To be an O'ist, do you have to be an Atheist?

[Cole]

You're encouraged to ask specific questions on areas that you do not understand, or that you disagree with the Objectivist position on.

It's in all of our interests to clear up confusion.

[Styles2112]

You're encouraged to ask specific questions on areas that you do not understand, or that you disagree with the Objectivist position on.

It's in all of our interests to clear up confusion.

Well, simply, I'm agnostic. Not because I believe in the possibility of god, but because I haven't seen evidence EITHER way. But, the reality is, he/she/it doesn't affect my life, so whether or not there is a god is "Arbitrary" to the concept we're talking about. I, however, understand if that's how it's written that you have to be ATHEIST (if it's in Ayn Rand's own words), so that pretty well removes any doubt of how it HAS to be. I guess I just disagree with it. On the other hand, I agree with pretty much everything else.

[AisA]

Well, simply, I'm agnostic.  Not because I believe in the possibility of god, but because I haven't seen evidence EITHER way. 

Styles, are you familar with the principle that one cannot prove a negative? Are you aware of why there can never be any evidence or proof that god does not exist, and why that lack of proof cannot itself be considered proof of anything?

[Cole]

Well, simply, I'm agnostic.

Read Page 2.

[Styles2112]

Believe me, I read everypage of this thread. And I have full understanding of the concepts laid out in your prior post. I don't know. I guess I'm just a very middle of the ground person. I certainly lean more towards atheist thinking, I've just never been one to rule out anything.

[JMeganSnow]

Believe me, I read everypage of this thread.  And I have full understanding of the concepts laid out in your prior post.  I don't know.  I guess I'm just a very middle of the ground person.  I certainly lean more towards atheist thinking, I've just never been one to rule out anything.

Refusal to take a stand on a profoundly moral issue (whether reason is valid or not, ultimately) is a profoundly immoral act. If you are going to achieve an integrated philosophy and an unbreached morality, you have to choose one way or the other.

Sitting on the fence is not possible. If you attempt to do so, you by default have chosen to accept the irrational and the evil as having equal validity with the rational and the good, and thus have implicitly chosen to give power to the irrational and the evil.

Ayn Rand said it herself, "I am not brave enough to be a coward. I understand the consequences too well."

[TomL]

Right, Burgess. It irks me when people imagine Objectivism spawning spontaneously and omnisciently from AR's mind.

I never said that, you only assumed that's what I meant.

Objectivism is complete in the sense that it is internally consistent, and has an important contribution to every branch of philosophy. For example, if it only had the ethical component then we could call it a complete ethical system. But it has a huge influence on every aspect of philosophy, so we call it a complete philosophical system.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me. What I mean when I say Objectivism is complete, is that for a philosophic system to fullfill its role, Objectivism does not need to be added to.

"The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tell him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics)--and in regard to society (politics); the means of concretizing this view is given to him by esthetics." -- from Lexicon

Objectivism does all of that. It provides the answer to every question a man needs to make the choices he must make in order to achieve happiness.

However, that doesn't mean that there's nothing else to do and learn in philosophy. And it's really only the newbies to the philosophy who go around spreading ideas like this, because AR never claimed it, nor do any Objectivist intellectuals. She said it was revolutionary, and that it was fully consistent. And it is, of course.

I take exception to the personal attack. Please try to stay focused on the ideas, without resorting to name calling.

It has been 14 years since I left university -- since I began having real responsibilities, and I have been successful at achieving my values. For you to call me a "newbie" with regard to life is a short-sighted and uniformed conclusion.

Edited March 3, 2005 by TomL

[redfarmer]

It has been 14 years since I left university -- since I began having real responsibilities, and I have been successful at achieving my values.  For you to call me a "newbie" with regard to life is a short-sighted and uniformed conclusion.

He never said you were a newbie to life or anything else. What he said was:

However, that doesn't mean that there's nothing else to do and learn in philosophy. And it's really only the newbies to the philosophy who go around spreading ideas like this, because AR never claimed it, nor do any Objectivist intellectuals. She said it was revolutionary, and that it was fully consistent. And it is, of course.

(emphasis mine)

[Free Capitalist]

Well, not only did I not call you a newbie to life, I didn't have specifically you in mind when mentioning newbies to philosophy.

But the fact is that newbies to Objectivism are very often found believing Objectivism to be revealed word, spontaneously generated and fully complete. To them, the title "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" is merely modesty on AR's part, because obviously she did everything that can be done in epistemology. Such a title to them is an endearingly modest comment, not an honest admission that there are still some holes to be filled and some questions to be answered.

[BurgessLau]

I never said that, you only assumed that's what I meant.[...]

Thanks for finally agreeing with me.  [...]

[...] Please try to stay focused on the ideas, without resorting to name calling.

[...] For you to call me a "newbie" with regard to life is a short-sighted and uniformed conclusion.

What evidence can you offer proving that Free Capitalist was addressing his comments to you?

[...]-- from Lexicon

When you cite a passage in a 535-page book, please have the courtesy to tell your readers the page number or -- in the case of a lexicon -- the title of the article from which the passage was taken. The reason for doing so is the same as the reason for providing the snapback arrow in quotations in this forum: It allows the reader to go back and check the original for himself and to see the context from which the quotation was taken.

[...]Objectivism does all of that.  It provides the answer to every question a man needs to make the choices he must make in order to achieve happiness. [...]

I think you already understand this, but for anyone in this forum who is new to philosophy, I have a comment: Philosophy does not provide all answers. A well-designed philosophy answers the basic questions which everyone everywhere faces. It does not answer questions about personal choices -- for example, Should I choose this central purpose in life or that one? -- but it does, if objective, give us the tools for answering even the most difficult and most personal questions.

Edited March 3, 2005 by BurgessLau

[Styles2112]

Refusal to take a stand on a profoundly moral issue (whether reason is valid or not, ultimately) is a profoundly immoral act.  If you are going to achieve an integrated philosophy and an unbreached morality, you have to choose one way or the other.

I do? Now? Seriously, I have no need to make a decision on God, because God is arbitrary in my life. So, whether it exists or not, has not bearing on how I live my life. Telling me that, because I choose not to decide (I still have made a choice), is immoral is rediculous, when it's not even a fruitful matter. You're telling me that to be an OBJECTIVIST, I have to decide, but by my OWN moral code, I'm perfectly fine in my "sitting on the fence."

Sitting on the fence is not possible.  If you attempt to do so, you by default have chosen to accept the irrational and the evil as having equal validity with the rational and the good, and thus have implicitly chosen to give power to the irrational and the evil.

Should we not except both? If one has power, so must the other. spiritually and scientifically.

Ayn Rand said it herself, "I am not brave enough to be a coward.  I understand the consequences too well."

Calling me a coward isn't really the way to welcome in people looking to learn more about the philosophy.

An interesting point, brought up to me last night, was measurability. You all talk about how Objectivism is the only way to be happy, but how do you measure that? Do you have scientific data on that? Or is it a BELIEF that you are happier?

[TomL]

Well, not only did I not call you a newbie to life, I didn't have specifically you in mind when mentioning newbies to philosophy.

In the context of this discussion, then, who irked you, exactly? You said you were irked, and that as I understand it is an emotional response. Did you have an emotional response to an arbitrary, imagined person you've never spoken to?

Let me set up exactly my state of mind so it is not in question by anyone reading this. I am not angry, miffed, disgruntled, or offended in the slightest. I have every intention of reconciling this with you favorably, and I have every hope that we can get along and support each other in this forum.

That said, I will ask: do you consider yourself an Objectivist? I implore you to apply your knowledge of espistemology and your emotional mechanism -- put it to use. Introspect. If necessary, observe your actions as if you were a third party. If you are honest and see what you have done, you will know what to do. If not, I will consider the matter closed and say no more of it.

One's philosophy is how one lives one's life (whether one chooses to acknowledge it or not), so to call me a newbie with regard to philosophy implies that I don't know what it is or how to use it.

Such a title to them is an endearingly modest comment, not an honest admission that there are still some holes to be filled and some questions to be answered.

I would say that statement is accurate, but I would add the the questions remaining to be answered are (1) not useful in the normal course of living, and (2) ultimately subsumed under already established and true premises which are already in Objectivism.

Edited March 3, 2005 by TomL

[TomL]

I do?  Now?  Seriously, I have no need to make a decision on God, because God is arbitrary in my life.

There are deep implications with accepting the existence of god(s) or not, beyond the fact of god(s) or not. Someone who accepts god(s) can only do so through an attempt at using emotion as a means of knowledge -- and if they can do that, they will do it in other areas of their life. Someone who rejects god(s) does so with the full force of their rational mind -- and if they can do that, they will do so in other areas of their life. Someone who can't decide -- won't know what to do in other areas of their life, and will, seemingly at random, choose to use either emotion or their minds in order to make their decisions. And ultimately, the only way to decide when to use emotion and when to use reason is: by means of emotion. Reason will never tell you that you should use your emotions as a basis for action.

And that is why, a fully rational person, who makes no decisions and takes no actions based on his emotions, must reject all god(s).

Calling me a coward isn't really the way to welcome in people looking to learn more about the philosophy. 

I agree completely. I am glad you have come to learn about Objectivism and am interested in hearing why you chose to seek more information? It must be that in some sense, you see that Objectivism offers something of value to you. How did that come about?

An interesting point, brought up to me last night, was measurability.  You all talk about how Objectivism is the only way to be happy, but how do you measure that?  Do you have scientific data on that?  Or is it a BELIEF that you are happier?

I've never said Objectivism is the only way to be happy (though I cannot speak for others). I would say that Objectivism is the only way to ensure the greatest amount of happiness available. Happiness is measured only introspectively, through one's emotions. While emotions are not a valid tool for taking action, they are -- in a properly trained subconscious -- a valid measuring stick for measuring one's success in life.

I can also offer an example: myself. Before Objectivism, I made some very bad choices and was generally not a very nice person. Ultimately I lost everything I thought was important to me, and I was miserable. Since learning Objectivism and using it actively in my life, I have become the happiest I have ever been in my life, and I can see that in the future I will become even happier.

[Styles2112]

There are deep implications with accepting the existence of god(s) or not, beyond the fact of god(s) or not.  Someone who accepts god(s) can only do so through an attempt at using emotion as a means of knowledge -- and if they can do that, they will do it in other areas of their life.  Someone who rejects god(s) does so with the full force of their rational mind -- and if they can do that, they will do so in other areas of their life.  Someone who can't decide -- won't know what to do in other areas of their life, and will, seemingly at random, choose to use either emotion or their minds in order to make their decisions.  And ultimately, the only way to decide when to use emotion and when to use reason is: by means of emotion.  Reason will never tell you that you should use your emotions as a basis for action.

And that is why, a fully rational person, who makes no decisions and takes no actions based on his emotions, must reject all god(s).

So, then are feelings rational? You're saying we cannot do anything based on feeling, because that would be irrational, thus immoral. Yet, two threads down, we discuss LOVE as a rational emotion. So, emotions, thereby must be rational, and if we use our emotions to "see" (There's a better word, but I can't think of it) God, doesn't that PROVE that god exists?

I agree completely.  I am glad you have come to learn about Objectivism and am interested in hearing why you chose to seek more information?  It must be that in some sense, you see that Objectivism offers something of value to you.  How did that come about?

I've read a couple books by Ayn Rand, and agreed with most of what she had to say. I've never held a particular belief in a god, but have found value in living for myself and the idea of production and value. I find, though, after reading some of these forums, that I disagree with some of the particulars.

I've never said Objectivism is the only way to be happy (though I cannot speak for others).  I would say that Objectivism is the only way to ensure the greatest amount of happiness available.  Happiness is measured only introspectively, through one's emotions.  While emotions are not a valid tool for taking action, they are -- in a properly trained subconscious -- a valid measuring stick for measuring one's success in life.

I can also offer an example: myself.  Before Objectivism, I made some very bad choices and was generally not a very nice person.  Ultimately I lost everything I thought was important to me, and I was miserable.  Since learning Objectivism and using it actively in my life, I have become the happiest I have ever been in my life, and I can see that in the future I will become even happier.

I didn't say you said it, I just remember somebody saying it. And isn't your example subjective? How do we form a test group? Variables? Control Group? If it can't be tested, then it can't be ground in reason. (I'm not saying it is or isn't, but my wife brought these points to me, and I'd like someone smarter than me to answer. That way I can look smart to my wife. Seriously, though, it is equally for my own knowledge. )

[JMeganSnow]

Should we not except both?  If one has power, so must the other.  spiritually and scientifically.

The evil is the impotent. It exists only by the grace of the power YOU give it.

[TomL]

So, then are feelings rational?  You're saying we cannot do anything based on feeling, because that would be irrational, thus immoral.  Yet, two threads down, we discuss LOVE as a rational emotion.  So, emotions, thereby must be rational, and if we use our emotions to "see" (There's a better word, but I can't think of it) God, doesn't that PROVE that god exists?

Note that I said "to a properly trained subconscious". It is of great significance.

One's premises and decisions shape and train one's subconscious mind, which is the source of emotion. If you consistently choose rationally, then your emotions will give you accuracy. If you consistently choose irrationally, then your emotions will lie to you. If you are sometimes rational and sometimes not, your emotions will be spaghetti -- which is the state of most people -- and will give you varying degrees of accuracy to the degree that you've been rational in your past choices.

In order to understand this, you must study Objectivist epistemology.

I've read a couple books by Ayn Rand, and agreed with most of what she had to

say.  I've never held a particular belief in a god, but have found value in living for myself and the idea of production and value.  I find, though, after reading some of these forums, that I disagree with some of the particulars.

Note that much of the posting in these forums is by Objectivists, and that your past experiences and premises are affecting what you think these people are saying. In many cases, those judgements are in error and you need to study Objectivism more in depth before you really know what they're saying.

I didn't say you said it, I just remember somebody saying it.  And isn't your example subjective?

It is subjective in the sense that only I can ever know how happy I am. There is no way to scientifically measure "happiness". There may be some chemical or neurological path to estimating it, but I suspect there are too many other factors other than "happiness" which could indicate those measurements.

If it can't be tested, then it can't be ground in reason.

It can, and the test is introspection only. The fact is that consciousness does exist in the universe, and physical science cannot measure, study, or draw conclusions about it. That does not mean that consciousness is irrational -- it means that we must use the ways nature has given us to deal with it. The ability to introspect also actually exists, and it can be used to measure one's emotional state. The fact that it exists and can do this, makes it rational to do so. To reject introspection means to reject something that exists -- that is, reality.

[Styles2112]

Note that I said "to a properly trained subconscious".  It is of great significance.

One's premises and decisions shape and train one's subconscious mind, which is the source of emotion.  If you consistently choose rationally, then your emotions will give you accuracy.  If you consistently choose irrationally, then your emotions will lie to you.  If you are sometimes rational and sometimes not, your emotions will be spaghetti -- which is the state of most people -- and will give you varying degrees of accuracy to the degree that you've been rational in your past choices.

Out of curiousity, why is all irrationality bad? Why is all rationality, inherently, good?

In order to understand this, you must study Objectivist epistemology.

Note that much of the posting in these forums is by Objectivists, and that your past experiences and premises are affecting what you think these people are saying.  In many cases, those judgements are in error and you need to study Objectivism more in depth before you really know what they're saying.

It is subjective in the sense that only I can ever know how happy I am.  There is no way to scientifically measure "happiness".  There may be some chemical or neurological path to estimating it, but I suspect there are too many other factors other than "happiness" which could indicate those measurements.

It can, and the test is introspection only.  The fact is that consciousness does exist in the universe, and physical science cannot measure, study, or draw conclusions about it.  That does not mean that consciousness is irrational -- it means that we must use the ways nature has given us to deal with it.  The ability to introspect also actually exists, and it can be used to measure one's emotional state.  The fact that it exists and can do this, makes it rational to do so.  To reject introspection means to reject something that exists -- that is, reality.

Okay, so define and prove to me Consciousness, and introspect. My understanding has always been that for proof, there must be measurability. Maybe I'm wrong.

By the way, TomL, please don't take anything I'm saying as any kind of attack on Objectivism, I'm very interested in what you are saying and have to say.

[Styles2112]

The evil is the impotent.  It exists only by the grace of the power YOU give it.

im·po·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mp-tnt)

adj.

1. Lacking physical strength or vigor; weak.

2. Lacking in power, as to act effectively; helpless: “Technology without morality is barbarous; morality without technology is impotent” (Freeman J. Dyson).

3. Incapable of sexual intercourse, often because of an inability to achieve or sustain an erection.

Sterile. Used of males.

4. Obsolete. Lacking self-restraint.

So, if you're lacking, that means you don't have the power. How is this evil? I would feel the true evil would be if you HAD the power and chose not to use it. It's funny the quote that is used there, as it aptly fits some of the discussion here. My argument is that if you give the "good" power, then you, inherently, give "evil" power, by applying definitions to both. So, the power is within the definitions, not within the words themselves.

[JMeganSnow]

If you wish to engage in an intellectual shooting match it behooves you to bring some ammunition.

Seriously, you should go straight to the source, reading Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction books, and come back with specific questions. You have such a fundamental lack of context that we can't discuss with you. Once you have the requisite context you can progress further.

[MisterSwig]

It seems like atheism requires a leap of faith since you are saying you know that there is no such thing as a supernatural Daddy.

Perhaps you would like to define "supernatural" for us.

It does not take a leap of faith to understand that a supernatural being does not exist in this natural world, and thus does not exist.

Before you can say that "a supernatural Daddy" might exist, you have to prove the existence of a supernatural World in which this "Daddy" might be living.

You have not done that. Where might this "Daddy" be? What is so possible about him, if he doesn't even have a place to live?

I think you mean that this "Daddy" is actually superhuman, in which case it is up to you to provide some evidence for a superhuman creature with whatever traits you want to ascribe to your "Daddy."

Edited March 3, 2005 by MisterSwig

[Styles2112]

If you wish to engage in an intellectual shooting match it behooves you to bring some ammunition. 

Seriously, you should go straight to the source, reading Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction books, and come back with specific questions.  You have such a fundamental lack of context that we can't discuss with you.  Once you have the requisite context you can progress further.

Or is it that you just don't have the fundamental knowledge to explain it? In which case, you shouldn't bother trying to answer my questions and leave it to the people who understand what I'm asking.

[BurgessLau]

[...] answer my questions and leave it to the people who understand what I'm asking.

What are your questions? If you would make a prioritized list, and display it here, then other members could address your questions one at a time.

So, of all the questions on your list of questions about Objectivism, which is the top one, the one that is most important to you personally or most fundamental philosophically?

By the way, do you have a copy of The Ayn Rand Lexicon? It is the single most important volume for the study of Objectivism. You should check it first for any question you have. That way you will be going to the source of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, not to a variety of interpreters who may have little grasp of her vast philosophy.

[Styles2112]

What are your questions? If you would make a prioritized list, and display it here, then other members could address your questions one at a time.

So, of all the questions on your list of questions about Objectivism, which is the top one, the one that is most important to you personally or most fundamental philosophically?

By the way, do you have a copy of The Ayn Rand Lexicon? It is the single most important volume for the study of Objectivism. You should check it first for any question you have. That way you will be going to the source of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, not to a variety of interpreters who may have little grasp of her vast philosophy.

NO, the only books I have of Rand's are (stars next to the ones I've read)

Anthem *

Atlas Shrugged*

The Fountainhead

The Virtue of Selfishness

I don't have a priority of questions. I ask as I see points being made in here. I will not just "make a list" and give it to you.

[JMeganSnow]

Knowledge is hierarchial, though, and we cannot explain the basis for our points if you don't understand the context for that basis. It's not OUR job to explain Objectivism in toto to you. If you know the basics and have specific questions, that's fine. If, instead, you read a thread where the moral cowardice of agnosticism is explained, the fact that you have to choose one or the other and that choosing faith over reason is acting on the premise of death and then declare, "well, I'm an agnostic," you take what you get.

If you don't like the label, don't engage in the action it labels. Moral cowardice and indecision will not be transformed into virtue by refusing to name them.

[TomL]

NO, the only books I have of Rand's are (stars next to the ones I've read)

The Virtue of Selfishness

In essence, what the others are saying is that you should read at least Chapter 1 of The Virtue of Selfishness because it will make explanation a lot simpler if you have a framework to start with. Right now you are just chipping away at an iceberg with a toothpick.