Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Interesting post. Exactly which "other men" in Objectivism are deemed the final authority that define human nature and subsequently the human needs and subsequently the human rights that emerge from such a nature?I define a successful society as one that is fully consistent with the rights of man, rights not determined by other men but by man's nature which is objective.
I am not sure what you mean by "think". I would say the charities that help the disadvantaged are capable of helping those who cannot do it for themselves. For example they can help the mentally ill by providing community care for them.Yes, if just some people can't think, then in a good religion, those who can think can guide those who can't think. That works. The problem is that today, practically no one can think.
So long as God is rejected society will gradually decline in one way or another. I guess we can only shine the light of God and hope some will see the light. Reason, logic and evidence can only go so far, then its a question of faith.Modern society is not significantly different from every decaying society in history. All decaying cultures lose their religion. See Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. I would like to try to solve this general problem of societal decay.
Modern society is not significantly different from every decaying society in history. All decaying cultures lose their religion. See Ecclesiastes 1:9-11. I would like to try to solve this general problem of societal decay.
None. There are no authorities. There is only logic applied to observed facts. That's where the objective part of morality comes from. Ayn Rand didn't start by going to any authority. She started by asking two questions. What is morality and why does man need it? She looked to reality, not other men. You don't have to look to her either. It takes a genius to discover the principles of morality but average men and women can take those principles and validate them for themselves by looking at reality. Always look to reality. It is the standard and logic is the method.Interesting post. Exactly which "other men" in Objectivism are deemed the final authority that define human nature and subsequently the human needs and subsequently the human rights that emerge from such a nature?
So long as God is rejected society will gradually decline in one way or another. /QUOTE]
I'm.still always a bit surprised by the gay abandon
with which so many religious people just make
things up and feel entitled to state them as fact.
As long as God is accepted and used as a basis for morality, societies will continue to fail as the morality of self-sacrifice will do its destructive thing and we will have crime, war, poverty, hatred, distrust, violence, rape, etc. So long as those who reject the notion of gods keep the same secular version of the morality of self-sacrifice, the same. There are no general facts about reality that are not available to man through reason guided by logic. We may not know what's under a rock on some unnamed planet on the other side of the galaxy that we can't get to, but we know what a rock is anywhere in the universe. The same goes for any general fact that we can observe and conceptualize here on earth. That's because time and place are measurements that are omitted in the process of forming abstractions. The idea that faith is a valid form of knowledge is actually a complete rejection of reason.So long as God is rejected society will gradually decline in one way or another. I guess we can only shine the light of God and hope some will see the light. Reason, logic, and evidence can only go so far, then its a question of faith.
Interesting post. Exactly which "other men" in Objectivism are deemed the final authority that define human nature and subsequently the human needs and subsequently the human rights that emerge from such a nature?
Also, we need to define what a right is. A right is a moral principle that sanctions and defines the limits of human action in a social setting. Rights are a political concept that derives from ethics considered in a social setting.Interesting post. Exactly which "other men" in Objectivism are deemed the final authority that define human nature and subsequently the human needs and subsequently the human rights that emerge from such a nature?
Can you explain how self-sacrifice causes war, crime, poverty and hatred.As long as God is accepted and used as a basis for morality, societies will continue to fail as the morality of self-sacrifice will do its destructive thing and we will have crime, war, poverty, hatred, distrust, violence, rape, etc. So long as those who reject the notion of gods keep the same secular version of the morality of self-sacrifice, the same.
Can you verify with logic and reason why logic and reason are the only way we can know reality.There are no general facts about reality that are not available to man through reason guided by logic.
Yet we live by faith and abstract truths everyday. All that logic proves is that we can know what a rock on the other side of the galaxy may be like, that's it. Though there's still an element of faith in that we have not actually gone there to test that.We may not know what's under a rock on some unnamed planet on the other side of the galaxy that we can't get to, but we know what a rock is anywhere in the universe. The same goes for any general fact that we can observe and conceptualize here on earth. That's because time and place are measurements that are omitted in the process of forming abstractions. The idea that faith is a valid form of knowledge is actually a complete rejection of reason.
Not sure how you got to that interpretation but it is not what the bible says. The actual verse is "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".Faith is wishing, and pretending that what we wish for is real. That's not my definition but the Bible's. Faith is the substance of that which is hoped for. The substance of hope is a wish or desire. Faith is the evidence of that which is not seen. Wishing is the evidence of that which is not seen. If it's seen, we don't need to hope for it.
Can you verify with logic and reason why logic and reason are the only way we can know reality.
Why, it stands to reason. Humans are moral creatures. We need morality simply because we need to live together as humans can do nasty and horrible things to each other. So we need as a society some moral standard. But any moral standard created by humans is fallible and will fail.Estrid said
I'm.still always a bit surprised by the gay abandon
with which so many religious people just make
things up and feel entitled to state them as fact.
Consistent results for what. Its a limited measure of only certain aspects of reality such as the material things in life. But even logic can be illogical IE logic cannot verify itself as the only true knowledge of reality. Its circular reasoning which is illogical.It is the only method that produces consistent results.
That doesn't answer my question, its just a rationalization based on faith in the power of logic in that you accept logic as true despite not being able to prove it is the only way we can know reality.Other methods produce inconsistent results. One person gets one result, another person gets a completely different result, a third person gets something else. Unless you are suggesting that reality can be completely different for different people all at the same time, then any method that produces inconsistent results should be discarded as unreliable.
Consistent results for what. Its a limited measure of only certain aspects of reality such as the material things in life. But even logic can be illogical IE logic cannot verify itself as the only true knowledge of reality. Its circular reasoning which is illogical.
That doesn't answer my question, its just a rationalization based on faith in the power of logic in that you accept logic as true despite not being able to prove it is the only way we can know reality.
Our 1st person conscious experience is subjective yet its the only real thing we have to know reality. All else that follows is a human made construction (3rd person) based on limited knowledge of reality.
God depends on humans to interpret his standard, thus it always fails.The only way we can have a moral standard is to base it on something independent of human opinion. God was that independent standard up until recently and still is for many.
We already know Gods moral standards, its written in our hearts and conscience. If morals need human interpretation then we are in trouble as human interpretation is fallible and subject to corruption.God depends on humans to interpret his standard, thus it always fails.
Yes the scientific measure is designed to measure the perceived material world. But that's all its good for.If I measure the temperature of some lava as it erupts, I will get a certain result. Anyone else measuring the same lava will get the same result. If I measure the diameter of an impact crater, I will get a certain result. Anyone else measuring that same crater will get the same result. If I measure the speed of a bird flying through the air, I will get a certain result. If someone else measures the same bird, they will get the same result.
It is impossible for me to measure the lava at 1000 degrees and someone else measures the lava at 200 degrees. It is impossible for me to measure the crater's diameter at 100 kilometers and someone else measures the crater at three meters. It is impossible for me to measure the bird flying at 70 kilometers an hour and someone else measures the bird at 10 kilometers an hour.
If the results are not consistent, then we have no way of knowing which of the results is correct. We can't even know that any of the results are correct. Any method that does not produce consistent results is absolute garbage. It is worthless and should not be relied on.
Like I said I don' dispute science. I am saying it has its limits and there's a lot to reality that falls outside it that's every bit as important if not more to how we understand reality.When the subjective experience of lots of different people ALL point to the same result, it indicates that they are perceiving some aspect of objective reality. Can your alternative method of investigation say the same thing? Why should we accept it as accurate if it is always different for different people?
Exactly who is/are the genius(es) that have disclosed the principles of morality that enlightened average men and women? Without awareness of those moral principles, it would seem objectivism cannot move forward as nothing can be validated a posteriori that is not a priori known.None. There are no authorities. There is only logic applied to observed facts. That's where the objective part of morality comes from. Ayn Rand didn't start by going to any authority. She started by asking two questions. What is morality and why does man need it? She looked to reality, not other men. You don't have to look to her either. It takes a genius to discover the principles of morality but average men and women can take those principles and validate them for themselves by looking at reality. Always look to reality. It is the standard and logic is the method.
Also, we need to define what a right is. A right is a moral principle that sanctions and defines the limits of human action in a social setting. Rights are a political concept that derives from ethics considered in a social setting.
Why, it stands to reason. Humans are moral creatures. We need morality simply because we need to live together as humans can do nasty and horrible things to each other. So we need as a society some moral standard. But any moral standard created by humans is fallible and will fail.
The only way we can have a moral standard is to base it on something independent of human opinion. God was that independent standard up until recently and still is for many.
But as humans are moral creatures and need a moral standard when they get rid of God who was the independent standard a void is left. That void is open to be filled with human made ideas which could be anything.
But no matter what the void is filled with its going to be inferior because the fact is humans are fallible creatures who get morality wrong. So obviously a fallible morality is going to decline moral standards as opposed to an independent standard that is non-corruptible.
If that were true, everybody would have the same moral standard. The fact that we don't proves your claim wrong.We already know Gods moral standards, its written in our hearts and conscience.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?