The Atheist Blogger

Well, to start this post off, my name is spelled with a “k”. The spelling isn’t the French version.

“Atheist:
as the word philosophy would apply:
the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics”

Atheism itself implies none of that, though it may be a common occurrence among atheists. But if theism is the belief in a god, then its negation, atheism, is “not ‘the belief in a god’”–i.e. the absence of belief in a deity. As I said, atheism correlates with rational investigation, but the latter is not an element or prerequisite of the former.

“Then it doesn’t have the same meaning. And its not the same ‘word’, big huge quotes there. And im sorry for not adding this into what I said earlier, I guess I just
assume its a fact and take it for granted:

Context: It’s real. Ill not dwell further on this and write it up to a misunderstanding between us.”

A word is, according to dictionary.com, “a unit of language, consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation, that functions as a principal carrier of meaning.”

The words in your post were “cult” and “religion”, the meanings are their definitions. “Gay” was my example word, and it has at least two meanings. Which meaning is intended depends on context. Words have specific meanings determined by the context, yes, but without that context qualifier, the statement is false.

Rand’s equivocations indicate that she forgot that words have specific meanings depending on the context. And the context includes her previous usage of the word.

“But do you actually mean to tell me that ‘torque’ and ‘gay’ can mean the same thing because I WANT it to?”

Meaning is subjective. What a word means to you may be different than what it means to someone else. Maybe you did grow up in a place where “gay” meant “torque”, but the words mean different things to others. That is, the uttered sounds make other people have different ideas than they make you have. If you want to be understood by others, which is one of the primary functions of language, then you’re going to have to use words that have the meanings you intend to convey. Dictionaries just record what is supposedly common usage. What something means is an empirically determinable fact that can be ascertained by studying people’s usage, it’s not something eternal and “out there” like Platonic forms.

Ad hominem? Yeah, that’s what it looked like, unless I’m forgetting parts of the conversation that came before. My interpretation was that you were trying to dismiss allegations that Objectivism is a cult or religion by accusing db0 of something that was logically unrelated to the supposed cult- or religion-like aspects of the philosophy, movement, and/or practitioners. Is this assessment incorrect?

“If your honestly scared someones to weak to resist joining a cult then you obviously have a very LOW opinion of a person.”

Non sequitur. Pointing out the human mind’s susceptibility to certain things is not necessarily claiming that whoever has those susceptibilities is a weak person or whatever. It is not necessarily indicative of having a low opinion of that person. As long as it’s not a necessary implication, your charge is a non sequitur.

“Heres the problem Teachers, philosophers and amatuer whatever have with her:

Her philosophy strips previous political and social thoughts bare and beats it vicously with reason.”

Have you interviewed those people? I’ve read plenty of critiques of Objectivism and Rand that don’t have that problem. Or at least, if they do have that problem, they think that the fact that the idea is bare is the entire problem. Theory is often limited due to our brain’s capacity–limited in ways that reality isn’t.

“Try what on for size?
Objectivism ABSOLUTELY makes assertions about physical reality.
I made them in the post above…how did any of those NOT apply to that definition of science?”

Again, here’s what Wikipedia says:
“Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of existing phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions. Knowledge in science is gained through research.”

Objectivism is not an effort to discover, understand, or understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It certainly makes assertions about the world, but that in no way constitutes an effort to discover or understand how the world works.

“Apparently you haven’t been aquainted with the US education system. I vaguely remember taking ritilan in high school…thats about it.

Did someone have to tell you that gravity is the force that pulls objects ‘down’? Ya, basically the same principle. I never stated that all knowldge we have is not just a continuance of things other people determined or discovered..

But I can honestly say without shame that I was not taught the law of Identity until like 3 years into college…a sad but true fact. And as a matter of fact I was more interested at first in political philosophers than those dealing with this type of subject.”

The U.S. educational system does not need to tell people that A=A and that reality exists because everyone knows that already. You and Rand lump too many assumptions into those two statements. All they say is that if X, then X, and if something exists, then it exists. Well, heck, that’s being generous, since there are narrower definitions of “reality” and “exists” that may make “reality exists” meaningless or incorrect (e.g. if the verb “exist” is used only for individual objects, making “reality exists” nonsensical).

“Reason: Its probably the most important word in human laugnuage and you expect me to not throw it around like a wrecking ball? Ill pass on that suggestion.”

It’s hardly the most important word in language. What it is is one of the most important uses of language. Using reason does not require that you use the word “reason”, so no, you don’t have to throw the word around like a wrecking ball. If anything, throwing it around like that makes it easy to abuse, just like Rand did: bludgeoning people with fudge words instead of reasonably taking on their arguments.

“So you do not think that rational thought is paramount, then to what is it paramount to? Irrational thought? Your emotions?”

What I’m talking about is mainly the abuse of “reason” that I mentioned above. Believe me, I’m no advocate of faith.

“Reasoning with the use of reality is the only arguement ill be persuaded by. Id hope you also.”

Yeah, sure. The problem is that the word “reality” is one that Rand abused about as heavily and in the same ways as “reason”. What’s important is what constitutes reality and what goes on in one’s reasoning, because using the words themselves is nigh futile when you’re actually trying to reach a conclusion. If I say that X is correct and you say that it isn’t, do more than just throw the words “reason” and “reality” at me. Give me something substantial that has a bearing on the actual situation at hand.

“Also, Marc, if i misunderstood something you said as is stated in one of your replies I apologize, I attempted to read your links on ‘ An Inconsistent Triad’ and the other site, but i was to tired to concentrate. Ill try again in the morning…”

Just be sure to read more than that essay. What I’ve found with one Objectivist blogger I know is that he only attempted to rebut the first essay, which isn’t even a critique of the philosophy, and then ignored the rest. “An Inconsistent Triad” is by FAR not the most important essay, and I don’t base any of my own objections to the philosophy on the content of that essay. So if you want to rebut it, you have no beef with me.