: "At the risk of putting words in his mouth, when Redfarmer referred to the "proper" understanding of the purpose of art, I believe he was referring to "proper" in the Objectivist context which should be readily apparent as you are on an Objectivist-oriented forum. " True, but Redfarmer has not explained HOW it is that I don't have a "proper" understanding. I completely agree with him that art serves to "concretize" values. But somehow, that isn't enough for him, and he continues with statements such as "If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values." Hmmm...what am I missing? My conclusion, then, is that he has a different view of what "proper" is, though he can't spell it out. And yes, that is subjective, but I don't know what else explains the difficulty he is having. It is a way of evading the fact that he hasn't provided what I asked: merely, a real-life, historical example of a "life-affirming" suicide. And I don't like evasion. You wrote: "If you disagree with that being the proper understanding of art, make your argument." But that's the problem: I don't disagree with his statement, "the purpose of art is to concretize values". The subject here isn't art at all, it's whether or not suicide can be "life-affirming". I am asking for an example that is from the real world, not the world of fiction. You wrote: "Whether you make money or not from art does not establish your understanding of it's purpose." I couldn't agree more.

Redfarmer, You wrote: "The previous statement reaks of subjectivism. " That may well be---and it's hardly surprising, since you have chosen to ask if I understand the "proper" understanding of art. I'll ask again: who defines what is "proper"? (Oh, and it's "reeks", not "reaks".) You wrote: "So, why do you refuse to accept Rand's illustration of Galt's intention to kill himself if the looters discovered he and Dagny were in love?" Earth to redfarmer: I haven't "refused" Rand's illustration of her ideas. I think that particular scene illustrates her ideas very well. You wrote: "You continually refuse to accept an example out of Atlas Shrugged which clearly demonstrates what I and several other people have been saying." I refuse to accept your examples because they do not meet the requirement that I stated; namely, that I am looking for a real, flesh-and-blood example from history. If you cannot accept that there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction, then you are going to face serious difficulties in life. For starters, I should warn you that Santa Claus does NOT exist and is NOT going to come down your chimney in a few weeks, no matter how good you have been this past year. You wrote: "Instead of trying to refute what we have said, you simply evade the fact we have provided an example and continually demand a "historical" example. I'm the one who asked for a real-life, historic example. You can either meet that request, or continue to give me fictional examples. If you continue to provide the latter, then my rejection of them does not constitute evasion, but rather reflects my ability to perceive what you apparently cannot: namely, that fiction is not the same as non-fiction. They are different, trust me. You wrote: "Nuclear hollacaust has never occured but it doesn't take an actual occuarance to know that it would be a bad thing if it happened" "Hollacaust"? "Occuarance"? Do me a favor, and use the spellcheck function. You would lend your statements more credibility if you demonstrated that you at least had a grasp of the English language. I understand the occasional typo, and am prone to them myself, but c'mon now...But anyway, I agree with your statement. I have now filed it in my "Profound and Deep Thoughts" file. What else should I do with it? You wrote: "As Stephen said, you seem to continually be avoiding the issues by making personal attacks. " I haven't avoided a damn thing. You simply have not provided me with what I asked for, and you evade that truth by pouting. Be a man, redfarmer.

Redfarmer, Chill. Take a deep breath---there now, feel better? You wrote: "If you had a proper understanding of art, you would realize the purpose of art is to concretize values." A "proper" understanding? And who is to determine what a "proper" understanding is---you? Do your judgements carry infallibility? (By the way, it might interest you to know that I am an artist by profession: it's how I make my living.) You wrote: "Yet you rail against the example of Galt and Dagny and say that it is not a "real life" situation." "Rail"? Good grief, my only beef is that I was looking for a real-life, historical example and no one has given me that. If you think that characters in a book of fiction are real-life persons who lived and died at a certain point in real history, then, my friend, you have problems with discerning reality. I am not "railing" against ol' Galt and Dag for the illustrative and literary purposes they serve: I am merely saying what ought not to get any sane person's undies in a bunch, which is---hold on to your seat now---THEY WEREN'T REAL FLESH-AND-BLOOD PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY LIVED. Mickey Mouse isn't real either, just to give another example. You asked: " Do you also claim the rest of the book is invalidated because it is not a "real life" experience? If not, why?" What is being "validated" or "invalidated"? The book does not represent actual history---but that wasn't Rand's purpose. She wasn't attempting to write the history of an actual event, she was using the device of fiction to illustrate ideas. You wrote, "If you invalidate one scene, why not say the book is completely worthless." How did I "invalidate" one scene? You asked, "Do you always make fun of people who disagree with you? Do you not realize that everytime you make fun of another person on here, whether it be myself or Stephen, it makes you look all the worse?" In answer to your first question: no. In answer to your second question: yes, but I'm having too much damn fun.

Redfarmer, You wrote: "You have consistantly avoided the question of whether you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art." No, you have jumped to conclusions. I don't always get the time to answer every single question in every single post: as I mentioned earlier, I don't have a lot of time and so am here at the forum in fits and starts. So, if you did ask me in some post, "Do you have a proper understanding of the purpose of art", and I didn't answer it, it was because I was busy answering another question. So, in answer to your question: yes. You wrote: "You consitantly avoid the fact that no one is saying that all suicides are life-affirming" And you consistently misspell "consistently". But no, I am not "avoiding" that particular fact. I never claimed otherwise. It would be odd if I did, as I don't think that anyone has said what you claim I am "avoiding". You wrote: "When somoene questions your interpretations, you make fun of them and compare them to a "melodramatic" spy thriller." Well, guilty as charged on that one. I am a mean piece of work, aren't I? You wrote: "Additonally, if you had read and understood Atlas Shurgged and The Virtue of Selfishness, there would be no question in your mind as to whether Rand supported suicide in some drastic situations." Yes, I have read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Virtue of Selfishness" (And "OPAR", and "The Fountainhead", and "We The Living", and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" and "Anthem", and....you get the picture). And I never claimed that Rand did not support suicide in some drastic situations: clearly she did. That doesn't have anything to do with the question of suicide being, in some cases, "life-affirming". It is my opinion that it is not. You can disagree with me, but don't ascribe straw-men positions to me that you can then rail at.

Zoso, Hey, excellent idea. By the way, I've meaning to compliment you on the design of your name icon (or whatever it is called): very well done!

Stephen, You wrote: "That is an interesting, and revealing, comment. " Oh please...you're starting to sound like a character in some melodramatic spy thriller: "Vat you say ees ver-r-y interesteeng..and ve have vays of makeeng you speak." The initial question was, if you recall, whether or not suicide could be considered "life-affirming". I contend that it is not "life-affirming", at least not in real life. I asked for real-life scenarios, and was given the example of Hank and Dagny. When I pointed out that this was not a real-life scenario, I was told "OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny." This answer did not qualify as a real-life scenario, hence my response that you found so ver-r-y interesteeng. Yes, I know the point that Ayn Rand was trying to make, and when one writes a story to illustrate a concept, it is not uncommon to use hyperbole and fantastical situations to drive the point home. It is a method quite commonly employed by authors. (A quote from some author is floating just out of memory's grasp---something to the effect that a writer sometimes has to scream in order for the whisper of an idea to be heard.) That is just what I think Rand was doing.

Zoso, Again, just keep in mind that it is sometimes tempting to take the path of least resistance and focus on easy targets. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are good choices in that they are well known, but it must be pointed out that they don't represent historical Christianity, but a specifically Protestant Christianity. And even within Protestant Christianity, you will find considerable criticism of the questionable theology of those two. I don't think anyone would consider them formidable opponents in the intellectual realm, but merely in the public one. I'm looking forward to reading more.

NIJamesHughes, You asked, " How do you justify the claim that human children are not individuals?" I didn't make that claim. I was merely pointing out that if the basic unit of a society is the individual, then one presumably accepts the idea that one individual can make a society. How does the society then reproduce itself? You wrote: "The fact that they are members of a society, does not change the fundamental fact that they are individuals." I agree. I never meant to imply that they weren't. You wrote: "Also your assessment of one parent families is completely deterministic and is refuted by the concept of free will." I would hardly call it "completely deterministic"---shzeesh! Nor would I ever, ever refute free will. It's called "facts": children from unstable or one-parent households face more difficulties than do those from stable, two-parent households. I don't see how one can rationally deny the harmful effects of fatherlessness when: # 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes. [u. S. D.H.H.S. Bureau of the Census] # 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes. # 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes. [Center for Disease Control] # 80% of rapist motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes. [Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 14 p. 403-26] # 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. [National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools] # 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes [u.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept., 1988] # 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia Jail Populations and Texas Dept. of Corrections, 1992]. Deny reality if you must.

Hi Zoso, I hope you will post your chapters here as you finish them. Thomism is the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. With your Protestant background, you probably weren't exposed to him (he lived in the thirteenth century, before Protestantism).

Zoso, Thanks for the clarification. But I think you have a further problem, then: you are arguing, then, against the organized churches that YOU came in contact with. Because of that being very subjective in nature, then a comeback to you might consist of something as simple as "well, I'm sorry that you had that experience with those churches. My church, on the other hand..." or, "But that's human nature, and show my any organization of humans that doesn't have similar problems", or "Because people don't always live up to their convictions doesn't mean we shouldn't have convictions". I honestly think you do need to be able to have more than just a personal recitation of personal experiences, in order for your essay to carry any force. I like your essay (don't get me wrong!!) but I think the personal experiences do not, in and of themselves, make for an effective argument. You wrote: "I'm not educated enough in history, science, or philosophy to write a good essay arguing against Christianity." Well, that might be a problem: if your opponents see that, they will simply conclude that you have rejected a Christianity that you didn't understand to begin with. If you say that you are an atheist, you need to be able to back it up with just that kind of material. Trust me, arguing against Baptists, Evangelicals and similar types is a piece of cake: arguing against a Thomist is quite another.

Nice essay, Zoso. One item I would mention: most of your paper is taken up with rather subjective arguments: that is, your biggest problem seems to be with the people calling themselves Christians. Although this may be interesting, it is not, ultimately, as useful as you might think (one can find professed Objectivists who live very un-Objectivist lives, and who are just as immune to reason). I think your paper would benefit from greater exposition on, say, your "first cause" refutation. Other arguments along those lines would be useful. It is important to be able to take on the best arguments of your opponents. In this case, you would do well to argue against Aquinas, not half-baked "Rapture" types (a theory, by the way, which has only been around since 1830, though if you try to explain that to a committed Babtist fundie, you risk being called a MOUTH of SATAN.)

Zoso, But that creates a further problem: who determines what the premises of Objectivism are, and their interpretations? Do I accept Piekoff's interpretation, or Kelley's? They aren't always in agreement, you know. In New York, the Patriot group was riddled with disagreements. If I go with my own interpretation, and it's different from yours, who is the "real" Objectivist, and further, how is the distinction between a "student" Objectivist and a full-fledged Objectivist made?