Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (28134)	2/25/2010 7:01:45 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Is there a purpose to life?" "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." Ayn Rand

To: Greg or e who wrote (28134)	2/25/2010 7:07:17 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Is there a purpose to life?" "A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find . . . . The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose—a productive purpose . . . . The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose." Ayn Rand

To: Greg or e who wrote (28134)	3/5/2010 10:17:44 AM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Have a nice vacation." Thank you. It was a very nice getaway. "Rand simply manufactures purpose Ex Nihilo where (from a materialist perspective) none rationally exists." You don't understand. It is not whether or not intention exists in an imagined being; rather, it is about the intention (purpose) of the individual. The purpose (aim or goal) of a persons life requires that some sentient entity INTENDS a goal, or a result--or a meaning if you will. Rand CLEARLY believes that this intention originates in the rational mind. Just as clearly…she makes no claim for or against some extra-personal entity that intends a meaning in human birth-journey-death. In all of Rand’s voluminous writings, it is indelibly clear that she considers purpose to flow from reasoned intent . She frequently makes reference to the purposeless existence of the mystics of faith and force.--the superstitious and unthinking brutes who have no real values to hold or to keep. Now, if you believe that some supernatural power has created us (such as YOU might, perhaps, create a hybrid rose) then this power (and you, as well) would have intention sufficient such that it could be said that the purpose of the rose and/or the human creature was to fulfill the intention of a more fundamental entity. Supernatural “purposes” can only be guessed at but Islam would say it is to realize Allah in all things (sort of like the “grokking” in Heinleins SIASL) . A Christian would say (depending on which one of the thousands of Christian sects he/she belonged to) that it was to glorify the Will of God. In any event, these are all supernatural “purposes” imagined to reflect the actual goals/purposes of an imagined superior entity--NOT THE ACTUAL PERSON. Again, although Rand would never presume to assume knowledge of the unknown, she nevertheless is clear that the KNOWN is MAN…with NO EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF ANY ACTUAL SENTIENT BEING BEHIND ANY OF THOUSANDS OF SUPERNATURAL MOVEMENTS/BELIEF SYSTEMS. So, if one does NOT believe that one is the pet or toy of some other sentient being, then one must reference purpose within oneself. So when rational people talk about purpose they are simply referencing their short or long-term intentions and goals. If we zoom out to the largest picture we are talking about how do I know meaning within self. On the other hand, if the person is imagining some outside sentient person or Something that is entitled to command purpose or meaning for his/her life, then the ethical goal (subsidiary “purpose”) of such a person would be to OBEY the presumed intentions of the superstitiously reified “Father” or “Mother” or “Holy Ghost” …or whatever that imagined Being is or is imagined to Be. So when we talk about “purpose” we must always be aware of three elements: Is the speaker committed to the belief that the purpose is the purpose of another?? Is the person committed to the belief that the “purpose” is the purpose of SELF? Or is the person confused as to what they believe? Rand did not see any evidence for the premise that we were created as toys or pets. So her philosophy is about existence as it is known--not how it can be imagined. "there no longer remains anything "objective" about "objectivism"." That is incorrect. "Objective" simply references the closest approximation to reality that best reasoning can obtain. It is always acknowledged that objectivity is imperfect and always subject to the senses and to omnipresent ignorance. "Objectivity" is not Absolute (and the idea of perfect objectivity is ridiculous). It merely holds that logic and reason are the surest means to understand reality.