Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Prismatic Sphere]

Fair play man.

And while I don't condone it, if anybody could make mysticism cool, it'd be Crowley.

 

[Einherjar86]

NO. I make promises of nothing.

But you said that only the individual can make his own paradise. You still maintain that it's only possible through the individual will (even if it doesn't always come to fruition). That's a belief in individuality as the only ethical and practical ideology.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

But you said that only the individual can make his own paradise. You still maintain that it's only possible through the individual will (even if it doesn't always come to fruition). That's a belief in individuality as the only ethical and practical ideology.

Because I only know(can know) of myself, as can you. Find me anything more rational than that, please.

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't say it wasn't rational. I argued that it's still belief.

Lacanian and Freudian texts posit perfectly rational arguments as to why we don't truly know ourselves. Both your account as well as theirs can be supported by supposed empirical evidence; but both fall short of any absolute verification. Belief is required.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Not since Einstein's most valuable contribution: that existence exists.

As for Freud, he was far more mystical than he let on. Badger me some more and I'll elaborate.

 

[Einherjar86]

Don't be a dick.

I'm not badgering; you're just extremely defensive about your "beliefs." I haven't said one thing that could be construed as "badgering."

And furthermore, I'm not saying Freud and Lacan weren't "mystical" (fuck, that's awkward to say) to some degree. You claim that Rand wanted to rip mysticism out of philosophy; but in doing so, she is a neglectful philosopher. She provided no argument for objectivism. She said: "I know myself, just as you know yourself. You know this to be true." No, I don't know it to be true. In trying to be less mystical, she actually is being more.

She asks her audience to take certain things for granted. For instance, that we have access to the entirety of our conscious existence.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Don't be a dick.

I'm not badgering; you're just extremely defensive about your "beliefs." I haven't said one thing that could be construed as "badgering."

And furthermore, I'm not saying Freud and Lacan weren't "mystical" (fuck, that's awkward to say) to some degree. You claim that Rand wanted to rip mysticism out of philosophy; but in doing so, she is a neglectful philosopher. She provided no argument for objectivism. She said: "I know myself, just as you know yourself. You know this to be true." No, I don't know it to be true. In trying to be less mystical, she actually is being more.

And thusly, so are you.

And I don't mind being thought of as an asshole. I just don't want to be the asshole. Big, profound difference.

Think about it.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not trying to be less mystical. You're completely disregarding my point: "thusly," that your position still requires an element of "belief." You want so badly to separate yourself from this mystical, abstract notion. I'm saying that you can't, especially in subscribing to Rand's philosophy.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I'm not trying to be less mystical. You're completely disregarding my point: "thusly," that your position still requires an element of "belief." You want so badly to separate yourself from this mystical, abstract notion. I'm saying that you can't, especially in subscribing to Rand's philosophy.

But i do.

What about any of my 5 rainbow points is mystical? Point them out to me and I will mail you a prize.

 

[Einherjar86]

But since you're new here, I'm going to give you a nice lesson in Prismatic ethics. Here are Prismatic Sphere's 5 self-questioning guidelines to life:

1) Am I in any way accepting mysticism in my thoughts or actions?

This is a question we all ask ourselves. More importantly than the question is: how do you prove to yourself that you're not?

2) Am I in any way being made to feel unnecessarily guilty by self or others?

Your definition of "necessarily" is crucial. In my opinion, it would require some objective set of parameters in order to function in this scenario; but according to your theory, only your parameters matter.

3) Am I doing something that is honestly good-for-me?

Again, what is "good-for-you?"

4) Am I being my own maximum value to self and others?

If you follow a set of objective, divinely-inspired parameters, then it would be possible to determine this.

5) Am I producing something of competitive value for others and society?

I'd say you are.

A concrete, immutable set of parameters are necessary for determining whether or not you're following these guidelines. You would claim to know what's objective simply because you're positing that the individual is the greatest good, and following the individual will results in the greatest good for most people. But that is not supported by the guidelines you listed here. They only make sense if you already believe you're following some presupposed set of rules. The idea of objectivism that you encourage is actually subjectivity deemed absolute and correct for everyone. You've found strength in these ideas not because they provide some kind of evidence for the order you're championing, but because you already believe in said order of which these guidelines are a part.

Essentially, you're arguing backwards. You're beginning with a conclusion and then positing that conclusion's central tenets as evidence.

That's why I think your argument is mystical. You're not proving anything.

 

[LightingFlash]

The idea of objectivism that you encourage is actually subjectivity deemed absolute and correct for everyone....

Essentially, you're arguing backwards. You're beginning with a conclusion and then positing that conclusion's central tenets as evidence.

That's why I think your argument is mystical. You're not proving anything.

And neither did Rand.

It's one big circular argument.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Crowley, OK. Here is Nietzsche's greatest contribution:



But I have a big problem with existentialism. Existentialism is both a dominant(albeit covert) form of mysticism and Platonistic philosophy that's plagued Western civilization for decades in the forms of Gestaltism, transcendental meditation, Zen Buddhism et al. Existentialism is really nothing more than clever irrationalism and contradictions that ironically heralds Kierkegaard's "individual responsibility", which existentialism ultimately negates, often cloaked in pragmatic non sequiturs or good-sounding rationalizations. Existentialism claims that reality does not exist. Thus, the meaning of existentialism is impossible to objectively define or understand. For existentialism is nothing. And nothing can only be attached to nothing.

Existentialism is nothing more than a wimpish irrationality that promotes stupidity, the negation of reality. Existentialism and religion both grow from mysticism. And both lead to the oppression of the individual. Existentialism and religion both reflect fear of the independent individual and even greater fear of individual pride. Most mystics denounce pride as negative, bad, or sinful. But individual pride is the result of moral virtue, which requires the rejection of the dishonesty inherent in mysticism.

Pride is the reflection of self-worth, which requires the rejection of mysticism. And that rejection of mysticism through the reflection of self-worth is what all mystics, existentialists, and proto-cheaters fear and attack. For if all value producers recognized their genuine self-worth and felt their earned pride, they would end mysticism and all of its collective hoaxes altogether.

I think you have Existentialism ass backwards. Existentialism does not claim reality does not exist, however, it does claim the death of absolute systems of thought i.e religion and your objectivity.

Existentialism defines anxiety, dread and angst in an empty world and the challenge of absurdity and authenticity which helps us understand our unique way of existing in the world. It promotes passion, freedom, responsibility and the mastering of individuality.

Since nothing can really be defined ( INTERPRETATIONS/NIETZCHE ) people like you explain or at least give a context to, everything. Your system becomes the final arbiter of truth and reality.

Reason is abstract, reason is impersonal, and the world unknowable.

That is Existentialism.

This is my objective take on Existentialism and what you are missing.


Einherjar86 is also making a great point that you fail to understand about the flip side of objectivity and mysticism.

 

[Pessimism]

I don't understand why you guys are continuously feeding this fire.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

You're right, although I'm slightly enjoying the new HellAwaitsUsAll/Dave.

 

[Kara-Shehr]

I don't understand why you guys are continuously feeding this fire.

Fire? We cool as ice. It's all good here.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I think you have Existentialism ass backwards. Existentialism does not claim reality does not exist, however, it does claim the death of absolute systems of thought i.e religion and your objectivity.

Existentialism defines anxiety, dread and angst in an empty world and the challenge of absurdity and authenticity which helps us understand our unique way of existing in the world. It promotes passion, freedom, responsibility and the mastering of individuality.

Since nothing can really be defined ( INTERPRETATIONS/NIETZCHE ) people like you explain or at least give a context to, everything. Your system becomes the final arbiter of truth and reality.

Reason is abstract, reason is impersonal, and the world unknowable.

That is Existentialism.

This is my objective take on Existentialism and what you are missing.


Einherjar86 is also making a great point that you fail to understand about the flip side of objectivity and mysticism.

Right. And thus man's mind is therefore impotent. That is wholly anti-intellectual. Sorry if you can't see that.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

A concrete, immutable set of parameters are necessary for determining whether or not you're following these guidelines. You would claim to know what's objective simply because you're positing that the individual is the greatest good, and following the individual will results in the greatest good for most people. But that is not supported by the guidelines you listed here. They only make sense if you already believe you're following some presupposed set of rules. The idea of objectivism that you encourage is actually subjectivity deemed absolute and correct for everyone. You've found strength in these ideas not because they provide some kind of evidence for the order you're championing, but because you already believe in said order of which these guidelines are a part.

Essentially, you're arguing backwards. You're beginning with a conclusion and then positing that conclusion's central tenets as evidence.

That's why I think your argument is mystical. You're not proving anything.

Which is why I'd say that my postulates being seemingly and axiomatically over-conclusive, first-and-foremost are the result of the fact that I am so far beyond Ayn Rand that it takes many more practical things for granted. I'm definitely not smarter than she was but I am definitely less mystical. You can interpret that however you wish.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

I don't understand why you guys are continuously feeding this fire.

I thought I was on your ignore list. So shut the fuck up and quit your incessant bitching.

 

[Pessimism]

Your idiocy was quoted enough times to make me curious; trust me you'll be blocked in another ten minutes.


I HOPE THATZ NOT TUI MYSTIKAL FOR U!

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Your idiocy was quoted enough times to make me curious; trust me you'll be blocked in another ten minutes.

Or maybe you're just one big wet sloppy pussy. I'll take a Manhattan Clam Chowder since I have you here.