Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Ayn Rand isn't a role model
Author Message
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #121
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
The concept of self-worth deserves a response that I can't put together right now ... I doubt I can offer any better than Rand's arguments on self-esteem.

Allen and Franklin were self identified Deists - I the Paine opens up The Age of Reason by saying he's been called a Deist and wouldn't disagree. Jefferson (and Paine) were accused of being atheists, but all were explicit - at least in public and in writings - about their belief in a Deity. Their reasons for stating such include their belief in The Ether. I don't know how firm those beliefs would be given the intervening evidence about the physical world and theories of physics between then and now. But, you're read on Paine seems both common and sensible.

My estimation of the Christian's conception of god is not nearly as forgiving as yours. There are too many explicit acts of evil perpetrated unnecessarily by the god of the Bible that both did harm and set the stage fir human acts of evil for me to accept that it is a purely benevolent deity. I also dont accept your arguments for self-worth being entirely a Christian construct - both because of the nature of the acts of Jesus and his message, along with various messages from the old testament. I believe the notion has Aristotlean roots, so it would predate modern Christanity, and even feudal Western society has the royalty problems you ascribe to other religions. On the whole, one characteristic shared by nearly all religions is the submission of self to either deity or society.

So, why would the concept of self-worth flourish in Christian society? More than any other single reason, I would submit wealth is the answer, but clearly it is complicated, and your argument may indeed have some merit, but I don't think it is complete. John Stossel's ABC special on Greed (I think) had a substantial piece on how happiness was really something that people only began to think of as a central part of life when they get into a certain threshold of wealth. As a disclaimer, Stossel has a large Randian tilt and often would include some of the central figures from Rand's circle in his specials. Stossel himself seems to believe in a deity. Thank goodness TOGC is around to "save" mr. Stossel if we can only get him to give him a call.
06-21-2011 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #122
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
I'm actually enjoying this thread. This thread hasn't been sloshed through the mud, it's entertaining, and thought provoking. One thing I might add. For those that follow evolutions of society. Wouldn't we need a Christian God to grant us rights over a King? So "we" make a God. We needed to create something more powerful to escape tyranny. My 2 cents.
06-21-2011 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #123
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-20-2011 09:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 07:28 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 05:40 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Not to belittle Christianity or your view (i actually think Christianity is generally positive)...., there is one big problem with it however:

The Problem of Evil

Have had numerous discussions on this topic. I don't see evil as a problem in the sense you offer it.

You don't have a problem with the Epicurean Paradox?:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

I am curious as to why not, not trying to be a dick, just genuinely curious.

I think the Epicurean Paradox is a false dichotomy. It assumes that removing evil from the world is a desired benefit. But is it really? The concept of free will in man is a bedrock of Judeo-Christian belief. That means man is free to choose good or evil, and if God would completely expunge evil from the world, it would deny man the freedom to make the choice to pursue good or evil. Without free will, there is no humanity.
06-21-2011 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Online
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,736
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #124
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-21-2011 09:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 09:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 07:28 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 05:40 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Not to belittle Christianity or your view (i actually think Christianity is generally positive)...., there is one big problem with it however:

The Problem of Evil

Have had numerous discussions on this topic. I don't see evil as a problem in the sense you offer it.

You don't have a problem with the Epicurean Paradox?:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

I am curious as to why not, not trying to be a dick, just genuinely curious.

I think the Epicurean Paradox is a false dichotomy. It assumes that removing evil from the world is a desired benefit. But is it really? The concept of free will in man is a bedrock of Judeo-Christian belief. That means man is free to choose good or evil, and if God would completely expunge evil from the world, it would deny man the freedom to make the choice to pursue good or evil. Without free will, there is no humanity.

Not all Christians would agree with you about free will.
06-21-2011 11:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #125
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-21-2011 09:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying this thread. This thread hasn't been sloshed through the mud, it's entertaining, and thought provoking. One thing I might add. For those that follow evolutions of society. Wouldn't we need a Christian God to grant us rights over a King? So "we" make a God. We needed to create something more powerful to escape tyranny. My 2 cents.

I think the reverse is true. Kings need gods more than serfs need gods. Look now at the middle east, and how stable kings (Mubarak, Assad, Khadaffi, etc) are without a god to grant them authority (and to some extent, they do have that, even without the title of king).

The question is interesting when you look at the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly mentions god given rights. Whether that is necessary is clearly going to be disputed here.

(06-21-2011 09:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 09:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 07:28 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 05:40 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Not to belittle Christianity or your view (i actually think Christianity is generally positive)...., there is one big problem with it however:

The Problem of Evil

Have had numerous discussions on this topic. I don't see evil as a problem in the sense you offer it.

You don't have a problem with the Epicurean Paradox?:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

I am curious as to why not, not trying to be a dick, just genuinely curious.

I think the Epicurean Paradox is a false dichotomy. It assumes that removing evil from the world is a desired benefit. But is it really? The concept of free will in man is a bedrock of Judeo-Christian belief. That means man is free to choose good or evil, and if God would completely expunge evil from the world, it would deny man the freedom to make the choice to pursue good or evil. Without free will, there is no humanity.

I think so too. It disregards the potential of the "immature brat" god ... at least Greco-Roman mythology was replete with those. I think that people are too comfortable with the notion of an infallible god as well ... there's nothing to discount the possibility of an incompetent god.
06-21-2011 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #126
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
Does someone need to be a role model to posit a good idea?

Einstein was by all accounts a dispacable man who divorced his wife to marry his second Elsa Einstein, with whom he was a blood relative through both his mother and his father. Einstein is also rumord to have desired sex with his eventual second wife Elsa's daughter, Ilse, or her sister, Margot.

Still were I a physicist I would not throw out his ideas because of the man he was.

Rand was not a good woman but she was nearly dead on with the over interference of government in peoples lives and its effect.
06-21-2011 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jugnaut Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,874
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 482
I Root For: UCF
Location: Florida
Post: #127
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-21-2011 11:08 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(06-21-2011 09:29 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I'm actually enjoying this thread. This thread hasn't been sloshed through the mud, it's entertaining, and thought provoking. One thing I might add. For those that follow evolutions of society. Wouldn't we need a Christian God to grant us rights over a King? So "we" make a God. We needed to create something more powerful to escape tyranny. My 2 cents.

I think the reverse is true. Kings need gods more than serfs need gods. Look now at the middle east, and how stable kings (Mubarak, Assad, Khadaffi, etc) are without a god to grant them authority (and to some extent, they do have that, even without the title of king).

The question is interesting when you look at the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly mentions god given rights. Whether that is necessary is clearly going to be disputed here.

(06-21-2011 09:54 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 09:07 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 07:28 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  
(06-20-2011 05:40 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Not to belittle Christianity or your view (i actually think Christianity is generally positive)...., there is one big problem with it however:

The Problem of Evil

Have had numerous discussions on this topic. I don't see evil as a problem in the sense you offer it.

You don't have a problem with the Epicurean Paradox?:

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus

I am curious as to why not, not trying to be a dick, just genuinely curious.

I think the Epicurean Paradox is a false dichotomy. It assumes that removing evil from the world is a desired benefit. But is it really? The concept of free will in man is a bedrock of Judeo-Christian belief. That means man is free to choose good or evil, and if God would completely expunge evil from the world, it would deny man the freedom to make the choice to pursue good or evil. Without free will, there is no humanity.

I think so too. It disregards the potential of the "immature brat" god ... at least Greco-Roman mythology was replete with those. I think that people are too comfortable with the notion of an infallible god as well ... there's nothing to discount the possibility of an incompetent god.

I think that's a legitimate criticism, but that's the point of the paradox. It's saying if you take the premise that there is a "perfect" god then you come up with the paradox. If you accept an indifferent or less than perfect god then there is not a paradox, but that wouldn't be a christian view of god, would it? An impotent or wicked god isn't a christian god.

And I think Epicurus means evil to include all "bad things." Example, why does a baby get killed by a storm or disease?
06-21-2011 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niucob86 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 784
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #128
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
In reading through some of these posts, I am in no way surprised that some on you are contradicting your adopted Darwinian worldview. After all, we all saw what happened to Dr. James Watson. Personally, I admire him because he was intellectually honest to realize that if one accepts a given premise, one must at times accept unsavory conclusions.
06-22-2011 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #129
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 09:12 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  In reading through some of these posts, I am in no way surprised that some on you are contradicting your adopted Darwinian worldview. After all, we all saw what happened to Dr. James Watson. Personally, I admire him because he was intellectually honest to realize that if one accepts a given premise, one must at times accept unsavory conclusions.

Are you referring to his various views that seem to point to him being a huge fan of eugenics?
06-22-2011 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #130
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(06-22-2011 09:12 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  In reading through some of these posts, I am in no way surprised that some on you are contradicting your adopted Darwinian worldview. After all, we all saw what happened to Dr. James Watson. Personally, I admire him because he was intellectually honest to realize that if one accepts a given premise, one must at times accept unsavory conclusions.

Are you referring to his various views that seem to point to him being a huge fan of eugenics?

"seem" to point at him?

Ummm Darwin, towards the end, admitted that he was a eugenicist. Eugenics was very popular in the lat 19th century. Everyone is so focused on the Origin of Species they forget about his book "The Descent of Man " where he argues *for* Eugenics not just as a consequence of natural selection but as a social good.

In The Descent of Man Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, "the noblest part of our nature", and factors such as education could be more important.

When Galton, his cousin and the father of Eugenics, suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it

"the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race",

preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals..

Basically he was less of a public radical than his cousin, preferring to lay the intellectual groundwork for Eugenics because there was more money and academic acceptance in that then in building the seen case for Eugenics.
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2011 09:55 AM by Bull_In_Exile.)
06-22-2011 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
niucob86 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 784
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #131
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
"He (Watson) writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.

He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk...677098.ece
06-22-2011 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Smaug Offline
Happnin' Dude
*

Posts: 61,211
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 842
I Root For: Dragons
Location: The Lonely Mountain

BlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk AwardBlazerTalk Award
Post: #132
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
Dubya talked a good game, but he increased the size and scope of government out the yin yang.

As much as you hate him, you should have been cheering him.
06-22-2011 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #133
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 09:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-22-2011 09:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(06-22-2011 09:12 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  In reading through some of these posts, I am in no way surprised that some on you are contradicting your adopted Darwinian worldview. After all, we all saw what happened to Dr. James Watson. Personally, I admire him because he was intellectually honest to realize that if one accepts a given premise, one must at times accept unsavory conclusions.

Are you referring to his various views that seem to point to him being a huge fan of eugenics?

"seem" to point at him?

Ummm Darwin, towards the end, admitted that he was a eugenicist. Eugenics was very popular in the lat 19th century. Everyone is so focused on the Origin of Species they forget about his book "The Descent of Man " where he argues *for* Eugenics not just as a consequence of natural selection but as a social good.

In The Descent of Man Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, "the noblest part of our nature", and factors such as education could be more important.

When Galton, his cousin and the father of Eugenics, suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it

"the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race",

preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals..

Basically he was less of a public radical than his cousin, preferring to lay the intellectual groundwork for Eugenics because there was more money and academic acceptance in that then in building the seen case for Eugenics.

Eugenics was very popular well into the 20th century too. It rapidly fell out of favor shortly after Hitler thought it would be a great idea to build an Aryan race of super beings and eradicate the Jews. He tried to take Eugenics to its logical conclusion and people recoiled in horror when they finally saw it in action. Faculty lounge logic and ideas are not always desirable in the real world...
06-22-2011 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #134
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
Please note that Eugenics, genetic selection, and manipulating genes are all aspects of puroposeful (if evil) manipulation of "micro-evolution". These are only extensions to humans of what individual parents have done since the invention of the enispa and aginava (somewhat confounded by the advent of rogaine and silocone breast implants, but ongoing nevertheless), and what man has done with both domesticated animals (my favorite being the Golden Retriever) and plant flora for millenia.

These have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution or of the origin of the species, nor does it follow that one is the logical conclusion of the other. There are a set of those that believe in both Evolution and Eugenics and disbelieve in one or the other, but none of those sets are inclusive of any of the others.

carry on ...

edit: replaced body parts with their latin names to make them more clinical sounding and acceptable to the intrepid ncaabbs vocabulary filter.
(This post was last modified: 06-22-2011 12:05 PM by I45owl.)
06-22-2011 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #135
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 12:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  These have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution or of the origin of the species, nor does it follow that one is the logical conclusion of the other. There are a set of those that believe in both Evolution and Eugenics and disbelieve in one or the other, but none of those sets are inclusive of any of the others.

Darwin disagreed, and given that the only way Macro Evolution could happen is via Micro Evolution its has a ton to do with it..
06-22-2011 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #136
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 12:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Please note that Eugenics, genetic selection, and manipulating genes are all aspects of puroposeful (if evil) manipulation of "micro-evolution". These are only extensions to humans of what individual parents have done since the invention of the enispa and aginava (somewhat confounded by the advent of rogaine and silocone breast implants, but ongoing nevertheless), and what man has done with both domesticated animals (my favorite being the Golden Retriever) and plant flora for millenia.

These have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution or of the origin of the species, nor does it follow that one is the logical conclusion of the other. There are a set of those that believe in both Evolution and Eugenics and disbelieve in one or the other, but none of those sets are inclusive of any of the others.

carry on ...

edit: replaced body parts with their latin names to make them more clinical sounding and acceptable to the intrepid ncaabbs vocabulary filter.

I think eugenics was actually an attempt at social engineering that attempted to use the limited scientific knowledge of the day to further a cleansed gene pool. I agree that evolution as a scientific theory is different from eugenics as an experiment in social engineering. But there were people who took tenets of evolution to further the idea of eugenics, specifically the idea of "survival of the fittest". However, there's no doubt you can be a believer in evolution and not a believer in eugenics, and you can be a non-believer in evolution while embracing the ideas of eugenics.
06-22-2011 12:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #137
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 12:09 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(06-22-2011 12:02 PM)I45owl Wrote:  These have nothing to do with the theory of Evolution or of the origin of the species, nor does it follow that one is the logical conclusion of the other. There are a set of those that believe in both Evolution and Eugenics and disbelieve in one or the other, but none of those sets are inclusive of any of the others.

Darwin disagreed, and given that the only way Macro Evolution could happen is via Micro Evolution its has a ton to do with it..

Darwin disagreed with what, exactly? What do you mean by "it has a ton to do with it"? If you mean Macro Evolution requires Micro Evolution, fine, but why is that an interesting statement?
06-22-2011 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #138
RE: Ayn Rand isn't a role model
(06-22-2011 12:16 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think eugenics was actually an attempt at social engineering that attempted to use the limited scientific knowledge of the day to further a cleansed gene pool. I agree that evolution as a scientific theory is different from eugenics as an experiment in social engineering. But there were people who took tenets of evolution to further the idea of eugenics, specifically the idea of "survival of the fittest". However, there's no doubt you can be a believer in evolution and not a believer in eugenics, and you can be a non-believer in evolution while embracing the ideas of eugenics.

Yes. To the extent that Darwin advocated any social engineering, if he were to see how that was applied in the 20th century and how the intervening years have drastically altered our society's outlook on human ethnicity, I would be shocked if he were not horrified at the implications. Either that, or he was a ******* douchebag, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that score. Considered out of context, one could say that Jimmy the Greek is deserving of the Darwin award more than those that die horrifically stupid deaths.
06-22-2011 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.