A Reason for Reverence?

[Devil's Advocate]

I really don't view reverence as a destination. It is an emotional response that coincides with a mental understanding of what I happen to be revering. I would add, what would be considered rational/irrational would be the mental understanding.

Thanks, that really clairfies it for me. I can agree with that.

"Man’s emotional mechanism works as the barometer of the efficacy or impotence of his actions." ~ Ayn Rand Lexicon, Subconscious

Would you say that reverence, as an emotional response, is a measurement of the kind Ayn Rand refers to in the statement above?

Edited July 24, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[Devil's Advocate]

I would not call it awe. Introspecting, I think the particular reaction varies, depending on the subject. A beautiful sunset might make me feel "that's pretty". Seeing a huge underground cave for the first time with its multi-colored stalagmites and stalactites, I might also think it is pretty, but the other emotion is surprise at the unexpected and a degree of curiosity (e.g. "wow! I never realized they looked that way", or "wow! those are huge compared to what I expected"). Seeing a particular mountain gorge, or an a dark underground lake formation, I might feel the latter sense of surprise and curiosity even if I don't think it is pretty.

What you call "surprise" may be the Objectivist equivalent to a spiritual reaction of awe. Seeing a huge underground cave for the first time with its multi-colored stalagmites and stalactites produces an emotional effect (I've been to Carlsbad Caverns). Where an Objectivist reacts with surprise that may or may not spark an interest to study the geology of the environment, a more spiritual person reacts with awe that may or may not spark an interest to study the theology of the environment. Both individuals may arrive at a feeling of reverence for the scene, but for different reasons. Does this sound correct, or do natural wonders never earn the respect of Objectivists?

[softwareNerd]

"Man’s emotional mechanism works as the barometer of the efficacy or impotence of his actions." ~ Ayn Rand Lexicon, Subconscious

Would you say that reverence, as an emotional response, is a measurement of the kind Ayn Rand refers to in the statement above?

Emotions are good measurements of efficacy/impotence, but use one's automated evaluations. So, emotions can be useless or can provide measures that are the opposite of reality and rationality, if those underlying automated evaluations are flawed.

[softwareNerd]

Both individuals may arrive at a feeling of reverence for the scene, but for different reasons. Does this sound correct, or do natural wonders never earn the respect of Objectivists?

On a topic of emotional reaction, I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I don't think any emotional reaction I've had to something spectacular in nature comes anywhere close to what I'd term "respect" or "awe" or "reverence". I might feel respect for the way a cheetah gets its prey, even though -- intellectually -- I know it is simply nature, and not particularly deserving of respect. I might feel respect for a cool iPod when I see it for the first time, but that's actually respect for the designer.

If I someone shows me the chart of the stock-market shooting up some day, I might feel surprise and curiosity, but no respect or disrespect -- unless I associate some actor and some action with that ascent. So, when Soros bet a ton of money against the British pound and won, I felt respect and awe.

I can imagine feeling something like awe if I see something natural, inanimate and extremely spectacular. Not respect though. The emotions which I assign to that concept always involve respect for a consciousness- even if it is an animal. I can understand how someone who has automated the notion of a creator might feel respect when seeing something spectacular in nature, but it isn't something I can actually empathize with. Perhaps it comes from being an atheist since young; I don't know.

[mdegges]

I think you guys are working off of different connotations of the word reverence. Snerd- you use it to describe your feelings towards the maker of an iPod. Devil- you use it to describe your spiritual feelings towards nature.. but I think the former connotation is too light, and the latter is too heavy.

It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal.

The challenge is reducing this down to the perceptual level where each concept is validated. In Galt's speech, and excerpted in Philosophy: Who Needs It?, nearly three pages are dedicated to providing a presentation of what rational ethics has to offer only touching base with moral ideals in: "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose." It is more like of a summation what lies at the root of reverence for one's self.

And looking into this a little more on my end: When I think of personal reverence, I see it as more than just respect for yourself. It's sort of an overwhelming feeling that everything is just right. That you are exactly where you need to be, doing exactly what you should be doing. It's a sobering kind of satisfaction or contentment that you have in regards to yourself and your life. In this sense, reverence is the feeling towards the summation of all your days leading up to that moment. I wonder if this is what Rand had in mind, a fleeting feeling that comes and goes, rather than a constant state of mind.

The concept of reverence towards another person or towards nature seems a little different. As far as nature and man-made things are concerned, I think a beautiful lake view, or sunset, or even a great painting can be awe-inspiring. It's more than just 'prettiness' - it's a rare moment when the beauty/wonder of the scene shocks you. You think, 'how great is it that I'm here right now?' and it makes you recognize how great it is to be alive. A religious person might also feel awe, because he believes God created the view, and is thankful for the experience.

[Devil's Advocate]

I agree Michele. I think you've fairly well summed up what reverence is, and I like the examples you've offered.

My interest in starting this topic was primarily to explore if feeling reverence is so desireable that people of faith look for God(s) for similar reasons that Objectivists look for man as a heroic being; that the magnificance of existence is addictive, and reverence a kind of high. I think that God(s), or Nature's God, or Heroic Beings, are the tip of an emotional iceberg, so to speak, and that which supports it is some essential desire to believe in something greater than ourselves, or an improved version of ourselves. Individually, I believe objects/focuses of reverence are a matter of personal taste, but the catalyst of reverence is a human reaction to the magnificance of reality, and wanting to be a greater part of it.

[Devil's Advocate]

I can imagine feeling something like awe if I see something natural, inanimate and extremely spectacular. Not respect though. The emotions which I assign to that concept always involve respect for a consciousness- even if it is an animal. I can understand how someone who has automated the notion of a creator might feel respect when seeing something spectacular in nature, but it isn't something I can actually empathize with. Perhaps it comes from being an atheist since young; I don't know.

I was baptised as a teenager, but I don't think it took. I've always felt closer to the presumed God(s) of religion outdoors, than kneeling indoors; I feel reverence looking upwards at the stars, and from that perspective, I can't imagine others not feeling something similar, or having some similar aspect of nature that wows them. The more knowledge I gain about stars, the physics, the greater reverence I feel for the universe. Having spend a fair portion of my life working offshore, I developed a respect for the sea, but I think I revered it from the beach before I ever left the shoreline. If I had to be pidgonholed on belief, I suppose Deism is a close approximation, but even that falls short in my estimation. Mostly I'm just insatiably curious.

When man pushes against the world, the world pushes back. Nature is interactive, so I empathize with those who personalize nature into something worthy of their reverence, and that is the context in which I understand Francis Bacon's statement, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." I can accept an Objectivist limiting their reverence to knowledge and those who pursue it, but I'd miss the spray of saltwater on my face, as if coming from a breath of life. So I believe Voltaire was essentially correct, and that we don't possess an ability to understand the nature of the universe simply to calculate our distance from unreachable objects.

[dream_weaver]

Isolating the quote again from Ayn Rand, "It is the entire emotional realm of man's dedication to a moral ideal." referring to the actual emotions that such concepts as "reverence", "sacred", "holy", etc., refer to and re-paraphrasing the question "Is there a positive reason or need, if you will, for reverence?" let me meander for a bit here to try and tie a sequence of thoughts together.

Miss. Rand points out that the question at the root of ethics is "Does man need a code of ethics?" and if so, "Why."

The answer given is "Yes." for without code of morality, man would die, setting the stage for man's life as the standard of value.

Emotions are a response, a reaction, a consequence, if you will. They can provide an analytical tool for evaluating ones thinking.

I'm probably dropping many steps here, but with man having a need for code of morality, and the emotional mechanism providing feedback to assist in the evaluation of what we are confronted with at any given moment in time - reverence would not be a need as such but an emotional reward to encountering some aspect of the moral ideal.

A moral code being necessary leads to the development of a moral code which is either based in reason or is not. Regardless - the aspects of the code that are put on the pedestal as ideal, and accepted as one's sense of life is going to trigger the emotional response when it is encountered in some way, shape or form.

If we consider the emotions as a tool of cognition, or give it primacy over reason, it could seem as though reverence is indeed necessary to the well-being of a human being.

If we put it in it's proper place, the aspect that is necessary to the well-being of a human being, that is a moral code built on reason, properly cultivated should provide the emotion of reverence under the proper circumstances.

[Devil's Advocate]

... reverence would not be a need as such but an emotional reward to encountering some aspect of the moral ideal.

A moral code being necessary leads to the development of a moral code which is either based in reason or is not. Regardless - the aspects of the code that are put on the pedestal as ideal, and accepted as one's sense of life is going to trigger the emotional response when it is encountered in some way, shape or form.

If we consider the emotions as a tool of cognition, or give it primacy over reason, it could seem as though reverence is indeed necessary to the well-being of a human being.

If we put it in it's proper place, the aspect that is necessary to the well-being of a human being, that is a moral code built on reason, properly cultivated should provide the emotion of reverence under the proper circumstances.

I believe it's correct to say that emotions shouldn't be given primacy over reason, however I dispute the idea that an emotion like reverence is icing on the cake for having acted properly, as though the cake can be separated from the icing in terms of fulfilling a basic need; we need both reason and emotional reward. If an emotional barometer is necessary, and I believe it is, then emotions are a necessary ingredient. Putting it another way, if reason alone is sufficient to fulfill the need for a rational moral code to live by, wouldn't the life of a stoic be the ideal model to aspire to?

Related to the issue of reverence founded on rational vs irrational meanings as a human emotion, I'm posting the following links for comment and observation. There is no doubt that one observes reverence at a funeral, but how does one evaluate the similar observation of reverence displayed by animals who lack Objectivist "tools of cognition"?

http://en.wikipedia....y_other_animals

http://www.theartofb...e-for-the-dead/

http://www.birds.cor...l_funerals.html

If an "intelligent" animal can only attach meaning to a referent of realtiy, e.g. a fallen member of their species, and the result is an observabe display of reverence, doesn't this suggest a more primal role for reverence?

Edited July 26, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[dream_weaver]

I believe it's correct to say that emotions shouldn't be given primacy over reason, however I dispute the idea that an emotion like reverence is icing on the cake for having acted properly, as though the cake can be separated from the icing in terms of fulfilling a basic need; we need both reason and emotional reward. If an emotional barometer is necessary, and I believe it is, then emotions are a necessary ingredient. Putting it another way, if reason alone is sufficient to fulfill the need for a rational moral code to live by, wouldn't the life of a stoic be the ideal model to aspire to?

I'm not claiming that an emotion like reverence is icing on the cake, nor that they can be separated. Emotional responses are analogous to pain/pleasure responses of touching something hot, or sharp as opposed to warm or soft. Emotions, however, rely on previously accepted ideas. Some people consider Christ on a crucifix very meaningful and take joy/reverence/love in observing it, for what they have over their lives made it mean to them. I can look at the same image and simply see a corpse, am familiar with the teachings that stand behind it and consequently feel revoltion for the deeper ideas I understand it to represent. Two different emotional responsese - same stimulus. What is different? The ideas that the emotions spring from.

The moral ideal one selects is dependent on the standard of value one holds (implicitly or explicitly) as the root of the ethical premises. This is why you consider a stoic a moral ideal in this example - where I would choose a Thomas Paine, Issac Newton and Aristotle as role models for abstracting moral ideas from.

Related to the issue of reverence founded on rational vs irrational meanings as a human emotion, I'm posting the following links for comment and observation. There is no doubt that one observes reverence at a funeral, but how does one evaluate the similar observation of reverence displayed by animals who lack Objectivist "tools of cognition"?

I don't.

[dream_weaver]

Related to the issue of reverence founded on rational vs irrational meanings as a human emotion, I'm posting the following links for comment and observation. There is no doubt that one observes reverence at a funeral, but how does one evaluate the similar observation of reverence displayed by animals who lack Objectivist "tools of cognition"?

In reconsideration of the question, animals who lack Objectivist, or more broadly the human tool of cognition, the answer to how one evaluates animal behavior has to be taken with an understanding of how do animals behave. The short answer is by instinct. When we observe non-human behavior, there is a tendency for some to project human-like qualities on what they observe. When an elephant or chimpanzee covers its dead with leaves or branches, human beings ask "Why do they do that?" If they do not differentiate between volitional and non-volitional action, could an erroneous answer emerge and be lent credence by others who have the same or similar implicit or unchecked premises embedded in their evaluation processes?

[Eiuol]

Any emotion is simultaneous with reasoning. Positive emotion isn't just icing on the cake - it's pretty much goes hand in hand with making rational and good choices for value achievement. Rationality for Objectivism is the means to achieve happiness in the emotional sense. Values and emotions are important elements of a path to happiness, just as much as rationality. Reason is a method of cognition, which is used to evaluate values or emotions, and make choices.

I can accept an Objectivist limiting their reverence to knowledge and those who pursue it, but I'd miss the spray of saltwater on my face, as if coming from a breath of life.

I actually disagree that admiration of knowledge and those who pursue it is reverence. I'm thinking of reverence as a transcendental emotion towards one's existence. Some people may believe such an experience as a closeness with god, but it doesn't have to be based on mysticism like that. Capability of feeling such an emotion is probably difficult to do, but I see it as important for self-growth. Meditation is one way to achieve reverence towards existence, and is still consistent with rational thought because it's about focusing one's mind on reality as it is. However you reach reverence is beneficial to one's well-being, probably extremely so. It wouldn't be possible through strictly observing achievements of others, given that I see reverence as a completely internal experience, and not directed *at* anything.

Here's a thread that you may find interesting. I swear there is another part, but I can't find it.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23073

[Devil's Advocate]

When we observe non-human behavior, there is a tendency for some to project human-like qualities on what they observe. When an elephant or chimpanzee covers its dead with leaves or branches, human beings ask "Why do they do that?" If they do not differentiate between volitional and non-volitional action, could an erroneous answer emerge and be lent credence by others who have the same or similar implicit or unchecked premises embedded in their evaluation processes?

Where observation is limited by a lack of ability to communicate directly, intrepreting volitional vs non-volitional action will depend on the apparent purpose of the actions being observed. Here the context appears to be voluntary and selective, i.e. when a species member dies, some (but not all) member survivors stop their routine to pay attention to the death, and make burial attempts. This implies (but doesn't prove) that "intelligent" animals rever life, or the lives other members of their community. I believe this observational evidence is too strong to dismiss as anthropomorphic.

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm thinking of reverence as a transcendental emotion towards one's existence. Some people may believe such an experience as a closeness with god, but it doesn't have to be based on mysticism like that. Capability of feeling such an emotion is probably difficult to do, but I see it as important for self-growth. Meditation is one way to achieve reverence towards existence, and is still consistent with rational thought because it's about focusing one's mind on reality as it is. However you reach reverence is beneficial to one's well-being, probably extremely so. It wouldn't be possible through strictly observing achievements of others, given that I see reverence as a completely internal experience, and not directed *at* anything.

I'm not convinced that reverence is completely internal, but I'd agree that meditation (and prayer) is an expression of reverence towards nature; whether towards one's own nature, or the nature of the universe. In terms of self esteem, it's a way of reaching past one's nature as a fallible being. On a grander scale, it's a way of assigning a larger role for ourselves in the universe. I believe the catalyst for reverence is astonishment; we experience something extraordinary, and for a moment catch a glimpse of something greater than ourselves (or a greater version of ourselves). Or perhaps the initial catalyst is something along the lines of an epiphany, i.e. a sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something. Whatever the catalyst, if the initial experience is positive, e.g. exhilarating, energetic, "knocks your socks off - WOW!", our natural inclination is to try to prolong or reproduce it, return to the scene of the crime, so to speak... to revere that which revealed something astonishingly new to us.

Is reverence beneficial to our health? Absolutely... unless, or until we become disillusioned, e.g. a crisis of faith, or our hero falls from grace, or we fail despite our greatest effort to succeed. Does Objectivism make one's reverence more resilient? Perhaps, but the reason I started this thread was to explore if reverence is necessary to man qua man; is there a reason for it? I believe so, and I believe one reason is that it's the means by which we survive emotional adversities like depression, pain and suffering. We see it reflected in the behavior of intelligent animals who pause to take notice of the death of a member of their community. We see it in our own behavior when we hush for a moment of silent reverence at the passing of someone who's life we will miss interacting with.

It may be that the need for reverence diminishes inversely with one's own success; that reverence is less necessary in a penthouse than a tenement. Nevertheless, I submit there's a rational need for reverence that comes with being human, and leads to the concept of heroic beings, or the creation of illogical gods; that elevates the pursuit of happiness to a noble quest, beyond the struggle to survive.

finis

... for now anyway. I'll check back periodically to resond to questions directed at me, or points of interest not yet addressed. Thanks for everyone's participation.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Devil's Advocate

[dream_weaver]

Where observation is limited by a lack of ability to communicate directly, intrepreting volitional vs non-volitional action will depend on the apparent purpose of the actions being observed. Here the context appears to be voluntary and selective, i.e. when a species member dies, some (but not all) member survivors stop their routine to pay attention to the death, and make burial attempts. This implies (but doesn't prove) that "intelligent" animals rever life, or the lives other members of their community. I believe this observational evidence is too strong to dismiss as anthropomorphic.

Just off the cuff, I'd be more inclined to believe that human beings took the observations of elephants and chimpanzees and ritualized our human ceremonies associated with death.

[Devil's Advocate]

Just off the cuff, I'd be more inclined to believe that human beings took the observations of elephants and chimpanzees and ritualized our human ceremonies associated with death.

Well, if you take the evolutionary model, then observations of mastodons by our furry, low brow ancestors might well be the case...

Thanks for your feedback, dream_weaver. Your perspective has given me insights to Objectivism that I hadn't considered, and I have profited from them.

[mdegges]

My interest in starting this topic was primarily to explore if feeling reverence is so desireable that people of faith look for God(s) for similar reasons that Objectivists look for man as a heroic being; that the magnificance of existence is addictive, and reverence a kind of high. I think that God(s), or Nature's God, or Heroic Beings, are the tip of an emotional iceberg, so to speak, and that which supports it is some essential desire to believe in something greater than ourselves, or an improved version of ourselves. Individually, I believe objects/focuses of reverence are a matter of personal taste, but the catalyst of reverence is a human reaction to the magnificance of reality, and wanting to be a greater part of it.

I think that definitely may have been the start of it. People are looking for an emotional connection to an ideal, that adds to their overall happiness and helps them get through tough times.

I know the Objectivist position is that if you're religious, you're irrational.. You're a sacrificial animal looking to serve other people, and you must disregard your own life. But is that actually true? I think religious people believe because they want to get more out of their lives. They do it with the main purpose of bettering themselves and the people around them. In my opinion, these are noble intentions. Wanting to feel a sense of purpose, of use, of belonging..that's what drives us all.

But back to my other point: that catalyst for reverence, or happiness, or awe..the thing that causes that 'high,' if you will, should be based in reality. Our emotions are connected to our reasoning minds. If you're religious because you want to better yourself and others, and get more out of your life, you need to reconsider what it actually means to follow a religion. Before I read the Bible, I thought Christianity was all rainbows and butterflys. But then I read it and it was a huge wake up call. I realized that what I was getting out of it wasn't an honest moral code, or happiness, or applicable knowledge that I could use to better my life. I was reading about hate in it's truest and nastiest form.. and no First Corinthians passage could undo that. The feeling of reverence I once felt when reading a beautiful bible verse vanished when I flipped back and read the entire chapter. That the feeling I once got wasn't based in reality. In fact, I wasn't being true to myself OR the religion I claimed to be practicing.

Sorry I've gone a little off topic, but my main point is that there's a difference between that 'high' feeling you get from something that isn't based in reality, and the one you get from actually opening your eyes and seeing things for what they really are. Reverence is so much cooler when it stems from something real, something tangible. When real, pure beauty strikes you.. yep. It's a wonderful feeling, something that's worth all the blood, sweat, and tears- so to speak.

[Devil's Advocate]

Sorry I've gone a little off topic, but my main point is that there's a difference between that 'high' feeling you get from something that isn't based in reality, and the one you get from actually opening your eyes and seeing things for what they really are. Reverence is so much cooler when it stems from something real, something tangible. When real, pure beauty strikes you.. yep. It's a wonderful feeling, something that's worth all the blood, sweat, and tears- so to speak.

I find myself in agreement with your comments, and point of view. Reverence for the real is a strength that Objectivism has over Religion, but like you, I don't doubt the sincerity of persons of faith wanting to feel a sense of purpose, use and belonging; to experience divinity as described in the poem "High Flight" by John Magee:

"... and, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod

The high untrespassed sanctity of space,

Put out my hand, and touched the face of god."

I recently had the oppertunity to reread Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason", in which he throughly debunks the revealations of the Bible, yet argues for a transcendent soul by the observation of catipillars to butterflys:

"... for it is not more difficult to believe that we shall exist hereafter in a better state and form than at present, than that a worm should become a butterfly, and quit the dunghill for the atmosphere, if we did not know it as a fact."

There is in existence, room to revere the real along with the unrealized ideal, however one is less likely to become disillusioned with the former than the latter.

Thank you again, Michele, for your thoughtful contributions to this thread.

[mdegges]

I'm posting this topic as an effort to understand the persistance of faith in spite of reason... to account for the apparent need of an otherwise rational population to revere something...

Another thought that comes to mind is that the majority of people who claim to be religious haven't read the holy book of their religion. (In the US, where 80% of people are Christian or Catholic, only 10-20% have read the entire Bible.) Instead of learning about God directly from scripture, 60-70% of the population is left with second-hand interpretations from church, or family members, or friends. It kinda makes me wonder about how many would be able to maintain their feelings (of reverence?) towards God after reading it first-hand, and forming their own opinions.

Edited August 5, 2012 by mdegges

[Devil's Advocate]

Another thought that comes to mind is that the majority of people who claim to be religious haven't read the holy book of their religion... It kinda makes me wonder about how many would be able to maintain their feelings (of reverence?) towards God after reading it first-hand, and forming their own opinions.

This is an interesting point, but I doubt it's a question specific to religion...

[softwareNerd]

Ray Bradbury wrote the following, in response to a critic:

I was amused and somewhat astonished at a critic ..., wondering how I could have been born and raised in Waukegan, ..., and not noticed how ugly the harbor was and how depressing the coal docks and railyards down below the town.

But, of course, I had noticed them and, genetic enchanter that I was, was fascinated by their beauty. Trains and boxcars and the smell of coal and fire are not ugly to children. Ugliness is a concept that we happen on later and become self-conscious about. Counting boxcars is a prime activity of boys. Their elders fret and fume and jeer at the train that holds them up, but boys happily count and cry the names of the cars as they pass from far places. ...

In other words, if your boy is a poet, horse manure can only mean flowers to him; which is, of course, what horse manure has always been about.

It made me think of this thread. Beauty and reverence are in the eye of the beholder, in the sense that interpretation and evaluation are in the mind of the beholder.

(HT: Ash Ryan, whose Amazon reviews I always enjoy.)

[Devil's Advocate]

Beauty and reverence are in the eye of the beholder, in the sense that interpretation and evaluation are in the mind of the beholder.

There's a personal catalyst for reverence, and I believe an equally personal reason to dismiss the reverence of others when it's at odds with our own. This more than anything else accounts for the animosity between carnivores and vegans *snicker*

Quoting Bradbury made me think of another one of his that I believe was also expressed other writers of science fiction...

"I don't try to describe the future. I try to prevent it." ~ Ray Bradbury.

I wonder if Atlas Shrugged might be considered such a preventative work of (science) fiction? It certainly contains futuristic sonic death machines, force fields and unusual energy devices...