mperkel

Yes - but lots of Christians have PHDs so degrees don't make you right.

My point for clarification is that it doesn't matter if I have personal problems. Everyone does. But when you are writing a phylosophy for others to "follow" then one should try to isolate their personal phobias from a statement of objective reality.

Nimble, For clarification, I'm not making a point that Selfishness is "obviously wrong". The part that I find obviously wrong is the attack on Selflessness. I'm actually conceeding on the first point because it is technically correct.

Yes - I'm not buying the "Virtue of Selfishness" and the dissing of altruism stuff. Yes I can see how someone can infer a selfish motive to everything but putting down altruism as if it were something evil - that's as ridiculous as being a moonie. I'm somewhat in shock that people who claim a relationship with reality would assert such a thing. On the surface when I read her work it looks to me like she's dealing with some strange personal issue in her life that isn't relevant to a lot of the real world. It's much like my views an marriage. Things happened to me that gave me attitude but it's mostly about me and my experience. OK - just for grins so we don't get distracted I will concede that I'll never win the argument that selfish motives can be construed for everything, although I don't admit that is an accurate picture of reality. But - selflessness is a good thing and it is in fact why the human race evolved above the animals. Our very survival depends on selflessness. In reality the human race is more like a hive of bees that nomadic individuals. We are totally interdependent in an amazing and complex society. If you look around you right now you can't help but to notice that everything you see what built by other people. In fact each object involves thousands of other people without whom there would be none of all this. The human race has evolved a collection of information that we hold in common. We are able to learn things and communicate that to other people. Ann Rand's work is part of that collection of knowledge. Everything, how to make plastic, metal, cars, planes, cell phones, roads, grow food, all of it - comes from other people. When we thing in words we are using the words that other people invented. Our thought, our life, who we are and what we believe in are 99.99% not our own. It's hand me down information from the "hive mind". So selflessness at least has some selfish advantages. I think that perhaps being selfless is the most selfish thing you can do because it builds the society that you live an and count on for your very survival. So if you praise selfishness and you distain selflessness, but being selfless is a selfish act, then you are contradicting yourself? I hope you objectivists can take some criticism without taking it personally. As a Realist practicing Realism I'm committed to giving and accepting scrutiny. The way I see it - Objectivism is an endorsement of reality. Real reality the way it really is. But beyond that all I see is opinion. I see nothing special about capitalism. It has some advantages and drawbacks. It has never been done without a heavy mix of Socialism, nor could it work without it. I also wonder if it's mission creep as well. Objectivism stands on it's own. Objective reality exists. The other stuff needs it's own title because it seems to me to at least be unrelated to Objectivism. In fact I would call it personal reality because it's about Ann Rand's world. It reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard's battle with Psychology that still rages on long after his death. So - what does the opinion that altruism is evil have to do with Objectivism? Especially when it's so blatantly wrong? (hope you all aren't thin skinned when it comes to arguing)

OK - this is what I have a problem with. I "know" objective reality exists. I think we are on the same page there. But there is a difference between some thing that some people think is objective reality and what really is. I'm trying to separate objective reality here from the process of determining what is objective. For example - 200 years ago everyone "knew" that time was a universal constant and that all good clocks would agree on what time it was. But then came Einstein and he discovered that time was relative. An honest mistake. People who believed that time was constant were wrong. Eventually when Einstein was proved to be correct everyone accepted the change. I think it's safe to say that since Ayn Rand claims that no one has supernatural powers that she herself is not infallible. You can see the paradox if people were to claim she couldn't possibly make a mistake. So - real people occasionally make mistakes. The reason electrons flow from - to + is because Edison took a guess and he guessed wrong. Objective reality didn't change. But the observer of reality realized that an error was made. Just because someone believes in objective reality don't mean they know what's real and what isn't. So since people make mistakes, how do Objectivists deal with it when they make a mistake? My question is, if Ayn Rand were to be proved wrong on some point - would you believe Ayn Rand or reality? (Corrected spelling of "Ayn Rand" - softwareNerd)

Objectivists believe in an absolute objective reality, but sometimes objectivists try to define what that reality is. For example, we all accept that gravity exists and is real. 186,000 miles a second, it's not just a good idea - it's the law! Suppose however there is a common opinion held by objecivists that turns out to be wrong, how do you fix it. For example, we know that objective reality exists. I think that one is safe for now. But what about "rational selfishness"? That's a separate subject. And it's something that is, in my opinion, open for question. But - before I question it, what I want to know is, is this a subject beyond question? Is one required to accept this concept on blind faith or is this something that can be rationally discussed? And - second question - if this or any other concepts of objectivism turn out to be wrong then what happens? Do you abandoned the wrong concept and replace it with reality - or do you loyally hang on to the mistake. I would assume that you don't believe that you are infallible so therefor it is natural that you are wrong sometimes. So what is the process of dealing with error? (Fixed typo - softwareNerd)

Good questions. We agree on that. Since the Church of Reality is a religion we are making a choice to choose to believe in reality as opposed to those who choose to believe in fiction. Reality exists whether you believe in it or not. But most people choose fiction. The basis of ethics is here: <url deleted by softwareNerd. Discussion is one thing; free advertising is quite another.> We choose positive evolution over extinction. Therefore ethics is based on that along with our Sacred Principles. <url deleted by softwareNerd. Discussion is one thing; free advertising is quite another.> You have to read the site for some of those details. Here's a page about why we are different: <url deleted by softwareNerd. Discussion is one thing; free advertising is quite another.> We disagree with you on rational selfishness. Here's why: Humans are more like a hive of bees in some way than individuals. We require that we organize into societies in order to survive any to thrive. If you look around at the stuff you own you'll notice that all of it was made by other people. Thus I suppose it is in our own "selfish interest" to be a member of society. We have a term called the Tree of Knowledge which represents the sum total of all human understanding. It is the knowledge that separates us from the animals. It includes things as basic as language. Your very thought are made up of words invented by other people. The growth of the Tree of Knowledge represents our intellectual evolution. And we choose to evolve forward. Objectivism states reality exists and we agree. But we are dedicated to expanding the human understanding of reality and that is done by community. The Forum for example is a community of Objectivists where Objectivists share knowledge freely to create a deeper understanding of what you believe in. This is the objectivists tree of knowledge. I know this might come as a shock but Objectivism is dead wrong on the selfishness issue.

Actually that's not true. Read the web site. We believe in reality like you believe in objectivism. It's a choice. Most people choose to believe in fiction.

Hi, here's something I think objectivists would find interesting. The Church of Reality is a religion based on believing in everything that's real. Here's the missions of the church: http://www.churchofreality.org 1: We believe in Reality - the way it really is! - If it's real - we believe in it. The Church of Reality is a Personal Commitment to the Truth. We believe in real reality, not the way we want reality to be, not our personal reality, but real objective reality the way it really is. We Realists are explorers and we explore the universe together with our minds. We think about thinking. We wonder about wondering. We attempt to understand the Understanding of Understanding. We ponder the Great Questions. We are a curious people and we are bound together in our quest to know the real world that we really live in. 2: We Spread the Sacred Message - Reality - Our mission is to spread the importance of reality everywhere. We raise the awareness of reality and we make reality important. Every time we mention Reality we spread the Sacred Message. We are here to ask the Sacred Question - "What is Real?" We want people to consider reality when making important decisions. By spreading the Sacred Message we cause people to be Real in the Sacred Moment (which is Now). Our mission is to say "Reality" as many times as we can and to get other people to think about reality as often as we can. We want people to be more realistic in their daily lives and to spend more time every day wondering about what is really real. 3: We Choose the Sacred Direction - Forward - The Sacred Direction is forward - onward and upward. Our Principle of Positive Evolution commits us to envision a future that is better than today. We are one planet and we are all in this together on our little ball in the universe. In order to answer the Sacred Question and explore our reality society must move forward. We take responsibility for our future and we commit to making tomorrow better than today. 4: We Honor the Tree of Knowledge - The Tree of Knowledge represents the sum total of all human understanding. It is the shared knowledge of the human race. It is the repository of everything we know. The fact that you can read this comes from having a common language to communicate with. The human race survives and thrives through our shared knowledge. Our understanding of reality and our evolutionary process is through growing the Tree of Knowledge. 5: We Ask the Sacred Moral Question - What is Good? - The Sacred Moral Question is, "Is this a Good Thing?" What does "good" mean? That too is part of the Sacred Moral Question. Right and Wrong and morality and ethics are all relative to your basic assumptions and goals. We base our morality on reality and it is our duty to make sure that reality is taken into consideration when questions of right and wrong are decided. The commitment to Reality is a commitment to truth, honesty, wisdom, and responsibility. The Church of Reality is committed to getting the moral questions right. 6: We Issue the Sacred Challenge - The Sacred Challenge is a challenge to other faiths and religions to ask themselves - "How do we know that what we believe is real?" We in the Church of Reality accept scrutiny and doubt as a way of checking ourselves to make sure that what we believe in is true and correct. Other religions are often required to believe things on blind faith and questioning their beliefs is prohibited. We challenge other religions to test themselves and to be responsible and accountable. Reality is our word and if other religions are going to use our word then anything claimed to be real is subject to reality testing. We believe scrutiny is a good thing and that any religion that refuses to accept scrutiny is admitting by their conduct that what they believe in is fiction. 7: We are Activists - We make it Happen - We are a religion that is an activist religion. We don't just find problems - we solve problems. We are committed to coming up with solutions and to take responsibility to bring the concept into reality. We make sure that the job is done right. We are a community and we do the work to make community work. We go out and learn and we try to understand and we spend a lot of time thinking and we give of ourselves for the common good of all people. In the Spirit of the Tree - our shared knowledge - we support sharing. It is our duty to look around and figure out how to make it all work.