[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Clete

Interestingly if my thesis is correct and God is Logic, then "I am that I am." is as good a way as can be for the person of Logic Himself to state the Law of Identity. If God is Logic then "I am that I am" is the equivalent to "A is A".

That is interesting. Also, as you know, early theologians saw it as an affirmation of the Creator: the One who "is" without any qualifications, without having to depend on anything else for existence.

In my ears, all this sounds like different ways of saying the same thing.
Is there any such thing as true communication that is not also logical and vise-versa?
Is there any such thing as illogical communication that is meaningful or logical communication that is not?

That which turns sounds into speech and speech into the intelligible transmission of ideas is logic.

I don't deny that Logos implies all the things you mention but so does Logic. So far as I can tell, our use of the word logic is pretty close to synonymous with the Greek use of logos. But I'm no Greek scholar so I could be wrong on that one.

That's true. I think Sealeaf's post is a good summation of my own. When I think of "logic" I think of a well-defined closed system as in the field of logic or philosophy. When I think of language and communication, I am not really thinking of the same thing. Rather I think of an encounter with another person. It would be more like staring into the limitless depths of a spouse than analyzing meaning or logical puzzles.

Now certainly language and communication presuppose logic, and yet I don't think they are identical with it. Like Sealeaf, I agree with your conclusion, but I think it is important to keep in mind other additional aspects. Are language and logic necessary for the "Encounter with God" that John presents? Certainly if we are studying the Bible they are, or if we are seeing through a glass darkly, and yet I cannot help but consider the idea that, when the glass is removed and we see God face to face, logic and reasoning will become somewhat ...outdated or unnecessary. Just some thoughts, it may be as simple as direct apprehension vs indirect knowledge.

I don't think it "defines" it, I think that morality follows logically when one begins with rational life as their primary philosophical base. As Rand put it, "That which is proper to life is the good, that which negates it is the evil." So if anything, it is life and that which is proper to it which defines morality.

Okay, so this is a good point at which to bring in one of the differing ethical systems I referenced earlier and I think Vaquero has also brought up: utilitarianism. The utilitarian/deontological debate is a perfect example of reason coming to a stalemate. I think the infinite dignity/value of the human person comes into play here, but can that sort of value be logically proven?

Rand would never agree that we should be "content with survival". On the contrary she says over and over again in her writings that the avoidance of death is not the love of life. Rand was not and I am not suggesting that mere survival is the primary premise upon which morality is based but life itself and one's freedom to live it and live it to the fullest. Thomas Jefferson would have stated the premise as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". A premise which is, by itself, responsible for the greatest increase in both longevity and standard of living the world has ever seen.

It seems to me that Rand's philosophy uses as its reference point life or survival. If something is conducive to survival and life, then it is good (that is her starting point). But I didn't mean to equate your view with Rand's, and I haven't read her extensively. In any case, Rand's reasoning naturally abhors martyrdom. In fact I have a hard time seeing how any purely naturalistic type of reasoning would condone martyrdom in a true sense, not just sacrifice for the common good.

This is the point I think you missed. It is precisely the first principle of life and more specifically the life of a rational being that rationally spawns a moral code of conduct that would apply to any rational person, whether created or Creator.

How about the grounding principle of the value of the life of a rational being?


I agree, but again, it isn't just logic its life that is the issue here. Logic is the means, the value of life is the initial presupposition.

Presumably you require something like "The life of rational beings is infinitely valuable" in order to avoid utilitarianism. I don't know how you get there from life and logic.

I believe my thesis removes the underlying presupposition upon which the dilemma is based.
It isn't that morality is defined by God's nature nor is it that morality is determined by God's fiat command but rather that morality emerges from God's nature as both Life and Logic.

My original point was this:

Euthyphro: Does God define morality or is God a moral being?
Clete: God is rational/logical and therefore moral.
Euthyphro: Does God define logic or is God a logical being?

The word "emerges" gives me pause, but if you mean it in the syllogistic sense that life + logic = morality then I think a gap still exists. Maybe it is a problem separate from the initial dilemma, but it does seem to spring up because of the particular solution.

What is Love if not acting in a manner logically proper to life?

Love is life lived logically.

Maybe love requires logic in some sense, at least if it wishes to achieve its aim. And yet I think someone can still love without logic. A mother may coddle a son when the father has punished him, and despite the fact that her action was illogical/incorrect, she may have still acted out of love. But then again, love has an obligation to rationally assess a situation in order to be effective. Still, I don't think error in logic undoes love.

My original point was that logic falls short of love, which you get to...

Okay, on this point you've definitely gotten it wrong. What else is there to tell us what to do if not sound reason?

Asked another way..

How did you come to the conclusion that reason cannot tell you how to do what you ought to do? (This question answers itself, by the way.)

Every thought in your head comes from reason - every single thought. Reason is the only tool your mind has with which to function. The only variable is the soundness of the reasoning used.

Because an "is" does not make an "ought." Deontology and utilitarianism differ on values, not logic.

Bob: Should I eat this ice cream cone?
Reason: It depends on whether you value its flavor, its calories, its price, etc.

Bob: Should I kill 5 people so that 1 million may be spared?
Reason: It depends on whether human beings have infinite value, on whether you have the power to kill the 5, etc.

So unless you can upstage every moral philosopher in history by giving me a proof for such first principles as the value of a human life, I think my point holds.

I'm surprised that you said this.
The only people who balk at the cross or any other aspect of the Christian faith as being irrational have bad information as to the particular doctrine in question.
The cross in particular is clearly rational.

To Rand? Remember, it has nothing to do with whether a doctrine is internally consistent (and I was talking about the thing more than a doctrine), but whether it is rational full stop. Phrased another way and opening a new door: was Rand irrational because she did not convert to Christianity?

I disagree with you here entirely.

I am not a rationalist in the sense that we human beings can figure out every aspect of what is true purely by the use of our minds and empirical analysis of naturally available data. There is no question that information received from God is a necessary ingredient for a good understand about who God is as well as our condition before Him and His plan of salvation.
Having said that, however, that is only true because we are fallen human beings that do not have access to such information independent of divine revelation. If we did have access to all the pertinent information or once we do have access to it, then the doctrines which follows must follow rationally. There is no such thing as an irrational truth, nor can there be anything super-rational as God Himself is Reason and nothing can be Super-God.

I'm not fully understanding your objection here. I am with Sealeaf in saying that God is super-rational (transcends rationality).

Are you saying that if we were given enough information we would not need salvation? Or, if someone were rational enough, they could save themselves? That is the sort of thing I was referring to with the theological virtues.

This hurt when I read this. I literally got one of those weird pains you get when you see someone crash their bicycle and go flying over the handle bars to plant their face in the mud. Owch!

Zippy, if there's one thing you've got to understand as a Christian its that justice and mercy are not contradictory concepts!

If God were able to be merciful and not have to worry about the principles of justice being contradicted then were is the need for Christ's death on the cross? Don't you see that it is precisely the cross and Christ's death on it that preserves justice while making mercy possible?
That's the entire point of the cross! That's the reason why the cross is such a foundational and indispensable issue in the Christian faith.

Here's some words to live by....

"Contradictions do not exist. If you think you've found one, check your premises. You'll find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

And that goes for ANY contradiction!

That's fine. Continually when I say "super-rational" you read "irrational" or "contradictory." That's not what I mean. But justice is the logical thing, while mercy (grace) is the super-logical thing. It sort of transforms the old logic like Mt 5:43-44.

Indeed! I agree with this ENTIRELY!

Resting in Him,
Clete

-zip

[annabenedetti]

Enjoying the conversation, zippy.

[Clete]

Zip,

I'm starting to think that the majority of our disagreement has more to do with semantics than it has to do with substance.

I love your post! It's not often that I read a post that isn't going to be easy to respond to. I've got some homework to do!

It may be a day or two before I get to post a response. I'd say no later than Wednesday evening.

Clete

[Vaquero45]

Originally Posted by Clete

Well, as I mentioned in another post, it isn't simply survival that is at issue, its living. The life of a rational being implies far more than simple existence but also relationship, purpose, fulfillment, freedom, criminal and economic justice, societal development, etc, etc. None of which is possible in a society ruled by "survival of the fittest". Any student of history knows that anarchy does not work and leads to starvation, mass murder, economic depression, tyrannical government oppression and general misery and despair. That student of history should thereby conclude that survival of the fittest is not a premise proper to the life of a rational being and that it is therefore evil.

The part I highlighted is the hurdle for me, the rest I follow on. I can see "relationship", because the rational creature will end up interacting with other rational creatures.

Purpose, fulfillment, freedom, criminal and economic justice, societal development all feel like higher concepts that I can't give a logical necessity for.

I certainly agree that we properly value all these things, and if we follow our conscience which tells us to "value life", (which seems like a good nutshell all-encompassing way to state the message of our conscience) we will acknowledge the need for them and strive to establish them in "good" society.

Your God given conscience is your ability to reason! And it is just that, God given. Romans 1:18-21

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 gProfessing to be wise, they became fools,

I threw in v22 also.... Now the language here sways me toward your idea I think. Paul is basically calling them "stupid" (irrational?) for being immoral/evil, against the clear message of general revelation of creation, which we can know through our conscience. For instance empathy for causing pain to others, our own frustration with liars and thieves tells us it is wrong to do these things, you know what I mean. So I'm making room for the idea that or conscience is part of the "logic tool set". The big question is, "is it illogical to deny what your conscience tells you?". While knowing that there is God to answer to, I think we can say "yes", and give Paul a nod when he calls them fools. This is plain from the Christian worldview.

Outside of the Christian worldview, it seems like Rand is picking out the parts of general revelation that she likes, (value of life) using the conscience God gave her, and hand-waving them into logical rules without acknowledging the higher authority that makes them logical.

I should probably sleep on it and answer tomorrow but for now that will have to do.

The difference between animals and man is the difference between instinct and reason; between anarchy and civilization; between existing and living.

As you pointed out, animals are not entirely irrational or else none of them would be alive. Even animals are constrained to the rigors of reality but they do not have the mind required to move conceptually away from simply eating, sleeping, procreation and for the most intelligent of animals some full belly induced play.

I agree, but I'm not sure how Rand gets past this level in her worldview. Man has better thinking ability, therefore it is logically necessary for him to value life corporately?

Your answer for it is only a form of the same answer. A man's conscience, assuming it is in good working order, isn't magic, it is his thinking mind thinking rationally.

I think I agree, at least that acknowledging and following our conscience is logical in light of my Romans 2 comments above, which is new to me, it just came to me from pondering your idea here. But... I think it has to be from OUR worldview. Sorry to keep saying that...

This is an interesting point that I'm surprised hasn't come up yet but that I will take as an opportunity to clarify an important point.

I already said that I am not a rationalist in another post where I said, in so many words, that our minds are capable of understanding whatever doctrinal issues happen to come up so long as we have the pertinent information. Sometimes that information is available to us through our normal perceptions and sometimes that information comes from God through scripture and sometimes through direct divine revelation (like in the case of Paul being given the Gospel of Grace, for example (Gal. 1:12)) but then there are a few time when we are not given sufficient information and are compelled to simply go with what we do know and be content to live with a certain amount of mystery. The doctrine of the Trinity is, I think, one of those issues. We know that in some sense there is a plurality in God and we know that in some other sense God is singular. What I reject as irrational is the idea that God is both plural and singular at the same time and in the same sense, which is precisely what many Christians would have us all believe but it clearly goes beyond what the Scripture actually teaches. It is enough to understand the biblical testimony concerning this issue and leaving it at that. I do not need to understand every detail in order to maintain a worldview which is both Christian and rationally consistent.

Agreed, I like that a lot.

YET!

lol I'm stilling staring at it, the light bulb might come on, who knows....

Taking this bullet from our gun against the atheist is the exact same thing that I wrestled with myself for months. But look, our arguments either work or they don't, right? Our worldview is either true or it isn't. If its true then we do not need bad arguments even if they're sometimes effective in convincing others away from gross error. In the end, the use of bad arguments only comes back to bite you because the badness of the argument will eventually be found out and then that argument which once worked so effectively in your favor will serve to destroy you completely in the minds of those against whom the argument was used.

Having said that, I am not willing to die on this particular hill yet, myself. I'm still very much in the learning process here. I'm reasonably confident that what I've presented here is right, or else I would have never posted it on a public forum but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong. If someone can refute my thesis, I'll hear it gladly, especially if that refutation comes from someone I respect!

Resting in Him,
Clete

Agreed, I'll put more thought in it and come back, wanted to get something up at least.

[Vaquero45]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

My original point was this:

Euthyphro: Does God define morality or is God a moral being?
Clete: God is rational/logical and therefore moral.
Euthyphro: Does God define logic or is God a logical being?


-zip

Just a quicky, THIS is a interesting point. "Pushing it back a level" is the way I think you worded it. I missed that, good question.

[Vaquero45]

Originally Posted by Clete

Vaquero45,

What would you say is the opposite of reason?

Buddhism?

That's a vague question. Let me rephrase...

What is the opposite of the rational persuasion of others?

Unless you've read Rand, you might not understand where this is going but just trust me and give a shot at answering the question.

Of course, anyone who would like to do so is welcome to offer an answer.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It is hard to describe, I'd say , absolute absence of communication, absence of thought, maybe even absence of sentience.
"I think, therefore I am" wouldn't work.

lol I'm curious to see how far off I am , , never read a bit of Rand.

[zippy2006]

Originally Posted by Clete

It may be a day or two before I get to post a response. I'd say no later than Wednesday evening.

Sure, take your time. Feel free to ask for clarification, I didn't mean to be overly cryptic. But the topic does cover quite a bit and become complex quickly.

[Clete]

Originally Posted by Vaquero45

Buddhism?



It is hard to describe, I'd say , absolute absence of communication, absence of thought, maybe even absence of sentience.
"I think, therefore I am" wouldn't work.

lol I'm curious to see how far off I am , , never read a bit of Rand.

The use of force. I thought of this point when thinking through your "steal your wallet" argument.

I have no time to elaborate at the moment. Maybe I should just post a lengthy quote from Rand and see if you follow her logic on the issue.

Maybe later.

Clete

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Clete

There are issues here that touch on the Euthyphro Dilemma as well as a couple of other things that I could spend some considerable about of time developing


So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Resting in Him,
Clete

(Originally written on 3/24/2012)

In my humble opinion the logos of John is an analogy from the logos of Stoicism. Paul also knew concepts of Stoicism well and was brought up as a child in Tarsus, a centre of Stoicism. Paul quotes from Stoic writers in his sermon to the Athenians. His theology of the unity of the body can also be easily compared with Stoic ideas of logos.

The logos of Stoicism was the reason that caused all things to adhere. Stoicism was a pantheistic belief - the factor that united all things was called logos - reason. The idea was that things only had meaning by their relationships. For example a chair was only a chair because it had a relationship to people that 'people sat on it'. 'Chairness' was not something intrinsic to chairs but was defined by a relationship to other things. All things in the universe were deemed to be physical but their relationships were simply part of that physicality. There was no such thing as logos as a self-existent substance (otherwise Stoicism would be a dualism, not a form of pantheism). The sum total of all these relationships was what gave the universe it's comprehensibility. It was called logos because means 'sentence' 'utterance' or 'word'. It doesn't primarily mean 'word' as in a lexical entry in a dictionary (though it can mean that) but an intelligible saying.

Stoics didn't think of logos as divine but, as with other forms of pantheism, it was accorded a quasi-religious value. When the poet Cleanthes wrote about logos, he used the god Zeus as a personification of it. It doesn't mean that Cleanthes thought of logos as a divine being - this is only poetry. I've bolded the parts that refer to Paul's citation in Acts and some other possible NT references. (Though he could have been referring to any number of Stoic poets who developed this theme).

Most glorious of the immortals, invoked by many names, ever all-powerful,
Zeus, the First Cause of Nature, who rules all things with Law,
Hail! It is right for mortals to call upon you,
since from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be God's image,
we alone of all mortal creatures that live and move upon the earth.
Accordingly, I will praise you with my hymn and ever sing of your might.
The whole universe, spinning around the earth,
goes wherever you lead it and is willingly guided by you.
So great is the servant which you hold in your invincible hands,
your eternal, two-edged, lightning-forked thunderbolt.
By its strokes all the works of nature came to be established,
and with it you guide the universal Word of Reason which moves through all creation,
mingling with the great sun and the small stars.
O God, without you nothing comes to be on earth,
neither in the region of the heavenly poles, nor in the sea,
except what evil men do in their folly.
But you know how to make extraordinary things suitable,
and how to bring order forth from chaos; and even that which is unlovely is lovely to you.
For thus you have joined all things, the good with the bad, into one,
so that the eternal Word of all came to be one.
This Word, however, evil mortals flee, poor wretches;
though they are desirous of good things for their possession,
they neither see nor listen to God's universal Law;
and yet, if they obey it intelligently, they would have the good life.
But they are senselessly driven to one evil after another:
some are eager for fame, no matter how godlessly it is acquired;
others are set on making money without any orderly principles in their lives;
and others are bent on ease and on the pleasures and delights of the body.
They do these foolish things, time and again,
and are swept along, eagerly defeating all they really wish for.
O Zeus, giver of all, shrouded in dark clouds and holding the vivid bright lightning,
rescue men from painful ignorance.
Scatter that ignorance far from their hearts.
and deign to rule all things in justice.
so that, honored in this way, we may render honor to you in return,
and sing your deeds unceasingly, as befits mortals;
for there is no greater glory for men
or for gods than to justly praise the universal Word of Reason.

It seems to me that in John, Jesus is being held as an analogy for this universal reason, he is the embodiment of all that gives sense to the world. Without him nothing in the world makes any sense at all. Also, the theme of light of the world is one which would have been understood as giving moral light to those seeking how to act righteously. (See the reference to the bright lightning rescuing men from ignorance.)

Which all sort of agrees with what you are saying, though with nuances.

[organiccornflake]

I find it interesting how the point of an eternal punishment being created by god hasn't come up yet. So I guess I will go ahead and make it

There are usually two views on this subject (In protestantism at least)
1. Hell Is punishment for rejecting god on earth
2. Hell isn't punishment, but the natural result of separation from god.

Now for the rebuttles

To view #1, Why would a punishment be eternal? Is not the point of punishment to give the criminal a chance to see the error of his ways, and deter him from doing it again once he is free? There is no freedom from eternal hell, so whatever lesson you learn, you cannot apply.

to view #2, Why would a god that loves us so dearly ever shut us out for forever, no matter how much we reject him? Also, why would a god that loves us so much give us such a terrible place to stay if we reject him? Why not set up a nice beach resort or something?

[Vaquero45]

Originally Posted by Clete

The use of force. I thought of this point when thinking through your "steal your wallet" argument.

I have no time to elaborate at the moment. Maybe I should just post a lengthy quote from Rand and see if you follow her logic on the issue.

Maybe later.

Clete

I have an idea where that is going now, I sure defined it wrong in my attempt above.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Clete

Interestingly if my thesis is correct and God is Logic, then "I am that I am." is as good a way as can be for the person of Logic Himself to state the Law of Identity. If God is Logic then "I am that I am" is the equivalent to "A is A".

'I am that I am' is interesting in its context. Moses wanted God to give himself a name so that he could talk to the people about him like all the other gods. God did not want to do this because he obviously didn't want to be pulled down to the level of an idol. His answer was therefore a clever one that gave himself a name without giving a name. No real name can define him. This is not because he is God but because he is a real and living person.

It reminds me of a computer system developed in-house by the company I last worked for called SWAN. System Without A Name. I also thought of AWAM - acronym without a meaning.

[Clete]

Okay you guys, sorry for the long delay but I've just not had the time to sit and write any posts the last few days. And you'll note by the format of this post that I'm still starved for time.

I think V45's complaint concerning how a survival of the fittest sort of mentality (i.e. I need your wallet and you can't stop me so I'm stealing it from you) isn't the logical conclusion of a worldview that doesn't include the existence of God, is the strongest objection presented so far and so I'm going to focus on that one issue for now.

Not that I intend to ignore everything else you all have said, its just that I'm all of a sudden up to my eye balls with 40 different things going on at once and its either focus on one thing for a quick post or don't post at all for who knows how long.

Now, in rebuttal of V45's objection, I offer the following excerpt from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. You have to read it all! I know its long but I actually cut a sizable chunk out of it and left only that which I felt address the issue.
Read it slowly and more than once, always with the thesis of this thread in mind, that God is Reason. Remember also that Rand was an atheist and that I do not endorse every word of the following excerpt.

And if you're thinking that my quoting Rand so extensively is the easy way out and that I should have made the argument myself, well just read the excerpt and then imagine yourself attempting to make the same argument in your own words in a way that is even 1/1000th as well written, thorough, easy to understand and eloquent. Besides, finding this in a text format that permitted me to post it here and then to read through it and edit out the stuff that doesn't pertain to the specific issue at hand was no easy task.

Enjoy!

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch—or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

"But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call 'human nature,' the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question 'to be or not to be' is the question 'to think or not to think.'

"A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. 'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it. 'Value' presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

"There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

"A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

"An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that (hat is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

"A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil, would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots, a bird that fought to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggle to deny and to destroy his mind.

"Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal, Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice.

"A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.

"Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.

"All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.

"Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason.

"Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires—so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal's lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them.

"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws, A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit—his love, his friendship, his esteem—except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread—a man of justice.

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men?

None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice.

It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.

"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'—and neither is possible to man without the other.

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind.

That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force.

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

- Ayn Rand - From John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged Part III Chapter 7

Resting in Him,
Clete

[quip]

Originally Posted by Clete

.... so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others.

Having read some Rand, she certainly has an (irrational?) issue with altruism. Not only is this an isolated, self-centered world-view..it's likewise cold and lonely. Many derive happiness from the pleasure of others..its a common value which makes life worth pursuing.

"Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men?

None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality.

Rationality per se is not a moral obligation; empathy, on the other hand, is a rational act ...of which Rand disdains because it does not serve her material ends. Again, a cold, lonely and calculated way to live.

I deal with men as my nature and theirs demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice.

It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they don't, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

This is sound business advice,but not a cogent blueprint for life.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others.

"To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live.


"Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason—as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no 'right' to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.

"To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your children's education or your life,' the meaning of that ultimatum is: 'Your mind or your life'—and neither is possible to man without the other.

"If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind.

That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force.

"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.

This collection of hyperbole is mainly directed at the government with its taxation and regulation. It equates the government with brutes and thugs, a typical laissez-faire mind-set appropriate to her objectivism. It's pragmatic veracity is highly questionable.

- Ayn Rand - From John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged Part III Chapter 7[/indent]
Resting in Him,
Clete

Rand is anti-religious. Why are you quoting her?

[Clete]

Originally Posted by quip

Having read some Rand, she certainly has an (irrational?) issue with altruism. Not only is this an isolated, self-centered world-view..it's likewise cold and lonely. Many derive happiness from the pleasure of others..its a common value which makes life worth pursuing.

Rand is anti-religious. Why are you quoting her?

The first of these comments prove that you haven't understood, nor probably even read, any of Ayn Rand's books. The second proves that you've not even bothered to read the thread!

Further, your previous posts have proven that you are all but completely unfamiliar with the Bible or even the most elementary of Christian doctrines or the simplest foundational issues concerning ethics.

In short, I have no reason to care about a word you say and I am simply unwilling to discuss anything with you. You can't be anything but a waste of time.

Clete