Everyone, allow me to introduce my son, who just recently has begun posting here on Hatrack. It's actually his fault I came here in the first place, as he is the original OSC fan in our house. Except that he doesn't live at our house anymore.
Raymond Arnold said:
quote:But when you start talking about absolutes and how other people should live their lives, you need to be clear about what is knowledge and what is belief.
Strangely enough, it's usually Lisa that I accuse of speaking in absolutes, while Dagonee deals more in specifics. And as I've said, Dag is very good with words, (and formidable with references).
Dag and I often find ourselves on the opposite side of arguments, which I find unfortunate, because I've got a lot of respect for him, and I don't think we disagree as much as it feels like we do.
While I'm at it, Lisa has been gaining my respect lately also. Perhaps she's been getting better at explaining her position. And she speaks in fewer absolutes, which makes her arguments much more tenable.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll need to contemplate for a while how to explain.
Dag, I'd also be very interested in your response. If you have the time and inclination, please poke your head into my knowledge thread and give your input on that specific topic as well (that goes for everyone else, too, of course). You make a very good point about the ambiguity of the "knowledge" line. I agree that most of us fall short of "if it's possible that you are wrong, you don't know it," but I think it is the discrepancy in where that point lies for each of us that is hampering further discussion - particularly the one you and Glenn are having.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was it Michael Polanyi who came up with the term "personal knowledge" to denote things that you are reasonable certain about but can't prove to others? I'll try to look it up, but I don't have gobs of time for personal research right now.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Question for Lisa: you're both adherent to kashrut and a Objectivist by philosophy, aren't you? I'm imagining some tension between the two.
quote: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged 35th anniversary
Do you mind if I ask how you reconcile Rand's expression of man's purpose with the decision to obey divine instructions when their purpose/benefit is not clear?
This is an interesting (difficult) problem in my mind, but I might be missing something simple (perhaps you simply believe Objectivism is only applicable in interactions between mortals? Still I'd be interested to know.)
Well, I'd say that in practical terms, Objectivism is only relevant to issues between human beings, but in principle, it's relevant globally. If God created us and the world, He has a creator's right of ownership.
Consider a young child's ownership in her parents' home. It's limited. A parent is entitled to take things away from a child if the parent deems it necessary, even if the things "belong" to the child.
If my daughter is reading one of her books when she's been asked to help set the table, I'll take the book away from her without a qualm -- Objectivist or otherwise -- in the world. My daughter has been given money gifts by various relatives. I've taken those gifts and put them away for her without so much as a by-your-leave, because her ownership only exists within the context of my greater ownership.
And the difference between me and my daughter pales next to the difference between God and me.
When I eat something, I say a bracha, which is (a) an acknowledgement that I know I got the food -- ultimately -- from God, and (b) a proclamation that the food itself is a demonstration of God's power.
The rabbis say "One who eats without first saying a bracha, it is as if he stole from God."
Everything I own, up to and including my life, liberty and property, ultimately belongs to God. My ownership exists within that, just like my daughter's exists within mine.
As far as God's motives... Well, I have to acknowledge that the main source I have for God being just is God. Then again, even I, as quixotic as I am, wouldn't get anywhere if He weren't. And the evidence I've seen bears out the idea that He's just.
Am I always happy about it? Not even close. God has put obstacles in my life that truly suck. Maybe there's some greater good in them, but I don't have to be happy about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope this doesn't veer into an argument about Objectivism. I was just curious. And I think I've been answered well, thanks Lisa.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: I enjoyed reading Rand when I discovered her, she made a lot of sense.
I was 14 at the time. Now I am less than impressed.
That's because you read her with a 14 year old's mistaken views. When you grew out of those views, you threw out Objectivism as well, since the two were so intertwined in your mind.
Almost all the serious Objectivists I've ever met first read Rand's works when they were already grownups.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
