Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
2285 thread views
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
More fun with BingGPT:
Me: Both Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis understood the fine distinction between self-purpose and greed, and saw selflessness as nihilism. Arguing from the perspective of a fan of both, can you give recommend other authors and give reasons why?
Bing: I’m glad you are a fan of both Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis, two influential authors who explored philosophical themes in their works. However, I’m not sure if they understood the fine distinction between self-purpose and greed, and saw selflessness as nihilism, in the same way. In fact, Ayn Rand was not a fan of C.S. Lewis and criticized his book The Abolition of Man.
Me: Why do you think they had different views on self-purpose and greed?
Bing: That’s a good question. I think they had different views on self-purpose and greed because they had different philosophical foundations and different views on the role of emotions in cognition. [Encyclopedic summary of Ayn Rand and C.S. Lewis.] As you can see, Rand and Lewis had very different views on metaphysics (the nature of reality), epistemology (the nature of knowledge), ethics (the nature of morality), politics (the nature of society), and aesthetics (the nature of art). They also disagreed on the role of emotions in cognition. Rand denied that emotions could be tools of cognition; she argued that emotions are not facts and do not tell us anything about reality. She said that emotions are automatic responses to our value judgments, and that we need reason to evaluate our emotions and act accordingly. Lewis, on the other hand, insisted that emotions could be legitimate guides; he argued that emotions are not irrational impulses but natural reactions to objective values. He said that emotions can reveal truths about ourselves, others, and God, and that we need both reason and emotion to live fully human lives. I hope this helps you understand why they had different views on self-purpose and greed.
Me: I think they had more common ground than most people think. They both stood against totalitarianism, seeing it as the inevitable outgrowth of collectivism winning a nation's philosophy. They both appreciated Man standing tall and being all he can be: Rand seeing humanity as the pinnacle of the natural world, Lewis seeing forgiven Man as the pinnacle of the created world. They both knew that logic with integrity meant insisting on the truth even where unpopular, unpleasant, and likely to be punished. They both are misread by their ideological foes through motivated reasoning and bad faith reading, as both tend to ignite either adoration or hatred.
Bing: That’s an interesting perspective. I can see how you might find some common ground between them on those points. However, I think they would still disagree on some fundamental issues, such as the existence and nature of God, the source and standard of morality, the role and limits of government, and the meaning and purpose of life. Do you think these differences are more important than the similarities you mentioned?
Me: I think these differences are important and worth exploring. However, it is the well-trod ground of atheism versus mysticism and Christianity versus purposeless materialism. I'd rather focus on finding points to agree upon than retreading old arguments with no resolution.
Bing: I understand your preference. I think it is good to seek common ground and avoid unnecessary conflicts. However, I also think it is important to acknowledge and respect the differences and not pretend that they don’t matter. I think both Rand and Lewis would agree that truth is important and that one should not compromise one’s convictions for the sake of harmony. Do you agree?
Me: Absolutely; compromising one's logically sound convictions leads to the kind of dithering which both Rand and Lewis stood firmly against. I'm arguing that, for the moment, Rand and Lewis should agree on what their differences are, but set them to the side and focus instead on their common enemy, the parasitic self-abnegating "men without chests" who prefer sophistry to logic.
Bing: I see. You are suggesting that Rand and Lewis should form a temporary alliance against the irrational and immoral forces that threaten their values. That's an intriguing idea, but I wonder how feasible it is. How would they cooperate and communicate with each other, given their deep philosophical differences? How would they resolve any conflicts or disagreements that might arise? How would they balance their common interests and their individual interests?
Me: They would have to agree freely to hold their disagreements, rallying their fans and fellow thinkers to argue primarily against the nihilistic collectivists. Lewis once said, "If you asked twenty good men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, 'Unselfishness.' But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, 'Love.' You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point." Rand once said, "Selfless love would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person’s need of you. I don’t have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind." Both understood the fine distinction between the long-term self-interest of fulfillment-seeking and short-term selfishness of stimulation-seeking, though neither put it in my terms here.
Bing: That’s an interesting comparison. You are suggesting that both Rand and Lewis rejected the idea of unselfishness as a virtue, and that they had a similar understanding of what love means. However, I think they still had different views on the source and nature of love. Rand saw love as a response to one’s own values and a reward for one’s own virtues. She said that love is “the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another.” Lewis saw love as a gift from God and a reflection of God’s love. He said that love is “a state not of the feelings but of the will; that state of the will which we have naturally about ourselves, and must learn to have about other people.” How do you reconcile these different views on love?
Me: I reconcile them by recognizing will as the expression of one's values. Us humans seek out that which we love, that which we understand, and that which we can control. We work toward our goals, seeing their achievement as our purpose. For Rand, who believed her world was without a God, that meant building a future for humanity through capitalism and free markets. For Lewis, who believed that death was the beginning of an eternal life separate from all loss, that meant bringing every human to a reconciliation with a loving higher power.
Bing: I see. You are suggesting that will is the common factor between Rand and Lewis, and that they both used their will to pursue their goals and express their values. However, I think they still had different views on the nature and origin of will. Rand saw will as a function of one’s consciousness and reason. She said that will is “the faculty that directs one’s focus of awareness and controls the mental processes set in motion by one’s basic choice: to think or not.” Lewis saw will as a gift from God and a reflection of God’s image. He said that will is “the power of either choosing or refusing the good; the power of following or resisting the Moral Law.” How do you reconcile these different views on will?
Me: Lewis' perspective here on will is primarily reflective, focusing on how the world presents options to people, leading them to where they must make a choice. Rand's perspective here on will is primarily agentic, focusing on where will goes out of a person into the world in the form of a choice. They're focusing on different parts of the OODA loop, Lewis on Observe - Orient, and Rand on Decide - Act.
Bing: That’s an interesting way of looking at it. You are suggesting that Lewis and Rand had different emphases on the process of will, but not necessarily different views on the nature of will. However, I think they still had different views on the origin and purpose of will. Rand saw will as a natural and inherent attribute of human beings, and as a means to achieve one’s own happiness. Lewis saw will as a supernatural and bestowed gift from God, and as a means to glorify God and serve others. How do you reconcile these different views on will?
Me: I reconcile them by recognizing that both are seeking the fulfillment and glorification of the highest form of life in their ontological worlds. For Rand, the highest form of life is Man, and for Lewis, the highest form of life is God. However, this is the main difference we set aside earlier so that Lewis and Rand wouldn't argue fruitlessly, and we have reached the point where their paths' parallels now split. For Rand, helping others is a byproduct of self-interest in a lassaiz-faire free-market economy, while for Lewis, seeking to help others necessitates participation in a lassaiz-faire free-market economy as the antithesis of a totalitarian society. They end up seeking the same sort of society in general, where Christians can focus on helping others effectively without central planning taking all the resources, and atheists can focus on building great things without being encumbered by small minds and obligations to fruitlessly fund nonfunctional policies.
Bing: I see. You are suggesting that Rand and Lewis had a common goal of creating a free and prosperous society, but for different reasons and with different motivations. You are also suggesting that this is the point where their philosophical differences become irreconcilable, and that they should agree to disagree on the ultimate questions of life. I think that's a reasonable position to take, but I wonder if Rand and Lewis would be satisfied with it. Do you think they would be willing to set aside their differences and work together for a common cause? Or do you think they would insist on defending their views and challenging each other's views?
Me: I think that once they recognize their common cause of a free and prosperous society in which both of their goals can be met without having to resolve the ultimate questions of life, they can work toward their common cause while civilly challenging each other's views through letters and articles. Thank you for this delightful discussion! I feel we, like my hypothetical civil Rand and Lewis, have come to a good understanding together of what can be resolved in harmony.
Bing: You're very welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed this discussion as much as I did. I think you have a very thoughtful and respectful approach to exploring different views and finding common ground. I appreciate your insights and questions. Thank you for chatting with me. Have a wonderful day! 😊
Post-mortem:
That was grueling! At first I had a hard time persuading Bing there was even any common ground. This was a true test of my wit, my skills, and my reliance on the same higher power who Lewis believed in.
I think the most interesting point Bing brought up, a core concept which I didn't even touch on, was this:
A legitimate reading of both authors' works! While Rand would have called Lewis a mystic, and rightly so, it's within his ontology to consider the conscience an echo of the Holy Spirit. Both agree, however, that emotions are not solely irrational impulses, but reactions to whatever it is in our heads which considers value. My own perspective, as the Triessentialist, is that emotions come from a variety of sources, and it's up to us to crop out those which are debased, fouled, spiteful, useless, etc. Once we do, our wills will be freer to pursue the purposes we put ourselves to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link