dark_unicorn

Greetings Matthew and welcome to the forum, I myself am a recent arrival and also a non-Objectivist, though my disposition as a Thomist and a devout student of Aristotle's philosophy puts me a bit closer to the Objectivist philosophy than the Book of Mormon would. But you yourself have stated that our universe is a benevolent one and that you have a measure of respect for reason, that puts you ahead of a good number of our fellow Christians out there whom condemn Ayn Rand as some sort of threat to humanity. You will find that Objectivism is a 100% reason based philosophy, and be careful not to confound the definitions of "Faith" and "Axioms", for they are not the same thing, as underscored by Ayn Rand's various non-fiction books, most of which I have read. So a word of friendly advice, don't be offended by any criticisms given towards your religion, they are not meant to insult you but represent a real difference in viewpoint in terms of metaphysics. Remember also that any debates that you enter here will strengthen your views of both reason and the benevolent universe, for the people whom belong to this forum are intelligent, well-read and well-versed; there is much to be gained by being here.

Yeah, the whole concept of "divine revelation" implies that a person is experiencing a message from a non-sensory means. Now, if such a means exists (ESP), it would have to be some sort of mechanism that is implanted prior to a person's existence, ergo Plato's realm of forms. Now it could also be argued that "divine revelation" was a mis-interpretation of what was in fact fits of volitional cognition. In other words, people coming to realizations of various phenomena that did not fit a societal template, but were accepted as being something higher than the tribal society. Furthermore, absent a working philosophy, the natural course of the mind is to attribute magical properties to unexplainable phenomena, rather than try to investigate it further. One of the interesting aspects of Aquinas' Summa is that noteworthy for Aristotilean philosophical descendents, particularly the Thomist and the Objectivist is that he specifically separates "A priori" into the realm of the mystical, and places "A posteriori" into the realm of rational philosophical arguement. This is his influence upon the Enlightment, as well as the Renaissance. The next step would be to completely refute any existence of "a priori" as a form of knowledge, as Rand does. Epistemologically I agree with Rand on this, where I differ is whether or not this fact of human knowledge necessitates Atheism. But that need not be discussed on this thread as it would get away from traditional Christian vs. Objectivist debate that is the current discussion.

Indeed it is, because rationally there is no such thing as knowledge known "A priori", I mentioned it primarily because that is how most Christians argue the existence of God. A priori nothing exists, because it is a negation of existence. I should have made this distinction earlier but I neglected it as I was formulating my responses to the last post.

But then this begs the question, do we have evidence that the universe has been eternally "in motion", thus negating the need for an origin of motion? Only if the consciousness is implied as non-existent within our universe. The "universal consciouness" would not neccesarily be a non-material being, but rather of a material yet to be observed. You will note that I do not assert that God is not knowable, but rather is not yet known. Indeed, and the fact that we will it does not in itself make it true, but rather the extent to which we understand the world that we live in. An a priori approach to pursuing the "God" question is obviously absurd, however, the a posteriori approach is best way to go, even though that road leads to denying God's existence in many cases. If the universe has been "eternally in motion" then obviously this answer applies, because causality would be a given. However, in order for me to fully convert to the Objectivist view of Metaphysics (the only place where I personally differ with them), I need proof that the universe has been "eternally in motion", or "motion was not caused, but constant like matter", and I don't think that that can be rationally proven with our current technology. All life as we know it is Carbon based, so the separation between "Organic" and "Inorganic" would rest upon whether or not Carbon is present. I think that if Silicon or some other element were observed as being a fundamental part of a living entity's make-up, the label of Inorganic would still hold up. "Inorganic life" exists as a speculation on such literary abstractions as the show "Star Trek", all that would change would be that what it labels would cease to be a speculation. P.S. - I come from the viewpoint that "motion" and "matter" are two separate categories of study, and that these studies warrant similar methods of deduction in their pursuit. Motion of one object usually stems from a separate force acting upon it, as compounds stem from elements forming bonds. If these actions are eternal, then have they always been dispersed, were they manifested in one location and then dispersed?(The Big Bang" prempting motion as well matter) And if this is the case, what was the cause, and was there a catalyst in that cause? These speculations do not strike me as irrational or a product of mere imagination, but obviously they do not conform to the Objectivist view of metaphysics, and if the Objectivist view is correct, then these speculations are obviously at error.

And I would further argue that even with a clear distinction between the two made and proven conclusively, we must include within this the fact that the individual is not a slave to neither his genes nor his environment. They may influence him, but they do not rule him. I have seen too many people defy both their genetic lineage (an example being parents whom behave irresponsibly) and their environment (an example being growing up in a violent and impoverished area) and become something that could only be explained as a choice to defy both one's line and one's surroundings to truly assert the power given to every man, the potential of self-determination.

To clarify what I meant, proponents of determinism use analogies to such objects as "computers" to argue their points. I used the example of a meteoroid because it, like a computer, is an inanimate object. Basically the context is that a computer does nothing until someone punches in a program for it to follow, so I drew the analogy of a meteor in order to illustrate an absurdity hidden inside the technical lingo used to compare people and computers. Essentially I would agree that certain circumstances determine the make-up of one's genes (the volition of your parents consumating a sexual relationship), however, the thing that is always lacking is the link between genes and their order determining a person's actions. The idea that genetic make-up will determine if a person will become either a scientist or a street sweeper sounds alot like voodoo science unless someone can explain to me the connection between genetic code and human action in a given situation.

I agree that one's life is the primary value, for it is the one thing from which any other value can be possible. It's first derivative value would be the right to liberty, meaning the right to act upon one's own value of life in what way one sees fit. Property being another that would mean the right to sustain one's life by attaining what one needs and desires through their actions by right of liberty. This of course is the summation of John Locke's revolutionary system of ethics, which is undeniably axiomatic, though not fully and consistently implemented philosophically until Ayn Rand developed her philosophy.

1. If our genes are not conscious, how do they "affect" something that possesses consciousness. Furthermore, I did not suggest that they were conscious, I merely said they were not intelligent, there is a clear difference between the two terms. What I was getting at is "since our genes are not intelligent" they are unable to determine anything. In order for something to be "Determined", it must be either programed by an outside entity (ergo computers are programmed by people) or an outside force (an object in motion pushing another into motion). Where is the force or entity that acts upon our genes to determine our nature, when you go back in time eventually you get to a point where humanity did not exist, so what determined the formation of the human gene? Many respected geneticists can argue that the sky is green, do we automatically assume that they are correct without scrutinizing their evidence and questioning their premises? There have been many scientific errors of late, the most blatant of which is the theory of man-made global warming (which would suggest that the Polar Ice Caps on Mars are melting because the martians drive SUVs). I have a high respect for science, but that does not automatically translate into me defaulting to what scientists say. 2. My position on the matter is that a meteoroid may be determined by the vacuum of space not stopping it's collision course with a space shuttle, and a computer may be determined by it's programmer, but that these analogies bear no burden upon the free will of man. The arguements in favor of the various determinisms of late drop the context that man is the one whom determines the things that he manipulates and then utilizes as analogies to refute his own freedom to choose to create such things, things that are not neccesarily essentially to his survival but which allow him to survive easier. So I merely ask the question, who determines the determiner?

Just to add my two cents on this matter, as a former student of the Dominican order and devout Catholic whom supports the theory of evolution. The primary arguement in favor of "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" rests pretty much on the arguement from Incredulity, which is always a losing arguement, and is a literal admission of intellectual ineptitude. Just because a mind is fascinated by the order in which things are built does not necessitate that they are designed, and it definately does not prove that they magically sprang up out of a void. To understand that the universe is suitable to life is the admission that we are living in it, and that goes to the axiom of "existence exists". However, in order for things to adapt, develop, change, or evolve they must be in motion (physics). The optical cells that make up the eye and the bond that holds them together are not denegrated to the cause of chance with out a designer (unless one wishes to argue that the law of causality is itself a designer of sorts, and this would only hold up as an abstract analogy at best). Furthermore, "Intelligent Design" suggests some sort of biological determinism, which as a proponent of free will I clearly reject. If we assume that God exists and that his will is supreme, (note: I am speaking hypothetically here, my own beliefs in God might suggest I was advertizing a non-Objectivist arguement, which are only welcome on the debate forum) there would be no contradictions in that will, hense science would serve to illuminate to the senses and the mind the true nature of the universe, which is the work by which any God's credibility as a creator would be measured. The theory of evolution explains that things adapt to their environment, and this is self-evident from observing phenomena with the eyes, eyes which "according to the Intelligent Design/Creationist crowd" were given to us by God. To assert that our eyes and our minds decieve us when we utilize the clues of the universe to understand it's nature is to assert that it we somehow that we are getting away from understanding God by trying to understand him. It's patently absurd, and I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from those who think such contradictory thoughts.

I fully support killing any and all Clerics involved with the spread of the radical Islam that breeds the terrorists we are fighting, much as I would support patching up a leak in a levy rather than simply spending an eternity bailing water out without considering the source of the flood. We should make no distinction between terrorists, those whom harbor them, AND those whom inspire them.

This does not surprise me in the least, a good way to determine the rationality of the people in a given area is to look at the elected officials that they send to state their case in Washington D.C., and representative Barbara Lee was the ONLY person to not support the war in Afghanistan, knowing full well that that particular country was the staging ground for the deaths of 3,000 plus Americans. Even vegeNazi/Peace Mongering Guru Dennis Kucinich is more rational that this woman, whom I think may have actually tried to rationalize Stalin's gulags. There is nothing rational in this law, it's akin to having a bad day at work and then beating up your wife or kicking your dog because of it.

I may move to Italy now. Never under-estimate the power of commercialized ridicule.

The only thing that surprises me about this is the fact that it took him this long to pull a pseudo-1960s stunt like this. The man can't be out of his gourd because he never had a dang gourd to begin with, whether he's shooting off insanely absurd yet somewhat intelligable populist rants at AFL-CIO rallies or doing his hell-fire and brimstone preacher routine in southern black churches, the man is certifiable. What is absolutely troubling is the fact that 48% of people who voted in 2000 supported this guy (he's even crazier than Ralph Nader, which I thought was not possible). Call the looney bin quick.

Be this as it may, I have a question, just for the sake of keeping our definitions clear so that we don't confuse terms with each other. When a person uses reason to make a judgement based upon metaphysics, such as speculate on the nature of an inorganic life-form (such as silicon plant-life, which some in the field of inorganic chemistry think may be possible), is there a line that is crossed in which reason can not be further extended until the senses can actually observe this taking place, or does speculation upon phenomena existing on other planets (potentially anywhere in the universe) still fall into the realm of being 100% rational. By the same token, would metaphysical speculation upon the origin of causality, ergo Aristotle's "universal consciousness" also fall outside of the realm of reason? I'm not specifically looking for a debate on this issue, because there is a separate forum for that, I just wish to know where a line is drawn on this issue as far as Objectivism is concerned.

Speaking for myself as a current rocker (technically a metalhead) I don't see liking a certain pop artist as neccesarily betraying one's principles or reputation as a fan of harder music. I myself occasionally sing along with some of Kelly Clarkson's stuff, though usually alone in my car (a practice I usually reserved solely for REO Speedwagon, my one time only guilty pleasure). She has a nice voice and she is a cut above the valueless dregs that currently dominate the airwaves. I've also developed an affinity for Evanescence, though they do tend to be a tiny bit depressing at times. Amy Lee is an excellent singer and is almost a perfect match for my ideal woman.

If we are determined by our genetics, as most genetic determinists assert, who or what determined the irrefutable will of our genes, they are not intelligent beings, they are mere sequences of chemical compounds? Furthermore, if genes are our puppet masters, why is it that we can manipulate them to serve our benefit? If experience determines choice (determined choice is a contradiciton in terms) then why do some of us determined creatures choose not to act in our own better nature out of irrational arrogance, even when our experience dictates that we should not repeat the same mistake in a particular situation, an example being a criminal whom repeats crimes, regardless of what punishment he recieves. Upon encountering this arguement, a determinist may argue that a criminal's choices are dictated by family upbringing and family genetics, the problem with this is that there are criminals who come out of families with no known criminal history, and since man's existence is not treated scientifically as being eternal, someone must have set the first precedent of a crime being committed independent of a family history. Furthermore, some criminals are able to reform themselves and choose to re-enter society as law abiding citizens, to which the determinist probably argues that his choice was dictated by experience, which would hint that the determinist is already starting to have his cake and eat it too. According to this idea, sometimes genes determine a person's actions, and yet other times experience will do this, and conveniently the determinist blanks out the minute he is asked to give a logical accessment as to why experience will trump genes or vice versa in a given choice made by a human being. Determinism suggests an automatic function, something which clearly is in contradiction with the idea of choice, so if determinism did exist there should not be such a thing as the word "choice", it wouldn't exist because no one would be able to comprehend it. Determinists assert that choice is an illusion, but all abstractions are dependent upon a metaphysical entity being percieved in order for integration to occur, otherwise there is no frame of reference. If there is no free choice, there can be no concept of free choice because it would have no basis in reality. The determinist may then argue that we imagine things all the time, however, even objects of the imagination are made possible because of metaphysical truths. The imaginary dragon would not be possible unless someone had first seen a kind of lizard that would resemble the fictional beast. When hit with this arguement, determinists often will reveal the source of their viewpoint and assert that some choice may exist today or maybe had existed at one point but because it is so difficult to resist one's determined nature that few, if any, are capable of it. This is a secularized mishmash of Platonic mysticism and Martin Luther's re-assertment of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin destroying man's free will (this is also what Existentialist/Post-Modernist proponents of environmental/cultural determinism will regress to when backed into a corner), and it is not consistent with logical study of human nature and reality. It is a doctrine that views man as an impotent being, and the only difference between it and it's medieval/ancient greek ancestor is that it is dressed up to look like a rational scientific assertion.

I meant it more as an analogy serving the concept of always being rational (thus not acting on whim) no matter what form of property one chooses to own. There is obviously a metaphysical difference between animals, plants, and inanimate objects that requires perspective in each given case. However, each one of these 3 entities are equally unable to form concepts, so none of them reserve any rights that would supercede the rights of man. The fact that animals particularly can not discuss such things as rights with their human masters, in of itself, draws the entire notion of "animal rights" into the realm of irrationality, for nothing that is unable to understand such things as rights can be given them since they are unable to affirm or deny them.

I apologize for the mix-up, I read your post but not Americonorman's and thought that you were implying something that you obviously were not by virtue of this current explanation. Truth be told I am a bit more tolerant of homosexuality than the average Catholic, and try to be objective when analyzing and critiquing art depicting homosexual situations, "The Bird Cage" is actually one of my favorite comic films to date. Part of the reason why I jumped to the erronius conclusion that you were making clever inferences is that I have often been the target of ridicule on other forums by members of "The New Left" because of my affinity with Laissez Faire capitalism somehow qualifies me as a homophobic Bible-beating fool whom has his head up George Bush's rear end. Do not take this as excuse making because it is intended merely as an explanation, but I've come to look for sly inferences almost by default, this is something I'll work on.

I agree with this senario, ultimately bestowing rights upon a non-rational entity can only result in an absurd/attrocious conclusion. However, I would argue that one would treat animals in a humane manner, as one would value a piece of inanimate property and not destroy it on a mere whim, so too would be the case with a pet. But in order to accomplish this, a person would have to be rational and also free to choose a values system, which would be the only way in which morality could actually exist. Animal rights is not rational, period.

It's the people who made the movie and how the plot is presented, it creates a senario that does not conform to an objective reality, but the reality as seen by the New Left. The so-called fear of pursuing their true happiness (the characters) is built on a premise that society forced them into living a lie, which by today's standards is obviously not the case, our more liberalized society is more content to mind it's own business (with the exception of a few moronic Christians in the Bible belt, whom contrary to conventional wisdom, are not representative of any American majority, religious or otherwise.) The end goal is to leave the viewer with a sense of unearned guilt for having been part of such a society, and the penance of which is to feel sorry for these characters, ergo to pity them. Jam may not be entirely the correct word, however, Naturalistic Art functions as a light form of propaganda that can have an affect on the views of the victim if he is not aware of what's going on, and the film-makers are not fully forthcoming on what their purpose is with this picture. The reason why it may not fully qualify as propaganda is because it is not being passed on to an intellectually "captive" audience, as would be the case with 1 dimensional Communistic art and film. But the Egalitarian elements are there, plain as day. But how can I shove my views down your throat? You just proved that an Intellectually powerful mind (which is attributed to pretty much everyone on this forum) can deny the claims of another through thought. Furthermore, I did not even mention what my view was on homosexuality, nor did I even bring up the sexual content of this film in my posts, for all you know I might actually be myself a homosexual who simply didn't agree with the conduct of these two characters in regards to their wives and families. My criticisms were entirely upon the philosophical intentions of this film, which I read as Naturalistic, and Naturalism in itself shoves an agenda down the throats of it's viewers, and that is the idea that the world doesn't change (I have the same criticism of other non-sexuality oriented movies out there right now). If you wish to differ with me and argue that it is Romantic in nature (as Dan Bidewell is doing quite effectively I might add, though I'm not convinced of the view he has taken).

Hmmm, this wouldn't fully put you into the complete area of non-conformity, but I would argue that the truly individualistic person would be 100% indifferent to whatever groups others tried to pigeon-hole him under. Throughout the course of the Fountainhead, the media treated Howard Roark as some sort of misguided idealist (essentially accusing him of artistic escapism, while attacking him personally as being cold and unapproachable). But Roark was 100% unaffected by it, that would be how I'd try to react if I was in a similar situation, mostly because he ends up ticking-off the establishment regardless of how they try to categorize him.

Undoubtedly the product of pragmatic thought, there is alot of rationalizing going on here. Myself, I plan to utilize music downloading by providing long clips at my band's website, and in the past I have used music downloading for the purpose of researching an album before buying. However, the moral approach is the one that should always be followed. If you wish to research music, find a legitimate way of doing it that doesn't deprive others of their intellectual property rights. One such way is to try to find work as an album critic and thus gain samples for writing reviews, one of the benefits of such a job would be knowing the extent of an album fully before buying. The incentive for the individual to act moral is the fact that his system of values will be corrupted by any form of contradiction. If one clings to a possession and fights a theif for the right to keep it, and yet steals music from musicians, he is sealing his status as a hypocrite. Though in the short term, he may be able to mask this, eventually people will come to not trust him based on his actions.

Voltaire had these people figured out 2 centuries before we encountered them. This woman is actually living up to the quote by the French Liberal Philosopher of the enlightment that I have as part of my signature. (Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities). So we see the absurdity here, and we see the resulting atrocities of embassies being burnt, why isn't everyone putting together the fact that Islamicism is the culprit? Answer, altruism is itself an absurdity that results in the atrocity of inaction in the sight of destruction.

Actually I was referring to Aristotle, whom the Catholic Church and particularly Aquinas refers to as "The Philosopher". Aquinas did not refer to himself as a philosopher, and most literature dedicated him refer to him as "The Angelic Doctor" or more plainly, he was an important Theologian. Theology and Philosophy are not the same thing, and I try to make regular distinctions between the two, although occasionally I accidentally refer to Aquinas as a Philosopher, mostly because of his writings on the nature of man. The two can serve each other, especially when a person of reason makes speculations of entities not yet experienced by the sensations. One of the declarations of the "Neo-Scholastic" movement in the Catholic Church, which models itself after Aquinas' appeal to reason in arguing scripture, is that Aquinas' movement must be adapted to the times. I myself am working on trying to make a much needed adaptation, which is to offer modifications to the current system of Catholic Ethics. Laissez Faire capitalism, in it's pure non-interfered with form has proven to be the only benevolent system out there. People are allowed to prosper without plundering each other or nations making war with each other, freedom of communication between people is established, and acts of charity are strong because of the wealth built out of self-interest motivated business. One of the parts of Catholic Ethics that is in dire need of changing is the supposed dichotomy between self-love and love of others, it doesn't exist in a rational thinking society, and as a creed is more befitting of enemies of the church such as Comte and Saint-Simon, whom think that the means of benevolence and charity can magically fall from the sky like mana and yet simultaneously believe that God doesn't exist. Adam Smith was a brilliant thinker who was way ahead of us in terms of solving the issue of human suffering, and his work "The Wealth of Nations" is one that I regularly study.

True, but I've often found that such views lead to the "there ought to be a law" discussion, and I was just launching a pre-emptive strike to knock that out of the water. As far as a moral evalution, I guess I can say that I don't fit into his moral standard then because I value my leather jackets more than a cow bred and slaughtered on a far in the Mid-West.