SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Saturday, June 25 - 5:04am

Link

Edit

Neil:

Thanks for your fine essay!!!

It really blends well with the short piece I did a while back for The Free Radical called "Ayn Rand: Philosopher of Unity and Integration" or something along those lines.

Cheers!!!

Ed

Post 1

Saturday, June 25 - 5:29am

Link

Edit

Ed,

Glad you liked the article. Here is your article:

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins28.htm

which deals with similar issues on a somewhat "larger" scale.

Post 2

Saturday, June 25 - 11:37am

Link

Edit

Neil, thanks for the article. I love your writing style; your focus on relevant, interesting points; and your sensitivity against harsh overstatements.

I especially enjoyed your presentation of 4 types of totalism in Rand (paraphrased):

--------------------
-the conclusions or implications of ideas are expanded upon (or traced back to their roots)

-the psychological origins or implications of ideas are identified

-the historical and cultural effects of ideas are developed

-human beings are accountable for seeing (or not seeing) the implications of ideas
--------------------

Bravo!

However, I had trouble with your response to the first Rand quote -- regarding mystical ethics (real quote):

--------------------
On the other hand, [2]-[5] constitute Rand’s opinion of what a mystic would believe if he acted consistently on his premises. As a matter of fact, most mystics would probably deny that they believe that ethics is “opposed to man’s life on earth.” In certain forms of Christianity, it is taught that those who obey God’s moral laws will benefit materially.
--------------------

Neil, I'd argue that mystics don't have to explicitly hold Rand's second through fifth points here, that they are rather more like implications of point one then basic premises to account for, and that the existence of a "certain forms of Christianity" that offer a reward of material benefit are impossible to make rationally distinct from other destructive monotheisms.

Taking this last point to heart; borrowing from recent, mystic-based events; and borrowing your initial grammatical form, yields an astonishingly contrasted view:

In certain forms of Islam, it is taught that those who obey God’s moral laws -- which may result in the suicide-bombing of several innocent folks -- will benefit in an afterlife, with 72 virgins.

How, Neil, do I make a clear, rational distinction between THIS article of faith and the other? Do I just have to dispense with reason and ask which one of them makes me FEEL better?

Also, you bring up an interesting point about psychologizing (real quote):

--------------------
In her article “The Argument From Intimidation” Rand demonstrated an awareness of the dangers of excessive “psychologizing,” but her essays often contain a discussion of the motivation that people have for their beliefs.
--------------------

Neil, good point, but I think that humans couldn't understand one another EXCEPT in terms that allow for motivation. I think that (and I'm using Rand's totalism here!) motivation-acknowledgement is required for straight talk on Free Will and Determinism, to give a great example.

We are taught in school not to think of sodium ions "wanting" to bind with chloride ions. Referred to as the Pathetic Fallacy, a great exposition of this type of motivation-ascribing, or animism (to inanimate objects), is found at the source of this quote:

Air hates to be crowded, and when compressed
it will try to escape to an area of lower pressure.

Neil, as always, I'm interested to see your response.

Ed

Post 3

Saturday, June 25 - 11:57am

Link

Edit

We are taught in school not to think of sodium ions "wanting" to bind with chloride ions. Referred to as the Pathetic Fallacy, a great exposition of this type of motivation-ascribing, or animism (to inanimate objects), is found at the source of this quote:

The problem appears to be linguistic.

Post 4

Saturday, June 25 - 12:04pm

Link

Edit

Neil,

You write clearly and well, but I found this treatment of Rand facile.

I also quarrel with the current tendency to revision when it comes to the Middle Ages. It is something anarchists, for example, are particularly fond of doing. Gildas is not on their reading list.

Post 5

Saturday, June 25 - 1:35pm

Link

Edit

Neil,

Great article.

But as far as certain Christians thinking obedience to God's will will secure them material blessings, that just shows there are Christians today who don't take the foundational texts of their faith seriously. This is analogous to the millions of Muslims who live quiet, peaceful lives and would never dream of doing violence to a non-Muslim.

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven", "It is better to marry than to burn.", "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.", yadda, yadda, yadda. Of all major religions, Christianity is the one most susceptible to Rand's criticism. You would have had an easier time using Judaism as the example.

-Bill

Post 6

Saturday, June 25 - 2:40pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

My point was simply that one may draw different implications from the same starting point. One could believe: (1) God wants his creatures to be happy; or (2) God wants people to engage in destructive acts. Neither follows directly from the starting point. One has to bring in other considerations, such as what allgedly inspired texts and the like teach.

Post 7

Saturday, June 25 - 3:16pm

Link

Edit

Neil, call it destiny, call it fate, call it serendipity, call it God's will, unfolding -- if you like -- but Bill's preceding post rebuts your own.

I can't say it better than Bill did, so I will leave it at that. Use his words as a benchmark for understanding my perspective. Perhaps this is a time to agree-to-disagree?

On the subject of my defense of a watered-down "psychologizing" (attempting to understand motives), do you agree that it is something that MUST be done by humans (just perhaps VERY carefully, and with wise constraint)?

Or do you, like so many have recently, feel that we should not view others with an understandable intent (an intentional consciousness) -- because that might lead to judgment, and judgment is a sword too heavy for mortals to wield?

Note how merely putting imputed motives on trial does not require an immediate, unilateral prosecution -- folks can be asked to merely explain themselves (if they want to earn others' trust, that is).

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 6/25, 3:18pm)

Post 8

Saturday, June 25 - 3:28pm

Link

Edit

Neil writes:
>Rand’s totalism has the tendency to spin out of control.

Er...whose version of 'totalism' *doesn't*?!

- Daniel

Post 9

Saturday, June 25 - 4:25pm

Link

Edit

Ed,

I don't think Bill's post refutes my point. First, I would say that of all the major religions Buddhism is closest to Rand's analysis of religion. In certain versions of Buddhism, there is the belief that existence isn't real and a loss of personality is the goal. In addition, the verses referenced by Bill are subject to various interpretations. In fact, the Biblical injunction that it is better to marry than to burn actually means that you should attempt to deal with emotions. To a certain extent, the Reformation was a rejection of the extreme asceticism of Medeivil Catholicism.

Some psychologizing is OK, but I generally oppose this approach not for fear of judgment, but because it distracts from the real issue.

Post 10

Saturday, June 25 - 4:34pm

Link

Edit

Neil,

With all due respect, Paul's injunction to marry rather than to burn was stated in the context of his teaching that the end of the world was nigh. It would occur during the lifetime of his audience, and that then Christ would return at an undisclosed moment "like a thief in the night" to wrap everything up.

The "to burn" part referred to burning in hell for the mortal sin of having sex outside of wedlock. Not what I would consider an image of benefitting materially, sex outside of wedlock being one of my favorite activities.

-Bill

Post 11

Saturday, June 25 - 5:59pm

Link

Edit

Bill,

"To burn means to be consumed with inward desire." Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 161.

Whether Paul believed that the end would come in his lifetime is a debatable question, but it doesn't appear that either Jesus or Paul taught extreme asceticism.

Post 12

Saturday, June 25 - 7:25pm

Link

Edit

Neil,

>Whether Paul believed that the end would come in his lifetime is a debatable question, but it doesn't appear that either Jesus or Paul taught extreme asceticism.

Concerning Christ's teaching:

"You have heard that it was said 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [Note: no, Jimmy Carter did not make this one up!] If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

Matthew 5:27-29

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Matthew 6:19-21

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."

Matthew 6:24

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away,..."

Matthew 24:34

Concerning Paul:

"So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want."

Galatians 5:16-17

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, [SOLOists take note: you have a lot to answer for on this ;-) ] which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person - such a man is an idolater - has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."

Ephesians 5:3-5

[All biblical citations from the New International Version, 1984.]

'Nuff said.

-Bill

Post 13

Saturday, June 25 - 7:39pm

Link

Edit

Your familiarity with Scripture being so impressive, I hearby dub thee "Brother Bill" Nevin.

;^)

Post 14

Saturday, June 25 - 8:39pm

Link

Edit

Robert,

Thanks, but the truth is that I just grabbed a bible and started flipping through the pages looking at the chapter headings. I honestly think it took as much time to type them in as to find them.

(I did spend 5 years of grade school in Catholic schools, and more years in CCD, so I had a pretty good idea of what to look for.)

Several years ago I started to read a Jewish translation of the Bible. My plan was, when I finished it I would switch over to a Catholic version of the New Testament, then to the Koran. I got stalled in the longest and most tedious book of the Bible though (Isaiah,) and the plan never came to fruition.

-Bill

Post 15

Sunday, June 26 - 5:05am

Link

Edit

Bill,

I don't see how these verses disprove my point that neither Paul or Jesus taught extreme asceticism. Obviously Christianity teaches the avoidance of certain things that are belived sinful.

Post 16

Sunday, June 26 - 12:42pm

Link

Edit

Neil,

My original post was a defense of Ayn Rand's criticism of religion from your (correct) assertion that some Christians believe that observance of God's law will net them material benefits in what they they are pleased to call "this world."

My point was that these folks were not living their lives according to Christ's teachings 100% (no one could.) So your claim that there are "Christians" today who have compromised with the Renaissance/Enlightenment/Industrial world is not relevant to Rand's attack on what the belief system of Christianity actually _is_. Christianity is not a religion that encourages the good life on Earth. In many respects and in many instances, it does not even condone it. It is focused on "life" in its imaginary "next world." As long as we are criticizing Rand's criticism of an idea, let's focus on the idea, not on who happens to wear the mantle of that idea today.

I think my biblical quotes make the preceding paragraph's argument a slam-dunk for me. If you don't agree, I can sit here and type in plenty more where those came from, as well as provide an analysis of the historical and demographic spread of early Christianity in the Roman Empire vis-á-vis religious, ethnic, and class background.

The part about Jesus and Paul not teaching extreme asceticism represented you stepping back onto a smaller patch of ground that was easier for you to defend. It does not address my first post in this thread. But I don't think that even your weaker claim is a slam-dunk for you. The quotes I provided are subject to interpretation. And one possible, straight-forward interpretation of them, in the full context of Christ's teachings, is that they do imply asceticism as an ideal.

(My use of the words "Christ" and "Christ's" outside of quotation marks in this thread is for ease of reference only and does not represent an acknowledgement on my part that Jesus was an historical figure. That is an argument for a different time and thread.)

Again, you wrote a great article and I hope to see more like it.

-Bill

Post 17

Sunday, June 26 - 7:21pm

Link

Edit

"The Closing of the Western Mind" is a good work tracing the Christianity beginning, modus, and rises...... it backs up your assertions.....

Moreover, one must remember that - despite whatever splinter groups proclaim - the 'reason for being' of christianity is the infamous 'doctrine of original sin', which flaws, denegrates, and anti-mans anything human - including living the good life here in reality, namely thie earth...

Post 18

Thursday, September 29 - 12:22pm

Link

Edit

"Several years ago I started to read a Jewish translation of the Bible" [Bill Nevin]

Bill, is it true that the Jewish translation of the Bible is much shorter because all the repetitious parts (where so and so begat so and so for ninety million years) are translated as "yada, yada, yada"?

Phil