About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 120

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From: "The Philosophy of Objectivism" (1976 lecture series) ...

=================
The "benevolent universe" does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is "benevolent" in the sense that if you do adapt to it--i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.
=================

Ed


Post 121

Wednesday, April 19, 2006 - 11:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan, you kick ass.

Ed


Post 122

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 12:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Ed!

Coming from an ass-kicker like yourself, that's a real complement!

Ethan


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 123

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed introduced the following Randian citation,

The "benevolent universe" does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals.
Here she "re-invents" the meaning of the English word "benevolence." Totally unnecessary, and potentially misguiding.


No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. [...].
Yes, the universe is amoral. (This sustains that the 'naturalistic fallacy' is actually well formulated.)

Here is easy to see that "benevolence" is not a good term for describing an entity which is utterly indifferent to you. The universe is full of uncontrolled dangers; in the universe, death is the final outcome of all living beings (Ayn Rand included), etc.

My point still stands: the universe, an entity that is utterly indifferent and neutral to mankind, is not "benevolent" at all.  


But reality is "benevolent" in the sense that if you do adapt to it--i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents will) achieve your values.
English has accurate word for her intended meaning: the universe is intelligible. In spite that Ayn Rand, a Russian raised American, did not use it, you may use it. Objectivism will not crumble (only) for that. 


A big metaphysical question, partially blurred by the Randian use of the expression "benevolent universe", still remains: how is that the universe is intelligible? Einstein thought that this question is unsolvable in strictly scientific terms:

"The most unintelligible thing about the universe is that it is intelligible at all."

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/20, 4:36am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 124

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel, excellent post, you hit the nail on the head. "Benevolent" is definitely the wrong word in this context, and if people misunderstand Rand's meaning they're not to blame, but Rand is, as she uses the word here incorrectly.

Post 125

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for your benevolence, Cal.    ;-)

To be fair, one Objectivist, Ethan Dawe, could admit my point against their leader's conception.

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/20, 6:19am)


Post 126

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel, why have you evaded what Bill said and have concentrated on a single quote from Rand? Is it your goal to just discredit Objectivism entirely?

Yes, if you took the literal meaning of benevolent universe, this is incorrect. So what have you proved? If anything this would be a metaphor, if that's not what Rand meant it to be then yes, that was an erroneous statement. So what now? There is a god? That there are immaterial entities that exist in reality? Should I reject everything there is about objectivism because Rand misspoke? If you nitpick anyone's body of work I'm sure you will find some errors, but to thus call victory over discrediting the entire body of work is intellectually dishonest.

Also, just wondering, have seen where my three is?

Post 127

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John Armaos wrote:


Is it your goal to just discredit Objectivism entirely?
To me, as a philosophy, Objectivism is already discredited. I contribute at RoR just to check my philosophical views, contrasting them with Objectivist ideas and other quasi-Objectivist materialist conceptions of reality.

Meanwhile, I shamelessly admit that Ayn Rand was a good novelist.


Yes, if you took the literal meaning of benevolent universe, this is incorrect. So what have you proved?
At least, two things have been evidenced in this thread:

1.- That Objectivism is inaccurate.
2.- That Objectivism is practically inimical to self-criticism.


If you nitpick anyone's body of work I'm sure you will find some errors, but to thus call victory over discrediting the entire body of work is intellectually dishonest.
I did not nitpick anything. Good philosophizing requires details.

Just take this discussion on the idea of "benevolent universe" as a sample of what happens when you dare critiquing an Objectivist conception.


Joel, why have you evaded what Bill said and have concentrated on a single quote from Rand?
I did not feel compelled to reply William Dwyer.

Are you interested in any particular point of his comments?

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/20, 9:38am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 128

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 10:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
1.- That Objectivism is inaccurate.

To arrive at a this conclusion from the discussion on this thread requires a mentality that I could not begin to comprehend. One "literally" poor word choice that most reasonable people understood properly anyways is not a case for innacuracy. That's like saying that rounding pi to 3.14159 is innacurate.

2.- That Objectivism is practically inimical to self-criticism.
Again this is incorrect. The best you could hope to say was some Objectivists are inimical to self-criticism.

Your conclusions seem to arise from pre-conceived notions. If you want to challenege something about Objectivism, your going to have to do a lot better than this.

Ethan

 


Post 129

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's like saying that rounding pi to 3.14159 is inaccurate.
Wrong comment. 

It depends on the required precision. Sometimes 3.14 may be enough, sometimes 3.14159 may be inaccurate.

And the same can be stated with the term "benevolence."

Ayn Rand and Objectivism attribute benevolence to a non-living, non-volitional entity: the universe.

Common sense applied to English dictates that that attribution can be described as inaccurate; in post #107, Ethan himself wrote: 
Defining terms is of absolute importance if you ever hope to have a reasonable argument.
And in post #99 also wrote:

As Joel pointed out, the definition and root of the word ["benevolence"] relates to [volitional] beings.
And he also wrote:
[...] anthropomorphism causes confusion, as we have seen in this debate.

And, even more explicitly, in post #96 he wrote...
I wholeheartedly agree the the term benevolent was an innapropriate term to be applied to the universe, given that the universe is not a [volitional] being.
Does Ethan agree with himself, or not?

(Edited by Joel Català on 4/21, 2:49am)


Post 130

Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 9:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

“The "benevolent universe" does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man…the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you.”

Since ‘benevolent’ just means ‘kindly, well-disposed’, Rand is telling us that the universe is both well-disposed towards man and indifferent to man. I don’t think we need to belabour the contradiction, since we’re all familiar with Rand’s penchant for investing ordinary words with her own particular spin.

But taking a leaf from her own book: “To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one's thinking…” the more interesting question is why Rand should create a metaphor that pictures the universe as an all-powerful being who is kindly disposed towards man. Equally interesting is the fact that she immediately denies this meaning and substitutes her own special meaning, that ‘benevolent universe’ isn’t just about the universe, but also about man’s attitude to the universe.

What sort of relationship is typified by, on the one hand, a kindly disposition towards man, and on the other, an attitude of conformity and respect? I suspect that in using the phrase ‘benevolent universe’ Rand is – perhaps unconsciously -- importing religious connotations into an atheistic worldview that otherwise denies human beings the comfort of an all-powerful being who takes a special interest in his highest creation.

But she doesn’t want to admit she is doing this, hence the bald-faced attempt to persuade the reader that ‘benevolent universe’ means something other than its plain meaning. Rand is taking two bites of the cherry: by borrowing religious imagery, she smuggles in the reassurance and certainty provided by tradition, while her explicit atheism allows her to play at being a radical.

Brendan


Post 131

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 12:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes Joel,

I agree with myself. I've stated my view clearly here.

Ethan


Post 132

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan said, to Joel, "I agree with myself."


Now here is an accomplishment; in this day and age, the ability to agree with oneself - is no easy feat.

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 4/21, 6:56am)


Post 133

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 7:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Heh!

Hey he asked if I did :-)

Ethan


Post 134

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 9:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From: "The Philosophy of Objectivism" (1976 lecture series) ...

=================
The "benevolent universe" does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals.
=================

A sufficiently-clear explanation that this phrase -- as coined by Rand -- was not meant to imply a universe that 'feels.' 


=================
No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care and adapt to it, not the other way around.
=================

A sufficiently-clear explanation of how humans will have to interact with the universe, if they are to thrive.


=================
But reality is "benevolent" in the sense that if you do adapt to it--i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.
=================

A sufficiently-clear explanation of how, in a specified sense, the term 'benevolent' does have an implicated relation to man's present and future well-being.

Sufficiently-clear -- if one were to only keep the context.

Ed
[a context keeper]


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 135

Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan wrote,
I suspect that in using the phrase ‘benevolent universe’ Rand is – perhaps unconsciously -- importing religious connotations into an atheistic worldview that otherwise denies human beings the comfort of an all-powerful being who takes a special interest in his highest creation.
And I suspect that by taking Rand's statements out of context, Brendan is - perhaps unconsciously - venting his hatred for Rand and his resentment of her philosophy. Brendan, is there anything at all about Rand and Objectivism that you agree with? Or are you on this list solely for the purpose of Rand bashing? I haven't seen you post anything that doesn't seek to discredit some aspect of her philosophy, which wouldn't be so terrible if your criticisms were responsible and well thought out, but usually they're rather presumptuous and ill informed.

- Bill

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 136

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:16amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 Brendan said:

"I suspect that in using the phrase ‘benevolent universe’ Rand is – perhaps unconsciously -- importing religious connotations into an atheistic worldview that otherwise denies human beings the comfort of an all-powerful being who takes a special interest in his highest creation. "
Wow, all this time Rand got away with her little conspiracy until you and your unyeilding intellect came around to reveal that us ignorant fools were just pawns in Rand's attempt to make athiests believe indirectly in a higher power!  How foolish of us!  What an amazing mind you must have to dispense with all of Rand's other nonsense about productivity, individualism, rationality, freedom, self interest etc and boil it right down to show us the emperors naked body. What fools we have all been.

Actually I regularly communicate with Rand in the afterlife and upon reading your post I asked her about it and she has indeed confirmed your suspicions, she is very proud of you and disgusted at all of us for being so brainwashed that she had to trick us into believing in a higher power.

*I* suspect that Brendan is a troll and not really interested in intellectual discussion and developement based on Rand's ideas at all, and like William Paley he spent less than 5 seconds thinking about a problem, and, unable to figure it out he filled in the gaps with his bias and prejudicies and spouted it like it was some kind of revelation.  Either that or you are being deliberately disengenuous for some reason I don't care to speculate on.

I always interpreted Rand's comment in this regard as a counter to the all too familiar nihilistic and materialistic attitude that the universe is so violent and unpredictable that it verges on malicious in appareance and no matter how hard a puny human tries he can not attain any semblance of happiness.  Instead Rand asserted the universe was indifferent and understandable, and that if a philosophy of rationality and objective reality was embraced man could live benevolently *in his interaction* with the universe successfully and happily.

Michael

(Edited by Michael F Dickey on 4/22, 8:35am)


Post 137

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Great responses, Bill and Michael.

Ed


Post 138

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just received my copy of The Intellectual Activist a few days ago, in which Harry Binswanger has an excellent article on the fallacies of the supernaturalistic view of morality. Interestly, he makes several of the arguments that I made against Joel Catala in the "Tossing around a tautology" thread (e.g., that God, like Rand's indestructible robot, could have no values, interests or goals.) He also makes the telling point that when religionists demand that there be a supreme being to mandate morality, they are assuming that there is a right and wrong independent of God's commandments; otherwise, there would be no need for a God to fulfill this moral requirement. But, of course, if there is a right and wrong, to begin with, independently of God's will, then there is no need for a supernatural authority figure to create and impose it. As Binswanger puts it, the theist's position "is a tacit admission that morality is a practical necessity for life on this earth."

- Bill

Post 139

Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 12:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Interestly, he makes several of the arguments that I made against Joel Catala in the "Tossing around a tautology" thread (e.g., that God, like Rand's indestructible robot, could have no values, interests or goals.)"

Rand's indestructible robot point was very weak, and it's disappointing he's trying to further apply it to a theistic argument. She was correct in her essential argument, about the need for mortal man to work to survive being a primary source of goals and values. The robot analogy then went too far in ignoring programming/instinct, saying instead that only mortality can result in values. However, human nature, robot nature, or (shudder) deity nature need not be only concerned with deferring death.

"But, of course, if there is a right and wrong, to begin with, independently of God's will, then there is no need for a supernatural authority figure to create and impose it."

Sounds like he's muddying two concepts:
1) An independent right/wrong
2) Someone to enforce reward/punishment based on it
Existence of 1) says nothing about 2). Plenty of people, even Oists, would love for there to be cosmic justice such that bad things don't happen to good people (and especially vice-versa..). Rational people don't believe in something without evidence just because they wish it were so, but the point is that the question of an enforcer is not determined by the question of an independent basis of morality.

God is a concept unnecessary at best, self-contradictory at worst - but the arguments you just described Binswanger using seem like a wrong way to go about atheism vs. theism. When an atheist feels compelled to argue against them, think how such arguments are going to go over in a debate with a theist.

(Edited by Aaron
on 4/22, 12:26pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.