Reason, as the Basis for Morality

Atlas Shrugged


This country—the product of reason—could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts. It could not stand on the mystic split that divorced man’s soul from his body. It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved.
P3C7

It is important to keep in mind that one's work is one's own effort to "survive" and sustain one's family. Whatever one chooses to do to earn resources to support their family, must be personal/private property. Otherwise, Statists will "use" it for those that circumvent the nation's economic viability and the taxation that goes to underwrite such programs always is wasted and wasteful.
 
"Cause and effect", which is the way our mind seems to "work", is affirmed in a society where people are rewarded for their work, by compensation.
 
Today, people are trying to "sell" compassion, so the State has a means to support a system that undermines the productivity and creativity of its own people.

Man and His Creative Mind

Ayn Rand


‎"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'"
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58

Neither Nature or Nurture, or Universals

The individual should not be determined by Church or State, nor should the individual be determined by nature or nuruture....

Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.

Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?

Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.

Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.

The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?

RE-Review on "Inception"

I have to continue my analysis of "Inception", because of what I left out. The "anti-realist" view of "Inception" is a "thought experiment". Ideas breed thoughts that "bloom" in the mind. And my mind "blooms" many thoughts :)!

The main character's father had been the initiator of the "anti-realist" position to his son. But, he had found that his son had become "stuck" over the guilt and responsibility of his wife's mental instability and resulting suicide. The father pleaded for his son to leave "this world", a created one, and come to the "real world" where sanity could be restored. When the effort failed, the father introduced his son to a bright and promising student. This student was to continue the "tradition" of "creating worlds"....

The student soon became aware that there was a hinderance on the part of her mentor. The teacher was stuck and she sought to find out what had hindered him in his ability to "enter" the world of the other without interference of his own "baggage". The student's own journey could not be continued without letting the teacher go, as he had to work through his own issues. The impact on the real world of "his creation" could not be recognized or acknowledged, as he became obessessed with getting back to his children and the real world that they lived in. His fear of separation from them had led him to his bondage and he punished himself by creating the prison of his own mind. 

This is the real world of "self punitive" behavior when one has not forgiven oneself for past indiscretions. Acknowledgment of one's limitations and failures is part of maturing and coming to terms with reality, which is what the "old man" represented in the end.

Humans have a great capacity to deny their "real worlds" for the "worlds" they create and inhabit. These "worlds" are walls of prisions that won't surrender their victims until the victim takes the responsibility without demanding perfection of himself. The "ideal" hinders growth, liberty and an ability to embrace life with its complexity, joys, sorrows, fears, hopes and dreams. These realities are what life is made of and for. Without entering life, there is no hope for entering another's life, not really, because life will always be about accomplishment, success, or perfection which hinders the ability to see, understand and grasp the real world of another life.

Traditional and Progressive Tension

Progressive views are important to evaluate, as they are what is on the "cutting edge" of any given subject. This is the challenge of reason's embrace of discovery. But, just as important is tradition's "tried and true" values of experience. The traditional view is verified through experience, while the progressive seeks to experiment.

I learned that my family had wanted to try the "progressive", radical, or experimental approach in addressing "the back issue" of one of our family members. But, was this appropriate to all of the needs of this family member? That is one of debate for the family and is ultimately one of personal decision and choice by the patient.

The conservative or traditional approach is to manage pain through physical therapy, continued exercise, pain pills and cortisone shots. We will have to "wait and see" if this is enough to get the patient back on his feet. Otherwise, he must face the possibility of back surgury, which could be a radical step for his age of 93.

There is presently available a non-invasive type of surgury that fuses the spine with "super-glue" to strengthen it. The family has wished that this type of progressive treatment would be embraced by his family physician. But, family physicians have differences in philosophy or approaches to medicine. And the family should not have been surprised to find that this particular physician was not particularly pre-disposed to a progressive medical philosophy.

Traditional and progressive views are both important to hold in tension in free societies, for each holds a value to free societies. Traditional views are based on the wisdom from experience, while progressive views are open to the creative elements of innovation and experiment.

The progressive and "conservative" or traditional view was evident when my family member and I watched two Supreme Court judges discuss their differences on the Constituion, while he was in the hospital. It was fascinating to see how the two differed in their analysis, concerns and approaches to one document that defines our "American way of life".

Wisdom sees, but is bound within the contexts of time, while experimentation is based on reason's genius or creativity or the needs of society for change. Roots and innovation are necessary fodder for society to flourish. And the Founders used both to create "a more perfect union". We cannot err on either side if we desire to further the cause of democracy in America.

Life and Liberty

Yesterday, I was engaged in a "conversation" on another blog about the political order and was "stuck" on the collapse of the sacred and secular for me. My "world" has collapsed into a natural and real world of existence. No more anesthesia for me.

Life is deadened through religion's "moral" thinking sometimes. The religious become so concerned about where their lines are drawn that they cease to Live as life was meant to be lived.

So, I am committed to "Life and Liberty". These are the ideals of our Founding Fathers and these are what make for the "good life". No one should be doomed to live their lives under dire constraints of oppressive regimes that limit expressions of human creativity. The huma condition needs these creative spirits to "give life" to the "deadened".

If God exists, it is no wonder that there are not many that want anything to do with that concept. Everything in a 'religious culture' from "Black stockings" to banning "Harry Potter" do not draw or appeal to the natural way man has been created to respond to "beauty", "mystery" and "concepts" that open up life, instead of drawing lines in the sand. This is diverse universe that is immensely complex. Simplicity doesn't work as it crushes, defines, defends, and marginalizes life.

Liberty is what life is about.

Scripture's Impact on the Individual and Personal Identity in American Society

Scripture has been useful to impact the individual's "self-concept" as a special creation of God. A life filled with purpose and a future hope of rewards fill the heart of every evangelical believer. But, these understandings are a limited view of what it means to be "human".

These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.

Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.

Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.

But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".

American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".

What Does One Do?

My grand-daughter is here today. She is dancing and curtseying and bringing the "wonderment" that is a part of childhood. I wonder how she will grow and develop, as she is so "smart", at the tender age of two. She dreams and makes up stories. She shares her heart and she believes that eveything is good and nice and to be trusted. What happens when she realizes that life doesn't work that way?

How do you protect the innocence, and yet prepare them for the real world? What if she is meant to create like this all her life and she is maladjusted for the rest of her life like many creative spirits? I don't know how to protect, if I should or even, if I can.

Even though I saw this aspect in my children and delighted in seeing their creative spirit, I didn't appreciate it like I do my grand-daughter's today. Perhaps, because I have grown "more realistic" (although, I do believe I'm more creative than not...so therefore may never grow up in certain ways...)...now, I have come to realize that life "happens" and that sometimes even though leaders attempt to "make things happen", certain things are beyond their control or knowledge.

Hannah Reece is my grand-daughter's name, and I hope that she gives to life as much as she given to ours, these short two years she has lived.

Without Faith....

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Many evangelicals believe that faith becomes possible through the revelation of Scripture alone. But, what about other literary works? Are they significant and can they impart "revelation that is just as important? Fundamentalists would not believe so. I disagree.

Without faith....what does this mean? Everyone has faith, it is just by what authority one has faith in....

Evanglicals have faith in Scripture first and foremost, but can also place their faith in Tradition of the Church.

What about reason? Is reason a proper place for authority to reside? I think so, for otherwise, evangelicals should just turn off their brain and listen to whoever happens to cross their path and "obey", especially, if they speak for God. Otherwise, they cannot become who God intends for them to be.

There is a certain strain of training Youth that I attended a long while back that promoted this type of thinking, as leadership was "God's protection" for you. Leaders were infallible. And therein lies the danger. Leaders are humans, as are written texts of tradition, and tradition itself. Without assessing these authorities, one does not become discerning. Nor does creativivity flourish. Any thinking outside the box is athenema to conventionality, which is tradition's forte'.

While leaders are human, they are necessary in developing others, seeking vision, implementing policy, and setting goals. Authority is not the problem, but absolutism is. I think that authority should be developed, of course, as children have not had their reason expanded beyond the literalization of myth. But, authority given to children who literalize myth is a dangerous cauldrum.

Religion can limit reason's expansive capacity to explore, engage and create. The universe is too expansive and too interesting to limit oneself to a simple view of faith.

The Church has often, if not always opposed reformation, whether religious, political, or cultural. And those that tried to reform the traditionalists were hanged, burned, or be-headed, in the name of God and for the sake of protecting God's interest and His Kingdom...

I would much rather live by "whatsoever is not of faith, is sin"....

Science and Religion, a Dichotomy?

Science is a journey of exploration, while religion is defined and confined. Science is open ended, where religion is closed and contained. Science reveals "god", where religion defines god!

Is this true? It depends on what avenue of science one is talking about. The natural sciences not only reveal our understanding of the natural world, but does it or can it reveal anything about the "moral world"? If Kant is right that categories exist in our mind, then can it be "proven" by neurobiological investigation? But, is the mind the same as the brain? How we construct our realities are unique, in that we are individuals, who not only have unique experiences, but we understand those same experiences differently! How is that?

C.S.Lewis became a Christian because he believed that all men were created with a sense of justice. He wrote a book about this in "Mere Christianity".

Kant believed that we should act in a way that we would want to be universal. It was his way of understanding the "Golden Rule". How are we to act in a world that does not function on the "Golden Rule", but on the principles of business models? Can the "world' function on "trust", when the world has different understandings of what is right, or good? How are we to bring about a universal understanding of what is right without undermining diversity?

Science does not tell us what is right, but what is. How do we put "what is" in a framework of "what is right"? Is there a universal framework?

I think the danger of separating the two realms, is disconnnecting the "ethical" from the "real". What is real to a human being is their personal reality, which are created by many variables. The "Golden Rule" would mean that we affirm their "reality", which is not a universal. What about "mental illness"? How do we affirm that reality without helping them out of that reality? And who is to gauge what is "normal behavior"? Many eccentrics have been geniuses, as history revealed later, just as many moral or religious reformers had impact in history, but at the time were ostracized. How are we to gauge and make our judgments?

Religion does not like to explore the world, but define the world. I find that this limits man's creative spirit. Creativity can not be boxed, defined, or manipulated, but it must be expressed. Each person is a creative spirit that needs to be freed to experience life, and express their giftedness in their own unique way.

Human Expression, Creativity, and Human Rights

Human expression is a necessary part of being "human". Without the creativity of human expression ,"man" ceases to be unique. And the unique expression of the individual are granted by certain rights as "being human" and are given by nature's god.

Creativity is the person's "giftedness" and "individuality" being expressed and it is garunteed in our Bill of Rights, as freedoms that uphold a government that values the individual as uniquely created. The exceptionally creative are usually not accepted by the "rules", "laws" that govern a particular group. These groups are governed by the "elite" of that particular class (artists who have "won" respect, writers who have sold more books, scientists who have published more papers...).The "creative" do not fit inside a box of conformity and "niceness". In training animals, behavior modification and conditioning "form" the animal into a "shape". But, the difference in being "human" is the free expression of individuality, which expresses "god" in many forms (and not a shaping of conformity as religion does). Laws cannot legislate the human, only protect the freedoms that identify the "human".

Freedom of speech and freedom of press is a "right" garunteed by our government. These freedoms presuppose the individual's right to form his own opinion in a free and open society. Last night, while watching a news program, it was reported that John McCain was unable to publish an op ad piece in the N.Y. Times. The N. Y. Times sent it back to him asking him to revise his piece by stating the exact vision he has about the Iraqi war. Several things bother me about this....

John McCain is running for presidency and it is mandantory for the press to give him equal and fair coverage without stipulating what he may or may not publish. It is only when the people have free acess to a candidate's views and opinions that an informed decision can be made as to their vote. Only in a closed or totalitarian government is freedom of speech and the press circumvented. It is sometimes called propaganda (in religious terms it is called "indoctrination").

Secondly, the demand of the N.Y Times for McCain to give a time table for withdrawing troops is limiting and short sighted. John McCain cannot give the details as to a time scale for withdrawing from Iraqi. Anyone with experience in the complexities of foreign policy and politics would realize that hard and fast solutions are improbable, if not impossible. A lot of the" ideal vision" has to be revised when "new" information comes to the fore in regards to a changing situation, much less when negotiating with foreign governments and their "ideals". It is hard for me to believe with all the coverage of Obama's trips overseas (live coverage, if you will) that this is unfair. A while ago Russ Limbaugh was going to have to give "equal time" to the liberal opinion and it was all in the name of "fairness". No matter what your view of Limbaugh is, it is not freedom to demand "equal coverage" when he pays the bills for his programming.

Many conservative Christians assert that we have no "rights" and that we should trust God, as Sovereign in the "rule of the world". This cannot be unless one believes in a direct and absolute "cause" to the events that transpire. It is necessary in government, therefore, to seek to sift through many aspects concerning a situation and not understand events as direct causes of God. Men are the rulers of governments, not God. And it is not a uniformity as to religious "ideals", as to the shape of a free and humane society. It is all men who are responsible for that government, who are called to be informed and involved and not allow fate to express itself and call it "god".

There is no form in this world that is perfect, but there is a closer manifestation of humane governance. I believe that the American form is the best, for it affirms all humans as God's creations and grants them equal rights. Even the "creative", who have brought about social reformation in our laws have been granted freedom of expression. and there is no "creative" businessman who would diminish the freedom of our government in allowing him to pursue his own ends. This is the great experiment of American government and its affirmation of human expression, creativity and human rights.