In what way do you relate to Ayn Rand's experiences
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.
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.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Be real! Ask for the moon!
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?
Best wishes.
Maritimus
EDIT: Inserted missed word.
Friends as before!
Sincerely,
Maritimus
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.
Just asking.
Maritimus
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
Yes, the continued emotional personal attacks are "uncivil" and yes civility is better. It is supposed to be the normal, not "special".
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.
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.
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.
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#...
Still want to bet?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
Load more comments...