Induction versus Scholasticism

During its rise to power, the Catholic Church employed scholasticism "to reconcile the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers with medieval Christian theology" according to Wikipedia. Because of faith in the inerrancy of the Bible, valid discoveries by the rational elements of scholastic inquiry faced the relentless battle to align with Biblical teachings or end with a ready dismissal. Eventually, the rational elements won and gave us the Renaissance, Enlightenment and their many beneficial progeny.

The scholastics worked to find concrete evidence to validate the teachings of the Bible, a book of faith. By contrast, Ayn Rand observed many concretes and then induced a valid body of principles she eventually called Objectivism and then successfully applied those principles to new concretes to reveal stunning insights.

The policy of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) as established in Leonard Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" aims to square all new material against the body of principles called Objectivism. Some people might accuse the ARI of engaging in a modern, secular form of scholasticism with this approach. However, given their backing away somewhat from the initial declaration of everything Ayn Rand sanctioned as "part of Objectivism" to a more moderate view that distinguishes Ayn Rand's personal views from the defining aspects of Objectivism, accusations of scholasticism seem to have little merit.

I have not discussed rationalism, i.e. the attempt to force empirical evidence to fit preconceived notions beyond the bounds of reason, but it does bear a resemblance to scholasticism.

I would like to read comments from others regarding this distinction between induction and scholasticism. The recent discussion on strip clubbing made me think of this distinction as applied to romance and sex. While certainly the Objectivist ideal of one man and one woman bonding together over a lifetime of sexual fidelity represents one worthy ideal that suits many people such as myself and my wife, I have a hard time justifying it as the only worthy ideal that fits all people all the time. The discussion about this on the other Objectivist forum to which the poster pointed showed strong signs of scholasticism and its root, rationalism. Based on my inductive research, I would have to conclude that other manifestations of sexual love suit other types of people and that ultimately we can only judge the participants based on their own honesty with themselves and their partners, not just whether they fit Ayn Rand's personal "mold" for the "ideal" love. Furthermore, I would challenge the idea that such variations bar such persons from properly identifying themselves as Objectivists.

We might be able to make similar arguments in favor of certain types of horror stories contra Ayn Rand, as well as other examples, but these should get us started.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/29, 5:44pm)

Post 1

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 7:24pm

IPSA VERBA SOLA?

Luke,

Excellent topic!

First, I would suggest however, that you reconsider your choice of "Scholasticism" as the term for the practice which you criticize. Such doctrinaire or esoteric casuistry is dogmatism, a concern with accepted teachings, not the inconvenient truth.

Second, while many Scholastics were certainly dogmatic, the long history of debates within the Catholic universities is famous. Likewise, it is not the position of the Catholic Church that the bible is inerrant. (Also, see Abelard's Sic et Non.) This is a Lutheran and Protestant doctrine, "ipsa sola verba," "by the very words alone." The Catholic Church holds that texts must be interpreted by minds, and that the Church has the apostolic authority to do so.

I am pressed for time, but would enjoy continuing this discussion. I suggest in the meantime that some non-Catholic tell us where the term "Devil's Advocate" arose.

Ted Keer, 29 September, 2006, NYC

[edited to fix smart quotes]

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/29, 7:31pm)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 9/29, 8:35pm)

Post 2

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 10:08pm

Luke wrote,

I would like to read comments from others regarding this distinction between induction and scholasticism. The recent discussion on strip clubbing made me think of this distinction as applied to romance and sex. While certainly the Objectivist ideal of one man and one woman bonding together over a lifetime of sexual fidelity represents one worthy ideal that suits many people such as myself and my wife, I have a hard time justifying it as the only worthy ideal that fits all people all the time.

Luke, where did you get the idea that the Objectivist ideal is that of one man and one woman bonding together over a lifetime of sexual fidelity? That may be the Christian ideal, but it is hardly the Objectivist one. The Objectivist ideal, as far as I understand it, is simply one of romantic love. Period. Sex with more than one partner is fully compatible with Rand's philosophy.

But this leads to another interesting question regarding whether or not Rand's view of sex is indispensable to Objectivism. While she was quite comfortable with more than one partner, she was not comfortable with homosexuality, whereas the standard view among Objectivists today, both at TAS and ARI, is that homosexuality is valid romantic alternative. So, it would appear that there is no "official" objection to including within Objectivism a view of sex that is contrary to Rand's expressly stated views on the subject.

If that is true, then the view expressed by Leonard Peikoff and company that the content of Objectivism must be restricted to Rand's expressly stated philosophy has been compromised by the very people who have taken such pains to defend it. In this respect, Objectivism is treated as an "open" system even by those who regard it as "closed."

- Bill

Post 3

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 6:34am

Bill, you raise some interesting points that crossed my mind as well. I should have used more precise language in my descriptions of Rand's view of romance.

In We the Living, Kira had two lovers but basically used one to finance the health of the other, with the former being loved less by her than the latter. Rand created an unusual and dire circumstance to justify the actions of Kira as moral.

In Anthem, the man and his woman escaped the collective and presumably became lovers for life.

In The Fountainhead, we get no insight into Roark's prior lovers before Dominique but we know that he was her first and that she strayed from him to be with Peter Keating and Gail Wynand in short-lived marriages before returning to him. Presumably if she had had a benevolent view of the world she would have stayed with Roark from the outset.

In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny and Francisco get their first sexual experience with each other. Had Francisco not undertaken his high stakes gamble with his playboy act, we can credibly speculate that they would have stayed together for life. Meanwhile, Hank suffered with Lillian until Dagny showed him how love might be and ought to be. But John Galt swept her off her feet and away from Hank. So clearly Rand supported the idea of serial monogamy.

In her personal life, Rand also supported the idea of polyamory for those mature enough to handle it. We can assume from her work and interviews that she did consider marriage an ideal. But perhaps my contention of it as the ideal in Rand's view is not merited by the evidence.

Clearly, though, she considered honesty indispensable, especially in romance. Hence her unforgiving attitude toward the Brandens upon learning of their deceptions regarding the third woman.

So to answer your question about whether she considered her view of sex as indispensable to Objectivism, I think the answer is, "Yes and no." She plainly opposed mindless hedonism as I think any rational person would. Her ideal always held mind and body as an integrated unit. Whether a "one night stand" qualifies as an "extremely short romance" in her view remains questionable. Clearly Roark and Dominique did exactly that the first time they had sex. What if one dumped the other after that first "date"? Would it have been a romance gone sour or just a stupid act of hedonism?

I can think of a number of reasons to postpone sex until a solid romance has been established. I can also think of a number of reasons to consummate a budding romance early in the relationship. So I think the key term here is contextual thinking rather than just some concrete set of "rules" that ignore context. The main "thrust" of her view involves reserving sex for people whose souls you respect, thus preventing a severance of soul from body and empowering the two to bond spiritually as well as physically.

In Super Marital Sex by Dr. Paul Pearsall, now out of print, the author called this bonding of spirits concurrently with bodies a psychasm -- a spiritual orgasm that occurs at the same time as the physical one. He induced this principle from 1000 couples he interviewed over the course of his practice as a relationship counselor. It was interesting to read though long winded and sometimes too technical. His view did seem to resonate with Rand's view of sex and love as necessarily intertwined, however, thus leading me to mention the book here.

Post 4

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 9:09pm

Non-Catholic here. When someone is being considered for sainthood, the Catholic church assigns two people to research and present the pros and cons of that decision. The person arguing in favor of the sainthood is called God's Advocate and the person arguing against is called Devil's Advocate. The job of the Devil's Advocate is to present all the possible reasons why the potential saint should NOT be sainted.

Of course, I only know this because my friend's son who attends a Catholic private school told me. It was on a test he was studying for.

Post 5

Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 9:45pm

Elementary, Watson.. as Spock would say, it's logical........

Post 6

Sunday, October 1, 2006 - 7:06am

ADVOCATUS DIABOLI

Thanks Deanna,

The position of Devil's Advocate was used for all sorts of debate, not only for the question of canonization. Actual matters of doctrine and debates in the universities for mere exercise were conducted in this way. The Devil's Advocate either argued contra the accepted doctrine in case of real theological matters, or simply as a foil in other disputations for exercise. Christopher Hitchens was asked by the Church to serve in the role of Devil's Advocate on the canonization of Mother Theresa, given that Hitchens had written the most intellectual attacks against her. The fact that Hitchens was an atheist and had not been raised within the Church was of no objection. Two priests (I think Jesuits) were sent to depose him (I believe) in Washington D.C. Hitchens says that the formal title of Devil's Advocate itself has been discontinued, another one of the Church's apparent degenerations since Vatican II. Playing Devil's Advocate was reserved only for the best trained and well grounded theologians because of the possibility that the Advocate might actually fall into heresy by becoming convinced of the validity of his own arguments. How would ARI's non-toleration policy handle this? Would not a non-Objectivist be persona non grata? Would not any Objectivist who could argue the contra position be open to the (obviously absurd) accusation of having a flawed and compartmentalized psycho-epistemolgy?

There is an interesting and very good Sci-Fi book by James Bilsh called A Case of Conscience which tells the story of a Jesuit who is sent to an alien planet where the natives are purely rational and live by Natural Law alone. The book has two parts, the survey expedition to Lithia, and the return to earth with a Lithian child who, being raised in human society, turns out to be a source which might destroy the civilizations of both Earth and Lithia. The priest falls into heresy, which he confesses to his superior. The ending of the book is somewhat abrupt, I would almost call it Deus ex machina, except that it is foreshadowed by one of the plot elements. It would have been a better novel if it had been 50-100 pages longer, but is still quite an excellent read. (this book can be purchased use through the most excellent abebooks.com for much less than at amazon.com.

To Luke and Bill,

I have a few brief comments about the implications of Rand's theory of Romance. First, one might take the (admittedly caricatured) view that according to Rand, only the two best people on earth should be involved in a romantic relationship, and that everyone else on earth should remain in unfulfilled celibacy out of longing for the ideal. Also, given that man's essential attribute is his rationality, one could argue that Stephen Hawking would be a much more attractive sex partner than, for lack of a better example, Brad Pitt. Finally, why should not one argue that Francisco and Galt should have been exclusive lovers in Atlas Shrugged? That is, what does heterosexuality have to do with the desirability of a virtuous person?

Ted Keer, 1 October, 2006, USA

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/01, 7:21am)

Post 7

Sunday, October 1, 2006 - 10:06am

> I have a few brief comments about the implications of Rand's theory of Romance. First, one might take the (admittedly caricatured) view that according to Rand, only the two best people on earth should be involved in a romantic relationship, and that everyone else on earth should remain in unfulfilled celibacy out of longing for the ideal. Also, given that man's essential attribute is his rationality, one could argue that Stephen Hawking would be a much more attractive sex partner than, for lack of a better example, Brad Pitt. Finally, why should not one argue that Francisco and Galt should have been exclusive lovers in Atlas Shrugged? That is, what does heterosexuality have to do with the desirability of a virtuous person?

Ted, I assume you are joking or being whimsical in the above sentences.

Because each would be taking Rand's principles out of context (or, for example in the first case, not a proposition she would advocate in any form, even in caricature.)

Post 8

Sunday, October 1, 2006 - 12:49pm

Rand & Romance

Phil, I agree that my statements are certainly not what Rand's well considered positions would be. But her off the cuff pronunciations about the immorality of those who would want to have sex with a certain type, and other remarks attributed to her lead to absurd conclusions. She repeatedly said that love was not something she liked to talk about, and she never treated the matter in a systematic way, but then she did make absurd pronouncements like her analysis of the psychology of a would-be woman president. I am willing to be generous in my understanding of her, and I do believe that she had many valid and quite correct and insightful things to say. But I will roundly and flatly assert that her own writing on love is intellectualized and a-biological. If any of the Branden's claims are to be believed, (and I do think they are at least plausible, but I have not read PARC,) then their claims would be further evidence to back up the point that some of her views on Romance may have been rationalizations. But again, even ignoring what others have ascribed to her, and only reading what she herself has said, I feel she made some naive and unsupportable arguments.

Me: "...only the two best people on earth should be involved in a romantic relationship, and that everyone else on earth should remain in unfulfilled celibacy out of longing for the ideal."
This is NOT what I believe Rand would have wished to say, but I do believe that it is possible to come to this conclusion if one uses some of her pronunciations (dogmatically!) and takes them ad absurdum.

Me: "Also, given that man's essential attribute is his rationality, one could argue that Stephen Hawking would be a much more attractive sex partner than, for lack of a better example, Brad Pitt."
Given Rand's intellectualized view of love, this statement is less absurd, only my examples are inadequate, since I do not know the politics and other characteristics of Pitt or Hawking. But one most certainly could draw a similar inference from her statements. For her, virtue - which is exclusively mental - and not biology is what matters.

Me: "Finally, why should one not argue that Francisco and Galt should have been exclusive lovers in Atlas Shrugged?"
This last I will not qualify. I am not the first to ask what was "going on" between Roark and Wynand on their cruise, (if one may be so bold as to treat fictional characters as real people.) Other than her snide anti-homosexual remarks, implying that homosexuality is self-evidently perverse, her remarks almost require that someone like Galt and someone like Francisco would necessarily have been romantically attracted. Her bizarre assertion that the essence of feminity is "man worship" is unsupported hogwash. I know quite a few feminine lesbians. This is a definition by non-essentials. Her view of sexual attraction is neither biologically grounded nor coherent nor fully expressed. Yet I also admit that her sex scenes are indeed very erotic, and I do not believe that one can love someone romantically for whom one has no respect.

Given that Rand is dead, I cannot challenge her on these issues. Were she alive and willing to talk to me, I most certainly would. I wish someone had explained Darwinism and biology to her sufficiently, I find her lack of knowledge of these subjects to be one of the few serious flaws in her system.

Ted Keer, 01 October, 2006, USA

Edited for minor errors and emphasis

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/01, 9:17pm)

Post 9

Monday, October 2, 2006 - 10:46pm

Romance vs. Love vs. Sexual Release

I have been in three long term romantic relationships, all of them fulfilling and lasting over several years. In between I engaged in both one-time and regular casual sexual encounters where the object of a long term relationship was not envisioned by either party.

I view Romance as a loving (caring) sexual relationship where both parties are infatuated with each other. The infatuation results initially from perceptual cues, appearance, body language, pheromones, etc., but only continues if one finds sufficient value in the other. I would find it impossible to stay infatuated with a dolt or a manipulator. All three of my romantic relationships have had their problems, and none of my lovers has been an objectivist, yet each has understood my objectivism and agreed in general with my beliefs.

My first relationship ended due to our youth and our desires to move to different areas, we have stayed friends, and did part for a time and then resume our relationship after a hiatus before our final parting. My second relationship ended with the murder of my lover, otherwise we would still be together - I would hope. My third relationship has lasted for quite some time with hiatuses during which I dated and engaged in casual relations. My third lover was sometimes jealous of my murdered lover, and I do confess openly that I would return to my second love in a heartbeat, were it possible.

One "objection" that I had with Rand's portrayal of Dagny's relationships in AS is Dagny's decision to abandon Rearden after finding Galt. I myself view loyalty as an overriding motive in my relationships. If a current actual affair is satisfying, I have little desire to end it, even if a possible future affair might be more rewarding. I see the actual history as a mutual investment to be valued more highly than an expected future benefit. I could envision falling out of love, and then moving on, but that does not seem to be what happened between Dagny and Rearden, or even Dagny and Francisco. I have always viewed Dagny's being desired by three men that she was simultaneously in love with as being a fantasy more than a real likelihood.

Regarding sexual release, I have mentioned before that I spent almost a year living with Mexican illegals. Once a month, they would visit a Mexican whorehouse in New Brunswick, NJ, where I was living and went to Rutgers. There was no coercion, perversion or denial involved, so far as I was aware. The first time I went with them (I provided the transportation) they did not tell me the destination, joking that it would be a surprise. When we arrived, they offered to pay my fee. I declined. Later that night they had me drive them to another destination, where there were compliant homosexuals, I also declined. [My friends from Oaxaca (pronounced wa-há-ka) were strangely pagan in their view of homosexuality, many preferring sodomy to coitus.] I found their concern that I be satisfied very touching, and their mystification at my lack of desire in either case amusing. But in no sense did I feel that any party at any time was in any way degraded or immoral.

Rand herself stated that she did not enjoy explicitly philosophizing on the subject of love. She nowhere put forth a comprehensive theory. She did not sufficiently understand Darwinism to draw a judgment on evolutionary theory, as she admitted. She had no real knowledge of comparative anthropology upon which to draw wide-based conclusions, which fact is reflected in her unjustified dismissive criticism of primitive cultures. Many of the practices of primitive cultures, (especially those practices of cultures where population pressure, and not climate or environment were limiting factors,) such as infanticide and human sacrifice were truly barbaric, as with the worship of Baal Moloch and the Mayan practice of live human-heart sacrifice. (Such excesses are often found in the beginnings of agricultural societies.) Yet primitive cultures such as those of the Salish or the Saami (Laplanders) are much more "civilized." It is not the prehistoric brutalities per se of primitive cultures which make them evil. It is the mindless continuation of such traditions such as suttee, after economic and political development make them obsolete that is truly barbaric. But the existence of primitive cultures (and their failure spontaneously to disappear after 1492) is no disgrace. It was a necessary step in human development. Capitalism is no "floating abstraction," it had necessary historical precursors. Was it Orwell who quoted the English officer as telling the Hindu who insisted that widow-burning was a respected tradition of his tribe that hanging widow-killers was a respected tradition of the English tribe?

In any case, Rand too often either dismissed relevant evidence on human nature due to either her ignorance of biology, or her dismissal of comparative anthropology, or her substituting her own personal views and preferences for self-evident universalities. Some of the happiest and most productive egoists have been the courtesans of ancient Greece and the homosexual artists of the Renaissance and the modern day. Those racked with guilt and denial by an altruistic and anti-pleasure religious ethic may have become perverse and corrupt, but so have great monogamous heterosexual statesmen and capitalists. The evidence has not been weighed. The subject is still open.

Ted Keer, 02 October, 2006, USA

(This has been moved from the thread on Cathouse, I feel it is more appropriate here.)

Post 10

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 - 11:49am

--What Makes Love Possible? and What Makes it Longterm?--

> Rand herself stated that she did not enjoy explicitly philosophizing on the subject of love.

Ted, I sort of share her view: I don't want to do long postings back and forth on this topic. (I think some of the reasons are that it's too complex to deal with in brief email exchanges and also that it's the kind of thing I'd discuss more with friends or at least in person.)

I'll just summarize my view and then leave the subject.

It seems as if many Oists haven't found love. But it's not because there are too few people who would be candidates. It's because they are interested in the wrong people and not in the right ones.

To fall genuinely in love with someone and for it to be longterm or lasting (I've only had that rarely and unfortunately not now) requires, certainly for me, that the following things match or exist, not perfectly, but very well:

1) *sense of life* very much comes first and is the overwhelmingly most important component [that was Rand's view as well] and the hardest to pin down (mine is a rare match and diverges from the personality of most oists...not all oists have same sense of life...person doesn't have to be an oist, since sense of life -trumps- philosophy that one gives lip service to or even actually commits to on the conscious level).
2) *compatible personalities* (both of us) in other ways on a 'second level' beneath fundamental 'metaphysical and epistemological' sense of life.
3) basic *mutual admiration and respect* [I think Edith Packer used to talk about this as central to love].
4) a basic threshold of *physical attraction* (which can involve not only the physical but something as simple as energy and enthusiasm level -or- the person with the alive face vs. the one with the jaded or slack or resentful face).
5) *cognitive/intellectual compatibility* (motormouth vs. the silent never speaking continuum -or- reflective vs. instant reactor -or- well-educated vs. know-nothing...as three examples).

(I don't list emotional compatibility separately, because i think it arises from or in some cases is a restatement of these.)

,,,,,,

This is very compressed. There may be some additional sixth thing, but these five "cover the waterfront" and I don't see anything as important as those at present.

Any other candidates which are as important?

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 10/03, 12:05pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, October 4, 2006 - 8:48pm

ANCESTORS AND ESSENCES - Man as a Product of Evolution

There is one thing, and one thing only, that each of us may know with absolute certainty about each and every one of our ancestors. We do not know whether or not they lived long and healthy lives. They may have been sickly from birth 'til they died. We do not know if they were happy people, they may have lived quiet lives of desperation, in depression and misery through their days. We do not know whether they were attractive or repulsive. We do not know if they were valiant heroes who fought and maybe died for their values, or if they were craven cowards, or criminals, or sociopaths. We do not know if they made a living, or lived off the produce of others. We do not know if they were realists, empiricists, egoists or capitalists. They may have been idealists or materialists, skeptics or mystics, ascetics or megalomaniacs, socialists or royalists or self-sufficient farmers. We don't know if they were personable and polite, lethargic or lotharios, reprobates or rapists. But we do know that each and every single one of them lived to reproduce. Each one of them lived long enough to produce at least one viable offspring who also lived to breed in turn. This last proposition is not a theory, but an incontrovertible fact, proven without a doubt by our own existence. By definition, the essential characteristic, whether by love or duty or chance or coercion, of our ancestors as a class is that each lived long enough to reproduce at least once, from our parents, back through the dawn of man, through the origin of sexual reproduction among the eukaryote protozoa, back to the origin of life on this planet. This being said, one must accept the fundamental importance of biology, specifically of evolutionary biology in any understanding of �man as a rational animal,� and hence of our own nature as humans.

(This will be a response in several parts)

Ted Keer, 04 October, 2006, NYC
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 10/04, 9:53pm)

Post 12

Friday, October 6, 2006 - 6:16pm

Ted, you wrote:

To Luke and Bill,

I have a few brief comments about the implications of Rand's theory of Romance. First, one might take the (admittedly caricatured) view that according to Rand, only the two best people on earth should be involved in a romantic relationship, and that everyone else on earth should remain in unfulfilled celibacy out of longing for the ideal.

When interpreting Rand, you have to make a special effort to keep the broader context. When she says in her Playboy interview, for example, that "A sexual relationship is proper only on the grounds of the highest values one can find in a human being," she doesn't mean "highest" in the sense of the greatest human being alive. She couldn't possibly mean that. So, you have to ask, what else could she have meant? I think she meant the highest among the values of the person in whom you're interested. In other words, you wouldn't get romantically involved with someone simply because you like the color of his hair or the size of her breasts. (Okay, those are bad examples, but you get the point! ;-)) In other words, if the guy looks like one of Rand's heroes, but is a socialist, or the woman resembles Cameron Diaz but has her values (liberal environmentalist), you wouldn't get involved with this person. So if I had a chance with Cameron Diaz, I'd say, sorry, Cam but I just can't compromise myself this way! Yeah, right! ;-)

Also, given that man's essential attribute is his rationality, one could argue that Stephen Hawking would be a much more attractive sex partner than, for lack of a better example, Brad Pitt.

"For lack of a better example" -- heh. Sorry, when it comes to Rand's heroes, man's most distinctive attribute is his looks! [g] But you're being facetious, right? Of course, Rand is in no way saying that the smarter someone is, the more attracted you should be to him or her.

Finally, why should not one argue that Francisco and Galt should have been exclusive lovers in Atlas Shrugged? That is, what does heterosexuality have to do with the desirability of a virtuous person?

Well, if you're heterosexual, as these two men are, then the object of your sexual interest is the opposite sex, in which case, you won't be sexually interested in a member of the same sex, no matter how "virtuous" the person is. Again, Rand is counting on us to keep the context.

In a way, your objections sound like they're coming from an Objectivist newbie, but I know you're anything but that, Ted. So, I have to assume that either you're playing devil's advocate or you're just being facetious.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 10/06, 9:29pm)

Post 13

Friday, October 6, 2006 - 7:26pm

I see that the Pope and his cardinals are convening in order to determine whether or not babies go to Limbo after they die. Of course, these learned men will be consulting the latest discoveries of supernatural science fresh from the Capuchin Catacombs of Palermo, Italy. What is their research expected to show? Will the babies be sent to Limbo?

Not likely, as it appears that Caribbean authorities are no longer permitting babies to enter their limbo contests, as it is just too easy for the little tykes to pass under the bar. So, the dancing babies are being shipped by the truckload to the Jonathan Swift Resort in Ireland, where they're being welcomed with open arms. Before handing them over to their famished constituents, the Swift politicians have taken the opportunity to kiss as many as possible, thus boosting their chances of re-election.

Admittedly, the Church hierarchy has its misgivings about this unhappy prospect, but when it comes to Limbo and the fate of dead babies, it seems that the party is over.

-- Bill ;-)

Post 14

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 1:21pm

Bill:

So, what are they going to do with all the other infants that already went to Limbo (not to mention the unbaptized 'righteous' pagans like Socrates)? Kick 'em out...and let God sort them? :) I mean, they can't be sent back to the Swift Resort, even if that takes care of a lot of hunger probs: re-incarnation and all that. Ntl, I'm sure that these high psuedo-intellects will find a rational(ized) solution to 'How many infants' souls can collectively dance away from a limbo-bar?'

LLAP
J:D

Post 15

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 1:30pm

Others:

     Oh, yeah, the original subject:

     Going by what N. Branden said that Rand had said when he asked her what O'ism had to say/imply about sex, she supposedly said "Nothing, other than it's good."

     Properly, such subjects as sexual and/or 'romantic'/significant others/partners (single, multiple, serially, simultaneously) fall more directly under the territory of Psychology, not Philosophy-proper. O-t-other-h, philosophical 'premises' are relevent to one's psychology, no? --- Food for thought, fer sure.

LLAP
J:D

Post 16

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 3:26pm

One possibility for those not consigned to heaven or hell for eternity is re-incarnation. This would be a question for a Jesuit or an Inquisitor, like our current Holy Father. I believe that the topic has been discussed, but I doubt that it is deemed proper to address to the untrained.

-Deodatus Carus

Post 17

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 5:34pm

Ted:

Trust me on this: 're-incarnation' is not considered a viable belief-option in Catholicism. I was being a bit more facetious beyond my facetiously rhetorical question to Bill. --- Raise the question seriously with a Jesuit (nm Gibson's reactionary 'traditionalistic' new Pope), and all you'd get is an Elvis Presley smirk.

Not really a debatable option for them.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 12/12, 5:37pm)

Post 18

Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 6:34pm

If they truly had shut down limbo, rather than deciding it was all a big misunderstanding, then I don't see that reincarnation would have been such a problem. And there is at least some precedent in Christianity for reincarnation.

But yes, I got that yours and Bill's comments were jokes, and I hope I am not taken for so fond a fool here that my comments above were meant seriously.

-Deodatus Carus

(The signature line was also a hint)

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 12/12, 6:35pm)

Post 19

Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 5:43pm