Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

God exists

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't think I can explain it right now, or in this month, but I ask you, all of you, whether you see any kind of historic value, at least as an enabler, in monotheism, that is in bundling all gods together and thus freeing the earth from endless petty wars (physical and philosophical ones).

That's where you're wrong. Monotheism isn't a bundling all of the invented gods together into one, it's denying the existence of all the others and asserting the exclusive truth of that one god. Furthermore, that assertion is what led to petty wars, because it became the righteous vs. the infidels. Before that, if I may make such a generalization, people were pretty lax about their religion; each town had its own god, etc. It was only when people started claiming that their god was the only god that religion became a problem.

Edited by Sir Andrew
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 255
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Furthermore, that assertion is what led to petty wars,

Um, no.

First off, I'd like an example of a "petty" war.

Secondly, history is rife with examples of different cultures with polytheistic religious systems entering into conflict with each other over border disputes, greed, lust for dominance...any number of non religious causes.

Religion certainly *has* been a cause of war - but only one of many irrational causes of war.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW is Objectivism a dialectic philosophy like Sciabarra postulates? Because I feel very dialectic when I challenge a position.

I would've disagreed with your theory (just by looking at historical facts-and now that you mentioned evolution, at biological ones) long before I read Ayn Rand.

Now, of course, I can give you a reason why that theory couldn't be true, based on what I learned about religion and reason from her. But I'm neither reciting Objectivist ideas to you, nor am I speaking for Objectivism.

My main point was very much to look at historical facts. Those have nothing to do with Ayn Rand, or philososphy.

P.S. "Dialectic" has all sorts of definitions, do share what you mean by feeling that way.

But I couldn't answer the question, because I haven't read the Sciabarra book: I'd love to discuss it though, if you care to go into why it would be a "dialectic" philosophy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's not call it my theory just yet.

As Sir Andrew pointed out, Monotheism is the negation of all gods but one. I can't help to wonder if that precedent could have been what enable to deny "one god further" as the zoologist puts it.

And as Greebo corrected, polytheism and idolatry led to multiple wars. But what I specifically was thinking of were the petty conflicts within a people, as in the case that the johnson's eant a bird for dinner wich the thompsons considered sacred, and so on. Modern Hinduism is not an example, but rather the old israelites, or the native Americans which I believe saw an orwellian state of constant war.

So as for historic reasons, I'll have to rely on the poor "proof" of empirical evidence and analogism: tne Republic, and thus Capitalism, Freedom, was a negation to the MONarch. I can't help to suspect that without a previous Aboslute Monarchy that replaced Feudalism, the modern Republic wouldn't exist.

What is it that you don't agree with exactly? of the past value of monotheism?

I kinda believe in a hierarchichal order in history where urban societies come out of industrial and so on. But as Singapore and H.K. demonstrated by their existence, an agrarian society can become fully urban without the industrial stage (to a point). Therefore I'm not sure of what could have been.

In any case, the last resource I have is yet again pointing out that it was the proselytizing monotheistic religions daughters of Judaism that conquered and civilized the world for the last millenium - thus extending and ellaborating Aristotelic ideas.

Finally, I have my last heressy: monotheism as an enabler of individualism, since if god is one, then the individual soul is what it counts. This lacks validity for the muslims who don't believe they have a soul but a piesce of a giant indivisible soul called umah.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And as Greebo corrected, polytheism and idolatry led to multiple wars.

That is almost exactly the opposite of what I said.

Secondly, history is rife with examples of different cultures with polytheistic religious systems entering into conflict with each other over border disputes, greed, lust for dominance...any number of non religious causes.
Link to post
Share on other sites
As Sir Andrew pointed out, Monotheism is the negation of all gods but one. I can't help to wonder if that precedent could have been what enable to deny "one god further" as the zoologist puts it.

Not really. Dawkin's point in claiming that we are all atheists when it comes to other peoples' gods, he just goes one god further, is soley to point out that theists have no trouble in disbelieving in gods; he's basically saying to them that their attitude towards Thor is exactly the same as his attitude towards Yahweh/Jesus, so his point of view shouldn't be all *that* alien to them.

In essence if the audience follows it far enough they might recognize how subjective their religious beliefs are. (Long before that happens, 99.9% of the time they will abort to the mental state that Ayn Rand referred to as "blank out.") That is Dawkin's hope at any rate. (He may be an epistemological skeptic when you drill down, believing one cannot be certain, but he properly condemns belief in something for no reason at all.)

Though Dawkins tries to toss it off as "just give up one more God" really the key is not how many gods you believe in but whether you believe in any positive number versus zero. The difference between 0 and 1 in this case is far more significant than the difference between 1 and 3. (Whoops, did I just accidentally-on-purpose call Christians on claiming to be monotheistic while buying into this weird trinity thing?)

And as Greebo corrected, polytheism and idolatry led to multiple wars. But what I specifically was thinking of were the petty conflicts within a people, as in the case that the johnson's eant a bird for dinner wich the thompsons considered sacred, and so on. Modern Hinduism is not an example, but rather the old israelites, or the native Americans which I believe saw an orwellian state of constant war.

Actually there are places in India where Hindus are forcibly converting Christians. I wish I had the reference; I'd love to shove it in the face of Xians who bitch about how hard it is to be an Xian in modern society. (Try being an atheist, asshats!)

In any case Greebo is alluding to the concept many polytheists had--that god those other people worship exists all right, just like ours does, but he's not *our* god. And when those two gods get into an argument, it's our duty to help our god out by slaughtering the other god's followers. Polytheism in this form was strictly a form of tribalism, a team mascot raised to the third or fourth power. When one goes to monotheism, now that "other" god is a complete delusion which must be forcibly corrected, or worse is really Satan in disguise, again needing forcible correction.

There are other variants of polytheism where you believe in a number of gods and all other gods not on your list are false gods but in my relatively limited scope of knowlege about such things, that seems to be rarer (unless you consider Christianity as such).

I kinda believe in a hierarchichal order in history where urban societies come out of industrial and so on. But as Singapore and H.K. demonstrated by their existence, an agrarian society can become fully urban without the industrial stage (to a point). Therefore I'm not sure of what could have been.

Again, not really. Singapore and Hong Kong don't have huge industrial capacity, but they do not *have* to since they are open borders as far as trade goes. You could not have a city like that without industry *somewhere*; by being free trade they get to use someone else's industry. (If nothing else they had to import the building materials!)

In any case, the last resource I have is yet again pointing out that it was the proselytizing monotheistic religions daughters of Judaism that conquered and civilized the world for the last millenium - thus extending and ellaborating Aristotelic ideas.

No--Islam and Christianity ended up in control of Europe and the Middle East through agressive proselytization, sometimes *very* agressive. (Islam's preferred method of spreading is imposing Sharia law by force through conquest or terrorism--Although nominally tolerant of other religions in their midst, Sharia is just oppresive enough to the unbelievers to give them an incentive to convert, which turns out to be a one-way street and oh-by-the-way you'd better make sure you bring your brainwashable kids with you to mosque five times a day, so that they really *will* be Muslim.)

We just happen to be very lucky that there were some scholars in the Islamic world during the early middle ages who studied the Greek philosophers, and that Thomas Aquinas found out about it and decided to try to bend Aristotle to the service of Christianity. Obviously *that* didn't work; he ultimately triggered the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which the truly hard-core Christians have regretted ever since.

Finally, I have my last heressy: monotheism as an enabler of individualism, since if god is one, then the individual soul is what it counts. This lacks validity for the muslims who don't believe they have a soul but a piesce of a giant indivisible soul called umah.

In other words you've just conceded the argument by providing the counterexample.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No--Islam and Christianity ended up in control of Europe and tsthe Middle East through agressive proselytization, sometimes *very* agressive. (Islam's preferred method of spreading is imposing Sharia law by force through conquest or terrorism--Although nominally tolerant of other religions in their midst, Sharia is just oppresive enough to the unbelievers to give them an incentive to convert, which turns out to be a one-way street and oh-by-the-way you'd better make sure you bring your brainwashable kids with you to mosque five times a day, so that they really *will* be Muslim.)

We just happen to be very lucky that there were some scholars in the Islamic world during the early middle ages who studied the Greek philosophers, and that Thomas Aquinas found out about it and decided to try to bend Aristotle to the service of Christianity. Obviously *that* didn't work; he ultimately triggered the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, which the truly hard-core Christians have regretted ever since.

Not really. Dawkin's point in claiming that we are all atheists when it comes to other peoples' gods, he just goes one god further, is soley to point out that theists have no trouble in disbelieving in gods; he's basically saying to them that their attitude towards Thor is exactly the same as his attitude towards Yahweh/Jesus, so his point of view shouldn't be all *that* alien to them.

In essence if the audience follows it far enough they might recognize how subjective their religious beliefs are. (Long before that happens, 99.9% of the time they will abort to the mental state that Ayn Rand referred to as "blank out.") That is Dawkin's hope at any rate. (He may be an epistemological skeptic when you drill down, believing one cannot be certain, but he properly condemns belief in something for no reason at all.)

Though Dawkins tries to toss it off as "just give up one more God" really the key is not how many gods you believe in but whether you believe in any positive number versus zero. The difference between 0 and 1 in this case is far more significant than the difference between 1 and 3. (Whoops, did I just accidentally-on-purpose call Christians on claimi ng to be monotheistic while buying into this weird trinity thing?)

BTW I don't consider Catholics monotheists. I'm speaking mainly about Judaism and some forms of Protestantism that are based in the Old Testament as much as in the New one; the philosophical link for modern Zionism.

Yes the distinction between reason and superstition goes first, but I give that for granted: Philosophy came into existence at roughly the same time as organized religion, but why was the latter preeminent. The question is an an inquisition of the evil, or rationalized irrationality (theology). Since we evolved from irrational creatures at a gradual pace, we have and are transtitioning from relying on instinct to reason as we speak. There wasn't a singularity in the past when reason sparked and ape was made man - and from that moment all men are automatically free be from their animal appendici.

Do you believe, like the neo-techs, that history could have evolved in exponential perfection? What would have happened to Aristotle's ideas without their difussion by the Roman welfare imperialists, or the brutally of jihad or of the Conquest. There's always a silver lining in war, and war was a prerequisite to expand an imperfect civilization over a barbarian world.

Therefore the question of Monotheism, the core belief and identity of a small and oldest people, is whether it was not an important silver lining in the development of modern philosophy and ultimately... of Objectivism. Ayn Rand exalted Athens but could only do so by contrasting it to Yerusalem.

I think me must prevent dark ages, and dark ellements, but to do so we must understand what role they played in history, why were they "pragmatically" accepted, or which was the lesser evil.

Again, not really. Singapore and Hong Kong don't have huge industrial capacity, but they do not *have* to since they are open borders as far as trade goes. You could not have a city like that without industry *somewhere*; by being free trade they get to use someone else's industry. (If nothing else they had to import the building materials!)

That's why I do believe in some hierarchichal order in history, thanks for proving this point.

In other words you've just conceded the argument by providing the counterexample.

in that case yes i did, and in all due fairness to the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you believe, like the neo-techs, that history could have evolved in exponential perfection? What would have happened to Aristotle's ideas without their difussion by the Roman welfare imperialists, or the brutally of jihad or of the Conquest. There's always a silver lining in war, and war was a prerequisite to expand an imperfect civilization over a barbarian world.

I don't know who the neo-techs are, but from the little info you're providing they must be making a good point, if that point is something other than "war is the only conceivable means of spreading good ideas, for the purpose of replacing them with good ones."

Can you really not think of other ways to spread ideas, except through force? Which are the wars that brought about the Renaissance or The Enlightenment and The Industrial Revolution? What great empire sent its armies across the Western World, spreading reason, logic, scientific achievement to people who could not have accepted them otherwise?

On a completely unrelated subject, (of course :) ), what is your opinion of Bush's idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East through military means?

Therefore the question of Monotheism, the core belief and identity of a small and oldest people, is whether it was not an important silver lining in the development of modern philosophy and ultimately... of Objectivism. Ayn Rand exalted Athens but could only do so by contrasting it to Yerusalem.

I don't understand your point. How does contrasting Athens to Jerusalem lead to Jerusalem being instrumental in bringing about Objectivism? What is the connection between Objectivism (made possible by Athens), and Jerusalem? Why would Objectivism have needed Jerusalem, or any type of enemy or opponent for that matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, it's more like an economic heirarchy that's shown there. People can't build skyscrapers if all of their effort goes into just barely feeding themselves. Once someone figures out how to do that more efficiently, well, ultimately the sky is the limit.

Exactly. The differentiation between the two types of evolution volco is using interchangeably (biological and technological) is made clearly in Ray Kurzweil's book, "The Singularity is near". (it's in the first ten pages of the book, if you have it handy)

I'm referencing that book because volco used the word "singularity", so this might be the vicinity of where he's coming from.

Technological evolution however has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes for the human race to evolve (biological evolution), and I don't see the connection with the other factor volco mentioned: monotheistic religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know who the neo-techs are, but from the little info you're providing they must be making a good point, if that point is something other than "war is the only conceivable means of spreading good ideas, for the purpose of replacing them with good ones."

The neo-techs are/were a group inspired by Objectivism, led by a controversial character. They stated that should obrational philosophy had been adopted - all the time - then i.e. they provided, Jesus would have been a famous carpenter who built a skyscraper in Anatolya -2000 yrs ago. I consider this utopic.

Can you really not think of other ways to spread ideas, except through force? Which are the wars that brought about the Renaissance or The Enlightenment and The Industrial Revolution? What great empire sent its armies across the Western World, spreading reason, logic, scientific achievement to people who could not have accepted them othernwise?

Of course I can think of non coercive ways of spreading ideas, but that is a -historically- recent achievement.

Renaissance: Spanish Reconquista, Spnish Conquest of the Americas, reccuperation of greek texts.

The Enlightenment: English Revolution, Revolutionary wars across the Americas - Bill of Rights.

Industrial Revolution: British Imperialism spread logic and scientific achievement like no other civilization until the USA in the XXth c.

On a completely unrelated subject, (of course :) ), what is your opinion of Bush's idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East through military means?

The great achievement of America was to be a peaceful empire that spreads its superior culture more from Sillicon Valley and (argh) Holywood for their own benefit than from the Pentagon for GOD knows whose benefit.

I don't understand your point. How does contrasting Athens to Jerusalem lead to Jerusalem being instrumental in bringing about Objectivism? What is the connection between Objectivism (made possible by Athens), and Jerusalem? Why would Objectivism have needed Jerusalem, or any type of enemy or opponent for that matter?

You said it yourself: the fact of contrasting two sides, makes both sides an instrument for the contrast itself. Ayn Rand explained it regarding aesthetics: evil is only worth portraying as to exalt the good. She also implied that it is necessary, after all the character of Roark needed a Toohey.

What's the connection between Objectivism and Jerusalem? Indirectly Ayn Rand was made possible by Jerusalem, the idea of Jerusalem. Do you think her jewish ancestry played no role in her upbringing?

Exactly. The differentiation between the two types of evolution volco is using interchangeably (biological and technological) is made clearly in Ray Kurzweil's book, "The Singularity is near". (it's in the first ten pages of the book, if you have it handy)

I'm referencing that book because volco used the word "singularity", so this might be the vicinity of where he's coming from.

Technological evolution however has nothing to do with the amount of time it takes for the human race to evolve (biological evolution), and I don't see the connection with the other factor volco mentioned: monotheistic religion.

granted. and I did took those examples for kurzweil

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know who the neo-techs are, but from the little info you're providing they must be making a good point, if that point is something other than "war is the only conceivable means of spreading good ideas, for the purpose of replacing them with good ones."
Neo-Tech is a combination of scam and quasi-religious cult, the mere mention of which is the only grounds for being banned on HPO. They culled a bunch of phrases from Rand and created a self-helpish cult. FYI, Without Zonpower, You are Trapped in an Anticivilization. With Zonpower, You Control Existence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Renaissance: Spanish Reconquista, , reccuperation of greek texts.

The Enlightenment: - Bill of Rights.

Industrial Revolution: British Imperialism spread logic and scientific achievement like no other civilization until the USA in the XXth c.

These are examples of reason being spread through conquest?

Let's look at some of them, one by one:

1. The Reconquista:

Started in the 8th century, ended in 1492, with the defeat of the Muslim Kingdom of Granada. Spain was unified at that time, under King Ferdinand the second And Queen Isabella. Some of their other achievements were the Inquisition and purging Spain of Jews.

I challenge you to name anything any of this has to do with the principles of the Renaissance.

2. English Revolution, Revolutionary wars across the Americas

I think these were all made possible by the spread of ideas, but I doubt the ideas were caused by the revolutions, no one came over from Europe and defeat the English and Spanish. The ideas came before the war, they weren't caused by it.

Plus, these are anti-imperialist wars to begin with. The empires were not spreading the ideas, they were opposing them.

3. Industrial Revolution: British Imperialism spread logic and scientific achievement like no other civilization

Did it? So why aren't their colonies industrialized? Why have the countries they never conquered, or the ones that broke free, been able to adopt the ideas that lead to industrialization better than the ones that remained colonies?

The colony that is industrialized is the one that broke away long before the Industrial Revolution, and yet the ideas were able to spread freely to this place (USA) quite well, and take root like nowhere else.

And they spread before the XXth century, through the same means every good idea spreads: trade.

War sometimes happens to break down a barrier to allow this trade, but that is never by design. (and hardly the best method of achieving it)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like everyone is getting rather heated up over this thing that people call god.

Yea, silly people actually trying to understand reality rather than just assuming an "it's all good" attitude. What the heck are they thinking?

My opinion is that god is energy.

And you base this opinion on???

There is only one substance.

Which one, carbon?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea, silly people actually trying to understand reality rather than just assuming an "it's all good" attitude. What the heck are they thinking?

And you base this opinion on???

Which one, carbon?

Well, golllly! x'cuse me for bein' me ignorant self!

Seems like I picked the wrong forum.

Truly, I have no "answer" for you for what I base this on, other than I read where energy can be neither created or destroyed. Hence, the one substance "energy" or what have you is the only thing that exists, and we are just part of the "all in all" so to speak. Extensions, if you will I guess I am not sufficiently intelligent to be on this web site and will have to exile myself from the rest of the brainboxes on here.

If you want to educate people as to what Objectivism is all about, and I think Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman, you really shouldn't be so off putting to people. I think a lot of people think Objectivists have this superior attitude and look down at the "ignorant" ones that can't keep up with them, or at least would like to learn a bit more.

Please excuse my "feelings".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, golllly! x'cuse me for bein' me ignorant self!

Seems like I picked the wrong forum.

Truly, I have no "answer" for you for what I base this on, other than I read where energy can be neither created or destroyed. Hence, the one substance "energy" or what have you is the only thing that exists, and we are just part of the "all in all" so to speak. Extensions, if you will I guess I am not sufficiently intelligent to be on this web site and will have to exile myself from the rest of the brainboxes on here.

If you want to educate people as to what Objectivism is all about, and I think Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman, you really shouldn't be so off putting to people. I think a lot of people think Objectivists have this superior attitude and look down at the "ignorant" ones that can't keep up with them, or at least would like to learn a bit more.

Please excuse my "feelings".

Energy isn't god, it can't make water into wine, it can't part the Red Sea or come back from the dead. We are not arguing your personal thoughts of what is "God" we are arguing against the kind of fuzzy thinking that allows people to say "I think that 1+1=14,678!!!" without ever proving it.

Now on other sites you might get people sitting back and nodding their heads and saying "that thinkforyourself guy is a bright spark" but here you will get people asking you to bloody well prove it.

So if you don't come here armed to at least attempt to prove your point (which in your case equates energy to a mythical magical bogeyman) then expect to get hammered.

Edited by Zip
Link to post
Share on other sites
Energy isn't god, it can't make water into wine, it can't part the Red Sea or come back from the dead. We are not arguing your personal thoughts of what is "God" we are arguing against the kind of fuzzy thinking that allows people to say "I think that 1+1=14,678!!!" without ever proving it.

Now on other sites you might get people sitting back and nodding their heads and saying "that thinkforyourself guy is a bright spark" but here you will get people asking you to bloody well prove it.

So if you don't come here armed to at least attempt to prove your point (which in your case equates energy to a mythical magical bogeyman) then expect to get hammered.

Oh, what's the use! I may as well go and join one of those wimpy Buddhist sites. NO, wait, I got kicked off there. I guess I'll just think what I want (yes, regardless of what the brilliant think of me!) Really! Water into wine? Parting the Red Sea? You must think I'm even more stupid than I am being made to feel on here! I understand all about those "fuzzy" thinkers. What I'm trying to say is if you don't explain things to people about your objective beliefs, or if you don't even bother to listen without jumping down someone's throat (Oh God! I must PROVE my point or be banned or I'm just an idiot, etc.) people will genuinely see you as a bunch of superior a-holes looking down at the ignorant masses.

I see it this way: If we were all the same, wouldn't the world be a boring place? So if you think about it, you need people like us dummies to rag on!

Geeze, at least I have a sense of humor......and I'm not a guy, just some poor ignorant woman....

Got any ideas which websites I should visit? Do they have a Spinoza one? Or even Hobbes perhaps? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, golllly! x'cuse me for bein' me ignorant self!

Well, if you come on here with some factual basis for your beliefs rather than just throwing up a couple of wild assertions, then perhaps a more substantive response would follow.

If you want to educate people as to what Objectivism is all about, and I think Ayn Rand was a brilliant woman, you really shouldn't be so off putting to people.

Regardless of what you think of my response, people should be interested in improving themselves of their own accord, not simply because they don't like a given person's attitude.

Truly, I have no "answer" for you for what I base this on...

That is what I expected, you are just grabbing at arbitrary straws. Me, I'd go for the Giant Purple Space Goat...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, I'm new here.

Okay, so it's occurred to me that rather than being somewhat sarcastic about your initial post, perhaps I should respond to your questions with an equivalent level of substance. My purpose for doing this is to indicate how little is to be learned or exchanged intellectually between two people if one just lays down assertions without underlying reasoning.

What about the god of Spinoza?

That stuff is total hogwash.

Seems like everyone is getting rather heated up over this thing that people call god.

I know right. I just don't understand why people consider concepts so important.

My opinion is that god is energy.

Well that's very interesting, but I always thought god was pasta. I mean, there isn't anything better than a plate of spaghetti with meatballs, right?

There is only one substance.

Oh no, definitely at least two... marinara and parmesan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read those last replies, will do, but I'd quit the discussion when I realized I didn't have a sound premise.

I just want so say now that all my previous statement and inquiries stem from me confounding Religion and Theology.

It is Mysticism and Theology the necessary ancestor for Philosophy, not Magic and Religion. Explain: Mysticism in its historic sense of the concept, is the theoretical work around magic - this is a very primitive stage previous to the written word. Theology is the theoretical, writen word, around religion as we know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know whether there's any value in Monotheism specifically, but let's sum my point this way: There ought to be value in Religion. It would almoast violate the law of causality to not asume so: Magic is as different from religion, as the later is different from philosophy. I contend that just as it would have been impossible for mankind to move from instinct to religion, skipping magic rituals, it would have been just as impossible to move from religion to philosophy.

When I mentioned the neo-techs I meant to ask whether Objectivism holds the theory that a perfect, or excellent, evolution of the human species could have -and is- possible.

When it comes to my unanswered proposition that Ayn Rand's Jewish background might have played some role in the development of Objectivism's most basic premises. Let's analyse some of thet most important mitzvot, commandments. Know there's a god, know that god is one, love him, fear him, sanctify him. And therefore: there can be no other gods, but by -explicit- extensio, there can be no other idols. Then it goes on cursing idolatry in a similar manner believers curse atheists today.

Now, Ayn Rand's most basic proposition is that man is, can be, and ought to be, a heroe -the best he or she can be- . Her novels are pure idolatry, and she made an idol of herself.

While I like A.R.'s morality -far more- than Moses, or Maimonides' morality which I've pretty much always considered evil (A.R. gave me the why) ; I ask myself whether Obectivism was structured, in a dyalectic way, upon Monotheism. i.e. her theory of rational selfishness might not have taken that form wasn't from a previous and prevailing theory of mystical altruism. This is particularly interesting introducing Objectivism to non western or non Abrahamic people, like the east Asians.

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...