Understanding Ayn Rand's Philosophy

[simple_soul]

Oh, I see what you’re saying. **Yes, it is true that God does not merely have objective existence **… if “objective existence” simply means “existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.”

*Dear Areopigate,

Before I respond to the rest of your post I was wondering if you could clarify what I put in bold. How does God have “objective existence?”

 

[Areopagite]

Before I respond to the rest of your post I was wondering if you could clarify what I put in bold. How does God have “objective existence?”

When a thing has objective existence, the thing is not only a mere object of thought but also has reality outside the mind. That is one of the common definitions of “objective existence” anyway. Sometimes, people use that term to mean slightly different things.

Hence, God not only exists in our minds but also exists in reality.

 

[simple_soul]

When a thing has objective existence, the thing is not only a mere object of thought but also has reality outside the mind. That is one of the common definitions of “objective existence” anyway. Sometimes, people use that term to mean slightly different things.
Hence, God not only exists in our minds but also exists in reality.

*Dear Areopigate,

This might be what causes confusion.

My understanding of referring to God as having “objective existence” is implying and saying that He is depended on our thought and can not be God unless He is an object of our thought. Are you saying that in some way God depends on us to be Himself? I have a hard time believing that God ever came into being (exist) or that He depends on us for anything (objective). Referring to Him as “objectively existing” even if it is insinuated only partially implies that He is depended on our thought to be a reality. To me God is Reality and He does not depend on us for anything.

Does this make sense?

I do pray that it does and that you can see what I am trying to say.*

 

[Areopagite]

My understanding of referring to God as having “objective existence” is implying and saying that He is depended on our thought and can not be God unless He is an object of our thought. Are you saying that in some way God depends on us to be Himself? I have a hard time believing that God ever came into being (exist) or that He depends on us for anything (objective). Referring to Him as “objectively existing” even if it is insinuated only partially implies that He is depended on our thought to be a reality. To me God is Reality and He does not depend on us for anything.

I see what you’re asking.

No, God’s existence is not dependent on our thoughts. All things with objective existence do not depend on our thoughts. Everything with objective existence also has real existence (existing outside the mind and hence no dependent on our thoughts).

 

[simple_soul]

I see what you’re asking.

No, God’s existence is not dependent on our thoughts. All things with objective existence do not depend on our thoughts. Everything with objective existence also has real existence (existing outside the mind and hence no dependent on our thoughts).

So, if I am understanding you correctly, only God has objective existence?

 

[Christopher68]

Rand held a view of homosexuality that was similar to the church’s position. However, it appears that most of today’s objectivists disagree with her position on that.

Atlas Shrugged is an excellent novel. Take from it the many positives that you can. Your faith should alow to disregard anything that you take exception to.

 

[simple_soul]

Atlas Shrugged is an excellent novel. Take from it the many positives that you can. Your faith should alow to disregard anything that you take exception to.

*Dear Christopher,

Thank you for posting this. It is good advise that I will take to heart.

Maybe I should have titled the thread “Understanding the positives of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.”