Visiting Leftists

[GWDS]

So my library only has 'The Ayn Rand Cult' However, I am in the process of pirating 'Virtue of Selfishness', ironic isn't it?

Okay, I'm not going to reply to the altruism issue. The reason being twofold, it has been shown to be an ethic that can not be used at all times, secondly I thought we were on the metaphysics track now.

Styles2112 wrote -

OH, and isn't the Not having a philosphy a philosphy a contradiction? 

or does that fall under the "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" idea?

Sounds kind of funny to me.  "My philosophy is, not to have a philosophy."

Again, unjustified assumptions are being made, that being people who are moral relativists are simply cowards who don't make decisions. I'm going to answer that with an example, picture this conversation between a christian and an athiest -

Atheist - There is no God

Theist - Oh, so you're just to scared to follow God

A - No, I'm saying all that stuff you talk about isn't true

T - Oh, so you have faith in your beleif, like I do, so I guess you can't criticize

A - What? No, that's not what I'm saying

T - Yes it is, you may not know what you beleive, but I do.

See the Thiest? That's you.

In my opinion most moral and metaphyscial systems say things we can not know, which is why I oppose them. Now from what I understand at this point Ayn Rand uses a kind of arguement which does not leap into the unknowable. I look forward to understanding this arguement and hope it will pass the test of my skeptical brain.

Most unfortunatly the ARI intro to Rand's beleifs did not go into her metaphysics in a way that really seperates it fundementally from other systems, but I'm going to slam through as much as TVOS as I can tonight.

[Inspector]

Specifically, what measurements would we omit when we form this concept?

Eddie

I imagine that might be tricky, since "God" is an anti-concept!

[Bryan]

So why not demonstrate that claim, say by verifying the formation of the concept of, well, “godless” will do. Specifically, what measurements would we omit when we form this concept?

Eddie

godless - a metaphysical system that excludes the existence of god(s). The measurements omitted are the specific universe that the metaphysics pertain to, and I suppose the specific gods that are excluded. Obviously, there is only one universe, but hypothetically it could be any universe.

[Richard Roark]

Actually, GDWS since you seem to be interested in Objectivism and have several questions and misunderstandings instead of reading the Fiction of Ayn Rand first, begin by reading her nonfiction. This is what i did and when i read the novels and i was able to understood them, the novels, even better. It also helped that i was exposed to many of the concepts and ideals of Objectivism by reading Terry Goodkind for several years. It seems you are on this path though since you are in search of a copy of VOS.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Richard Roark

[Bryan]

Atheist - There is no God

Theist - Oh, so you're just to scared to follow God

A - No, I'm saying all that stuff you talk about isn't true

T - Oh, so you have faith in your beleif, like I do, so I guess you can't criticize

A - What? No, that's not what I'm saying

T - Yes it is, you may not know what you beleive, but I do.

See the Thiest? That's you.

Nobody is asking you to take anything on faith. Faith, by definition, is a belief with no evidence of its validity ("knowledge" with no foundation). Any belief in god, is taken on faith because there has never been any evidence to suggest god's existance.

Objectivist metaphysics does have a basis, observable reality. You don't have to have faith that reality exists, you know its there, you are living in it.

[GWDS]

Objectivist metaphysics does have a basis, observable reality.  You don't have to have faith that reality exists, you know its there, you are living in it.

I was making a point on those who jump to conclusions about differing veiws. Again I state the absolute absurdity of saying 'existence does not exist'. The question for me is this - does morality exist outside of human intellectual whims, is it as existentially 'solid' as planes, trains, and automobiles*

*Its been a while since I though about this, I've lost much of the vocabulary as a result.

Edited for putting an 'or' in a sentence killing its meaning. And then again for misspelling 'sentence'

Edited March 10, 2005 by GWDS

[Bryan]

The question for me is this - does morality exist outside of human intellectual whims, is it as existentially 'solid' as planes, trains, and automobiles*

Saying "human intellectual whims" puts some fog on the issue. Morality is indeed a construct of the human intellect. Because human beings are volitional, they have a choice of values that they can pursue, morality acts as a guide. But morality should not be based on "whims", implying that it pops in and out of existance and changes in the range of the moment.

[EC]

So there’s a challenge. You say you can verify your knowledge, presumably by using the method that Ayn Rand spelled out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. So why not demonstrate that claim, say by verifying the formation of the concept of, well, “godless” will do. Specifically, what measurements would we omit when we form this concept?

Eddie

Simple. One may simply disregard the arbitrary, in this case the religous concept of god(s), without wasting any time thinking about it. See one of the threads on Atheism or consult OPAR on why this is so. Sinse Objectivists are by this course of reasoning Atheists the term godless as an adjective for Objectivists duly follows.

[Inspector]

Er, the way you phrased the question makes it a bit hard to answer directly. Objectivist ethics are based on the facts of reality required for man's survival qua man.

It is a fact, as much as any other fact, just like, say, gravity. But it is an ABSTRACT fact, so it's not like it is something that has a physical shape or anything.

As it is a science concerning human action, think of it as you would the science of physiology: even if men never discovered the science of how muscles work, men would still be bound by the facts of how their muscles work.

They could harbor the belief that their muscles were powered by cyanide, but it would not change the facts of reality. When they injected cyanide into their muscles, the result would be injury, paralysis, etc. No matter how much they tell themselves it will make them healthy, it will not. In a manner of speaking, this is precisely what is happening in the modern world with ethics. No matter how many times they tell themselves that altruism is the answer, the results are always poverty, totalitarianism, misery.

Does that answer your question?

[EC]

I was making a point on those who jump to conclusions about differing veiws. Again I state the absolute absurdity of saying 'existence does not exist'. The question for me is this - does morality exist outside of human intellectual whims, is it as existentially 'solid' as planes, trains, and automobiles*

Nope. Morality is an abstract concept. Planes, trains, and automobiles are physical existents. But both exist in reality. And an abstract concept still has its referent in metaphysical reality, as a code for how a man must act to preserve his greatest value, his life.

[non-contradictor]

I imagine that might be tricky, since "God" is an anti-concept! 

Did Ayn Rand ever write that God was an anti-concept? Is Santa Claus an anti-concept? How about Harry Potter? I've just started ITOE, so if the answer to this is read ITOE, just say so. I was confused about this in the first chapter. Someone else on the forum, Mr. Laughlin I believe, said that the concept of God was a valid concept, and this made sense to me at the time because: if imaginary things cannot be concepts, then aren't all fairy tales full of anti-concepts? Isn't God a valid concept as an *imaginary* being? Is God only an anti-concept when it includes that he is *real?* Hmmm...

edited to fix grammar mistakes *sigh* I've been horrible with that lately

Edited March 11, 2005 by non-contradictor

[Eddie]

godless - a metaphysical system that excludes the existence of god(s).  The measurements omitted are the specific universe that the metaphysics pertain to, and I suppose the specific gods that are excluded.  Obviously, there is only one universe, but hypothetically it could be any universe.

“Godless” is an adjective, not a noun. It might describe a metaphysical system. It can hardly be one.

Leaving that aside, in what way is the universe a measurement of “godless”, or of anything? As I understand it, measurement refers to an attribute that is common to a number of objects, whereas the universe is a singularity which subsumes all objects. But in that case, if the universe is a measurement, it’s a measurement of every attribute, not any specific attribute. But "godless" is a specific attribute.

Eddie

[Eddie]

Simple. One may simply disregard the arbitrary, in this case the religous concept of god(s), without wasting any time thinking about it. See one of the threads on Atheism or consult OPAR on why this is so. Sinse Objectivists are by this course of reasoning Atheists the term godless as an adjective for Objectivists duly follows.

So what is the omitted measurement?

Eddie

[EC]

So what is the omitted measurement?

Eddie

The arbitrary.

[Bryan]

“Godless” is an adjective, not a noun. It might describe a metaphysical system. It can hardly be one.

Leaving that aside, in what way is the universe a measurement of “godless”, or of anything? As I understand it, measurement refers to an attribute that is common to a number of objects, whereas the universe is a singularity which subsumes all objects. But in that case, if the universe is a measurement, it’s a measurement of every attribute, not any specific attribute. But "godless" is a specific attribute.

Eddie

You are correct, godless is indeed an adjective, I should have been more careful in my definition. Godless is simply "without god". The omitted measurement is the specific god.

What is the purpose of your question??

[redfarmer]

Out of curiousity, wouldn't there actually be NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM?  I really don't know of anyone, who TRULY puts others before themselves.  Take most religions, for example.  Most say, in loose terms, to give to charity, help everyone you can, blah, blah, blah, but really, people do that so that THEY can get to heaven.  I suppose, in my observation, Altruism, then is not the idea of putting others before oneself, but the use of Man's self-interest to accomplish a goal.  And if there were/are REAL Altruists, chances are they've already sacrificed themselves for somebody, and natural selection has occurred. 

OH, and isn't the Not having a philosphy a philosphy a contradiction? 

or does that fall under the "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" idea?

Sounds kind of funny to me.  "My philosophy is, not to have a philosophy."   

I believe you'll find the answer to your question in Nathaniel Branden's essay, "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

[Bryan]

Did Ayn Rand ever write that God was an anti-concept? Is Santa Claus an anti-concept? How about Harry Potter? I've just started ITOE, so if the answer to this is read ITOE, just say so. I was confused about this in the first chapter. Someone else on the forum, Mr. Laughlin I believe, said that the concept of God was a valid concept, and this made sense to me at the time because: if imaginary things cannot be concepts, then aren't all fairy tales full of anti-concepts? Isn't God a valid concept as an *imaginary* being? Is God only an anti-concept when it includes that he is *real?* Hmmm...

edited to fix grammar mistakes *sigh* I've been horrible with that lately

God isn't an anti-concept.

The purpose of "anti-concepts" is to obliterate certain concepts without public discussion; and, as a means to that end, to make public discussion unintelligible, and to induce the same disintegration in the mind of any man who accepts them, rendering him incapable of clear thinking or rational judgment. No mind is better than the precision of its concepts.

This was also printed C:TUI.

She uses "extremism" as an example of an anti-concept. As a valid concept, extreme is just "a measure of degree". This is turned into an anti-concept by making it have some sort of negative connotation of "going to extremes", which really means having well-defined principles.

The concept of god doesn't fit into this definition. It is a perfectly valid concept, referring to some sort of being with supernatural powers. God is just as valid a concept as unicorn, leprechaun (that's a hard word to spell), Santa Claus, or Harry Potter.

[Inspector]

God isn't an anti-concept.

Okay, I don't have any source material in front of me, so let me start by saying I'm not 100% sure about that. I *think* the idea is that God is an anti-concept because of the attribute of not having identity. A is A does not apply to most people's idea of what "God" is.

A unicorn is just a horse with a horn. Weird, nonexistant, but no anti-concept their.

"God," however, leads to this:

"God can do anything. That's what makes him God.

So he can make a rock that nobody can lift?

Yep.

And can he lift it?

Yes, if he wants to."

Again, I could be wrong, maybe the concept "God" is some other fallacy.

[Eddie]

The arbitrary.

The measurements are omitted, but they still exist. Are you saying that "godless" is arbitrary?

Eddie

[Eddie]

You are correct, godless is indeed an adjective, I should have been more careful in my definition.  Godless is simply "without god".  The omitted measurement is the specific god. 

What is the purpose of your question??

I’m trying to get a handle on the way measurement omission works. In ITOE, Ayn Rand uses the example of “length”, which is formed by observing objects of different specific lengths, and by omitting the measurements, forming an abstract “length”.

If we apply the same procedure to what you say above, in omitting the measurement -- any specific god – the resulting abstraction should be god, shouldn’t it? How do you get “godless” from this procedure?

Eddie

[Bryan]

Okay, I don't have any source material in front of me, so let me start by saying I'm not 100% sure about that. I *think* the idea is that God is an anti-concept because of the attribute of not having identity. A is A does not apply to most people's idea of what "God" is.

A unicorn is just a horse with a horn. Weird, nonexistant, but no anti-concept their.

"God," however, leads to this:

"God can do anything. That's what makes him God.

So he can make a rock that nobody can lift?

Yep.

And can he lift it?

Yes, if he wants to."

Again, I could be wrong, maybe the concept "God" is some other fallacy.

I would define "a god" as a being with supernatural powers. The concept of god certainly describes something imaginary. Unicorns are a little more concrete because there are horses and there are animals with horns. The concept of god is a little more abstract because its more open-ended. The supernatural powers that a god has could be anything and everything. Take the greek gods for example, they all had supernatural powers but there were limits to them. The Christian god, I'm not exactly sure what he does, besides taking Sunday's off and making women out of men's ribs.

An anti-concept hijacks and destroys a valid concept by distorting its meaning, the concept god doesn't do this.

[Bryan]

I’m trying to get a handle on the way measurement omission works. In ITOE, Ayn Rand uses the example of “length”, which is formed by observing objects of different specific lengths, and by omitting the measurements, forming an abstract “length”.

If we apply the same procedure to what you say above, in omitting the measurement -- any specific god – the resulting abstraction should be god, shouldn’t it? How do you get “godless” from this procedure?

Eddie

Godless is no god, which presupposes a concept of god. It could be any god, what are being omitted are the god's attributes (his powers, what he looks like, where he lives).

Take the example of weightless. Would you agree that this is a valid concept meaning "no weight"? It presupposes the concept of weight.

[Inspector]

An anti-concept hijacks and destroys a valid concept by distorting its meaning, the concept god doesn't do this.

Yes, I should come back to this when less tired. I know the idea I'm thinking of refers to the Christian "God" specifically, and not to Greek gods. If I think of it, I'll post it. Maybe someone else here has heard of it?

[EC]

The measurements are omitted, but they still exist. Are you saying that "godless" is arbitrary?

Eddie

No. just the religous concept of god(s). Godless is just an adjective decribing people who accept this fact.

god(arbitrary supernatural being) -less(not possessing previous attribute)

Therefore godless is an adjective meaning not possessing the attribute of an arbitrary supernatural being.

Edited to add second paragragh.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Rational_One

[non-contradictor]

God isn't an anti-concept.

This was also printed C:TUI.

She uses "extremism" as an example of an anti-concept.  As a valid concept, extreme is just "a measure of degree".  This is turned into an anti-concept by making it have some sort of negative connotation of "going to extremes", which really means having well-defined principles.

The concept of god doesn't fit into this definition.  It is a perfectly valid concept, referring to some sort of being with supernatural powers.  God is just as valid a concept as unicorn, leprechaun (that's a hard word to spell), Santa Claus, or Harry Potter.

Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't think it was an anti-concept, because I thought that you could think of imaginary things which would be perfectly valid concepts. However, when someone referred to it as an anti-concept I became confused. Thanks again.