Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:32:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1867 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> > The last refuge of religion is to turn rabid and claim that nobody can be
> > objective, therefore you need God's revelation.
>
> I thought the anti-religion stance states that the last refuge of religion is
> to convert people by the sword. But again, quite sarcastically, I digress...
well, I was only considering the arena of ideas...
> > Objectivity isn't an unattainable ideal. It includes using the sum total of
> > your experiences to come to a conclusion!
>
> But that's still subjective, isn't it? The interpretation of this data is
> still influenced by the viewer. To be completely objective, one must live
> outside oneself completely....
Objectivity is usually taken to mean "independent of the observer." Since it's
impossible to NOT be an observer of the universe, therefore, objectivity is
impossible, goes the argument. At this point you have to question why use a
broken idea like that? Naturally at this point it is impossible to proceed
without discussing Ayn Rand, the major proponent of reason in our century, who
left an entire system of philosophy answering the question of objectivity.
In brief, objectivity is "volitional adherence to reality by following the
method of logic." (summarized in Leonard Peikoff, _Objectivism: The Philosophy
of Ayn Rand_, p.116-7.)
Less brief, man has a specific means of cognition, beginning with sense
perception, and has to discover a method for building up knowledge from that.
That method is the science of logic. Man also has volition (a term for free
will) in that logic is not automatic, it must be constantly directed by wilful
attention to detail (and focused ON reality.) The fact that man uses some
apparatus and method is not a flaw--others (who define objectivity as an
unattainable ideal) find it to be a stumbling block.
Ayn Rand's philosophy, labeled Objectivism for its central concern with
objectivity so defined, sorts all aspects of experience into a logically ordered
place and writes it up with definitions. It isn't a derivation, not in the sense
of rationalism (since rationalism technically means a system of philosophy that
claims to start with a few premises and to deduce everything else without
needing experience of the real world. Yes, rationalists end in the loony bin.)
In one summation of her philosophy Ayn Rand begins with asking: how do we form
concepts? You really can't understand her method (and the rest of her
philosophy) without going into that topic.
Turning aside from that specific area for now:
Ayn Rand wrote novels to present her Ideal Man, living a fully rational life.
First she wrote to demonstrate, in stories, what a rational person is like, and
second, to explain in non-fiction terms her philosophy.
Rand's major novels are two, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged
came later and has more theory in it. The Fountainhead came earlier and is my
favorite. I think that is because its hero Howard Roark, is concerned with
building things, all else is a means to that end. So you see in the book how he
directs all his actions and time spent with other people to that central desire
of his. (It's also the shorter of the two.)
On the other hand, Atlas Shrugged has a large cast, several heroes, and the
central figure of John Galt isn't even introduced right away. When he is, Galt
has a big role to fill and a plan fully underway, and so you don't go with him
through any process of learning. (the other characters fill that role to move
the story along.) Galt ends up broadcasting his (Rand's) lecture on the
philosphical revolution that is the only thing that will save the world. (which
has gone to pieces by that point.) The famous speech that readers get bogged
down in. It's a different structure of a book. However, Atlas Shrugged (1953) is
where Ayn Rand expressed her full philosophy in explicit terms, where John Galt
sets forth on objectivity, and a huge number of other fundamental concepts, in
one three-hour speech.
I have heard good things about Allan Gotthelf's _On Ayn Rand_, published this
year. It's brief, 100 pages.
> Personally, I'm
> all for a balance between rational and irrational, between objectivity and
> subjectivity.
From where this debate has been I guess that some things that I would put on the
"rational" side, you don't, especially emotions. I'm not surprised when I
encounter this--not so long as Spock is the poster-boy for logic (hey, at least
there was ONE character who efficaciously espoused logic on TV.) But there
really is no room for compromise between rationality and irrationality. Once you
define your terms, it becomes clearer which category other things go into.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) I thought the anti-religion stance states that the last refuge of religion is to convert people by the sword. But again, quite sarcastically, I digress... (...) But that's still subjective, isn't it? The interpretation of this data is still (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
