You have done a great service to many by clearing up these matters.

You have done a great service to many by clearing up these matters.

I like how in the comments, you busted out Comte on ncloud. You buried his “Christianity is pro-altruism” argument so hard — and in so many ways — EPIC retort! Well played, sir.

…

That said, I still thought the most interesting comment was something else ncloud said.

ncloud: “”"It is the Christian view of the non-entity deity that attempts to step outside of existence and invent “a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive–a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence.” “”"

My reading of that is that if you allow your philosophical framework to contain a supreme being who is defined as being beyond reason, that leads to an annihilation of man’s reason. It isn’t even a slippery-slope. It’s a total undermining of all reason.

If you create a system in which reason applies everywhere, all the time, in every situation, and man should follow it, that would be objectivism. But coupled with Christianity, reason gets to be undermined any time a man in a robe says that God has “gone beyond” reason. You can try and wiggle out of that one by saying that’s just the institution of religion, not God. But even in a personal relationship with God… you only get to use reason to a point, then you just abandon reason whenever it contradicts the Bible or whatever non-reason based judgments you have in your understanding of God. It’s the same thing except self-reinforcing versus authoritarian control.

…..

I also thought some about Brian Frantz’s comments. I think it’s a tad imprecise to say Christianity sees men as evil and selfish. The Bible may mention that man is evil a couple times, but overall, it really portrays man as more weak, than evil. Again, it’s hard to see how Christianity and Objectivism get knit together on this seam. Christianity (as contained in the Bible) continuously portrays individuals, humanity as a whole, and everything else on Earth as hopelessly flawed, corrupted, and broken. There are numerous references to the idea that man cannot and should not trust himself or his own judgments. It portrays the world as one that is Ultimately subject to God’s Will, not reason. I would stop short of saying Christianity is the anti-thesis of reason, but it would certainly be easier to argue that men are corrupt and their reasoning unsound/unusable using biblical backing versus trying to show that man’s reason is strengthened by biblical teachings. It seems to me that relying on your own self-judgments and decisions — reason — is the opposite of submitting your will to a creature who lives outside of reason.

And forgive me for the impetuous nature of my comments. I’m quite flawed.

….

Also, in a totally unrelated note,

Doug – I find it interesting that you would add a CS Lewis quote in one of your responses that trashes Kant. You should read a Critique of Pure Reason. I would argue that your reasoning style in this article, and also in your life is very Kantian. More than anyone I know. Kant popularized the idea of universalizing precepts of systems to see if you could find contradictions and then disregarding those precepts as illogical if the universalization created any inherent contradictions.

So your views on economics and politics are entirely Kantian.

Kant (Economics) = Mises
Kant (Poltics) = Libertarianism
Kant (Science) = Western Science
Kant (Philosophy) = Western Philosophy

…

Sorry if my comments were all over the place. Your article was so well formulated. It honestly deserved better than the stream of consciousness ramble I gave you in response.

I look forward to future your next article!

Also, I posted pictures of my new condo in Phuket:
http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/louie_helm/

I like how in the comments, you busted out Comte on ncloud. You buried his “Christianity is pro-altruism” argument so hard — and in so many ways — EPIC retort! Well played, sir.

…

That said, I still thought the most interesting comment was something else ncloud said.

ncloud: “”"It is the Christian view of the non-entity deity that attempts to step outside of existence and invent “a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive–a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence.” “”"

My reading of that is that if you allow your philosophical framework to contain a supreme being who is defined as being beyond reason, that leads to an annihilation of man’s reason. It isn’t even a slippery-slope. It’s a total undermining of all reason.

If you create a system in which reason applies everywhere, all the time, in every situation, and man should follow it, that would be objectivism. But coupled with Christianity, reason gets to be undermined any time a man in a robe says that God has “gone beyond” reason. You can try and wiggle out of that one by saying that’s just the institution of religion, not God. But even in a personal relationship with God… you only get to use reason to a point, then you just abandon reason whenever it contradicts the Bible or whatever non-reason based judgments you have in your understanding of God. It’s the same thing except self-reinforcing versus authoritarian control.

…..

I also thought some about Brian Frantz’s comments. I think it’s a tad imprecise to say Christianity sees men as evil and selfish. The Bible may mention that man is evil a couple times, but overall, it really portrays man as more weak, than evil. Again, it’s hard to see how Christianity and Objectivism get knit together on this seam. Christianity (as contained in the Bible) continuously portrays individuals, humanity as a whole, and everything else on Earth as hopelessly flawed, corrupted, and broken. There are numerous references to the idea that man cannot and should not trust himself or his own judgments. It portrays the world as one that is Ultimately subject to God’s Will, not reason. I would stop short of saying Christianity is the anti-thesis of reason, but it would certainly be easier to argue that men are corrupt and their reasoning unsound/unusable using biblical backing versus trying to show that man’s reason is strengthened by biblical teachings. It seems to me that relying on your own self-judgments and decisions — reason — is the opposite of submitting your will to a creature who lives outside of reason.

And forgive me for the impetuous nature of my comments. I’m quite flawed.

….

Also, in a totally unrelated note,

Doug – I find it interesting that you would add a CS Lewis quote in one of your responses that trashes Kant. You should read a Critique of Pure Reason. I would argue that your reasoning style in this article, and also in your life is very Kantian. More than anyone I know. Kant popularized the idea of universalizing precepts of systems to see if you could find contradictions and then disregarding those precepts as illogical if the universalization created any inherent contradictions.

So your views on economics and politics are entirely Kantian.

Kant (Economics) = Mises
Kant (Poltics) = Libertarianism
Kant (Science) = Western Science
Kant (Philosophy) = Western Philosophy

…

Sorry if my comments were all over the place. Your article was so well formulated. It honestly deserved better than the stream of consciousness ramble I gave you in response.

I look forward to future your next article!

Also, I posted pictures of my new condo in Phuket:
http://www.couchsurfing.org/people/louie_helm/

As for “lov[ing] they neighbor”, I refer you to Rand’s letter to Rose Wilder Lane on Nov. 3, 1946, in which she wrote:

“But whatever meaning we attempt to attach to this slogan ["love thy neighbor as thyself"]—it still remains a tenet of collectivism. If ‘love’ here means self-preservation, as you say, or the protection of one’s interests—well, it still means that you must preserve and protect others *as much* as yourself. Since your chief activity of self-preservation on earth is work to obtain food, the slogan means that you must work for others just as much as for yourself. If so—collectivism is the proper social system for men. (A slogan or precept should be applied and observed literally, concretely, consistently, in every instance which it covers—or not at all.) … Now when you say ‘my interests require that I do not jeopardize (and that if and when necessary, I protect) my neighbor’s'—this is quite another matter, and not at all within the meaning or intention of that slogan. ‘Not to jeopardize’ is not the same thing as ‘actively to preserve.’ What you owe yourself is to work for your living; what you owe your neighbor is not to interfere with his work. This is not loving (or preserving) ‘as much as yourself.’ Every moral duty you owe to yourself requires a positive action; everything you *owe* your neighbor is negative—to abstain from action that would infringe his rights.”

(For purposes of space and copyright limitations, I cannot reprint the entirety of the letter, bit it is worth reading. It can be found in the book “The Letters of Ayn Rand”.)

As for the other Bible verses previously quoted, the immediate justification for Paul’s admonitions are irrelevant. The fact remains, he clearly teaches that individuals should *put the interest of others before their own* and to consider others *as better* than oneself. The excerpt from Rand’s letter above applies equally well to these verses.

@Phil, my statement that “[t]he structure and organization of the universe does not come from nothing, it simply *is*” was aimed at Douglas’s false dichotomy: “If man did not choose reason, he must have been created with it.” Not only does Douglas misunderstand Rand’s philosophy of the “self-made man”, he also takes the standard Creationist position that ordered reality, in this case, a reasonable human being, must have been created because order cannot come from non-order. This is incorrect however, because an unordered reality is, itself, a contradiction in terms. Christians, however, believe on faith in an *ordered reality that had no designer*, and they call this reality “god”. Rand believed that the universe and its laws are an ordered reality with no designer, and man, being part of that universe, has an ordered nature which includes his reason. Man does not choose to have the epistemological capacity for reason — he chooses whether to exercise his reason correctly or not.

As for “lov[ing] they neighbor”, I refer you to Rand’s letter to Rose Wilder Lane on Nov. 3, 1946, in which she wrote:

“But whatever meaning we attempt to attach to this slogan ["love thy neighbor as thyself"]—it still remains a tenet of collectivism. If ‘love’ here means self-preservation, as you say, or the protection of one’s interests—well, it still means that you must preserve and protect others *as much* as yourself. Since your chief activity of self-preservation on earth is work to obtain food, the slogan means that you must work for others just as much as for yourself. If so—collectivism is the proper social system for men. (A slogan or precept should be applied and observed literally, concretely, consistently, in every instance which it covers—or not at all.) … Now when you say ‘my interests require that I do not jeopardize (and that if and when necessary, I protect) my neighbor’s'—this is quite another matter, and not at all within the meaning or intention of that slogan. ‘Not to jeopardize’ is not the same thing as ‘actively to preserve.’ What you owe yourself is to work for your living; what you owe your neighbor is not to interfere with his work. This is not loving (or preserving) ‘as much as yourself.’ Every moral duty you owe to yourself requires a positive action; everything you *owe* your neighbor is negative—to abstain from action that would infringe his rights.”

(For purposes of space and copyright limitations, I cannot reprint the entirety of the letter, bit it is worth reading. It can be found in the book “The Letters of Ayn Rand”.)

As for the other Bible verses previously quoted, the immediate justification for Paul’s admonitions are irrelevant. The fact remains, he clearly teaches that individuals should *put the interest of others before their own* and to consider others *as better* than oneself. The excerpt from Rand’s letter above applies equally well to these verses.

@Phil, my statement that “[t]he structure and organization of the universe does not come from nothing, it simply *is*” was aimed at Douglas’s false dichotomy: “If man did not choose reason, he must have been created with it.” Not only does Douglas misunderstand Rand’s philosophy of the “self-made man”, he also takes the standard Creationist position that ordered reality, in this case, a reasonable human being, must have been created because order cannot come from non-order. This is incorrect however, because an unordered reality is, itself, a contradiction in terms. Christians, however, believe on faith in an *ordered reality that had no designer*, and they call this reality “god”. Rand believed that the universe and its laws are an ordered reality with no designer, and man, being part of that universe, has an ordered nature which includes his reason. Man does not choose to have the epistemological capacity for reason — he chooses whether to exercise his reason correctly or not.

So I don’t think it makes much sense to critique her philosophy by ignoring one of its fundamental precepts.

So I don’t think it makes much sense to critique her philosophy by ignoring one of its fundamental precepts.