Who is John Galt Redux

Remixus 1

Published on August 19, 2004 By OckhamsRazor In Philosophy

Well, it's pretty cheap to do things this way, but why should I try to say something clever when someone else has said it so well?

Some of you may have read For the great honor that is Religion which was a long excerpt from the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

I read a ton of things on the entirety of JU that make me sad. People adopting blame and guilt that isn't theirs, or the flip side, attributing guilt and blame where it does not necessarily belong. I have practiced some of these same behaviors, but Objectivism explains a way to not live in this trap of victem vs. perpetrator; to genuinely be free with heavy emphasis on the word "genuinely."

A discussion has ensued where I am prompted to address one of my respondents, and I can simply think of no more eloquent way of saying what has already been said by the woman who might very well be the greatest philosophical mind of the 20th century- Ayn Rand.

Reading the previous ariticle and comments will certainly add context to reading this article, but it is not necessary, and that is why I have made it a new post of its own.

To give proper credit I give you a piece of Ayn Rand's "John Galt speech" from "Atlas Shrugged." Enjoy.

Mr. Baker - the following statements I view as objectively observable truths. Your mileage may vary.

"My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists--and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason--Purpose--Self-Esteem. Reason as his only tool of knowledge--Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve--Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking--that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action--that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise--that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from a task of perceiving to the task of faking reality--that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind--that the acceptance of mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness.

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgement and nothing can help you escape it--that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life--that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

"Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence--that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions--that, like a judge impervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to the wishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats against him--that courage is the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to truth, and confidence is the practical form of being true to one's own consciousness.

"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud--that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victems to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee--that you do not care to live as a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling--that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.

"Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification--that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a rotter above a hero--that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions--that to withhold your contempt from men's vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement--that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit--and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.

"Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live--that productive work is the process by which man's consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit one's purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of one's values--that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others--that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human--that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your mind's full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay--that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live--that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road--that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up--that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.

"Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all man's values, it has to be earned--that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character--that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions, are the products of the premises held by your mind--that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining--that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul--that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice--that the first precondition of self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.

"Are you beginning to see who is John Galt?"

Comments (Page 1)

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 19, 2004

Excellent post, razor. Not much to say except to bang you with an insightful.

AndyBaker

on Aug 20, 2004

"No substitute can do your thinking" - Ayn Rand, 1957

Ockham, I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand. She’s provided great contributions to philosophy, and much of her writing sheds good light on the human condition
You might have assumed that Rand’s philosophy of "Objectivism” contradicts the comments I made about “subjectivism”. However, they actually uphold the points I made.

In my last post, I said, “Whilst ‘the Objective’ remains the same, our interpretations can change. … Some interpretations of ‘the Objective’ are more aligned with ‘what is so’ than others.” Rand’s philosophy essentially declares that (1) existence objectively exists, (which is easy to understand), and (2) that the most effective way to live a happy life is to live by objective principles, such as “moral integrity”, “purpose”, “justice”, “reason”, “honesty”, “rationality” and the like.

Rand claims that Existence, (i.e. the objective nature of reality), is inherently endowed with principles such as purpose, reason, honesty, moral integrity etc, and that when we align our consciousness (attitudes and behaviour), with these objective principles of Existence, we better our chances of living a happy and integral life. Conversely, when we misalign our attitudes and behaviours with these principles, we have a good chance of living an unhappy life.

Rand’s philosophy actually renders suspect belief that we exist in a ‘purposeless’ or ‘accidental’ universe. After all, what kind of ‘accident’ would give rise to such integral and purposeful values and principles, which, according to Rand, are objective attributes of Reality? In my last post, I asked, “What is the nature of the Infinite”? Ayn Rand’s philosophy provides some insightful clues.

the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind

This is where I believe Ayn Rand is misguided. (Yes, she is only human, and not infallible, as some of her adherents believe). Faith is indeed inherent to the human condition. This is because ‘the Infinite’ transcends our finite minds. The only way to possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything, which is an attribute given only to God. Whether we believe that there is transcendent, overarching purpose to the cosmos, (and a ‘bigger picture’ with deeper meaning), or whether we believe that there is no intrinsic purpose to anything, and that everything is an ‘accident’ - it's all a matter of faith. We cannot escape this fact.

Even though Ayn Rand is one of the most prolific philosophers of the 20th century, her philosophy is incomplete. This should come as no surprise, however, as we, as a human race, are still in the process of growing and learning. We’re still very young, especially regarding our ability to grasp ‘Ultimate Answers’. This doesn’t make Rand’s philosophy “wrong”. It simply means that there’s room for growth.

Her philosophy has indeed paved the way for many philosophers, who can extract the fruits from her insights, add their own flair or breadth of vision, and thus take mankind further forward toward a greater understanding of reality. This principle is well known to the sciences. For example, Newton’s basic description of motion and gravity was superseded by Einstein’s, who provided a more ‘fuller’ explanation. It also applies to religious revelations, as I attempted to explain in the other blog. Islam, our latest world religion in the evolutionary line, paints a ‘fuller picture’ of the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.

Science, philosophy and religion are the profound thought-systems of man. I believe that when these three are combined, we can rise higher toward attaining greater answers to the eternal philosophical questions. In the words of Sir William Blagg: “Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything."

And in the timeless words of Shakespeare: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”

Gideon MacLeish

on Aug 20, 2004

Even though Ayn Rand is one of the most prolific philosophers of the 21st century, her philosophy is incomplete.

I heard someone make an excellent comment to this end today. They said "If you agree with another person 100% of the time, it means one of you isn't thinking". This applies as much to Rand as anyone, I suppose.

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 20, 2004

The only way to possess a faith-free understanding is to have an infallible knowledge of everything

Or to be comfy with knowing that there are certain things you will never know for sure. You see, I do not mind faith when it is in terms of a belief that someone has painstakingly logicked their way to. I mind faith when it is served as an answer to the unanswerable. That kind of faith is just a lie like any other lie. It fails to admit lack of knowledge and instead pretends that a particular statement is the answer to the unanswerable, and yours is to simply have "faith" that this is so. When it comes to the concept of God, there is no objectively discernable right answer. If there is, I would like to see it. If I cannot see it, why would anyone ask me to believe it is there? There is a notable discrepancy between the religious man who tells me his religion is objectively the truth, and that all I have to do is read through all the literature and I will see and the fact that he asks me to take things on "faith." These two concepts are incompatible.

This should come as no surprise, however, as we, as a human race, are still in the process of growing and learning. We’re still very young, especially regarding our ability to grasp ‘Ultimate Answers’.

This I agree with. And in fact, I believe that there are no "Ultimate Answers" but simply a progress vector that has either positive or negative motion as one of it's properties and relative velocity as another. Unfortunately, this is completely subjective to me. I see the universe and collective consciousness as a kind of spiral where the circle gets bigger and broader and continually moves upward as we go. There isn't any end to where it can go, but the rate at which it changes and the relative direction the collective conscious is going on the spiral changes.

When I say "relatively", I mean very similar to a relativity situation in which only two frames of reference exist, this model explains how a sudden slowing of enlightenment progress might actually seem like going backwards if immediately following accelerated insight. The truth is, in my subjective model, that some forward motion in the positive direction on the spiral is always present, but the rate can vary greatly. This rate is most increased when the most people are thinking (not replicating others' thoughts, but actually creatively and critically thinking) and is slowest when people are mindlessly obeying another's thoughts. This is the main reason I consider the latter kind of faith I described above to be a bad thing. It allows people that don't want to think about it to slow our collective progress. It's a lot like strapping your foot down on the gas and then going to sleep while you're flying down the road at outrageous speeds.

This picture I draw, this subjective vision of mine is from the inside of the universe. It is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to completely describe a system when you are a part of that system. When I imagine the system from the outside (as if I could actually do that) I see a universe that begins and ends all in a single instant, and that's that. So we have two extremes in the description. One universe that lasts forever into infinity and the same universe which pops into existence and back out again in an infinitely small slice of what we would label as "time" but which really isn't time because the slice is infinitely small.

Which is true, and more importantly how did I get off on *this* ramble?

Science, philosophy and religion are the profound thought-systems of man.

I almost agree. I see religion as just an organized philosophy, so I reduce your statement to Science and philosophy and have in fact said "Where physics meets philosophy, that is where I build my home."

Thank you for provoking me to think.

AndyBaker

on Aug 21, 2004

Ockham, thanks for sharing your views. I like your thoughts about the spiral, and how humanity’s enlightenment increases with an influx of original thought. That is so true, and it’s important for us to keep pushing each other, (referring to humanity as a whole), in the most compassionate and understanding way possible, in order to squeeze as much creative thought and goodness out of each other, whilst not resting on other philosophers’ laurels.

Regarding your points about “faith”, you seem to identify it exclusively with religious fundamentalism. In my opinion, fundamentalism is something that we need to move away from. Dealing with fundamentalists is like conversing with 5 year olds playing in a sandpit, and I think that it’s best to let them get on with it. I’d like to think that we’re more grown up than that.

Our “faith”, within the context I had in mind, is faith in a universe endowed with transcendent meaning and purpose. Ayn Rand’s underlying philosophy is actually aligned with this view, (even if it only captures a ‘glimpse’ of this deeper principle). We shouldn’t have a stigma or mental block against the possibility of a meaningful universe, especially as it sits so well with the deeper convictions of the human heart, (as opposed to the intellect alone. There is indeed a difference between the cleverness of the head and the wisdom of the heart. Most of us are in touch with the head only.) Eastern wisdom, in particular, claims that there is a much deeper dimension to humanity and Ultimate Reality than the sciences alone would conclude. In my opinion, when Eastern wisdom and Western wisdom is merged, a fuller picture of Ultimate Reality can be disclosed.

When we broaden our horizons and deepen our scope, not only can we retain a sound level of reason and integrity, we also find a greater level of relevance and rationale, as we uncover deeper realms of logic, (i.e. “wisdom”.) As I said earlier, in the face of the Infinite, it’s in our own interests to keep an open mind, and not be too dogmatic or small minded. Otherwise we could find ourselves stunting our own growth, as well as humanity’s as a whole.

I believe that there are great hidden treasures within all three of humanity’s thought-systems - science, philosophy and religion. To reject one of them outright, just because we failed to find any fruits or treasures at first glance, is careless and unreasonable. (Bear in mind, by definition, religion deals with “deeper” issues, especially when interpreted through mature eyes.) We can take a step back, consider the underlying message of our religious revelations, and conclude for ourself whether they resonate with any kind of ‘Truth’ or not. For some people, a chord will strike. For others, it might not. In my opinion, it’s all a question of growth.

With this said, I find it a profound yet beautiful irony that Jesus said that all we need to understand the Truth is a “child-like faith”. This implies that regardless of our intellectual capacity or worldly wisdom, we can comprehend Ultimate Truth with childlike simplicity and humble trust in God. I believe that it won’t be long before humanity turns full circle, this time interpreting our traditional religious tales and parables through a more mature lens with a deeper scope.

In the words of T.S. Eliot, “We must not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began, and to know the place for the first time.”

Keep pushing it Ockham dude, whether it be on this thread or elsewhere in your thoughts. You have a fire in your belly and a wit to match, and I think that it's people like you who will prove to be an innovative, engaging philosopher. A good blog.

Copyright © 2004 Andrew Baker All rights reserved. August 21, 2004

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 21, 2004

This not intended as a dispute, but to clarify my statement.

(Bear in mind, by definition, religion deals with “deeper” issues, especially when interpreted through mature eyes.)

re·li·gion
n.

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

phi·los·o·phy
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Therefore, I see religion as a subset of philosophy, although I realize that statement isn't bulletproof.

With this said, I find it a profound yet beautiful irony that Jesus said that all we need to understand the Truth is a “child-like faith”. This implies that regardless of our intellectual capacity or worldly wisdom, we can comprehend Ultimate Truth with childlike simplicity and humble trust in God.

For me that statement goes beyond that. I question, what does a child think of God? Nothing. I don't know any children that sit around discussing what various bible passages mean. They don't think about it at all. The beauty of child-wisdom is that all they do is "be". They never stop to ask "how" to be, and the "why"'s don't start until the Big Children start trying to *tell* them how to be.

To proceed to comment in reverse, I see Ayn Rand's philosophy as nothing more than a solid starting point - for the record. What I witness in many thought patterns around me, is that many kernels of proposed wisdom are founded on shakey ground. I don't mind people finding their own way - that is a part of *my* philigion, but I DO mind when they claim their statements are based on solid rock when they are not, NOT because I want to change their path, but because I want to hold them responsible for incorrectly affecting the paths of others. That's why I've pushed the Objectivism angle the last few days - as a counter to the "other" way of thinking which is a simple replication of someone *else's* thoughts guided by no critical thinking of one's own.

Lastly, and I have debated saying this with myself once before - I have enjoyed our discourse, and I don't want you to leave or take this the wrong way, but please expound upon your copyrights to indicate your own posts. Something about seeing someone else's copyright symbol on my blog site doesn't set well. I do not begrudge you your right to claim your own words, just please indicate that those are the words you're copyrighting.

Thanks.

AndyBaker

on Aug 21, 2004

... [dictionary definitions] ... Therefore, I see religion as a subset of philosophy, although I realize that statement isn't bulletproof.

When I said, "By definition, religion deals with deeper issues", I was referring to the overall philosophy of religion, which makes claims regarding the nature of Ultimate Reality. When all is said and done, religious faith is rooted in the belief that life and the universe is grounded in transcendent purpose, and that the ultimate dimension of reality is Spirit. I think that tooth-combing the dictionary at this point was too clinical, and missed the point I was trying to make.

what does a child think of God? Nothing

The phrase “child-like” brings to my mind principles such as “simplicity”, “humble trust”, and “lack of worldly wisdom”. Even though everything is open to interpretation, I believe that we can be at peace with our own personal interpretations, and with each others’, whilst keeping an open mind in order to expand our own model of the world if we find interpretations that might supersede our own.

I see Ayn Rand's philosophy as nothing more than a solid starting point - for the record. What I witness in many thought patterns around me, is that many kernels of proposed wisdom are founded on shakey ground

At the risk of repeating myself, when all is said and done, one’s kernel of proposed wisdom is either rooted in the belief that there is no intrinsic purpose to anything, and that everything is an ‘accident’; or that there is transcendent, overarching purpose to the cosmos, and that Existence is rooted in a Higher Wisdom. Once this basic foundation of faith has been established, (and either one of these options is a faith), the rest is detail.

In my opinion, adherents of Ayn Rand should question their basic model of the world, (as should we all), and ask why it is reasonable to assume that objective realities such as purpose, reason, justice, moral integrity, honesty and rationality would be engrained into the fabric of an intrinsically purposeless Existence?

"To live man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason--Purpose--Self-Esteem" ... Ayn Rand

When we assume a religious model of the world, then all three of these values are upheld, enriched and expounded. (What better way to bolster your self-esteem and sense of reason, than to believe that our existence is not an accident, and that our lives are endowed with intrinsic self-worth and purpose?)

Whilst our intellect will naturally assume that all is death and finality, (because it’s level of consciousness sees nothing beyond the five senses), the wisdom of the heart has a different story to tell. The heart spans deeper realms of consciousness, and speaks of principles such as hope, purpose, love, and intrinsic goodness, beauty and truth. As I said earlier, there is a difference between the cleverness of the head and the wisdom of the heart. Yet most of us are in touch with the head only.

We're all on a personal journey, here to discover the Truth for ourselves. Let each soul walk its path. That’s my motto.

but please expound upon your copyrights to indicate your own posts

Sorry dude, I’ll do that next time!

Thanks for the comments my friend. Feel free to share more, otherwise we can begin to wrap it up if it's getting tired.

I’ll catch you later,

Andy

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 22, 2004

In my opinion, adherents of Ayn Rand should question their basic model of the world, (as should we all), and ask why it is reasonable to assume that objective realities such as purpose, reason, justice, moral integrity, honesty and rationality would be engrained into the fabric of an intrinsically purposeless Existence?

Where is it said that Objectivism states that the universe is intrinsically purposeless? I'm of the mind that the debate isn't whether or not the universe has a purpose, but whether that purpose can be discerned objectively or not. I think it can. In fact, I think that's the only meaningful way for it to be discerned.

Tell me, what other ways are there to perceive things than with the 5 senses processed by the mind?

religious faith is rooted in the belief that...

Or is it religious belief is rooted in the faith that...?

our lives are endowed with intrinsic self-worth and purpose?

I can't buy that AND free will. Maybe I'm being obtuse, but in order for free will to be truly free, my life would have to necessarily NOT be endowed with ANYthing that would bias its progress. An intrinsic self-worth and value certainly would. If I start out as anything but a blank, my will is not free, and at that point I'm totally off any kind of responsibility hook someone might want to hang me on (or nail me on maybe.)

Whilst our intellect will naturally assume that all is death and finality, (because it’s level of consciousness sees nothing beyond the five senses), the wisdom of the heart has a different story to tell. The heart spans deeper realms of consciousness, and speaks of principles such as hope, purpose, love, and intrinsic goodness, beauty and truth.

I'll try not to sound overly sarcastic. The heart pumps blood. It doesn't do anything else. It's a muscle. That is objectively true. If something is spanning deeper realms of consciousness, maybe it's something in the vicinity of your heart that hasn't been discovered yet after 500 cajillion autopsies on human beings. The heart is a muscle that pumps blood. Thanks for the perfect example of what I'm trying to point out though.

We're all on a personal journey, here to discover the Truth for ourselves. Let each soul walk its path.

I like that we can end this agreeing. Be the path, brother.

Hasta,
Ock

AndyBaker

on Aug 22, 2004

Hi Ockham, thanks for your comments.

“Purpose” can only exist when it is held in a form of consciousness. Without the existence of any form of consciousness, “purpose” would be an incoherent concept, and would cease to exist. This is because there would be no ‘awareness’ to behold it. (The dictionary definition of ‘purpose’ is: “The reason for which anything is done, created, or exists”; “A fixed design, outcome, or idea that is the object of an action or other effort”.)

The point I’ve been making is that Ayn Rand’s philosophy makes better sense when it is placed within the context of a theistic model of the world. This model broadens and deepens the scope of her philosophy, and indeed makes complete sense of it.

When we leave God out of the picture, values such as purpose, moral integrity and reason etc. (which Rand claims are objective principles of Existence), could only be defined by subjective states of consciousness, such as human beings, or aliens, etc. Thus, there is nothing “objective” about it at all. To understand this principle more clearly, imagine that an alien race landed on the earth, and began to converse with humanity. The alien race had a renowned philosopher of their own called “Ann Round”. Alien-Ann declares a profound philosophy, which her race has embraced. Her philosophy is as follows: “Deceit, unfairness, injustice, baseness etc. are objective principles of Existence.”

Now, Ayn Rand, the spokesperson for the human race, stands up and says, “No. You’re wrong. Purpose, reason, justice, moral integrity etc. are objective principles of Existence.” Who would be right? Who would have the final say? The answer is neither, because they are essentially subjective opinions. Thus, they are not “objective” at all. If you were to take away all forms of consciousness from within the universe, aliens included, then according to an atheistic model of the world, it would make little sense to say that “purpose, reason, moral integrity, justice etc.” are objective features of Existence. It would be an incoherent principle.

So in what way are Ayn Rand’s principles “objective”? I believe that the moment a person claims that purpose, moral integrity and reason etc. are objective principles of Existence, they are committing themselves to Theism. This is because the only way that Existence (which includes the whole universe) could have objective purpose, reason and moral integrity etc., is for the Absolute to possess these principles intrinsically. Where else could such principles be held and possessed, except in an overarching form of Consciousness, or Spirit, which transcends the universe? This is indeed the classic definition of God - the great “I AM” - to which the wisdom of the ages refers. (Remember that “the Objective” is essentially the nature of the Infinite).

Assuming this theistic model of the world, we can now appreciate that all finite beings, (aliens included), would be free to align their consciousness with these objective principles, and would be able to strive to attain a correct ‘map of the Territory’, so to speak. The degree to which their mental maps accurately described the territory would not alter Existence or its principles.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy has an additional, profound aspect to it, which again upholds and validates Theism. Rand says that when we live our lives based upon the (apparently objective) principles of moral integrity, purpose, reason, justice etc. we have a better chance of living a happy, integral life. She claims that it is like a natural ‘law’ that actually works when we adhere to it.

Let us now consider the alien’s opposite-philosophy. If we lived our lives based on the (apparently objective) principles such as deceit, unfairness, injustice and baseness, would we have a better chance of living a happy, integral life? The answer is no, for obvious reasons. As I said earlier, Rand’s philosophy renders suspect belief that we exist in a ‘purposeless’ or ‘accidental’ universe. (What kind of 'accident' would give rise to such a meaningful and integral universe?) Yet her philosophy comes into its own when we assume that the universe is grounded with transcendent purpose and overarching meaning. In other words, Theism brings it into its own.

in order for free will to be truly free, my life would have to necessarily NOT be endowed with ANYthing that would bias its progress. An intrinsic self-worth and value certainly would. If I start out as anything but a blank, my will is not free

This isn’t actually true. For argument’s sake, let’s say that your existence is endowed with intrinsic value and self-worth, (i.e. God sees you as valuable). Your free will is exercised every time you chose to deny that this is so – as you are doing right now. Regardless of whether your life is endowed with intrinsic value or not, your freedom to believe otherwise demonstrates your ability to freely choose. You are indeed a liberated spiritual being.

This principle explains why our interpretations and attitudes might not be aligned with “the Objective”. We are not robots. We are free, spiritual beings. We’re also at different stages of growth and enlightenment, and some of our consciousnesses may not be mature or advanced enough to grasp or interpret higher objective Truths.

The heart pumps blood. It doesn't do anything else. It's a muscle

Here, you seem to have taken a leaf out of a fundie’s book. You’ve interpreted what I said literally. There’s nowt wrong with that Ockham, but as many of our fundies have demonstrated, to do so can miss deeper implications contained in a message, especially in the fields of religion. When I say “heart”, I’m referring to the deeper levels of consciousness within a human being. Some people might call it “the soul”. This leads to your next point.

Tell me, what other ways are there to perceive things than with the 5 senses processed by the mind?

By asking that question, you’ve unwittingly disclosed your age, spiritually speaking. Throughout our soul’s journey, we naturally grow and mature, and our inner-wisdom, intuition and spiritual-awareness rises, and eventually ‘blossoms’ as we reach a certain level of growth. This wisdom and intuition is essentially a deeper form of consciousness, which contains knowledge and wisdom that transcends our five senses. When this deeper level of consciousness blossoms and rises up, our conscious mind is able to ‘catch’ the knowledge contained therein. (St. Paul clearly describes this wisdom in 2 Corinthians 2.6-16).

This is what I call the “wisdom of the heart”. When Jesus said, “the Kingdom of God is within you”, He wasn’t speaking mystical nonsense. He was actually speaking esoteric truth. Of course, that’s a matter of opinion and personal choice. From my point of view, it’s more a question of growth.

Incidentally, Joseph Benner describes this ‘blossoming’ stage of our spiritual awakening succinctly in his book, ‘The Way to the Kingdom’: “It develops into a final push which results in an explosion of consciousness and opens up a new world, one of which previously the seeker had been wholly unaware, although it had always been present awaiting his recognition.

This principle applies to the growth of the human race as a whole. It so happens that humanity is presently on the threshold of a new spiritual awakening. (You might not be aware of this unless you’ve either grown spiritually enough on a personal level to become aware of it; or you have engrossed yourself in contemporary wisdom literature - see ‘Conversations With God book 1’ by Neale Donald Walsch, ‘Seat of the Soul’ by Gary Zukav, ‘A Return to Love’ by Marrianne Williamson, 'Emmanuel's Book' by Judith Stanton, or 'The Way to the Kingdom' by Jospeh Benner, to name but a few. Searching for these books on Amazon.com will at least put you in the right 'circles', if you're interested.)

I’ll add here that our own personal stage of spiritual development has little bearing on our ability to experience happiness or contentment. How far we’ve advanced doesn’t make anybody ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than anybody else. Consider the analogy of a three-year old, who dribbles food down his chin, and falls over whilst learning to walk. This child is no less “perfect” than a twenty-eight year old who can eat with knife and fork and run in good stead. They are simply at different stages of growth. In the same way, an enlightened person is no more “perfect” than an unenlightened person, who might possess a less integrated model of the world. It’s all a question of growth, and God loves His children unconditionally, I’m sure.

Anyway Ock, as you can see, this ‘debate’ has now collapsed into a melly of subjective opinion and taste, (which I suppose is the case with all debates). For some, (maybe yourself), these words may hold no apparent “objectivity”, or interest at all. For others, it might be a load of “bollox”. For others, it may have stuck a chord of somekind, somewhere deep in the heart. Either way, as I said earlier, by the natural laws of growth and evolution, I believe that there will soon come a time when humanity will possess enough awareness and wisdom to sufficiently determine ‘What Is So’.

It’s exciting to come spiritually of age.

Andy

AndyBaker

on Aug 22, 2004

2 Corinthians 2.6-16

I meant 1 Corinthians 2.6-16.

Sorry!

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 22, 2004

You forgot "Celestine Prophecy," and as an add on, if you haven't yet, you might want to add "Godel, Escher, Bach" for the purpose of discussing the internal observation of a recursive system, although that's just a piece of that work.

Considering you imply that you have come "spiritually of age" by mentioning that it is exciting to get there, I'll write no more, because what could I offer one such as you?

Ok...*besides* humility lessons.

AndyBaker

on Aug 23, 2004

Considering you imply that you have come "spiritually of age"

I was talking about humanity as a whole.

Ok...*besides* humility lessons

You're right dude. There's always room for growth.

I'm just a kid myself!

Anyway Ock, it's been good chatting with you. You've brought a lot out of me, for which I'm most grateful. I hope it's brought a lot out of you too.

I'll catch you later,

Andy

OckhamsRazor

on Aug 23, 2004

A = A

Hasta,
Ock

Wade Helquist

on Aug 24, 2004

They said "If you agree with another person 100% of the time, it means one of you isn't thinking

What if you are agreeing with god?

AndyBaker

on Aug 25, 2004

What if you are agreeing with god?

I can think of 4 answers

(1) It might impossible to agree with God 100% of the time, because His thoughts are always higher than our own.
or (2) It would be God who isn't thinking, because from the realm of the Eternal, all His thinking might already be done. (God's experience of Eternity might be an eternal "Now", where everything is already thought out, and there is nothing left to do but to Be eternally blissful, eternally joyful, and eternally loving.)
or (3) If we agreed with God 100% of the time, we would be God. There would only be One.
or (4) I dunno

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!