login about faq

My decision is clear from my other question, so all that's left is to answer what I've wondered for a while now.

Why did you personally choose Objectivism? (Instead of Theism?)

Personally, I think it's much more satisfying to think there's a God out there who loves me to the edges of the expanding universe and back, but don't mind me.

Why do you prefer to believe we're the purposeless descendants of spontaneously appearing and self-assembling molecules?

What makes Objectivism and/or Naturalism appealing to you?

asked Aug 01 '14 at 23:13

PersonifiedPoet's gravatar image


edited Aug 02 '14 at 19:26

Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image

Greg Perkins ♦♦

What one chooses to believe, as far as this type of situation is concerned, should not be based on what one finds most satisfying. That is evidence of a person whose choice is predicated on psychological considerations, and considerations of what makes them feel better, and more snugly and comforting to them, like a child's blanket.

When talking about philosophy, metaphysics, and worldview, what one chooses should be based on what accords with truth. It should be based on the facts of reality. Not matters of psychological convenience.

(Aug 01 '14 at 23:51) KineticPhilosophy KineticPhilosophy's gravatar image

I see what you're saying, but please don't nitpick my words.

Objectivism is a set of moral standards the group follows, right? I'm looking to see what would lead to someone becoming an Objectivist, which should be based on a psychological motivation in some way or another.

But if you'd rather debate on what truth is, be my guest: Real truth is indistinguishable between lies. Facts are conclusions reached by applying previous knowledge and (usually) bias. Your undeniable truths might not match up with mine, and there's nothing wrong with that because we don't assume the same "truths".

(Aug 02 '14 at 14:59) PersonifiedPoet PersonifiedPoet's gravatar image

"Real truth is indistinguishable between lies"

How you figure? Without further explanation, your comment is extremely irrational.

I know it is true that the Earth is a planet that revolves around a star. How is that truth not indistinguishable from a lie?

(Aug 02 '14 at 15:52) KineticPhilosophy KineticPhilosophy's gravatar image

How do I figure?

If you would like to be specific about the "truth", you should take into accoumt that what we think is absolute might be far from reality, seeing as all ideas, theories, "laws", concepts, scientific "discoveries", ect. are all either observed or theorhetical. As an Objectivist, your conclusions are limited to direct (and physical) observations, right? What if your observations are deceptive and distorted, like accepting that all elephants are flat black creatures with long legs because you could only percieve elephants through shadows on the walls of caves?

(Sep 02 '14 at 18:59) PersonifiedPoet PersonifiedPoet's gravatar image

Could you really prove green and red are not the same color to a colorblind individual?

My point is, no one can really prove anything is true or false because the English language is limited to made-up concepts of communication, everyone sees things differently, and the "truth" can not officially be known unless the theory of the existence of an all-knowing diety(and conciousness after death) are both legit.

(Sep 02 '14 at 19:06) PersonifiedPoet PersonifiedPoet's gravatar image

Do you really think that just proved (i.e., made your point) that no one can really prove anything is true or false?

(Sep 02 '14 at 20:15) dream_weaver ♦ dream_weaver's gravatar image

Wow, no matter how many times I see it happen, it still throws me for a bit of a loop: The tragically compartmentalized spectacle of a theist -- who clearly thinks he knows many things of great importance -- nonetheless claiming to also know that knowledge is impossible. The surreality is only heightened by their earnestly citing things they think they know in the hopes of transmitting to others the knowledge that knowledge is impossible. Epic facepalm.

(Sep 03 '14 at 16:57) Greg Perkins ♦♦ Greg%20Perkins's gravatar image
showing 2 of 7 show all

From the perspective of reality and reason, one can identify numerous wrong premises in this question (and in the preceding question, linked here). But the questioner emphasizes that in this thread he isn't interested in those objections. Rather, he just wants to know why one would prefer to follow Objectivism rather than religion.

The basic answer is the same as for why one would want to follow reason rather than faith, and/or accept existence and learn to deal with it, rather than wait for a benevolent Creator to take care of one's needs, or accept any morality or philosophy of any kind, rather than drift through life without one. The answer is: to live (on earth). Objectivism is deeply and exclusively concerned with the nature of man and existence and how man should live in existence. Religion is primarily and fundamentally concerned with an alleged "higher spiritual realm" and "afterlife" beyond earthly existence. Those seeking a happy and prosperous life on earth won't achieve it through religion, and it usually doesn't take long to find that out when a secular alternative already exists all around us.

Here is how Ayn Rand expressed the choice to live in Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged (p. 157 in the Signet paperback edition of FNI):

It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.

Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.

A few pages earlier (p. 142), Galt explains:

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem.

"Must" here means required by the nature of man and existence, if one chooses to live.

Given the questioner's premises, I must emphasize again that the choice between Objectivism and religion isn't a case of choosing to associate with "Club O" versus "Club R" (meaning Objectivism vs. religion, treated as membership "clubs"). It's a question of the objective requirements of man's life qua man -- in existence (on earth), not in some imagined "higher dimension" of disembodied "spirituality." The questioner himself may not fully accept (or comprehend) religion's other-worldliness, but it's a fundamental part of religion, perhaps downplayed or even overlooked entirely by those who try to treat religion as a social club.

answered Aug 02 '14 at 18:31

Ideas%20for%20Life's gravatar image

Ideas for Life ♦

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Share This Page:



Asked: Aug 01 '14 at 23:13

Seen: 1,119 times

Last updated: Sep 03 '14 at 16:57