Ayn Rand on Christian Egoism
Posted by TheChristianEgoist 11 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
“Christianity was the first school of thought that proclaimed the supreme sacredness of the individual. The first duty of a Christian is the salvation of his own soul. This duty comes above any he may owe to his brothers. This is the basic statement of true individualism.” -Ayn Rand
Read the article via the link above.
Read the article via the link above.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
The important thing to remember is that we are speaking of a series of inter-connected, real events -- in which every event is contingent upon the event prior to it for its very existence.
The existence of an accidental action is impossible apart from the existence of some prior action. The very nature of accidental action demands a prior action -- whether you are speaking of a singular accidental action, or a *seemingly* infinite number of accidental actions, it does not change the fact that accidental action is impossible apart from some prior action.
Therefore, to speak of a large number of actions (or an "infinite number") is really just to attempt to confuse the subject in order to evade the reality that no accidental action in the universe would exist apart from an original purposeful action.
"If you think an infinite regress of un-purposeful actions is necessarily bounded, then why do you think an infinite regress of purposeful actions is not bounded?"
It should have read: If you think un-purposeful actions is necessarily bounded, then why do you think purposeful actions is not bounded?
"There cannot be an infinite regress of accidental actions. An infinite regress of a series cannot exist because a series must have a beginning in order to exist."
I read the comments, and I don't think you addressed sward of apollo's essential argument against 4 (granted he added non-essentials, which you did address).
Why do you think an infinite regress of a series (or an unbounded series) cannot exist? The number line is abstractly unbounded as the sward of apollo pointed out. Distance in any direction could be physically unbounded.
If an unbounded series exists and is possible, why do you think accidental actions are necessarily bounded? If you think an infinite regress of un-purposeful actions is necessarily bounded, then why do you think an infinite regress of purposeful actions is not bounded? Or do you think both are finite and bounded?
Or to put it in the positive, what's wrong with this logical series:
1. Existence exists, has always existed, and will always exist -- the axiom of existence.
2. The actions of existents and the interactions between existents occur due to the nature of the existents possessing identity -- causality.
3. Existents may or may not act or interact with purpose -- distinction between life and inanimate matter.
4. Since existents have and will always exist, they have and will always act or interact with or without purpose -- integrating 1, 2 and 3.
5. An unbounded set of un-purposeful actions is possible -- conclusion.
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...
Please be sure to read the comments, as they will likely deal with any objections you may have. However, if you think there is something which has not been covered, I invite you to submit a comment or objection.
Every instance of faith in the Bible is an instance of someone believing something that is true, in the face of irrational temptations to doubt it, because of more rational and more certain reasons to believe it.
In my view, this abstract thought is derived from reason, in general (a combination of perceptual concretes and logical deduction).
Assumptions must be brought forth and examined. What assumptions are you making that allows you to connect happy coincidences to god? What makes you think intelligent design means that the designer is still living? The intelligent lightbulb designer is dead after all.
In you're view, is this abstract thought derived from perceptual concretes?
Hebrews 11:1 "Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see."
11:3 "Because of our faith, we know..."
I've read your article in your main post before posting.
The logical-factual dichotomy opposes truths which are validated “merely” by the use of logic (the analytic ones), and truths which describe the facts of experience (the synthetic ones). Implicit in this dichotomy is the view that logic is a subjective game, a method of manipulating arbitrary symbols, not a method of acquiring knowledge.
It is the use of logic that enables man to determine what is and what is not a fact. To introduce an opposition between the “logical” and the “factual” is to create a split between consciousness and existence, between truths in accordance with man’s method of cognition and truths in accordance with the facts of reality. The result of such a dichotomy is that logic is divorced from reality (“Logical truths are empty and conventional”)—and reality becomes unknowable (“Factual truths are contingent and uncertain”). This amounts to the claim that man has no method of cognition, i.e., no way of acquiring knowledge." Ayn Rand Lexicon. If they use a calculator to arrive at a conclusion for example multiple dimensions. They did not see feel or touch the dimensions but they will claim they exist and at the same time chastise us for using our logic to deduce the vast number of happy coincidences suggest intelligent design. The big bang does not explain the first particle. More on this later.
A army that thinks it can win... can win... a army that thinks it can't win... can't, regardless of its relative strength to the enemy.
Likewise, the positive beliefs in some religions, say Christianity, can create a mindset in the believer that will be conducive to success, even in dire straits. Some people find this in Scientology, others in Buddhism.
It's the emotional effect of the belief, the effect on morale, that creates the positive influence.
Or negative, if the chosen religious doctrine is negative...
If you are struggling with conflicts between Objectivism and Christianity, I invite you to read and follow my blog (www.theChristianEgoist.wordpress.com)
I am currently working on a book which does just that: reconciles the conflicts between the two worldviews. It is called 'The Galt-Like God: Meditations of a Christian Egoist'. The blog is a collection of side thoughts in order to inspire people as I work on the book. I think you would be very blessed by the ideas presented in my work (I know many others have been).
http://thechristianegoist.wordpress.com/...
Regarding context, you seem to imply that I am not taking her thoughts in full context, but if you read the article linked to in the OP of this thread, you would have noticed that I am well aware of the full context of her positions on religion (and particularly Christianity) and that a follow-up blog is already in the works to cover what Rand calls a "great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus".
"The moral is to the physical as 3 to 1"
- Napoleon Bonaparte.
Let me know if you don't understand my point.
Load more comments...