I can not find a definition for object that could define the Universe as an object. Where we exist is not an object. We exist somewhere in a universe but that does not make the Universe be an object by any definition.
Evil is not a 'that' which can act consciously by seeking. Evil and good are judgements about things that exist with respect to living things not able to seek anything.

Um . . . that still doesn’t work. For starters, it assumes the existence of a deity that created humans. (It also implies that atheists cannot derive equality of station among humans.) And even if such a deity exists, it’s clear that the lower animals, insects and maybe plants are also “children of God”. That doesn’t give them equality of station with human beings.

Concur.

One needs to be rational about Rand and all the muck for or against her life and work. I find it best to add her ideas into my knowledge base and live my life as best I can.
I question things like 'man qua man'. what is 'qua man' as an abstraction? Like all knowledge that has to be discovered as has been happening since mankind became self-conscious. There is no general 'qua man' applicable to each individual other than the general conditions for all life although individualism seems most importantly for me.

Completely agree. And by that definition religions are not altruistic. They only distribute that which was freely given. Only governments have the power to tax, i.e. to confiscate wealth through force, in order to give to another.

It is more matter of whether one helps by choice or under coercion of some kind. Rand was clear on the issue in that choosing to be helpful in need or in cooperating in projects or raising ones family, etc. is different from following an altruistic philosophic life style.

Fritz Perls' so called Gestalt Prayer would be more rational than Obama's collectivist nonsense.

https://www.sabrinasantaclara.com/wp-...

The way I see things is that Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" is 'free to be moral'. If the free choice to take an action turns out wrong it is considered to be immoral. Non chosen actions when under coercion or not are amoral. Parents, teachers, governments, friends, and others use coercion to direct individuals away from an autonomous life.

So let's define good. There is good as a noun and good as an adjective. In describing something as "good" (adjective) as I explained above it is in reference to its utility - its ability to aid us in accomplishing some goal. In that "judgement context" as you put it, that valuation is personal as it pertains to that person achieving a goal through the utilization of some object. Is not the universe an object? I would argue that it is - for without it where would we exist? Thus within that context - the same one Peterson is using - the universe fulfills a specific, objective purpose in aiding our advancement. Thus it is good.

Used as a noun, "good" is a process - a distinct though ephemeral concept embodying the principle of advancement. It's contrary is evil, being that which seeks to prevent such advancement. (This is why progressivism is evil because it seeks to stagnate or repress individual human development.)

There are several sects of Christianity which do, yes, but the plain doctrine advocates for self-sufficiency. So does Judaism and historically they've been one of the richest societies ever.

The thing to note, however, is that neither in Christianity nor in Jewry is there the sanction for the government to take from some to give to others. In both religions all such "charitable" donations must be given of one's own free will. It's all fine to shriek "altruism" at the top of one's lungs but altruism lies in the methods much more than the outcome: when one uses force (taxes) to collect the money to be given to others it violates the spirit of free will. There is no such sanction against offerings given of one's own free will and choice.

Straw man.

I can derive an equality of station among men based on the intrinsic quality that all humankind are children of God. That they act according to their own wills is a matter of individuality and sentience. What I can't do is derive equality of station based on skin color, height, weight, parentage, capability (mental or physical) or any other extrinsic quality I can think of. But yet the nihilist has only the extrinsic to draw from, denying the intrinsic. Thus the conundrum.

Your statement was used to start the post. That's it. You're getting hung up on the quote and failing to read the statement as written:

I firmly disagree with the notion that only Objectivism should be discussed on this forum...

Yup. But even the secular version is no different i.e. Barack Obama "We're all in this together" produces the same outcome.

I'm thinking that the long term goal of the Globalists is One Planet, One Plantation. Just like the pre-Civil War South, they envision a three-tiered society; Plantation owners, Plantation employees, and Plantation Slaves. Where would the majority of humans fit in?

Christianity and most other religions which advocate a sacrificial altruism just beget a population of the needy, the pitied, the ill, and others for producing more servants to be directed by feel good others and their pocketbooks.

'Good' is not an intrinsic property of anything. It is always a value judgement in some context. I would call Rand's approach to reality as always being contextual. That bothers many who like to pretend that a definition of a concept is universal to every context.

An honest person and a criminal share many intrinsic qualities, but they do not share a commonality of spirit or soul. So human equality cannot be based on intrinsic qualities either.

Sorry, still not clear. You disagreed with the quote you used as the preface to your comments, which was my quote. In your prior post you said “I was agreeing with you and I even quoted the statement I disagreed with to avoid misrepresentation.” Since the statement you disagreed with was mine, it appears that you weren’t agreeing with me. (Unless you agreed with everything in my post except that particular statement.) Please clarify.

Congrats on your 10+ years also!

Yes, voluntary is the key but the creatures we deal with these days on both sides of the fence rail for or against the idea forgetting that.

It's like many other words and concepts. The other concept that sticks out in my mind is: Rational Self Interest which I like to call: Cellfish; because that is how your body operates.

. . . and yes (laughing) Rationality is the key.

Pretty hard to give money away you don't have. Unless you're the government...

I guess it depends on one's point of view. Rand liked to use her own definitions of words despite them being in common use another way (see selfishness, sacrifice, etc.) and it often created communications difficulties. I think "forfeiture" is a better approximation to Rand's usage. Jordan uses sacrifice according to the common vernacular (such as in chess), which is to indicate an opportunity cost: an immediate result being foregone in anticipation of a greater future reward.

With regard to the universe being "good," I would suggest that Jordan is again using the common vernacular to indicate anything which furthers a specific "good" purpose is also usually considered "good" to that person. The market uses the term "goods" to indicate inanimate objects which nevertheless supply utility to the user, so I think it rather restrictive to say that only people can be "good." I would completely agree that only an agent force could choose or pursue good, however, since that would be a product of sentience/intelligence.

I used the quote as a preface to my comments. My apologies if it was unclear. Not sure how to state "I firmly disagree with the notion that ..." any more directly.

Congrats for >10 years!

"There must be a better word or concept than "Sacrifice" . We've all sacrificed something at one time or another voluntarily. "

Yes OUC, the key word is "voluntary". I did my undergrad at night while working full time, and, volunteered to join the Army Reserves out of a sense of obligation.

What Ayn Rand railed against was the non-voluntary sacrifice demanded by the philosophy of Altruism. The demand of Altruism is the requirement that an individual place everyone's needs ahead of their own including starving to death to save the life of a total stranger.

I can think of maybe three people who have tried it, viz. Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa in Calcutta, and Mahatma Gandhi.

My simple version:
"I have chiggers, therefore I am."
Anyone who has ever sat in the woods during turkey season, should know this.
There's no doubt about it.

My argument was not well-formed.

I saw him in 2017 in Manhattan. These arguments ultimately are just the ultimate question: Who's side are you on? "Will you use my pronouns?" is just a feeler to decide which of two ways you vote. It's a Friend or Foe interrogative. They don't even care about the most likely fact that no conversation is likely to take place anyway. It's just rams butting heads.

Collectivism vs Individualism is an easy choice! Individual!

I don't see Objectivism on any spectrum between Right and Left. I don't like the R vs L single axis. At least a 2D axis like the Power axis from Anarchy to Authoritarian (up and down) and the Social axis from Individualism to Collectivism (right to left).

About "We know what the right going to far looks like..." is about his assertion that the Left accepts NO limits and expects to be unchecked while on the far far Right (and of course far far Left) there are obvious things where we can say Stop. But it's not about the stop-point on the Right. It's all about the fact that the Left has no defined stop-point for itself. 100% collectivism is the goal, and it is lied about.

Wavering-Yes! True! But maybe wavering leads to truth while sawing away at something wrong just leads to...more wrong.

Proof of God eliminates Faith in God yes.