Flannery O'Conner: Wise Blood

The Acadamy ^ | Jeanette Rylander

[Anamensis]

Well, you obviously don't appreciate the depth of my devotion to my pets, I can see that. (-:

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

Okay. My first question has to do with the source of what you view as "good" and "evil". It ultimately derives from:

"...but because I'm human and I want what's best for me."

So, is this sort of a Golden Rule - "Do unto others..." - derived from the desire to establish a society based on mutual reciprocity?

sitetest

[Anamensis]

My first question has to do with the source of what you view as "good" and "evil".

Source? Source for the action or for the judgment of the action? In other words, are you asking "what makes people DO 'good' or 'evil'?" or are you asking "how do you judge what is 'good' or 'evil'?"

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

How do you judge. Is the criterion sort of a mutualized Golden Rule?

sitetest

[Anamensis]

No, I wouldn't use that as my guide. If you really want to know, I think Ayn Rand said it best, and she said it in quite a few different ways and formats. I can try to synopsize but I'm not so hardcore Objectivist that I can rattle the stuff off as if it were my liturgy.

We start with the rights that a man needs in order to live a full life. We would start, then, with the right to live for oneself, to seek what pleasures or profits we want without physically harming or threatening others. When I say "right" of course I mean that no government should make a law infringing upon this, and a man should be allowed to protect himself against individuals or gangs attempting to infringe upon this. Rights are something that only other humans can understand or respect, so we don't say we have the "right to live" because we don't have the right not to be hit by lightening, eaten up by cancer, or attacked by lions. I'll stop here to see if there's anything I've said so far that you want to take up.

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

So you believe that this philosophy is objectively true? That this is an objective "construct" of good and evil? Why do you view it as objectively true?

sitetest

[Anamensis]

I don't "believe" anything. I like everything subject to constant tests and constant re-evaluation. The objectivist philosophy looks like the one that is most beneficial to man so far, so that is the one that most closely represents my own stance. Actually, and this is hard to explain without getting tagged "relativist" but the fact is, I consider it to be an objective within a relevant relative, if that makes any sense to anyone besides me. What I mean is, if you want what's best for mankind, and if you agree that what is best for mankind is the resources to develop technologically, the responsiblity to develop psychologically, and the motive and freedom to develop in both areas, the objectivist philosophy is the best - objectively - in town. But I'm not required to "believe" this, and take it on faith. I am free to observe cultures that stifle freedom, independence, and creativity, and observe the result.

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

Okay. Then what you're saying is that if a person prefers the results that you prefer (technological development, etc.), Objectivism is a good way (perhaps the best way - at least that we know) to get there.

But there is nothing that objectively requires one to have these preferences?

sitetest

[Anamensis]

Well, there kind of is. For instance, one can choose NOT to value technology, freedom, and advancement. One can live like the Taliban. One might get away with it for a while, but if there is ever an instance where folks of this ilk are in conflict with those who believe in freedom and technology, they are likely to get bombed out of existance. So there is no force out there that will prevent them from making this decision, but this decision will ultimately render them less competitive and that will eventually reap the predictable results.

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

So, what are the criteria by which one might objectively judge? Are you saying something like the more evolutionarily fit, the more successfully competitive is a society, the more objectively true or good are its values?

sitetest

[Anamensis]

May I ask you a question? You want me to issue a motto that can fit on a bumper sticker. Why?

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

I wasn't aware that I was asking for a "motto that can fit on a bumper sticker". I'm interested in what you believe (And of course you believe things. Currently you believe that Objectivism seems to be the best way of looking at things. I notice also that you believe that if you jump off a building, gravity will have its way with you.)

If you wish, you can answer with a motto that can fit on a bumper sticker. Or you can write a 50-page dissertation.

If you would prefer not to continue the discussion, just let me know, that's fine, too.

sitetest

[Anamensis]

Okay, well, one thing at a time.

Are you saying something like the more evolutionarily fit, the more successfully competitive is a society, the more objectively true or good are its values?

"True" and "Good" are not interchangeable words. I don't see how values can be "true." Values are indicative of priorities, but I don't see how they can be judged in terms of their veracity.

And of course you believe things. Currently you believe that Objectivism seems to be the best way of looking at things. I notice also that you believe that if you jump off a building, gravity will have its way with you.

You are confusing belief with knowledge. As I said, gravity is not a matter of "belief." It's testable, it's verifiable, it's independent of belief. If you are going to use words interchangeably that are in fact very different, we aren't going to get very far.

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

"'True' and 'Good' are not interchangeable words."

I didn't mean to suggest that they are. I'm just trying to find the words that you might use to describe your views, and suggested these two as possibly the right ones.

"You are confusing belief with knowledge. As I said, gravity is not a matter of 'belief.' It's testable, it's verifiable, it's independent of belief."

Does this mean that everyone knows the law of gravity who has observed the phenomenon that dropped items tend to fall to earth?

sitetest

[Anamensis]

The trend of this discussion that I'm noticing is, though you say you want to know what I think, I'm getting the impression that you want to tell me what I think. Every time I say something, you rephrase it slightly differently, usually changing or essentializing it in some way, and then say "you mean this?"

I'm just trying to find the words that you might use to describe your views, and suggested these two as possibly the right ones.

Why not just let me say it the way I say it? I already had words of my own.

Does this mean that everyone knows the law of gravity who has observed the phenomenon that dropped items tend to fall to earth?

I'm not trying to define the law of gravity, I'm trying to explain the difference between believing something, that is, accepting something on faith, and knowing something, that is, having the right to test a hypothesis until you can verify it. And if one day you come across something that is in defiance of the reality you know, the pursuit of knowledge allows you to begin testing again, backtracking if need be to reverify what you know to ascertain that you did indeed know, and nothing has changed. I'm not sure if I can explain it any better than that. If this is going to turn into an exercise in sophistry, the "how do you know we're even here" business, I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm really not interested.

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

For a fellow who thinks he goes only where the evidence takes him, you make a lot of assumptions.

sitetest

[Anamensis]

I'm taking my evidence from your comments. I'm sorry you don't like how I characterize your approach but there are no assumptions involved. I'm describing what you are doing and I think we both know that it is exactly what you are doing. You aren't simply, innocently curious about my views. There is clearly a method in your approach that continually seeks to set up an essentialized straw man, and get me to adopt it. This is always the first signs of impending attack. I have been on Free Republic for almost 3 years, I know this approach when I see it. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. Show me where you haven't sought to boil my paragraphs down to yes-or-no sentences that would make easy targets for a hit.

[sitetest]

Dear Anamensis,

Thanks for all the benefit of the doubt. ;-)

Check back with me when you get a clue.

sitetest

[Anamensis]

You've given me plenty of clues. You must be arrogant indeed to think your motives are not transparent. Get back to me when you've learned a little respect for other people's capabilities.

[A.J.Armitage]

Like this: the first year of our lives we are helpless. The first experiences we have are of being hungry and crying out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being (mommy) comes and feeds us. We are wet or dirty and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and changes our diapers. We are frightened or angry or upset and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and comforts us. In other words, mammals are imprinted early with a template for crying out for help and being helped. I've seen kittens do the same thing, do you think they believe in god? No. They just know that when they cry, someone comes. Things that are hatched from eggs and then slither away, like snakes, have no such early experiences. So when you talk about the "instinct" to look beyond ourselves for aid from an omnipotent force, all you are talking about is the residue left from our earliest experiences of dependency.

That's interesting. That may well explain the religious impulse. Maybe the socialist impulse too.

There is, however, something it doesn't explain. Why would a bunch of first century Jewish sectarians think their rabbi rose from the dead, and why wouldn't their enemies simply produce the body?