Benevolent Universe

Robert-
If you refuse to believe anyone else here, calling them facile, in order to try and further insert mysticism into Ayn's belief's, then perhaps this by Peikoff will close this thread once and for all.

"Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of valures is the norm...In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the 'benevolent universe' premise.
"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 about 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 youdo think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values..."(all quotes around 'benevolent' were Peikoff's own addition). "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture(1976)

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt Robert, but, you continuously crop up instigating some I.D. crap. To be so pig-headed as to sit here and argue with people that Ayn Rand was speculating about some unknown and unknowable 'benevolent' presence in the universe is malicious. I call it malicious, because I think you know Ayn's writing and positions well enough that you know this misinterpretation of her is nothing but bullshit used to try and dishonestly further your own agenda. If you think objectivist are going to entertain these ideas for a moment, then you are gravely mistaken. I think you'll find much more friendly and accomodating people over at the Institute for Creation Research website.

Peikoff goes on it that same lecture, and on the same topic, to quote this passage
"We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life."-AS, Ragnar

This is what Ayn Rand meant, and if you wish to call her facile, then be my guest and show your true colors.

Post 21

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:15pm

Jody,

Your unnatural suspicions based I guess on paranoia are of no interest to me. My agenda is in your mind Sherlocke. . I considered the answers to my question facile, still do to that point in the discussion. It has picked up a bit since then, I am happy to say.

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.

Then why not say neutral in the first place. Rand is not usually vague or imprecise. Peikoff appears to be correcting her, when he says "no, the universe is neutral". Which is it benevolent or neutral? I prefer neutral, but she chose to call it benevolent.

Post 22

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:38pm

Robert,

I conclude again that your are argumentative for arguments sake. Is your pain medication not working?

Damn it man!!! Ayn Rand wrote ROMANTIC NOVELS!!! Where is your imagination?

If you enjoy THINKING and REASONING and PROBLEM SOLVING and feel WONDER and AWE and the complexity of the universe and the fact that we have these HUGE brains perfectly evolved to ferret out the minutest detail of the workings of everything you can imagine, you cannot help but feel that the universe, that is, NATURE is benevolent. It's PEOPLE that suck. SOME people that is.

Post 23

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:42pm

Can good will (or ill will for that matter) logically be attributed to the universe? Does the universe have a will or is it indifferent? How does this idea compare/contrast with Deism?

Robert, it was you who said the above. Why are you "compare/contrast"ing Rands ideas with Deism? Do you honestly think a comparison exists? Have you gotten no further than that with Objectivism?

Post 24

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:48pm

Mike,

If you think metaphysically, the "benevolent" means nothing. If you think epistemologically, going from the viewpoint of a single consciousness with conceptual volition whose only universe is temporary (as are all of us), then it certainly does mean something. It means that conditions exist, the possibility exists, for it to grow, flourish and bloom according to its nature.

This metaphysical/epistemological outlook is also reflected in ITOE. From a metaphysical view, axiomatic concepts (what they stand for, not the concepts in themselves) must come first to build the rest. From an epistemological view, they are presented in Chapter 6 in ITOE, even after definitions, because it is necessary to establish how concepts are formed before integrating axioms.

A benevolent universe is a bit metaphorical also, as you correctly hinted. Rand did have her "artist" moments.

Michael

Post 25

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:52pm

Mike E.

Glad you are having a good time in the universe, but so am I.

If Jody is accurate, it appears Peikoff disagrees with you:

No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you

The problem with treating this as a metaphor is that Rand used it over and over in many of her essays. She did not say life is so wonderful it makes one feel like the universe must be benevolent; she discribes a benevolent universe as surely as Existentials describe a malevolent one, not once, but again and again.

I don't think this question interests you, but at least you are not afraid of it as some (shudder) religious nose under the tent as some here seem to believe.

Post 26

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:53pm

If you think metaphysically, the "benevolent" means nothing. If you think epistemologically, going from the viewpoint of a single consciousness with conceptual volition whose only universe is temporary (as are all of us), then it certainly does mean something. It means that conditions exist, the possibility exists, for it to grow, flourish and bloom according to its nature.

That's a gem Michael. That man can rise and succeed! Precisely.

Post 27

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:53pm

Ain't Ayn talking about psychology here? Ain't she talking about the appropriate assumptions made by a healthy self-esteem? When we believe in a malevolent universe, we are expressing our negative expectations and our essential worthlessness; to quote the popular song, "All we are is dust in the wind."

The healthy self-esteem says that I am important and I will get what I am after--factually this may not come to pass, but a healthy self-esteem demands it. The knowable universe, i.e.: the rational beings and rational processes I will encounter will become available to me on principle. Rationality is the core of benevolence and the universe is rational. The universe may not have a will of its own, but it is principled (sorry, I couldn't resist).

If she had said that the universe was "neutral," from the point of view of individual self-esteem, that would be incorrect and an unhealthy assumption. On a self-esteem level, it would mean that I may or may not be important and I may not get what I'm after; it would mean that I shouldn't expect rationality to be rewarded, that rationality was not necessarily the best policy--it would mean, in short, that rationality was neutral and the whole of Objectivist ethics would blow away in the next stiff breeze.

-Kevin

Post 28

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 7:59pm

The problem with treating this as a metaphor is that Rand used it over and over in many of her essays.

Where she used it(which wasn't "over and over"), she used it in the context of her life, her philosophy, and her entire body of writings. I'm sorry that you choose to drop and ignore the entire context of objectivism. You're not that ignorant Robert, which is why I say you are malicious.

Post 29

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:01pm

If she had said that the universe was "neutral," from the point of view of individual self-esteem, that would be incorrect and an unhealthy assumption. On a self-esteem level, it would mean that I may or may not be important and I may not get what I'm after; it would mean that I shouldn't expect rationality to be rewarded, that rationality was not necessarily the best policy--it would mean, in short, that rationality was neutral and the whole of Objectivist ethics would blow away in the next stiff breeze.

Another astute contribution to this thread. Well said Kevin.

Post 30

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:05pm

Good point, Kevin.

However, I think she included all of these positive things, not just one of them.

Michael

Post 31

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:13pm

Jody,

You're not that ignorant Robert, which is why I say you are malicious.

How ignorant am I?

Look, you don't like me, and I am tired of your denunciations. There is a soft, squishy quality about you that makes me queasy. So lets just avoid each other shall we?

Post 32

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:17pm

Kevin,

How do you reconcile that with Peikoff"s:

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

Post 33

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:18pm

Look, you don't like me, and I am tired of your denunciations. There is a soft, squishy quality about you that makes me queasy. So lets just avoid each other shall we?

As long as you try to smuggle in creationism and as long as you avoid Objectivism, I'll never 'avoid' you. I'll confront you. How's that for a 'soft, squishy quality'? Don't ever suggest that I should just 'avoid' nonsense.

Post 34

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:21pm

Robert,

"I don't think this question interests you, but at least you are not afraid of it as some (shudder) religious nose under the tent as some here seem to believe."

I LIKE this question very much and I told you so right off. I still think my first reply was as succinct and perfect as I can make it, I really can't add more to it. I have not read Peikoff and don't feel particularly inclined to. I've read nearly everything Ayn Rand wrote, many times.

I will add this: I don't think the purpose of our big brains is to crash them against each other like big horned sheep until someone shakes his head and goes away.

Kevin,

Very well put.

Post 35

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:26pm

Jody,

Fine, as long as you don't scratch my eyes out.

Post 36

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:28pm

Michael E.

Thanks for the input. I conclude from what was discussed here is that Rand's use of benevolent universe means a place where man can thrive.

Post 37

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 8:35pm

Robert Davison --

What was the purpose of bringing up deism in this thread? Those who accuse you of having a hidden agenda see things like this in a good number of your conversations on SOLO. When questioned about your meaning you fail to give a substantive answer. Given this information we can only assume something like :

Robert Davison is a creationist or Robert Davison is deist. Or, Robert Davison is entirely clueless about Objectivist Epistemology and thus cannot understand why religous explanations (like God) are arbitrary nonsense.

A good number of your posts seem to point in all of these directions. Unfortunately any questions by other posters about your own beliefs are countered with some kind of ad hominem attack or diversion away from the main point. Becaause of this we can only come to the conclusion that what your posts seem infer is in fact what you believe and that you are being secretive for some reason. If you believe something contrary to Objectivism why not just come out and say it?

- Jason

Post 38

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 9:23pm

Hey, Robert. You just asked me:

Kevin,

How do you reconcile that with Peikoff"s:

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

I'm not too mad about this guy, Peifoff, I gotta say. So far, I don't find his methods very trustworthy, to be frank (for the sake of clarity, my encounters with the man are limited entirely to the quotations I've read at SOLOHQ).

His cosmology shifts according to the point he's making at the moment. He claims the universe is neutral and in the very next breath implies consciousness with his "it is indifferent to you." How can there be indifference where there is no consciousness? And while we're at it, why must I "care about" a thing that is indifferent to me? Is this a duty, I haven't read up on yet?

He's just being sloppy. Furthermore, psychologically, he is identifying himself with his "indifferent" universe. Rand would never do that, to do that is to take an anti-life stance. Peikoff sees a neutral, indifferent universe, because he fancies himself neutral and indifferent; it is psychologically impossible not to view yourself as a mirror of your universe. If you are truly benevolent, your universe is benevolent; you cannot be truly benevolent and believe your universe is neutral, because to do that would not be benevolent to yourself. Rand knew this, and apparently Peikoff does not. Rand, to the best of my knowledge, properly identifies with real consciousness, not metaphorical consciousness, and centers her discussion of "what the universe is" there.

-Kevin

Post 39

Monday, November 7, 2005 - 9:51pm