What do you know about philosophy?

by Bas 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey Bas,

  Ayn Rand was a woman. And yeah, actually, when you read her stuff she does seem kind of full of herself sometimes, but I thought she had some interesting things to say.

  I don't know if this will be a fully-rounded description of objectivism, because my experience is limited to her book The Virtue of Selfishness, but she says that the best way to live is with rational self-interest. She argues that no one truly does things altruistically anyway, so when they pretend that they do, they are not being honest.

  For example, Witnesses go door to door, they tell themselves, because they love God and neighbor. So to hear them tell it, they are going in field service not for their own benefit, but for that of others. How incredibly altruistic! However, we all know that no one would go in service if there was no benefit to themselves. Going actually accomplishes practical things for themselves:

  • Makes them feel like they have satisfied God's requirement
  • Assuages guilty consciences (the guilt in this case usually having been implanted by the org, but that's a different matter)
  • Is necessary to prevent social ostracism within their religious community
  • Is necessary to move up the ladder in their religious community

  So Ayn Rand says, let's stop the charade. Let's stop pretending that we're these altruistic creatures and instead admit that we do things because they help us. There's no shame in that. We eat so that we can live. We work so that we can pay our bills. We take care of ourselves. But at the same time, let us recognize that we live in a society, and when things go well for our neighbors, it helps us as well. So acting in rational self-interest will sometimes cause us to make personal sacrifices in order to help others - not because we have nothing to gain from the sacrifice - but because we see it our long-term rational self-interest to help.

  She has some good points. Think about the term sacrifice. No one gives up something of value when there is utterly no benefit to them. That would be like throwing a wad of cash down the toilet. It's totally senseless. We only call things sacrifices which represent a temporary loss, when we hope there will be long-term benefit.

  The really important part of this approach is to look at things rationally, and hopefully cut through the cultural superstition we have all been raised with.

  Here's a quote on rationality:

  The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awerness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one's waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one's power and to the constant, active expansion of one's perception, i.e., of one's knowledge. --Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, p.25

  SNG
• 

  seattleniceguy

  poppers,

  No matter what a philosopher comes up with it is nothing but a set of ideas describing what is and how one should act.

  A common criticism of philosophy, and certainly one that the Witnesses subscribe to. I think it's an unfair characterization. Here's why.

  All of us understand the world in a way that helps us function in it effectively. We all have a personal philosophy of life. But surely some philosophies are more in line with reality than others. Some have been subjected to more rigorous intellectual criticism, for example, which may have honed them and weeded out obvious flaws. Our own personal home-grown philosophies surely do not have this advantage.

  So we stand to gain by considering the philosophies of others. Obviously, no one should ever just adopt someone else's mode of thinking whole-hog. But incorporating strong points from others into your own worldview can help make it stronger.

  Personally, I don't care much for the type of philosophy in which people speculate about supernatural concepts like the afterlife, because I'm a rationalist. I like the kind of philosophy that takes a hard look at the world around us and makes interesting observations. I know that I cannot make all possible valid observations. Therefore, I benefit by availing myself of the work of others.

  SNG
• 

  Leolaia

  It could also help with Bible exegesis. Particularly in the epistles, one can encounter concepts informed especially by Stoicism and Platonism. Although the Society likes to say that influence from Greek philosophy was a chief corrupting influence to Christianity after the first century, and certainly there was a lot of Platonic concepts in the second-century apologists and in gnosticism, it is hard to escape the fact that much of the NT itself is also tacitly Hellenistic Jewish. The influence can easily be overstated (and it certainly has over the years), but it is there, especially in the language and terminology used....(examples include theias koinónoi phuseós "sharers of divine nature", enkrateia "self-control" and stoikheia "elements" in 2 Peter, emphutos logos "implanted reason" in James, kharatér tés hupostaseós "exact representation of one's substance" in Hebrews, phusis "nature" in Romans, etc.).
• 

  Robert K Stock

  Bas:
  

  I think Ayn Rand was a great mind but was at times a very difficult individual.

  Ayn Rand was born Alissa Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1905. She witnessed the Russian Revolution and rise of the Soviets. She went to University in St. Petersburg. She emigrated to the United States in 1926.

  Describing Objectivism Rand said, " 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."

  Reality exists independent of human thought. The supernatural does not exist. Morality and ethics are based on self ownership and private property.

  Selfishness is a virtue and altruism is a vice. That does not mean a callous disregard for others. If one freely chooses to help others that is fine, but there is no obligation, no duty, to help anyone but yourself.

  Ayn Rand died in 1982. Since her death Objectivism has seen the development of three main branches.

  1)The Ayn Rand Institute in California can be compared to the Bible Students after Russell's death. No new knowledge was possible because Rand said all there was to say. Objectivism was her philosophy and anything she did not discuss is not Objectivism.

  2)The Objectivist Center in Washington DC, looks at Rand as the begining of the discussion and the base from which to build the philosophy and grow in areas that Rand did not discuss. Their desire to not be dogmatic or demand total obedience to Rands every utterance causes the Ayn Rand Institute to think of the Objectivist Center as apostates. I am a member of the Objectivist Center.

  3) Sense of Life Objectivists in New Zealand, operates between these two positions.

  Each group can easily be found on the web. The Objectivist philosophy can be found in Ayn Rand's novels, Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, Anthem and We the Living.
• 

  poppers

  I understand where you are coming from SNG. However, how does one discern which philosopher is 'closer to reality' in his descriptions than another? We all want to understand the world so that we may function better within it and we develop a personal philosophy to help us do that. But it is all too common to rely on someone else for these descriptions rather than doing the INVESTIGATION of reality for oneself. My point is that reality is not what you THINK it to be, so any intellectual viewpoint of reality falls short.
  
  It reminds me of a cartoon where there are two doors: outside one door is a sign which says something like, 'Seminar On What Heaven Is' with a room full of people and a long line of people outside waiting to get in. Outside the other door is a sign that reads, 'Heaven' and an empty room. People want descriptions and certainties which cater to ego/minds. But what you are in reality is beyond the thinking mind and beyond the egoic identity which is being clung to. Philosophies try to make sense, and therefore appeal to the false sense of who you have come to believe yourself to be.
  
  I would encourage people to investigate directly who this 'me entity' is since it seems to be 'me' who is living in this world. Are you simply a 'thinker' or something beyond a thinker. You have ideas of who you are, but can you be an idea? Can you actually locate who you are beyond anything other than a changing set of ideas? Find out directly rather than accepting someone elses ideas because they seem to give some support to one's conditioned belief in their identity.
  
  peace
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey poppers,

  I think we are basically in agreement. I feel that exposure to other ideas is always helpful. Obviously, there is a right and wrong way to consider views:

  Wrong: Ayn Rand says blah blah blah, so it's true.

  Right: Ayn Rand says blah blah blah, which sounds reasonable to me based on what I've experienced. For example, blah blah blah.

  Right: Ayn Rand says blah blah blah, but I disagree because she fails to take into account blah blah blah.

  For every concept we encounter, we must integrate it with our existing web of concepts by critical thinking. Philosophy does two things: it gives us the tools to think critically, and it exposes us to lots of different ideas.

  SNG
• 

  Robert K Stock

  Poppers:

  You described very well the way Ayn Rand looked at what was real or not. It is not what exists in our minds but how we act that is important.
• 

  Bas

  Poppers, philsophies are in general, generalisations. They are tools to describe and understand reality but are of limited use in one's personal life. I agree that you shouldn't expect philosphy to solve your daily problems, they won't just as religion won't do that. But philosophy as the basis of science, for instance psychology does give us the basis for understanding alot of things, including yourself. But there's no substitute for living firsthand, I agree. Don't stare blindly at philosophy just as you shouldn't stare blindly at religion.

  Robert and SeattleNG, thanks for sharing the key points of Objectivism. In fact I have subcribed to some of those points for years, just didn't know who formulated them:

  the best way to live is with rational self-interest. She argues that no one truly does things altruistically anyway, so when they pretend that they do, they are not being honest.

  with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life

  I think to some people these observations might feel cold but I view them as absolutely true. In practice though, diffrent people have diffrent things which make them happy. I do agree this is highly fertile ground to do more research on. Never has everything been said if you go from here I believe, literally billions of practical situations which you can apply this theory on to test it. I might do a little on it myself as a matter of fact. I was getting bored by determinism as it is. (though I firmly believe in it)

  well I think from now on I'll describe myself as a practical objectivist determinist LOL

  Bas
• 

  talesin

  Blues,

  Thanks for the correction. Muchly appreciated.

  t
• 

  peacefulpete

  Well now I am really confused