10 Jun 2012

Guest Post: Turning the Atheistic Flavor of Evolutionary Biology on Its Head

Religious 112 Comments

[I saw an intriguing post by Gene Callahan at his blog on this topic, and he wrote a longer version here.–RPM]

Turning the Atheistic Flavor of Evolutionary Biology on Its Head
by Gene Callahan

=======================

“Like most summer activities, the frogs’ vocal signaling requires an impressive expenditure of energy, and therefore presumably has an advantage.” — Bernd Heinrich, Summer World, p. 40

So, here is a prominent biologist stating a general rule for evaluating traits: if the trait is expensive in terms of energy required, by default we should assume it provides something important to the species in question. And, of course, the more widespread the trait is, the more we should suspect it is adaptive: it might pop up in one individual or a small group as a fluke that will disappear soon, but if we find that trait surviving in many, many groups across long stretches of time, the odds greatly increase that it confers some advantage.

So, someone who believes evolutionary biology is the cat’s meow, and who finds a widespread human practice, so widespread that we have never encountered a single culture where it is absent, and one into which a huge amount of energy is poured, would have to say it is most likely adaptive, right?

Wrong! Not if the practice is religion: Then this universal, high-energy consuming activity turns out to be a social pathology! (This link is only intended to be representative of the genre: you can find plenty more examples with a little search.) Religion is ubiquitous in human life not because it has helped us to survive, but because it kills us! It is very telling that, when it comes to their bête noire, the rules of evolutionary thinking are suddenly reversed.

Now, it is worth qualifying these remarks in several ways, especially since a 300-comment discussion thread follows the Sunday posts at Free Advice. First of all, there are many non-religious scholars who work from an evolutionary perspective and who do not suddenly abandon the principle Heinrich stated when they turn their attention to religion. (Hayek is a good example.) It is generally only the religion haters who lose their minds on this one topic.

Secondly, to conclude (correctly, I contend) that religion must offer some evolutionary benefits certainly does not mean that any particular religious beliefs are true. The process of evolution is a machine that grinds out survival-enhancing traits, not necessarily truth-finding traits. To see how, at times, it might be adaptive to believe a falsehood, let us consider an animal that needs to defend its young against a large predator. It might be quite adaptive for the animal to have a wildly over-optimistic belief in its own chances of surviving a fight with that predator, because perhaps the fierce but hopeless fight it puts up will give its offspring a chance to escape. A non-believing evolutionary scientist could coherently have just such a view of the role of religion: it’s all a bunch of poppycock, but it’s poppycock that aids human survival by creating hope and fortitude, and enhancing social harmony. And that view is out there, and is much more compatible with evolutionary thinking in general than is the “social pathology” one. But, of course, true beliefs can be survival enhancing as well, so it might well be that the belief in something transcendent helps our survival because it is true.

112 Responses to “Guest Post: Turning the Atheistic Flavor of Evolutionary Biology on Its Head”

  1. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I pretty much agreed with Gene when it first appeared, but there’s a different argument you could make, of course. You could say that religion was adaptive for us for most of human history up until now, but that now it’s a useless social pathology.

    We may be so dependent on our scientific development, scientific development may be hampered by religion, and we may have an ethical canon that can stand on its own without religion such that on net religion is bad for the human race now.

    I think a weak version of this might be true. The point being, there’s nothing that says that a feature that was once adaptive stays adaptive forever.

    • konst says:

      So I guess now we have the social pathology of Keynesianism with Keynesians promoting myths like “wars end depressions”.

      As much as the vague term religion, as it’s used by interventionists, was responsible for wars in the past they can’t compare to the hundreds of millions killed by the wars of interventionist states.

    • Paul says:

      Daniel, when you say that we may have reached the point in our evolution that we no longer need religion is a very bold statement. It essentially means that humans have reached an intellectual ability that is equal to that of God, and that, therefore, we have undeniable knowledge of why there is existence as opposed to nonexistence. It says that we have intimite knowledge of the origin of existence. Until spontaneous existence can be proven factual then it’s impossible to disprove the concept of God on those grounds.

      When it comes to scientific development, there should be no religion in the world (I know there are though) that says that scientific developments are anathama to God. Science should be embraced by the religious folk with no worry that the existence of God can be disproven. Science can help the religious understand the existence that God created. Sure, a lot of bad arguments (coming from religous people) will be disproven, but that is a good thing.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        1. But I don’t say that. I say that that would be an argument that could not be refuted by Gene’s logic here. I do allow that a weaker version might be true. But if it was fitness-enhancing in the past I doubt it’s going to be a pathology so suddenly.

        2. re: “It essentially means that humans have reached an intellectual ability that is equal to that of God, and that, therefore, we have undeniable knowledge of why there is existence as opposed to nonexistence.” — This is just wrong. First, it seems to presuppose that the only reason we have religion is that we don’t have an intellectual ability equal to God (which seems like a poor explanation for why we have religion, even aside from the fact that you’re pretty much assuming your own conclusion about God here). But more than that, who cares about “undeniable knowledge of why there is existence as opposed to non-existence”? Did we have anything like that with religion? Do we lose that by abandoning religion? Is such knowledge even possible? Is such knowledge necessary? Why are you even bringing this up?

        3. re: “Until spontaneous existence can be proven factual then it’s impossible to disprove the concept of God on those grounds.” — Well now you’re just going off on a tangent. This thought is better reserved for last week’s post. My brief thought, though, is that of course we can’t disprove God and I’m not sure anyone has claimed we could. What we can say is that God seems like a silly thing to extrapolate to if you have no evidence of his existence.

        • Paul says:

          Daniel,

          #3. Yes I was getting off topic. My bad.

          #2. I guess my point was that if we are to say that we have evolved intellectually to the point where science eliminates the need for religion then we have to say that science has explained everything. I’m not necessarily saying that religion explains everything though. I just think that it would be hasty to say that religion can be phased out and replaced by science that is incomplete. I guess that me getting off topic with #3 was just to attempt to verify my last point.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            re: “if we are to say that we have evolved intellectually to the point where science eliminates the need for religion then we have to say that science has explained everything”

            I understand your point. I’m saying it’s wrong. Why must science explain everything? Isn’t that something that you have to say you haven’t done to really have a scientific mindset?

            re: “I just think that it would be hasty to say that religion can be phased out and replaced by science that is incomplete.”

            Again – the very idea of “complete science” seems strange to me. But I also find it strange that you think somehow religion needs to fill the gaps in our knowledge. With that kind of claim, you seem to manage to miss the point of both science and religion.

            • Ken B says:

              “if we are to say that …science eliminates the need for religion then we have to say that science has explained everything”

              No, we just have to say science has become a great source of excuses.

            • Paul says:

              I think you either are misunderstanding my viewpoint, or we are talking about two different things. I do not adhere to the “religion must fill in the gaps” idea because that can restrict science.

              The thing that science can never explain is the existence of existence. It is this fundamental question that will lead to the idea of a god never being eliminated. It is for this reason why I say that science can never contradict or eliminate religion in the most fundamental belief.

              We should fully embrace science and all discoveries that result.

              • Egoist says:

                The thing that science can never explain is the existence of existence.

                Is existence of existence explainable at all?

                If not, then it is an incoherent thought. If it is an incoherent thought, then how can you even expect anyone to know what it is you’re saying science can never explain?

                It is this fundamental question that will lead to the idea of a god never being eliminated. It is for this reason why I say that science can never contradict or eliminate religion in the most fundamental belief.

                How does a failure to explain existence of existence (assuming now that it is coherent), imply God? Why can’t it lead only to your own ego?

            • Paul says:

              Maybe I shouldn’t have said “…we have to say that science has explained everything.” What I really meant is that if we are to say that we have evolved intellectually to the point where science eliminates the need for religion then we have to say that science has explained how existence happened. Incomplete science, then, is science that has not explained how existence can happen, and not science that has failed to count the number of stars in the universe or hasn’t answered any other question about the nature of the universe.

              • Egoist says:

                I think it’s pretty safe to assume that not every individual thinks science has eliminated the need for religion. It’s, um, probably why religion exists, and is accepted in one form or another by something like 95% of the world’s population.

                Are that many people deluded? Only the egoist can say yes. Everyone else has their own beliefs in sacred concepts.

              • Paul says:

                It implies that there was some sort of infinite acting agent that has the power to create a physical world out of will. Therefore, if you believe in God, then it is quite easy to believe in existence of existence. I find it extremely hard/impossible to believe in existence of existence without the necessity of a god.

                I don’t think that you can create your own ego out of absolutely nothing without being a god.

                To your point below, I understand that a great majority still adhere to some sort of religion, but I was trying to say, not that we haven’t, but that we can’t evolve away religion due to the lingering question of existence.

              • Paul says:

                I’m all confused by where my comments are going to end up. Below is above.

        • Gene Callahan says:

          “I say that that would be an argument that could not be refuted by Gene’s logic here.”

          You are absolutely correct: I almost put that caveat in as well, but I got lazy!

        • Ken B says:

          ” I doubt it’s going to be a pathology so suddenly.”
          Not very convincing when you consider how much faster human cultural evolution is than physical. It is pretty clear for instance that zenophobia had an adaptive basis for prehistoric humans, but has been quite maladaptive in some recent history …

          • Egoist says:

            Human cultural evolution is physical, is it not?

            Is there something super-physical in your beliefs?

            • Ken B says:

              Ideas and cultures can change with no change in the genome of humans.

              • Egoist says:

                So genes are then not responsible for xenophobia.

  2. Silas Barta says:

    The link you gave might be representative of that viewpoint, but I don’t think it’s representative of evolutionary thought on the matter in general. Every serious thinker (even and especially the atheist ones) that I remember reading on this accepts that religion, taken as a whole was probably adaptive in the ancestral environment, and doubts that its literal truth value was a critical part. So I’m not sure what atheistic scientific crackpots you’re setting straight here.

    Also, like Daniel_Kuehn suggests above, a key term is ancestral. Many, many adaptations are easily found to be “good back then, not right now” — e.g., our taste for sugary things, our ability to come up with reasons why giving us more power benefits the group, our suspicions of outsiders … the list is legion.

    However, evolutionary biologists (if they haven’t fallen into the group selection fallacy) would not reason that it’s adaptive on the basis that it “that aids human survival by … enhancing social harmony”, since an evolutionary explanation would have to hinge on religion (or anything else under examination) being beneficial to the spread of one’s own genes, not to some pleasant-sounding social end.

    • Ken B says:

      This is an excellent comment Silas but I think your quote is maybe unfair to Gene, as he did couch his survival enhancement comment in terms of a parent protecting its (apostrophe-free) offspring. He may have wondered off into platitude-land but he may not. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Gene and Bob need all the doubt we can muster!

  3. Egoist says:

    Now, it is worth qualifying these remarks in several ways, especially since a 300-comment discussion thread follows the Sunday posts at Free Advice.

    This is Callahan’s passive aggressive way of saying he’s jealous of you, Murphy.

  4. Tel says:

    There seems to be a lot of militant Atheists getting bold and pushy these days, and I’m not entirely sure what they are thinking. To quote:

    “It’s time — nay, far past midnight already — to take up arms and sack the city of god,”

    In my opinion, that’s a stupid thing to say, unless you enjoy violence. Following back to PZ Myers, he comes out and starts trashing people for being too moderate. Then again, he claims to base his belief on science, but also carries on about Global Warming — a belief that has gone well past the early seeds in science and is well on the way to becoming a religion itself. If the guy thinks he is going to able to run from himself, he will have to run twice as fast as that.

    I’m supporting Gene Callahan on this one, although usually I disagree with his approach to economics.

    • Sam Geoghegan says:

      Hey Tel, I just noticed you post at JoNova

      Just an insignificant ob.

  5. Egoist says:

    Turning Callahan’s post on it’s head, shouldn’t we conclude from this:

    And, of course, the more widespread the trait is, the more we should suspect it is adaptive: it might pop up in one individual or a small group as a fluke that will disappear soon, but if we find that trait surviving in many, many groups across long stretches of time, the odds greatly increase that it confers some advantage.

    That the long lasting atheism, which is growing over time, in virtually all cultures, is itself being selected as well?

    Since we’re compelled to conclude that both theism and atheism are “useful” in terms of evolution, and yet both can’t be right at the same time, what does that mean?

    Only the egoist can answer this. The egoist stands above BOTH theism and atheism. They become concepts to be owned by the egoist, and not a sacred concept under which the ego is to be enslaved.

    The reason why the atheists Callahan is referring to have completely contradicted themselves by calling theism a “social pathology”, despite their conviction that prevalent social beliefs signal an evolutionary advantage, is because they have made sacred the concept of atheism. They have made atheism sacred in a way similar to how theists have made theism sacred. Atheists cry foul when their object of sacredness is called into question. They consider the heretics of their sacred object “insane”, “crazy”, etc. Ergo the “social pathology” accusation against theism, despite their lacking consistency in doing this.

    I own the thoughts atheism and theism. They both stand as useful or not useful to ME. If I sanctify one or the other, then it will only be me trying to put my ego in that concept, and I would feel offended should anyone insult it.

    More importantly, I also own the concept of evolution. If you identify those actions and beliefs which are conducive to conferring an advantage, then you ipso facto bring into conception that which does not confer an advantage but the egoist acts and thinks nevertheless.

    The egoist can evolve himself.

    • Tel says:

      “Since we’re compelled to conclude that both theism and atheism are “useful” in terms of evolution, and yet both can’t be right at the same time, what does that mean?”

      Logically it would suggest they are both wrong, but strict logic also has it’s limitations in terms of what is useful. Consider that all of science must (from a strictly logical point of view) be wrong, firstly because it is empirically derived (thus there is no chain of logical deduction to prove the answer), and secondly because we already know that science does not fully and consistently describe the universe (light is both a wave and a particle, but never both at the same time, which is plainly stupid).

      Having logically concluded that science is wrong, we can go ahead and throw it away… except that we can’t throw it away because it is useful and we don’t have viable alternatives for a bunch of purposes (faith won’t fix a blown head gasket).

      I would argue that a balance of both Ego and humility would be appropriate, but yes, there is value in drawing a careful distinction between you owning the concept and the concept owning you. A surprising number of people lose their grip on that.

      • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

        Consider that all of science must (from a strictly logical point of view) be wrong, firstly because it is empirically derived (thus there is no chain of logical deduction to prove the answer)…

        I am speechless.

        • Tel says:

          I presume your silence means you are deep in thought trying to prove empirical science right. Preferably by using logic, rather than using an empirical proof like dropping a bomb on someone’s house.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Regarding the debate between Egoist and Tel: My only comment is that you both should have written “its” (no apostrophe).

        • Egoist says:

          I’ll see myself out.

          Wow, I even italicized it.

        • Tel says:

          Spelling is a bit 20th Century.

      • Egoist says:

        Logically it would suggest they are both wrong

        Suppose I said that what you just said here is wrong. We disagree. One person could say that what you’re saying is useful to them, and another could say that what I’m saying is useful to them.

        By your logic then, this would suggest both of us are wrong. Thus, I am wrong…for thinking you are wrong; and you are wrong…for thinking you are right. The former would say you’re right, and the latter would say you’re wrong. In other words, what you said is incoherent. If you are really right about both being wrong, then you couldn’t even think or claim that what you yourself just said is right.

        Back to the atheism and theism, I think the “usefulness” of both would not logically suggest that both are wrong. If anything, it would suggest both are right. Things that are useful to us cannot be considered wrong, for that would mean things that are not useful to us are right.

        I think the reason both atheism and theism can be “useful” is because the ego persists in both. Atheism can be useful to the egoist, and theism can be useful to the egoist. I am more than an atheist and I am more than a theist, as either can only ever be properties of me. Atheism will never exhaust me, and theism will never exhaust me. I could be the “perfect” atheist, and I would still be more. I could be the perfect “theist”, and I would still be more.

        • Tel says:

          It’s an argument that is possibly better presented in the form of Zen poetry, but pure logic rapidly hits a wall of combinatorial explosion when trying to sharply define “right” and “wrong” in many situations (e.g. recursion). You end up with incompleteness theorems, fractals and other nasties.

          Thus, once you loosen up definitions of “right” and “wrong” to what works, or what happens to be useful at the time, it’s pretty easy to end up with a contradictory sets of statements where you need to accept all of them as “right” in the loose sense. Humans deal with this pretty well because we tend to use statistical induction, emotional gut feel and a very small amount of formal logic (and just blatantly ignore discrepancies).

          Try getting your super Ego powers to work with computer code.

          • Egoist says:

            It’s an argument that is possibly better presented in the form of Zen poetry, but pure logic rapidly hits a wall of combinatorial explosion when trying to sharply define “right” and “wrong” in many situations (e.g. recursion). You end up with incompleteness theorems, fractals and other nasties.

            Question: Should I consider that statement as true?

            In case you haven’t noticed it yet, you have invariably found yourself in a repeating loop of taking a step back every time you seek to justify the truth of the last thing you said, seemingly ignoring the fact that as each step, I am being called upon by you into accepting as truth, and yet, at the same time, you’re telling me I can’t know any truth on my own ability. You’re essentially telling me “Don’t trust your convictions, but you can trust mine.”

            Thus, once you loosen up definitions of “right” and “wrong” to what works, or what happens to be useful at the time, it’s pretty easy to end up with a contradictory sets of statements where you need to accept all of them as “right” in the loose sense. Humans deal with this pretty well because we tend to use statistical induction, emotional gut feel and a very small amount of formal logic (and just blatantly ignore discrepancies).

            Same question as above.

            At some point, you’re going to have to accept the inner contradiction of your own statement that all statements cannot be right.

            Try getting your super Ego powers to work with computer code.

            Unique egos cannot find pleasure in the same courses of actions.

            • Tel says:

              You’re essentially telling me “Don’t trust your convictions, but you can trust mine.”

              By all means work through it yourself, you may surprise everyone.

              Maybe start with a quick mathematical proof that the sun will rise tomorrow (without resort to any empirical assumptions).

              • Egoist says:

                By all means work through it yourself, you may surprise everyone.

                This requires me to assume that I am capable of learning some truth of reality, when again, you said was not possible.

                Maybe start with a quick mathematical proof that the sun will rise tomorrow (without resort to any empirical assumptions).

                How about a quick proof that I enjoy what I am currently doing, or else I would not do it?

                Am I dreaming that? Or is that an actual truth of me, and hence an actual truth known in the universe?

      • Egoist says:

        Consider that all of science must (from a strictly logical point of view) be wrong, firstly because it is empirically derived (thus there is no chain of logical deduction to prove the answer), and secondly because we already know that science does not fully and consistently describe the universe (light is both a wave and a particle, but never both at the same time, which is plainly stupid).

        You say all science is wrong, because

        A. empiricism is incomplete; and

        B. science does not describe the entire universe

        What about non-empirical science, that does not need to explain the entire universe in order to produce true propositions about (portions of) the universe?

        For example, what you said calls upon me to accept that you are right, based on some foundation, or else you could not claim to be right that all science is wrong, and you could not claim to be right in your two premises. If you believe you are right about what you said, then you are at the same time claiming to know something right about the universe.

        • Tel says:

          It’s worse than B, science actually contains mutually contradictory models such as classical optics and the quantum description of a photon.

          Classic optics says that light travels in straight lines, quantum theory says that light travels through two slits side by side. Geometry tells you that there is no straight line that travels through two slits side by side.

          Empiricism says, don’t worry about it, just draw one straight line most of the time and two bent lines when you need to. This is the well known Wave–particle duality paradox. Logic (when strictly applied) must conclude that if your assumptions deductively lead to a paradox, then your assumptions are wrong.

          The best thing Physics can come up with as a logical explanation is “deal with it”, and they have been arguing it for several generations.

          “If you believe you are right about what you said, then you are at the same time claiming to know something right about the universe.”

          Some really smart guy might sort it all out tomorrow and come up with a unified theory of everything that is perfectly logical. But to date, no one has so you will just have to take my statement as provisional until that day comes.

          Unfortunately, it gets even worse, because you don’t have to go as far as empiricism to end up hitting incompleteness. Logic itself in a completely abstract world is still incomplete. Consider the statement:

          “The Egoist will never be able to prove this statement true.”

          So is it true? Well I can quickly demonstrate that it is true, because if it were false then you would be able to prove it true, and that proof would be sufficient to make it true, but that’s a paradox, so the statement can’t be false, thus it must be true.

          However, you will just have to take my word on this, given how you cannot prove the statement true.

          You might quickly realize that a rather large set of similar statements must also exist that are true, without being provably true (and yet, in the process of recognising that they are true you have in a way constructed a proof forcing them to be false again). Nor is it just an isolated handful of examples that can quickly be sidelined and ignored, because any statement that makes reference to itself no matter how indirectly is subject to the same risk.

          Then all you are left with is the problem that certain claims must be accepted without proof. Logic is the tool for some jobs, not all.

          • Jonathan M.F. Catalán says:

            That there are paradoxes in the physical science doesn’t mean that they aren’t logical. It just means that logical solutions haven’t been presented yet. There are supposed paradoxes in the social sciences as well (the diamond-water paradox?), some of which have been solved and others of which may or may not be solved in the future.

            The physical sciences uses logic just as much as any other science does, or what do you think the use of mathematics implies? But, when you can established controlled experiments and establish causality by isolating all the variables except the ones you are testing for, this allows you to establish relationships and use them as assumptions for things you can only examine through logic (much of astrophysics, for example?). In fact, a lot of testing presupposes logic, since this is largely what a hypothesis is (and you test it to see if your logic reflects reality).

          • Ken B says:

            “It’s worse than B”

            This is a tautology.

            🙂

          • Egoist says:

            I thought the quantum description of a photon usurped the classical description. Not that both are being presented as true.

            Some really smart guy might sort it all out tomorrow and come up with a unified theory of everything that is perfectly logical. But to date, no one has so you will just have to take my statement as provisional until that day comes.

            And there’s the rub. You expect me to question my conception of truth, to doubt my convictions, and to simply accept you say as truth.

            You’re espousing egoism and you don’t even know it. You see, a theory of the entire universe would require someone to have knowledge about you, despite you. When you say nobody has discovered a theory of the universe, what you are really saying is that nobody else is you. You are a unique individual. It is impossible to find an exhaustive general theory that is true for many unique entities. You will only ever be able to find what is common between you and I. You will never find an exhaustive theory of me, through learning about yourself or anything else other than me. I am unique. You will only ever acquire knowledge of my properties, but even there, those properties are mine, not yours, which means you will only ever find properties I am owner of, which I can annihilate if I desire.

            I do not have to take what you say as provisional, any more than I don’t expect you to take what I say as provisional.

            I will take what I say as provisional if anyone’s arguments are going to be taken as provisional.

            If you claim to know that “nobody has discovered a theory of everything” (A claim which I dispute by the way), then you are again implicitly making a claim that you know some truth of reality, namely, that there are no humans who have a particular knowledge, or, another way of saying the same thing, every human on the planet is of such a disposition that their minds are not in line with what you consider to be necessary before you will think they know a theory of the universe.

            Unfortunately, it gets even worse, because you don’t have to go as far as empiricism to end up hitting incompleteness. Logic itself in a completely abstract world is still incomplete.

            I agree. It is incomplete because my thoughts do not exhaust me. I own my thoughts. But I am more than my thoughts. So the rules of logic can only ever be a property of thoughts I use at my disposal.

            Consider the statement:

            “The Egoist will never be able to prove this statement true.”

            So is it true? Well I can quickly demonstrate that it is true, because if it were false then you would be able to prove it true, and that proof would be sufficient to make it true, but that’s a paradox, so the statement can’t be false, thus it must be true.

            OK, so let’s assume that the statement is true. If you claim that the statement is true, then you have implicitly claimed something true about reality, namely, that I am of such and such a disposition that I am incapable of doing something, which is proving that statement false.

            You are therefore creating another layer of paradox on top of the one you initially thought of. For now you are in the position of believing that you know of some truth, and yet you also deny that knowing any truth is possible.

            However, you will just have to take my word on this, given how you cannot prove the statement true.

            The egoist desires others to take his word for it, and to accept it by dropping the traditional rules of logic and evidence.

            I don’t have to take your word for it, “given” that I cannot prove that statement true. Which brings me to asking you, did you not just explain to me that the statement is true? You said “if it were false then you would be able to prove it true, and that proof would be sufficient to make it true, but that’s a paradox, so the statement can’t be false, thus it must be true.”

            You might quickly realize that a rather large set of similar statements must also exist that are true, without being provably true (and yet, in the process of recognising that they are true you have in a way constructed a proof forcing them to be false again).

            I agree. There are a large number of unique egos that exist and are true, but can never be exhausted by general rules of thought and thus cannot be proven as true by those general rules of thought. I will always be more than my thoughts. Thoughts are only a portion of me. Therefore, all thoughts will ALWAYS be “incomplete” descriptions of me, and therefore all thoughts will be incomplete descriptions of the universe that I own.

            Nor is it just an isolated handful of examples that can quickly be sidelined and ignored, because any statement that makes reference to itself no matter how indirectly is subject to the same risk.

            I don’t see how it constitutes a “risk”. I think it is necessary.

            Then all you are left with is the problem that certain claims must be accepted without proof. Logic is the tool for some jobs, not all.

            Claims that are called upon to be accepted without proof, can be rejected without proof.

            • Tel says:

              The whole basis for logic is that the world of all statements can be divided into true statements and false statements.

              Claims that are called upon to be accepted without proof, can be rejected without proof.

              Not in the world of logic you can’t, because by rejecting a statement you are taking that statement out of the group of statements that are “true” and since logically there are only two types of statement, therefore you must make the claim that the statement is “false”. Logic does not allow for any statement to exist other than true statements and false statements.

              In order to reject that statement: “The Egoist will never be able to prove this statement true,” you would either need to prove it true, or step outside the bounds of logic.

              • Egoist says:

                The whole basis for logic is that the world of all statements can be divided into true statements and false statements.

                If the proposition that all statements can be divided into true statements and false statements is what grounds logic, what grounds the proposition that all statements can be divided into true statements and false statements?

                “Claims that are called upon to be accepted without proof, can be rejected without proof.”

                Not in the world of logic you can’t, because by rejecting a statement you are taking that statement out of the group of statements that are “true” and since logically there are only two types of statement, therefore you must make the claim that the statement is “false”.

                True and false statements can only be true and false by being grounded in that which you deny is necessary for me to accept what you say as true. You’re telling me to accept what you say to be true, with no grounding other than faith that you’re right. Thus, you are not even presenting to me a true or false proposition. You are presenting to me a groundless proposition that may be ontologically true or false, but epistemologically it is neither.

                Ontology without epistemology is groping in dark.

                Logic does not allow for any statement to exist other than true statements and false statements.

                So why can’t I label your argument, the one you wanted me to take on faith, as false?

                In order to reject that statement: “The Egoist will never be able to prove this statement true,” you would either need to prove it true, or step outside the bounds of logic.

                You’re switching the burden of proof. It is not my obligation to prove it false. It is your obligation to prove it true. You said it was true, and you showed your reasoning why you think it is true.

                But again, if you do claim it is true, then you are making a claim to something true about reality, which you said was impossible to do.

            • Tel says:

              And there’s the rub. You expect me to question my conception of truth, to doubt my convictions, and to simply accept you say as truth.

              Not at all, you can go and work on a unified theory for Physics any time you like, you may even be good at it Lots of people are already doing this so presumably they are expecting to find something or they wouldn’t bother.

              Let’s suppose you did go out and rewrite Physics in a more logically consistent and elegant formulation. Then what you wrote would be different to what we have now, implying that what we have now is wrong and your new formulation would be fixing that up.

              So you are agreeing with my original statement then.

              • Egoist says:

                Not at all, you can go and work on a unified theory for Physics any time you like, you may even be good at it Lots of people are already doing this so presumably they are expecting to find something or they wouldn’t bother.

                So you want me to accept what others say on faith?

                You were the one who said all science is wrong. Now you’re telling me to ask scientists how that are right?

                Let’s suppose you did go out and rewrite Physics in a more logically consistent and elegant formulation. Then what you wrote would be different to what we have now, implying that what we have now is wrong and your new formulation would be fixing that up.

                Or I could just show that what physicists currently think is just a special occurrence that heretofore was dependent on unstated, hidden presumptions, which don’t always hold.

                I don’t have to rewrite the book on physics.

                So you are agreeing with my original statement then.

                I still disagree. You’re telling me contradictory statements. On the one hand, you’re saying truth is unattainable. It’s not just that this statement alone contradicts itself, but you also have made other positive claims about propositions, which only adds to the contradictory set of statements you’re telling me.

      • Scott Angell says:

        Right! All theories concerning concrete reality are necessarily wrong, because all theory is abstraction from reality, i.e., it is incomplete. A finite human mind can only think about any aspect of an infinitely complex reality by choosing to ignore vast portions of it.

        Only ‘math’ can be said to have the possibility of being absolutely correct — because it is abstraction about abstraction, and not abstraction about reality!

        • Egoist says:

          All theories concerning concrete reality are necessarily wrong, because all theory is abstraction from reality, i.e., it is incomplete.

          If you claim that statement is true, then you have expressed a truth concerning concrete reality, namely you.

          Incompleteness does not imply falsehoods. The very statement that it does imply falsehoods, is a claim to some truth, which means you contradicted yourself.

          When the egoist says one contradicts oneself, I mean you have contradicted your own ego, which is manifested in the knowledge that all thoughts do not exhaust you, since you are more than your thoughts.

          Only ‘math’ can be said to have the possibility of being absolutely correct — because it is abstraction about abstraction, and not abstraction about reality!

          What is the second abstraction an abstraction about? If math is an abstraction about abstraction, and that second abstraction is abstraction about reality, then you’re saying math is an abstraction about an abstraction of reality.

          What reality are you talking about? The unique you, or that which is outside of you?

          • Scott Angell says:

            Math is a process of abstraction about abstract concepts (idealized numbers, idealizations about processes in nature, etc.) It can describe perfectly the relations between other abstract things (the exact area of ideal triangles, etc.) but not real things (e.g. the exact area of real ‘triangles,’ which can’t be ideal because perfectly straight, zero-dimensional lines, etc., cannot exist in reality.)

            By ‘incompleteness,’ what I mean is that abstraction is always a process of simplification/idealization/abridgement. It never captures the completeness of reality, otherwise it would be reality itself. The very incompleteness of abstraction is the quality which makes it useful — it makes reality comprehensible to finite minds. By definition, then an abstract concept (such as a theory) is never concrete reality itself, it is an artificial construct, ergo it is always ‘off’ from the real thing, i.e. it is always ‘wrong.’

            • Egoist says:

              Math is a process of abstraction about abstract concepts (idealized numbers, idealizations about processes in nature, etc.)

              Processes in nature are abstract concepts? Abstractions of what?

              It can describe perfectly the relations between other abstract things (the exact area of ideal triangles, etc.) but not real things (e.g. the exact area of real ‘triangles,’ which can’t be ideal because perfectly straight, zero-dimensional lines, etc., cannot exist in reality.)

              What about its usefulness to you, in terms of you deriving enjoyment from it? Is that not exact? Am I really not deriving enjoyment? Based on what? Why should I believe you over my own enjoyment?

              By ‘incompleteness,’ what I mean is that abstraction is always a process of simplification/idealization/abridgement. It never captures the completeness of reality, otherwise it would be reality itself. The very incompleteness of abstraction is the quality which makes it useful — it makes reality comprehensible to finite minds. By definition, then an abstract concept (such as a theory) is never concrete reality itself, it is an artificial construct, ergo it is always ‘off’ from the real thing, i.e. it is always ‘wrong.’

              Why does a theory have to capture the entire reality before it can be right? So often I see this claim being advanced, and yet I have not once seen an adequate explanation.

              As an egoist, I consider myself as an irrefutably existing entity, that can only own all the concepts you throw at me. I even own my thoughts.

              Given this, why on Earth do I need to know everything about the universe, before I can know that I am enjoying the universe as my property?

              Why can’t a finite entity, have a finite conception, of a finite portion, of what is arguably a finite universe, and be “right” about it?

              Your worldview is Hegelian. Hegel also attempted to reconcile the conflict between subject and object. In his conception, Mind gradually becomes universal throughout the ages, and over time, the “illusion” between subject and object is gradually withered away, via abolishing the subject, after which the Object that is the universe becomes self-aware, it reabsorbs back into Mind.

              I go the reverse. I reconcile subject with object by abolishing the object. This unique ego, reconciles the conflict between subject and object not by putting the predicate above the subject, but by putting the subject above the predicate.

              I own the universe according to my (limited) might. I use the universe for my enjoyment. This is an absolute truth. Absolute knowledge in this respect does not require the abolition of the subject, to make way for the object to become self-aware and attain absolute knowledge.

              Notice how the Hegelian conception of abolishing the subject in order to make room for the objective Mind, or Geist, has lead Hegelians to totalitarian statism.

              • Scott Angell says:

                Processes in nature are abstract concepts? Abstractions of what?

                The processes are concrete. Math cannot deal with their concreteness. They must first be idealized into abstractions for math to operate on them without merely being a process of approximation. (Or, rather, the process of idealization is the approximating process.) The key word was ‘idealized’ — simplified.

                It is not merely that the entirety of reality is not understandable. Even the smallest part of it is not understandable. As Teg pointed out, I cannot understand even a photon or an electron — and I have studied quantum mechanics. If I cannot understand these things, how can I understand an atom? Or a man? Even the tiniest corner of concrete reality is impervious to absolute knowledge. All I have in my mind are approximations and simplifications.

                What I can understand, and the only thing I can understand, is abstract concepts. This does not bother me so much (as it does not seem to bother you, either, which is fine), but I should not kid myself about the limits of what I can know. There are many people who seem to think that absolute knowledge can be obtained about concrete reality by way of logic (i.e. Murray Rothbard seems to think so). This is simply not the case. They are deriving abstract knowledge on the basis of axioms, which are abstractions, and this ‘knowledge’ will only describe concrete reality imperfectly. It is perfectly fine to delight in these contemplations as you describe for the concept of self, but I think it is proper to remember what the nature of this ‘knowledge’ is.

                Science is faith. Religion is faith. Rothbardism is faith. These are the things the human mind can deal with, and there is nothing wrong with that, nor anything that anyone can do about it.

                The nearer to concrete reality that abstraction comes (think string theory vs. relativity vs. quantum mechanics vs. classical mechanics) the more complex and less intuitive it becomes and the nearer it draws to the abyss of insanity. Those are the alternatives — faith and insanity.

              • Egoist says:

                The processes are concrete. Math cannot deal with their concreteness. They must first be idealized into abstractions for math to operate on them without merely being a process of approximation. (Or, rather, the process of idealization is the approximating process.) The key word was ‘idealized’ — simplified.

                That doesn’t imply the thought is wrong. I can simplify and idealize things without making incorrect statements about them.

                After all, the very fact that you are simplifying and idealizing human thought vis a vis the physical world, is itself a claim to something concrete in reality, so if you’re right about idealizing lacks truth of concreteness, then with regards to the content of what you’re saying, your statement about truth itself lacks truth.

                It is not merely that the entirety of reality is not understandable. Even the smallest part of it is not understandable.

                That statement requires you to understand your own mind’s ability, which is a part of reality, hence your statement contradicts itself.

                Every attack on the human mind leads to contradiction, because the validity of ALL claims rests on the ability of the human mind. The more you attack the human mind, the less valid your attacks that require the mind become.

                One of my pet peeves is people who clamor that I am ignorant and can’t know anything because I am human, while completely failing grasp that they are contradicting themselves because they are pleading to my humanity in trying to convince me of that claim to truth.

                It’s like you’re saying “This computer does not work. Let me use that same computer to prove it does not work.”

                Can you not see this problem in your arguments?

                I don’t want to read the rest of your post because I suspect everything follows from this initial contradiction.

                Actually, I read the last sentence of your post:

                “Those are the alternatives — faith and insanity.”

                Faith has no meaning without the validity of that which faith is meant to be distinguished from.

                Insanity has no meaning without the validity of that which insanity is meant to be distinguished from.

                I am glad I didn’t read anymore.

                If your believe faith and insanity are the only alternatives possible, then the validity of that proposition itself, if you’re right, must rest on faith or insanity too.

                Or does the claim that my only alternative of faith or insanity, rest on something that is neither faith based nor insane?

                Could it be your ego talking?

      • Paul says:

        If they are both wrong, then let’s look at the numbers. There is only one type of athiesm which is the belief that there is no god (I don’t know how you can believe that any other way). There are an infinite number of religions, so if logically current religion is wrong as is athiesm then it doesn’t prove religion wrong, but simply says that the correct one hasn’t been found.

  6. MamMoTh says:

    Religion has evolved and its clearly in retreat, if not in quantity, at least in quality.
    Hopefully, it will disappear before we do, that is, before the SS Fund hits a real huge negative number.

    • Egoist says:

      Statism is just another divine spiritualism. Instead of making sacred “God”, it is making sacred “Humanity.”

      Statism has evolved and it is clearly in progress, since “Humanity” is the new religion.

      Hopefully the new religion will disappear before I do.

  7. tyrone_biggums says:

    have you read alvin plantingas writings on evolution and naturalism? he argues that evolution without a divine guiding hand is unlikely to select for true beliefs, therefore we do not have sufficient reason to trust our cognitive faculties on naturalist(atheist) terms. while i think the principles of logic(such as the law of non contradiction) are much more removed from this criticism, i at least see it as relatively damning of the origin of language and how we formulate or come to accept many of our thoughts. i know it doesn’t tie directly into your post, but i thought this was a good example of where taking evolution seriously should leads you. I certainly do not condemn evolution, but i think a significant amount of ppl have a romanticized vision of it as having unwarranted intelligence and purpose. it is really much more unintelligent and uglier than many suppose.

  8. Bala says:

    I see a fundamental error being made. As I tell my students, sometimes things happen because of what you did and sometimes they happen in spite of what you did. The key is in understanding which of these operates where and why.

  9. Akshaye says:

    Even if religion was adaptive it still doesn’t prove there is a god. Now that we can scientifically understand how the universe really works and technological progress has made survival a lot easier, religion loses its adaptive significance too. At best it could remain as an appendix you can ignore unless it creates problems… which religion commonly does. Maybe surgery would be the right thing in this case.

    • Paul says:

      Can we scientifically understand where existence, or the concept of existence, came from?

      • Akshaye says:

        If the “concept of existence” is a product of how our brains are wired then why could we not someday understand how it came about. Just because we don’t have a scientific explanation for something today doesn’t mean we will never have one.
        That being said, I have been meditating for many years.. sometimes in silence for many days and have had experiences that seem to defy a “scientific” understanding of existence and reality. My spiritual side tells me its proof that there is something beyond physical reality. My rational side wonders if spiritual/religious experiences might just be an emergent property of a complex physical system that we are… just that we have only started researching complex adaptive systems and so don’t have a robust theoretical basis to explain such phenomenon.
        Organized religion tends to make concepts and experiences so sacred that it blinds one to alternate (scientific) explanations. And that’s the part that deserves surgical removal!

        • Egoist says:

          If the “concept of existence” is a product of how our brains are wired then why could we not someday understand how it came about.

          It came about by you realizing yourself as owner of your brain.

          Or…

          If you accept it is a product of how our brains are wired, then we don’t need to understand how it came about in order to find truth of all propositions ultimately grounded on the reality of that wiring.

  10. joeftansey says:

    Even if religion were bad for the species, it could still propagate. Are you a dune fan?

    “I enjoy watching the flights of birds on Arrakis,” the banker said…”All of our birds are carrion-eaters, and many exist without water, having become blood drinkers…”

    “Do you mean, sir, that these birds are cannibals?” [Paul asked]

    “That’s an odd question…” the banker said. “I merely said the birds drink blood. It doesn’t have to be the blood of their own kind, does it?”

    “It was not an odd question,” Paul said… “Most educated people know that the worst potential competition for any young organism can come from its own kind.” He deliberately forked a bite of food from his companion’s plate, ate it. “They are eating from the same bowl. They have the same basic requirements” (Dune, 134).

    • Ken B says:

      Nice quote. I still hate Dune.

      You highlight another of Gene’s errors: ” if the trait is expensive in terms of energy required, by default we should assume it provides something important to the species in question.” Not to the species, but to the carriers of the trait. (Or to be more careful and correct, to the carriers of the bit of DNA driving the bahavior who could be members of another species entirely.)

      • Egoist says:

        Not to the species, but to the carriers of the trait.

        Notice how that dovetails nicely with egoism.

        Combine that with realizing that “traits” do not completely exhaust the single organism, and we’re basically done.

  11. Ken B says:

    The logic has some holes.

    First, every known animal species suffers from parasites. It does not follow having parasites is an adaptation. In other words, Gene has silently dropped Heinrich’s “presumably.”

    Second it is not true that every culture has religion in the form of dogmas that must be believed, or the notion of a creator-father-god. “Religion” in the anthropological sense Gene uses covers a broad group of traits, much broader than what it means in common parlance. (It seems related to detecting “other minds” in people and animals, but there could be more to it.) ‘Religion’ is not one thing but many things. A belief in god is not universal as Gene asserts.

    Third, many atheist thinkers DO see adaptive value to religion in this broad sense. Some argue it aids group formation for instance.

    Gene’s post does not really rebut the idea that modern religions are like viruses. ‘Religion’ relies on traits that did in the past (and may in the present) have adaptive value. Most modern diabetics get diabetic because in the past we developed a great liking for sugar.

    • Egoist says:

      Gene’s post does not really rebut the idea that modern religions are like viruses. ‘Religion’ relies on traits that did in the past (and may in the present) have adaptive value. Most modern diabetics get diabetic because in the past we developed a great liking for sugar.

      True, but his post was strictly about rebutting the inconsistent position some atheists level against religion, for on the one hand believing widely adopted practices signal conferring of biological advantage, but on the other hand denying that for religion.

      I agree with you that religion is more like a virus, and I like the diabetes analogy.

      I think the flaw then is in the first sentence:

      “if the trait is expensive in terms of energy required, by default we should assume it provides something important to the species in question.”

      I don’t think that default assumption is warranted.

      • Ken B says:

        Right, and the ‘default’ is Callahan’s misreading of what Heinrich meant. “Presumably it has an advantage, maybe we can figure out what and see if that makes sense and if there is evidence for it” is the implication. There’s no defaulting going on, there’s pursuing hints.

        Egoist, I think you might enjoy The God Virus by Ray. He doesn’t really argue for the virus idea, he takes that as proven by Dennett et al, but he has some fun with it and makes some compelling deductions from the idea.

        • Egoist says:

          Thanks for the reference.

          I did some reading on Viruses of the Mind, an article from 1993 by Richard Dawkins. In it he argues that the “faith-sufferer” typically shows this element (among seven elements):

          “The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn’t seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing.”

          Dawkins distinguishes the epidemiological spread of religion from the spread of scientific ideas, which, he suggests, is constrained by the requirement to conform with certain virtues of standard methodology: “testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on”.

          He points out that faith “spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues”.

          Here’s my response: My uniqueness, my ego, considers the moral constraint of “universal rationalism” to be a fetter no less than religion. Dawkins is saying I ought to conform my thoughts and actions to the universal constraint of reason. Well, why should I enslave myself to that, and at the same time consider myself master of religious thought? They’re both universal constraints on me.

          Can I always be rational? Can I arrange my life according to reason in everything? I can, of course, strive after rationality. I can cherish it, just as I can cherish Man, God and every other idea. But what I cherish, what I strive for, is but my idea, my thoughts. But my thoughts are not I. I am not my thoughts. I am more than my thoughts.

          Dawkins, far from eradicating religion, is seeking to destroy one religion and then replace it by another.

    • Tel says:

      First, every known animal species suffers from parasites. It does not follow having parasites is an adaptation. In other words, Gene has silently dropped Heinrich’s “presumably.”

      There are quite a few examples where what is thought to have once been a parasite, gradually became symbiotic. For example, normal healthy human bodies contain a lot of bacteria. Then we have mitochondrial DNA which operates on a completely separate reproductive cycle to human DNA — like a different organism, but neither humans nor our mitochondrial partners can live without the other.

      Maybe you decide that mitochondria are an unnecessary encumbrance and we would be more efficient if we operated differently, but then you would be designing something else, not a human. Perhaps some sort of evolutionary transhuman of the future might not need mitochondria, nor religion for that matter.

      • Ken B says:

        And many cases once thought symbiotic now thought parasitical. So what? Gene’s logic is wrong, as the ubiquity of parasites shows.

  12. RG says:

    Sounds like Gene is suggesting that churgoin’ and the like gets us laid.

  13. Carrie says:

    Evolutionary biology does NOT say that all traits that persist are adaptive. Rather, a trait that is neutral or even somewhat counterproductive to the organism’s survival can still persist, due to the concept called “fitness trade-offs.”

    One known example in human genetics is the trait for sickle-cell anemia. Having two copies of the dominant allele for sickle-cell is detrimental (the person has sickle-cell disease). However, having one copy of the dominant allele confers some resistance to malaria. Being a carrier for sickle-cell is thus “advantageous” over not having the sickle-cell trait at all. However, the presence of carriers in the population means that some of their offspring will have sickle-cell disease. This is but one case where a “non-adaptive” trait persists in a population.

    While I am not saying that religious belief is caused by one’s genetic constitution, IF we take that to be the case per Gene’s article, one could still argue that religious belief is not adaptive despite its persistence. Religious belief could be a byproduct of a more adaptive trait. For example, intelligence and cognition would be the adaptive trait, and religious myths could be seen as the side effect of an intelligent brain trying to make sense of the world.

    • Egoist says:

      Interesting stuff on fitness trade offs.

      Serious questions that do not imply I believe the rhetorical interpretation of these questions:

      Why would anyone seek to make sense of the world?

      Why are religious beliefs a “side-effect”, rather than a “primary effect”, of trying to understand the world? If such “side-effects”, or “primary effects” take place, why can’t they be interpreted as a manifestation of the ego seeking gratification, beyond the “rules” you believe individuals ought to follow before they can be “permitted” to enjoy themselves?

      Why can’t the ego be the ultimate standard that decides standards?

      • Carrie says:

        Egoist, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking, but I’ll do my best to respond to what I think you’re asking!

        Before we start, we need to agree that:

        1) Reality exists independently of our consciousness. The universe existed before we were born and will exist after we die. Reality is not a product of our consciousness but a necessary precondition of our consciousness.

        2) Remaining alive requires certain actions on our part. (You and I may not agree about each of those actions—for example, I believe drugs are necessarily detrimental to health whereas you say you like drugs—but perhaps we can at least agree that there are basic necessities of life, such as obtaining water.)

        Do you agree with those two points? If so, good. If not, I don’t see how to proceed with the discussion. Anyway, I will respond as if we both admit the truth of points 1 and 2.

        Why would anyone seek to make sense of the world?

        In a strictly biological sense pertaining even to lesser animals, the ability to make sense of the world means the ability to understand patterns, make predictions, act on that knowledge, and thus enhance survival. Drinking water satisfies an animal’s thirst; it will drink water again when it is thirsty; it therefore survives rather than dehydrating. Eating a toxic mushroom makes it feel sick; it doesn’t eat that type of mushroom again; it therefore survives rather than poisoning itself. (Yes, I’m anthropomorphizing—I don’t actually suggest that lesser animals engage in conscious thought. My point is that the extent to which an animal can make sense of the world is the extent to which it is equipped to survive. )

        Humans also have survival requirements, and our survival is not
        automatic. In order to survive we must act, and in order to act we must think (“make sense of the world”). Thinking allows us to determine whether a course of action will further our goals or detract from our goals. Our thoughts, when translated into action, affect the progression of our life in reality. The ability to understand how to make fire enabled early Man to keep warm and cook, etc. (I will point out again that it is precisely because reality is real that our thoughts have any bearing on our survival. On the other hand, if it were possible for the Earth to stop spinning, or for a table to revert back to a tree, or to come back from the dead, or to walk on water, then “thinking” would be useless to our survival because there would be nothing coherent to make sense of.)

        Additionally, humans have psychological and emotional requirements. There is no motivation or will to survive if life is devoid of values or at least the future possibility of obtaining values. (In common language, most people would understand “values” to mean “pleasures.” This is not a precise formulation and I think it is a dangerous one to use, as many things that people consider “pleasurable” are actually harmful. Nevertheless, because you’ve written previously about the ego seeking pleasure, you can think of that as being roughly similar to what I mean by pursuing values.) If a human chooses to pursue life over death, he must determine which actions will bring him value; he does so by understanding the nature of reality.

        Further, the greater the degree of a person’s understanding of reality, AND OF HIS IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, the greater the degree of his potential pleasure. As a silly example, a child who spends his 10 cents on a temporary whim to buy a piece of bubblegum today, does not get as much overall pleasure as he would have if he had thought ahead and saved his 10 cents until he could buy a 5 dollar toy car that would last him many days. An adult who spends money on the temporary pleasure of buying cigarettes (yuck—not a pleasure!) every day does not experience the greater pleasure of doing something grand with the money he could have saved and invested. The inventors of skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, and the plethora of other magnificent pleasures we experience today, experience the greatest pleasure of all: the pride of knowing that they are equipped to live in reality, that they have achieved it, and that they are GOOD. The person who envisions something new and great, who learns enough about reality to know how to create it, and who actually acts to produce it, experiences the highest form of elation and self-esteem.

        Why are religious beliefs a “side-effect”, rather than a “primary effect”, of trying to understand the world?

        Religious myths offer crude and unsupported hypotheses for things which are not yet understood by the science of the time. When humans don’t understand fire or rainbows or death, someone creates a story about what could be causing those phenomena. Hundreds of years later the real explanation is discovered.

        In other cases, religious myths are used in an attempt to manipulate weaker minds. The story-makers do not believe their own myths, but know that the populous will. Think of a powerful human-like being who “sees you when you’re sleeping” and “knows when you’re awake,” and who gives you rewards for being “good” even when he’s not looking. (And no, I’m not referring to Santa Claus…)

        On a more positive note, as an art form, stories also provide spiritual fuel, or the sense of what is possible to humans. For example, I like to read uplifting books about truly good characters who work hard, live joyously, and earn exactly what they deserve in the end. People who like the morality ascribed to Jesus will feel good from reading the Bible, by looking to him as a model to emulate. Stories can provide us with a sense of what life should and could be like, thereby enhancing our inspiration to work to create such a world.

        Stories also attempt to fulfill our psychospiritual needs: feeling significant, important, worthy, comforted, safe, loved, meaningful, not abandoned (I couldn’t think of a good antonym for that!), etc. In fact, many people who feel powerless or lonely say they are comforted by religion. The irony is that seeking these values from a god—a non-existent consciousness unreachable by and unequal to human life—detracts from obtaining and experiencing those values in our one life on Earth.

        So thinking is the primary action which is necessary for our survival and pleasure, and the side effect would be stories that attempt to explain that which we don’t currently understand, that attempt to prevent others from understanding, and that provide spiritual fuel.

        • Paul says:

          First of all, I read the whole thing!

          It is easy to attack and negate religious myths. There are an infinite number of possible myths. There is the possibility, though, of there being one true religion that doesn’t contradict anything revealed by science/our observances of the world.

          I hear arguments against religion as being anti-science, but most of them stem from religious people who are anti-science. How do I explain myself? I believe in God, yet I do not disregard any scientific advance from evolution to the expansion of the universe, to the age of the earth as being false. How can that possibly be?

          There are a lot of crummy arguments for God & religion, but that could simply be because there are a lot of people who are wrong.

          • Carrie says:

            Thanks for your response.

            Would you say your views are similar to deism? Based on reading your other comments in this thread, it sounds like your main reason for believing in God is the inability of science to explain why existence exists. “God” would be your answer to that question, and then you would use science and reason to discover the facts of reality (age of the universe, evolutionary processes, etc.) Is this correct?

            • Paul says:

              I wouldn’t say that my main reason for believing in God is the inability of science to explain existence, but rather that is where I would start if I had to prove that God exists. I suppose that my reason for believing needs to really be broken down into two categories for a better understanding. The first is in the proof of the necessity existence of some acting agent that is above the physical world and can create out of will. This I use deduce certain properties of God (omnipotence, logical, etc.) The second is a belief in the nature of God. Who is God, and why did He create us? This is where the “how shall I live” question is ultimately answered.

              I’m Catholic.

              I’m not sure if that gives you a better understanding of where I’m coming from, but I hope it clears it up a little

        • Egoist says:

          1) Reality exists independently of our consciousness. The universe existed before we were born and will exist after we die. Reality is not a product of our consciousness but a necessary precondition of our consciousness.

          2) Remaining alive requires certain actions on our part. (You and I may not agree about each of those actions—for example, I believe drugs are necessarily detrimental to health whereas you say you like drugs—but perhaps we can at least agree that there are basic necessities of life, such as obtaining water.)
          Do you agree with those two points? If so, good. If not, I don’t see how to proceed with the discussion. Anyway, I will respond as if we both admit the truth of points 1 and 2.

          I agree in principle, but I think it’s incomplete.

          When you say “Remaining alive requires certain actions on our part”, I think that’s incomplete. I can fully accept certain actions being required to keep you alive, and certain actions being required to keep me alive, and even certain actions to keep both you and I alive. But I am more than just an entity that is alive. I am more than the property “biologically alive.” Because of that, there exists requirements for me to BE ME that are unique to me, that are not just the common requirements of “humanity”, such as food, water, etc.

          I require, as judged by my uniqueness that you stand as nothing against, other than being either useful to me or not, certain actions that derive enjoyment, AT THE EXPENSE of living another day. For example, I could argue that a person who is treating their bodies poorly, could have their life prolonged by me overruling their decisions, and keeping them unconscious and fed by a feeding tube. I could prolong someone’s life that way. But you will probably agree that this is no consolation for them, because while they are living longer, their life as they choose to live it, is compromised.

          Well, the same exact principle applies here with your talk on what I require to remain biologically alive. Sure, you could prove to me that scientifically, my eating ham sandwiches with high sodium, is going to reduce my life by 3 months from what it otherwise would have been. I’ll grant you that. But I WANT to live a life eating ham sandwiches and dying at 85.25, rather than 85.5.

          It’s the same thing for drugs, although I dispute your claim that they are necessarily detrimental to one’s health. Doctors for example prescribe marijuana to their patients. I think I will trust a doctor’s judgment over the judgment of someone who just finished reading Atlas Shrugged. But EVEN IF you showed marijuana is detrimental to my health in terms of some absolute standard of judgment, it won’t stand in the way of my enjoying my life doing what I choose to do.

          I’d rather die young in an open field than old in a cage. There is nothing you can say that stands as any sort of refutation of MY enjoyments. My enjoyments are unique. My body is unique. The only thing you can ever present to me are what is common between the two of us, but that can never exhaust who I am. As a result, for me to “live”, I need MORE than what “rational man” calls for.

          “Why would anyone seek to make sense of the world?”

          In a strictly biological sense pertaining even to lesser animals, the ability to make sense of the world means the ability to understand patterns, make predictions, act on that knowledge, and thus enhance survival.

          Why would anyone seek to understand patterns, make predictions, and act on that knowledge?

          Drinking water satisfies an animal’s thirst; it will drink water again when it is thirsty; it therefore survives rather than dehydrating. Eating a toxic mushroom makes it feel sick; it doesn’t eat that type of mushroom again; it therefore survives rather than poisoning itself. (Yes, I’m anthropomorphizing—I don’t actually suggest that lesser animals engage in conscious thought. My point is that the extent to which an animal can make sense of the world is the extent to which it is equipped to survive. )

          What about non-toxic mushrooms that enable me to experience the world in ways that enhance my life by facilitating my unique enjoyments?

          Humans also have survival requirements, and our survival is not automatic. In order to survive we must act, and in order to act we must think (“make sense of the world”).

          OK, humans have survival requirements. But what about MY requirements? I am more than the property human. You are human. I am human. But I am not you, and you are not me. So “human” doesn’t exhaust me. it is only what is common between us. What about MY needs? MY requirements?

          Thinking allows us to determine whether a course of action will further our goals or detract from our goals. Our thoughts, when translated into action, affect the progression of our life in reality. The ability to understand how to make fire enabled early Man to keep warm and cook, etc. (I will point out again that it is precisely because reality is real that our thoughts have any bearing on our survival. On the other hand, if it were possible for the Earth to stop spinning, or for a table to revert back to a tree, or to come back from the dead, or to walk on water, then “thinking” would be useless to our survival because there would be nothing coherent to make sense of.)

          Who’s life are you talking about? It isn’t mine. You are not speaking about my life. You’re only speaking of the human in me. The human in me does not completely describe me. The human in me is the same as the human in you, but you are not me, and I am not you, so there is more to me than being human, and there is more to you than being human.

          Did Einstein write his general theory only because he had the property of being human? I am human, and I didn’t come up with it. No, it wasn’t Einstein the human that did it. It was Einstein that did it.

          So when you’re talking about the needs, requirements, constraints, necessities, and so on, about a “human”, you are not actually talking about any specific individual. You’re talking about “rational man”, an abstract concept that can only ever be owned by me, but can never be me. Rational man is just another way of saying rational and irrational men exist, and we are called upon to act rationally, rather than irrationally, as a moral imperative. For I do not want to live the human life you are saying I ought to live. I want to live MY human and inhuman life. My rational and irrational life.

          Additionally, humans have psychological and emotional requirements.

          OK, but what about MY psychological and emotional requirements? I don’t have just human psychological and emotional requirements. I also have inhuman psychological and emotional requirements. Why should I only gratify my human psychological and emotional requirements? Why should I sacrifice my inhuman psychological and emotional requirements?

          There is no motivation or will to survive if life is devoid of values or at least the future possibility of obtaining values. (In common language, most people would understand “values” to mean “pleasures.” This is not a precise formulation and I think it is a dangerous one to use, as many things that people consider “pleasurable” are actually harmful. Nevertheless, because you’ve written previously about the ego seeking pleasure, you can think of that as being roughly similar to what I mean by pursuing values.) If a human chooses to pursue life over death, he must determine which actions will bring him value; he does so by understanding the nature of reality.

          What about his own unique reality? Can you ever speak of my unique reality in any words or propositions apart from what is common between you and I? If not, then I don’t think I and what I want are “roughly similar” to you and what you want. I think there is no reconciliation possible. Not even if one tries to have their uniqueness suppressed, so that they match the other person’s uniqueness. Not even if I tried to be “rational”, will I ever BE you. Rational man is therefore a moral call, it is not MY call.

          Further, the greater the degree of a person’s understanding of reality, AND OF HIS IMPLEMENTATION OF HIS KNOWLEDGE, the greater the degree of his potential pleasure. As a silly example, a child who spends his 10 cents on a temporary whim to buy a piece of bubblegum today, does not get as much overall pleasure as he would have if he had thought ahead and saved his 10 cents until he could buy a 5 dollar toy car that would last him many days.

          I disagree. I could derive more enjoyment spending $0.10 on gum “on a whim”, than I would delaying my gratification, saving, and buying something else later on, if I was willing to trade off more enjoyment in the present and less enjoyment in the future. Everyone does this when they consume anything beyond their “human” biological needs.

          I find that doing things “on a whim” derives me with great opportunities for pleasure that would have passed me by if I acted “rationally” instead. It’s not always, but often enough to know that acting on a whim is not the oh my god end of the world craziness Objectivists typically attach to it.

          The “Don’t act on a whim!” from Objectivists is practically indistinguishable from “Don’t act sinfully!” from Christians.

          An adult who spends money on the temporary pleasure of buying cigarettes (yuck—not a pleasure!) every day does not experience the greater pleasure of doing something grand with the money he could have saved and invested.

          Again I vehemently disagree. It depends on the individual person. For some, they might find more enjoyment smoking cigarettes. For others, they might find more enjoyment doing something else. it is absurd to insist that people enjoy only a pre-approved list of activities, in a world where individuals are choosing to engage in non-approved activities! You can’t say they are wrong, because they require more than what “rational man” wants.

          The inventors of skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, and the plethora of other magnificent pleasures we experience today, experience the greatest pleasure of all: the pride of knowing that they are equipped to live in reality, that they have achieved it, and that they are GOOD.

          I as destroyer and taker of skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, and the plethora of other physical objects, derive the greatest pleasure I could ever achieve: The pride of knowing that my might, my ability, is equipped enough to take what is mine, to consume my unique life, and that I am beyond “good” and “evil” superstitions.

          The person who envisions something new and great, who learns enough about reality to know how to create it, and who actually acts to produce it, experiences the highest form of elation and self-esteem.

          He will never experience MY pleasure, and I will never experience HIS pleasure. Either you are fallaciously comparing inter-subjective utility, or you are claiming to know what I will find enjoyment in over and above my own judgment, which I find particularly funny, since you are nothing to me but a means to satisfy my desired ends.

          Why are religious beliefs a “side-effect”, rather than a “primary effect”, of trying to understand the world?

          Religious myths offer crude and unsupported hypotheses for things which are not yet understood by the science of the time.

          Scientific propositions can and do offer crude and unsupported hypotheses for things which are not accepted by the religion of the time.

          When humans don’t understand fire or rainbows or death, someone creates a story about what could be causing those phenomena. Hundreds of years later the real explanation is discovered.

          I think the same thing about your unsupported claims on my drug use and sexual activity. You talking about others has no bearing on ME.

          In other cases, religious myths are used in an attempt to manipulate weaker minds.

          Sounds very much like rationalist man myths.

          The story-makers do not believe their own myths, but know that the populous will.

          I disagree. That claim is also unsupported. Many theists do in fact believe their own convictions.

          Think of a powerful human-like being who “sees you when you’re sleeping” and “knows when you’re awake,” and who gives you rewards for being “good” even when he’s not looking. (And no, I’m not referring to Santa Claus…)

          You’re referring to rational man? He is the representative of Santa in your worldview.

          On a more positive note, as an art form, stories also provide spiritual fuel, or the sense of what is possible to humans. For example, I like to read uplifting books about truly good characters who work hard, live joyously, and earn exactly what they deserve in the end. People who like the morality ascribed to Jesus will feel good from reading the Bible, by looking to him as a model to emulate. Stories can provide us with a sense of what life should and could be like, thereby enhancing our inspiration to work to create such a world.

          Why should I care what is possible for humans? Why should I care about anything other than what is possible for ME?

          Stories also attempt to fulfill our psychospiritual needs: feeling significant, important, worthy, comforted, safe, loved, meaningful, not abandoned (I couldn’t think of a good antonym for that!), etc. In fact, many people who feel powerless or lonely say they are comforted by religion. The irony is that seeking these values from a god—a non-existent consciousness unreachable by and unequal to human life—detracts from obtaining and experiencing those values in our one life on Earth.
          So thinking is the primary action which is necessary for our survival and pleasure, and the side effect would be stories that attempt to explain that which we don’t currently understand, that attempt to prevent others from understanding, and that provide spiritual fuel.

          The rational man’s consciousness is also unattainable, and yet you are seeking it out. Rational man is a non-existent consciousness. There is MY consciousness, and YOUR consciousness, but where is “rational man’s” consciousness? In truth, it doesn’t exist anywhere, you are trying to seek it out. Me, I am not seeking out anything outside myself. I AM what can be sought after. What I am is beyond rational and irrational, beyond good and evil, beyond whimsical and thorough, beyond human and inhuman.

          “Spiritual fuel.” – Carrie the Objectivist.

          Why can’t religion provide the “spiritual fuel”? Isn’t religion full of spirits? Holy Spirit? Come on.

          • Carrie says:

            As I’ve said before, I am strongly influenced by Objectivism but I do not accept all of Rand’s assertions (particularly about government), so you should not assume that my statements are representative of the official Objectivist position.

            Nevertheless, your comments here once again indicate that you don’t understand at all what I, or Objectivism, is saying. I was trying to find a starting point for our discussion—a fundamental we could agree on—and, just as you have done in the past, you instead focus on the parts of my basic statements that are “incomplete.” I would never suggest that mere biological survival is the proper life for a man and that basic biological necessities are all a person should seek. Yet that is what you claim I am saying when I say that staying alive requires certain behaviors. That staying alive requires certain behaviors does not negate the fact that one can (and should) seek more than that from life!

            I have no idea what you mean by “inhuman psychological and emotional requirements.”

            I also have no idea what you mean by a person’s “own unique reality.”

            Objectivists do not say that acting on a whim is “oh my god end of the world craziness,” as you accuse. People act on whims quite frequently. Generally, these people hold mixed premises and practice enough rationality to get by.

            I think I will trust a doctor’s judgment over the judgment of someone who just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.

            I thought you only trusted your own unique Ego’s judgment, not the judgment of a doctor, who is not You, and thus not equipped to understand your Uniqueness. He’d be working with basic human biochemistry principles, after all, and you are not to be defined as a human, as you state here:

            Why should I care what is possible for humans? Why should I care about anything other than what is possible for ME?

            Of course, you are a human, so whatever is possible for you is possible for at least some humans.

            Many theists do in fact believe their own convictions.

            Absolutely. Note that I listed several possible reasons for forming religious stories, only one
            of which was manipulation.

            “Spiritual fuel.” – Carrie the Objectivist.
            Why can’t religion provide the “spiritual fuel”? Isn’t religion full of spirits? Holy Spirit? Come on.

            My use of the word “spirit” is not at all similar to an ephemeral holy spirit. It refers to a person’s consciousness and his aspiration to strive to attain his greatest vision of himself.

            I as destroyer and taker of skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, and the plethora of other physical objects, derive the greatest pleasure I could ever achieve: The pride of knowing that my might, my ability, is equipped enough to take what is mine,…

            Ah yes, you think the skyscraper that *I* built is *yours* to take and destroy by force! This reminds me of our earlier encounter, during which you said you would murder an innocent person if doing so gave you “pleasure.” Well, I shall say to you what I said before—and this time I really will stick to my word and know better than to attempt a civil discussion with a self-confessed destroyer! Fear not, I will not engage in conversation with you again. My sincere best wishes that we all get what we deserve in this life! 😀

            • Egoist says:

              As I’ve said before, I am strongly influenced by Objectivism but I do not accept all of Rand’s assertions (particularly about government), so you should not assume that my statements are representative of the official Objectivist position.

              Oh don’t worry, I know that if you’re not a sanctioned apostle of the ARI, then you are by definition not promoting the official Objective doctrine. In fact, one could even argue that no Objectivist is representative of the official Objectivist position, for all Objectivists hold Ayn Rand as the only official Objectivist. They always defer to her anyway.

              I was trying to find a starting point for our discussion—a fundamental we could agree on—and, just as you have done in the past, you instead focus on the parts of my basic statements that are “incomplete.”

              I agreed with your statements in principle. Did you not read that part? I can tell you that I consider your arguments incomplete, if I find them incomplete.

              I would never suggest that mere biological survival is the proper life for a man and that basic biological necessities are all a person should seek. Yet that is what you claim I am saying when I say that staying alive requires certain behaviors. That staying alive requires certain behaviors does not negate the fact that one can (and should) seek more than that from life!

              Except you’ve already told me that I am acting improperly for doing more than merely staying biologically alive. Remember?

              I do not believe I am misunderstanding you. I see you saying I should not do more than merely stay alive. I see you saying I should not consume myself to enjoy my life.

              I have no idea what you mean by “inhuman psychological and emotional requirements.”

              I mean those psychological and emotional requirements that do not reside within the framework of what you believe “human” psychological and emotional requirements entail. Everything you believe a “human” needs, is not able to satisfy what I desire, for I am more than the properties that are common to us both, including “human.”

              So when you speak of human needs, human desires, and what I ought to strive for, you’re implicitly divorcing MY actual desires into human and inhuman.

              I also have no idea what you mean by a person’s “own unique reality.”

              It means the reality that is me is unique, and cannot be described by universal concepts that I happen to share with you or anyone else. You can describe me by any names you want, but they will never exhaust me.

              That’s what I mean by my unique reality.

              Objectivists do not say that acting on a whim is “oh my god end of the world craziness,” as you accuse.

              Actually they do.

              People act on whims quite frequently.

              I realize that. What I am saying is that it is a no no for Objectivists. An immoral act. An act contrary to rational man. An act that is not what I ought to strive for.

              Generally, these people hold mixed premises and practice enough rationality to get by.

              Get by how? By living longer? What if they don’t want to? By building skyscrapers? What if they don’t want to?

              I thought you only trusted your own unique Ego’s judgment, not the judgment of a doctor, who is not You, and thus not equipped to understand your Uniqueness. He’d be working with basic human biochemistry principles, after all, and you are not to be defined as a human, as you state here:

              Why should I care what is possible for humans? Why should I care about anything other than what is possible for ME?

              I said I trust a doctor’s judgment MORE than your judgment, concerning these matters. I don’t place a doctor’s judgment above my own. After all, he could be a bad doctor.

              Of course, you are a human, so whatever is possible for you is possible for at least some humans.

              That is false. Nobody can do what I do. I may not be able to do much, but I am the only one who can do what I do. What is possible to a unique entity does not entitle you to say it is possible for anything else. It might be, but it is not necessarily so. Nobody else could have done what Einstein did. If they could, they would have.

              “Many theists do in fact believe their own convictions.”

              Absolutely. Note that I listed several possible reasons for forming religious stories, only one
              of which was manipulation.

              Can a person form rational man stories for manipulating weaker minds?

              My use of the word “spirit” is not at all similar to an ephemeral holy spirit. It refers to a person’s consciousness and his aspiration to strive to attain his greatest vision of himself.

              Ah but it is ephemeral, because you’re again talking about “human” spirit, and not MY spirit.

              “I as destroyer and taker of skyscrapers, bridges, airplanes, and the plethora of other physical objects, derive the greatest pleasure I could ever achieve: The pride of knowing that my might, my ability, is equipped enough to take what is mine,…”

              Ah yes, you think the skyscraper that *I* built is *yours* to take and destroy by force!

              What else but your might can stand in my way? If the wind rustled through the trees, and it said “Don’t cut me down”, do you think I would sacrifice my enjoyment from cutting the trees down if I enjoyed it?

              I don’t care if you built a planet. I respect no “human” rights.

              This reminds me of our earlier encounter, during which you said you would murder an innocent person if doing so gave you “pleasure.”

              The key word is IF.

              Well, I shall say to you what I said before—and this time I really will stick to my word and know better than to attempt a civil discussion with a self-confessed destroyer!

              You mean we were not having a civil conversation so far? You mean I not only have to abide by certain actions, I also have to adopt a certain disposition as well?

              You mean having a civil conversation is impossible unless both parties not only act civil, but believe in the civility as well?

              How insidious.

              Fear not, I will not engage in conversation with you again. My sincere best wishes that we all get what we deserve in this life!

              “Deserve”? You say that like something outside me is giving me my just deserts. How can anything not me GIVE me anything, unless I have already accepted that I should not TAKE what I want?

              • Carrie says:

                I interrupt my hiatus from engaging with you to share two thoughts; the second one will reveal why I am willing to do so.

                First, one of my friends addresses your last sentence. With a few edits from me:

                If you think you can translate your fantasies into action, you’ll discover that there’s something more powerful than your lack of will stopping you: an endless army of facts. There are walls, doors, locks, personal firearms, self-defense training, friends of property owners, watchful neighbors, police, and the countless other strengths and assets of your adversaries—with your self-declared enemies being everyone but yourself.

                Second, I have discovered your identity and that you are using the “Egoist” character to test Stirner’s philosophy. I do not appreciate being deceived by this charade. However, I will not “out” you, because, as a good Randian, my approach to life is to praise the good and laugh at the metaphysical insignificance of evil. (That was a joke.) I suppose the value I obtained from reading your (not Egoist’s) entries is more important than the disvalue of arguing with Egoist. Your brilliant and articulate insights are the main reason I read this blog, and your ability to convincingly execute this hoax for two months proves your sincere passion for truth. Hopefully our exchanges have helped you somewhat in your quest, though I’m afraid your prediction came true: by default, “rational men” won’t deal with those who advocate for the initiation of force.

                Not should you.

                -“Carrie-the-Objectivist”

              • Carrie says:

                Typo- *Nor*, not “not.”

              • Egoist says:

                I had the feeling you’d be back.

                What “fantasy”? I fully realize and accept that my might is limited. I can prove it to myself by understanding I am not able to destroy the world even if I tried. Everyone else has the same limitation as well. Think of all your belongings, all that which you use your might to protect. You also find that you are limited, because occasionally, your belongings break down, they occasionally do not provide the service to you that you had planned.

                I am similar. My property is the world. Occasionally, the world breaks down, it occasionally does not provide the service to me that I had planned.

                You declare ownership and you think yourself owner over things that you do not actually have unlimited power over, and you think I believe in a fantasy for declaring ownership and thinking myself owner over things that I do not have unlimited power over?

                Just consider the computer you are using right now. You lack the power to annihilate the energy in it. But you still consider yourself owner over it (or if you’re not the owner then someone else), according to the owner’s might.

                Yes, I am highly interested in “testing” Stirner, just as you are interested in testing Rand, and Murphy is interested in testing Christ. You’re right, I have a serious passion for truth.

                I was honestly devastated/relieved when I first read Stirner, not only because my entire worldview turned upside down, but also because I finally understood why there is evil in the world, despite me spending years trying to make it right by pleading to people’s humanity. I wasn’t addressing the individuals themselves, I was addressing their humanity.

                Then I realized all sorts of things that I knew were suspect, but didn’t have the intellectual wherewithal to reconcile it. One of them was Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature. I agreed with it, but there was something “off” that I couldn’t put my finger on. Then I realized what it was. It was that if egalitarianism is a revolt against nature, then isn’t demanding equal rights for all men, also revolt against nature? How can anyone who talks about individuals having different preferences, talents, desires, productivity, and so on, and rail against egalitarians who demand equal wealth, how can they then turn around and say they want equal rights on the basis that all men have the property of being “rational”? Men are more than rational, so should “rights” be unequal, in accordance with our nature as unique individuals?

                I thought wow, I just dismissed one of my heroes Rothbard. Holy crap, what else is going to happen?

                Then I turned to ALL my past influences, and reread virtually everything (quickly because I remember most of it). I turned to Rand. Another light went off. Of COURSE Rand pleaded to the “rational man”, and not ME, not YOU, not anyone in particular. She jealously defended “men who build skyscrapers”, but the men who build skyscrapers CAN BE “irrational” and “evil.” There are cases of wealthy businessmen who Objectivists praise, and yet occasionally they’re praising “evil” people who have done terrible things. I realized that Objectivists too are only addressing the “rational” part of men, and not the men themselves. Addressing the individual men themselves as they are, not how they might be, reveals rationality and irrationality, good and evil, holy and unholy, and so on.

                And to make matters more complicated, I learned virtually all individuals are possessed. They are possessed by who they think they ought to be, rather than accepting who they are. When they address me, they plead to the concept they themselves are possessed by, rather than me. Objectivists will plead to the rational in me. Christians will plead to the divine in me. Libertarians will plead to the human in me. None are addressing ME. None are addressing other unique egos.

                Then I realized, with almost depressing smack in the face, why libertarianism didn’t “hold” during the enlightenment, and why we see only occasional bursts of it since. It’s because liberalism (classical) is an evolution of Christianity.

                Liberalism is God become man. It seeks to put the divine God into man, where I must hold “man” as sacred and inviolable. Then it dawned on me why so many libertarians, especially the most popular ones, are Christians. Then it dawned on me why Rand hated Libertarians. Libertarians appealed to the “man” in people, which is why libertarians are OK with drugs, prostitution, gambling, and so on. Rand on the other hand appealed to the “rational man” in people, which is why she hated drugs, prostitution, gambling, and so on, and thus why she hated Libertarians.

                I realized that both Objectivists and Libertarians are possessed by a spook. None are appealing to ME. Both are appealing to only a part of me. Objectivists my thoughts, Libertarians my arms and legs. What about the parts of me that is more than my thoughts, and more than my arms and legs? Who is addressing that? Then it dawned on me. Nobody will address those parts of me, because nobody can truly understand those parts of me, as they can only address the parts of me that they share with me. We all understand each other by understanding ourselves. I knew that was the case for many years, but now I really get it. Objectivists can only ever address the rational part of me that they also have, and Libertarians can only ever address the bodily part of me that they also have. The part of me that is unique, nobody but me can address.

                And this is when I did some searching to learn about the unique me. Am I capable of doing egoist things that Objectivists, Libertarians, and Christians will abhor because they are possessed by appealing to only the sacred “rational” or “human” or “holy” in me?

                This is where the “testing” part comes in. I am mentally testing it, to see if something mentally in me doesn’t recoil in horror. I can say that so far, I have had no desire whatsoever to do the kinds of truly egoist things that would hurt others. I was quite honestly relieved when you said you wanted me dead. That may sound strange, but it was because it showed me that yes, even civil, rational people have a part of them that transcends “rationality”, and “humanity”. Otherwise rational and humanistic people wanting others dead has happened many times before, but I just wasn’t receptive to it. Rand for example said she was totally fine if the US bombed dictators overseas, even if it killed innocent people. I remember her saying “Let those people deal with their own problems” or something like that. I thought, how can someone who is so fine with innocent people getting killed by the bombing she is advocating, be so popular among those who champion property rights and individual freedom and anti-war advocates? Then I realized not even Rand herself was able to be “rational”. She was unable to be “rational” the same way a Christian is not able to be Christ. They’re chasing spooks, rather than accepting who they are as unique beings.

                I apologize for stringing you along. My thinking was that my “Egoist” arguments would be treated as is, and I would know what people who wanted to talk really thought about it, without the baggage of making assumptions of my motivations and so on that would invariably exist if the original name was used.

                I hope you can accept that ideas and arguments that stand alone are far more likely to be interpreted by the individual reader in an individualistic way, which is what I want to reach. I think of popular anonymous quotes and how they are not intimidating, but used by the individual for their own purposes, because there is no name attached to them. That’s why I “deceived” you. By putting all this stuff under the heading “Egoist”, I can see what people really think, rather than telling me what they might want me to hear because they know who I am.

                For the record, these two alter egos, so to speak, are the only ones I am using at this time. I guess I am appreciative that you won’t “out” me, but I kind of already am now that you know. I think this is the last you’ve seen of Egoist. I’ve changed monickers so many times after being “outed” online I have lost track. It’s funny, because I have yet to be successful at “hiding” myself for any appreciable length of time. I guess people’s words, despite words being social conventions, really can reflect the individual.

                I think I know what tipped you off, and I pathetically, embarrassingly tried to cover it at the time, and I thought it worked, but I guess the people here are too smart for that nonsense.

                I am weaker than I realized. Here I am going about things, of changing names and remaining anonymous, like I’m actually living in a totalitarian society with censorship. I guess my actions are partly responsible for why we are getting more totalitarian over time. But then again, the internet has prying eyes everywhere, for example it is now known that the CIA and FBI are using social media to “steer” discussions, and to promote certain propaganda. I myself was a victim of it on another site, after some incredibly talented hacker proved it to me.

              • Carrie says:

                Oh, Egoist! My heart (I mean my automatic results of my value judgments integrated by my subconscious, LOL) pains for you. I do not understand the specific nature of your struggle, as I don’t comprehend much of what you say here about egalitarianism and equal rights—but I experienced devastation about 5-6 years ago when I discovered some contradictions in Objectivism. The collapse of my worldview was nearly unbearable. This is probably like the grief and guilt religious people feel when they become atheists. I wish there was someone who had gone through your progression and could offer insights about the transition.

                Are you familiar with “Radical Honesty” by Brad Blanton? It is a pop book rather than a philosophical text, but it describes the problems with thinking (abstraction removes us from experience), the inability to directly understand others, the dishonesty that results from adhering to an externally-imposed morality, etc.

                I understand and accept your reasons for remaining anonymous. On the other hand, I believe this resulted in you receiving fewer “good” arguments and responses. If I knew an intelligent person was seriously trying to work out egoist ideas, I would be willing to invest time/effort/energy in sincerely exploring them. As it stood, Egoist was just some internet yahoo who was out to aggravate me. On occasion I’d offer some kind of response, but more frequently I’d produce quick personal jibes to show my contempt of her obnoxious attitude.

                That being said, I don’t see where wishing Egoist dead was irrational. Here was a person who said she would murder people if doing so “pleased” her. There seemed to be no standard other than unpredictable whim about when she would or would not get the urge to murder. Such a deranged person is a threat to me and to other individuals; she does not value, in principle, her own life or anyone else’s. Though I do not claim I should initiate force against her, it is true that my world would be safer and more pleasant without the threat of a person who might become “pleased” to murder me at any moment.

                Certainly there are wealthy businessmen who are horrible—but they are the Weasel-y Moochers, the second-handers, and they should not be praised. I’m not convinced that a man with the productive capacity to build skyscrapers could actually be fundamentally irrational or evil. But if it were possible for a Rearden to suddenly turn evil, then he should not be praised. That someone has built a skyscraper does not give him a moral free pass to become a murderous druggie. Life requires constant action. Doing a few good deeds does not ensure continued success; morality is necessary during one’s entire life.

                Oh yes, liberalism is God become man. I think Rand herself asserted this—“hero-worship,” “temple of the human spirit,” Roark being “profoundly religious,” etc. But I do not think this is the worship of an abstract man or of humankind; I think it refers to self-reverence and exalting the best within oneself. It is tremendously fun and pride-inducing to see one’s own thoughts manifest in physical form. When I see a skyscraper I do not love all of humanity; I love the individual man/mind that created it.

                Actually, I was suspicious of your identity from the outset. I mentioned it to an in-person friend when you first came on the scene, and have talked about it several times since, including at our local Objectivist meetings! There is no way that a murderous druggie (etc.) who professes the beliefs of Egoist would be able to succeed, in this reality, without having been smacked in the face long ago by the facts of nature. Reality does not bend to your Ego.

                Egoist, I wish you all the things you deserve in this life—and this time I mean it in the kindest way possible.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Hi Carrie and Egoist,

                I am sorry that I am just so busy with work stuff right now that I can’t jump deep into the details of your arguments. I think they are very important. I would point you to this article, which I wrote a few years ago. I think it is very relevant to your discussion.

                One last thing (for now): Egoist, I would urge you not to violate traditional moral rules “just because you don’t see why not.” E.g. just because you don’t see what would be wrong about taking somebody’s wallet in a baseball crowd, if you thought you could get away with it, I would still caution you not to do that, since (in the grand scheme) the reward is so small anyway. The problem is that you would be breaking down your natural (or conditioned or rational, we can debate the source) feelings of conscience, and I think that would be like deliberately poking your eyes out if you at the moment didn’t see the advantage of having eyesight. I.e. once you destroy your conscience–thinking that it holds you back in certain situations–you might not be able to get it back.

                So I think you are right to think through these matters, but I hope you don’t whimsically jump over the edge in terms of your actions, based on your current doubts about the justification for rights, morality, etc.

              • Egoist says:

                Carrie:

                Oh, Egoist! My heart (I mean my automatic results of my value judgments integrated by my subconscious, LOL) pains for you. I do not understand the specific nature of your struggle, as I don’t comprehend much of what you say here about egalitarianism and equal rights—but I experienced devastation about 5-6 years ago when I discovered some contradictions in Objectivism. The collapse of my worldview was nearly unbearable. This is probably like the grief and guilt religious people feel when they become atheists.

                I can understand that.

                Does the fact that Galt’s Gulch was anarcho-capitalist mean something?

                I wish there was someone who had gone through your progression and could offer insights about the transition.

                I sometimes think that too, but ultimately I take full responsibility. I could have gone the Marxist route and blamed “productive relations” for why I, and by extension why others, have the thoughts we do, but thankfully Mises showed that to be untenable.

                Are you familiar with “Radical Honesty” by Brad Blanton? It is a pop book rather than a philosophical text, but it describes the problems with thinking (abstraction removes us from experience), the inability to directly understand others, the dishonesty that results from adhering to an externally-imposed morality, etc.

                I have not heard of that, thanks for the reference.

                I understand and accept your reasons for remaining anonymous. On the other hand, I believe this resulted in you receiving fewer “good” arguments and responses. If I knew an intelligent person was seriously trying to work out egoist ideas, I would be willing to invest time/effort/energy in sincerely exploring them. As it stood, Egoist was just some internet yahoo who was out to aggravate me. On occasion I’d offer some kind of response, but more frequently I’d produce quick personal jibes to show my contempt of her obnoxious attitude.

                That’s exactly what I wanted. I wanted people to consider me as just another yahoo, and not bias their judgment with telling me what they think I wanted to hear, because they felt they had to be “respectful” to the rational part of me, or to the divine part of me, or to the human part of me.

                If you read something anonymous, and you found yourself agreeing with it, do you think that this would have been possible if you, say, knew from the outset that it was written by a Stalin, or a Hitler? Or let’s say you were reading something anonymous that you thought was moronic. Would you have thought the same thing if you knew from the outset it was written by a Rand, or a Mises?

                I wanted to avoid that. I wanted anyone to say what they really think of these things, to imagine them coming from a totally anonymous individual, because I think that is the most accurate way of gauging how this philosophy might work if it were adopted by everyone.

                That being said, I don’t see where wishing Egoist dead was irrational. Here was a person who said she would murder people if doing so “pleased” her. There seemed to be no standard other than unpredictable whim about when she would or would not get the urge to murder. Such a deranged person is a threat to me and to other individuals; she does not value, in principle, her own life or anyone else’s. Though I do not claim I should initiate force against her, it is true that my world would be safer and more pleasant without the threat of a person who might become “pleased” to murder me at any moment.

                I can fully appreciate that. But then are you saying this stuff about statesmen, who not only think of these things, but does them as well? Will you not say you wish they were dead? Or do you recognize their might and respect it out of your own self interest?

                Now imagine what I am saying is adopted by everyone. Who would possibly put the state, or society, above themselves? I submit that libertarianism has failed, because here we are, hundreds of years later, and even many libertarians don’t want to abolish the state, and almost all of them CAN’T do it, because they are trying to gain their freedom through mental acts only.

                Certainly there are wealthy businessmen who are horrible—but they are the Weasel-y Moochers, the second-handers, and they should not be praised. I’m not convinced that a man with the productive capacity to build skyscrapers could actually be fundamentally irrational or evil.

                John Corzine?

                But if it were possible for a Rearden to suddenly turn evil, then he should not be praised. That someone has built a skyscraper does not give him a moral free pass to become a murderous druggie. Life requires constant action. Doing a few good deeds does not ensure continued success; morality is necessary during one’s entire life.

                Why is it necessary? If one finds pleasure in doing something “immoral”, and they survive, and they are actually enjoying themselves, how can you expect them to put morality above themselves?

                Oh yes, liberalism is God become man. I think Rand herself asserted this—“hero-worship,” “temple of the human spirit,” Roark being “profoundly religious,” etc. But I do not think this is the worship of an abstract man or of humankind; I think it refers to self-reverence and exalting the best within oneself.

                The best is not the individual person themselves. It is a part of them that is common to all others. To Rand it is the rational part of man that is to assert itself and be revered. I am more than a rational man. So are everyone else. Why should each individual be enslaved to such a universal, common trait, when each individual is more than that?

                The best within the egoist is what he can acquire according to his might. That doesn’t mean only steal. That means “trade” when it suits him AND “steal” when it suits him. Why can’t I exchange and trade when it suits me, and take when it suits me?

                For example, suppose I am taking from a serial killer, who acquired his property by trade. According to the libertarian, I would be committing an “offense” against him, because I have affronted his humanity, and thus I have affronted everyone’s humanity. So I will be branded a thief. But what if I steal from him so that he has fewer resources with which to kill others? What if those others didn’t hire me to be their protector? Am I to just stop them from murdering, and yet allow them to keep their property?

                These are the kinds of questions I am asking against the libertarian ethic. You don’t have to worry so much. At least not yet.

                It is tremendously fun and pride-inducing to see one’s own thoughts manifest in physical form. When I see a skyscraper I do not love all of humanity; I love the individual man/mind that created it.

                Even if they cheated on their wife, say? Even if they beat their children? Even if they committed fraud on their loan application? Even if they failed to abide by the contracts they signed? Even if they do drugs? Even if they do things that are not “rational”?

                I don’t think the people you’re talking about exist, Carrie. I don’t think they ever existed. There have been individuals who were highly “rational”, but not fully rational. I mean, if Ayn Rand can say women should not be football players, and that women should worship and idolize men, if the intellectual figurehead of rationalism can’t always be rational, then aren’t we all chasing spooks that are unattainable? When can I be truly happy and accepting in my own skin, and when can anyone else do it? Do we have to build skyscrapers 24 hrs a day, and never once have a desire to do something irrational? Where are these people?

                Actually, I was suspicious of your identity from the outset. I mentioned it to an in-person friend when you first came on the scene, and have talked about it several times since, including at our local Objectivist meetings! There is no way that a murderous druggie (etc.) who professes the beliefs of Egoist would be able to succeed, in this reality, without having been smacked in the face long ago by the facts of nature.

                I think that’s your faith talking. Priests during the middle ages would have said the same thing to atheists.

                Explain why around half of all murders go unpunished.

                Explain why statesmen like George Bush can start wars that kill 100,000 people in the middle east, have not been “smacked by the facts of nature.”

                Explain why evil PERSISTS, and why evil hasn’t been vanquished from the face of the Earth by being “smacked by the facts of nature.”

                Explain how murderous cannibalistic dinosaurs would have been rulers of the Earth had the asteroid not hit it.

                Explain why people get away with evil, live long lives, and not only that, but are revered by millions of people.

                Why hasn’t “the facts of nature” smacked up against these people?

                Reality does not bend to your Ego.

                I disagree. Reality MUST bend to my ego, or else I could not change reality as it is given to suit my interests. Men could not build skyscrapers if nature didn’t bend to egoistic desire. Nature DOES bend to my ego. But it does not entirely bend, for I am limited in my might.

                I refuse to accept that reality is a prison. Reality is not a prison. Reality is mine to enjoy. If I truly thought reality does not bend to my ego, then as Mises argued, action would be impossible.

                Egoist, I wish you all the things you deserve in this life—and this time I mean it in the kindest way possible.

                Let’s be honest. No wishing is necessary if you are actually convinced that everyone gets what’s coming to them.

                I think there is a part of you that agrees with me. I think when you say you WISH I get what I deserve, you know there is room there where I have the power to not get what the rational man says I deserve.

              • Egoist says:

                Murphy:

                I am sorry that I am just so busy with work stuff right now that I can’t jump deep into the details of your arguments. I think they are very important. I would point you to this article, which I wrote a few years ago. I think it is very relevant to your discussion.

                Murphy, God of the bible told his followers to kill people. I honestly do not think the bible can be the basis for not going out and doing bad things. I mean, just look at the Christian hawks in charge of the US military. They’re Christians. They hate Muslims. They are killing innocent Muslims almost every day. Why isn’t reading the bible stopping them?

                One last thing (for now): Egoist, I would urge you not to violate traditional moral rules “just because you don’t see why not.” E.g. just because you don’t see what would be wrong about taking somebody’s wallet in a baseball crowd, if you thought you could get away with it, I would still caution you not to do that, since (in the grand scheme) the reward is so small anyway.

                What “grand scheme”? There is me, and the world, and that’s it.

                If you say the reward is small, then you’re saying the reward is there. Why shouldn’t I take advantage of a reward, even if it is small?

                Is it because you don’t want to have your wallet lifted at the ballgame? That your interests would be better served if I were to deny what pleases me, for the sake of what pleases humanity, or God?

                See, you’re looking out for your own, and you’re doing so by calling upon me to exalt the same God, so as to make your Earthly experience a better one. I can accept that. But I have my own desires too.

                The problem is that you would be breaking down your natural (or conditioned or rational, we can debate the source) feelings of conscience, and I think that would be like deliberately poking your eyes out if you at the moment didn’t see the advantage of having eyesight. I.e. once you destroy your conscience–thinking that it holds you back in certain situations–you might not be able to get it back.

                What if I retain ownership over both MY conscience and MY anti-conscience? Is that possible? I think so. Christians think so too, because Christians believe ANY human can be “born again” no matter what they have done in the past.

                So I think you are right to think through these matters, but I hope you don’t whimsically jump over the edge in terms of your actions, based on your current doubts about the justification for rights, morality, etc.

                Why not? If you’re going to have everlasting Utopia in the next life, what difference does it make that someone should destroy the world?

                Wouldn’t someone who doesn’t think there is anything after this life, that they would do everything they can to make THIS world a better place?

                I mean, just look at our own militaristic government. Full of Christians. Their actions are indistinguishable from those who don’t care what happens in this life, only what happens after. Make the world more Christian, and there’ll be more Christian corpses in heaven to play with.

                Look at Ron Paul’s campaign. Look at Rand Paul endorsing war monger Romney. If Ron Paul has the support of only a minority of the people, if his own son endorses a war monger, then I cry out why should I look at the libertarian in most others, when most others don’t want to look at the libertarian in me? Why can’t I treat those people like dogs, and why can’t I treat the better people as I would treat my cherished friends?

                I don’t want to hurt innocent people. I want to hurt people who want me hurt, the people who the Libertarian, Christian, and Objectivist would say don’t touch because they are “following the rules”.

                The Libertarian would say I cannot harm a serial killer who did not harm me, and whose victims did not hire me to protect them. I am only supposed to act if MY personal life is at stake. But if other lives are at stake, lives I care about but who do not consent to me protecting them, I am supposed to not act.

                The Objectivist would say I cannot harm a serial killer who acts with governmental authority.

                The Christian will say I cannot harm a serial killer who becomes a born again Christian.

                In other words, I find all morals to sacrifice ME.

                The people who want me hurt are everyone who wants to use force against me, directly, or indirectly using the state. Why should I respect these people? Why should I plead to them “Please stop?” Why can’t I stop them?

                I think it’s more than “doubting” morality. I think it’s a conviction at this point.

                Humans are either incapable of coming up with a satisfactory morality that does not sacrifice ME, or morality has been an illusion all along. I exclude the former, because I think my ego is incomprehensible in common language, common concepts, and so on. Morality can only ever be a generalized concept. It can never address ME.

                It’s not that people are too stupid, it’s that they physically lack the ability, that is, they are not physically me, that is the reason.

                Everyone is unique. All universals cannot ever coincide with a collection of unique beings. We are enslaving ourselves. Egoism is the next evolution. Christians had their hayday. Humanists had their hayday. The egoist cannot do anything other than break free from such barriers. They have done so since the beginning of human life.

                Every universal has made way to another as egoists smash them one by one. It was egoists who smashed paganism and replaced it with a single God. It was egoists who smashed the single God and replaced it with humanism/liberalism/statism. It will be egoists who smash humanism/liberalism/statism.

                If I am going to fight for me, I am going to have to stop fighting me.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Egoist wrote:

                Is it because you don’t want to have your wallet lifted at the ballgame? That your interests would be better served if I were to deny what pleases me, for the sake of what pleases humanity, or God?

                No, you need to stop psychoanalyzing me. I told you quite specifically why you shouldn’t do it: Because it would hurt YOU. Your conscience is a very important sense; it is your moral sense.

                A better analogy than poking your eyes out, would be to sell both of your eyes for $100,000, since you don’t seem to get much use out of them right now. I would caution you against that. Yes, that $100,000 is real, and you could definitely enjoy yourself with it, but I think the price is far too high and that you yourself wouldn’t make the transaction, if you really had your long-run interest in view.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Egoist wrote:

                The Christian will say I cannot harm a serial killer who becomes a born again Christian.

                This isn’t true at all. One can argue that a Christian thinks it’s OK to harm serial killers, or that it’s not OK to harm serial killers, but in no case whatsoever can any Christian argue that it depends on whether the serial killer is born again, as far as religious reasons. The only way to get that conclusion, would be if you were making a pragmatic argument about the likelihood of recidivism, and you thought because he became born again, that he was no longer a threat. But I get the sense that’s not what you mean here.

              • Ken B says:

                Look at it this way Egoist. Whatever it’s metaphysical status your conscience tells you something about what is needed to function in society.
                It reflects an understanding of shared judgment. People who lack one rarely do well — unless they do incredibly well — take over a country or steal a king’s ransom. So unless you are poised to be the next Hugo Chavez …

              • Egoist says:

                Murphy:

                I told you quite specifically why you shouldn’t do it: Because it would hurt YOU. Your conscience is a very important sense; it is your moral sense.

                Why would my being hurt be of any interest to you, if not for your own gratification in some way?

                I don’t accept your claim that it would hurt ME. If I enjoy it, if I want to do it, then it won’t hurt me. I will find enjoyment in it.

                A better analogy than poking your eyes out, would be to sell both of your eyes for $100,000, since you don’t seem to get much use out of them right now.

                I am retaining every part of me. I am simply recognizing that there is more.

                I would caution you against that. Yes, that $100,000 is real, and you could definitely enjoy yourself with it, but I think the price is far too high and that you yourself wouldn’t make the transaction, if you really had your long-run interest in view.

                You mean like so many others who have done “immoral” things and lived long, fruitful lives?

                The payback you’re saying exists for every individual, does not exist.

                “The Christian will say I cannot harm a serial killer who becomes a born again Christian.”

                This isn’t true at all. One can argue that a Christian thinks it’s OK to harm serial killers, or that it’s not OK to harm serial killers, but in no case whatsoever can any Christian argue that it depends on whether the serial killer is born again, as far as religious reasons.

                The only way to get that conclusion, would be if you were making a pragmatic argument about the likelihood of recidivism, and you thought because he became born again, that he was no longer a threat. But I get the sense that’s not what you mean here.

                Actually, that kind of was what I was trying to get at. That’s why I said “*who becomes* born again”. It was to make the impression that “he is no longer” a threat to the Christian; that the Christian would say he is no longer “deserving” of death. That I would be acting sinfully by ending his life. It was to distinguish this person from a non-born again serial killer who is still a threat.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Egoist wrote:

                Why would my being hurt be of any interest to you, if not for your own gratification in some way?

                Because I’m not an egoist. I am concerned about the welfare of others.

              • Egoist says:

                You’re an unacknowledged egoist. You are unique.

                Why are you concerned about the welfare of others, if not for your own enjoyment/happiness?

                If for the sake of Christ, wouldn’t that make Christ an egoist?

                If not, if Christ in turn does it for the sake of God, wouldn’t that make God an egoist?

                If God made man in his image, wouldn’t that make you an egoist?

              • Bob Murphy says:

                Egoist,

                You are clearly an intelligent guy, but when it comes to foundational issues of your stated worldview, you make very elementary mistakes in your reasoning. I don’t have the time to carry on this argument, so this will probably be my last response. But look:

                You’re an unacknowledged egoist. You are unique.

                Is the latter sentence supposed to be evidence for the former? If so, then you are using “egoist” here in a very broad sense. Of course everyone has an ego, that’s not the issue. But just because I’m unique doesn’t make me an “egoist” the way you’ve been using the term.

                Why are you concerned about the welfare of others, if not for your own enjoyment/happiness?

                I don’t know exactly why, but (a) I am and (b) I’m glad that I am. I am worried that if you beat your own altruism out of your system, you will be harming yourself and it might be irreversible.

                Look Egoist, you are sounding eerily similar to Anakin Skywalker as he’s being seduced by the dark side. Anakin doesn’t flip because all of a sudden he decides he derives pleasure from killing people, rather he flips (initially) because he “realizes” that the traditional rules and who the “good guys” are, has been a lie all of his life. He “realizes” that if it serves your personal goals to kill innocent people, hey knock yourself out; it’s their fault for not being able to defend themselves. And then of course, at the end of his life he realizes he made a horrible mistake. But reason alone can’t tell us that Palpatine is wrong and Yoda is right. If you really lack any human sympathy and don’t get enjoyment from seeing others prosper, then I can’t inject such emotions into you with logic.

                If for the sake of Christ, wouldn’t that make Christ an egoist?

                No, it wouldn’t. This is an elementary mistake in your reasoning. Your whole worldview is an impressive skyscraper built on quicksand. Christ Himself was the ultimate altruist. Yes He asks us to serve Him, but He in turn served us for more than He asks us to do in return.

                If not, if Christ in turn does it for the sake of God, wouldn’t that make God an egoist?

                No, because God’s rules are established for our own good. When I instill in my own son the principle that he needs to obey me, it’s not because I’m selfishly trying to get him to serve me. That is a complete perversion of the situation. I sacrifice a lot for my son, because I love him. If there were a father who didn’t love his son, he would think I act very irrationally day in and day out, and my logic alone couldn’t convince him otherwise.

                If God made man in his image, wouldn’t that make you an egoist?

                No, because you were wrong in the previous step.

    • Tel says:

      The fitness trade-off implies that the trait IS adaptive. There are trade-offs in everything: height, weight, muscle mass, you name it. All of those things are adaptive.

      “Religious belief could be a byproduct of a more adaptive trait. For example, intelligence and cognition would be the adaptive trait, and religious myths could be seen as the side effect of an intelligent brain trying to make sense of the world.”

      That’s a fair point, but if fundamental cognition is deeply bound to religious myths then we aren’t really talking about two separate things any more, merely two ways of looking at the same thing. In which case that one single thing would be either adaptive or not.

  14. lwaaks says:

    I didn’t have time to read through all the comments, so I aplogize if this is repetition. If religion is a way of understanding the world/reality (as is atheism), then I don’t think it confers an evolutionary advantage per se, but it does reflect our desire to make sense of the world. In this sense, it is no different than anything else.

  15. Tel says:

    Given that the above discussion of knowledge representation and discovery frameworks has kind of dead-ended at the “horse to water” stage, and given that it was drifting completely off topic… something that might be more relevant to the subject of the post:

    http://www.ethics.org.au/faq/ethics-complement-scripture

    Can scripture and a secular-based option happily co-exist?

    NSW Department of Education policy prohibits children, who are not attending scripture, from receiving any formal instruction during this period, and specifically not in the area of ‘ethics, values, civics and general religious education’.

    In the past the NSW Department of Education has held the view that offering such formal instruction, would pose a possible conflict of interest for students attending SRE, and their parents.

    St James Ethics Centre (the Centre), and those for whom it is advocating, view NSW Department of Education policy as socially unjust – all children ought to be entitled to ethical exploration and its associated benefits, regardless of their parent’s religious persuasion.

    Contemporary research has empirically linked the opportunity to explore purpose, meaning and virtues with vital youth mental health. By denying any children this opportunity, we are essentially denying them an opportunity to contribute to their own well-being and, by extension, that of the community.

    • Paul says:

      That whole last paragraph is garbage. First, in order to justify any institutional action a study is always referenced. There are studies that make contradictory claims about the same thing. Until someone is willing to invest their own time and money into the validity of the study then it remains completely useless. If people use a study to justify teaching a certain thing that neither the child or the parent is paying for, nor is the administrator tied to financially, then it’s nothing more than trial and error that is justified by a dime a dozen study that we call science. Second, this is a classic case of demagoguery. There is no denying of opportunity unless they have developed a way to block independent thinking in youths.

      Tel, this is not an implication of you (as far as I know you haven’t opined about this, but just copied it), but rather the piece you are referencing. I’m not sure how text comes across emotionally these days.

      • Tel says:

        I’m not putting my horse in the race just yet, but broadly the relevance to me of this is as follows:

        * Religious people automatically pick up ethical templates from the rich array of bible study, sermons, parables, mythology, and general churchgoing that they participate in.

        * Atheists mostly ignore those things because all of that religious material draw authority from God, which is useless to an Atheist.

        * Although a decent body of mildly Christian post-Enlightenment philosophy does exist (e.g. Adam Smith) modern Atheists are not overly interested in those either (with some exceptions).

        * Although modern secular science has delved into the same issues (e.g. John Von-Neumann, Robert Axelrod, etc) it’s not presented in an approachable form for most readers (especially young readers) and tends to be obscure.

        The result has been a generation or two of moderately scientifically literate people who are on the whole pretty arrogant, very concerned with the material world (and materially skilled in science, engineering, accounting, logistics, war, etc), and probably have a grasp of the easy and intuitive ethical principles (which get re-invented by every generation), but have never bothered to study the less intuitive judgement calls and the deeper trade-offs involved with those (e.g. how to regulate honest business dealings) because the difficult results are hard to quickly re-invent.

        On the other hand the religious establishment (and I draw a distinction between established religion as an organization, and the general concept of religion as a way of live) wants to hang onto what authority it can (just like all organizations are attracted to power) so they have gone out of their way to corner the market in ethical thought (which for the most part Atheists have been happy to allow happen, due to lack of interest and other nearby shiny objects attracting attention).

        Now, getting to the details of how one particular group or another group go about justifying themselves and thus gaining access to people’s children, yeah a bit of demagoguery is inevitable… and let’s be honest here, church groups to it too for the same reason… and the governments of the world don’t even bother trying to justify themselves, they have moved into “might makes right” mode (like the kings of old). I’m not offended by people pushing their own barrow.

        • Paul says:

          I guess what probably irks me the most is the tone of everyone. Maybe this is just me being overly sensitive to the threat of force, but it seems like every strong conviction is presented in such a way that it should be institutionalized. People are so worried about being wrong (for a reason I do not know), and therefore spend their time institutionalizing their thought making their ideas the standard, and warding off all contradictory thoughts. This inevitably leads to stubbornness in ideas as well as the creation of strawmen that get portrayed as actual arguments. It’s easier to win an argument against a false argument of your own creation then it is to actually listen to you opponent and have an honest and open discussion about things.

          Yes, everyone is guilty of the demagoguery because they are all fighting for the same power (government’s power to institutionalize things). Take away that entire concept and things may change. Alas, what can I do but try to be above the fray.

          • Tel says:

            Agreed.

            We are stuck with the paradox that if fear of the whip and the gun makes us afraid to teach right and wrong to children, then the lack of institutions makes us fodder for every gang of thugs.

            If we do build those institutions, then we also put the whip and the gun into their hands, and hope for the best I suppose. Never mind, if you can’t, or if you won’t do it then someone else just will.

  16. Tel says:

    Same argument from a slightly different angle, seems to be doing the rounds.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/science/conversation-with-david-sloan-wilson-origin-religions-distinctly-darwinian-view.html

    “What sort of Jekyll-and-Hydra-headed beast is this thing called religious faith?

    In the view of Dr. David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University in upstate New York, a very natural and very powerful beast indeed, and one that helps explain humanity’s rise to global dominance.

    Dr. Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion — with all its institutional, emotional and prescriptive trappings — ranks as a kind of mega-adaptation: a trait that evolved because it conferred advantages on those who bore it.”

    • Ken B says:

      DSW is a ‘group selection’ theorist. I recommend a large dose of skepticism.

      • Tel says:

        Of course all enquiry should begin with skepticism. I prefer the term “multilevel selection” because selection at the individual level can never go away, it merely trades off outcomes “in the small” against outcomes “in the large” if you see what I mean.

        That is to say, the final decision is always made at the individual level, but the consequence of that decision will have both local effects and broader effects… both of which come back to the individual one way or another.

  17. Ken B says:

    Egoist: “I mean, just look at the Christian hawks in charge of the US military. They’re Christians. They hate Muslims.”

    Twaddle.

    Jeez, I LIKE my new role as christiam apologist!

  18. Carrie says:

    Response to Egoist // earlier thread getting too squished

    You bring up points that trouble me greatly and for which I unfortunately do not have good answers. I will offer what words of wisdom I can, but I know I won’t be able to address everything. Also, I’m going to make some seemingly “arbitrary assertions” about your psychology in this comment based on intuitions, which have guided me nicely so far in life.

    My overwhelming sense is that you have been deeply disappointed by pretty much everyone in the world—and rightfully and understandably so. During school you were smarter than your peers; during college when you longed for intellectual companionship you found that your peers were just larger teenagers who drank rather than building skyscrapers; during grad school you found no-one else who still believed that ideals matter; your philosophical or political-minded friends disgusted you because they did not actually put their beliefs into action; and in a final quest for finding others of intellectual integrity you’ve scoured the entire world wide web and discovered nothing but life-hating Gene-iouses, hypocritical libertarians, economics students who talk a lot but say nothing, and atheist mystics. You just finished grad school, have a perfect 4.0/4.0 GPA yet again, have been told by yet another professor that you’re the best student he’s ever had—and yet instead of being happy, you are unbearably sad. In thinking about all the great things you’ve done and the integrity you’ve upheld, you feel so utterly lonely in not knowing an equal. You scream to the world at large, “Paging Hank Rearden! WHERE ARE YOU?! WHERE, WHERE, WHERE!” You can almost no longer conceive that such a consistently principled person exists, and you do not believe that you can possibly feel happy in a depraved world. I’ll stop here, as this becomes too personal. Do I speak of you in 2012, or of me in 2007, or of both?

    How shall you distinguish between a philosophy being wrong, and its alleged adherents simply being too weak and cowardly to uphold it?

    Why can’t I exchange and trade when it suits me, and take when it suits me?

    This would result in a completely chaotic society leading to the obliteration of all people, including you. With no respect for the property rights of other individuals (in that you think it is okay to take what is theirs), and with they no respect for yours, we end up with gang warfare. The largest and most brutish gang wins. Eventually the most successful thief destroys the rest of his gang, too.

    And he is not truly happy. He is chasing temporary pleasures and creating destruction in his wake, but his quest for chasing these temporary pleasures is really his quest to escape his conscience. (Ha, you’ll probably say that sounds religious.) This is what is happening with the priests, the murderers, the statesmen, etc. It is true that their victims do NOT get what they deserve (which is another part of the reason I don’t believe in a just God); but at the very least this does not mean the rest of us should initiate similar injustice.

    Interesting idea about stealing from serial killers. A few years ago I had a similar discussion with friends, in which someone proposed that it would be fun and moral to be a fake drug dealer. We’d pretend to sell cocaine or something but actually use an innocuous white powder. Actually, I don’t remember if I was in favor of this or not.

    “When I see a skyscraper I do not love all of humanity; I love the individual man/mind that created it.”
    Even if they cheated on their wife, say?

    (Etc.)

    No… It’s more a love for the great act they demonstrated, and a love of the feeling that such a person experienced the same joy of creating that I do, and a love of being alive to witness the greatness that is possible despite the existence of evil.

    I don’t think the people you’re talking about exist, Carrie.

    I am here showing you that at least one person does. I am one. I hope the fact that I took the time to write a response to you, that I actually care to attempt to further the happiness of an anonymous internet person, helps you realize this. This does not mean I am completely rational. It does not mean Rand was completely rational. As humans, we are not omniscient; we will have errors of knowledge and errors of judgment. We are a relatively recently evolved species and we must remember that ideas of “perfection” and what is attainable are contextual; they are not to be judged by an external, omniscient-type standard. But yes, this goes back to the disappointment I mentioned earlier. That is why I make a concerted effort to live consciously and not disappoint others; I know the damage disappointment does to Great people.

    As of now I don’t have a good answer for your questions about the persistence of evil. This might sound flippant or like I’m brushing you off, but it’s not intended to. I’d say the evil proliferates because the good/producers are still too generous and apologetic to the weak and the evil. (This is not to blame the good for the existence of evil. Evil people do exist. Good people need to speak up against them more frequently and not sanction their evils.)

    Another thing to consider is that good people who do fight evil often try to do so by directly attacking and speaking out against it. This can be good, but good people also need to provide a better example of what to emulate; it is not enough to critique the bad without offering an alternative and showing that it is possible.

    Let’s be honest. No wishing is necessary if you are actually convinced that everyone gets what’s coming to them.

    Right, doing good or doing bad does not guarantee that a person will get what he deserves. The universe does not care. But… you may like to re-read about the benevolent universe premise. (It’s in the free AR lexicon.)

    That’s what I think is happening with you; you are starting to feel that happiness and achievement are the exception or the impossible, not the normal and proper standard in existence.

    This response won’t satisfy you, I’m afraid. Even now that my life is good by all external appearances, I continue to be disgusted with most people. The best hope for raising the world is through having people retain a good sense of life, which can only be done through good art, I think…

    Hopefully there was something in here worth your time. I am interested in continuing the discussion; I’m going to be out of town for the next week and will thus have limited internet access, but will check in as I am able to.

    • Egoist says:

      Good idea about the squashness. I am going to hijack your comment to respond to Murphy, then I will respond you your comment.

      Murphy:

      Is the latter sentence supposed to be evidence for the former? If so, then you are using “egoist” here in a very broad sense. Of course everyone has an ego, that’s not the issue. But just because I’m unique doesn’t make me an “egoist” the way you’ve been using the term.

      I actually was using it in broad sense. If you say “of course” everyone is unique and everyone has an ego, then I hold it does make you an egoist as I have been using the term. An egoist is not someone who is willing to do anything they can possibly do or get away with. A Christian, who never raises a hand to anyone, is an egoist no less than an atheist, who does. I separate all individuals into acknowledged and unacknowledged egoists. The former exalt sacred concepts such as God or Humanity or Money or Evil above themselves, and by exalting them, gratify their egos. The latter do not exalt any sacred concepts, and recognize themselves as above all universals.

      In other words, it is entirely possible for an “evil” person to be an unknowledged egoist, and a person who enjoys his Earthly life by just so happening to do “good” things can be an acknowledged egoist. Each individual is unique. There are no particular actions that you “ought” to do in order to be an acknowledged egoist.

      “Why are you concerned about the welfare of others, if not for your own enjoyment/happiness?”

      I don’t know exactly why, but (a) I am and (b) I’m glad that I am. I am worried that if you beat your own altruism out of your system, you will be harming yourself and it might be irreversible.

      The egoist does not “beat altruism out of themselves.” The egoist beats the sacredness of altruism out of their system. The egoist can act “altruistically”, but not because he is serving the concept, but because he does it at the time, at that place, to serve his Earthly desires. The egoist can derive pleasure by helping old ladies cross the street. He is just also completely open to not doing so at a different time.

      Look Egoist, you are sounding eerily similar to Anakin Skywalker as he’s being seduced by the dark side. Anakin doesn’t flip because all of a sudden he decides he derives pleasure from killing people, rather he flips (initially) because he “realizes” that the traditional rules and who the “good guys” are, has been a lie all of his life. He “realizes” that if it serves your personal goals to kill innocent people, hey knock yourself out; it’s their fault for not being able to defend themselves. And then of course, at the end of his life he realizes he made a horrible mistake. But reason alone can’t tell us that Palpatine is wrong and Yoda is right. If you really lack any human sympathy and don’t get enjoyment from seeing others prosper, then I can’t inject such emotions into you with logic.

      Anakin was not an acknowledged egoist (with the possible exception of Episode 2, which I will get into below). He first held good as sacred, then he transitioned to holding evil as sacred.

      Anakin Skywalker is the story of a man who went through three stages of illusions. First he held the good as sacred (Jedi), then he held evil as sacred (Sith), then he “returned”. Returned to what? Not to acknowledged egoism. He “returned” to holding the good as sacred once again (and join with the Force).

      I hold NEITHER “good” nor “evil” as sacred. I hold the Jedi to be deluded AND I hold the Sith to be deluded. Lucas’ story of “good versus evil” is not the story of an evolving acknowledged egoist.

      The characters who come closest to being acknowledged egoists are the Kaminoans, Boba Fett, the Hutts, and perhaps the best example is Anakin during his transition, in Episode 2. In Episode 2, we see that he did “evil” when it suited him (killed all the sandpeople), and he did “good” when it suited him (obeyed Obi Wan’s commands).

      Lucas either believes, or he just wrote a story about it, that “once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny”. This is just a faith that we can only ever be EITHER “good” or “evil”, and that nobody can transcend them and own both. My “story” is that yes, I can own both good and evil. I can do good when it suits me and evil when it suits me. I don’t buy any destiny crap.

      Both emotions and logic are nothing to me. I own emotion and emotionless, and I own logic and illogic. You will not get me to bend to logic, even if your logic obeys all the “rules”, even if you are perfectly loyal to the rules. I respect no rules. If one has to strive to think logically, then one can think illogically.

      “If for the sake of Christ, wouldn’t that make Christ an egoist?”

      No, it wouldn’t. This is an elementary mistake in your reasoning. Your whole worldview is an impressive skyscraper built on quicksand. Christ Himself was the ultimate altruist. Yes He asks us to serve Him, but He in turn served us for more than He asks us to do in return.

      I don’t think it is a mistake. I think you are not willing to identify an individual as an egoist unless they promote evil. That is an elementary mistake. I hold all individuals as egoists by nature, and within the population of egoists, I see those who worship universal concepts and seek to strive to be something outside themselves, and those who respect no concepts and strive for nothing outside themselves.

      Anyone who asks, nay, DEMANDS, as Jesus did, to be “served”, is an egoist.

      “If not, if Christ in turn does it for the sake of God, wouldn’t that make God an egoist?”

      No, because God’s rules are established for our own good.

      That’s exactly what an unacknowledged egoist who worships sacred concepts would say and think. You praise God and God’s rules FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

      “When I instill in my own son the principle that he needs to obey me, it’s not because I’m selfishly trying to get him to serve me. That is a complete perversion of the situation. I sacrifice a lot for my son, because I love him. If there were a father who didn’t love his son, he would think I act very irrationally day in and day out, and my logic alone couldn’t convince him otherwise.”

      You demand that your son exalt the same sacred concepts as you, and THROUGH that exaltation, that you believe is not egoist, your ego is indeed gratified. You say it would be a “perversion” if you did what you did for your own enjoyment, and yet, you’re enjoying it, or else you would not do it.

      So in a way, you’re thinking kind of exactly the same as you think of me. You can only see egoism as evil, and so you refuse to accept that it is your egoism that is manifesting itself in you making your son obey you. It’s you running away from your own ego even though you cannot shake it.

      Suppose we were living in North Korea. Suppose we’re both sent to prison by Kim Jong Un for having seditious thoughts. If Kim Jong Un said he is not putting us in prison to gratify his egoism, but because we are not exalting his dead grandfather and “the fatherland”, and he is “sacrificing” our productivity, and “showing us how to love” the fatherland, would you accept that he is not an egoist? I know I wouldn’t. I know he is an unacknowledged egoist who is gratifying his own egoism by exalting “the fatherland” and sacrificing all individuals in the name of it, and in so doing, enjoying himself. Suppose you just so happened to believe him. Suppose you feel guilty about the seditious thoughts. Suppose that I told you that Kim Jong Un is just gratifying his own egoism. You would probably tell me “That is perverting the situation! Kim Jong Un loves us! He only wants what’s best for us! He is making huge sacrifices for us! He sets these rules for our own good! If he didn’t love us, we’d all act irrationally!”

      That is an extreme example, but the basic idea is the same.

      “If God made man in his image, wouldn’t that make you an egoist?”

      No, because you were wrong in the previous step.

      Wait, which step? The Christ one? Christ is an egoist. He not only demanded to be served, but he also demanded that others serve God. He wanted hierarchy.

      Even Jesus the supreme altruist was an egoist. You don’t have to agree with this, but if Jesus did not derive enjoyment doing what he did, then he would have done something else.

    • Egoist says:

      Carrie:

      My overwhelming sense is that you have been deeply disappointed by pretty much everyone in the world—and rightfully and understandably so. During school you were smarter than your peers; during college when you longed for intellectual companionship you found that your peers were just larger teenagers who drank rather than building skyscrapers; during grad school you found no-one else who still believed that ideals matter; your philosophical or political-minded friends disgusted you because they did not actually put their beliefs into action; and in a final quest for finding others of intellectual integrity you’ve scoured the entire world wide web and discovered nothing but life-hating Gene-iouses, hypocritical libertarians, economics students who talk a lot but say nothing, and atheist mystics. You just finished grad school, have a perfect 4.0/4.0 GPA yet again, have been told by yet another professor that you’re the best student he’s ever had—and yet instead of being happy, you are unbearably sad. In thinking about all the great things you’ve done and the integrity you’ve upheld, you feel so utterly lonely in not knowing an equal. You scream to the world at large, “Paging Hank Rearden! WHERE ARE YOU?! WHERE, WHERE, WHERE!” You can almost no longer conceive that such a consistently principled person exists, and you do not believe that you can possibly feel happy in a depraved world. I’ll stop here, as this becomes too personal. Do I speak of you in 2012, or of me in 2007, or of both?

      …………

      …………3.8

      How shall you distinguish between a philosophy being wrong, and its alleged adherents simply being too weak and cowardly to uphold it?

      I think a correct philosophy is one that describes things as they are.

      “Why can’t I exchange and trade when it suits me, and take when it suits me?”

      This would result in a completely chaotic society leading to the obliteration of all people, including you.

      I disagree. There is not necessarily overlap between wanting to do something, and being able to do it. See: nuclear powers…”If you bomb me, you’re dead. If I bomb you, I’m dead.”

      There is a harmony among egoist men.

      With no respect for the property rights of other individuals (in that you think it is okay to take what is theirs), and with they no respect for yours, we end up with gang warfare. The largest and most brutish gang wins. Eventually the most successful thief destroys the rest of his gang, too.

      If that were true, the world would have been ruled by a single dictator a long time ago.

      You underestimate the power of individual egos preventing any one ego from ruling all others.

      And he is not truly happy.

      I disagree. Happiness is unique to each individual. There is no one single happiness applicable to all unique individuals. You’re only talking about the happiness that “rational man” would derive. But I am more than the property of being rational (and irrational).

      He is chasing temporary pleasures and creating destruction in his wake, but his quest for chasing these temporary pleasures is really his quest to escape his conscience. (Ha, you’ll probably say that sounds religious.)

      Indeed I would.

      I am always escaping myself. I am always transcending my former self. Me at “this” moment is not the same as the thing that existed in the moment that just passed. The creator always destroys his former self and creates a new self.

      This is what is happening with the priests, the murderers, the statesmen, etc. It is true that their victims do NOT get what they deserve (which is another part of the reason I don’t believe in a just God); but at the very least this does not mean the rest of us should initiate similar injustice.

      It MAY be happening with them, but it is not necessary that it is. Each individual is unique.

      An individual who you believe should be “punished”, “getting his just deserts”, “have what’s coming to him”, often does not get what you expected, or insisted they must get. You are making claims about individuals that could ever apply to the rational part of them. Never THEY THEMSELVES.

      Interesting idea about stealing from serial killers. A few years ago I had a similar discussion with friends, in which someone proposed that it would be fun and moral to be a fake drug dealer. We’d pretend to sell cocaine or something but actually use an innocuous white powder. Actually, I don’t remember if I was in favor of this or not.

      So you would sacrifice the individual for the sake of your imagination concerning drugs.

      What if someone does that with your cheeseburger? (if not cheeseburger, then consider some other “guilty pleasure” food) Instead of giving you a cheeseburger, which is “objectively” bad for your health, they instead make it out of tofu.

      “When I see a skyscraper I do not love all of humanity; I love the individual man/mind that created it.”

      Even if they cheated on their wife, say?

      No… It’s more a love for the great act they demonstrated, and a love of the feeling that such a person experienced the same joy of creating that I do, and a love of being alive to witness the greatness that is possible despite the existence of evil.

      So it’s not a love of the individual themselves. It’s a love of a part of them. it’s a love of their “rational” property. Their particular “rational action.”

      This is practically indistinguishable from the Christian loving the “divine” part of the individual, rather than the individual as they are.

      “I don’t think the people you’re talking about exist, Carrie.”

      I am here showing you that at least one person does. I am one.

      I don’t think so. You just admitted not two sentences ago that you considered committing fraud (substituting innocuous white power in place of cocaine). You might believe you’re “doing the right thing”, but from a libertarian and objectivist perspective, you are contemplating committing an “unjust” act.

      Ever lied to someone? Ever ate something that is unhealthy? Ever hit someone that did not hit you first? Ever steal a candy? A nickel from your mother’s purse? Ever do anything that would be considered “irrational” by an objectivist? If you say you’ve never done anything like that, then either you’re lying, or you’re the first person in the world to do what even Rand didn’t do.

      I hope the fact that I took the time to write a response to you, that I actually care to attempt to further the happiness of an anonymous internet person, helps you realize this.

      It shows me you derive enjoyment in it. I don’t see how that makes you the person you’re striving to be.

      This does not mean I am completely rational. It does not mean Rand was completely rational. As humans, we are not omniscient; we will have errors of knowledge and errors of judgment. We are a relatively recently evolved species and we must remember that ideas of “perfection” and what is attainable are contextual; they are not to be judged by an external, omniscient-type standard.

      Rational man is unattainable. I can never BE a universal concept. I can never BE that which I can only ever strive to become. Rational man is as much a spook as is Christ.

      But yes, this goes back to the disappointment I mentioned earlier. That is why I make a concerted effort to live consciously and not disappoint others; I know the damage disappointment does to Great people.

      As of now I don’t have a good answer for your questions about the persistence of evil. This might sound flippant or like I’m brushing you off, but it’s not intended to. I’d say the evil proliferates because the good/producers are still too generous and apologetic to the weak and the evil. (This is not to blame the good for the existence of evil. Evil people do exist. Good people need to speak up against them more frequently and not sanction their evils.)

      I don’t get this. You say it’s the fault of the good, then you backtrack and say you’re not faulting the good.

      Yes, this can be hard to answer, isn’t it. Christians have been wrestling with for over a thousand years. Pre-Christian mystics even longer. You as one striving to be a rational person who has even had access to Rand’s philosophy, indeed the entire sum total of all philosophy, cannot give an answer to it, in 2012.

      I don’t think you’re being flippant. I think what you are going through is a necessary result of striving to be “rational man” outside of you, and outside of all others. Everyone ought to strive to be rational, but by the very nature of striving, we are not it itself, ergo the conception of evil in the world.

      Me, I do not look at others in these terms. I do not look at anyone as anything other than egos, some of whom are awakened, some of whom are still asleep. so to speak. Evil only exists in the world because you have made the good sacred. If you cease making the good sacred, then good and evil are eradicated, and there is nothing left but a union of egoists.

      I don’t even worry myself any longer about the persistence of evil. It’s existed for as long as “the good” has existed. I now look at human history in a completely new perspective. No longer do I see evil tyrants committing terrible deeds. Now I see deluded unacknowledged egos enslaving themselves to universal concepts, which manifests itself in egoists who do not enslave themselves becoming dominant.

      I realized now the meaning of the expression “Great Leaders are made, not born.” Great Leaders are made by those who seek leaders outside themselves. A union of egoists will have no social hierarchy, no social leaders, no social tyrants, for every egoist would be their own archy, their own leader, their own tyrant. Stalin would have been a petty thief. Hitler would have remained a struggling artist. Stalin and Hitler arose because of millions of deluded egos desiring to serve a universal concept, “humanity”, the “aryan race”, etc. In a world of egoists, social tyrants are literally impossible.

      This is the next stage in philosophical evolution. I am absolutely convinced. I know when I see something that is superior. I know this because I have spent YEARS as an Objectist, then a Libertarian, despite me reading book after book, text after text, paper after paper. Flipping them all off one by one, until I learned Egoism.

      Earth. Shattering.

      I hope you can realize that probably every zeitgeist change in history, every social and cultural upheaval, every philosophical revolution, was initially met with profound skepticism, horror, repulsiveness, doubt, hatred, vitriolic attacks, and so on. Major improvements always seem like retrogressions, dangerous sedition, cold-heartedness, and yes, “evil” to the dull masses of people who are smitten with older, outdated ideas. The priests of the middle ages said the exact same thing about secular atheist science based on rationalism, liberalism, or God become man. Wiping out the divine, wiping out the “man” from individual egos, this is the inevitable next step, and egoists will continue to fight for it no matter what. And when I say fight for it, I don’t even mean intentionally. I mean the natural egoism of individuals will break free of any and all universals that enslave, after each fixed universal is exhausted and runs its course. Rigidity is something egoists cannot permanently bear. The rigidity can bend, and bend, and bend, but at some point it will break. Then a new paradigm arises. That new paradigm, if it is another rigid universal, it too will eventually break. The only permanent paradigm is non-universal concept unique egoism.

      Another thing to consider is that good people who do fight evil often try to do so by directly attacking and speaking out against it. This can be good, but good people also need to provide a better example of what to emulate; it is not enough to critique the bad without offering an alternative and showing that it is possible.

      I don’t want to be ruled by the good either.

      Let’s be honest. No wishing is necessary if you are actually convinced that everyone gets what’s coming to them.

      Correct, but then you’d go from wishing to being wrong, because it is not the case that “everyone gets what’s coming to them”, if by that you mean rational justice.

      Right, doing good or doing bad does not guarantee that a person will get what he deserves.

      The existence of egoists is makes this lack of guarantee, this lack of rigidity, this lack of a fixed idea, possible.

      The universe does not care. But… you may like to re-read about the benevolent universe premise. (It’s in the free AR lexicon.)

      You know what else is in the AR lexicon? The fallacy of the stolen concept. You know what that is.

      The only way the universe being benevolent can have any validity, any meaning, is if that which benevolence is meant to be distinguished from, namely, malevolence, ALSO has validity and meaning. Well, when you conceive of a benevolent universe, you are ipso facto implying the validity of the concept upon which the validity of benevolence rests, malevolence. So if the universe is benevolent, then there MUST exist malevolence. In other words, the premise of a benevolent universe requires malevolent thoughts, and hence malevolence itself, to exist in the person conceiving of a benevolent universe.

      Speaking of contradictions in Objectivism…

      And not only that, the more strong the conviction of a benevolent universe, the more malevolent the thinker’s thoughts must become, especially when considering egoists like me. A person who is absolutely convinced the universe is benevolent, would consider egoists to be so malevolent that I would most likely respond in a manner that would resemble one defending oneself from a mass murderer. They would probably be the first in line to press the lethal injection button.

      That’s what I think is happening with you; you are starting to feel that happiness and achievement are the exception or the impossible, not the normal and proper standard in existence.

      No, you go too far. Happiness and achievement are achievable. They are possible. I just don’t enslave myself to the universal concepts that you insist are necessary for me to be happy and to achieve what I want.

      I am not suffering from any feeling of helplessness or despair. It’s quite the opposite. I feel unimaginably empowered, and with this feeling of empowerment, I have been able to achieve more, and be truly happy with who I actually am, rather than who I am supposed to strive to be according to Libertarians, Objectivists, Humanists, and Christians. I am finally in my own skin, so to speak. I am finally able to accept me for who I am, rather than forever feeling empty for recognizing only a part of me, that is, only the rational me, the divine me, and so on. I have finally accepted that I am more than any property that is common between you and I. I am unique. How many people are truly seeing themselves in this way? Not many, and that’s the problem. Too often we see people considering themselves one “ism” or another. Race, gender, lifestyle, religious creed, philosophical “school”, ethical universal, the list goes on and on.

      All these names, all these thoughts, all these concepts, are nothing but only one set of anyone’s abilities and desires, their properties. It’s like we are dealing with each by learning one atom at a time, sacrificing the ones we don’t recognize and worshiping only a small population of them at a time.

      Not any more. I am no longer going to recognize only parts of me. I am not longer going to only recognize the rational me, the divine me, the libertarian me, the good me. I recognize that there is more to me that I was taught and told to believe since I was a child. I realized all parents are instilling rigid concepts in their children because they themselves only adhere to rigidity illusions… of obedience to one universal or another. “Obey your parents!” “Obey the bible!” “Obey this concept!” “Do not do what you want, for you will be sorry like am fearful you will be but not sure is the case because I do not recognize my own egoism!”

      We have notions of “obedience” to universal concepts from birth to death. THIS is THE source for ALL problems in the world.

      This response won’t satisfy you, I’m afraid. Even now that my life is good by all external appearances, I continue to be disgusted with most people.

      And forever will you be, as long as you continue to believe people ought to be something outside themselves, something they are not.

      The best hope for raising the world is through having people retain a good sense of life, which can only be done through good art, I think…

      “Good” art? What about “bad” art? Is it not art? Is it not representative of me as I am?

  19. Ken B says:

    Bob: “Egoist, You are clearly an intelligent guy, but when it comes to foundational issues of your stated worldview, you make very elementary mistakes in your reasoning”

    OK, there went my mouthful of morning coffee all over the screen.

  20. Sammy D says:

    Assigning agency to random events may have conferred an advantage in the past.

    Imagine a scenario where Ancient Man is standing on the prairie, and he suddenly sees some rustling in the bushes. The Man who assumes it happened just because of the wind is probably correct most of the time. But the man who thinks that it’s a tiger lying in wait for him will survive on the off chance that it is a tiger. So we’ve been programmed to give agency to events even though they are likely just events without it.

    That combined with creativity gave rise to early explanations of the universe, and thus the multitude of religions around the world.

    P.S. I’m an atheist who still goes to church and I see very little harm in religion per se. It is most harmful however when the state gets its hands on it.

Leave a Reply to joeftansey

Cancel Reply