In what way do you relate to Ayn Rand's experiences

Posted by LarryHeart 1 year, 3 months ago to Philosophy
108 comments | Share | Flag

I relate to her childhood experiences since they mirror my own experiences and actions exactly.

In this interview she says that she was the smartest in her class,
- that she did not have to make much of an effort to excel in school, All she had to do was read ahead once,
- that she was bored in class and wrote novels behind her textbook.

She found writing novels challenging and I assume worthy of her intellect and much harder than reading ahead in a text book.

Like her my childhood "Novel" was ahem ... not worth mentioning. Also I wrote in such small letters that even with glasses I can''t read my writings.from that time. lol .

She says the object of a Philosophy is to understand the nature of existence. Religion too is a philosophy.

I also have tried to point out here that Religion is a philosophy and as She says it is immoral to accept it on "faith" but if arrives at through reason there is nothing wrong about it or to discuss it.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/cAFKnfN4bfk


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 1 year, 3 months ago
    I relate to her in the present day context, seeing and living through her very accurate predictions.
    I was introduced to her writing late in life and that introduction and a whole lot of other introductions lead me on my way to writing myself...something I never even dreamed on doing...the last thing I'd ever think of doing.

    Not a fan of the organizations of the inspired teachings and history; I found that there is a lot there to digest, many obvious truths and historical happenings that are not made up at all.

    Leaning this along with many other things has certainly widened my view of the big picture, mankind's history and mental evolution over time.

    One can not dismiss mankind's past nor judge by the present but we can grapple with the present knowing a bit of mankind's past.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 1 year, 3 months ago
    I guess I have some similarities in my life, when I was very young (in fourth grade) I remember a teacher telling us about how the government needed to control us and our property to ensure a safe and homogenous society. I blurted out 'NO!' which shocked the teacher and me but was not able to refute the arguments of the teacher although I refused to give in. It would take years of study and accidentally finding Ayn Rand's writings and philosophy to get a thorough understanding of why I always resisted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DennisKebrdle 1 year, 3 months ago
    Religion is a philosophy of life for sure--if you don't have faith in the philosophy of the life you choose to live, it is all a sham anyway. in the end it all relates to how you interface with others rather than what you think of yourself.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
      Religion is a primitive form of philosophy attempting to fill the need for understanding reality beyond a succession of disparate moments. It fails because faith is not a means to knowledge. Faith is the opposite of a rational philosophy, not a requirement for it. Confidence in what one knows rationally is not faith.

      Philosophy is not a matter of "what you think of others rather than yourself". Proper social relations are not a primary, they are a consequence of ethical standards for making choices of all kinds for one's own life, which in turn depend on rational methods of thinking, which in turn requires an objective view towards reality.

      Religion, faith, and putting others above oneself are all the opposite of Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tdechaine 1 year, 3 months ago
      It actually isn't a phil. of Life; it is quite anti-life.
      And how you interface with others is a by-product of the values you hold. Of utmost importance is "what you think of yourself". Only be being a person of self-esteem who chooses rational values can you interface well with others.
      Being an altruist does not work for oneself.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DennisKebrdle 1 year, 3 months ago
        not in my book. if you don't see yourself in some fashion that allows you self worth and belief in your ability to be where you want for who or what you want then you are nothing. philosophy=belief
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
          Philosophy is not "belief". Philosophy is a body of general knowledge pertaining to the most fundamental aspects of existence, the nature of man and his relation to existence, and the most general principles of how to think and standards for making choices in life. It is distinguished from the special, narrower, sciences, but all knowledge requires establishing how you know in reason; it does not allow for "belief" without regard to that. If you believe something is true you had better know why.

          If you don't regard yourself as an end it itself, and do not think rationally as required to know and choose, you will not attain self-esteem.

          You should read Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It? and the essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in her The Romantic Manifesto.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DennisKebrdle 1 year, 3 months ago
          sorry then, misread it, between stuff at work, should just leave this kind of interaction until sitting with feet up, glass of wine or bourbon in hand and a chunk of cheese at the side.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Arthgallo 1 year, 3 months ago
    After Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead; I switched my major to philosophy. I've never regretted that decision and found myself successful in various unrelated professions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 year, 3 months ago
    I had a very inquiring mind even as a child. But I think Ayn Rand's books helped me greatly because they answered so many of my questions. I accepted her writings because they really coincided with my thoughts that I was unable to express due to the society I was born into. My mother was way ahead of her time and she encouraged me to read, read, read. I did!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MannyG 1 year, 3 months ago
    I first read Ayn Rand in High School in 1965 at the behest of my girlfriend. Atlas Shrugged became the best book I had ever read, and I read a lot!
    Her warnings of the Collectivistic method can be applied 100% to today's Progressivism. Same disease, same evil morons infecting the rabble. When one listens to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez one sees the mindless automatons in government that Ayn Rand described.almost 100 years ago.
    My only complaint is her disdain of religion, but I can see why: Any law that conflicts with her modus vivendi she has to eschew.
    What a waste of a great mind condemned to Hell forever!.. ..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 1 year, 3 months ago
      yes, yes, yes, no, no.
      Any sensible god would have Ayn Rand sitting at his# right hand,
      -for promulgating the use of 'god-given' (or whatever) mind, and for explaining how ethics and actions can follow from reason.

      # his, her, its, zer, hup, cur, etc..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
      If you think that highly of Atlas Shrugged you should explore the philosophy that made it and its sense of life possible. It is a philosophical novel, not just politics. Ayn Rand rejected religion because it is contrary to reason, not just a conflict with how she lived; it conflicted because of what it is. She was not "condemned to hell".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
      Thank you for responding to the actual question on topic.

      I do not know about hell as it is ok to question anything including religion but I understand your frustration.

      Too many "Objectivists" are on a crusade to demean Religious practice and Religion in it's entirety and that is not what Ayn Rand was saying.

      She was saying not to take action solely on faith but to examine things using reason.

      Her disdain was for those who accept Religion without question. That also applies to propaganda that is accepted without question as is Happening to our youth right now.

      Her disdain was for faith in the group narrative.
      However that does not mean she disdained faith in one's friends or faith that one will achieve their goals.

      English language is a poor tool for communication of ideas.

      For instance Her use of the word Selfish is also misinterpreted to mean look out only for yourself .rather than to be careful not to surrender yourself to others or the group.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 year, 3 months ago
    I attended many of Ayn's lectures for NBI in NYC as a college student...in later years had lunch with Nat Branden in L.A. on my layovers as an airline pilot...very insightful....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 1 year, 3 months ago
    Religion is - as AR put it - a primitive philosophy. Certainly not one that can be "arrived at through reason." Her philosophy can strengthen and make happy anyone who truly understands and accepts it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 3 months ago
      Most all humans can reason and do so. Most do not know the reasoned out rules of logic, so they do not know that their premises do not have to be true and those who do know so believe that their premises are true within the context that they are reasoning. Thousands of years have passed as theists continue to argue with false premises. If one does not consciously understand that with a false premise one can prove anything to be true. That is why it is near impossible to argue with a theist as to the validity of their ideas where the reasoning proves to them that they are right. It need not be religion but can be politics, science, philosophy, etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
        Literally everyone can reason, and everyone outside an insane asylum does to some extent. The issue is what else they do: emotions are not tools of cognition. Once going down that path, reason is confused with rationalization of the subjective premises. Rationalization is not reason, it's a false use of the methods of logic.

        It isn't just false premises that make it impossible to argue with a theist -- a rational person can correct false assumptions and wants to -- the theist does not. You can't argue with a theist because you can't argue with the arbitrary.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
          Exactly. You are talking about ewv. If he were rational he wouldn't cling to his false assumptions and see the objective reality of what was written and all the explanations given to him.
          All people not just theists fall prey to emotion and respond based on any wrongly perceived challenge to their opinion which they cling to as reality rather than trying to see objective reality. .
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
          What theist? Do you see a theist? It is in your mind only. One cannot argue with a person that only sees through their own prejudgments. But you are only here to argue and get attention as all your comments show. That is motivated by emotion rather than reason. Know thyself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
        All people not just theists fall prey to emotion and respond based on any wrongly perceived challenge to their opinion which they cling to as reality rather than trying to see objective reality. .It is impossible to argue with many people here too for the same reason of starting their "Logic" based on false premises. Specifically responding to an argument for REASON as though it is an argument for faith because religion is mentioned.
        Some people here view Ayn Rand's writings as a Religion and respond just like a theist.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
      It is amazing how hard it is for people to understand what is written and not twist it into something else and create a straw man argument. of course one can not come to faith through reason as they are opposite. I wrote about coming to a moral code through reason even if it is based on something said in a Religion or a principle of a religion. .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
        One cannot start with a moral code of duties "based on something said in religion or a principle of religion" and then claim to be "coming to it through reason". Rationalizations are not reason. Religious injunctions do not become "reason" just because someone says so.

        If you do not understand why the content and method of the moral code you are proselytizing here are in fundamental conflict with the purpose of this forum, read "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Causality Versus Duty". The rejection of your proselytizing the 10 commandments is not "triggered" or "closed mindedness".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
    Perhaps stomaching a religion in it's entirety is vomit inducing but not all of Religion should be dismissed in general nor the thinkers of those Religions.
    Even Aristotle believed in their gods and yet his writings on reason are well...arrived at through reason. . lol.

    The 10 codes of morality, for instance which Moses brought out can be arrived at through Reason and do not need faith or god except Perhaps one depending on how one interprets it.

    Don't Murder except in self defense.Good idea otherwise no one could live with anyone else.

    Don't steal (collectivism is based on theft),

    Manage Jealousy and don't covet which is making plans based on Jealousy to take your neighbor's spouse, employees, property, reputation etc.. (socialism and all Collectivist ideologies are based on Jealousy.that all should be equal in results and it is only fair that there are no rich. capitalism is evil etc.)

    Pay attention to your Father and Mother and history and learn from their mistakes and good ideas. It does not mean blindly obey once your reasoning faculties develop. Only when you are very young when you have to take everything on faith since you have no experience or knowledge yet.

    Would you or Ayn Rand reject those principles just because they came through a religion?

    The one that is Translated as I am the Lord your God ...etc. is actually about rejecting all forms of servitude to earthly power, Kings, Governments. Monarchs, etc. on faith. That part is reasonable and prevents Collectivist governments and un-reasoned Altruistic slavery to the collective on faith.

    The founders of the USA used reason that we have individual rights and that government is only legitimate and only has power if it is given to the government by the people.

    So maybe we can discuss things that are related to religion without lumping everything in a religion as Mysticism, lack of reason and faith alone. Can we stop letting "Religion" be a trigger word for closing our minds?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
      Rewriting the Big 10 religious duties into something else is not an argument for religion, and even with that, with mixed results, none of it addresses the fundamental nature of morality and man's need for it, or the basic virtues required for man's life.

      Religion is mysticism, not "lumped", and the attempts at its rationalization are not reason, they confuse reason with turning, in the name of "reason", what is not reason into a handmaiden of faith.

      Religion is rejected by rational people because of what it is, not a mindless "trigger". There is no reason to "open" one's mind to it. Rational people have active minds, not minds "open" to variations on what is known to be false.

      Claiming to have "arrived" at religion in the name of "reason" rationalizing it does not change the content of the religious beliefs and is not like the way Ayn Rand pursued philosophy. Such rationalization of religion does not "relate to Ayn Rand's experiences".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
        Read what is written. This is not an argument for Religion.It is about a moral code that can be arrived at through reason that should not be rejected off hand just because it is mentioned in a religion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
          I did read what you wrote, and responded to it. Religion is not "about a moral code that can be arrived at by reason", nor have you done so youerself. You associate your beliefs with religion yourself, then denounce in advance anyone who rejects your posts as "triggered" by and "closed minded" about religion. The ten commandments you take as your basis, interpreting them as what you have called a personal "translation", are religion. Their dogmatic content pronounced in the name of God are the opposite of a rational approach to morality and do not address man's need for morality nor provide the basic standards required.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -2
            Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
            You may have read but no matter how many times it is explained you still do not get it. You are Rationalizing your incorrect interpretation of what is written. Read what lrshultis wrote.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
              Properly "interpreting" your posts does mean accepting your characterization of them as "reason" regardless of their content and how in place of reason you personally attack people who reject it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Maritimus 1 year, 3 months ago
      Hello, LarryHeart,

      I must completely reject you defense of basing one's life on faith rather than on reason and philosophy. That is the basic choice each individual human has to make, if wishing to live the best life that an individual is capable of achieving.

      Do you not kill other humans because a god or gods forbid it or because you think that using force against others is counterproductive from the point of view of you trying to live the best life you can achieve in a human community?

      To be honest, I think that you are confused and do not belong here. Unless, of course, you seek learning. To me, you sound proselytizing.

      I am convinced that objectivist philosophy is infinitely better guide for rational humans than any faith.

      Of course, we can debate this ad infinitum, but I have better things to do. It is your basic responsibility to find your way in your own life.

      Good luck!

      Sincerely,
      Maritimus
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
        Yes it's confused and yes it's proselytizing -- along with an attempt to intimidate people into taking it seriously by demeaning slurs in advance against those who reject it, denouncing rejection as nothing but a mindless "trigger" adhering to "closed" dogma. Nothing could be further from the truth. But no, you can't debate with faith. There are no standards for the arbitrary and he's been pushing this for quite a while, it's not just something he temporarily lapsed into by simple innocent mistake. It's fundamental.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -4
          Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
          You again. I am describing you in particular as unable to understand what is written because of prejudice to Religion triggering anti-Religion and faith rants.based on what you THINK you are reading and not what is actually written or meant. Clear your mind and maybe you can see that I am AGREEING with reason over faith. Unbelievable. Read the reply to martimus.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
            You do not properly address anyone as "you again" followed by personal attacks with accusations of "prejudice", "triggered" and "rants", then injunctions to "clear your mind". You have done this in previous posts in a pattern. It does not belong here.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -4
              Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
              Truth not personal attacks. You just can't see it and don't accept it.. The only pattern is giving you the benefit of the doubt and explaining again.
              I am once again ignoring you.and will do so in the future. I am not the only one here that is already doing so.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 3 months ago
                When has ignoring someone included making comments to that person. To ignore means having nothing to do with the person. You sure seem to have a lot to do with ewv.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -2
                  Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                  Opposite. Ewv has a lot to do with everyone.

                  I am calling his postings out as a nuisance that interferes and destroys every discussion. I am Publicly stating that I am ignoring him. Evaluate if that is best for you to do also. Rationally of course.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 3 months ago
                    You just contradicted yourself. You cannot both ignore him and at the same time attend to his postings and get bent out of shape about them, that is not ignoring. Even though ewv and I don't always agree on each others posts, we are civil about it.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -3
                      Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                      "Ignoring you as of now" is what i should have said to appease nitpickers.

                      And now you are calling me uncivil by inference and also by inference ("at least") that you and ewv are better than me because you are civil. Well isn't that special.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
                        Observing a contradiction is not "nitpicking". Repetitive response with the phrase "as of now" is the same contradiction calling attention to itself.

                        Yes, the continued emotional personal attacks are "uncivil" and yes civility is better. It is supposed to be the normal, not "special".
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -2
        Posted by MannyG 1 year, 3 months ago
        Pascal put it in better words. He said to the atheist: if you're right and I'm wrong, no harm no foul, we just cease to be. However, If I'm right and you're wrong, you're condemned for eternity and I'm supremely happy forever!.
        Still want to bet?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
          Pascal wrote his "wager" as a joke. It is filled with fallacies, not the least of which is what of the unlimited imagined and contradictory "bets" to make.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -2
            Posted by MannyG 1 year, 3 months ago
            I was paraphrasing him. Thew actual words are too hard to understand for atheists and agnostics.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
              We know what "Pascal's wager" is and have no difficulty understanding what it says, as well as the joke and the fallacy. It is not "too hard to understand". Rational understanding -- the only kind there is -- cannot consist of emotional immersion in faith to obliterate the logic.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 3 months ago
          His assumption was that a god would be upset about someone who does not believe the myths created by Its ignorant creatures. He believed that he was in good with It. I call it 'It' since a gender does not seem possible for a none existing pretend being.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
            "Fire and brimstone" as intimidation is one of the many fallacies. So is the assumption that any of it should be believed at all as the invalid premise underlying appealing to "probability".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -3
        Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
        Th only ones confused here are you and ewv.

        You misinterpreted what i wrote. I wrote that one can come to those principles by RATIONAL means and NOT by faith.

        Perhaps people who don't bother to understand what is written and just go off on a rant based on viewing through their own bias and not seeing the objective reality of what is written don't belong here or in any discussion anywhere. .Especially ones who judge and pull the "You don't belong here" or You are violating the rules" card. Even if I was championing faith, which I am not, you should still be able to carry on a rational discussion and not just Knee-Jerk, emotionally based demeaning rejection and dismissal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
          Telling you to cease your personal attacks as inappropriate is not a "card".

          The ten commandments are religious duties, not based on reason. Trying to rationalize them is not "reason". The difference between both their content and that approach versus an objective ethics is fundamental, not "knee-jerk", not "biased", and not "rant".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 3 months ago
            A commandment is not something without a choice and not a matter of morality, which requires making a choice among alternatives.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Maritimus 1 year, 3 months ago
              Don't you think that commandments are direct orders to do something rather than the opposite?

              Best wishes.
              Maritimus

              EDIT: Inserted missed word.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
                Irshultis edited out an extra word: he meant "A commandment is not something with a choice".

                Yet even that can only be accepted by choice -- because a mind cannot be forced -- the choice to accept a duty. And that is the form in which the ten commandments have been understood and accepted as throughout history in their influence.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -2
              Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
              You are correct. Except Commandment is not a correct translation of the Hebrew. Ten "Devarim" means 10 "things/realities" or in modern vernacular "just saying". Actually the one word conveys a meaning of 10 things/realities that are being spoken/communicated with words.

              The word Tzivah means order not commandment.. As in "I put these things/realities that I communicated to you in order for you. Implying also to help you keep an orderly society. No coercion there.

              These were slaves who had no choices and were now being presented with choices and a guidebook.
              Very different story from what the Greeks took everything to mean and which then made it's way into later incorrect translations based on the Greek.

              So start the argument from this correct translation and not the incorrect assumption of "Commandment".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Lucky 1 year, 3 months ago
                The Lord gives Moses the Ten Guidelines

                Moses and you guys, just saying now I've been thinking about how you all should behave better, and give myself proper respect like. Well so I am asking for feedback on these guidelines.
                Maybe try them out. They look good made out of fine porcelain but if they are no good then just drop them.

                Hoping no one was upset by the thunder sounds but this chariot has been tuned lean, gotta keep the carbon pollution down.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 25n56il4 1 year, 3 months ago
            They are pretty good rules, though.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
              You can extract a few common sense ideas, like telling the truth, but you have to take it out of the context of a list of authoritarian duties, and some of them are strictly religious injunctions and specifically anti-thought.

              Even with the best that can be reinterpreted, the whole approach of authoritarian duty to be accepted without understanding and without regard to context is destructive (see Ayn Rand's "Causality Versus Duty") and you don't get fundamental principles of rational egoism with life as the standard and your happiness as your goal, only -- at best -- a few isolated rules of thumb that do not begin to deal with the basic choices in life.

              Some are destructive over and above the duty mentality and the religious submissiveness to a god, such as telling you there are topics you must not even think, inculcating guilt if they even pop up into your head.

              For example, in Ayn Rand's ethics honesty is a primary virtue as one aspect of rationality that means not faking reality in any way to yourself; telling others the truth (when you are not being coerced) is a consequence.

              Ayn Rand's ethics is unique in the way it looks at the facts of human nature that requires having a code of standards, then develops what the basic principles should be and how to implement them, all in the context of the necessity to make choices in all aspects of your life, not social rules leaving you with no guidance for everything else in your life.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 3 months ago
          Rational is a means of reason while faith is a means of belief and is not a means of reason.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -3
            Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
            True. But irrelevant since I am talking about Reason and not faith. Read the original post

            This is a logical fallacy called a "Straw man" argument by the way. Changing someone's words, meaning or argument into something that can be easily knocked down but is not an answer to the actual argument or statements.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Maritimus 1 year, 3 months ago
              In the original post you just declare that religion is philosophy. As I explained in another reply to you, some religions like to pretend that they are philosophies, but are only "philosophies". They are based on commands, not self evident basic truths.

              Friends as before!

              Sincerely,
              Maritimus
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
                Yes, religion as a primitive form of philosophy attempts to fill the need for a philosophy but fails. It's not something to try to base a philosophy on by rationalizing it.

                It's interesting how just that was attempted on a grand scale in the Dark Ages when Augustine turned Christianity into a "religious philosophy", formulating contrived answers to the basic questions of philosophy based on faith and rationalizations. It haunted western civilization for centuries until Aquinas re-introduced Aristotelianism as the beginning of the long haul out of it, though Aquinas' own theology was still rationalizing religion in addition to his genuine philosophical contributions.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Maritimus 1 year, 3 months ago
                  Hello, ewv,

                  Can you suggest where I can find a good description of what Aquinas did in re-introducing Aristotelianism, rationalizing religion and making genuine philosophical contributions.

                  Let me explain, please. I am 83 years old retiree. Educated as a physical chemist. If I had a chance to do it again, it would be dual majors: again physical chemistry and philosophy. All my life I did what you would call development engineering. I became aware of Ayn Rand reading "We the Living" more than three decades ago. It was the best description, by far, of wat I lived through, ages 9 to 27.

                  I have since read virtually everything that she wrote, and some of the others. I would like not to attempt to read a library on Aquinas, but a good thorough objective review.

                  I guarantee that I will not suddenly become religious after reading what you recommend;-)

                  Thank you in advance.

                  Sincerely,
                  Maritimus
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Maritimus 1 year, 3 months ago
          Hello, LarryHeart,

          I decided to get into this discussion one more time so that I can make some points absolutely clear.

          "You misinterpreted what i wrote. I wrote that one can come to those principles by RATIONAL means and NOT by faith."

          From ancient Greeks to modern times it is accepted that philosophy is a rational theory, or guidance, of how individual humans can relate to and thrive in existence. There are nearly infinite number of "philosophies". In fact one could argue that each human has an own "philosophy". I put these "philosophies" in quotes because I think that most of them are not thoroughly thought through, which is to say that, when you scratch the surface off them and dig deeper, you find inconsistences and contradictions. You can look up what Ayn Rand thought about contradictions. It's better said than anything I can possibly do.

          Now! One of the "philosophies" is religion when it pretends that it is a philosophy. The basic fallacy and, in consequence, disqualifying is the fact that it is god-given. In other words, those you quote are not principles. They are commands. Even Moses said so.

          I don't want to lecture here. But principles are like axioms in math. Much different than commands.

          I want to say one more thing, which I hope you can accept as an advice and not an ad-hominem attack. That repeated "Ignoring you." makes you look petulant and childish, which I don't believe you are or want to appear to be.

          Mature humans can debate hard and end up disagreeing very deeply. But they part ways saying: "No offense! Friends as before."

          Lastly, I have an impression that you felt offended when I wrote that you do not belong here. As you know, my impression is that you are trying to proselytize religion here. Let's leave that as an open question. Your future behavior will be, I hope, evidence clear enough.

          Friends as before!

          Sincerely,
          Maritimus
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -3
            Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
            Very nice; and you would be correct except the assumptions you based your argument on are incorrect. I hope you can see that without immediate defensiveness or Judgment of immaturity.

            BTW Ewv is always on the attack based on his continuing misconceptions and underlying agenda that does not include debate or discussion. He dominates with his unceasing posting that leads nowhere and destroys every conversation that we try to have here.
            Every post is negative and he never lets a conversation rest. He always has to get the last word in. That is his end game which he seems to emotionally need to feel that he 'Won" the argument. Therefore I am publicly ignoring him as he is wasting everyone's time.

            As to your argument, Go back to the original post and see that I am not proselytizing Religion I am poking at the prejudice that many here have that is interfering with rational discussion.

            Any word , phrase or discussion that seems to have a correlation with Religion is immediately rejected, made fun of, demeaned and emotionally regarded as "Religious" blasphemy of Ayn Rand's words.

            I am questioning if Objectivism for some has become a Religion where every word must be taken on faith and immune from examination and discussion. Also that the person may not have interpreted what was written in the way Ayn Rand intended.

            Everyone here considers themselves rational. That does not mean "better than:" nor immune from misconception or emotion based responses to perceived attacks of "The word".

            Are you or are you nor emotionally invested in Objectivism as the true reality. Or proving Objectivism right and annoyed if it seems that someone isn't "Getting it".

            What is the cause of responses such as "You don't belong here"? Is that a rational or an emotional conclusion? Especially as I have explained my meaning ad nauseum (by the way Ad is a Semitic language root meaning until. The ultimate root of languages is not Latin. But that's another story)

            . Here again is the reality of what I am saying and I hope not still misunderstood.

            My thesis is if we find something that came to us through Religion it should not be rejected offhand because of where it came from. Evaluate it rationally and see if it is reasonable.

            The wise person is one who learns from all people.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by GaltsGulch 1 year, 3 months ago
              RE: "BTW Ewv is always..."
              You're going to have to give the personal attacks a rest Larry. Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Maritimus 1 year, 3 months ago
                Hello, LarryHeat,

                I am sad. You even earned a reprimend from the person who manages this site! You truly should be ashamed.

                I tried to focus our conversation to few distinct subjects. More on that below. You answered by an ugly tirade against ewv, whom I recognize from way back before you appeared on this cite. I know him as a blunt, explicit and very rational thinker. At least an order of magnitude more rational than you seem to be.

                I raised the subjects: 1.) philosophy vs. "philosophy"; 2.) religion as a "philosophy"; 3.) principles vs. commands; 4.) your attitude with "Ignoring you."; 5.) mature way of debating; 6.) your future behavior as a test.

                You ignored the first three and the fifth. You addressed the fourth by adding nothin new, just repeating yourself from before.

                I am truly sorry to have found that you miserably failed the test in the sixth.

                So, I say, very sadly, goodbye and leave you to fry in you own thoughts and add: "Friends as before!"

                Sincerely,
                Maritimus
                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
                • -5
                  Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                  I know the person who manages this site. I am an associate producer of the 3rd Atlas Shrugged movie.

                  So no, there is no reason for me to be ashamed for speaking out about the people who monopolize and ruin our conversations.

                  In the end, the truth will out.

                  Take a look at this last post of yours. Tell me that isn't a personal attack.

                  Btw what oil would you like me to fry my thoughts in?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by sdesapio 1 year, 3 months ago
                    RE: "I know the person who manages this site."
                    I am the person who manages this site. I don't know you.

                    RE: "I am an associate producer of the 3rd Atlas Shrugged movie."
                    No. You are definitely not an Associate Producer of ASP3. I, however, am. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2800038/...

                    RE: "...speaking out about the people who monopolize and ruin our conversations."
                    You are not "speaking out about the people..." You are personally attacking other Gulch members.

                    Stop Larry. Take a breath, and just stop.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • -3
                      Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                      OMG give it a rest fake news.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -2
                        Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                        And if you are Scott you should know me. Remember Sveta. But you go along with the mob, call me a liar and take up the pitchfork and torch?
                        The Gulch has rotted into mulch. .
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by sdesapio 1 year, 3 months ago
                          RE: "And if you are Scott..."
                          I am.

                          RE: "... you should know me. Remember Sveta."
                          Yes, I remember Sveta. You and I have never met.

                          RE: "But you go along with the mob..."
                          If by "mob" you mean the very few Objectivists that understand and espouse Ayn Rand's ideas here in the Gulch, then yes, I stand with them.

                          RE: "... call me a liar"
                          Contributing to the the ASP3 Kickstarter campaign did not make you an "Associate Producer" of the film. You calling yourself an "Associate Producer" doesn't make it so.

                          RE: "The Gulch has rotted into mulch."
                          Personally attacking other Gulch members, spamming the Gulch with nonsensical irrational "Ignoring you." comments, refusing to adhere to the few very simple rules in the Gulch Code of Conduct, and making disparaging remarks about the Gulch website are probably pretty good indications it's time for a break Larry.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • -1
                            Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                            We have never met but we talked on the phone and you know me. I sent Sveta instead of me to be an extra. The name I asked for "The Society project" is on one of the bricks.

                            Whatever you call that kickstarter title, associate or just ASS makes no difference. That is not the point. This was said in the context of one of your supposedly "Very Few" trying to shame me.
                            .
                            You have not seen the context of the discussions. You have not read all of them in this thread to see what actually was occurring. You just jumped to a conclusion based on what I called the mob. Not a mob of people as it is only 2 or 3 that are doing this, but the mob voice of many frivolous posts that you listened to without finding out all the facts.

                            And again you disparaged me while telling me not to. So I don't really understand her ideas eh?

                            Scott, you can disparage me but I can't call out the reality that many of these discussions are just back and forth pissing contests and not rational discussion? See for yourself.

                            The mob of negativity arrogantly look down their noses at who they deem to be an ignorant peasant and using that to demean and remove credibility instead of mustering a credible argument.

                            So far only one or two actually understood what I was saying (which was not a defense of faith) and only one or two responded on point to the the Headline original post.

                            The rest bait you into responding and hook you into giving them credence and attention. It is a waste of time/

                            This is not my test as one of the mob thought he was doing . This is a test of Objectivists own ability to see objective reality and the bias of their own minds that filter it.
                            Guess what. Objectivists are still human and find it difficult to face their own flaws, mistakes and misunderstandings. They get all defensive and rationality ends. It is not me who needs to take a breath. That is an excuse for the emotional pain of challenging their belief.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
                              The moderator was not "baited" into responding by a "mob voice of many frivolous posts". He properly intervened in LarryHeart's own extended stream of personal attacks. Smears are not rational discussion. Rejecting it is not other's "difficulty to face their own flaws".

                              That he claims little has been "on point" to what he calls "the the Headline original post" resulted from his own posts hijacking his own thread, beginning with introducing the thread by package-dealing religion with "relating to Ayn Rand's experiences" and religion with "arrived at through reason".

                              That was on the heels of previous posts claiming "you are the one promoting your fantasy that religion is fantasy", and denouncing the Greek influence on western civilization as "Greek pagan culture is no more... Nothing survives into the present day except the Jews who received guidance from an interface with the underlying intelligence in which we exist" -- packaged with more gratuitously ugly personal accusations of "underlying bias", "hidden anti-semitism" and "warped thinking" by "religious haters like you in the Soviet Union". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post....

                              A stream of personal attacks combined with wrapping oneself in martyrdom is not an argument. Rejecting it is not anyone else's refusal to "face their own flaws, mistakes and misunderstandings", and "getting all defensive".

                              The moderator telling him to cease the personal attacks and "take a breath" was to stop the abuse, not what LarryHeart calls, in the name of reason, "an excuse for the emotional pain" allegedly suffered from his claims to superiority..
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -3
                Posted by 1 year, 3 months ago
                Ignoring Ewv is the best way to avoid accusations of supposed personal attacks.

                And now perhaps you will also give the same warning to ewv for "He has been doing this continuously for days" in the comment directly below.

                Also perhaps you can look at his pattern to see if what I said is true and therefore not an attack but rather a statement of facts.

                Here is a sample of the comments I have received about ewv.

                "Please know that there is only one person I totally ignore on this site and that is EWV. He has proven time and again to be crass, belligerent, inflexible and downright rude multiple times to me on enough occasions that I had to ignore him."

                Take a poll and see what more people say about this guy and take the correct action instead of . shooting the messenger.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
                  The best way to avoid accusations of personal attacks is to not make them. Anyone can read through this thread and see the days of such attacks that have been properly rejected.

                  The "sample" comment he posted -- ironically another libelous personal attack -- appears from the recognizable wording to have come from a religious conservative who who blew up in anger over Ayn Rand's views and straightforwardly not giving in to accepting a religious position -- which he considers "crass, belligerent, and rude" -- in contrast to the commentor's own public display of very personal abuse at the time worse than the "comment" quoted. He was not the only one.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
              A rational philosophy does not begin with religion as a source, attempting to rationalize it in whole or in part, then claim to have come to it through reason.

              We do not find good ideas that come "through Religion". A culture dominated by a religion can incorporate additional common sense ideas as progress is made despite the religion, and there were many such influences in western civilization, in contrast with for example Islam, but the religious faith and dogma are not the source.

              The few elements of common sense within the ten commandments that must be abstracted out of context to make sense at all do not make the ten commandments a basis for a morality.

              Ayn Rand's approach to an objective ethics is radically different, beginning with the facts of man's nature that give rise to the need for a code of ethics and then on that basis establishing required principles. None of that is found in or can be extracted from religion, or the ten commandments in particular, whose influence is destructive.

              Observing that value in Ayn Rand's philosophy is not "misconceptions and underlying agenda that does not include debate or discussion" -- which discussion is not possible when someone comes to an Ayn Rand forum promoting his own religious ideas and apparently no understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy beyond some superficial affinity to political freedom.

              Rational objection to a religious orientation is not "negative" and does not "lead nowhere" or "destroy every conversation". LarryHeart destroys conversation by replacing it with personal attacks as his response when his premises are challenged.

              Rejecting that is rational discussion, not an "emotional need", a "waste of time", or "emotionally regarding" it as "'Religious' blasphemy of Ayn Rand's words". LarryHeart's agenda is not the standard and basis for what may be said here.

              Rational discussion here is intended for those who do want to understand -- not "a Religion where every word must be taken on faith and immune from examination and discussion" -- and there have been many such discussions on this forum despite the otherwise often dominant religious conservativism undermining it and then followed by emotional explosions and personal attacks when it doesn't work.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Kittyhawk 1 year, 3 months ago
      You may enjoy Jordan Peterson's opinions and comments on religion, if you haven't seen or heard them yet. His discussions with atheist Sam Harris are interesting; here is one: https://youtu.be/jey_CzIOfYE and his series of lectures on the psychological significance of the Bible are also worthwhile, in my opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWB...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
        Those with the rational sense of life of the sunlit clarity in the world of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead would likely not find Jordan's views on the "psychological significance of the Bible" to be worthwhile.

        He reveals on this topic that he is deeply in the mentality of the German Romantics, stating at the beginning that he's a big fan of Nietze, and it shows in his emotionalist obscurity.

        As to expertise on the subject of the meaning of Biblical stories, he doesn't know himself, as he states at the beginning:

        "We don't understand what it means that we don't believe them now or even what it would mean if we did believe them... No matter how educated you are you aren't educated enough to discuss the psychological significance of the Biblical stories, but I'm going to do my best, partly because I want to learn more about them and one of the things I've learned is that the best way to learn about something is to talk about it, and when I'm lecturing I'm thinking, you know, I'm not trying to tell you what I know for sure to be the case because there's lots of things I do not for sure to be the case. I'm trying to make sense out of this and I have been doing this for a long time."

        He goes on to demonstrate how confused his whole approach is in rambling stream of consciousness, gesticulating wildly in sincere deep consternation as he hunts through his evolving lecture trying to "learn something" -- for over 2 1/2 hours.

        Here is a sample of a couple of sentences spanning about 3 mins on his main theme (no paragraph breaks because the stream doesn't pause or stop).

        Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason is the antidote to this.

        15:52 Our articulated systems of thought are embedded in something like a dream, and that that dream is informed in a complex way by the way we act, so, you know, we act out things we don't understand all the time. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't need a psychology or sociology or anthropology or any of that because we would be completely transparent to ourselves, and we're clearly not, so we're much more complicated than we understand, which means that the way we behave contains way more information than we know, and part of the dream that surrounds our articulated knowledge is being extracted as a consequence of us watching each other behave and telling stories about it for thousands and thousands and thousands of years extracting out patterns of behavior that characterize humanity and trying to represent them partly through imitation but also through drama and mythology and literature and art and all of that to represent what we're like so that we can understand what we're like and that process of understanding is what I see unfolding at least in part in the Biblical stories and it's, it's halting and partial and awkward and contradictory and all of that which is one of the things that makes the book so complex but I see in it the struggle of humanity to arise to rise above it's animal forbears say and become conscious of what it means to be human, and that's a very difficult thing because we don't know who we are or what we are or where we came from or any of those things, and, you know, the light life is an unbroken chain going back three and a half billion years it's an absolutely unbelievable thing every single one of your ancestors reproduced successfully for three and a half billion years it's absolutely unbelievable and we rose out of the dirt and the muck and here we are conscious but not knowing and we're tying to figure out who we are and a story that we've been telling, or a set of stories we've been telling for three thousand years seems to me to have something to offer, and so when I look at the stories in the Bible I do it in some sense with a beginner's mind, it's the mystery of this book, how the hell it was made, why it was made, why we preserved it, how it happened to motivate an entire culture for two thousand years and to transform the world, like what's going on, how did that happen. It's by no means obvious and one of the things that bothers me about casual critics of religion is that they don't the phenomena seriously and it's a serious phenomena I mean not least because people have the capacity for religious experience and no one knows why that is I mean you can induce it reliably in all sorts of different ways. You can do it with brain stimulation. You can certainly do it with drugs there's especially the psychedelic variety they produce intimations of the divine extraordinarily regularly people have been using drugs like that god only knows how long, 50,000 years maybe more than that to produce some sort of intimate union with the divine it's like we don't understand any of that when we just discovered the psychedelics in the late 60s. It shocked everybody so badly that they were made instantly made illegal and banned in terms of research for like fifty years and it's no wonder because who the hell expected that. Nobody. 19:10
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Kittyhawk 1 year, 3 months ago
          Thank you for that excerpt! Did you type it out, or do you have some sort of speech-to-text program?

          I think that sample will allow people to judge whether they might be interested in hearing what Peterson has to say about religion, or not. I personally find his statements and arguments fascinating. His presentation style may sound rather casual and rambling, but his underlying knowledge is based on decades of study in fields including animal behavior, neurology, child development, psychology, psychiatry, as well as treating patients as a clinical psychologist. He has a wide assortment of facts drawn from those different disciplines which support the statements he makes about religion's psychological role but, unfortunately, he hasn't compiled them all together in one concise lecture, article or book that I know of.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 year, 3 months ago
            That he has collected a lot of knowledge from reading does not make him valuable for ideas, which I find are often muddy and lost in his obscure metaphorical groping, with or without the rambling narcissism over his consternation. For all his reading and wondering he has gotten nowhere but talks constantly. He has an air of profundity but it lacks substance.

            A rational sense of life and understanding in principles as expressed in Ayn Rand's novels, shows thinking in essentials, not like a high volume eclectic vacuum cleaner sucking up everything in range and proclaiming great hand-ringing mysteries. Peterson has a following of his own and it's worth seeing the difference. His followers often talk in obscure generalities (such as bizarre uses of "consciousness"). When questioned, they don't know what it means either, but have an emotional attachment and just say "you have to listen to him".

            Ayn Rand's philosophy, collected in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, gives straightforward principles integrated in a hierarchy for the major issues in philosophy, with an objective approach that makes it much easier to think about problems meaningfully.

            Someone interested in the psychological role of religion and of "stories" in particular can find clear explanation in Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto, including the chapter "Philosophy and Sense of Life".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo