LaszloWalrus Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Well, it enters the realm of probablity, or so claims Richard Dawkins. Yes, but I believe Objectivism disagrees with this idea; an arbitrary does not correspond to any probability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Yes, but I believe Objectivism disagrees with this idea; an arbitrary does not correspond to any probability. Yes, and that is exactly why I left tea time. Dawkins is still at the table wondering where the heck I went, while he's pouring tea for the next reader, trying to see if they'll drink it...I should have spit it right back in his face! Giving us equal footing on grounds that don't even exist? Hah! Both surely fall right into the arbitrary, in this respect. "Let me eleborate this point. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or false. If it is arbitaray, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn't come up....The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or contexts...sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance." (Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series, 1976, Lecture 6) Dawkins is trying to assess it with his introduction of "probability" into Russell's Teapot. That's what makes the tea so undrinkable for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 16, 2007 Report Share Posted January 16, 2007 Right now, have we not made the soil so inhospitable with the primacy of existence, the Law of Identity, the First Law of Thermodynamics...that claims for God's existence can hardly even have a chance to be planted, let alone grow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 I agree that you cannot resort to pure fantasy because philosophy deals with reality. If you agree with this, then why do you resort to pure fantasy? What about reality gives rise to your belief that creating something out of nothing is possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 In fairness to theism (and this is as far as I will go), the concept of "God" may be an attempt to tie up some emotional "loose ends" that don't easily map onto a conscious concept. A sense of "the divine" coupled with an erroneous attempt to introspect and assign a concept to it might result in "God", with the rest being rationalistic fluff that expands and extends the misconception. Which is to say, there is indeed something real there in the first place - the unexplained feeling of something "out there" greater than oneself - and what is needed is the proper way to deal with that particular corner of the human psyche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 Which is to say, there is indeed something real there in the first place - the unexplained feeling of something "out there" greater than oneself - and what is needed is the proper way to deal with that particular corner of the human psyche. But isn't that the central issue? An unexplained feeling or some quirk in consciousness does not create reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 (edited) But isn't that the central issue? An unexplained feeling or some quirk in consciousness does not create reality. True. What I meant was that the feeling is real. If I feel sad, for example, I can be consciously aware of that fact, I can introspect and determine what premises are causing that feeling. So, I am speculating that in the case of "God" that process has gone awry. It may be the result of a primacy-of-consciousness approach to thinking generally, it may be that the feeling itself seems to lack a proper referent so the mind invents one commensurate to the feeling, etc. I would not say however that the concept arises out of nothing, with no cause. An unexplained feeling might well be the cause. The question then is how to deal with it. Edit: The correct concept for the divine feeling might be "benevolent universe". Edited January 17, 2007 by Seeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 The benevolent universe premise is "I am volitional: capable of rational thought and efficacious action". It is not "the universe cares for me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 The benevolent universe premise is "I am volitional: capable of rational thought and efficacious action". It is not "the universe cares for me."Although Peikoff phrases it a bit differently (OPAR 342) as 'Happiness, therefore, is not only possible, but more: it is the normal condition of man. Ayn Rand calls this conclusion, which is essential to the Objectivist world view, the "benevolent universe" premise.' Rand herself doesn't seem to have put her definition in print, regrettably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intellectualammo Posted January 17, 2007 Report Share Posted January 17, 2007 (edited) Rand herself doesn't seem to have put her definition in print, regrettably. This isn't exactly an explicit defintion by her here, but I think that the way Peikoff says this, which can be found in The Ayn Rand Lexicon under "Benevolent Universe Premise" or in his 1976 lecture series, "The Philosophy of Objectivism" Lecture 8...it is a quote that shows how she says it in other ways: Peikoff says: "The 'benevolent universe' does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. you must care about and adapt to it, no the other way around. But reality is 'benevolent' in the sense that is you do adapt to it--i.e., if you do think, value, and act retionally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality. Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance--they do not revel the nature of reality. Ayn Rand's heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage): 'We do not think that tragedy is out natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.' This is why Ayn Rand's heroes respond to disaster, when it does strike, with a single instantaneous response: action-- what can they do? If there's a chance at all, they refuse to accept defeat. They do what they can to counter danger, because they are on the premise that success, not failure, is the to-be-expected." To find more information on the benevolent universe premise itself, Peikoff explains it in detail in OPAR, chapter 9--"Happiness". Edited January 17, 2007 by intellectualammo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.