Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God exists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

This still all keeps the literary vein of your original post. My question to you, is what good does this particular line of thinking get you? It is conceptually very muddy. Why confuse the idea of an omnipotent God (the Christian, Jewish, Muslim god) who the vast majority of the worlds population would characterize as the God, with an super alien race? Why redefine agnosticism and atheism in such a way as to tip you hat to the Christians, Jews, and Muslims and then have to explain to them that you don't really mean God the way they do. Why "pray" to a God of "good fortune" to remind yourself that you are not omnipotent, when the fact that you are not omnipotent will suffice to remind you that you are not omnipotent. It may be literarily romantic, but I think it is conceptually confusing and while you certainly might not claim that it causes any damage (which I would dispute), it certainly ADDS NO VALUE to take the extra trouble to do it.

What this really does is blur the distinction between the possible and arbitrary which is crucial within Objectivism. If agnosticism is now redefined as being belief in the arbitrary existence of alternate complex life in the universe, well then this is a silly definition. As the arbitrary has no basis and should be given no credence until such time as there is evidence for it, and only then does it become a possibility.

OK finally you have several strong good reasons here.

I already made my points before but I give up now taking in account these arguments.

You are right and for most people probably it doesn't make sense my analysis when there is "war" on the streets, the old war of reason against irrationality and blurring the limits between concepts probably doesn't help to the cause.

Anyway it was a very interesting discussion(at least for me). I learned a lot. Thanks to everyone. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

God: In certain other religions than Christianity, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

But if we take other expanded definitions of Gods like the one given above, an Objectivist has to be agnostic unless he has scientific proof that Gods don't exist.

whoa there Tonix. Now you've gotten a little more problematic. Just what exactly do you think "having power over nature" implies? I believe one of the connotations of "nature" is "everything that is" or the "universe". Which connotation is meant here? I have both power over some aspects of nature and some aspects of my and others fortune, so it can't mean that right? Do you think it means "much greater aspects than man does?" Man can lift a 100 lb weight so a god is anything that can lift a million pound weight? Or is it a being that can life every weight in general and no weight in particular, i.e. arbitrary and omnipotent are the same thing.

As to human fortunes I'd say that is a bogus claim altogether. This doesn't mean some alien out there who could affect humans if he ever chose to land here. It really implies gods who are actively affecting human nature. For which you have to provide evidence, rather than me proving your negative.

So you're really left with aliens who can affect nature in a much stronger way than men, but who are still limited. I'd say that that is not the real intent of the definition above.

I'm willing to hold out for your alien who is stronger than I am, but that is an irrelevant being in my life today, and so I believe not deserving of the term God. Everyone who claims gods claims them to produce relevance in their lives. Why do you wish to be the odd man out? What have you to gain by the association?

PS: I am amazed with the intellectual level and commitment of this forum. Congratulations.

Even when I am newbie and this was my first post, I am proud and happy to be here.

It's a great place here. Sometimes cantankerous, but always fun and stimulating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist

And the same dictionary also says:

Agnostic: A person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God

God: In certain other religions than Christianity, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes

My objection to this definition of god is that it simply is not true, as far as I know. More precisely, in all actual religions with a god, god is supernatural, not just superhuman. As Kendall points out, you yourself just declared that god is by definition supernatural, which means game over for you, dude.

One approach you could take is to redefine "god" without presupposing the supernatural. Perhaps if you could show that there is such a concept of god, that would bolster your position; as far as I know, there actually is no such concept of god in any religion. A religion is a systematic set of beliefs including some form of transcendency, some form of ritual or liturgy, and sacred truths. Thus a belief in pixies does not constitute a religion.

Lets now imagine that a "superhuman being" could be in relation to us something like we are in relation to ants.
We could imagine. But the point is, you're making a claim about actual concepts of god, so I'm asking you to show that there exists such a concept. Which god are you talking about? Since you've pointed to a dichotomy between western monotheism and something else, then as far as I can tell, you're referring to Hinduism at best. Not Buddhism, for example, and not Hinduism in fact. Some clarification would be useful.
If we define God only as the Christian or other monotheist Gods preached by several western religions an Objectivist has to be atheist
I'm glad you acknowledge this point.
But if we take other expanded definitions of Gods like the one given above, an Objectivist has to be agnostic unless he has scientific proof that Gods don't exist.
In general, Objectivists simply don't give any consideration at all to arbitrary concepts.

Your argument hinges on what I consider to be an unacceptable stipulation, about the nature of god. I don't accept it because that is not in fact how the concept "god" is used. Your own definition of god includes supernaturalism, which we can't be uncertain about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again: Please note that "Creator" "Omniscient" "Omnipotent" "Overlord" are attributes of the Christian God pictured on the Bible. Other literally thousands of Gods along the human history and cultures have completely different characteristics...

I'll join David in asking for an example. As far as I am aware even the most primitive versions of "God" are supernatural beings.

With regard to your comparison of we poor mortals and 'god', to ants and ourselves it does not hold water. An ant by virtue of it's cognitive ability (or more rightly it's lack thereof) can not reason and therefore would not ever be able to understand the concept of us.

I on the other hand as a rational intelligent being can conceive of endless inconceiveable possibilities. <_< I can even fathom another being so advanced that its actions and thought may seem supernatural. A being like that could force a tree to grow upside down with it's roots in the air, but I would not extrapolate from that coersion that the being was a god, omnipotent, omniscient or not.

Of course a being sufficiently advanced this being might be able by virtue of some power to force me to believe that it is a god but that isn't nearly the same thing as making it so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll join David in asking for an example. As far as I am aware even the most primitive versions of "God" are supernatural beings.

I already gave up with my original post, but it could be interesting analyzing a central question for this discussion: What is God?

And I will not surely answer this question because this word "God" is one of the more polysemic (and controversial) words of any major language

On the other hand almost all of you are centered in the current concept of God hold by Christian or major monotheist current religions: Creator of the Earth and/or man, ruler of the Universe, omniscient, omnipotent, with power enough to change Nature and natural rules at his whim.

And of course it is logic that your are centered on it because of our current context: These major religions are Objectivism's intellectual enemies today, since they represent (as most religious through history) irrationality, laziness to think and act, fear against knowledge and self-asserted individuals, collectivism and even fanatic violence or plain bloody dictatorship and persecution of the best men.

This said and just if anyone would like to try going beyond I would like to point:

1-That this is not the only concept of God available through history, take for example:

The God Sun (ancient Egypt and dozens of other cultures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_deity )

This God was worshiped because of his natural power to bring light and heat and thus make possible the life on Earth, the harvest, etc.

He had no supernatural powers, nor he was creator of the Universe or omniscient

2-Also and more important the concept itself of the existence of some deity was fundamental for the development of the primitive man.

The primitive cave-man looked at the unknown World in front of him and perceived three major things:

a-Himself

b-The Earth under his feet and extending to the horizon containing mostly the "reachable"

c-The sky over the Earth and himself containing mostly the "unreachable"

Along this primitive man lived, the reachable Earth became a new fundamental concept (1) in his simple brain: Home, which provided food, shelter, etc. and was "controllable" and the unreachable of the sky became another fundamental concept: God, which was the "uncontrollable" more associated with the unknown powers of the Sun, the storm, the thunderbolt, the wind, etc. which at some point he as individual and then the whole tribe began to worship either to thank for the beneficial or ask for the maleficent not to happen

With the centuries this primitive concept evolved in many different ways, one of which are the current major monotheist religions, repressive, irrational, etc.

But the very origin of the concept of God is basically "everything what we don't know (and thus can't control) put in a box" i.e. put in a single concept easily managed by the mind of the common man. Human nature vs divine nature (not-human)

According to this "God" should be shrinking to the extent that human knowledge and man's mind expands, which of course doesn't actually happens because major religions will not give up the the power they accumulated and on the other hand populace are usually comfortable in being guided as a collective by priests that save them from the work of thinking by themselves, making their own choices and having their own values.

One thing have in common Gods from almost every age an culture: They were worshiped.

It is then being worshiped which makes something or someone a God, like the case of the ancient Chinese general Guan Yu who was a famous person that ended being worshiped as a deity.

Men worship because of three main reasons: fear, request, gratefulness-admiration.

In the last case you will probably find the less "supernatural" things, concepts or even men worshiped as Gods which in primitive societies specially prior recorded history was a form of keeping memories, important concepts or knowledge to be passed from generation to generation.

Well... as requested it was my little contribution to somewhat expand the concept of what God with other less known (probably less important) perspectives

(1) Concept for the psycho-epistemology: formation of a single more powerful abstraction from multiple percepts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that worshipped the "Sun god" did so because they viewed the power to create light, warmth and make things grow as being supernatural powers. Similarly those that worshipped the Earth goddess or Gaia did so because of the earths 'supernatural' ability to produce everything required for life. The natural ability of a woman to give birth led to numerous fertility goddess's that produced all man required. The list goes on and on. The fact that today we would not view light, heat, warmth and fertility (both natural and human) as divine powers does not change the fact that those ignorant peoples did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Those that worshipped the "Sun god" did so because they viewed the power to create light, warmth and make things grow as being supernatural powers. Similarly those that worshipped the Earth goddess or Gaia did so because of the earths 'supernatural' ability to produce everything required for life. The natural ability of a woman to give birth led to numerous fertility goddess's that produced all man required. The list goes on and on. The fact that today we would not view light, heat, warmth and fertility (both natural and human) as divine powers does not change the fact that those ignorant peoples did.

I am not sure if "they" or better if everyone who believe or believed in these Gods saw these "powers" as supernatural, but it is quite probable that a majority did, specially the less smart or the ones with a more limited mind. It is clear anyway that in most cases the nature of the divine in any historic age is by definition that which is beyond the knowledge of this particular age. More complex concepts of God certainly were thought by more intelligent people that have been a minority in any age (including ours).

On the other hand I am reading now by second time "The Romantic Manifesto" and rediscovering how beautiful and powerful are Ms. Rand's essays compiled there about the psycho-epistemology of art, as one fundamental part of man's mental processes, "closing the circle" by generating real percepts that convey important concepts (mostly ethical) for the creator and later for the spectator.

I think that in a similar way worshiping images of Gods (statues , paints, symbols, etc.) served in the past as percepts that evoked important concepts inside the more smart people mentioned above, who probably don't really believed very much in the alleged supernatural powers of these Gods, and this process worked for them in a similar way as art does but in different fields more related with metaphysics and epistemology.

I will give an example from my own: From time to time I like to go to the cemetery and mentally talk with my dead father in front of his tomb about the current events of my life, even when I know he is not longer there or anywhere else because I don't believe in afterlife, spirits or anything related.

Then why I like to do this? Because the percept "tomb-of-my-father" helps me to remember him better in this peaceful context, and then "talk" with his memories inside my brain in a form of continuing (just for me) a relationship that is no longer possible.

We are beings that relation with the World through our senses and thus percepts help us to remember, elaborate, manage and synthesize concepts, which are the basic material to build our knowledge and our sense of life.

In this apparently simple act my mind is doing several important psycho-epistemological processes:

1-Bringing back to the focus of my conciseness the person of my father an with him the thousand of important (good an bad) symbols he represents in my life

2- From these symbols reassuring of keeping the good and eliminating the bad on ethical basis

3-Comparing all that with the current events of my life and with my own current value judgments

4-Relocating the concept "father" in other geographical and mental place

5-Re-acknowledging he is is gone and will never return, reassuring also my disbelief in afterlife even when I would strongly like the opposite

I know this last example is a little "too personal" but the personal are the things each one of us better know about...

I don't want to do psycho therapy here, but since I have never been a religious person it is the closest thing to the subject I can imagine

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Anything and everything you can imagine has at least some reality to it. A dream is real, if you can think it, it is real. That, however, it not necessarily the question. More so, the question is how real is it? To answer, one must decide what exactly god is. I will spare you the details and state that god is power

Here are some notes from my writings to further illustrate:

5. What god is

God is Power;

Power is political;

Politics is power;

etc..

Ex.

Nuclear/atomic capabilities has semi divine status given it's apparent adoration by the masses. If it just so happen to be that it was the most powerful thing knowable, you can be sure that it would become the absolute god and would be given sacrificial animals during worship. To a child, who has not been indoctrinated into the world, the mother or father may be thought of as god, if the child sees fire, it may be god, it may also be magic, or a miracle.

Also may consider the realities to the Ancient Greek god's. Eros for example, was not so much the god of love as he was the embodiment of love. With that said, any time you happened to have experienced a feeling of love, you would attribute it to Eros. Further from this, if you were to have "troubles" with love, then you would in turn blame Eros (Cupid in Roman) and, often enough, actually curse the deity/force! Most know, for example, that the Trojan war was blamed, to large extent, upon gods. This is because, for the most part, Greek culture, ideology, and religion dictated that men could be and sometimes were greater than the gods, thereby making it possible to ignore, surpass, or bypass concepts of holiness when referencing the potential of man himself.

Since god is power, and for me the most powerful thing I know of is truth, then necessarily, for me, god is truth and truth is the ultimate power.

signed,

-meanderings of a philosopher

Edited by Sieur Bertrand
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything and everything you can imagine has at least some reality to it. A dream is real, if you can think it, it is real. That, however, it not necessarily the question. More so, the question is how real is it?
No, that's the wrong question. The difference between dreaming being in an accident and actually being in an accident is not about degrees of realness. The question is: real in what sense? One is a real dream and the other is a real accident.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's the wrong question. The difference between dreaming being in an accident and actually being in an accident is not about degrees of realness. The question is: real in what sense? One is a real dream and the other is a real accident.

"in what sense"l, i.e./as in what level of reality?

Honestly don't see the difference. Appears you are simply restating, albeit in somewhat different and perhaps clearer terms, my comment. With that said, how is it wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"in what sense"l, i.e./as in what level of reality?

Honestly don't see the difference. Appears you are simply restating, albeit in somewhat different and perhaps clearer terms, my comment. With that said, how is it wrong?

I'm not answering for SoftwardNerd, but addressing your question: "How real is it?"

I agree that this is the wrong question. There are not "levels" of reality; it is either-or. Dreams are real products of one's perceptions, imaginations, and subconscious processing, and so they are real mentally, and only mentally. That doesn't make them any less real than the daily events, such as accidents. If dreams exist, then they are real, not some real thing with a few "unreal" holes poked through it which makes it less real.

If you have Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, reading pages 154-158 should be helpful to you. The point made about concepts and determinacy can be generalized to any mental something (entity, unit, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not answering for SoftwardNerd, but addressing your question: "How real is it?"

I agree that this is the wrong question. There are not "levels" of reality; it is either-or. Dreams are real products of one's perceptions, imaginations, and subconscious processing, and so they are real mentally, and only mentally. That doesn't make them any less real than the daily events, such as accidents. If dreams exist, then they are real, not some real thing with a few "unreal" holes poked through it which makes it less real.

If you have Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, reading pages 154-158 should be helpful to you. The point made about concepts and determinacy can be generalized to any mental something (entity, unit, etc.)

That's all fine and dandy but you still havn't told me why they are wrong, and to be quite honest I don't think you can. What is it that you find fault with my argument? Word Choice? How the statement is phrased? I don't get it. Is it your perceptions that are the conflict?

Link to post
Share on other sites
"in what sense"l, i.e./as in what level of reality?
Different "levels" suggests that the two things share some quality, but one is less than another. i.e. that the difference is not of type, but only of quantity. Anyhow, this was not your main point, so I ought not hijack the thread any more.

Back on the topic of God, I think its fine to say that your God is truth, in the sense that you put truth above all else, or in the sense that the truth is the source of power, and the truth will set you free.

OTOH, does the religious person really think God is power? Or, does he think God is the explanation for power. He sees winds and storms and lightning and thinks: something or someone must be behind this power. Or, as in your example of Eros, he explains his own consciousness as being powered by something outside himself, attributing it to some external source that inspires these emotions within him. He ends up thinking that it must be some other consciousness. This is the usual concept of God. i.e. God as some type of unknown but powerful consciousness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Different "levels" suggests that the two things share some quality, but one is less than another. i.e. that the difference is not of type, but only of quantity. Anyhow, this was not your main point, so I ought not hijack the thread any more.

Back on the topic of God, I think its fine to say that your God is truth, in the sense that you put truth above all else, or in the sense that the truth is the source of power, and the truth will set you free.

OTOH, does the religious person really think God is power? Or, does he think God is the explanation for power. He sees winds and storms and lightning and thinks: something or someone must be behind this power. Or, as in your example of Eros, he explains his own consciousness as being powered by something outside himself, attributing it to some external source that inspires these emotions within him. He ends up thinking that it must be some other consciousness. This is the usual concept of God. i.e. God as some type of unknown but powerful consciousness.

True and I think the question you are "reaching towards" comes down to belief. For example, I am selfish because I believe in no thing but one thing, which is myself and therefore antithesis of selflessness. A religious person on the other hand, will attribute what they perceive as "miraculous" to the external god. This is really strange when I think about it because it is a seeming contradiction yet the evidence says otherwise in that I am subjectively (Believe in self) objective (Selfish w/evidence/reason).

What's the story of Prometheus? I put it in my into post, I'll refrain from posting it but you might like to check it out for further consideration. As far as thinking, most people think that which is convenient or easy. In the case of fire, it was thanks to god whereby stating as such is more or less an excuse for their own shortcomings and personal choice as it may relate to mediocrity. Basically they feel/think/choose, for whatever reason, that they cannot simply do a "great" thing such as make a discovery or somehow improve themselves/realize their potential so anyone that does is an automatic threat to their existence which they must, in someway, explain away, hence attributing it to an imaginary god. In the case of the Greeks it was reversed. Whenever something was good, they would often attribute it to man and his ability, but when something was bad, or inadquate, they would attribute it to god (i.e. **** you Eros! Zues, help me out! (Or help myself!) :thumbsup: )

-Derek

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that, when people experience things and blame it on God or gods that they make up the deities in there mind. They don't exist, just figments of there imaginations. They would exist "to them" but that doesn't mean exist for real, or at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything and everything you can imagine has at least some reality to it. A dream is real, if you can think it, it is real. That, however, it not necessarily the question. More so, the question is how real is it? To answer, one must decide what exactly god is. I will spare you the details and state that god is power

Dear Sieur Bertrand, God is power and a lot things more. There are many types of believers out there, each one with his own version of God

My initial approach "Gods exist: we created them" is a proposition reversal to the current generalized version of the major monotheist religions that Gods created us.

This reversal proposition is meant as a more clever way to begin a discussion with believers. A simple truth that could be self-evident for us Objectivists, but not necessarily to other people.

Because just saying "God doesn't exist" to a helpless man that has put all his trust in some God that he or other people invented, means probably just closing the door to a further open discussion.

I call "open" to a discussion where people really heard other's arguments, not only trying to win the discussion

On the other hand it is very interesting that in the indispensable process of conceptualization, the man's mind tend always to compare, which is one of its major basic functions. And one way you can always compare anything is against its opposite. In fact the "law of contrast" says that nothing exists without its opposite: light vs darkness, figure vs background, life vs death, etc.

All this means that an important concept about anything is not only what the thing is but also what the thing is not including ourselves.

Following this line of reasoning, it seems that through all the mankind's history Gods had been the "no-man", everything we can't do, can't know, etc. thus when man someday reaches all knowledge and all power, man will be a God and Gods will cease to exist...

Gods should be grateful to men because they exist thanks to us

Link to post
Share on other sites
My initial approach "Gods exist: we created them"is a proposition reversal to the current generalized version of the major monotheist religions that Gods created us.

This reversal proposition is meant as a more clever way to begin a discussion with believers. A simple truth that could be self-evident for us Objectivists, but not necessarily to other people.

Why do you think this is less threatening than "there is no God"? If you follow your statement to its logical conclusion, it would go: "We invented gods; thus gods are just figments of our imagination--they don't REALLY exist."

I call "open" to a discussion where people really heard other's arguments, not only trying to win the discussion

I doubt equivocation will help the matter, though. People (worth talking to in the first place) will know you're just being sneaky, and maybe trust you even less.

Gods should be grateful to men because they exist thanks to us

Um, except that they don't REALLY exist, so they can't have desires or emotions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you think this is less threatening than "there is no God"? If you follow your statement to its logical conclusion, it would go: "We invented gods; thus gods are just figments of our imagination--they don't REALLY exist."

I doubt equivocation will help the matter, though. People (worth talking to in the first place) will know you're just being sneaky, and maybe trust you even less.

Um, except that they don't REALLY exist, so they can't have desires or emotions.

Dear Musanji: I am trying here to be a little different than average here, since just saying "God doesn't exist" is not novelty and doesn't deserve a post.

If I had proof of God's non existence certainly I would not post it in a forum, I would instead write the bestseller book of all times and getting immensely rich :lol:

A little of imagination or metaphors don't kill your reason nor make you less Objectivist in my opinion...

On the other hand some "poetry" in the texts or in the way you present your ideas don't hurt but instead make things more interesting for other people. Ayn Rand herself understood this from the very beginning and presented originally her ideas in literary form with a considerable addition of powerful poetry on them: I am just now re-reading the John Galt's speech and it is a beautiful prose-poetry literary piece itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't criticizing poetry, imagination, or metaphors--I was criticizing your belief that your particular method would be more effective or good than simply saying what you think.

I have said to a Christian: "Man created God in his own image." They're smart enough to figure out that that means God doesn't really exist, and to say "You're wrong." ...Which the aforementioned Christian did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't criticizing poetry, imagination, or metaphors--I was criticizing your belief that your particular method would be more effective or good than simply saying what you think.

I have said to a Christian: "Man created God in his own image." They're smart enough to figure out that that means God doesn't really exist, and to say "You're wrong." ...Which the aforementioned Christian did.

Ok ok, you are right, is very difficult in fact convincing anybody about changing his fundamental beliefs whatever they are religious, politics, philosophy, etc. because they involve basic value judgments that are essential for man's mind to work. (It take years to change this)

But isn't it just beautiful try to say things in a different way? Just for the sake of exercise your creativity?

I have observed (and it would be subject for other forum's post) that we Objectivist tend to be too "crude" or direct in our way to say things, as if we had not very much imagination or poetry in our lives. We almost always avoid metaphors or "gray zones" in favor of clarity, because of our way to think and act.

It is essential having strong ideas and convictions but the real World outside is not always pure black and white and sometimes we should approach things and/or persons in a more "balanced" way (compromised if you want), not always straight with a front-strike.

I always try to know and understand other's points of view (understanding doesn't means approval) because knowledge is power, the kind of power that leads to the right choices

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, sometimes, saying things precisely and clearly is saying them in a different way from what most people are used to. Sometimes, when someone says something really clearly, when they get right to the point instead of beating around the bush (and their point has substance), I think "wow, that's so clear, so clean".

I don't know what you mean when you say the real world isn't always pure black or white. I mean, I'm just not sure. Rand has an essay in the Virtue of Selfishness on this very subject, but her essay regards morality and I don't know whether that's what you mean.

I understand about the "crude"ness. I find that people end up being crude and harsh when they feel threatened. But the sight of someone saying their point simply, clearly, and with no tension often is a wonderful sight. Still, metaphors and symbolism can be very useful, so long as they aren't fundamentally confusing.

Rand agreed that one should try to fully understand opposing viewpoints. I do see a tendency among many Objectivists to think that "Rand is all I need, she's made everything fundamental that matters quite clear, so why read other philosophers?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Musenji: we can agree on almost all that :-)

About the "black and white" subject, even in morality (ethics) Objectivism is a beacon in the horizon to follow, I try to live by it and I normally do (and enjoy) specially in the "big issues" of life, but in the small day-to-day choices I have to say that I am not 100% the perfect Objectivist (90% perhaps?), even when I am conscious that every choice left its small mark in the course of your life. Why this happens? Because of the environment

This leads to a point that I am since sometime thinking about:

Objectivist is a very "idealistic" philosophy that appeal to the best inside men, and is more or less easy to practice in a quite free country like USA, but what about people living in a reality where liberty and individual rights are not so much respected?

Isn't Objectivism a philosophy only for a "developed" society?

Isn't it possible to fully practice only in places where individual rights are sacred?

Perhaps in the past history of the mankind Objectivism was not successful because violence was the normal currency to obtain goods that where very scarce, and other people's lives were one of the most valuable commodities to buy and sell. Ignorance, fear and a poor existence was the price...

Context is the key word here.

I live in Argentina and even when slavery was abolished more than a century ago :-), it is anyway a hard country for an Objectivist to live in, there is a lot of collectivism and little respect for individual liberty inside people's mind and/or government's behavior, and soon they both can unexpectedly turn to coercion to impose their points of view (like the current violent conflict between the countryside people and the government for excessive taxes)

With the years I turned to practice martial arts to be able eventually to defend my own liberty, but it could be useless against an angry mob or a collectivistic government alleging they own your money or your effort or they know what are the best things for you, etc.

Well... It is not a self-justification, it is just to let you know what I mean when I speak about some degree of "grayness" in your everyday life. I know Ayn Rand hated grayness, but sometimes you have just to live with this, finding some compromise between reality and your own ideals (not to speak about much worse countries like Iran, etc. where it seems that it is almost forbidden to think by yourself)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...