Talk to the Rand

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Sat, 2007-12-15 02:26

The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world.

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind's judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

[The virtue of Rationality] means one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one's convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)...

A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest—but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon


( categories: )

Leviticus 18:22

Lindsay Perigo's picture

"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Modus ponens

Richard Goode's picture

It could be much more clearer if you will explain what is possibble resolution of contradiction between (A) and (B)?

There is no contradiction between (A) and (B).

My argument is of the form modus ponens.

A
If A then B
Therefore, B.

What could be clearer?

We are dealing here with psychodelic post-modernist philosophy.

No, this is philosophy in the Western analytic tradition, which eschews postmodernism.

Matthew 7:1-5

Richard Goode's picture

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

John 8:1-11

Richard Goode's picture

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Lindsay

Leonid's picture

If you cannot take contradictions, take drugs. It helps. We are dealing here with psychodelic post-modernist philosophy.

Evil Dr Riddler & The Cycle of Doom

Jameson's picture

Questions for Goode ... again!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Questions for Goode ... again!
1) Is eating bad according to you? Or does it have no moral significance?
2) If man's life is not the standard of value for you, what is? If your life is not the standard in your case, why are you reluctant to jump off a tall building?
3) Do you believe in God?
4) Do you subscribe to Rosie's stinking, stupid superstition—Christianity?
5) What is your Credo?

And one more: today you say there's no reason to believe morality can be objective. Yesterday morality was objective. Which is it, and why?

Richard

Leonid's picture

"(A) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
(B) If there is no good reason to believe that God exists, then there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
Therefore, (C) there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values."

(C) doesn't follow since (B) contradicts (A)
Your logic resembles Dostoyevsky's argument in " Brothers Karamazov"-" If there is no God, then everything permitted? If there is no God, then I'm not corporal's widow?"

It could be much more clearer if you will explain what is possibble resolution of contradiction between (A) and (B)?
According to you the only objective basis for moral values is God which isn't exist and therefore proposition (B) contradicts proposition (A). Would you, just for sake of argument, consider any other objective basis for morality apart from God? For example genetic code as some people believe?
In fact you claim:
P1 God is only objective basis for ethics
P2 God not exists
P1 contradicts P2 since non-entity cannot be objective basis for anything.
RIP Goode's philosophy.

Guys!!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Please *do* take the anarchism debate back to one of the many threads that exist on that topic!

Sharon

Leonid's picture

First, I must say that I resent the language which Jameson used in his response to your post. One may disagree passionatelly without to resolve to foul language. Second, I think you posted interesting question: "How is it that *that* group of human beings (pointing to whatever nearby cluster of people I see) can form and call themselves “the government” but some other cluster of people can’t...Well, excuse me, but what rational, objective and moral standard is being claimed here? First come, first serve? Appointed Philosopher Kings? What? "
In other words your objections are not against government as such but against the way people form government. So, how people form government and what would be the best way to do that? We know for a fact that all forms of government from mob democracy to monarchy to military dictatorship to constitutional republic failed to produce fair and just society. You propose to form government (DRO) on commercial basis and think that alone will resolve the problem. I doubt it. As long as government's or DRO's don't have clearly defined functions based on objective laws they will always deteriorate to dictatorship as we withness in today's political situation in America. However, if government's function is based on clearly defined iron-claded objective laws, it's doesn't matter how people form such a government. Ayn Rand observed that elections, democracy is simply a way to appoint certain people to certain jobs. So, no matter how you appoint them, by election or on commercial basis or randomly, as you appoint jury, in Objectivist society they all will do the same job. Needless to say, that Objectivist society can accomodate many different types of governments, DRO's included as long as they act according to the same principle "of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

Robert

Richard Goode's picture

that snotty retort might hurt someone egotistical enough to measure their intellect in that way.

It wasn't a "snotty retort" and it wasn't meant to hurt you. I was just making the point that, since Nietzsche's intellect was far superior to yours, and you're no idiot, your claim that Nietzsche was an idiot is incorrect.

I see you still cannot state -- concisely -- what your dissertation was about... Are you saying that after 3-4 years (average PhD time as I understand it) of studying a single problem your conclusion was that there is no conclusion?

The conclusion of my dissertation is that there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.

My argument, in a nutshell, is as follows.

(A) There is no good reason to believe that God exists.
(B) If there is no good reason to believe that God exists, then there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.
Therefore, (C) there is no good reason to believe in objective moral values.

There is no good reason to believe in objective moral values. In other words, ethics has no rational basis.

Faith (i.e., believing that ethics has a non-rational basis) is preferable to nihilism (i.e., believing that ethics has no basis).

What could be clearer?

See you there

HWH's picture

Sharon

HWH

sharon's picture

"What exactly is the mechanism that would prevent this in an anarchist society?"

Again, why not take it to Mr. Perigo's thread? If you care to.

There's no ways our conversation can

HWH's picture

infuriate anyone remotely as much as the cowardice and dishonesty of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum.

I have read all your arguments on Linz's "anarchy" thread, and there is no evidence, other than hearsay and blind faith which could make anyone conclude that anarchy could somehow circumvent the abuses one observes from the corrupt constitutional republic that is the USA

What exactly is the mechanism that would prevent this in an anarchist society?

HWH

sharon's picture

"Show me how anarchy will change human nature.."

It is not my claim that anarchy will change human nature—however you conceive of it! God only knows (either one).

Why not take this to another thread that deals with the subject, if you wish, such as Mr. Perigo’s article? We don’t want to upset Jameson now.

Sharon

HWH's picture

You are yet to show the leap of logic that will somehow cause all those individuals lobbying government for special favors to suddenly become moral beings and abstain from initiating force against their neighbors once DRO's have replaced government.

Show me how anarchy will change human nature before you start sucking up to Rosie for comfort and shared umbrage

A haughty assumption is no substitute for a fact Sharon

Hilton

A common ground

sharon's picture

Rosie, I have to agree with the others here that your mind is in a whirlwind of Walt Disney metaphysics and I can’t respect this, given its blazing nonsense. But I can reassure you that your Objectivist detractors are bed mates, of sorts, as reflected by their own zealot eye glaze for that secular God: [echo effect here] THE GOVERNMENT.

Here, video linking is all the rage now, try this one out for size:

Government is magic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Listen to Jan Helfeld uses the socratic method on Sen. Inoue. Pay attention to the Sen. Inoue. He sounds just like an Objectivist when it comes to the secular God--THE GOVERNMENT...THE MAGIC GOVERNMENT. Woooooo-hooooo!

You have much in common, Rosie, don't feel so bad for the hurtful remarks.

This secular God—pretty much like your own—has magic powers! This God, too, possess moral properties denied to mere mortals. Like your God, this God calls all the shots. That makes it right. Without the fear of this God in people’s hearts--as is said for your God—all is permitted. (Well, as it is thought). Yes, without these Gods, both Gods--the Christian super duper natural God of the Bible, and the super entity secular God—it would be anarchy.

Yes, there is much in common.

Mindy, those are two fine

PhilipD's picture

Mindy, those are two fine posts and I thank you for them.

Some years ago an evil man put a gun to the head of my stepsister and killed her as she slept. He then rang for his son –just 15 years old- to come to the house, see the mess and call the police. He murdered her because she didn't want to see him anymore. The court sentenced him to a non-parole term of sixteen years.

My father considered her to be his daughter. She was my stepmother's only child: the centre of her world.

I barely knew her and so didn't suffer a personal loss but I'll never forget the devastation, pain and bewilderment that this bastard caused.

My stepmother travelled to Australia to see the killer sentenced. She wanted to look him in the eye. She wanted to be there for her daughter one last time. She wanted him to be sent away for a very long time. And for that she lacked grace?

She lacked graced because she wouldn’t and couldn’t forgive. She lacked fucking grace because she didn’t seek to replace her beautiful daughter with a cold-blooded killer, as Rosie would wish?

‘That is the zombie existence religion commands you to accept. Self-abnegation, and brother-love are just phrases until someone like Rosie brings them to gory life in a story such as this.’ Mindy

You are disgusting, Rosie.

Every dictator is a mystic..

HWH's picture

Rosie...watch this video and then politely inform us all that 
the murderous doctrines of Catholicism has never been God's
will, and you'll be uttering the kind of decomposing amoral
drivel that makes me despise superstition ineffably







There's no difference between Catholicism and the primitive cult of the
Sangoma or any other mystic crapcake, except perhaps that Catholicism
has murdered and maimed and assualted that many more victims







"And what's evil to the core is yours and your miscreant "squeeze's"
refusal to judge this infernal travesty for what it is.



Please dont tell me how meek and mild your superstition is compared to
Catholicism or ignorant witchcraft...it's all the same old shit and by
condoning it and absolving yourself from judgement you become the
"transmitting rubber tube" that Rand speaks of in "Galts speech"



More from Galt's Speech

"There are two sides to
every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle
is always evil. The man who is wrong still  retains some
respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice.

But the man in the
middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that
no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any
battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on
his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the
robber and the robbed to jail, who shoves conflicts by ordering the
thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.

In any compromise
between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any
compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that
transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the
compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.

"You, who are
half-rational, half-coward, have been playing a con game with reality,
but the victim you have conned is yourself. When men reduce their
virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an
absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the
virtuous, it's picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent
spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a
self-righteously uncompromising evil."



Some more for you to contemplate and perhaps refute with
those anti-concepts like "agape" that is to be found as the staple of
confusion in every superstition's lexicon.



"When a mystic declares
that he feels the existence of a power superior to reason, he feels it
all right, but that power is not an omniscient super-spirit of the
universe, it is the consciousness of any passer-by to whom he has
surrendered his own.

A mystic is driven by
the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to deceive, to force that
omnipotent consciousness of others. 'They' are his only key to reality,
he feels that he cannot exist save by harnessing their mysterious power
and extorting their unaccountable consent. 'They' are his only means of
perception and, like a blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he
feels he must leash them in order to live. To control the consciousness
of others becomes his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows
only in the vacant lots of an abandoned mind.

"Every
dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A
mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to
surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his
wishes, his whims—as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs.

He wants to deal with
men by means of faith and force—he finds no satisfaction in their
consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason. Reason is the
enemy he dreads and, simultaneously, considers precarious: reason, to
him, is a means of deception, he feels that men possess some power more
potent than reason—and only their causeless belief or their forced
obedience can give him a sense of security, a proof that he has gained
control of the mystic endowment he lacked.

His
lust is to command, not to convince: conviction requires an act of
independence and rests on the absolute of an objective reality. What he
seeks is power over reality and over men's means of perceiving it,
their mind, the power to interpose his will between existence and
consciousness, as if, by agreeing to fake the reality he orders them to
fake, men would, in fact, create it.

PS! Isn't Sabina the KASSIEST Italian on the planet?

Jameson

sharon's picture

"Leonid did open the toilet door. Leonid - flush this turd down another drain, okay?"

Sure he should...given you aren't able to. You're not that smart.

True, Sharon

Jameson's picture

Leonid did open the toilet door. Leonid - flush this turd down another drain, okay? Eye

The subject of Rand's thesis

Jameson's picture

is the man who refuses to pass judgement, and when it comes to judging man she's referring to the man as a whole, not just the acts of man, you dipshit. If Richie says you're not the subject of Rand's thesis he would also have to subscribe to the absurd idea that we should judge the crime and not the criminal. Not absurd? If we left it up to Christian justice here's what would happen:

A rapist-murderer is put on trial. The evidence is conclusive. The jury knows he's guilty but because Christian doctrine says each and every one of them was born a sinner none of them may cast the first stone. The prisoner is free to go.

"I have told you a fair number of times that I do make moral judgements."

Galt forbid, let's say you excel in your law career and become a judge: what are you going to do? Make a moral judgement on a murderer's act, but not the murderer himself. Now what? What happens next? You sentence the act of murder to life in prison? In order for justice to be served, Rosie, the murderer has to be judged - and if you're not prepared to judge your fellow man (in or out of court) you are most certainly the figure at the crux of Rand's thesis.

The only humans I care about are the decent ones; the judicial system is supposed to be there to protect them. As far as I'm concerned evil scum can rot on Devil's Island so human life can flourish elsewhere.

"... explain how the death of the murderer, when applied to the story of the Zimbabwean woman, promotes human flourishing."

One less murderer, many lives saved, that's how. It may be a fact that these rapists and murderers had an epiphany at sentencing and are truly reformed. That doesn't mean justice has been served. They don't deserve to be breathing air - let alone free air. Here's what I think: if the decision of a loony Christian results in the murder of another innocent, then the loony Christian should be held just as responsible, and should suffer the same punishment of the murderer himself.

You only addressed Option #1 of Richie's bind: what happens if Richie DOES think you're the subject of Rand's thesis? What happens then?

Jameson, honey,

sharon's picture

"...you're like a cancer - you seem to spread into every freakin' thread with your anarchist bullshit!! Start your own post and fill your boots."

Golly, I was only answering Leoid's question. Sheesh. Sad

Honestly, Sharon

Jameson's picture

you're like a cancer - you seem to spread into every freakin' thread with your anarchist bullshit!! Start your own post and fill your boots.

All you're doing here is burying the the topic that's directly related to the original post. Bugger off!

Leonid

sharon's picture

"...how an institution could possibly be floating abstraction?"

The government does not exist. It is merely a group of people that take 50% of my income, and wrecks havoc upon my life in all sorts of different ways, But there is no such entity called the “government” which possess, say, some sort unique moral qualities separate or different or above you and me. If taken that way, it becomes a floating abstraction because it is not tied to anything objective. The “government” is merely an aggregate of people, like you and be. It’s that simple.

In order to know if something exists, you need first to identify and define. In a certain way, “God” exists too! (That is, the word "god" exists—as a concept. The government has no more existence than “God” if viewed as something different from a group of people. Family, state, gods, unicorns - they all exist *as concepts*.

The anarchist is forever asking: How is it that *that* group of human beings (pointing to whatever nearby cluster of people I see) can form and call themselves “the government” but some other cluster of people can’t—and are held back by force from doing so? Well, excuse me, but what rational, objective and moral standard is being claimed here? First come, first serve? Appointed Philosopher Kings? What?

See, if you can solve this blazing obvious contradiction, I will dub thee a great philosopher.

Sharon

Leonid's picture

"Rand’s endorsement of “government” is inconsistent with her ethics (which we have argued)."

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 109.

How it's inconstistent with Rand's ethics? Aren't DRO's which you advocate do exactly the same thing? And how an institution could possibly be floating abstraction?

Well done

Jeff Perren's picture

"Notice that the Z. woman's acts get credited to her character, but evil acts do not, according to Rosie."

That was insightful. Well done.

Further point of logic,

Ptgymatic's picture

...also offered to spectators of this thread, not to the principles.

Did you notice the Z. woman's sentencing-recommendation to the court is a selfish one, at least in a material way? She lost her family members, and had the criminals take their place. She lost her children and grandchildren to be with, care for her, etc., and had the criminals fill those spots. It seems, if we were to take the story at face value, that the woman did not lose "loved ones" in the sense any of us would mean. And that could explain why she was content to pass up the opportunity to see the monsters who tortured and killed her family punished. Her "love" of them was such that she could slot their murderers into their places in her heart and mind.

That is the zombie existence religion commands you to accept. Self-abnegation, and brother-love are just phrases until someone like Rosie brings them to gory life in a story such as this.

Mindy

Point of logic

Ptgymatic's picture

...entirely for the benefit, or interest of readers, not participants in this thread.

"Does the story about the Zimbabwean woman make you sick because compassion, forgiveness and not being a hypocrite is alien to an Objectivist?"
(Rosie, 8-30-09.)

Notice that the Z. woman's acts get credited to her character, but evil acts do not, according to Rosie. Gross contradiction of her distinction between a person's acts and their character. Notice the further inconsistency that it isn't a baby's actions that are damned as original sin, but his person, his tiny, innocent, unblemished person! I wonder if it is only evil acts that burn in hell, and only good acts that go to heaven?

Notice also, that "is alien" should be "are alien." But Rosie tries to put down a teenager with a single, rather abstract point of word-use! Is that benevolence in action? Recall that Toohey learned his techniques from a bible-school lesson.

Mindy

Glenn - the Real Riddler Rat

Rosie's picture

Wrong again, Glenn.

If he says you're not the evil subject in Rand's thesis then he'll have to take his place alongside the loony Christian at the SOLO laughing stocks;

If he says I am not the evil subject in Rand's thesis, I would conclude that he is confirming that your rationale for saying I do not make moral judgements is based on your ignorance of Christianity (which it is). Thus he would not be taking his place alongside the loony Christian.
I have told you a fair number of times that I do make moral judgements. Of the act. I will not pass sentence on the actor because I am not free from sin and it would be to invite judgement/sentence on my sinful actions to do so. And where would it end? The next person then sentences me, the next person sentences my sentencer and so forth. It would be like a Dr Seuss story.

Christianity is not the enemy of reason and civilisation. See the atrocities committed in the name of religion and LEARN Glenn, - yes! you can rise from the trough of your ignorant prejudices - that the atrocities committed in the name of religion are 3% of all atrocities. The article points out that atheists are the true enemy of civilisation. And Totalitarian governments.

If you take pride in believing that your sentencing (as you have prescribed below) is for human flourishing or the greater good (you haven't even explained your ethics on the point so I am taking a guess here), and correct, explain how the death of the murderer, when applied to the story of the Zimbabwean woman, promotes human flourishing. Then compare your result with the true story and show how your version results in greater human flourishing than the facts.

Also, you STILL haven't explained your own supposedly relevant post which sounded completely absurd and which you have been asked MANY TIMES to explain. How does what a man finds sexually attractive explain his entire philosophy of life? Provide your own position on this since you cannot speak for anyone else. You may even wish to be ostensive in your explanation. Eye

A case of the pot calling the kettle black, methinks. Who is the Real Riddler Rat?

Rosie's plan for Richie's escape:

Jameson's picture

Bore us to death.

Linz's Object(ivist)ions to God

Rosie's picture

1) The belief in a god who embarked on a project knowing that it would culminate in his consigning trillions of his creations to an eternity of torture which he set up for them.

This "project" centred around God's desire for relationship with man. The relationship He wanted was love in the sense of agape. He could not have love without providing free will since forced love/agape is not love/agape. It is man's choices that consign him to hell (separation from God and all goodness) not the fact that God gave man the choice. And those that do not choose God are made aware that they get eternal separation from Him. I.e., hell. If you think about it, a man that does not choose to love God or want God's law on earth is not going to want God's law in heaven anyway. Do you say that the man who invented cars was wrong to do so since it could (not would) lead to masses of deaths on the roads. As it turned out, it was the faulty choices of man that would lead to the masses of deaths on the road in the same way as man's choices would lead to hell.

There is not a huge amount written about Judgement Day. We are told that each case is individual and that God looks to the heart of man amongst other things. We are told that the way to the Father is through the Son however so it would appear that one needs to believe in God to avoid hell. I have heard learned churchmen answer the question, what about the tribesman who has not heard of Jesus or God? What of him? The answer was that all men are at some stage shown the majesty of God whether through nature or the word and that God looks into the heart of all men. But avoiding hell is not the reason to become a Christian. You wouldn't have the "right" heart if this was your motive. This is probably why not too much is revealed about what gets someone into heaven and hell. Only what is essential. If you love the Lord your God with all your heart and mind etc. then it would follow that you would obey His commands. You can imagine some man arguing with God if more were written. It would be like the law courts are today with people arguing over definitions and intentions!

2) The belief in a god, period, licensing as it does belief without evidence, on a par with belief in ghosts, goblins and tooth-fairies.

I do not agree that there is no evidence. There is evidence pertaining to the truths in the Bible, (historical, archaeological, scientific and theological. CS Lewis also said it presented the only philosophy that was complete), there is evidence pertaining to the truth of the existence of JC, there is the famous trilemma argument as to the nature of JC and consequential proof of his divinity, there is the evidence of individual's experiences of God. Sharon is asking me to get going on this evidence on a new thread which I shall endeavour to do but it is a huge job.

3) The belief in unconditional love and forgiveness. This is the flip-side of the Hell obscenity. Endless punishment/no punishment; insatiable hatred for dissenters/no hatred at all for evil-doers and no calling them to account.

As you write it, it seems inconsistent. But this is not the case. There is the OT and the NT. In the OT, God smote the sinners whilst they were alive but not without warning and He forgave those whom he warned and who changed their ways and followed Him; In the NT, Jesus has already died for our sins while we live and we are forgiven/redeemed if we change our ways and follow Him while we live; divine justice is more concerned with salvation than reward and punishment - the eternal reward and punishment occurs following death.

God's law was called natural law - Thomas Aquinas. The natural law was inherently deontological in that although it is aimed at goodness, it is entirely focused on the ethicalness of actions, rather than the consequence. The specific content of the natural law was therefore determined by a conception of what things constituted happiness, be they temporal satisfaction or salvation. All human laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law was in a sense no law at all. At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgement on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place. And this is how it all began....

4) Homophobia and misogyny on a par with Islam.
Homophobia - yes. The basis for this is that it is considered unnatural and against the purposes of men and women. (Lv 18:22; Rom 1:26,27; 1Cor 6:9,10; 1 Tim1:9,10). I have a little bit of a problem with this to be surrre to be surrrre but I may be accused of being PC if I were to say so. Eye I haven't really studied homosexuality to the point that I could profess any real knowledge of it (is it a choice? is it genetic? is it created in the womb? is it a result of a certain upbringing?) and not much in relation to Christianity. I do believe that there is a movement saying it is OK to be homosexual and a Christian but I do not know the theology behind this and whether it is correct or PC since the Bible readings are pretty straightforward on the subject. For PC, in Christian parlance, is any idea that goes against the laws of God and thinks it knows better and changes the law. It is also PC to not say anything against homosexuality today in non-C circles although many non-C women and heterosexual men are usually not enamoured of the idea. Responses range from "kill the poofters" to "it's not for me but I don't care so long as they don't affect me." (A bit like some people's views on Slayer! Eye) But it is, generally speaking from my observations, neither sanctioned nor condoned - but tolerated. A bit like many people's views on prostitution who are not either the providers or recipients of prostitution. This all arises from the social philosophy of liberty. My query is from where does the natural aversion for homosexual acts from heterosexual men and women come? Is it rational, socially driven or intuitive - a gut reaction? I note that Ayn Rand does not approve of homosexuality and gives the same reasoning as the Bible - it being unnatural.

(I think there should be a thread about this. An open an honest one. What do people think and why? What are the theories and philosophical/religious views about homosexuality? What happened to all those Greeks when St Paul arrived amongst them?! Why does Ayn Rand, who promotes freedom of the individual and the NIOF principle go against it when on the face of it homosexuality does not transgress these principles?)

Misogyny - no. Certainly don't agree that the Bible advocates misogyny. Females are as much a part of the image of God as man. Where on earth do you get this idea from? There is a hierarchy. God:Man:Woman. It is compared to the relationship of God:Jesus:the church (where the church is the bride of Jesus). But no misogyny. That is completely wrong.

5) Hatred of the body and worldly pleasure, and glorification of self-mortification.

No. Don't agree that this comes from God. The Bible takes a very positive view of human sexuality. The body is designed for pleasure - it was God himself who made humans sexual beings. In Genesis there is nothing embarrassing about the bodily differences. (Gn 2:5) The OT sees nothing shameful in physical expressions of love-making (Prov 5:18,19; Eccl 9:9) The Song of Songs is a love poem and should not be so spiritualised that its physical passion is stripped of its delight and candour. Your comment is a mistaken popular belief about Christianity/God and stems from man's negative reaction to scripture and taking on an ascetic attitude beginning at Corinth and Ephesus (where there was much sexual vice). Although Paul was very positive about sexuality in his letters to the Corinthians they went to the opposite extreme and in some cases stopped sexual relations altogether in a marriage thinking this was spiritual. Man gets it wrong again. There is no stating of your comment in the Bible - quite the opposite in fact. But all bodily and worldly pleasure must be within God's law. e.g. no fornication which means sex outside marriage, no lust for another's wife etc. The Bible states explicitly that sexuality was for procreation and also for relationship. The OT states that sexual intercourse is for marriage but also that sexuality has a major role to play in cementing a broad spectrum of human relationships embracing more than just physical intercourse.

There is no glorification of self mortification mentioned in the Bible. I do not know why those medieval priests would whip themselves for their sins. Their understanding of the NT must have been pretty limited. JC did it all for them.

6) Hatred of the mind and the achievements thereof. For a graphic reminder, see Ed Hudgins' article about Galileo.

Again, no. This notion certainly does not come from God. God asks us to reason and use our minds in the Bible repeatedly. The clerics' rejection of Galileo's telescope and what it revealed was no more than the ordinary man's psychology when asked to confront anything new that disturbs his pre-conceived understandings. Anger, denial and then acceptance. Those clerics did not have true understanding. Their reaction is not confined to Christians. Eye But this is definitely not a notion from God - just his self-appointed representatives who got it wrong.

You have to distinguish between the Christian and Christianity/God. Not every Christian follows God's law. Not every wannabe Christian has a Christian's heart. For ages people went to church because they thought this was being a Christian but didn't learn about what Christianity meant and didn't really understand. They may have gone because they thought it would avoid going to hell. The motives may have been any number of reasons. The pretty girls were at church said one man I know. These are not the correct motives for becoming a Christian though it can happen despite the wrong initial motives. But when the right motives are there, the Christian heart will follow. This means that you become imbued with the Holy Spirit at which point it all begins to make perfect sense and you are transformed spiritually. There is record in the Bible that those imbued with the Holy Spirit will discern the Bible in a way that others cannot. Christianity and becoming a mature Christian is a process analogised by the silver and the silver refiner as mentioned in an earlier post. Your character is constantly being tested and refined.

Conclusion: People don't know much about Christianity.

7) The belief that Hayley Westenra can sing.
I see you have saved the most difficult objection to the end. You have me here. There is no defence to this evil lie. At which point I will have to lay down my cross and ichthus. Smiling

And head to the Puccini thread to see if the Master of Opera has revealed the objective criteria for determining a great opera voice. Eye

Richie is in a 'bind'

Jameson's picture

... that's chess parlance for 'nuts in a vice', Rosie. But the affected and ineffectual pseudo-intellectual has opted for the wimps way out, letting the clock run down instead of facing the humiliation of force majeure. It would seem his only gambit now is to bottom-dwell until the spectators walk away in boredom. Here's why he's stuck:

If he says you're not the evil subject in Rand's thesis then he'll have to take his place alongside the loony Christian at the SOLO laughing stocks;

If he says you are the evil subject in Rand's thesis he'll have to bear the brickbats in the bedroom - and admit that he's been sleeping with the enemy of reason and civilisation, whence at the stocks we shall intersperse the jokes with rotten tomatoes.

Whatever happens this is going to end badly for Richie. If he impotently lets the flag drop on the clock he'll have failed to pronounce moral judgment and demonstrated, by default, that he is the rat bastard Rand was warning us about in her thesis.

Tick tock, tick tock, Dick.

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

What are these vicious beliefs?

Among others, those for which Glenn has rightly been hammering you on this thread. But let me take this opportunity to summarise:

1) The belief in a god who embarked on a project knowing that it would culminate in his consigning trillions of his creations to an eternity of torture which he set up for precisely that purpose.

2) The belief in a god, period, licensing as it does belief without evidence, on a par with belief in ghosts, goblins and tooth-fairies.

3) The belief in unconditional love and forgiveness. This is the flip-side of the Hell obscenity. Endless punishment/no punishment; insatiable hatred for dissenters/no hatred at all for evil-doers and no calling them to account.

4) Homophobia and misogyny on a par with Islam.

5) Hatred of the body and wordly pleasure, and glorification of self-mortification.

6) Hatred of the mind and the achievements thereof. For a graphic reminder, see Ed Hudgins' article about Galileo.

7) The belief that Hayley Westenra can sing.

Dear me

Rosie's picture

I've just called your girlfriend an evil monster and you have let that slide too. So much for chivalry.

Is that an irony? No man who heralded chivalry would ever speak to a woman like that! Beats me how you could even think to ask chivalry from another?! Have you no sense of looking down at yourself? You probably have not experienced that level of consciousness - is that correct? (Don't forget too that you also called me "a smarmy tart". And I am sure that your silly name calling - the mark of someone who has neither control of his mind nor his emotions since it adds nothing of merit to any discussion - will not end there!)

Why would you call on Richard to defend me when I am defending myself perfectly well on all matters of substance? There is never a need to "defend" silly and, quite frankly, preposterous insults.

You see, when someone says something so blatantly ridiculous, particularly after his "rationale" for so thinking is based on wilful miscomprehension and ignorance of the subject of Christianity, who asks for chivalry when he clearly does not understand that concept for himself - then the accusation is not worth taking seriously and simply defines the person who made it. Which in this case is perfectly apt. You have demonstrated that you are not chivalrous, do not have the first notion of even the rudiments of Christianity and refuse to try and understand them - wilful miscomprehension. But I have already assessed that you do not have the mind of a true scholar so it is no surprise. Your anger and name calling are a further show of the man in the pub with too much on board mentality. I.e., he has lost his ability to reason and exercise any self control.

You have asked me about love. You understand the meaning of love to be confined to philautos, eros, philia and storge. You do not know or understand agape and would state (as an Objectivist) that philautos is the greatest love. And there lies at least one explanation for our differences. Smiling

Here's how this is going to work, Cocksucker:

Jameson's picture

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

IOF may not

Richard Goode's picture

If they don't know what they've done is wrong...

How are they supposed to know this?

What if they've never read Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness?

What if it's never occurred to them to ask, "Does man need values at all—and why?" Or what if it did, and they couldn't think of a good reason?

Petty crims get three strikes.

Does this apply to repeat copyright violators?

If you do not judge the man, Rosie

Jameson's picture

you turn a blind eye to the criminal himself.

Jesus, Rosie!!!!

Jameson's picture

"Does the story about the Zimbabwean woman make you sick because compassion, forgiveness and not being a hypocrite is alien to an Objectivist?"

Compassion to those who DESERVE it, you dumbass!!!!! If you extend that sort of "love" to EVERYONE including MURDERERS and RAPISTS it becomes meaningless!!!!

Linz

Rosie's picture

vicious beliefs

What are these vicious beliefs?

Glenn

Rosie's picture

If Rosie is prepared to turn a blind eye to genocidal maniacs

Turn a blind eye? What does this mean? And where is the evidence for this (if it is what I think you mean)?!

Glenn

Rosie's picture

Rapists and murderers should be executed the first time round. If they don't know what they've done is wrong, they're just as dangerous as an amoral pitbull and should put down before they attack someone else.
For every other violent recidivist: two strikes and you're out. For good.
Petty crims get three strikes.

Is this your answer to the application of Objectivist ethics to criminals and repeat offenders? If so, can you direct me to where Ayn Rand suggests this and on what basis?

It's called self defence, Dick

Jameson's picture

If Rosie is prepared to turn a blind eye to genocidal maniacs then she is just as dangerous as the maniac himself.

And if you're not prepared to judge her non-judgement, then you too are responsible for all the blood that is shed in this world.

(Of course I should have known exaggeration for effect doesn't work with the Riddler; it only gives him ammo).

Glenn ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And if I had my way I'd get the likes of you and Goode off our streets too - put you in with the other scum to teach them Christian love.

You know of course one mustn't imprison folk for adhering to vicious beliefs. Besides, think of the illumination that Goode and Rosie have provided. These two are beyond caricature, and show that Rand was not guilty of hyperbole but, possibly, of understatement. Eye

Questions for Goode ... again!

1) Is eating bad according to you? Or does it have no moral significance?

2) If man's life is not the standard of value for you, what is? If your life is not the standard in your case, why are you reluctant to jump off a tall building?

3) Do you believe in God?

4) Do you subscribe to Rosie's stinking, stupid superstition—Christianity?

5) What is your Credo?

Glenn

Rosie's picture

You and your stories of Christian "love" make me sick.

Your attitude, although I understand its origins, makes me sad.
Does the story about the Zimbabwean woman make you sick because compassion, forgiveness and not being a hypocrite is alien to an Objectivist?

You see, in terms of the not being a hypocrite bit and therefore not able to hurl the first stone unless you are free from sin yourself, I think I am correct in thinking that in the eyes of God all sins are equal. I will need to check this out but I have a vague recollection I read this somewhere. I am not 100% sure if this is theologically correct though. I will see if I can discover the answer to this....

You get so angry, Glenn. The peace which passeth all understanding is so much more gratifying.

True colours

Richard Goode's picture

And if I had my way I'd get the likes of you and Goode off our streets too

Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

Rapists and murderers

Jameson's picture

should be executed the first time round. If they don't know what they've done is wrong, they're just as dangerous as an amoral pitbull and should put down before they attack someone else.

For every other violent recidivist: two strikes and you're out. For good.

Petty crims get three strikes.

And if I had my way I'd get the likes of you and Goode off our streets too - put you in with the other scum to teach them Christian love.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

I would be interested in hearing an Objectivist's views as to how an Objectivist would deal with repeat offenders. For example, if Objectivism were taught in prisons, what would you teach that would change the repeat offender's heart and mind to convince him not to repeat his offending? (This is a genuine question that could have practical consequences if convincing.)

You're evil, Rosie - to the bone!!!

Jameson's picture

If Hermann Goering had convinced you that he'd genuinely taken God into his heart you'd have let him walk.

I'd have pulled the trigger myself.

Fortunately, in the civilised world, the sentencing of murderers, rapists and genocidal maniacs isn't left up to insane Christians like you and that Zimbabwean.

You and your stories of Christian "love" make me sick.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

She did let a bunch of murderers walk the streets again. She also let them return to their families and redeem themselves. She gave them the chance to be someone their children could be proud of (and probably broke a cycle of violent role modelling). She gave them the chance to put right their wrongs in a real way. (Your Objectivist ethics should applaud this shouldn't it since the harm was done to her and this was her request for "restorative justice", of wrongs done to her.) She gave them the chance to live again in a new way. They did not put others' lives at risk. She kept up her relationship with them and in so doing they continued to receive the influence of someone who lived the laws of God. She actually turned their lives around and introduced a sense of values and morals they had not hitherto practiced. They went on to lead good lives.

You have no business being a lawyer, Rosie Purchas!!!!!!
How is that?

Maybe you need to extend your reading to learn what has happened to repeat criminal offenders who have become Christians. Not just Christians either. Criminals who have become part of the Mahareshi Maheesh Yogi's TM programme have also statistically been proven not to have repeated criminal behaviour.

Your answer - to stick the repeat criminal offenders in prison - has not shown any lessening in recidivism. It is a temporary measure only.

See Dick run

Jameson's picture

According to the libertarian definition of freedom, it is good, Goode. If you disagree, take it up with the leader of the Libertarianz - I'm sure he'd be very interested in what you have to say.

Now, can you tell us why you won't answer the Rosie question?

Rosie, your thinking is fucking lethal!!!

Jameson's picture

"She afforded him her sense of God's grace instead."

She let a bunch of known murderers and rapists walk the streets again, putting other people's lives at risk!!! And YOU have sanctioned that sentence of freedom!!! You have no business being a lawyer, Rosie Purchas!!!!!!

Piled higher and deeper

Richard Goode's picture

Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Freedom is good.
2. Freedom isn't good.

If you can't see that's a total contradiction you're fucked!!!

Glenn

Rosie's picture

"3. I am a very good judge of human character."
"I do not judge my fellow man."
How the fuck does that work?!! A man's character isn't part of the man???

Assessing or judging someone's character to be x is a different thing from morally judging his acts to be right or wrong (which I must do) and then (and here is the difference in the meaning of judge) judging him in the sense of a judgement: e.g. he should die or he should be put in prison. I.e., condemning the person to such and such a fate for his acts. I could only do this if I were free of sin myself which I am not. It is a different use of the word, judge.

It is illustrated in the Zimbabwe story, where the woman may have assessed the man's character to be someone who did not have moral values like her own, she may have assessed him to be someone capable of murder.
She judged the man's actions of murder to be wrong.
But she did not judge him in the sense that she was not prepared to cast the first stone for his actions (sentence him) since she knew herself to be someone who was not free from sin. (This is the lesson from the parable of Jesus and the adulteress.) She afforded him her sense of God's grace instead.

Does that clarify it?

And the contradictions keep piling up

Jameson's picture

"No, here on earth, we have earthly justice prescribed by man made law. I have never objected to this."

But you do not judge your fellow man, Rosie, so presumably when judgement is passed you do not concur. Or is it that you have no objection to others passing judgement where you cannot or will not? Either way you're absconding responsibility and you ARE the subject damned at the core of Richard's post.

"The Zimbabwe story shows you the difference in the likely judgement of an earthly judge versus a Christian who fully comprehends and lives by God's law and when given the opportunity to decide her method of justice, exercised spiritual justice. Quite different."

Indeed it is different - diametrically so: Christian justice lets murderers and rapists walk the street again, threatening the lives of others.

"(But, since the law states that lawyers may not go on juries, I will not be in this position.)"

You're a fucking lawyer?!!! Galt help us!!!!

Rosie, your statements add up to, "I do not judge the man, but I do judge the man's character." If you can't see that's a total contradiction you're fucked!!!

I've just called your girlfriend an evil monster, Goode

Jameson's picture

and you've let that slide too.

So much for chivalry. So much for love.

(BTW, Rosie - how do you distinguish the "different natures of love"?)

Glenn

Rosie's picture

Here on planet earth we do not blame an abstract concept like genocide for the Jewish Holocaust; we blame the bastards who engage in the act.

No, here on earth, we have earthly justice prescribed by man made law. I have never objected to this. And earthly judgement is decided by humanly appointed judges. This is a different justice from spiritual or God's justice. The Zimbabwe story shows you the difference in the likely judgement of an earthly judge versus a Christian who fully comprehends and lives by God's law and when given the opportunity to decide her method of justice, exercised spiritual justice. Quite different.

If I were on a jury, I would be obliged to judge in terms of earthly law. (But, since the law states that lawyers may not go on juries, I will not be in this position.)

RIP Objectivist ethics

Richard Goode's picture

According to Rand's agent-relative theory of value, the concept 'good' presupposes an answer to the question: good for whom? Thus, Objectivist ethics leads to contradictions such as

1. Freedom is good.*
2. Freedom isn't good.**

* Here the presupposed answer is someone for whom freedom is good.
** Here the presupposed answer is someone for whom freedom isn't good.

RIP Objectivist ethics.

You're a smarmy little tart, Rosie Purchas

Jameson's picture

... just like your boyfriend.

Please explain the obvious contradictions I've just presented.

Straws. Grasping.

Jameson's picture

His syllogism doesn't hold: freedom is good for those who are predisposed to spina bifida.

Glenn

Rosie's picture

And what the fuck is THAT, Rosie, if it's not a fucking judgement?!!!!

Judge the act of non-thinking, not the non-thinker! I still love you. Smiling

Glenn

Rosie's picture

Here is an example of your lack of refinement of thought.

"As it turns out" indicates that you acknowledged the truth in Richard's syllogism but in these particular circumstances it happened that freedom worked out to be good for all. The syllogism stands.

Hahahahaaaaaa!!!!

Jameson's picture

"You are non-thinking. Non-thinking in the worst possible way: stubbornly stupid, unreflective, arrogant..."

And what the fuck is THAT, Rosie, if it's not a fucking judgement?!!!!

Rosie, you dipshit!!

Jameson's picture

"2. An act cannot occur independently of the actor but the two are distinct in terms of earthly and spiritual justice."

Here on planet earth we do not blame an abstract concept like genocide for the Jewish Holocaust; we blame the bastards who engage in the act. I hope to Christ you're never picked for jury duty.

The only mind closed in this conversation - and I mean boarded, bolted and padlocked - is yours!

"3. I am a very good judge of human character."

"I do not judge my fellow man."

How the fuck does that work?!! A man's character isn't part of the man???

Jameson

Rosie's picture

Wrong.

You are non-thinking. Non-thinking in the worst possible way: stubbornly stupid, unreflective, arrogant and unable to appreciate subtleties of thought and distinctions. This sort of mind could never be a lawyer or a philosopher. But your photo shop talent is very good. My 12 year old son likes this sort of thing too. Smiling

You shallow piece of pragmatic shit!!

Jameson's picture

If you actually believed what you'd written in your original post, Goode, you'd be obligated to identify Rosie as being the subject at the core of Rand's thesis: the one who does not or will not judge. Instead you turn a blind eye.

Rosie is a non-thinking, non-judging monster - and so are you.

Talk to the Rose

Richard Goode's picture

The question is, Goode...

Talk to the Rose.

Jameson

Rosie's picture

Lord Denning, in one of his legal judgements, talked about several fingers pointing to a particular legal question that needed to be answered in every case to answer the tort of negligence. But his question was valid.
You, on the other hand, need to point the finger at yourself and go back and check your understanding of my comments.
Because your first paragraph is so far off the mark, and just a very unsubtle appreciation of what I said, it makes your question in the second para a non sequitur and, as such, it can not and will never be answered.

You are so stuck on what you want or believe me to be saying, and because you have no real understanding of Christianity to know what I am saying, you have closed your mind to what I am actually saying. The explanation of the Zimbabwe story may help you understand the subtleties.

1. There is no total abdication of moral responsibility.
2. An act cannot occur independently of the actor but the two are distinct in terms of earthly and spiritual justice.
3. I am a very good judge of human character. Please try to understand the different natures of love and the type to which I referred.
4. Stop being a smart ass. I don't believe you can't understand. You are just deliberately trying to misconstrue to try and "catch Richard out". But until you get your premises right, the question is a non sequitur.

Don't look to me for answers!!!

Richard Goode's picture

The question is, Goode...

Don't look to me for answers!!!

Hey, Riddler...!!

Jameson's picture

Leonid

sharon's picture

Rand’s endorsement of “government” is inconsistent with her ethics (which we have argued).
It is also inconsistent with her ideas on *concept formation*. For example, “government”—like “society”--suffers from the demerits of what she would describe as a “floating abstraction.”

This gives you a brief idea.

Sharon

Leonid's picture

"You know, I love Rand but I love the truth more."
Can you explain in plain English where, you think, Rand went wrong?

Hijacker

Jameson's picture

By sly quotation, Sharon, you position yourself this side of Aristotle and imply that the one to whom you are in debt was the one living in the Myth of Shadows.

For her lesson on backhanded compliments, I'll refer my daughter to this post of yours.

Hilton

sharon's picture

I have a profound respect for Rand. The Fountainhead is my favorite fiction book of hers. I am intellectually indebted to her, but I am now happy to say that I have applied her philosophy of individualism by not confining myself to her own intellectual paradigm. You know, I love Rand but I love the truth more.

Hilton

gregster's picture

"Nevertheless, by virtue of the most inordinate serendipity I discovered Ayn Rand at the age of 16 in the form of "The Fountainhead". It was so foreign to everything I'd been surrounded by, yet so fascinating that I couldn't get enough of it. I then imported Atlas Shrugged which blew me away, and thereafter started devouring her non-fiction starting with "The Virtue of Selfishness"

It took me a while (at least 3 years) until I fully apprehended Rand's epistemology and then ethics, and to me it was such an epiphany that the magic of it left me awestruck for a week or two. Finally something had rocked my world...and It was over for me."

Beautiful.

I know what you mean. I felt a 'disbelief' and amazement in reading words and ideas that couldn't quite be articulated by me at the time.

The Free Radical issue # 1, and subsequent, introduced me to the philosophy.

Then I found a left behind copy of Atlas Shrugged in a backpacker hostel in Bath, England, where I worked. Unputdownable.

Richard

Leonid's picture

"Morality and rational self-interest are not the same thing. "

No ,they are not. Morals are means to reach rational self-interest. Morality " is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life." ( “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 13)

"His intellect was far superior to yours"

Robert's picture

Whoopee! We've found someone that Richard admires!

FYI, that snotty retort might hurt someone egotistical enough to measure their intellect in that way. Personally, I don't give a flying fuck what my IQ is or how it measures up to the memory of some long dead philosopher.

I see you still cannot state -- concisely -- what your dissertation was about.

I didn't state that there is no morality without God. I did state that we have no reason to believe otherwise. There's an important distinction there, one that I hope's not too subtle for you!

Definite about being indefinite as usual I see.

Are you saying that after 3-4 years (average PhD time as I understand it) of studying a single problem your conclusion was that there is no conclusion?

And what of the question: before we consider the relationship between God and morality, how about we prove that God exists first? You don't have to be Nietzche to see the necessity of establishing this part of your premise first.

Your degree was in Philosophy right? Not Theology or Cryptography?

Rosie

HWH's picture

Apologies for the mordacious harangue, but let me try and convey the reason for my astomishment at your choice to yield to mysticism rather than embrace the clarity to be found from Objectivism.

Firstly, I am no stranger to Christianity. My education started with a huge and beautifully illustrated "childrens Bible" which I was reading fluently from the age of around four and a half. I loved the stories...they were magical and entrancing.

Thereafter I was subjected to the standard staple for an Afrikaans "Japie", i.e. orthodox OT fire and brimstone as only the Dutch Reformed Church could do it. This lasted till the age of around 14, at which time my mother became seduced by the supposed revelry at a local Pentecostal church and soon I was commandeered to accompany her

Allways attracted to ideas I got stuck into a teachers training course and 8 months later I qualified as a formal saviour of lost souls. Had I not become skeptical after too many failed attempts by our pastor to "slay" me with the spirit, I may have been lost to this racket for good.

Nevertheless, by virtue of the most inordinate serendipity I discovered Ayn Rand at the age of 16 in the form of "The Fountainhead". It was so foreign to everything I'd been surrounded by, yet so fascinating that I couldn't get enough of it. I then imported Atlas Shrugged which blew me away, and thereafter started devouring her non-fiction starting with "The Virtue of Selfishness"

It took me a while (at least 3 years) until I fully apprehended Rands epistemology and then ethics, and to me it was such an epiphany that the magic of it left me awestruck for a week or two. Finally something had rocked my world...and It was over for me. Nothing could ever lead me astray since I got to fully grasping the validity of reason in the role of realising a life worth living.

Obviously I discarded religion and mysticism for the primitive protection racket it is, but my mother didn't, and I have witnessed firsthand to what extent it had eaten away all her vitality ,confidence, innocence and benevolence and other than turn her into a kind, gentle and compassionate individual it had deformed her psyche into that of an African witchdoctor.

Over the years empirical evidence has led me to accept Ayn's assertion that most people abandon ideas and sell out in their late teens, and it's evident that only very few "get" O'ist epistemology and commensurately her ethics with the kind of bang that changes their lives for good, and thats why I am so gobsmacked by your insistence at submitting to the poisonous mystic crap you seem to willingly indoctrinate yourself with.

I implore you, get Peikoff's OPAR and read it as many times as is necessary to clear the cobwebs of mystical mumbo jumbo thats turning your brains to mush. Read it until you "get" it and you wont be at all surprised at my current disbelief about someone like you who doesn't "get" it, simply for lack of trying.

Now as for your venal lover...that's a whole different story, as I'm inclined to believe that he must have "got" it along the way, but is playing a game of "au contraire" for pragmatic reasons, very much like the politicians I so despise.

Hilton

Hilton

Rosie's picture

Rosie seems perfectly willing to suspend her judgment for the sake of the companionship at "Christians Anonymous"

I am not so unfortunate a figure that I have ever had to compromise myself for the sake of companionship. My Christianity came years before meeting these people. I seem to recall I was enjoying the companionship of Non-Christians Anonymous at the time (and still do). In other words, your "pshychologising" (a wine too many?!) is not correct, Hilton.

I cannot find any other reasons why two seemingly smart people are practicing the kind of evasion that led to the fall of Rome, and now is toppling the USA.

Goodness me. What is this evasion I practice that led to the fall of Rome and is now toppling the USA? Puzzled As far as I am aware, Christianity did not lead to either of the events you mention. Do you think otherwise?

In reality their souls don't belong here, and if they do they should make a choice as if their lives depended on it.

By "here" do you mean SOLO? And, if so, why should my life depend upon staying or leaving? I am puzzled. Puzzled
Why did you go on the Landover Baptist Church site, Hilton? And why did you ask me to point you towards an honest Christian website?
Do you think that people should not associate with anyone who does not share the same beliefs or philosophy? Is this correct, Hilton?
And if so, what of yourself?

Can you please reconcile the hyperbolic claims and inconsistencies of your post.

Missed questions

Richard Goode's picture

What is the philosophy of life of a man who has the hots for Jesus?

When A says, "Freedom is good," and B says, "Freedom isn't good", do A and B disagree?

Why don't you jump off a tall building?

You're really not interested in facing up to the fact that Objectivist ethics is fundamentally flawed, are you?

You can't derive ethics from biology. If you think you can, why don't you show us how it's done?

When you say, "Freedom is good," and someone responds, "Freedom isn't good", you disagree. Right?

The Evil Dr Riddler

Jameson's picture

Haha

gregster's picture

Exactement!

Jeeeeeezuz

Jameson's picture

This has to be one of the funniest threads in SOLO history!! Smiling

"Don't look to me for answers." Yes, Dick, we know!! You're the fucking RIDDLER!!! Smiling Smiling Smiling

Speaking of missed questions, how about this one, you lily-livered chicksenshit?

Don't worry ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't look to you for answers. But you've said morality is objective. How do you know, if you don't know whence it comes? The faith thing again?

And you missed these questions:

... is eating bad according to you? Or does it have no moral significance?
If man's life is not the standard of value for you, what is? If your life is not the standard in your case, why are you reluctant to jump off a tall building?
Do you believe in God?
Do you subscribe to Rosie's stinking, stupid superstition—Christianity?
What is your Credo?

The source of morality

Richard Goode's picture

What is the source of morality, according to you?

I don't know.

Don't look to me for answers.

"Rosie has posted a link to

sharon's picture

"Rosie has posted a link to an article about atrocities in the name of religion (or the relative lack thereof, according to the article). The link is to a site called Evidence for God. I noted that the charming folk there have a bit of a thing about homosexuality. Evidently I for one am destined for an "unquenchable lake".

More satire, perhaps, Richard? Good Christian folk aren't all nasty like. Noooo, certainly not.

It gets gooder ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Rosie has posted a link to an article about atrocities in the name of religion (or the relative lack thereof, according to the article). The link is to a site called Evidence for God. I noted that the charming folk there have a bit of a thing about homosexuality. Evidently I for one am destined for an "unquenchable lake of fire."

Truly a sick, stupid, stinking superstition. Eh, Goode?

Nietzsche

Richard Goode's picture

Proves nothing other than Nietzche was looking for a moral validation of hedonism and nihilism. He was an idiot.

Nietzsche was one of the greatest intellects of the 19th century. His intellect was far superior to yours. A moral validation of nihilism? That's a contradiction in terms.

You quote Nietzche in the context of your thesis, wherein you state that you argued for the proposition that the essence of morality is obedience to God's decrees. You appear to be stating that there is no morality without God.

You're almost there, Robert. In my doctoral dissertation, I didn't state that there is no morality without God. I did state that we have no reason to believe otherwise. There's an important distinction there, one that I hope's not too subtle for you!

Goode Gawd...

sharon's picture

"What is the source of morality, according to you?"

This is the central question that Richard has been dancing around without giving a straight answer. I’m losing hope that I will ever receive it.

So, Goode ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... is eating bad according to you? Or does it have no moral significance?

If man's life is not the standard of value for you, what is? If your life is not the standard in your case, why are you reluctant to jump off a tall building?

Do you believe in God?

Do you subscribe to Rosie's stinking, stupid superstition—Christianity?

What is the source of morality, according to you?

What is your Credo?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.