DoxaPar

As I've been reading more of Rand I'm continually aware of her historic and personal context. In many ways, this seems to be a determining factor in her philosophy - a point that feels weak to me. While not always leading to wrong conclusions it certainly feels that it affects over/under emphasis on some of her ideas. I'm wondering if others have considered this question ("How has Ayn Rand's historic and personal context affected her beliefs").

Over the years I've begun to see people's values as the primary determining factor in their beliefs - not reason. This, I think, is why reason and logic are so ineffective in changing someone's mind on a topic. Argue with well reasoned and logical arguments until you're blue in the face and if you cannot change their values you'll gain no ground.

I completely agree. Which is why I used that example. It's the artificial association of a concept with the word that causes the issue - in the same way that the artificial association of "non existent" is applied to "supernatural". Supernatural does not linguistically imply "non existent". There are other presuppositions going on there.

I think that's right. Which is also the main reason I balked at the word "thus" (as if what the author just said provides reasonable logic for the conclusion). I guess I wouldn't care if it wasn't already published in most of the Rand material I own. It makes it feel very much (when it is quoted so oft) that this is the apex of Objectivist thinking/logic, which leaves much to be desired.

Thanks Maarten, I believe I understand the argument of your first paragraph - that you're attempting to disprove the existence of the supernatural based off the meaning of the word "natural". I can see the argument, I think, but am also not completely comfortable with that type of argument, after all, we all know and recognize the inadequacies of words and their meanings. If words are symbols for concepts, and we are willing to argue so heavily on the meaning of words someone who disagrees could just as easily make the same argument with another set of clever words. It's a bit like saying, "God is the greatest being ever and a being that exists is better than a being that does not exists so therefore, God exists". The second paragraph is helpful, and I agree that the burden of proof rests in the affirmative. Ultimately though, this doesn't zero in on my question (or what I see as a problem of the logical assumption demonstrated by the author I quoted). Your second paragraph is a good reason for the rejection of the supernatural, the original author's reason is not. I hope that makes sense! :-)

Greetings, I'm new to Objectivism, as a formal philosophy, but not in belief and practice. Since become familiar with the formal philosophy, Ayn Rand and others I've been reading more on the subject. Two issues in particular have really bugged me as I've read through the online and printed material. I was hoping that folks could provide some insight on the positions, the justifications for the position and any links, quotes, etc that may be helpful. Item 1 I've come across this quote in a few places and it really is bugging me - although I can't figure out who wrote it. I'm completely comfortable with the first two sentences (ending with ".. not to create or invite it"). However, two items are particularly frustrating in the last sentence. The first is the use of the word "thus". In this context and use the author is saying "for this reason" or "in light of the previous two sentences". Yet, the conclusion reached is a leap of logic that, coming from an author who obviously esteems logic as much, if not more than me, is very hard to understand. Rightly, the author states "the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality". I can only assume that the author believes that this is done through man's natural senses, cognition, reason, logic, etc. Yet, all of these things are natural (i.e. of nature) and are limited in their ability to perceive what is even here referred to as "above natural". In other words, if man's perception, cognition, reason and logic is limited to the natural, what use is it in the determination of the supernatural? It's a bit like saying "If my thermostate cannot detect the barometric pressure we reject any belief in barometric pressure". Or, it is very much like a fish declaring that a world outside his tank does not exist simply because the fish has not (and is incapable of) perceiving it. Of course, the affirmation of the supernatural is equally problematic on these grounds. Moreover, there is the difficulty related to proving a negative here. Thus, does logic not demand agnosticism, not atheism? Item 2 Secondly, I've always been pro-life on the grounds of what most here identify with objectivist core beliefs. Yet, I read that Rand supported abortion. I'm not really interested in debating abortion but more concerned with what I see, again, as a failure of logic. Rand seemed to side-step this issue by identifying the unborn baby / fetus as only a "potential" human and gives several, very weak arguments why. Any thoughts on this? Thanks in advance! DoxaPar