Comments on The Soul of Atlas: Dear Reader...

"Didn't God show that we have value — ...

2009-12-05T01:13:22.906-05:00
"Didn't God show that we have value — to Him...?"

Again, in other words: If values are exclusive to living entities whose existence is contingent on a specific course of action, a God would have no use for values. The existence of a God is as unconditional as the existence of inanimate matter. No act of a perfect and eternal Being could be good for or bad for His

Didn't God show that we have value - to Him - ...

2009-12-04T21:14:51.085-05:00
Didn't God show that we have value - to Him - by sending his son here? Is it really a question of whether we have more value than God, or whether we have value at all? Just thinking here (which probably isn't good for anyone).

Karen

“The U.S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.” –Benjamin Franklin

Jim - You need to read Tom's comment again, an...

2009-12-04T12:18:43.967-05:00
Jim - You need to read Tom's comment again, and then ask yourself what you mean by "correct". In particular, what is the standard by which any act of such a Being could be correct as opposed to incorrect. The material cited by Tom explains why the concept of value (as well as right/wrong and correct/incorrect) can only have meaning in reference to a volitional living entity facing

Here's an interesting thought (interesting to ...

2009-12-04T09:32:41.914-05:00
Here's an interesting thought (interesting to me, at least ;))...

If Ms. Rand were to allow for a moment, *just for the sake of argument*, for the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient Being of Perfect Good, one which *always* acted in the "correct" way, with Perfect consistency and always ultimately for the good of each and every human individual...would *she* find that

Jim -- Thanks for the clarification. You're ri...

2009-12-03T20:35:19.483-05:00
Jim -- Thanks for the clarification. You're right. I did not mean something different by "without my own life I could have no values." To me, there's not a lot of ambiguity in Rand's position.

Tom and Jim -- Great pushback. Thanks. About the l...

2009-12-03T20:34:30.498-05:00
Tom and Jim -- Great pushback. Thanks. About the life of the individual being the Objectivist's Supreme Value: The question is not "Is the life of the individual more valuable than a non-living thing?" but "Is the life of the individual more valuable than anything else?" Am I more valuable than a rock? Yes. Am I more valuable than God? I think you'd have to ask God

"...without my own life I could have no value...

2009-12-03T20:30:53.450-05:00
"...without my own life I could have no values; my life is therefore the Supreme Value..."

"... the point is that the concept of value is unintelligible in relation to non-living things."

I'm reading the two statements above as making the same point.

Mark, did you mean something different by " without my own life I could have no values

Mark - If you think this is Rand's reasoning,...

2009-12-03T20:20:21.697-05:00
Mark -

If you think this is Rand's reasoning, you're missing her point.

In "The Virtuous Egoist" (p. 21), Dr. Tara Smith puts it this way:

Rand's point in claiming that life makes value possible, then, is not simply that a person must be alive in order to seek values, which is true but trivial. Rather the point is that the concept of

"Unlike many postmodern thinkers, both Object...

2009-12-02T00:14:27.836-05:00
"Unlike many postmodern thinkers, both Objectivism and Christianity recognize objective truth and see truth as exclusive."

The difference between the two, however, is that for Christians and all other religions as well, the objectivity is what is not exclusive. So while Christians recognize some objective truths, they also treat some ideas as true that cannot be

What an awesome summary. Thank you Mark!

2009-12-01T08:41:09.750-05:00
What an awesome summary. Thank you Mark!