I like Objectivism, but then I don't like it…

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

I’m just after watching this video and reading the comments…

What happens here is a Moron asks an Asshole,(paraphrased to the best of my knowledge) “Can you Believe in God and still hold on to objectivist principals”. The Moron of Course gets cut down by the Asshole basically stating that Objectivism is a one way street of Absolutes.

Now I don’t have any formal Education with Philosophy, as if that’s actually needed to be a Philosopher( A bad one at most). But using my power of Reason here, You in fact can Believe in God and still hold on to Objectivism in so much that you make your definition of God compatible with Objectivism or vice versa.

Ayn Rand in her fundamentals is correct, but to the people that interpret her works (I.E the objectivist movement or Anti-Objectivist movement) is a perversion of the Original Idea.

[Anonymous 24]

The Missing Man wrote:

You in fact can Believe in God and still hold on to Objectivism in so much that you make your definition of God compatible with Objectivism or vice versa.

That works in theory I guess, but most evidence points to the contrary as it rarely seems to be put into practice. This can been seen in just how few Christians speak up against never ending bulls~~~ wars against Muslims. They are few and far between, even on this site that has many great minds. Hitman and I think MGTOWER would be a couple of Christians here that have made it clear they are against this perpetual state of war against Muslims. Outside of that, it seems to me far too many Christians are fine with modern day Crusades based on lies. So while it is possible to be an Objectivist with religion may be true in theory, it is rarely seen in practice. I would also like to add that some religions are more flexible on such a topic than others, and ultimately, it is the individual with religion who is responsible for how much they let it cloud their ability to think freely.

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

Anonymous wrote:

The Man who wasn’t there wrote:

You in fact can Believe in God and still hold on to Objectivism in so much that you make your definition of God compatible with Objectivism or vice versa.

That works in theory I guess, but most evidence points to the contrary. This can been seen in just how few Christians speak out against never ending bulls~~~ wars against Muslims. They are few and far between, even on this site.

To give a reply here, this is to further explain that theory, I see it more like Computer operating Systems.

Say the Christians where Windows users and Muslims Mac users and this war they have is just the Market Competition to get people using their Operating System More than the other one. God is just an Application on those said Computer Operating Systems, such as a word processor application. Each Operating system claims to have the best Application to write your documents.

What they don’t realize that makes their Operating Systems possible, is that it is still based in the principals of Either-Or thought or I guess I’d call it binary thought.

[UintatheriumParticipant 1861]

I totally get why some people who love Any Rand still believe in God. Many objectivists reject the concept of quantum chance because it means that some things in this world are random. This is similar to Einstein’s “God does not play dice” argument.

I like the Randian concept of rational self-interest, but I dislike the whole belief that reducing the size of the government is always in my self-interest.

MGTOW: because you can (and should) say anything about a woman as long as she isn't within earshot

[Anonymous 24]

Well, I don’t think these wars are based on religions wanting others to use “their system”. It is oil, currency protection, Israel wanting perceived threats perpetually dominated and destabilized… And religion is just the tool that allows it to get done, because trust me, if these people were Christians in the countries that the U.S./Israel has been jacking up it would not be happening. These two religions are not going door to door trying to convert everyone so it is not about that. The divide exists, and is being exploited, that is all. But I do get what you mean by two different operating systems.

[Anonymous 24]

One last thought as I was out the door…

Ron Paul would be the best example of a Christian Objectivist who is a devotee of Ayn Rand so much so that he named his son Rand. Paul clearly understands that the wars in the Mid East vs. Muslims are bulls~~~ and based on lies, he also understands that it is not in his best interest, nor his countries best interest to be involved in them and he is objective enough to set aside religious differences and speak up about it. It is no wonder why even as an Atheist he is one of my favorite people on the planet, and I have much respect for him on many levels, and the same goes for guys here like Hitman.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Doesn’t it depend on what God means to you??

I attended Sunday school & church every weekend until I was about 17. Baptized and confirmed, but even when I was 13, I thought “god” was bulls~~~ ( as he was taught to me ) and didn’t give it much thought for MANY, many years.

And then I wondered…. what if “god” is just the natural way of things?

Animals are born with a sense of right and wrong and it doesn’t need to be explained to them. Salmon swimming upstream, water flowing downhill and all of that…..

If a woman has a “lazy ovary”, then didn’t nature(god) already decide she probably shoulnd’t have kids? What if she’s a lesbian? Then nature decided she DEFINITELY shouldn’t have any, and probably won’t.

“The way things ought to be” are not really decided by us. You can call it whatever you want, but some people call it “god” and you can certainly believe in that, because it’s also tangible, and viewable all around you.

All that mythical hocus-pocus I can’t believe in.
But we CAN see and prove “the way things ought to be”.

That video is an example of what I would call “god” at work. Without being trained, explained or taught, the dogs already know it’s just wrong.

In that way, you can not only objectively believe it, but you can prove it.

—

Someone might argue “well it’s right for a mother to discipline her child however she wants because god said man(humans) has dominion over all animals, so dogs can’t possibly know better”…. and now it becomes subjective and based in relative truth.

God – in terms of natural law – is absolute/objective truth.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Keymaster wrote:

Animals are born with a sense of right and wrong and it doesn’t need to be explained to them. Salmon swimming upstream, water flowing downhill and all of that…..

Hate to take issue with you KM but animals don’t/can’t make moral judgments about right/wrong. Rather they are programmed to pursue their nature–whatever it may be. This was illustrated years ago when there was a gorilla who was taught sign language. She could communicate fairly well and even understand certain abstract concepts—but right/wrong as a moral judgement? She was clueless. Interestingly she also couldn’t grasp the concept of telling a “lie”. Just didn’t make sense to her.

From an animal’s perspective if it feels good–do it, if it feels bad avoid it. There is no independent judgement involved. (I know what about dogs and their loyalty, that is a learned behavior based upon reward not a moral judgment.)

[KeymasterKeymaster]

PistolPete wrote:

Hate to take issue with you KM but animals don’t/can’t make moral judgments about right/wrong

It’s not a problem… I was actually going to append my post saying “Disclaimer: I think I could say this better but I believe you understand my point”.

I KNOW I could have done better on that.
So allow me add….

I was petting a friend’s dog (years ago) when a screaming fire engine went by and the dog was totally oblivious to it. Humans were plugging their ears, but it was like the dog was deaf. I thought it must be TORTURE for a dog to not be able to ask certain questions…..

• “What is that big red thing and why is it making all that noise?”
• “What is that cold white stuff that falls from the sky?”
• “What is that smell (bacon) and why can’t have more of it?”

I realize a dog’s mind doesn’t work that way and he only cares about 3 things.

“Can I eat it? Can I f~~~ it?
If the answer is NO, then I may as well just p~~~ on it and move on.”

You’re right. A dog can’t make a call like that. But it still knows you shouldn’t hold something up to a child like that. How does it know that? It’s not really ware of WHY it knows that – or even that it DOES know that. But it still knows.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Dogs may indeed be the exception to the rule. I love a good dog!

[KeymasterKeymaster]

PistolPete wrote:

Dogs may indeed be the exception to the rule. I love a good dog!

Isn’t it funny that “dog” is a “man’s best friend”.

Imagine being a woman and hearing that expression. Shouldn’t a woman be more of a “best friend” to a man than a DOG??? I couldn’t help but wonder what it really says.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

The Missing Man wrote:

The Moron of Course gets cut down by the Asshole basically stating that Objectivism is a one way street of Absolutes.

Like all Philosophies, Ideologies, WTF~~ies you take what you need and leave the rest. There is no “one way street of absolutes”, unless (as it was so eloquently pointed out) you pair a moron with an asshole.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[PistolPeteParticipant 27143]

Keymaster wrote:

Imagine being a woman and hearing that expression. Shouldn’t a woman be more of a “best friend” to a man than a DOG??? I couldn’t help but wonder what it really says.

Especially if the dog is female—OOOOCHHH! Yeah lady you lose out to an honest bitch who poops in my yard, what does that say about you?

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Keymaster wrote:

Doesn’t it depend on what God means to you??

As Ayn Rand said about God, “you can’t prove a negative”

My personal view is that I could never be a part of an organized religion.

Organized religions exist to control people.

Back in the day scribes, clerics were the only people that could read and write. How do you control the masses? Answer: you create a mass with a higher omnipotent power.

Regardless of individual beliefs, rational objectivism is the only philosophy that makes sense.

Peace brothers

[FrankOneParticipant 1417]

I read a lot of Rand when I was a teenager. I guess I see it like ‘libertarian’. There are the ‘big L’ Libertarians — i.e. those who agree with the US Libertarian Party, and its platform. Then there are the ‘small l’ libertarians, who just believe in libertarian principles, but not necessarily the Orthodoxy of the National Party.

By the same token, you can’t be a ‘Big O’ Objectivist and believe in God(s) because by definition, Objectivism is Ayn Rand’s philosophy, and atheism is part of it. So you are a follower of something else if you hold this stance. Just like a ‘Catholic’ who believes in abortion — they are often called ‘cafeteria Catholics’ in that they choose which of Rome’s theology they will follow. But obviously, they aren’t 100% Orthodox roman catholics.

However, you can certainly still be a small ‘o’ objectivist — i.e. believe in objective reality, and believe in God(s). Indeed, such view were not uncommon in a prior age — I would describe it as the Deism of Thomas Jefferson in the Age of Reason — a God created the universe and set it into motion, but was then ‘hands off’ — in sharp contrast to, say, the ‘personal God’ of Evangelist Christians.

As for the rest of it, YES, you can certainly apply logic and science to most parts of your life but go worship in the Church, Mosque, or Synagogue every week. I’ve known plenty of researchers and engineers in hard science who do just that.

Uintatherium writes: I like the Randian concept of rational self-interest, but I dislike the whole belief that reducing the size of the government is always in my self-interest.

Yes, reducing the size of government may increase overall GDP and freedom, but may not be best for all INDIVIDUALS. Reducing the size of government may be good for me, working in the private sector; not so good for the thousands of employees of, say, the Department of Education, who will now have to get jobs in the private sector, with fewer holidays and less job security than in their government positions.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Objectivism has its place within observation, however I have never seen an objective argument for objectivism on its own terms.

[BalthazarParticipant 722]

objectivism could be called a one way street if one believed that it would ever be possible to explain everything, which it is not. not matter how far out our understanding of reality goes, we’ll never reach a point to be able to master everything. maybe a belief in god or a higher power is just the acknowledgement that there will always be a fundamental level of organization and or knowledge that we will never achieve.

This body holding me is a reminder of my own mortality. Embrace this moment. Remember, we are eternal and all this pain is an illusion.

[MGTOW_MedicParticipant 184]

I guess my biggest question is….

Why do you need to believe in a Deity? Why?

I love objectivism actually. It is a method of achieving an understanding of an Objective Standard without the need for God.

MGtOW_Medic - EMT - P, Firefighter Lvl 2, Hazmat Ops

[Anonymous 3]

PistolPete wrote:

animals don’t/can’t make moral judgments about right/wrong. Rather they are programmed to pursue their nature–whatever it may be.

In our very humanist intrinsic philosophy we consider all things human good and all not human bad. In fact we pride on how we are “distinct from animals”.

In “Animal farm” the animals did the same:”four legs good, two legs bad”.

Moral judgments are highly subjective, and resulted in the worst atrocities ever commuted. In fact, people without moral use moral judgment most effectively. No dictator in history became popular or convinced anyone saying “we are the bad guys and we are doing bad things”. EVERYONE sees itself on the good side, and others is the bad side.

My interpretation of this is quite shocking for the humanists: the moral judgment is the justification for pure instinctive animal behaviors. These behaviors are very similar to territorial or group protection and aggression in the animal world.

Religious will view non-religious as bad/evil/sinners. Non-religious will view religious as bad/oppressive/dangerous. To kill is bad according to every religion, and in any non-religious moral code. Yet it happens frequently and is JUSTIFIED with many moral interpretations, sometimes the KILLERS are raised to the rank of heroes. The families of the victims will think otherwise.

Animals are actually smarter than us in this area. They dont do justifications. They just do what is necessary.

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

MGTOW_Medic wrote:

I guess my biggest question is….

Why do you need to believe in a Deity? Why?

The same reason why the use of imaginary numbers is employed in complex algebra.

This is posted from a phone I’ll add some more insight when I get on a computer.

[Author]

Posts