triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Ok, I read the brief description of Objectivism, and one question still rings loudly in my mind: Why? Also, are objectivists religious or not religiously involved. Do they believe in a god? I apologize in advance for the newbie nature of these questions. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Also, are objectivists religious or not religiously involved. Do they believe in a god? See http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...vism_FAQ#obj_q6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Ok, looks like there isn't a god when it comes to objectivism. My question is this: Why? Why be a good person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Let me ask a reciprocal question . . . why do you want to know? What is your interest in Objectivism? Why do its atheistic aspects incite you to ask questions? What is it that you hope to find out? If you provide a little more background we may be able to assist you, as it stands you're pretty much asking for hundreds of pages of explanatory text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Let me ask a reciprocal question . . . why do you want to know? What is your interest in Objectivism? Why do its atheistic aspects incite you to ask questions? What is it that you hope to find out? If you provide a little more background we may be able to assist you, as it stands you're pretty much asking for hundreds of pages of explanatory text. Actually, I'm just doing some research on religion and philosophy. I'm curious what is out there and what people think. That's it. Hope I didn't come accross as attacking. I find that talking with real people is a much better way to get an inside look at religion - rather than reading reports. What got you into Objectivism? Thanks for your help - I don't mean to waste your time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimpy Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 (edited) The one really nice thing about Objectivism is that Ayn Rand (the creator of the philosophy) made it relatively easy to understand (when compared to the writings of Kant, Hume, etc.). So I'd suggest you read some Objectivist text or look on the Objectivist Wiki. Wikipedia could also provide you with the basics. More specificially, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is a comprehensive text on the philosophy. The Virtue of Selfishness is also helpful. Edited May 8, 2007 by Mimpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinD Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 I read the brief description of Objectivism, and one question still rings loudly in my mind: Why? Because it's TRUE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Ok, looks like there isn't a god when it comes to objectivism. My question is this: Why? Why be a good person? Hi Triple, If the answer of a Christian to your question is "because God says so", while that is an answer, it's still not a very satisfying one. It's a bit arbitrary don't you think? Objectivism says that the answer to "Why be good?", can be developed from the nature of man, that is by the requirements for his survival and a flourishing life. That is, because man has a particular nature, the good for man therefore also has a particular nature, and reason can be used to develop those principles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Ok, That helps. I'll do some more research and swing by when I have some real questions (haha) Thanks everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 I find that talking with real people is a much better way to get an inside look at religion - rather than reading reports. What got you into Objectivism? For starters you are making the mistake of either inadvertantly or advertantly labelling Objectivism as a religion. It is not a religion. It is a philosophy. If you realise that and did not mean to imply it is a religion then you need to be more careful with how you use words or else you will have people misunderstand what you say and surely you do not want that. Secondly the aforementioned sources are good, as is Ayn Rand's Philosphy: Who Needs it and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, though as the name states it only tells you about the Objectivist epistemology, not the full philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 For starters you are making the mistake of either inadvertantly or advertantly labelling Objectivism as a religion. It is not a religion. It is a philosophy. If you realise that and did not mean to imply it is a religion then you need to be more careful with how you use words or else you will have people misunderstand what you say and surely you do not want that. Secondly the aforementioned sources are good, as is Ayn Rand's Philosphy: Who Needs it and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, though as the name states it only tells you about the Objectivist epistemology, not the full philosophy. My apologies. I should have been more careful with my wording. Thanks for the helpful correction / direction (hey, that rhymes - haha) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonMaci Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 (edited) My apologies. I should have been more careful with my wording. Thanks for the helpful correction / direction (hey, that rhymes - haha) Yeah, well as a writer I can be a bit fussy about wording at times. It is also because I strongly believe in consistent, rational, and objective use of language. Oh, and good on you for deciding to make an effort. If only more people would do that their would be a hell of a lot less misunderstandings in the world. Most misunderstandings are due to poor or ambiguous use of words rather than a fault of the listener. Edited May 8, 2007 by DragonMaci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMeganSnow Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 What got you into Objectivism? Now, there's a question with a helpful answer, I (and probably most of the Objectivists on the board) got into Objectivism by reading the writings of Ayn Rand, saying something like "well that makes sense", and pursuing it from there. Now, granted, you may be able to say the same thing about Scientologists, and Objectivism is nothing like Scientology whatsoever. Scientology is a weird cult-like religion and Objectivism is a rational philosophy. If I may make a wild and possibly inaccurate generalization, I think most people get into other religions and philosophies in one of two ways: a.) they were raised to it and b.) it gives them some kind of emotional support or thrill that they feel they need. Without indoctrination of the young and willful emotionalism they would probably wither away and die. These same two procedures would result in Objectivism rotting from the inside, they don't sustain the philosophy or service it in any way. It's something to think about, anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus98876 Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 I got into it from being pointed to her works by the authoer Terry Goodkind (whom is an Objectivist apparently. He certaintly seems to beleive many of the same stuff as you would expect one to anyway). So I read her works starting with the great novel Atlas Shrugged. Which is by far the best place to start, as it is a very well presented, compelling book that presents a good summary of Objectivism and is I gather where most start with their reading of Ayn Rand. Anyway, I thought to myself "Actually unlike the other nonsense I have been presented with this makes sense, and goes along with some of the things I have always thought! This is how man SHOULD think if he wants to live according to his nature and to be happy. This philosophy I thought , can help me grasp the concepts that I need to be a rational man and to blow the other garbage I have been feed with out of the water. This has proven quite true, and Objectivism has proven to be entirely consistent with reality and mans nature as a rational being capable of great joy. What better reason to choose that as a philosophy by which to live ones life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 Without indoctrination of the young and willful emotionalism they would probably wither away and die. These same two procedures would result in Objectivism rotting from the inside, they don't sustain the philosophy or service it in any way. I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part of this. I understand and agree that without indoctrinating youth into religion that religion would certainly wither, but are you suggesting that indoctrinating the young into Objectivism that Objectivism would also wither? Can Objectivism be indoctrinated like religion, ala "It's true because I said so"? That wouldn't be Objectivism. Or am I completely missing what you're saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 So, out of curiousity, does Rand say anything regarding why we are to try to be good people? Or are we? It seems that everything that I've heard thus far does make sense rationally, except for the reasoning behind being good. Why be good, why not be bad - when it comes to objectivism? I'm truly curious - I hope that my questions and comments don't come accross as attacking or classless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimpy Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 (edited) So, out of curiousity, does Rand say anything regarding why we are to try to be good people? Or are we? It seems that everything that I've heard thus far does make sense rationally, except for the reasoning behind being good. Why be good, why not be bad - when it comes to objectivism? I'm truly curious - I hope that my questions and comments don't come accross as attacking or classless. I'm not sure what you mean by "good." What defines a "good" person? In general, however, one should do the right thing because it is in his rational self-interest to do so. What make something right/wrong? Objectivism holds life as the standard of value. Objectivism also holds that your own life should be your life's purpose. Thus, something that makes your life better is good. Of course, that is very general. The Virtue of Selfishness goes into this idea much more comprehensively. Edited May 8, 2007 by Mimpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterSwig Posted May 8, 2007 Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 So, out of curiousity, does Rand say anything regarding why we are to try to be good people? Or are we? It seems that everything that I've heard thus far does make sense rationally, except for the reasoning behind being good. Why be good, why not be bad - when it comes to objectivism? You should be good because it is in your self-interest. By being good you achieve values and self-esteem. Being bad results in the destruction of values and your self-esteem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted May 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2007 So ultimately, is it up to me to determine what is right and wrong? I assume that truth is relative in objectivism. I appreciate the fact that no-one has just written me off yet btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 So ultimately, is it up to me to determine what is right and wrong? I assume that truth is relative in objectivism. I appreciate the fact that no-one has just written me off yet btw. Not exactly. Truth isn't "relative", truth is dependent on an accurate recognition of reality. You have senses which observe reality, and a cognitive ability to use to understand reality. In order for something to be true, it must be real, not simply "relative". There is no "perception is reality" in Objectivism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Kid Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 So ultimately, is it up to me to determine what is right and wrong? I assume that truth is relative in objectivism. Those two sentences contradict each other. If truth was relative, why would there be a need to determine it? You could just make it up and call it "my truth". Guru p.s. Objectivism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorian Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 Why not be moral? What's more virtuous, doing what's moral because of fear of being held liable by god(s) or doing it because you think it is right? I can't explain every reason I do what I do, and what I consider immoral or moral but I can give you a few examples. There's are unwritten/written rules or contracts I accept with society and I hope society accepts with me. I will not murder in hopes that I will not be murdered. What good is a contract if I don't abide by it? I also do not murder because of the personal trouble it may put me through. I don't think the risk/cost is worth the reward. Also, if it came down to it I would probably kill someone if I put in an unreasonable situation, such as self defense, in which case I am protecting myself from someone attempting to violate or is violating the contracts of society... I have more reasons of why I would not normally murder but this should suffice. I also try to treat others the way I like to be treated. I don't like to be hypocrite, but if anyone violates that rule I don't have issues violating it with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 9, 2007 Report Share Posted May 9, 2007 So ultimately, is it up to me to determine what is right and wrong?Here are some examples: it is not right to murder a person; it is right for you you survive and flourish. These aren't things you need to determine. It is up to you to discover what is right and wrong -- the word 'determine' is vague in this context, so let's use more precise wording. Right and wrong are evaluations of actions in terms of furthering a purpose, specifically your existence qua man. Poison is objectively bad because it kills you, food is good because it sustains you, so taking poison is wrong and eating food is right. These are basic, universal facts. However, it is also the case that some people are highly allergic to peanuts so some food is bad, and similarly sunlight is generally good for people but it's not good for albinos. On a less dire scale, music is generally good for a person, but which music is good will depend on the person. I don't understand why, but some people actually like Dido, so for then, listening to Dido would be good. It is good for people to work and be productive. But that does not mean that all people should build stereos as their form of productivity. You have to discover what career is best for your life -- maybe it's being a poet, maybe a lawyer, a race-car driver, an accountant, or a welder. I could tell you to become a lawyer and make lots of money (I can hear the law guys laughing), but that may not be right for your life, and perhaps you're more into emotive expression and you should be a painter (portrait, not house). You have to discover those facts about yourself. You need a hierarchy of knowledge and values to be able to make the right choice. Facts exist in relation to other facts, so if you say "Yes, I want to be a lion tamer!" and "Yes, I want to be rich!", then you have to find the best way to implement those goals, and decide which is more important. If being a lion tamer is really your highest priority and you only have an incidental interest in money, it would be irrational to quit your lion taming job to take an accounting job that paid $10,000 a year more. But you have to discover those facts about yourself. Maybe you really are more interested in accounting, and just misunderstood your nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7allstar Posted June 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 Ok - this is starting to congeal for me a little better. Now, how about this situation. What if you had a group of people, all of whom had no aversions to committing murder. Would it thereby be "ok" for them to murder one another. I'm assuming that it would not violate any moral code if each of them had a "pre-existing" contract with their society (made up entirely of murderers). Thanks everyone for your responses and for postulating with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted June 26, 2007 Report Share Posted June 26, 2007 That is subjectivism. Wrong forum. Seriously, the test of a moral code is not wether it violates someone else's moral code. Or am I misunderstanding you? 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.