Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

[VitalOne]

I've decided to no longer talk to you. If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known? Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

I understand why you won't talk to me, you can no longer counter argue and prove my statements wrong. And to answer your question, simply because its forced on us. We have to deal with this. You could argue why do anything at all, aren't you just going to die anyway? The reason why people do things is because most can't live without doing something. It brings them happiness to do something.

I understand what you mean, but isn't there definite reality beyond the interpretations mankind has agreed upon? Doesn't Buddhism address a reality outside of our senses? And if so isn't it concrete or is everything just an illusion (I mean within eastern thought)?

There is a reality beyond our interpretations. I'm sure that our minds exists. Oh yeah, and everything is just an illusion.

If you remove the fear of death, you no longer appreciate life. You are saying that its "wrong" to be attached to life? I would argue that not being attached to your life and your happiness is the worst evil that their could possibly be. Being attached to things is what causes the happiness is the first place. If one were "attached" to nothing at all, what would he value? A value is what one seeks to obtain and keep. In " not wanting things" that makes you free? THAT is the reason why I strongly feel buddhism is a terrible system. It makes you not "want things" . If you dont want things for you, then what makes you think that you will do things for you? Where is the VALUE OF YOURSELF.

If you remove the fear of death, you will be happier. Do you like fearing death? Does it make you feel good? If you remove that, you'll feel more secure. Have you removed the fear of death from yourself? If you haven't experienced it don't assume things. You do not need to be attached to something material in order to be happy. If one were not attached to anything material they would value the non-material things. Again, you must experience it, and not assume things (what you're doing). You sound like a complete moron (no offense) who has only read things and has experienced nothing. I can't explain an experience, you need to feel it. Once you experience it, it will answer all of your questions. You will still value yourself. You see, you have a euro-centric mind. You can't imagine life without desire. You think it'll be horrible.

[Squashbuckler]

"I cant explain the experience, you have to feel it"

Ok everyone, do what makes you happy.
I guess we will have to leave it at this and agree to disagree.

P.S. Sorry moementum7.
You will understand what i mean by that.

[VitalOne]

Squashbuckler: I agree with you (for once), this argument has gone pointless (not that it wasn't already).

[guthrie]

What an interesting disucssion, shame i missed it all.

"Ok everyone, do what makes you happy.
I guess we will have to leave it at this and agree to disagree."

Yay! At last some sense.

[moementum7]

Hey Squashy!

[Voltaire]

Originally posted by Squashbuckler
Forget about dreams, they are irrelevant to your survival.

I disagree.

umm... how do you all know these people like lucysnow and such, I haven't talked with any of them. I guess I am out of the circle.

[Awake]

I agree, we should do what would make us truely happy. Once you try other things, you, too, will understand what it will take to make you truely happy.

Everyone has there own time-table for the path to which they will inevitable tread.

[Voltaire]

That doesn't mean you have to ignore your dreams because supposedly they are stupid.

[Awake]

Who said dreams are stupid? Don't ignore them, follow them until you don't want to or need to anymore. If it is a life long pursuit, so be it.

[Voltaire]

Forget about dreams, they are irrelevant to your survival.

Awake, I guess you skipped his post.

[exsto_human]

Objectivism strikes me as an ironic philosophy. Mainly on account of the name, funny to call a philosophy that is centered on the subject 'objectivism.'

If it were up to me I would rename it 'egocentric skeptical rationalism'.

[Canute]

Objectivism strikes me as an ironic philosophy. Mainly on account of the name, funny to call a philosophy that is centered on the subject 'objectivism.'

If it were up to me I would rename it 'egocentric skeptical rationalism'.

I think that gives rationality a bad name. I'd prefer 'formally egocentric skeptical logicalism'.

[Chalaco]

Just in your mind too. And, I'm not sure, but pretty sure that your mind won't be over (won't test this).

First things first, you're a charlatan. I know it's wrong to use ad hominem arguments but after that poor excuse for a rebuttal, I'm left wondering that out of the 40,000 people that die everday, why aren't you one of them?

So you're saying that standing in front of a truck and getting hit by it, leaving your brain all over the grill, would just be "in your mind"? Shame, I think you're eligible for public charity, you might just be legally retarded. There is no objective proof to merit your claim, nor is there any empirical evidence to back your point up.

When you are attached to things, and then that thing is taken away, what happens is that you're crushed. You being attached to it, and it being taken away makes you unhappy. Reducing your atachment towards life is a good thing. It slowly removes the fear of death. If you are strongly attached to life, then you will strongly fear death (the inevitable). If you like to fear death, go ahead become attached to life. What causes pain? What causes unhappiness? Desire. When you want something, sometimes you'll get it (you're happy) , and sometimes you won't (you're unhappy). In any case, by wanting something, you'll set your self up for happiness or unhappiness (most cases) and others for happiness or unhappiness. If you eliminate desire, then you won't want things, you'll be free. Material things won't control you. You'll have some inner peace. I could go through this whole list....

Well, junior, why don't you recognize the cognitive dissonance between these two quotes. Listen sparky, you won't test your theory that your mind "won't be over" if it's hit by a truck, yet you don't fear death? Hmmmm...yup, you're an idiot.

[Chalaco]

it's quite a bold statement to say that the buddha made no difference on society and life. since over one fifth of the world is a follower of his and eblieves in his ideas, then regaurdless of whether you agree, it would be unrational to say that he did not. of course that can be said of anyone who talked of understanding. christ, lao tzu.

i am not commenting on their correctness, but they have made a difference and to suggest that they haven't is just a silly notion that even ayn rand owuld have laughed at.

notwithstanding, the buddha was very much his own man sdoing what he needed to do despite all the world chiding him and trying to undo him. you may not like buddhists, but the buddha was more of an objectivist than howard roark could ever be. the distinction is that that is not the only thing he was.

That's funny, because I've read the post Squahbuckler posted (more than once) to see if I missed something. Low and behold, I didn't. You took his post as if he intimated that the buddha has made no difference on society (even he would know better than to make such an asinine statement). When, in fact, he was simply talking about himself, that HE should sit in the corner, loving everything and everyone, sacrificing himself, etc. (in his usual facetious satirical rhetoric). It is quite overt, especially since he stated, "If i [sic] remove my mind, ill reach a state of nirvana." He was inferring that he views buddhism as not being productive, and practicing it as a conscious endeavour would be a step retroactive to his current interests. I hate to deduce the obvious conclusion for the slow, oh wait no, I don't, I thoroughly enjoy doing so.

People, if you could please THINK before you post, and maybe, just maybe, READ the post more than once before replying with your indignation.

[Chalaco]

[QUOTE]

Reality IS subjective. Everyone has their own reality. Their experiences aren't the same. A color blind man sees black and white. A deaf man hears feeling. Imagine, the human eye can see less than 10 million colors. Imagine what reality would be like if we could see over a trillion colors. Is reality to a bat the same as reality to a human? Ofcourse not. It is subjective because they both have different senses. The only reason that reality seems objective is simply because there are billions of people that have the same senses. Thus, when one tries to explain to the other it seems to make logical sense because the person (having the same senses) can relate to it. Some objectivists, have asked if I do this, doesn't this happen? To us yes, but to others no. That is why reality is subjective. If mankind could only see, then what we percieve as reality would not be the same as if we had all 5 senses. Don't you understand? Mankind has created most ideas based on their senses. If we had 6 senses, these ideas would be different, just as if we had 2 or 4 or 8 senses and so on. This is why reality is subjective. Ideas were initially opinions, then proven by showing other people. Those people using the same senses as the other would be able to reason it. Facts are just what mankind agreed upon. That was the big picture, but the little picture is enough for most people.

end quote





riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, well mister skeptical, let me be the first to inform you that reality is not subjective. Furthermore, you don't believe this yourself although you aver otherwise (try as you might). Here is why...


It is impossible to live as a skeptic. If a person really were to believe that he knows nothing, then he would have no reason to engage in one course of action instead of another. Thus, the consistent skeptic would engage in no action whatsoever, and would die.

If a skeptic claims that nothing can be known, then one should ask whether he knows that nothing can be known. If he says 'yes,' then he is contradicting himself. If he doesn't say yes, then he isn't making a claim, and we don't need to listen to him.

If the skeptic says that nothing can be known, or that we cannot know the truth, we can ask him where he gets his knowledge of concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth.' If the senses cannot be relied on, as the skeptic claims, then he is not entitled to use concepts such as 'knowledge' and 'truth' in formulating his thesis, since such concepts derive from the senses.


Now, I am very far from a buddhist but yet, I do not fear death. According to you charlatans, non-buddhists are more inclined to fear death. To support my argument, I will suffice you with my reasons on why I don't fear death...

If death is bad, for whom is it bad? Not for the living, since they're not dead, and not for the dead, since they don't exist. The argument can be set out as follows:

1. Death is annihilation.
2. The living have not yet been annihilated (otherwise they wouldn't be alive).
3. Death does not affect the living. (from 1 and 2)
4. So, death is not bad for the living. (from 3)
5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.
6. The dead do not exist. (from 1)
7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead. (from 5 and 6)
8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead. (from 4 and 7)

Ergo, if death causes you no pain when you're dead, it's foolish to allow the fear of it to cause you pain now

The 'symmetry argument' states that "anyone who fears death should consider the time before he was born. The past infinity of pre-natal non-existence is like the future infinity of post-mortem non-existence; it is as though nature has put up a mirror to let us see what our future non-existence will be like. But we do not consider not having existed for an eternity before our births to be a terrible thing; therefore, neither should we think not existing for an eternity after our deaths to be evil."

(source: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/epicur.htm)


And another thing, not to argue semantics, but altruism started off as

al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

and

unselfishness as a principle of action


(those denotations are from dictionary.com and my own oxford dictinary, respectively)

Now, all of you aver that altruism is believing that 'the highest good is service to others.'


Well, allow me to retort. You see, to illustrate my point and make it as lucid as possible for all of you, I will use Mother Theresa (spelling) as my practical application. Many can look at her and say she was a very altruistic person, but even she got a kick out of what she did. It brought her happiness, if not for the fact that she was doing "God's will" and ensuring her place in "heaven", then to see the smiles of all the indigent people she helped, this must have brought her joy, otherwise she would not have engaged in such a conscious endavour (note for the slow: non-US spelling, US spelling would be endeavor). She didn't do it because it brought her pain, because it brought her agony. She did all her 'righteous' acts and deeds because she found joy in it, left her jovial. People are naturally inclined to do that which brings them jubilance; some just have complexities (some inferior, some superior, and many other complexities) that has them percieve what's good and bad for them in a way we can't empathize with. But rest assured, despite the disparity between what you think is good for you and what somebody else thinks, they engage in hedonism, it is inescapable. This is the practical application for what I'm saying: a masochist, he/she does that which brings him/her pain but it's really not pain since it brings them pleasure. Hedonism, along with causality, is inescapable. Altruism is specious! Everything we do is selfish, which is not a bad thing, we've all just been indoctrinated to believe selfishness is evil and a vice. It is not, selfishness is good (not to mention, inescapable and the only thing we do, at the root, the base of everythign we do, it is selfish). So long as you don't step on others, selfishness is good.


Now, to all those infidels out there impugning objectivism, let me remind you of some of the fundamentals of Objectivism.

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights

(source: http://www.vix.com/objectivism/Writi...ndHazards.html)

This is what you are against? If the whole world was buddhist, nothing would ever get done (in my opinion, although I can only speculate). But then again, all you pious buddhists out there would retort with, "Well, what needs to get done?". All too predictable.

[Chalaco]

I disagree.

umm... how do you all know these people like lucysnow and such, I haven't talked with any of them. I guess I am out of the circle.

At this point, I'm convinced you have a learning disability. He done told you to agree to disagree, you concurred and said the 'argument' had reached a pitch of inanity you didn't care for (not in so many words).

Yet here you are with your incendiary remarks, trying to spark up another 'argument' to feed your own pugnacious persona, you're a glutton for contention. And you wonder why you are "Out of the circle"...

[Chalaco]

Squashbuckler:

I've decided to no longer talk to you. If reality is subjective, and nothing can be known, why are we wasting our time talking about things that cannot be known? Why bother with science? why bother with anything?

IdleOne (I mean, VitalOne):

I understand why you won't talk to me, you can no longer counter argue and prove my statements wrong. I understand why you won't talk to me, you can no longer counter argue and prove my statements wrong

You know what the scariest part about that was? The fact that you probably believe you're right.

I can't explain an experience, you need to feel it.

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained, so please would ya, explicate it to us, all high and mighty senior metaphysician whose been studying metaphysics since days of yore. And if you can't, perhaps it is because you'd have people believe that you're bright and able to think alternatively, when you really can't.

[Chalaco]

Canute:

Quote:
[Self immolation at the expense of helping others is ludicris. [/B]

I don't think you mean this. (What's all this stuff about 'self-immolation' anyway?).

SG-N:

For your information, I'm not preaching communism. I just watch a moron (no offence!) that protect an extremist (Rand, if you don't understand...) by using exageration. "Exageration?" - Yeap, when someone says that altruism is self-immolation, I call that "exageration

source for subsequent definitions

al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.

Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness


self-im·mo·la·tion (slfm-lshn)
n.

Deliberate sacrifice of oneself


The connection isn't exactly esoteric. And SG-N, perhaps it is you that was being hyperbolic by labelling the man as a 'moron' simply because you did not agree with him. Now, I wish that one day it is YOU that becomes pauper... though they say that pauper is the one who attempts to decry others when others don't agree with his/her vantage point, without offering anything to back up his/her stance other than libel. I shan't wish you pauperism for you are already engulfed in it.

[Canute]

Surely, that isn't the greatest cop-out you know. You can do better than this. Come on, is this the only scapegoat you know of? You "need to feel it", huh. You "can't explain an experience", huh. Whether vicarious or first hand, an experience can be explained,

Experiences are incommensurable and uncommunicable. This is an accepted fact of science and philosophy with which nobody can disagree. That isn't to say that nothing at all can be said about them, but it puts limits on how much can be said.

This is part of the reason why science is suspicious of first-person reports of experiences.

[Chalaco]

Experiences are incommensurable and uncommunicable. This is an accepted fact of science and philosophy with which nobody can disagree. That isn't to say that nothing at all can be said about them, but it puts limits on how much can be said.

This is part of the reason why science is suspicious of first-person reports of experiences.

Hmmm... an interesting point. However, I do not recall ever saying they weren't incommensurable and uncommunicable, but rather I attest that it is not inexplicable. I agree wholeheartedly with your whole post right there. I never said otherwise. It's just that IdleOne -- I mean VitalOne -- didn't even attempt to put it into words, if even in a pithy manner, it would've sufficed and allowed for further congregation.