Scientology, Seizures, and Science

The Atlas Society - The Center for Objectivism ^ | 1/13/2009 | Edward Hudgins

[D-fendr]

Sorry, i garbled the end, should read:

"I don't know why you would avoid this simple request if you have confidence in your beliefs. Would you care to tell me?"

[Ed Hudgins]

Sorry for late reply. I'm very busy producing new material; see my two latest posts—

Obama’s Mixed Inaugural Rhetoric:
http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-43-2128-Obama_Inaugural.aspx

Thought on Racial Thinking:
http://www.atlassociety.org/cth-43-2125-Thoughts_on_Racial.aspx

Your simply request is simply answered by reading Rand's piece. I won't waste time summarizing what she said so well. If you see a fatal flaw in her approach, post about that.

One other point: She makes the positive case for her understanding of morality. Religious people need to do the same and simply can't appeal to pronouncements in ancient books. Rand starts with axioms, turns to relevant facts such as the life-based foundations of choice and ethics, and ties her understanding together using tight logic. And she rightly argues that this rational appraoch is the only route to knowledge.

You need to show how your non-rational, faith-based approach to knowledge can be validated which, by its nature, it can't be, which is why religions always differ in terms of the absurd things they postulate and have no basis by which to determine the truth.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply, but I'd still appreciate an answer why can't simply illustrate your position. Referring to a book on ethics is no answer to a request for a simple logical proof of what you claim has a logical proof. Does it or doesn't it? If it does, give me your syllogism. Not a book assignment. If it doesn't or you can't do it, just say so.

I posted extensively about the blind spot, hole in Objectivism before. Review that if you need to.

You need to show how your non-rational, faith-based approach to knowledge can be validated which

I do not claim a non-rational, approach to knowledge; I claim that no one has a completely rational approach to knowledge.

Repeating:

Point 1) Logic/reason is a subset of knowledge - causal, relative, conditional. Everyone, yourself included, knows, or assumes they know truths/values beyond the sphere of logic/reason. In a nutshell this is Rand's point of ignorance. Try arguing against this if you'd like.

Point 2) Truths/values outside the sphere of logic are not "non" or "anti" rational any more than logic truths, outside the sphere of pure empirical science are "non" or "anti" scientific.

Point 3) I do not claim that all my values or knowledge can be validated/proved by reason/logic. I do claim that it is impossible for healthy sane people to limit their truths and values to only those validated/proved by reason/logic.

Point 4) You, apparently, claim the opposite: all your values are completely provable by logic.

Point 5) Prove. Just. One.