In what way do you relate to Ayn Rand's experiences
I relate to her childhood experiences since they mirror my own experiences and actions exactly.
In this interview she says that she was the smartest in her class,
- that she did not have to make much of an effort to excel in school, All she had to do was read ahead once,
- that she was bored in class and wrote novels behind her textbook.
She found writing novels challenging and I assume worthy of her intellect and much harder than reading ahead in a text book.
Like her my childhood "Novel" was ahem ... not worth mentioning. Also I wrote in such small letters that even with glasses I can''t read my writings.from that time. lol .
She says the object of a Philosophy is to understand the nature of existence. Religion too is a philosophy.
I also have tried to point out here that Religion is a philosophy and as She says it is immoral to accept it on "faith" but if arrives at through reason there is nothing wrong about it or to discuss it.
In this interview she says that she was the smartest in her class,
- that she did not have to make much of an effort to excel in school, All she had to do was read ahead once,
- that she was bored in class and wrote novels behind her textbook.
She found writing novels challenging and I assume worthy of her intellect and much harder than reading ahead in a text book.
Like her my childhood "Novel" was ahem ... not worth mentioning. Also I wrote in such small letters that even with glasses I can''t read my writings.from that time. lol .
She says the object of a Philosophy is to understand the nature of existence. Religion too is a philosophy.
I also have tried to point out here that Religion is a philosophy and as She says it is immoral to accept it on "faith" but if arrives at through reason there is nothing wrong about it or to discuss it.
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/cAFKnfN4bfk
I was introduced to her writing late in life and that introduction and a whole lot of other introductions lead me on my way to writing myself...something I never even dreamed on doing...the last thing I'd ever think of doing.
Not a fan of the organizations of the inspired teachings and history; I found that there is a lot there to digest, many obvious truths and historical happenings that are not made up at all.
Leaning this along with many other things has certainly widened my view of the big picture, mankind's history and mental evolution over time.
One can not dismiss mankind's past nor judge by the present but we can grapple with the present knowing a bit of mankind's past.
Philosophy is not a matter of "what you think of others rather than yourself". Proper social relations are not a primary, they are a consequence of ethical standards for making choices of all kinds for one's own life, which in turn depend on rational methods of thinking, which in turn requires an objective view towards reality.
Religion, faith, and putting others above oneself are all the opposite of Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy.
And how you interface with others is a by-product of the values you hold. Of utmost importance is "what you think of yourself". Only be being a person of self-esteem who chooses rational values can you interface well with others.
Being an altruist does not work for oneself.
If you don't regard yourself as an end it itself, and do not think rationally as required to know and choose, you will not attain self-esteem.
You should read Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It? and the essay "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in her The Romantic Manifesto.
Her warnings of the Collectivistic method can be applied 100% to today's Progressivism. Same disease, same evil morons infecting the rabble. When one listens to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez one sees the mindless automatons in government that Ayn Rand described.almost 100 years ago.
My only complaint is her disdain of religion, but I can see why: Any law that conflicts with her modus vivendi she has to eschew.
What a waste of a great mind condemned to Hell forever!.. ..
Any sensible god would have Ayn Rand sitting at his# right hand,
-for promulgating the use of 'god-given' (or whatever) mind, and for explaining how ethics and actions can follow from reason.
# his, her, its, zer, hup, cur, etc..
I do not know about hell as it is ok to question anything including religion but I understand your frustration.
Too many "Objectivists" are on a crusade to demean Religious practice and Religion in it's entirety and that is not what Ayn Rand was saying.
She was saying not to take action solely on faith but to examine things using reason.
Her disdain was for those who accept Religion without question. That also applies to propaganda that is accepted without question as is Happening to our youth right now.
Her disdain was for faith in the group narrative.
However that does not mean she disdained faith in one's friends or faith that one will achieve their goals.
English language is a poor tool for communication of ideas.
For instance Her use of the word Selfish is also misinterpreted to mean look out only for yourself .rather than to be careful not to surrender yourself to others or the group.
It isn't just false premises that make it impossible to argue with a theist -- a rational person can correct false assumptions and wants to -- the theist does not. You can't argue with a theist because you can't argue with the arbitrary.
All people not just theists fall prey to emotion and respond based on any wrongly perceived challenge to their opinion which they cling to as reality rather than trying to see objective reality. .
"...so they do not know that their premises do have to be true..."
Some people here view Ayn Rand's writings as a Religion and respond just like a theist.
If you do not understand why the content and method of the moral code you are proselytizing here are in fundamental conflict with the purpose of this forum, read "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Causality Versus Duty". The rejection of your proselytizing the 10 commandments is not "triggered" or "closed mindedness".
Even Aristotle believed in their gods and yet his writings on reason are well...arrived at through reason. . lol.
The 10 codes of morality, for instance which Moses brought out can be arrived at through Reason and do not need faith or god except Perhaps one depending on how one interprets it.
Don't Murder except in self defense.Good idea otherwise no one could live with anyone else.
Don't steal (collectivism is based on theft),
Manage Jealousy and don't covet which is making plans based on Jealousy to take your neighbor's spouse, employees, property, reputation etc.. (socialism and all Collectivist ideologies are based on Jealousy.that all should be equal in results and it is only fair that there are no rich. capitalism is evil etc.)
Pay attention to your Father and Mother and history and learn from their mistakes and good ideas. It does not mean blindly obey once your reasoning faculties develop. Only when you are very young when you have to take everything on faith since you have no experience or knowledge yet.
Would you or Ayn Rand reject those principles just because they came through a religion?
The one that is Translated as I am the Lord your God ...etc. is actually about rejecting all forms of servitude to earthly power, Kings, Governments. Monarchs, etc. on faith. That part is reasonable and prevents Collectivist governments and un-reasoned Altruistic slavery to the collective on faith.
The founders of the USA used reason that we have individual rights and that government is only legitimate and only has power if it is given to the government by the people.
So maybe we can discuss things that are related to religion without lumping everything in a religion as Mysticism, lack of reason and faith alone. Can we stop letting "Religion" be a trigger word for closing our minds?
Religion is mysticism, not "lumped", and the attempts at its rationalization are not reason, they confuse reason with turning, in the name of "reason", what is not reason into a handmaiden of faith.
Religion is rejected by rational people because of what it is, not a mindless "trigger". There is no reason to "open" one's mind to it. Rational people have active minds, not minds "open" to variations on what is known to be false.
Claiming to have "arrived" at religion in the name of "reason" rationalizing it does not change the content of the religious beliefs and is not like the way Ayn Rand pursued philosophy. Such rationalization of religion does not "relate to Ayn Rand's experiences".
I must completely reject you defense of basing one's life on faith rather than on reason and philosophy. That is the basic choice each individual human has to make, if wishing to live the best life that an individual is capable of achieving.
Do you not kill other humans because a god or gods forbid it or because you think that using force against others is counterproductive from the point of view of you trying to live the best life you can achieve in a human community?
To be honest, I think that you are confused and do not belong here. Unless, of course, you seek learning. To me, you sound proselytizing.
I am convinced that objectivist philosophy is infinitely better guide for rational humans than any faith.
Of course, we can debate this ad infinitum, but I have better things to do. It is your basic responsibility to find your way in your own life.
Good luck!
Sincerely,
Maritimus
I am once again ignoring you.and will do so in the future. I am not the only one here that is already doing so.
I am calling his postings out as a nuisance that interferes and destroys every discussion. I am Publicly stating that I am ignoring him. Evaluate if that is best for you to do also. Rationally of course.
And now you are calling me uncivil by inference and also by inference ("at least") that you and ewv are better than me because you are civil. Well isn't that special.
Yes, the continued emotional personal attacks are "uncivil" and yes civility is better. It is supposed to be the normal, not "special".
Be real! Ask for the moon!
LarryHeart...not ewv!
Still want to bet?
Just asking.
Maritimus
You misinterpreted what i wrote. I wrote that one can come to those principles by RATIONAL means and NOT by faith.
Perhaps people who don't bother to understand what is written and just go off on a rant based on viewing through their own bias and not seeing the objective reality of what is written don't belong here or in any discussion anywhere. .Especially ones who judge and pull the "You don't belong here" or You are violating the rules" card. Even if I was championing faith, which I am not, you should still be able to carry on a rational discussion and not just Knee-Jerk, emotionally based demeaning rejection and dismissal.
The ten commandments are religious duties, not based on reason. Trying to rationalize them is not "reason". The difference between both their content and that approach versus an objective ethics is fundamental, not "knee-jerk", not "biased", and not "rant".
Best wishes.
Maritimus
EDIT: Inserted missed word.
Yet even that can only be accepted by choice -- because a mind cannot be forced -- the choice to accept a duty. And that is the form in which the ten commandments have been understood and accepted as throughout history in their influence.
The word Tzivah means order not commandment.. As in "I put these things/realities that I communicated to you in order for you. Implying also to help you keep an orderly society. No coercion there.
These were slaves who had no choices and were now being presented with choices and a guidebook.
Very different story from what the Greeks took everything to mean and which then made it's way into later incorrect translations based on the Greek.
So start the argument from this correct translation and not the incorrect assumption of "Commandment".
Moses and you guys, just saying now I've been thinking about how you all should behave better, and give myself proper respect like. Well so I am asking for feedback on these guidelines.
Maybe try them out. They look good made out of fine porcelain but if they are no good then just drop them.
Hoping no one was upset by the thunder sounds but this chariot has been tuned lean, gotta keep the carbon pollution down.
Even with the best that can be reinterpreted, the whole approach of authoritarian duty to be accepted without understanding and without regard to context is destructive (see Ayn Rand's "Causality Versus Duty") and you don't get fundamental principles of rational egoism with life as the standard and your happiness as your goal, only -- at best -- a few isolated rules of thumb that do not begin to deal with the basic choices in life.
Some are destructive over and above the duty mentality and the religious submissiveness to a god, such as telling you there are topics you must not even think, inculcating guilt if they even pop up into your head.
For example, in Ayn Rand's ethics honesty is a primary virtue as one aspect of rationality that means not faking reality in any way to yourself; telling others the truth (when you are not being coerced) is a consequence.
Ayn Rand's ethics is unique in the way it looks at the facts of human nature that requires having a code of standards, then develops what the basic principles should be and how to implement them, all in the context of the necessity to make choices in all aspects of your life, not social rules leaving you with no guidance for everything else in your life.
This is a logical fallacy called a "Straw man" argument by the way. Changing someone's words, meaning or argument into something that can be easily knocked down but is not an answer to the actual argument or statements.
Friends as before!
Sincerely,
Maritimus
It's interesting how just that was attempted on a grand scale in the Dark Ages when Augustine turned Christianity into a "religious philosophy", formulating contrived answers to the basic questions of philosophy based on faith and rationalizations. It haunted western civilization for centuries until Aquinas re-introduced Aristotelianism as the beginning of the long haul out of it, though Aquinas' own theology was still rationalizing religion in addition to his genuine philosophical contributions.
Can you suggest where I can find a good description of what Aquinas did in re-introducing Aristotelianism, rationalizing religion and making genuine philosophical contributions.
Let me explain, please. I am 83 years old retiree. Educated as a physical chemist. If I had a chance to do it again, it would be dual majors: again physical chemistry and philosophy. All my life I did what you would call development engineering. I became aware of Ayn Rand reading "We the Living" more than three decades ago. It was the best description, by far, of wat I lived through, ages 9 to 27.
I have since read virtually everything that she wrote, and some of the others. I would like not to attempt to read a library on Aquinas, but a good thorough objective review.
I guarantee that I will not suddenly become religious after reading what you recommend;-)
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
The summary you want is the lecture on Aquinas, lecture 8, of Leoanrd Peikoff's History of Philosophy Part 1: Founders of Western Philosophy: Thales to Hume https://estore.aynrand.org/p/95/found... This is part 1 of the original full lecture series from the 1970s complete with audience questions and answers.
There is a version of this on ARI's "Campus Courses" at https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-co... ->
History of Philosophy https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-co... ->
Thomas Aquinas https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-co...
I decided to get into this discussion one more time so that I can make some points absolutely clear.
"You misinterpreted what i wrote. I wrote that one can come to those principles by RATIONAL means and NOT by faith."
From ancient Greeks to modern times it is accepted that philosophy is a rational theory, or guidance, of how individual humans can relate to and thrive in existence. There are nearly infinite number of "philosophies". In fact one could argue that each human has an own "philosophy". I put these "philosophies" in quotes because I think that most of them are not thoroughly thought through, which is to say that, when you scratch the surface off them and dig deeper, you find inconsistences and contradictions. You can look up what Ayn Rand thought about contradictions. It's better said than anything I can possibly do.
Now! One of the "philosophies" is religion when it pretends that it is a philosophy. The basic fallacy and, in consequence, disqualifying is the fact that it is god-given. In other words, those you quote are not principles. They are commands. Even Moses said so.
I don't want to lecture here. But principles are like axioms in math. Much different than commands.
I want to say one more thing, which I hope you can accept as an advice and not an ad-hominem attack. That repeated "Ignoring you." makes you look petulant and childish, which I don't believe you are or want to appear to be.
Mature humans can debate hard and end up disagreeing very deeply. But they part ways saying: "No offense! Friends as before."
Lastly, I have an impression that you felt offended when I wrote that you do not belong here. As you know, my impression is that you are trying to proselytize religion here. Let's leave that as an open question. Your future behavior will be, I hope, evidence clear enough.
Friends as before!
Sincerely,
Maritimus
BTW Ewv is always on the attack based on his continuing misconceptions and underlying agenda that does not include debate or discussion. He dominates with his unceasing posting that leads nowhere and destroys every conversation that we try to have here.
Every post is negative and he never lets a conversation rest. He always has to get the last word in. That is his end game which he seems to emotionally need to feel that he 'Won" the argument. Therefore I am publicly ignoring him as he is wasting everyone's time.
As to your argument, Go back to the original post and see that I am not proselytizing Religion I am poking at the prejudice that many here have that is interfering with rational discussion.
Any word , phrase or discussion that seems to have a correlation with Religion is immediately rejected, made fun of, demeaned and emotionally regarded as "Religious" blasphemy of Ayn Rand's words.
I am questioning if Objectivism for some has become a Religion where every word must be taken on faith and immune from examination and discussion. Also that the person may not have interpreted what was written in the way Ayn Rand intended.
Everyone here considers themselves rational. That does not mean "better than:" nor immune from misconception or emotion based responses to perceived attacks of "The word".
Are you or are you nor emotionally invested in Objectivism as the true reality. Or proving Objectivism right and annoyed if it seems that someone isn't "Getting it".
What is the cause of responses such as "You don't belong here"? Is that a rational or an emotional conclusion? Especially as I have explained my meaning ad nauseum (by the way Ad is a Semitic language root meaning until. The ultimate root of languages is not Latin. But that's another story)
. Here again is the reality of what I am saying and I hope not still misunderstood.
My thesis is if we find something that came to us through Religion it should not be rejected offhand because of where it came from. Evaluate it rationally and see if it is reasonable.
The wise person is one who learns from all people.
You're going to have to give the personal attacks a rest Larry. Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
I am sad. You even earned a reprimend from the person who manages this site! You truly should be ashamed.
I tried to focus our conversation to few distinct subjects. More on that below. You answered by an ugly tirade against ewv, whom I recognize from way back before you appeared on this cite. I know him as a blunt, explicit and very rational thinker. At least an order of magnitude more rational than you seem to be.
I raised the subjects: 1.) philosophy vs. "philosophy"; 2.) religion as a "philosophy"; 3.) principles vs. commands; 4.) your attitude with "Ignoring you."; 5.) mature way of debating; 6.) your future behavior as a test.
You ignored the first three and the fifth. You addressed the fourth by adding nothin new, just repeating yourself from before.
I am truly sorry to have found that you miserably failed the test in the sixth.
So, I say, very sadly, goodbye and leave you to fry in you own thoughts and add: "Friends as before!"
Sincerely,
Maritimus
So no, there is no reason for me to be ashamed for speaking out about the people who monopolize and ruin our conversations.
In the end, the truth will out.
Take a look at this last post of yours. Tell me that isn't a personal attack.
Btw what oil would you like me to fry my thoughts in?
I am the person who manages this site. I don't know you.
RE: "I am an associate producer of the 3rd Atlas Shrugged movie."
No. You are definitely not an Associate Producer of ASP3. I, however, am. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2800038/...
RE: "...speaking out about the people who monopolize and ruin our conversations."
You are not "speaking out about the people..." You are personally attacking other Gulch members.
Stop Larry. Take a breath, and just stop.
The Gulch has rotted into mulch. .
I am.
RE: "... you should know me. Remember Sveta."
Yes, I remember Sveta. You and I have never met.
RE: "But you go along with the mob..."
If by "mob" you mean the very few Objectivists that understand and espouse Ayn Rand's ideas here in the Gulch, then yes, I stand with them.
RE: "... call me a liar"
Contributing to the the ASP3 Kickstarter campaign did not make you an "Associate Producer" of the film. You calling yourself an "Associate Producer" doesn't make it so.
RE: "The Gulch has rotted into mulch."
Personally attacking other Gulch members, spamming the Gulch with nonsensical irrational "Ignoring you." comments, refusing to adhere to the few very simple rules in the Gulch Code of Conduct, and making disparaging remarks about the Gulch website are probably pretty good indications it's time for a break Larry.
Whatever you call that kickstarter title, associate or just ASS makes no difference. That is not the point. This was said in the context of one of your supposedly "Very Few" trying to shame me.
.
You have not seen the context of the discussions. You have not read all of them in this thread to see what actually was occurring. You just jumped to a conclusion based on what I called the mob. Not a mob of people as it is only 2 or 3 that are doing this, but the mob voice of many frivolous posts that you listened to without finding out all the facts.
And again you disparaged me while telling me not to. So I don't really understand her ideas eh?
Scott, you can disparage me but I can't call out the reality that many of these discussions are just back and forth pissing contests and not rational discussion? See for yourself.
The mob of negativity arrogantly look down their noses at who they deem to be an ignorant peasant and using that to demean and remove credibility instead of mustering a credible argument.
So far only one or two actually understood what I was saying (which was not a defense of faith) and only one or two responded on point to the the Headline original post.
The rest bait you into responding and hook you into giving them credence and attention. It is a waste of time/
This is not my test as one of the mob thought he was doing . This is a test of Objectivists own ability to see objective reality and the bias of their own minds that filter it.
Guess what. Objectivists are still human and find it difficult to face their own flaws, mistakes and misunderstandings. They get all defensive and rationality ends. It is not me who needs to take a breath. That is an excuse for the emotional pain of challenging their belief.
That he claims little has been "on point" to what he calls "the the Headline original post" resulted from his own posts hijacking his own thread, beginning with introducing the thread by package-dealing religion with "relating to Ayn Rand's experiences" and religion with "arrived at through reason".
That was on the heels of previous posts claiming "you are the one promoting your fantasy that religion is fantasy", and denouncing the Greek influence on western civilization as "Greek pagan culture is no more... Nothing survives into the present day except the Jews who received guidance from an interface with the underlying intelligence in which we exist" -- packaged with more gratuitously ugly personal accusations of "underlying bias", "hidden anti-semitism" and "warped thinking" by "religious haters like you in the Soviet Union". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post....
A stream of personal attacks combined with wrapping oneself in martyrdom is not an argument. Rejecting it is not anyone else's refusal to "face their own flaws, mistakes and misunderstandings", and "getting all defensive".
The moderator telling him to cease the personal attacks and "take a breath" was to stop the abuse, not what LarryHeart calls, in the name of reason, "an excuse for the emotional pain" allegedly suffered from his claims to superiority..
And now perhaps you will also give the same warning to ewv for "He has been doing this continuously for days" in the comment directly below.
Also perhaps you can look at his pattern to see if what I said is true and therefore not an attack but rather a statement of facts.
Here is a sample of the comments I have received about ewv.
"Please know that there is only one person I totally ignore on this site and that is EWV. He has proven time and again to be crass, belligerent, inflexible and downright rude multiple times to me on enough occasions that I had to ignore him."
Take a poll and see what more people say about this guy and take the correct action instead of . shooting the messenger.
The "sample" comment he posted -- ironically another libelous personal attack -- appears from the recognizable wording to have come from a religious conservative who who blew up in anger over Ayn Rand's views and straightforwardly not giving in to accepting a religious position -- which he considers "crass, belligerent, and rude" -- in contrast to the commentor's own public display of very personal abuse at the time worse than the "comment" quoted. He was not the only one.
We do not find good ideas that come "through Religion". A culture dominated by a religion can incorporate additional common sense ideas as progress is made despite the religion, and there were many such influences in western civilization, in contrast with for example Islam, but the religious faith and dogma are not the source.
The few elements of common sense within the ten commandments that must be abstracted out of context to make sense at all do not make the ten commandments a basis for a morality.
Ayn Rand's approach to an objective ethics is radically different, beginning with the facts of man's nature that give rise to the need for a code of ethics and then on that basis establishing required principles. None of that is found in or can be extracted from religion, or the ten commandments in particular, whose influence is destructive.
Observing that value in Ayn Rand's philosophy is not "misconceptions and underlying agenda that does not include debate or discussion" -- which discussion is not possible when someone comes to an Ayn Rand forum promoting his own religious ideas and apparently no understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy beyond some superficial affinity to political freedom.
Rational objection to a religious orientation is not "negative" and does not "lead nowhere" or "destroy every conversation". LarryHeart destroys conversation by replacing it with personal attacks as his response when his premises are challenged.
Rejecting that is rational discussion, not an "emotional need", a "waste of time", or "emotionally regarding" it as "'Religious' blasphemy of Ayn Rand's words". LarryHeart's agenda is not the standard and basis for what may be said here.
Rational discussion here is intended for those who do want to understand -- not "a Religion where every word must be taken on faith and immune from examination and discussion" -- and there have been many such discussions on this forum despite the otherwise often dominant religious conservativism undermining it and then followed by emotional explosions and personal attacks when it doesn't work.
He reveals on this topic that he is deeply in the mentality of the German Romantics, stating at the beginning that he's a big fan of Nietze, and it shows in his emotionalist obscurity.
As to expertise on the subject of the meaning of Biblical stories, he doesn't know himself, as he states at the beginning:
"We don't understand what it means that we don't believe them now or even what it would mean if we did believe them... No matter how educated you are you aren't educated enough to discuss the psychological significance of the Biblical stories, but I'm going to do my best, partly because I want to learn more about them and one of the things I've learned is that the best way to learn about something is to talk about it, and when I'm lecturing I'm thinking, you know, I'm not trying to tell you what I know for sure to be the case because there's lots of things I do not for sure to be the case. I'm trying to make sense out of this and I have been doing this for a long time."
He goes on to demonstrate how confused his whole approach is in rambling stream of consciousness, gesticulating wildly in sincere deep consternation as he hunts through his evolving lecture trying to "learn something" -- for over 2 1/2 hours.
Here is a sample of a couple of sentences spanning about 3 mins on his main theme (no paragraph breaks because the stream doesn't pause or stop).
Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason is the antidote to this.
15:52 Our articulated systems of thought are embedded in something like a dream, and that that dream is informed in a complex way by the way we act, so, you know, we act out things we don't understand all the time. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't need a psychology or sociology or anthropology or any of that because we would be completely transparent to ourselves, and we're clearly not, so we're much more complicated than we understand, which means that the way we behave contains way more information than we know, and part of the dream that surrounds our articulated knowledge is being extracted as a consequence of us watching each other behave and telling stories about it for thousands and thousands and thousands of years extracting out patterns of behavior that characterize humanity and trying to represent them partly through imitation but also through drama and mythology and literature and art and all of that to represent what we're like so that we can understand what we're like and that process of understanding is what I see unfolding at least in part in the Biblical stories and it's, it's halting and partial and awkward and contradictory and all of that which is one of the things that makes the book so complex but I see in it the struggle of humanity to arise to rise above it's animal forbears say and become conscious of what it means to be human, and that's a very difficult thing because we don't know who we are or what we are or where we came from or any of those things, and, you know, the light life is an unbroken chain going back three and a half billion years it's an absolutely unbelievable thing every single one of your ancestors reproduced successfully for three and a half billion years it's absolutely unbelievable and we rose out of the dirt and the muck and here we are conscious but not knowing and we're tying to figure out who we are and a story that we've been telling, or a set of stories we've been telling for three thousand years seems to me to have something to offer, and so when I look at the stories in the Bible I do it in some sense with a beginner's mind, it's the mystery of this book, how the hell it was made, why it was made, why we preserved it, how it happened to motivate an entire culture for two thousand years and to transform the world, like what's going on, how did that happen. It's by no means obvious and one of the things that bothers me about casual critics of religion is that they don't the phenomena seriously and it's a serious phenomena I mean not least because people have the capacity for religious experience and no one knows why that is I mean you can induce it reliably in all sorts of different ways. You can do it with brain stimulation. You can certainly do it with drugs there's especially the psychedelic variety they produce intimations of the divine extraordinarily regularly people have been using drugs like that god only knows how long, 50,000 years maybe more than that to produce some sort of intimate union with the divine it's like we don't understand any of that when we just discovered the psychedelics in the late 60s. It shocked everybody so badly that they were made instantly made illegal and banned in terms of research for like fifty years and it's no wonder because who the hell expected that. Nobody. 19:10
I think that sample will allow people to judge whether they might be interested in hearing what Peterson has to say about religion, or not. I personally find his statements and arguments fascinating. His presentation style may sound rather casual and rambling, but his underlying knowledge is based on decades of study in fields including animal behavior, neurology, child development, psychology, psychiatry, as well as treating patients as a clinical psychologist. He has a wide assortment of facts drawn from those different disciplines which support the statements he makes about religion's psychological role but, unfortunately, he hasn't compiled them all together in one concise lecture, article or book that I know of.
A rational sense of life and understanding in principles as expressed in Ayn Rand's novels, shows thinking in essentials, not like a high volume eclectic vacuum cleaner sucking up everything in range and proclaiming great hand-ringing mysteries. Peterson has a following of his own and it's worth seeing the difference. His followers often talk in obscure generalities (such as bizarre uses of "consciousness"). When questioned, they don't know what it means either, but have an emotional attachment and just say "you have to listen to him".
Ayn Rand's philosophy, collected in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, gives straightforward principles integrated in a hierarchy for the major issues in philosophy, with an objective approach that makes it much easier to think about problems meaningfully.
Someone interested in the psychological role of religion and of "stories" in particular can find clear explanation in Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto, including the chapter "Philosophy and Sense of Life".