The God Question
As some of you know, there are a number of people in the gulch who follow a religion, but also follow the principles of Objectivism. At least that is what they say. The following is an except from Rand which clearly states her position when it comes to God. I would be interested to know how the religionists get that square peg into the trapezoid hole.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth.---To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling us what it is not, but never tell us what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say - and demand that you consider that knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There's more, lots more, but knowing this, I would be interested in finding out how one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth.---To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling us what it is not, but never tell us what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say - and demand that you consider that knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
There's more, lots more, but knowing this, I would be interested in finding out how one can claim Objectivism as a philosophy while holding a religion as a philosophy as well.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
I will be the first to admit that I am NOT an expert on Ayn Rand, or objectivism. All I know is from one reading of Atlas Shrugged and watching the movies. My interest in the subject is not a driving force in my life.
Now, you pose a simple question that has the potential for a very large answer. My belief in God is probably not compliant with orthodox Christianity. I believe in a God that is a perfect being, in who's literal image we are created, or organized. He is the ultimate scientist and does what He does through obedience to the natural order of the universe and a much better understanding than we currently have.
He gives us direction for our benefit and learning, but will not remove our agency since free agency is paramount to our progression and learning. Due to this, many times we make stupid, or wrong decisions and bad things happen to good people.
There are natural laws and when we go against a natural law there is usually a consequence soon after. So natural laws are somewhat self enforcing. God gives other laws that when broken may have consequences that are not immediately apparent. These laws are not given capriciously, but out of love and concern for our welfare. The basic theme of these laws is to preserve our free agency. Some people see that as a conundrum...a law restricting your actions gives you greater agency? As an example, the church I belong to has a rule dealing with health and what we should and should not put in our bodies. So, we believe that we should abstain from addictive substances. By avoiding them you still retain the ability to partake if you so choose. You also have the ability to abstain, if you so choose. On the flip side, if you become addicted abstinence is much more difficult.
Looks to me like so much pretentious nonsense - just playing with big words. What are "floating abstractions"? Look it up!
If you want to apply your mind effectively to challenging questions, learn the thinking tools Objectivism offers. Especially see "The Ayn Rand Companion" and use the AynRandLexicon.com.
These will challenge you and give you a firm basis to add to our body of knowledge. I hope you can and do.
That surprised the heck out of me as I watched fascinated through a catwalk of a grated metal construction.
They could not get past the catwalk and climbed FACE DOWN back to the ground.
We know a table is flat at a human scale and that it's a useful concept. The fact that, at nano-scale, there is no "flat" with particles all over the place, is not relevant to human scale use of flatness.
As Rand said, all knowledge is contextual. This is such an example.
But you probably mean pre-self-conscious from your description.
If you mean pre-conceptual, at least above an animal's first level conceptual ability, you are not talking about man.
I like the remark that our pets may know: two people, two trees, etc. - but never the concept two.
As far as left and right parts of the brain with different functions, all the research on brain plasticity show it's not the case. Localization is only superficially understood.
Most of this has been worked out long ago and when a new immigrant arrives they agree by accepting citizenship to forgo their previous system of beliefs and live under our version. Consent given.
If they object no hard feelings and back they go..
Much of the to be and then newly was USA was based on religious principals. the concept of marriage betwen a man and a woman for one. the fear was establishment of a State Religion. Something many had left or fled Europe to avoid and with good reason.
All this becomes background for the development of what is called natural law or the laws that govern mankind from the moment of birth. Nothing to do with and superior to the laws of man. European royalty hated the concept Enlightened thinkers loved it.
Still much of what churches did or internally stood for found their way into the formation of churches within the new USA. What kind of churches. if i can do this off my head. Any religion that does not disturb the peace of the local population nor violate the Constitution. Thus child sacrifices were banned even though they were a tenet of an active religion. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pretty hard to accomplish as a sacrificial virgin.
In these days that philosophy would and does say you cannot kill men, women and children at the drop of a burkah. It was and is not a direct attack on the practice of religion but in direct support of the rights of man...and citizenship.
The French have directly attacked Islamics by singling out Islamic adherents. on the issue of face coverings. The USA simply said. ALL people must adhere to the notion of having their license photo taken and baring their face when directed to do so or asked to do so. An armed robbery on Halloween night would engender the same response.
Nut shell version. Some of us might see God as the source of all heavenly power without description, some see God differently and some look at nature in that context. Some believe in the Big Bang. theory. it matters not if it doesn't violate the peace of the area and it's inhabitants it's legal. What do they consider evidence. Depends on the definition. I hold the divined source of power in the country is the citizens. Or used to be before they crapped in their own church - nature so to speak and refused the responsibility. Doesn't matter in our system...except it led to such things as the 9th and 10th amendments and a lot more.
Evidence? See the recommended Lexicon. We deal in objective facts and reason.
This authority they speak of is simply the physical laws of the cosmos that in fact make it possible for you to exist...pagan man needed to humanize it and be in fear of it in order to behave...sounds funny now...but that's how different we are now...or most of us anyway.
Now that's the dichotomy between pagan bicameral man, the teachings or Knowledge taught in a bicameral language to the bicameral brain...instead of sharing that knowledge in a rational, awakened or conscious language to one's mind...assuming one has connection to one. It's no surprise that even today, many are still in a pre-conscious state...the creatures in governments come to mind first.
There is Nothing watching over us...we each are accountable with consequences for what ever actions we take or not, it's inherent...like it or not, and it's your choice to act in rational self interest or to abandon all rationalities and harm others, contribute to the destruction of society and civilization creating disorder instead of creating Value that might be exchanged with others...a process that creates order.
Load more comments...