"The issue is not spirituality, yes or no. The issue is irrational spirituality vs. rational spirituality; the effort to achieve ones own happiness on this earth in this life vs. the unwarranted hope that an unearned joy will be experienced after ones death if one simply, passively, and effortlessly sacrifices oneself and endures the suffering and joylessness that results; the active embracing of this life vs. the passive, resented endurance of it."
Morality is based on values. If you value man's life, then you build your morality around that. If you want an in depth explanation of Objectivism's moral base, read some of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.
When people claim they are now "taking their faith seriously" that what they are generally doing is piecemealing together a philosophy of "what works" for them. They become a misintegration of influences, feelings, beliefs and then they say, "Well this is where my faith led me". But saying so does not make it so. In effect, that process was not entirely based on "faith", it was based on many influences, both secular and religious. This is why Yaron speaks of "logical extremes".
I think that's only half of it: the person wants certainty, but the certainty he seeks is certainty that his decisions are morally right. He wants a code of alleged ethics that will tell him it is right to expect others to sacrifice themselves, and to obtain from others the unearned...
No, there should be some restrictions when it comes to their kids. Like Jehovah's witnesses should be forced to give blood transfusions to their kids if they need it. Infant circumcision should be illegal. Those are the two examples I can think of.
This guy keeps talking about not living by bread alone, did he not understand that Brook said objectivism doesn't adovcate living by bread alone? It advocates living rationally, that doesn't exclude spiritual pursuits. Im a musician, and an objectivist
There IS an external and objective standard. It's called REALITY. our thoughts and concepts are not TRUE or VALID until tested upon REALITY. LOGIC and REASON are just words to describe an IDEA or CONCEPT generated in our mind and has been tested against reality to be TRUE. That is logic. That is reason. and because it is tested against reality, it is objectively TRUE.
Part of what was not explicitly addressed is what need people are trying to fill when they turn to religion. There's a hint at it when Dr. Ghate speaks of "the arbitrary", but to complete that: is that the religious person is choosing to believe in the arbitrary in order to gain a sense of certainty about the world and his life. Once we address and understand that at the deepest level it is possible to find that certainty within reality, there is a door open to change.
At worst, the man's question amounts to: If man doesn't have faith in arbitrary stories, he'll become a monster (a totalitarian power monger of some flavor). At best, the man's question amounts to: if you take away man's spiritual needs, then what's left? While good, the panel's response doesn't seem to address (what I think) is this man's contradiction. Ayn Rand discusses man's spiritual needs in "The Romantic Manifesto." Man's spirit does not require faith, but does have identity and needs.
...Christianity's "transvaluation of all values" tells him that man's actual virtues (rationality, and all it implies) are vices, and that man's actual vices (e.g., the acceptance of assertions as 'knowledge" on the basis of faith) are virtues; that man's actual values (notably his life and happiness) are not values, and that man's actual non-values (e.g., need) and dis-values (e.g., loss) are values....
"what makes your reason the right one Dr. Ghate?" If his reason is faulty, then his life will diminish to the extent that he is wrong. (Maybe he thinks that turpentine is good to drink or that sex causes amnesia.) The same goes for everyone. But we can correct our mistakes. Reason allows for that. Faith is not nearly as flexible, unfortunately.
Objectivists, unfortunately, assume a monopoly on reason. So much gets dismissed (payback for so many's dismissal of Objectivism I suppose). And the self-congratulatory claim to uniqueness is anything but.
The questioner implies that the need for spirituality is the need for a ghost. I liked the panel's answers, but I would have replied to the man with the following words:... (cont'd)
What's better, is seeing the real world in it's natural state. I'd rather know what is true than to believe a lie. Having something feel good doesn't mean it's true.
first second got me started already: reason is not dry bread and arbitrary fantasies are whatever ...blackforest tart or what? it is rather the other way around ...me i dont have a "need" for supernatural fairytales and never had. that fact that people have them is due to childhood indoctrination, as way to cope with traumata, or simply due to dumbness. a healthy mind doesnt need religion or spirituality, reason though. period.
...He hopes that that conscious transvaluation will allow him to counter the feelings of misery (or numbness) and guilt (or fear) that are the natural result of his modes of thought and action. And, when it fails, he takes to the bottle, blames "god", blames "greedy capitalists, blames "enviro-criminals", or sends Jews to the gas chambers. When such things fail, should he follow his philosophy to its logical conclusion, he will commit suicide...not unusually, murder-suicide.
we dont have to, you have to deal with that contradiction. Not us. And if you are honest, you will acknowledge that contradiction and it will force you to choose one over the other.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by relative? If something doesn't want to exist, then there are no values. In this context, I'm referring to life as existence. Values are inapplicable to inanimate matter. I'm not sure what you're wanting, and I haven't studied philosophy enough to understand what you're asking. The most comprehensive non-fiction work i have found on Objectivism is "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. I think chapter 7 "The Good" is what your after.
Yes. Compared to modern mass death, the Inquisition barely registers precisely because it was religious-based. You are also mistaken to lump the Inquisition(religious) with the Crusades & Gulag(secular). The fact that one was religious and the other secular makes ALL the difference.
The second speaker says the spirit is the mind. I disagree. We think with our mind and we feel with our spirit. As a developing fetus if anything we 'feel alive' with a body before we have thoughts. Body, mind and soul make up the individual trinity
This guy in the blue shirt wasn't asking a question. He was making an accusation. The only response he would have accepted would have been: "Yeah, I guess you're right. We suck." No amount of arguing could possibly shake his faith in faith. He wants to live WITHOUT bread, so a philosophy dedicated to understanding that bread is necessary for our survival is evil to him.
Consciousness and emotions are material states. We are robots. Our minds, reason, thoughts, values and intentions are a computer program in the brain. Read Daniel Dennett. Objectivism is right in almost everything. But there is no " spiritual" reality.
A person can be religious and NOT be a tyrant. Seventh Day Adventist are a religion and some of the longest living people on earth as a population; religious and peaceful. Sorry Dr. Brook thinks all religions go down tyranny alley. many do but not all and thus he's wrong. How a man or woman live their life is up to them as long as they don't violate the rights of others. How they derive their happiness is up to them as long as they don't harm others.
I am reading The Virtue of Selfishness and have read Atlas Shrugged. Where I find weakness in Rand is her value system and even your example is just personal relativism. If values are relative, there are no objective values.
There are many values regarding which every sane man will have an indifferent opinion like say life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Voluntaryism or Non-Aggression Principle is absolutely necessary for any community to make progress on a sustainable basis. All laws formed based on these axioms will not be opposed from any rational human being. These values can be called as objective ones.
Of course it's about power, but you miss my point. Comparing the Inquisition (which happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages) with the Soviet Gulag is comparing apples to oranges. One was a religious power (Vatican) whose small excesses were frequently tempered by the secular governments of individual countries, while the (USSR) was a secular political power far whose excesses went beyond anything the Vatican did. It's rhetorical bullshit to compare the two. A lie.
Well, you are not correct in your timeline for the Inquisition, of which there were many. Google, even Google, shows that the Medieval French Inquisition began in 1184, the Renaissance approximately 1300, the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. Your initial sentence agreeing that the correlation is about power then goes off the rails by trying to equate the sources of power and the number of people affected (read: Killed). If you want to argue number of people killed, you must take into account the smaller population of the world in 1184, and how dramatic a loss those deaths must have been to the survivors, comparatively. Talk about rhetorical lying!
How do Atheists posit that evil and suffering are "problems", “bad” or “wrongs” without committing the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought gap within their world-view? If they can't, then their world-view not only fails at a remedy, it dismisses the issue completely as a non-logical question. This Godless logic seems to justify evil and suffering as normal, natural or otherwise non-existent. This is ethical suicide. Faith & love has more value & remedy for evil and suffering than logical egotism.
You've not understand anything....Hes not talking about what Jesus says, but instead about the RELIGION based on him and in what have become. In essence, has become corrupted because it is based in IRRATIONAL values not attached with reality and with living according to it
I generally liked the panel's responses--especially Dr. Brook's comment that Objectivism is not anti-emotions--"listen to me speak!" Awesome.
"The issue is not spirituality, yes or no. The issue is irrational spirituality vs. rational spirituality; the effort to achieve ones own happiness on this earth in this life vs. the unwarranted hope that an unearned joy will be experienced after ones death if one simply, passively, and effortlessly sacrifices oneself and endures the suffering and joylessness that results; the active embracing of this life vs. the passive, resented endurance of it."
Morality is based on values. If you value man's life, then you build your morality around that. If you want an in depth explanation of Objectivism's moral base, read some of Ayn Rand's non-fiction works.
"we want man to live by reason alone" Amen!
When people claim they are now "taking their faith seriously" that what they are generally doing is piecemealing together a philosophy of "what works" for them.
They become a misintegration of influences, feelings, beliefs and then they say, "Well this is where my faith led me". But saying so does not make it so.
In effect, that process was not entirely based on "faith", it was based on many influences, both secular and religious.
This is why Yaron speaks of "logical extremes".
This is absolutely brilliant!
apples to apples this is really how we need to keep it.
And we shouldn't be afraid to say the the emperor has no clothes.
I think that's only half of it: the person wants certainty, but the certainty he seeks is certainty that his decisions are morally right. He wants a code of alleged ethics that will tell him it is right to expect others to sacrifice themselves, and to obtain from others the unearned...
People should be free to be as gullible and dumb as they want, just don't try to take away my rights and you won't find yourself in my crosshairs....
No, there should be some restrictions when it comes to their kids. Like Jehovah's witnesses should be forced to give blood transfusions to their kids if they need it. Infant circumcision should be illegal. Those are the two examples I can think of.
Totally agreed. No more explanation is needed.
This guy keeps talking about not living by bread alone, did he not understand that Brook said objectivism doesn't adovcate living by bread alone?
It advocates living rationally, that doesn't exclude spiritual pursuits. Im a musician, and an objectivist
There IS an external and objective standard. It's called REALITY. our thoughts and concepts are not TRUE or VALID until tested upon REALITY. LOGIC and REASON are just words to describe an IDEA or CONCEPT generated in our mind and has been tested against reality to be TRUE. That is logic. That is reason. and because it is tested against reality, it is objectively TRUE.
Happiness is just a feeling in you mind....
it is a reaction corresponding to things in reality, things in reality in relation to your well being, physically and psychologically.
Old camera makes the guy look like he has an aura or a ghost lol
Part of what was not explicitly addressed is what need people are trying to fill when they turn to religion. There's a hint at it when Dr. Ghate speaks of "the arbitrary", but to complete that: is that the religious person is choosing to believe in the arbitrary in order to gain a sense of certainty about the world and his life.
Once we address and understand that at the deepest level it is possible to find that certainty within reality, there is a door open to change.
At worst, the man's question amounts to: If man doesn't have faith in arbitrary stories, he'll become a monster (a totalitarian power monger of some flavor).
At best, the man's question amounts to: if you take away man's spiritual needs, then what's left?
While good, the panel's response doesn't seem to address (what I think) is this man's contradiction.
Ayn Rand discusses man's spiritual needs in "The Romantic Manifesto." Man's spirit does not require faith, but does have identity and needs.
...Christianity's "transvaluation of all values" tells him that man's actual virtues (rationality, and all it implies) are vices, and that man's actual vices (e.g., the acceptance of assertions as 'knowledge" on the basis of faith) are virtues; that man's actual values (notably his life and happiness) are not values, and that man's actual non-values (e.g., need) and dis-values (e.g., loss) are values....
"what makes your reason the right one Dr. Ghate?"
If his reason is faulty, then his life will diminish to the extent that he is wrong. (Maybe he thinks that turpentine is good to drink or that sex causes amnesia.) The same goes for everyone. But we can correct our mistakes. Reason allows for that. Faith is not nearly as flexible, unfortunately.
Objectivists, unfortunately, assume a monopoly on reason. So much gets dismissed (payback for so many's dismissal of Objectivism I suppose). And the self-congratulatory claim to uniqueness is anything but.
That's the only point from the believers side I can fully subscribe to.
The questioner implies that the need for spirituality is the need for a ghost. I liked the panel's answers, but I would have replied to the man with the following words:... (cont'd)
What's better, is seeing the real world in it's natural state. I'd rather know what is true than to believe a lie. Having something feel good doesn't mean it's true.
Oooh, that's very succinct. Thanks for that.
first second got me started already: reason is not dry bread and arbitrary fantasies are whatever ...blackforest tart or what? it is rather the other way around ...me i dont have a "need" for supernatural fairytales and never had. that fact that people have them is due to childhood indoctrination, as way to cope with traumata, or simply due to dumbness. a healthy mind doesnt need religion or spirituality, reason though. period.
...He hopes that that conscious transvaluation will allow him to counter the feelings of misery (or numbness) and guilt (or fear) that are the natural result of his modes of thought and action. And, when it fails, he takes to the bottle, blames "god", blames "greedy capitalists, blames "enviro-criminals", or sends Jews to the gas chambers. When such things fail, should he follow his philosophy to its logical conclusion, he will commit suicide...not unusually, murder-suicide.
I am an objectivist and I believe in a Creator. I live by my own values. Deal with it.
we dont have to, you have to deal with that contradiction. Not us. And if you are honest, you will acknowledge that contradiction and it will force you to choose one over the other.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean by relative?
If something doesn't want to exist, then there are no values. In this context, I'm referring to life as existence. Values are inapplicable to inanimate matter.
I'm not sure what you're wanting, and I haven't studied philosophy enough to understand what you're asking. The most comprehensive non-fiction work i have found on Objectivism is "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff. I think chapter 7 "The Good" is what your after.
I agree. That line was classic.
Yes. Compared to modern mass death, the Inquisition barely registers precisely because it was religious-based.
You are also mistaken to lump the Inquisition(religious) with the Crusades & Gulag(secular).
The fact that one was religious and the other secular makes ALL the difference.
The second speaker says the spirit is the mind. I disagree. We think with our mind and we feel with our spirit. As a developing fetus if anything we 'feel alive' with a body before we have thoughts. Body, mind and soul make up the individual trinity
This guy in the blue shirt wasn't asking a question. He was making an accusation. The only response he would have accepted would have been: "Yeah, I guess you're right. We suck." No amount of arguing could possibly shake his faith in faith. He wants to live WITHOUT bread, so a philosophy dedicated to understanding that bread is necessary for our survival is evil to him.
Consciousness and emotions are material states. We are robots. Our minds, reason, thoughts, values and intentions are a computer program in the brain. Read Daniel Dennett. Objectivism is right in almost everything. But there is no " spiritual" reality.
@hapspir About your comment that 'sex causes amnesia'.....er.....er......I forgot what I was going to say.
Great answer by Yaron Brook
How does one develop a moral code via reason without resorting to utilitarianism, pragmatism, hedonism, relativism, etc?
Your mind is means to select best according to your nature by proper reason
A person can be religious and NOT be a tyrant. Seventh Day Adventist are a religion and some of the longest living people on earth as a population; religious and peaceful. Sorry Dr. Brook thinks all religions go down tyranny alley. many do but not all and thus he's wrong. How a man or woman live their life is up to them as long as they don't violate the rights of others. How they derive their happiness is up to them as long as they don't harm others.
I am reading The Virtue of Selfishness and have read Atlas Shrugged. Where I find weakness in Rand is her value system and even your example is just personal relativism. If values are relative, there are no objective values.
There are many values regarding which every sane man will have an indifferent opinion like say life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Voluntaryism or Non-Aggression Principle is absolutely necessary for any community to make progress on a sustainable basis. All laws formed based on these axioms will not be opposed from any rational human being. These values can be called as objective ones.
@richardcadbury
lol,...no kidding.
How ironic.
man, that questioner was aggravating and dense! also smug
Spiritual life is nosense.
@InaneRex
I see you have taken your inability to think in principles with you.
Of course it's about power, but you miss my point. Comparing the Inquisition (which happened in the Renaissance, not the Middle Ages) with the Soviet Gulag is comparing apples to oranges. One was a religious power (Vatican) whose small excesses were frequently tempered by the secular governments of individual countries, while the (USSR) was a secular political power far whose excesses went beyond anything the Vatican did.
It's rhetorical bullshit to compare the two. A lie.
Well, you are not correct in your timeline for the Inquisition, of which there were many. Google, even Google, shows that the Medieval French Inquisition began in 1184, the Renaissance approximately 1300, the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. Your initial sentence agreeing that the correlation is about power then goes off the rails by trying to equate the sources of power and the number of people affected (read: Killed). If you want to argue number of people killed, you must take into account the smaller population of the world in 1184, and how dramatic a loss those deaths must have been to the survivors, comparatively. Talk about rhetorical lying!
How do Atheists posit that evil and suffering are "problems", “bad” or “wrongs” without committing the naturalistic fallacy or is/ought gap within their world-view? If they can't, then their world-view not only fails at a remedy, it dismisses the issue completely as a non-logical question. This Godless logic seems to justify evil and suffering as normal, natural or otherwise non-existent. This is ethical suicide. Faith & love has more value & remedy for evil and suffering than logical egotism.
You've not understand anything....Hes not talking about what Jesus says, but instead about the RELIGION based on him and in what have become. In essence, has become corrupted because it is based in IRRATIONAL values not attached with reality and with living according to it