softwareNerd

sN,
Looking into the New Testament just now, I see that Jesus gave two overarching commandments. Firstly, to love God with all your heart and mind; secondly, to love your fellow humans as you love yourself (Luke 10). I gather he thought you should be loving yourself. This prophet was going around, as the story goes, performing miracles to good purposes for humans of earth. So there is a large reservoir of mystical power in the background of the moral perspective he declares.
He says he is adding to and completing the old Commandments, and he gives some examples of how to go above and beyond their letter with an understanding of them grounded in love. Not only do not murder, but do not be angry with your fellow human nor call your fellow a fool nor look down on your fellow. Else be punished by God. Make peace with your fellow before coming to the altar to leave a gift for God. (And don’t be making a big show of your gifts to God or to your fellows.)
In some cases, he reverses the old precepts. Down with “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Rather, do not resist evil. Turn the other cheek for the evildoer to hit as well. Down with loving only those who love you. “What credit is that to you? Even the tax-collectors do that!” Love your enemies as well. Then you are sharing in the perfections that are possessed by God (Matthew 5).
His moral rationales are shot through with alleged reciprocities of benefit to one performing the good act. These are benefits, physical and social, coming back to one who sticks with God in letting go of benefits for now. The coming back will be from other humans or from God.
In his model prayer, Jesus says to ask God for the bread one needs and to forgive one’s failures, as one is forgiving the failures of others (Luke 11). Some reciprocity here, and nothing against bread for oneself.
Beyond keeping the religious law, Jesus tells one wealthy man who keeps the law, yet still feels incomplete, to reach perfection by giving all his possessions and money to the poor. He’ll have riches in heaven if he does that. Meanwhile, join Jesus in his crusade (Matthew 18).
From the Sermon on the Mount:
“How happy are those who know their need for God, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs!
“How happy are those who know what sorrow means, for they will be given courage and comfort!
“Happy are those who claim nothing, for the whole earth will belong to them!
“Happy are those who are hungry and thirsty for true goodness, for they will be fully satisfied.
“Happy are the merciful, for they will have mercy shown to them!
“Happy are the utterly sincere, for they will see God!
“Happy are those who have suffered persecution for the cause of goodness, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs!
“And what happiness will be yours when people blame you and ill-treat you and say all kinds of slanderous things against you for my sake! Be glad then, yes, be tremendously glad—for your reward in Heaven is magnificent. . . .
“You are the earth’s salt. . . .
“You are the world’s light. . . . (Matthew 5)
I rather think that building a case for altruism—or for socialism or for capitalism—based on the teachings of Jesus is far off the mark. Altruism is the doctrine that moral goodness is from sacrifice of self for the benefit of one’s fellow humans. Jesus-likeness without God at center of moral goodness should be laughed out of court.
(The translations are by J. B. Phillips.)

This came to mind, though she's not a psychologist:
If you know someone going through it, good chance this talk will be relatable. 
The transition from Catholic to Atheist is long in my past, so I'm more interested in people's thoughts/experiences with the social context of being a member of this particular oppressed minority.  Especially at work.  I avoid the subject at work, and when asked try to leave it at "I'm not religious".  But there's always some nosy parker.  I once had an outside consultant I had barely met tell me, intending it as friendly advice, that the only thing he knew about me is that I'm an atheist and that I shouldn't let people know that.  He was from a communist country and hadn't been raised with religion, so he was speaking as one atheist to another.  "Just tell them you're spiritual".  Up to that point I'd only had one person quiz me about my religion, starting with "where do you attend church?"; suffice to say she was not about to take "I don't" as a final answer, and she was one to make the most of her time around the water cooler.  And I didn't even use the "a" word.  This was years ago, and I didn't stay there very long.  Nevertheless, it rankles. 

*woosh*
You missed the joke! Also that it's subtly making the point that it sounds absurd to just say "concepts aren't in the brain" as if a simple concept like "guys" wouldn't even be real because it's not "in the brain" and therefore arbitrary.

(putting on grammar nerd hat)
As relevant here: "Guys", plural, is synonymous with "people" and has no gender implication, as contrasted with "guy", singular, which is synonymous with "male person".  So his "Hi guys!" was no more than a friendly greeting to whoever might read his post.
 
 

I was going to add... "... or maybe 'Ideal' ", but said "Nah.. couldn't be..." because that's way less well known than NoJ16

While so many American fret worry about issues that are really only marginal to their lives. the Institute of Justice continues is slow and steady chipping away at violations of rights. 
They just won a case that will restrict civil forfeiture in Philadelphia There's a win on city code enforcement in Charleston and many other Each of these cases is very local. It is easy to despair that it is like fighting a giant with a tiny pin as a sword, inflicting minor cuts. On the other hand, the big-picture approach to philosophical change isn't easy, and with the cases that IJ wins, there is the satisfaction of having helped at least those people, in that one city or state win back some right. If a few women in one city can now make a career hair-braiding, and that let's them earn more money and have a better live: that's something, even if it's a small cut to the system at large.
The list of cases continues to grow. Here's the list. In the long run, I think their wins could help other lawyers, in other states and cities, win similar cases. Maybe, one of two of these issues might even become  a theme that can be tied together to ripple across the country. 
All the best to IJ
 
 

While so many American fret worry about issues that are really only marginal to their lives. the Institute of Justice continues is slow and steady chipping away at violations of rights. 
They just won a case that will restrict civil forfeiture in Philadelphia There's a win on city code enforcement in Charleston and many other Each of these cases is very local. It is easy to despair that it is like fighting a giant with a tiny pin as a sword, inflicting minor cuts. On the other hand, the big-picture approach to philosophical change isn't easy, and with the cases that IJ wins, there is the satisfaction of having helped at least those people, in that one city or state win back some right. If a few women in one city can now make a career hair-braiding, and that let's them earn more money and have a better live: that's something, even if it's a small cut to the system at large.
The list of cases continues to grow. Here's the list. In the long run, I think their wins could help other lawyers, in other states and cities, win similar cases. Maybe, one of two of these issues might even become  a theme that can be tied together to ripple across the country. 
All the best to IJ
 
 

There's a substantial number of Trump voters who still think Trump was the right choice as President.While some might have soured on him, only a small minority of those who voted for him would want him gone. I've spoken to Trump voters who seemed reasonable in political conversations 4 or 5 years ago, and who are wary of Trump being over the top, but who would feel disenfranchised if he were removed.

The idea that the U.S. is controlled by a "deep state" has spread to a wider section of people. I believe the numbers are substantial, even though not a majority. A large number of people feel out of control and alienated from the system. They do not see it as a system they want; but as a system that is imposed on them. Of course, they're the cause of the system, but there's little hope they will ever figure that out: it's an intellectual feat that is beyond most of them. 

Some of these folk might actually be happy that a few Trump advisers are acting as dampers to his worst gut instincts; yet, they would only want them to act as dampers, not to do anything fundamental.

There's a substantial number of Trump voters who still think Trump was the right choice as President.While some might have soured on him, only a small minority of those who voted for him would want him gone. I've spoken to Trump voters who seemed reasonable in political conversations 4 or 5 years ago, and who are wary of Trump being over the top, but who would feel disenfranchised if he were removed.

The idea that the U.S. is controlled by a "deep state" has spread to a wider section of people. I believe the numbers are substantial, even though not a majority. A large number of people feel out of control and alienated from the system. They do not see it as a system they want; but as a system that is imposed on them. Of course, they're the cause of the system, but there's little hope they will ever figure that out: it's an intellectual feat that is beyond most of them. 

Some of these folk might actually be happy that a few Trump advisers are acting as dampers to his worst gut instincts; yet, they would only want them to act as dampers, not to do anything fundamental.

One of the greatest regrets of my early life is cutting off ties with a girl I loved, and several of our common friends, because I couldn't have her.
Yes, staying friends would've been painful...and, back then, I thought pain was a hindrance to any kind of accomplishment or success, and therefor to be avoided at all cost...but, as I found out later: pain is a part of life. A necessary, and therefor GOOD part of life. It would've TAUGHT me a lot, about both myself and the nature of the human experience in general.
So just take the pain. Don't betray your values, by removing a good person from your life, because you're scared of a little pain. If you take the pain of a short term, probably illusory heartbreak, you will be rewarded for it with a learning experience you can't access in any other way... and possibly a lifetime of friendship as well.
P.S. You DO want to stay away from any kind of an exploitative relationship. My post assumes that your relationship with her is a straight forward friendship (like mine was), and she is not taking advantage of your feelings in any way.

I asked the question because, after I read the introductory pages you posted, and I got the impression that you had an abstract audience in mind... i.e. people you think may benefit. But, when one writes to that type of target, you cannot tailor your "voice". Writing for an audience that is sympathetic to Rand is different from writing for someone who has a vague idea about Rand. Even when writing to a narrow audience like those sympathetic to Rand, one has to tailor one's material to a purpose. A reader who wants to get information to bolster his arguments is different from one who wants to get something from the book to help him in his own work/life in (say) the next year or two.

You seem to think that the "Objectivist method" is some thing, like an actual sui generis "method," apart from a philosophic explanation of the scientific method of observation and experimentation and why it works. In a sense, we start out from knowing that we have knowledge, we know that we have useful ideas, epistemology is then going back and saying "what was the method that I used and how does that work?" And yeah like Eiuol said, I'm not sure how formal logic and probability theory are opposed to, say, the world of Bacon or Mill or a Rand.

Isn't it reasonable to doubt what you said? What is your motive in participating in this forum if its backbone is so useless?

Humans notice causal chains when they're pretty young. This means, they start to figure out that when thing A happens followed by thing B, it is a common pattern, and if thing A happens followed by thing C it is probably coincidental. As they observe more closely, they start to understand the other elements in reality that are playing a role, and thus understand certain causal chains not just as "there's a pattern of correlation", but in a more detailed way: of seeing how that causal chain works and leads up to the observed effect.

This faculty is reason.

Humans notice causal chains when they're pretty young. This means, they start to figure out that when thing A happens followed by thing B, it is a common pattern, and if thing A happens followed by thing C it is probably coincidental. As they observe more closely, they start to understand the other elements in reality that are playing a role, and thus understand certain causal chains not just as "there's a pattern of correlation", but in a more detailed way: of seeing how that causal chain works and leads up to the observed effect.

This faculty is reason.

Yes, but it isn't clear if someone like him would make a difference to general public-opinion on the topic today. 

As a general rule, stories need conflict; there must be something that the protagonist wants to do and something that keeps him from doing it.  Dystopias provide a more fertile ground for conflict than utopias.  It's just that simple.
Also, when the theme of a story involves society, it's almost always necessary to show a malfunctioning society in which to express thematic conflict.  E.g., it would have been hard for Rand to have done what she did in Atlas had she set her story in something like Galt's Gulch.  Similarly, Atwood's story (I haven't seen the dramatizations) needs its dystopia in order to most effectively make her points.
I note that Atwood was hardly the first to see the possibility of a Christian dictatorships in America.  E.g., Heinlein did it in 1940, in "If This Goes On".

I'm a sucker for apocalyptic stories, and this one delivers, in both seasons so far. I've heard "liberals" compare it to present-day US, but that's crazy - and I don't get that viewpoint from the show, either. However, I think the show's representation of the US transitioned into a violent Christian dictatorship is convincing.
Opinions, thoughts, analysis?
 
 

Formally, it is redundant to ask "why be rational", since the question assumes it is.

Formally, it is redundant to ask "why be rational", since the question assumes it is.

The word "art" is used in different senses. For me, the top Google prompts, for instance...  "the art of...war", "the art of...shaving", "the art of manliness", "the art of the deal"

You cannot analyse Trump's language in this way. I doubt he has a very informed view about the various phases of American history. He detects the emotion of his audience and knows how to reflect the right attitude back. He's reflecting a feeling, among a large number of voters, that things are not right. If they aren't right, but they used to be...that means we must "make America great again".

Similarly, the typical Trump voter does not have a precise view about the best period in America, or even something like "three best phases". They think of it more generically: that things aren't going the way I thought they would; things are worse than I thought they would be; therefore... they should be better. Since the voter based earlier expectations on something, they want that back. 

The essential fact is:   post-Great Recession has seen middle and lower class stagnation. "Make America Great Again" just means "stop this stagnation". Mexicans, Muslims and Indian programmers are convenient scapegoats, but the essential issue is an underlying feeling of dejection because they were living a lie and the lie is revealed, and the Democrats are telling them that the answer is more of the same, while Trump is pointing out specific scapegoats and saying he'll make America great again.

NOW, obviously. Lifespans are the longest ever, people are more civilized, every single life is a zillion times wealthier, leisure time abounds, knowledge only goes up because all past knowledge is instant and free, ice cream only gets more popular so we have like 500 more choices than ever before, and humanity still has its built-in bullshit meter intact.
Now, a lot of people just need to realize it's this good not because it always was.

The answer to your question would need to be qualified, of course, by a specific standard of "good." Using the early 1960s as a standard is reasonable, based on domestic conditions, but on the international scene, there were problems most people would choose to ignore. The economy was flourishing and it was very common for any white man who was willing to get a job could easily find one, and that job would allow him to support a family of two or more children, while the wife managed the household without going out to work. Idealizing the 1950s/1960s, of the  "Leave It to Beaver", "Mayberry," and "Camelot" facade, often overlooks the tragic shortcomings of a society unwilling to shed its racist and sexist norms. Less obvious were the costs of the Cold War, the secret international adventurism of the Cold War, conscription into military service, and all of the rest of the anxiety caused by the Cold War.
I'm inclined to agree with JASKN. It seems so easy to see only the problems in the present, and to romanticize the past. History ranks among my favorite interests. I'm rarely surprised to find the grim truth about the past, no matter how the popular legend portrays it.

If the future is not a permissible answer, then I'm with the others who say it's now.
A family of four can live on a single income if it's willing to accept an early-60's middle class standard of living. One voice-only phone. One b&w tv. One bedroom for every two household members. One car. No air conditioning (and none in the car either). Maybe a dishwasher, probably a garbage disposal.