Humility: Good or Bad?

[Probius]

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.

So you are essentially a nihilist?  There is no transcendent meaning to anything.  Basically, it's about the maximization of pleasure and then nothingness.

Let me ask, does this attitude apply to one's children?  Is it better to let your 2 year old daughter die a gruesome death than for you to die?

No, I am not a nihilist.  I disagree with the nihilists very much so, and I think they are rather silly.  I wouldn't say that life is about the maximization of pleasure alone.  A man should live a life that allows him to reach his own moral perfection.  There is no objective purpose to life, only a subjective purpose, which is whatever you choose for yourself with reason guiding you.  I would rather my hypothetical two year old daughter live rather than me, for the selfish reason of passing on my genes, which is the only chance I will get at immortality.  It is in our nature to seek immortality through the succeeding generation.

[LouisIX]

I was explaining Rand earlier with reference to a man giving his life for his wife.  That is one area in which I disagree with her.  It doesn't seem to follow logically.  I may see benefit in my spouse surviving, but I would see more benefit to myself surviving.  If she dies, I lose a tremendous relationship which I enjoyed selfishly. If I die, I still lose that relationship, but I also lose all other relationships, as well as everything else.  So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.

I hope you do not take offense to this, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how ghastly this is.  This is a philosophical poison and equivalent to the ethic of the First Rebel.

In the end, it's a form of moral solipsism.  You have deified yourself and have neutered your own ability to love anything but yourself.  It contributes nothing, but instead is all consuming.  It sucks the bone dry, leaving nothing but desolation. 

I appreciate your civility on the forum thus far, and criticize your ideas and not you as a man.  But out of love for both you and truth itself, you must come to understand how insidious this is.

I take no offense.  I am a rebel at heart, funny enough, my high school was nicknamed the Rebels.  I can certainly see how this would seem insidious to you, but I see things differently.  To not exchange value for value in a relationship is to have one partner sacrifice to the other.  But partners should be equal, and not expect anything from the other unless value is given in return.  That is true equality.  And from there it logically follows that one should not sacrifice one's live to save the other.  Rand was brilliant, but I think she stopped short here.  Maybe it was because she was in love and this tore her from the obvious conclusion.  Maybe it's because I have never been in love.  I don't know, but the logic is certainly there.

So you are essentially a nihilist?  There is no transcendent meaning to anything.  Basically, it's about the maximization of pleasure and then nothingness.

Let me ask, does this attitude apply to one's children?  Is it better to let your 2 year old daughter die a gruesome death than for you to die?

No, I am not a nihilist.  I disagree with the nihilists very much so, and I think they are rather silly.  I wouldn't say that life is about the maximization of pleasure alone.  A man should live a life that allows him to reach his own moral perfection.  There is no objective purpose to life, only a subjective purpose, which is whatever you choose for yourself with reason guiding you.  I would rather my hypothetical two year old daughter live rather than me, for the selfish reason of passing on my genes, which is the only chance I will get at immortality.  It is in our nature to seek immortality through the succeeding generation.

What if your daughter had a disease which you already knew would render her sterile, but would otherwise allow her to live a long, healthy, and happy life?

[Probius]

I don't follow.

[LouisIX]

I don't follow.

You said that you would not give your life for your wife and would only give your life for your daughter because she could grant you some measure of immortality by passing on your genes.

What if your daughter had a condition which, even at birth, indicated that she would be sterile?  She's otherwise healthy and will live a long, normal life, but she cannot pass on your genes, so they will die out whether she lives or not.  Since she cannot pass on your genes, do you still sacrifice yourself for her or no?

[Probius]

I don't follow.

You said that you would not give your life for your wife and would only give your life for your daughter because she could grant you some measure of immortality by passing on your genes.

What if your daughter had a condition which, even at birth, indicated that she would be sterile?  She's otherwise healthy and will live a long, normal life, but she cannot pass on your genes, so they will die out whether she lives or not.  Since she cannot pass on your genes, do you still sacrifice yourself for her or no?

Hmmm, that's tough.  We are in a land of theory here, and it is only in theory I could see giving up my life for my hypothetical daughter at all.  This is one place where Rand struggled mightily, so I suppose it makes sense I should struggle as well.  Maybe if I were actually married or had a daughter it would be easier, maybe not.  But, in reality I can't see sacrificing myself for anyone or anything.  To some that sounds terrible, but try meditating on it.  The question is more difficult than most seem to understand.  And the issue comes up very rarely in real life.  It's a tough question.  Randy's philosophy appears to break down here, and I don't have a very good answer for you, sorry.

[james03]

Note to other posters:  If you are just joining this thread, and don't feel like wading through the pages, understand that CF is a sincere poster.  Though he is an atheist, he has been having a respectful conversation, so please resist any kind of defensive rhetoric.  Instead, imagine that he has been given an actual grace to come ask some questions.  That will put you in the right frame of mind.

[james03]

I'm afraid my knowledge of Rand is insufficient here.  I have been reading her for about four years now, but haven't come upon the term 'shamans of material' yet.

Basically her term for socialist/communist.  They believe in an almost supernatural cause for production, that if you want it, it happens.  They don't address the source of production, which is the human mind.  It appears in John Galt's speech.  She also has the shamans of the spirit, which basically is me, though no where in the novel do you meet any. 

[james03]

So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.  Do you find that sufficient?

No, I don't find it sufficient, but I do find it consistent with atheism.  It is not sufficient because it contradicts your belief in non-agression and trading value-for-value.  For according to you it would be "good" to use the government and the gun to rob from me and allow you a nice lifestyle with minimal effort.  In fact, that would be your ultimate good, basically trading your vote for a free ride.  Zero cost to you, and a lot of benefit. 

But you say you oppose this, and insist on justice.  So it is a contradiction.  You also have not established how justice can even exist, or why people have the ability "to be owed".  I as a Catholic can explain this easily.  You as an atheist can not.  In fact justice should be a faerie tale to you as an atheist.

[LouisIX]

Note to other posters:  If you are just joining this thread, and don't feel like wading through the pages, understand that CF is a sincere poster.  Though he is an atheist, he has been having a respectful conversation, so please resist any kind of defensive rhetoric.  Instead, imagine that he has been given an actual grace to come ask some questions.  That will put you in the right frame of mind.

Good post.  Thank you, James.

[rbjmartin]

You also have not established how justice can even exist, or why people have the ability "to be owed".  I as a Catholic can explain this easily.  You as an atheist can not.  In fact justice should be a faerie tale to you as an atheist.

This is a good point that I had not considered. If you are a pure materialist, how can you even conceive of a notion such as justice? Justice is concisely defined as "rendering to each his due." But how do you determine what one is "due" without a formal, abstract notion of "due-ness"?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.

What is truth without a God? a fantasy?

[Probius]

So, with this in mind, I define good as anything that helps me live my life as a human being.  That is, it helps me survive, as long as I can, and it makes my life more pleasurable.  Do you find that sufficient?

No, I don't find it sufficient, but I do find it consistent with atheism.  It is not sufficient because it contradicts your belief in non-agression and trading value-for-value.  For according to you it would be "good" to use the government and the gun to rob from me and allow you a nice lifestyle with minimal effort.  In fact, that would be your ultimate good, basically trading your vote for a free ride.  Zero cost to you, and a lot of benefit. 

But you say you oppose this, and insist on justice.  So it is a contradiction.  You also have not established how justice can even exist, or why people have the ability "to be owed".  I as a Catholic can explain this easily.  You as an atheist can not.  In fact justice should be a faerie tale to you as an atheist.

Thanks for the kind words James.  I find it abhorrent for someone to use the government to further their own ends.  The government has no value to exchange, it is simply a leach upon the producers of society.  I seek no free ride either, I wish to trade with other producers.  What you describe would not be a true exchange, it would be thievery.

I demand justice, and fully expect it too.  I agree with your definition of justice, it is giving due one his/her due.  If I sell you a car for $10,000, I am then owed $10,000 upon arrival of the car.  And you are owed the car once you give me $10,000.  I am only owed what I earn, and I only desire what I earn.  Why would I need God in order to have justice?

[Probius]

So you are really an atheist?  Good to have you here and I hope you are here to learn the opposing argument and not to troll.  I enjoy conversations with SINCERE atheists who really want to know the truth.

I am.  All I care about is the truth, and I respect the Church very much.

What is truth without a God? a fantasy?

Truth is that which we experience in the world with our senses and intellect.  The universe exists objectively, and still would even if none of us were here to experience it.  Our job as humans is to come to an understanding of what the universe is.

[GUDC]

Crimson Flyboy,

You posed the question, based on Cartesian epistemology, how much we can really know or prove with certainty, without any doubt.  The Catholic Church has always taught that the existence of God is one truth that can be known with certainty by the use of human reason (i.e., no faith is needed to know that God exists).

This may be slightly off the Rand/economics/communist side-topic that the thread seems to be traversing, but I would like to summarize below one of the proofs for God's existence to show that the Thomistic arguments are based on foundations of certitude, like the principle of non-contradiction, which does not admit of (reasonable) doubt or denial:


1a. If contingent entities exist, then a necessary Being exists.

2a. Contingent entities do exist.

1b. Therefore a necessary Being exists.

2b. But the necessary Being must have all the attributes of God.

C: Therefore God exists.


Proof of 2a: "Contingent" simply means "not necessary, what need not be, what could be otherwise."  For example, the capital of the state of Texas is Austin, but this is contingent, since the founders might have chosen Dallas or Houston or San Antonio instead.  So to say that something is contingent in its being--a contingent entity--is to say that its existence could have been otherwise, or that it need not have been.  And there couldn't be any serious doubt that this holds of at least some beings in the world around us.  For instance, all human beings now living on the Earth did not exist 200 years ago.  Therefore their existence is contingent: they need not have existed, because there was a time when in fact they didn't exist, whereas something whose existence is necessary or not contingent by definition can never fail to exist.  Therefore 2a is proven.

Proof of 1a: A contingent being by definition is not self-existent or necessary.  If it was self-existent, its existence would be owed to itself and it would not need to wait around for anything other than itself to begin existing, which means it would always exist, and thus not be contingent.  So a contingent being by definition is not self-existent, which means that it must be "other-existent," i.e., dependent on something other than itself for its existence.  But to depend on another for your existence is to say that you are caused in your existence.  So every contingent being, by definition, has a cause of its existence.  Now that cause which imparts existence must likewise be either contingent or not contingent--there's no other option.  If that cause is contingent, then it, too, must have a cause, and its cause if contingent must have another cause again, and so on.  It is impossible for this process of deferring causal explanation to proceed on forever, because every contingent being is receiving existence from something else.  But as some Catholic philosophers have noted, if everything were receiving existence, without anything ultimately giving it, then nothing would ever receive it.  Therefore it is necessary that there be a being who does not receive existence from something else, like all the others, but only gives existence without receiving it.  If everything is receiving existence but nothing is giving it, then no one truly receives it, which means nothing would exist at all.

Therefore there must be a Being Who is not a contingent receiver of existence like all the others, but Who only gives existence.  Since this Being is not contingent, He must be necessary (i.e., not contingent) and self-existent.   1a is proved.

Proof of 1b: 1b is also proved (it is the conclusion of 1a and 2a).

Proof of 2b: The necessary Being has already been shown to be self-existent.  He must also be eternal; that is, He always existed, because as already mentioned, if there was ever a time when He failed to exist, then He wouldn't be the necessary Being at all.  Since He is eternal, or existing outside of time, He is changeless and unchangeable, as time is the measure of change, but being eternal (i.e., outside of time) He is not subject to time.  Since He is self-existent and accounts for the existence of everything else, and since He is also changeless, He must be perfect and indeed infinitely perfect.  He does not get existence from anything else, but everything else gets it from Him, which means He can't get perfection from anything else, as perfection is just some specific way of having existence.  Further, He is unchangeable, which means He cannot acquire any new quality which He doesn't already have.  Since He is infinitely perfect that means He must also be all-wise, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-just, and all-merciful, since mercy, justice, power, wisdom, and the rest are all various perfections, and He, being infinitely perfect, has all perfections.  Finally there can only be one Being like this and not many.  St. Thomas Aquinas says that it is impossible to have two beings both infinitely perfect, since in order to have two you must have a way to tell them apart: one must lack something that the other one has.  But if one of them lacks something then he isn't really all-perfect.

So there exists a necessary and eternal Being, only one, Who is all-wise, all-knowing, all-just, all-powerful, and infinite in every perfection.  But as St. Thomas says, "this Being all men speak of as God."

Therefore God exists.  You'll notice that the argument is a logically valid one; once admit the premises and the conclusion follows necessarily.  And since the premises are either based on the principle of non-contradiction (a priori) or based on undeniable facts about the world (e.g., the existence of beings which are dependent in their entity), the premises cannot be avoided either.

So whatever one might answer to your claim that "There isn't much we can know with complete certainty," there are some things we can know with certainty, and the existence of God is one of them.

[Probius]

GUDC

As mentioned earlier, I have studied the five ways of Aquinas and I find them insufficient.  I find the contingency argument to be the weakest.  Just because a thing is contingent does not necessarily mean that something created it.  A contingent being could very well have come about by chance.