Kara-Shehr
Member
- Sep 2, 2010
- 3,233
- 4
- 38
The next generation can suck my dick for all I care. Kids and marriage are overrated. Theres more to life than going off to college then coming home and raising a family and living happily ever after.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
The next generation can suck my dick for all I care. Kids and marriage are overrated. Theres more to life than going off to college then coming home and raising a family and living happily ever after.
Dak
mentat
Kara-Shehr
Member
- Sep 2, 2010
- 3,233
- 4
- 38
Einherjar86
Active Member
In all honesty, you can't subscribe to Rand's philosophy without making some pretty big assumptions that are a major concern for the skeptics. I mean, I admire Rand for trying to "de-mystify" philosophy; but in doing so she asks her readers to take a lot of things for granted.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Aggressive. "Pre-emptive" is in nearly all usage just a euphemism for being the instigator, the aggressor. If Iraq had its Army surrounding our borders and preparing to invade, then launching the first strike would be defensive. Outside of pretty clear cut and obvious cases like that though, the nation that invades/bombs/occupies/etc. another nation first is the aggressor and is thus committing a war crime.
"The first person in history to start ripping mysticism out of philosophy." You can be as gaga over Rand as you like, but this translates to little more than "I haven't read and am not familiar with much philosophy before Rand's."
Thinking Rand wasn't a very good writer and her philosophy was poorly argued and presented doesn't equate to believing in mysticism or rejecting individuality or desiring to live under an oppressive state or going to heaven or etc. etc. It just means Rand wasn't a good messenger for her ideas and a lot of her ideas are sophomoric, simplistic, not self-supported, and tired, philosophically-speaking.
I have to say, based on just the few posts of yours I've seen in this thread, you seem to revere Rand the way religious people revere their deities. Infallible, immune from criticism. It strikes me as indistinguishable from worship, which I'm sure she'd appreciate being the egotist she was, but kinda runs counter to your supposed ethos.
Kara-Shehr
Member
- Sep 2, 2010
- 3,233
- 4
- 38
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Nice try at an out-of-context attack on yours truly. No, I think I mentioned before that Rand's methamphetamine use during her writing of Atlas Shrugged as well as her later rages and depressive breakdowns ran counter to her rational-based thinking and ideas(and if I didn't, I am now).
As a matter of fact, after she stopped writing fiction, Rand despised her followers for precisely that reason- that nobody truly got her concept and didn't have a brain in their fucking head. Now you could argue, that being reliant upon others to validate ones work would be a contradiction to Rand's philosophy. But I don't think that it was in this case.
She wanted to see the best in people; and rarely, if ever got it. Mankind is just too behind the times- bogged down in mystical thinking. There is the highest resurgence of her work(since the 60's) happening right now though.
I hope that Atlas Shrugged film is done competently.
Einherjar86
Active Member
But wars aren't fought that way anymore. An army wouldn't line up outside our borders and prepare to invade us; they would launch an airstrike (which is still somewhat obsolete), or launch a missile attack, or (most likely) engage in some form of biological or technological warfare.
Waiting to fire until fired upon might be considered valiant and honorable, but it's the least practical "method" and actually fairly stupid.
I'm not arguing that we should be aggressive and lead forays into whatever country we feel like. I am arguing that there's no proper or sure way to fight a war. Being truly "defensive" is being stupid; being aggressive is sometimes unnecessary.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
That may be the case for most people, but there are those whose time is much better spent applying their talent/intelligence to advancing society through science, technology, social work, etc. In the case of those people, artificial insemination clinics should be paying them to donate their sperm so their genes can live on without their time being wasted with child raising.
Kara-Shehr
Member
- Sep 2, 2010
- 3,233
- 4
- 38
zabu of nΩd;9495240 said:That may be the case for most people, but there are those whose time is much better spent applying their talent/intelligence to advancing society through science, technology, social work, etc. In the case of those people, artificial insemination clinics should be paying them to donate their sperm so their genes can live on without their time being wasted with child raising.
Basically what I was trying to get at but said in a less abrasive way.
What? How was it out of context? I provided the specific context right there.
"I have to say, based on just the few posts of yours I've seen in this thread..."
I'm new, for all I knew in another thread you ragged on Rand's ideas for pages, that's why I provided the context and was sure to mention what I was basing my assertion on.
And based on the context I mentioned, it's an accurate assertion, whether it holds true outside that context or not.
Anyway, I'm not really interested in what criticisms you acknowledge about Rand the person, I'm talking about her ideas, the philosophy you buy into hook, line, and sinker and present as the only worthwhile option.
Your whole post was kind of a tangent to my point, which you studiously ignored.
You said:
Prismatic Sphere said:
Explicitly you're saying if you don't like Rand, fuck yourself, that she was the first person in history to start ripping mysticism out of philosophy, and forcing a dichotomy between accepting/believing/praising Rand's ideology and preferring servitude for which you deserve to die.
That's the statement of a man who thinks Rand's philosophy is the Absolute Truth, the way religious people regard their texts (regardless of what meager and quickly defended shortcomings they can name about the human prophets) and that anyone who doesn't believe it is automatically wrong because of its infallible accuracy and totality of application.
It pretends, as I mentioned, that the only option is between complete, unquestioning adoption of Rand's argued Objectivism and "preferring servitude." Which ignores the fact that like I said:
"Thinking Rand wasn't a very good writer and her philosophy was poorly argued and presented doesn't equate to believing in mysticism or rejecting individuality or desiring to live under an oppressive state or going to heaven or etc. etc. It just means Rand wasn't a good messenger for her ideas and a lot of her ideas are sophomoric, simplistic, not self-supported, and tired, philosophically-speaking."
To you, if you think a messenger sucks then you necessarily must reject every element of the message. I tend to find myself agreeing more with Daniel Dennett that "There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." It's precisely because I oppose statism and servitude that Rand is so grating, but your subscription to her ideas and how she put them forth doesn't allow you to even consider these nuances.
Your "This is the one true belief and anyone who believes otherwise is necessarily a philosophical heathen who deserves to die," even if they firmly believe in individualism and oppose many of the same principles denounced (poorly) by Rand, and inability to recognize any other possibility is the zealotry familiar to religion.
"Well you may believe in Jesus and the Bible, but if you're not an Episcopalian, then you're an infidel and you're going to hell." = "Well, you may believe in individualism and oppose statism and other forms of hierarchical control, but if you're not an Objectivist, then you love servitude, can get fucked and I hope you die painfully before me."
Finally and most humorously, you reveal yourself to be totally unfamiliar with philosophy and its long and storied history. That's okay, I assume you're a laymen to it. But then don't make yourself look ridiculous with such hyperbolic and plainly inaccurate absolutist assertions like that. You're like the kid who discovers Metallica and goes around claiming they're the first band to use a wah pedal. Great, you love Rand, but you can defend her philosophy without attributing to it absurd distinctions that show your staggering ignorance of the subject.
What makes it truly galling and makes you look so bad is that you create another black and white dichotomy of "either you don't know much about philosophy and philosophers before Rand just like me" or "you can get fucked." Anyone who can't swallow your false notion because they're more informed than you must be the enemy. Again, we see the cloistered and close-minded worldview of the true believer rearing its ugly head.
Notably, you didn't respond to any of those substantive criticisms of the ridiculous comments you made, but tried to play it off like it was a simple name-calling ad hominem and then offered some really meager criticisms of Rand the person, most of which you then immediately justified.
You strike me as an Objectivism fanatic and have displayed so far in this thread all the deleterious symptoms of fanaticism.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Precisely. That isn't an ad hominem attack on you because of that either. It simply means what you are saying and laying against me IS out of context because you don't know anything about me.
I make no apologies or justifications to you. You will clearly see if you read this entire thread that my comment about liking Rand or getting fucked was an "abnormal" post for me, as noted by Dakryn and his robot jokes. I was drunk and pissed off and I would do it again.
They knew that I wasn't dead serious. And I am not even an Objectivist. The Libertarians, the Atheists, the Objectivists; all great sects. But I don't align myself with organizations, I align myself with ideas.
Elaborate on this and then maybe you will actually have something interesting to say here.
Again, you know shit about me and this statement only makes you look more ignorant. I have a vast background in the evils of Platonistic philosophy which spawned all of the mystical/altruist philosophies that dominate most of the landscape today as well as an extensive background in the Aristotelian philosophies that became sharpened by Rand, Mises, Locke, et al and are man's only fighting chance today.
But point out to me any philosopher before Rand who actively started ripping mysticism out of philosophy and then you can go back to your puerile name calling. Okay? Until then, either you realize that what I was really saying was that you can dislike Rand all you want; but you should respect her for being the first to start actively ripping mysticism out of philosophy or just shut the fuck the up and enjoy the pretty cars passing by.
My philosophy is actually much bigger(though technically smaller) than Rand's. Though I do use her(and Aristotle) as a primary source; my philosophy is very different from them or anybody else because I don't promote (false) positives. There are no Galt's Gulches or social utopias to be had. My philosophy is solely based on a negative- the complete and utter rejection of mysticism from self and others. For only by completely eradicating mysticism can mankind truly flourish. No paradise is provided for you; you simply have nothing preventing you from making your own paradise.
You still want to call me a fanatic and a true believer now; when I just explicitly showed that I am only about non-belief?
Investigate a little more and find out what's going on before you start labeling others out of sheer ignorance.
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?
2) Am I in any way being made to feel unnecessarily guilty by self or others?
3) Am I doing something that is honestly good-for-me?
4) Am I being my own maximum value to self and others?
5) Am I producing something of competitive value for others and society?
So the 5 colors of Prismatic's rainbow of life are being mystic-free, guilt-free, good-for-me, advantage-to-you, and self-worth/profit-to-me.
Now either you like THAT or get fucked.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't think "non-belief" can result in the aggrandizement of the individual will. You are still adhering to some form of belief when you say that only the individual can make a paradise for himself.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,270
- 770
- 113
I wasn't aware that hanging out on a metal forum and writing long-winded posts to try to prove how smart you are met any of these criteria.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
zabu of nΩd;9497207 said:
I know man. I'm new to a lot of these ideas; but I'm trying, legitimately to start promoting these ideas, for self and others.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Kara-Shehr
Member
- Sep 2, 2010
- 3,233
- 4
- 38
Mine:
Aleister Crowley said:
Friedrich Nietzsche said:
Moral codes are meant to be defied so improved ones can take their place, conventional wisdom was meant to be abused.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
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.
Kara-Shehr
Member
- Sep 2, 2010
- 3,233
- 4
- 38
I wasn't implying that I was an existentialist, I'm just fond of Nietzsche and Crowley is all. I don't revere them as philosophical masterminds who's ideas are beyond refute, oh hell no. If you ever thought I would be that foolish then you don't know me very well at all. I just enjoy their work and find them both to be interesting fellows.
My intial point was that within the mind anything is possible, which is what makes it so amazing. One can only hold on to so many virtues at once though, which was my point. A willingness to adopt new virtues is essential. Which I have already stated in another read. So I think we see eye to eye.
My intial point was that within the mind anything is possible, which is what makes it so amazing. One can only hold on to so many virtues at once though, which was my point. A willingness to adopt new virtues is essential. Which I have already stated in another read. So I think we see eye to eye.
