11

Objectivism & Thanksgiving?

Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 2 months ago to Culture
86 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Thanksgiving is, by tradition, given to a being that Objectivists say either does not exist or is unnecessary. Hence I am curious how, if at all, Objectivists deal with Thanksgiving. When responding, for clarity to those reading this thread, identify yourself as either atheist, agnostic, or deist. As for myself, I cannot rationally conclude that this universe is not the product of a rational mind. There is way too much that would be inexplicable.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 2 months ago
    Here is an answer provided by Debi Ghate, vice president of academic programs at the Ayn Rand Institute. It's from The Christian Science Monitor, about six years ago.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/O...

    Here is the key quote from the article...

    "Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as 'a typically American holiday' whose 'essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a producers' holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production.' She was right."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago
      IMHO it would not matter if Ayn described it as such but I consider her correct. To the people of the time, it was produce or die. It was definitely a producers holiday! They were alive to celebrate.

      Makes me wonder if America would be better off if it was still that way. Just saying.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 2 months ago
      The trouble with this conclusion is the naming of the holiday. After a litany of strife (poor crop yeilds, sickness, hash weather) and danger and then to have their lives rescued by the native population,who are thanks being given to?

      Why name it thanks-giving. Why not "We made it" Day.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
        "Why name it thanks-giving..."

        You know as well as I that it is because they are not attributing their "making it" to themselves as they recognized without God, there would have been nothing to make it to, nor purpose to propel them. Fleeing the original religious persecution in England is a strong motivating factor for man, same as Galt and his fellow comrades seek to flee gov't suppression of freedom to produce and consume without egalitarian limits. By the way, I understand that Thanksgiving was not a holiday when the pilgrims got here, but the purpose is no less applicable and designed to express that which was their attitude.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 10 years, 2 months ago
          Correct is was not a holiday for the pilgrims, who were exceedingly religious people. Even so, the nation commemorates the gratefulness of the pilgrims in feast. This is factual.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
      So Producers are thanking themselves for their production? Seems like circular reasoning to me.

      I think Ms. Rand should have gone to the extent of advising a renaming of Thanksgiving to "The Producers Celebration of Their Production for Consumerism," or, to keep it simple, "Capitalizing."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 2 months ago
        No, you miss the point, and you fail to differentiate circular reasoning from identification or from tautology. Producers celebrate production on Thanksgiving. It is as simple as that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
          You can say I am missing the point, but that is your opinion.

          I propose that if Producers want to celebrate production, they can do that any day of the week, just like I can be thankful any day of the week. True?

          If that is true, then if we set aside a day called Thanksgiving, then it implies expressing thanks to something for something. If it is being stated, as it is above, the Producers are "celebrating" vs "thanking" then they are not really in tune with the idea of Thanksgiving as a holiday and its inherent purpose.

          The deconstruction of Thanksgiving results in something other than Thanksgiving, else why deconstruct. That is exactly what we do when we say that Producers should do anything but be thankful to God for all that God has provided in order that they can produce. Where do Producers get the ability to do anything? Evolution? Existence? If Evolution, then nothing has any meaning and chemicals are the cause. Existence? That is a non sequitur and irrational; existence doesn't exist for existence sake (no different than saying the plate exists for the plate's sake when sitting on the dining table).

          If you were to tell me that one Producer was thanking another Producer for their production, then I can see that, in a purely secular humanistic fashion and ignoring the entirety of the original purpose of Thanksgiving, but that isn't what was said above.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 10 years, 2 months ago
            As an agnostic, I happily celebrate Thanksgiving and Christmas. I am no more thanking God on Thanksgiving,than having a Mass for Christ on Christmas. I am celebrating holidays named by the culture I live in.

            If I were naming the holidays, I'd probably name them Harvest Festival and Winter Solstice. They come at universally recognized times of the year.

            But on this day there is a component of thankfulness at our house, not to any external God or government, but just that the glass is significantly more than half full.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
              You are not saying that culture alone drives what you celebrate, correct? What is the culture celebrates death and murder? How would you determine where the line is on what is to be celebrated, or is it "every man for himself?"
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 10 years, 2 months ago
            james464:
            Meaning is something that minds create about objective reality. Meaning is not something that has some kind of existence other than in rational minds. Those who try to reify concepts live in fantasy worlds. The facts of evolution and existence are not the cause of anything. They are concepts about matter and its processes. Evolution is the meaning that minds have created about some aspects of reality as are the principles of chemistry and physics and all other studies of objective reality.
            Societies through government and religions make all kinds of reasons to control people and Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, pledges, etc. are ways to get people to act in some way that makes some feel good to see some people obey.
            The Pilgrims probably had a good reason for giving thanks to their god after surviving their initial communist society's first years in the new world. They soon found that the "from each according to ability and to each according to need" type belief was inhuman and that private property was the human way to go.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
              "Meaning is something that minds create about objective reality."

              Ok, if that is the case, then can I objectively determine that murder is ok? If meaning is what I create, then nothing is right or wrong in an absolute sense correct?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 10 years, 2 months ago
                James464:
                Some minds do determine murder as ok. Meaning is created by a mind in the sense that one makes a judgement about a relationship of ones percepts in some sense or significance to oneself or to some other aspect of reality, i.e., if the self is rational and well integrated, it can create mental meanings that are valid about objective reality.
                Your "If meaning is what I create, then nothing is right or wrong in an absolute sense correct?" seems to imply some kind of belief in a static reality of rights and wrongs that are perceived by minds. The unit of minds is the individual mind as in individual brains and such a mind is self made and can create meanings rationally, irrationally, or non-rationally. But that meaning is in the brain of the individual and not to be reified as some absolute to be discovered in reality externally to individual brains. It takes a sense of self to decide on right or wrong or good or bad. That is why there is so much bad in the world where self is considered as a nearly evil attribute of a human. Also, not everything has a meaning, so, your use of the absolute "nothing" is not meaningful.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago
    Agnostic. When I look at the universe I wonder how it could happen & what started it all so I hold the possibility of something greater but I cannot prove nor disprove it. When something cannot be proven it doesn't work with my logical mind. For example, why is a 10 minute old fawn afraid of humans, or afraid of anything for that matter. I have walked up on one and they try as hard as they can to run or stumble. I cannot explain where they get this natural fear?

    But giving thanks for my health and the health and well being of my family and friends is what it is all about to me. While much of what we do can be derived from our own actions including much of our health, to live a long healthy life, free from major issues or accidents seems simply lucky... or...what??
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
      When I walk down the street, I do not randomly thank the street for keeping me from sinking into oblivion, or gravity for existing; thankfulness denotes an object of the thanks, else, the term is defunct.

      I do have a question for you. When you say that something that does not line up with your logical mind (reasoning process), do you mean that it is unreasonable, or just that it is beyond your ability to reason?

      I am asking because I have encountered some who say that if they cannot reason it, then it is unreasonable, which implies it is irrational; however, one man's rationality is another's irrationality right? The fallacy in this reasoning process is that it ignores all the information available for complete reasoning because non-anthropogenic existence, and I would venture to say even anthropogenic existence, understanding would require omniscience, which is impossible in Objectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 2 months ago
        You seem not to understand some fundamental truths. "...one man's rationality is another's irrationality right?" No, rationality is objective. Moreover, the laws of logic are absolute, independent of human perception. You do not thank the street per se for being there, but you should offer a silent thanks to the people who built the streets so that you do not slog through mud.

        Your last sentence seems to be missing a word, but as I understand it, you only open the door to paralytic agnosticism: you cannot know everything, therefore you know nothing.

        Have you ever taken a lightbulb apart? or a refrigerator ... I am so thankful...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -1
          Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
          "the laws of logic are absolute"

          Ok, did you reason to this conclusion, or was it revealed to you? If revealed, did the revealer reason it? How do you know they are absolute? What is your epistemology?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
        Here we go again with your problem with English--omniscience is not only impossible to Objectivism (meaning there's always more to learn), it's impossible to anyone or anything not related to religion. Only the religious believe that some mystical being in some mystical place knows everything there is to no, and not all theologians agree to that idea. And 'one man's rationality is another's irrationality' is nonsense and ignores the definition of both words. Irrationality is disconnected from reality and is often the basis of judicial commitment for mental health treatment.

        And what in the world is non-anthropogenic existence, not human caused existence. I don't know any Objectivists that think that existence is human caused.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
        A very interesting question. In this case, I have a lot of information about the nature of the universe. I also understand by what means I can know this information. However, what I do not have is a satisfactory understanding of how and/or why the universe exists. I agree that existence exists, but a universe could just as easily have had nothing in it whatsoever.

        When it comes to these topics, I don't think I would need omniscience, but I would need information that I do not have at this point. Some people of faith try to use that faith to fill in the information that is at this point not known. That does defy reason.

        However, an understanding of why the universe exists as it does is, at this point in my life, beyond my ability to reason logically because of a partial lack of information. There is perhaps enough information to make some hypotheses about the nature of the universe. The problem therein is how one would go about testing such hypotheses. I guess I am saying that I am a limited being, and I am OK with that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 2 months ago
          It is the question of the reason for the universe (and by distillation the purpose of man) that spawns religion and philosophy in the first place. And if one argues that there is no purpose, then one effectively argues against universal law, as laws dictate the ends being of inherent/intrinsic value, with value being a relative evaluation of fulfillment of purpose. To me (and I will freely admit to being a deist), I can not resolve a purposeless existence logically.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago
    I agree with MM, that producers celebrate production.

    We also celebrate people going off to live life deliberately. If they want follow religion, the FSM, or other stuff I think is not backed up by evidence, it's their life to fly their freak flag. It's usually the freaks who most people reject that move society and production forward.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 2 months ago
    Hello jbrenner,
    I haven't given thank's to a higher being for longer than I can remember, but when I was a kid... Now I am atheostic... :) I have no opinion because I have no evidence or experience upon which to form one with conviction. Anyway, I still give thank's, but it is for/to my good fortune and all who have been of assistance along the way and to all of my friends and family for their support and companionship.
    For your Thanksgiving listening pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m57gz...

    Happy Thanksgiving to all!
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ SarahMontalbano 10 years, 2 months ago
    Thanksgiving, for me, is a chance to reward myself for the work I've done so far, and to look ahead to what I'm going to do in the next year. It's a producer's holiday, like others have mentioned; for me, it's also a well-deserved break. (Atheist.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago
    Agnostic.

    I celebrate TDay, XMas, Easter, Memorial Day, Labor Day and all the other traditional holidays, and then I throw in a few pagan holidays to boot. Why Not? I do not care about whether there is a 'tainted origin' in these holidays - they are what I mean them to be.

    Thank you (Gulch, not God) for being here and being informative and entertaining for the last several years. There: I have Given Thanks!

    Jan, happily arrogant
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 2 months ago
    Using Aristotle's logic and Galileo's scientific method, can you prove that this universe is the product of a rational mind?

    I am neither atheist, nor agnostic, nor deist insofar as no one whose works I have read has proven whether the universe was created or has always existed. Have you read of any such proof?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 10 years, 2 months ago
      No, I cannot prove that it is the product of a rational mind. However, if things as they are were not the product of a rational mind, I should think that a much higher percentage of them would be dysfunctional. This is why I continue to study. I do not know the answers and the explanations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
      Let's take it down to where it ends up....either you believe something came from nothing, or something came from an intelligent being. Either one requires faith. Where does your faith reside? Additionally, are you conscious? If you believe you are, then you cannot believe something came from nothing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 2 months ago
        About 40 years ago, I read that Aristotle had written concerning truth that I want what I say to be the truth, not because I, Aristotle, say it, but because it could not be otherwise. I've lived my life by that credo. My beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with reality. Ayn Rand was correct in observing "Existence exists". So I am back to my original contention that no one has proven using Aristotle's logic and Galileo's scientific method whether the universe was created or if it has always existed. We simply do not know.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
          So, same as Ms. Rand did, you have faith that existence exists without worrying about origins.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 2 months ago
            The evidence presented by the five senses to one's brain is all that is necessary and sufficient to conclude that something exists exterior to oneself.

            Aristotle's logic and Galileo's scientific method coupled with the intelligence which Nature has infused into humans are the necessary elements to correctly identify that existence. Faith and worry have never added one iota to the knowledge base developed by humanity.

            That knowledge base does not yet include the origins of the universe, specifically, the answer to the question: Did anything exist prior to the current expansion of the universe?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
              "Did anything exist prior to the current expansion of the universe?"

              Ok good, I am glad you didn't avoid the question.

              Unfortunately, I have a question to ask you which will help me answer your question.

              Have the 5 sense, scientific method or any other means of perception determined something can come from nothing?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by j_IR1776wg 10 years, 2 months ago
                Can something come from nothing?

                If our senses are valid, then the universe exists. The conservation laws of physics tell us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. The universe appears to be composed totally of matter and energy in motion. In the 1930's, physicists were able to explain the phenomena of pair-production by which a virtual electron and a virtual positron are created from an energy field according to Einstein's E = MC^2 and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They last for an incredibly brief fraction of a second then collide and their combined masses are converted back into energy.

                If the foregoing is true, then there was never a beginning since matter and energy must have always existed. Hence, something can never come from nothing.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
                Define nothing. Or what existed before nothing. Or has something always existed? Is it important? Not to me. I exist because I am and I am cognizant or aware of my existence. Rule Number Two if I remember correctly. I am, I am aware that I am and the law of identity. If there is something to contradict that I'm sure that at some time we will either be informed or figure it out for ourselves just as the answer to the question if every thing is taken away until there is nothing left but empty space and then space is subtracted what is left. Far as I'm concerned the inability to become something again. After that I'm more concerned with useful practical information that affects me here and now. For sure whatever the answer is in either direction I wasn't and I will not be. Why waste time and mental energy on that which will not affect me when I am not. However there is a use for that which affected me before I was. What is called history. Why is that useful is called philosophy primarily moral philosophy. There is plenty of space to fill without agonizing over the inevitability of nothingness.

                A: Only if the something remained in the emptiness therefore therefore it would not be empty. In any case that's a hundred or so million years in the future as one possibility but for me it's two possibly three decades if I lay off hamburgers once a month.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by james464 10 years, 2 months ago
                  Ok, so the sense I am getting is that you are concerned with practicality and what can affect you during your lifetime.

                  If that is true, then how do you determine your morals when you don't believe there is an external revelatory source for such? If you reason that an accepted moral position is not to murder, is it invalid for one to reason murder is an accepted moral position (i.e. murder is good to one person and not good to another).
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
                    There isn't really the space to teach a full level course in Moral Philosophy to someone with a preconceived answer trying a different approach. If you can't reason go try secular progressivism there's a home for you there.

                    Not everyone can. It's a question of individual choice you will or you won't.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
      define rational...try reading some hard science instead even Socrates used direct evidence before coming to any conclusions and there is a ton of stuff. which way do they lean? Go look it up.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
        In thinking it over, does it, does He?

        Suppose nothing doesn't exist except as a zero which is the sign post between positive and negative numbers and has zero value. Until some idiot decides to celebrate the millennium a year early in which case it has a value of minus one or 999 and the third millennium has a projected value of 1001. In our case a nation of idiots and the value was 1999 and 2001

        Classic example of dumbing down
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dennis55 10 years, 2 months ago
    Deist. As in something, a shared consciousness, a singularity, more physics than spiritual. NOT a personal old Jesus. Does not bring me the bicycle once I specify what color.
    There is a great scene in the movie Shenandoah (which could be a tribute to objectivism) when Charlie Anderson (Jimmy Stewart) is about to pray before a meal in keeping with his deceased wife's wishes to keep the family in the church. I'm doing this from memory but Charlie bows his head and says well Lord, we prepared the field, planted the seed, weeded the field, fed the animals, did our own butchering and harvested the field-then we cooked the food--but I guess we are thankful to you.... bad paraphrase but great secular Thanksgiving moment.
    I like best the AR comment AND the comments in last year's Gulch on thanksgiving-a producers holiday. I have often found myself just thankful about an outcome. Not a prayer-just internally grateful that I made it through. As many have said, sometimes we are just stuck with a word, a name a date and for me sometimes it's just easier to say Merry Christmas than to explain all of the legends and pagan rites leading up to that day. A well meant albeit lazy greeting works. But to sum up-today because of the calendar I take a moment to be internally thankful for the RESULTS of MY EFFORTS. And Happy thanks-give day to you all. We are in the Gulch for- if not a rigid adherence to a creed-we are here with a shared or common approach to a belief that our own minds and our own efforts are a beautiful thing.
    I am grateful to you all that contribute. Especially when I think I have the only answer and your comments and responses challenge me to THINK.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo