Argue With Everyone Political Forums  

Go Back   Argue With Everyone Political Forums > Non-Political Debates > Religion and Philosophy

test
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-16-2006, 09:36 PM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,012
Default The Virtue of Selfishness

Philosopher Warrior,

I have pulled "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "The Romantic Manifesto" off of the shelves and dusted them off. In principle the ideas are solid, but I view them as the ideas of an idealistic society (sort of a Utopia), which is often the same as an unrealistic society. Would you say that the ideas presented would be perhaps acceptable for individuals at times, but not for societies as a whole?

One of my favorite works on Utopias is Thomas More's "Utopia" which I think appropriately means 'nowhere'. Although I don't subscribe to the communistic (not Bolshevism communism, but more communal living) ideals of the work, "Utopia" seems to be a society that works. Although if you deal with ideas only without taking into account individuals, virtually any Utopia would work.

It seems to be diametrically opposed to Objectivism. I don't think that More's Utopia is any more realistic than Rand's Objectivism. My main objection to Rand is that I don't see room for compassion, unless it serves you, and then is it really compassion?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 01:31 AM
Political Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fla.
Posts: 986
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Utopia is a myth in which people are not real people and are totally selfless . It is a fantisy that is desireable simply because the problems and troubles do not exist as in the real world. It is something dreams are made of, when one is able to control ones surrondings through pure logic, reasoning, and empathy between the parties.

Objectivism works on a different level and is more of a study of logic and samantics rather than myth or fantacy. Both are simply studies of what could or should be.
__________________
Archimedes
Because they can't wait use Rescue 8
self closing flotation rescue device.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 08:53 AM
PhilosopherWarrior's Avatar
Political Mastermind
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,351
Default

You mention More's Utopia..
coincidence..
In my following of words, names, and such I was refreshing my knowledge of Marx. they are alive and well, and organizing their worldwide bid to remake the world for the proletariat.
THEY revere More and that work, and consider it the wellspring of their ideology.
They view that dream as a desirable end.. a perfect society that we can have .. right here on earth..
and all one has to do is to join it root and stem, lock stock and barrell,
and remake your mind to accept the eternal struggle to free the unterclass with violent revolution.
To attain an eternal peaceful Utopia of course.
I'm not ridiculing you Rod, and More is deeper and more insightful than the ever resentful Marx/Lenin/Engel dreams.

The enlightenment brought a lot of new ideas. The new technologies of the press and industries WERE bringing changes that were not properly ( to this day) properly reconciled.
Few of these thinkers were Aristotlian. Many were using flawed premises
( and knew it!) and most acknowledged that the status quo was the greatest of inertias. Marx chose the human as collective perspective ( not surprising, given the dominance in european academia) and focused on his audiences desires resentments and ignorant jealousies.
he used pseudo science, formulated his own philosophy to support a school of social economics and by couching it all as one of the "OldGuard/Classic"
intellectuals he spawned dozens of pseudo-scientific "social" scientists.

Today, in our schools.. from the Ivy league down , now, to grammar school.. Our teachers and professors teach by "dialectics".. They consistently consider every issue from the elements perspective and analyze events and historical periods from changing and radical viewpoints. The pervasive desire by academia to "help" remake society in a more tolerant view..
is identical from school zone to school zone.
The schools of various disciplines have been assimilated into "intra-dependent" curriculums. These academics work to bring ALL science into the same relativist "results-oriented" patterns as their social engineering brethren.
. These are all derivatives and offshoots of the contradictory teachings from Rouseau, Kant, Hegel, and more recently, Dewey, Galbraith, Laurence Tribe.
The contradiction of anarchic individualism, anti-authority willfulness, and unconscious actions by the body-politic
strangely come together in the basic denial of human nature and civilization.
THERE is where Rand and the insight to the "voluntary" and conscious nature
of man is different than ALL other thinkers.
She starts her reasoning from Mans start. What we are percieving and how we conceptualize it. How we percieve and how we conceptualise ( identify anything) IS our first concerns.. She then builds on a consistent frame from THAT beginning. She ( like Aristotle) insists on recognizing things for their essense.. their irreducible primaries..
This is a process of thinking that frequently reexamines that which is already known.
In essence, the scientist as a person.

hmm.. must go I will return..
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-17-2006, 06:19 PM
Machiavelli Incarnate
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherWarrior View Post

Today, in our schools.. from the Ivy league down , now, to grammar school.. Our teachers and professors teach by "dialectics".. They consistently consider every issue from the elements perspective and analyze events and historical periods from changing and radical viewpoints. The pervasive desire by academia to "help" remake society in a more tolerant view..
is identical from school zone to school zone.
..
Do they all teach this way to give the world a more tolerant view, or is it because history is written by the victors?

I don't think that always being an apologist is acceptable, but history is often presented one sided and that can't be. You can understand what a minority viewpoint is while not sanctioning it. Isn't it the educators job to present the material and let the students decipher much of the meanings on their own? Again, I am not talking about going overboard and justifying what is obviously evil by giving rationalizations, but rather giving the students a fuller understanding of various events by giving dissenting viewpoints.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-11-2007, 05:00 PM
ONEWHITEDUCK's Avatar
ONEWHITEDUCK
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 18,120
Default

AND WHO WOULDA THOUGHT IT FIGURES

just LOOK to SEE where it all comes from kids ;-)
__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM
^You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT

~777~
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-11-2007, 06:15 PM
Political Junkie
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 147
Default

Selfleness is the greatest (and rarest) of all virtues.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2007, 12:04 AM
ONEWHITEDUCK's Avatar
ONEWHITEDUCK
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 18,120
Default

DON'T YOU MEAN SELFLESSNESS :-I

Arguments for a Moral Law
Lewis bases his case for Christian belief on the existence of a Moral Law, a "Rule about Right and Wrong" commonly known to all human beings. This law is like mathematical laws in being real, not just a matter of convention, contrived by humans. But it is unlike mathematically expressed laws of nature in that it can be broken or ignored by humans, who possess free will.

Humans know the moral law intuitively, Lewis argues. It is the only law of the universe which they know from within themselves. All other laws are known only through observation, such as the law of gravity. The moral law is generally agreed to in one form or another by religious and non-religious persons. One source of evidence of this was, that even non-religious people in England during World War II believed that what Hitler was doing was wrong. On a more mundane level, even a non-religious person may object that someone stealing from them or taking unfair advantage of them is doing something wrong.

The other claimed intuitive underpinning of his system is the experience of people for something deeper and more than can ever be experienced in an earthly life. Lewis refers to these experiences in himself as "joy" and describes these in his book Surprised by Joy. His argument is that we cannot yearn for something that does not exist. The fact that we thirst reflects that we naturally need water and that there is a substance which satisfies that need. The same could be said of other needs as well. Humans cannot know to yearn for something which does not exist.

Lewis states that to understand Christianity, one must understand the moral law, which is the underlying moral structure of the universe. The moral law is "hard as nails." Unless one understands the dismay which comes from the moral law, one cannot understand the coming of Christ and his work.

After introducing the Moral Law, Lewis argues that the eternal God who is its source takes primacy over the created Satan whose rebellion undergirds all evil. Evil is a parasite on goodness. Satan was and is a supernatural power, who, in his pride, set himself against God. But there is nothing about evil which is not a perversion of something good. That is why, Lewis argues, evil is a parasite in the world. It twists the good things which God placed into the world.

Then the death and resurrection of Christ, the Son of God, is introduced as, in the Christian view, the only way in which our inadequate human attempts to redeem our own sins could be made adequate in God's eyes.

"He [mankind] had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself," Lewis says of the futility of our own attempts at moral self-justification and consequent need for repentance and "surrender." God "became a man" in Christ, says Lewis, so that "our human nature which can suffer and die" could be "amalgamated with God's nature" and make full atonement possible.


[edit] Atonement
There are many theological theories about what "the point of this dying was," writes Lewis. None is fully adequate to the thing itself, any more than a verbal description of a mathematical model, such as that of an atom, is fully adequate to the mathematics per se. Thus does Lewis make nuanced logical distinctions between core religious truths and theological explanations thereof, throughout his book.


[edit] Christian ethics
The last third of the book explores the ethics resulting from belief.

Mere Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

an old code talker ;-)

Live Search: C.S. Lewis on MERE CHRISTIANITY radio broadcast

NO MORE FALSE WITNESS OR COVETING MY WIFE BY YOUR HOMO LEGION EITHER
__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

YouTube - - You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

YouTube - The Fray - How To Save A Life Video

^I^

Finale/Reprise

La, la, la, etc, etc
Jack's ok,
and he's back, ok.
He's alright.
Let's shout,
make a fuss,
scream it out!
Weeee!
Jack is back now, everyone sing,
in our town of Halloween.
What's this? What's this?
I haven't got a clue.
What's this? Why it's completely new.
What's this? Must be a Christmas thing.
What's this? It's really very strange.
This is Halloween. Halloween! Halloween! Halloween!
What's this? What's this? (etc…)
My dearest friend, if you don't mind.
I'd like to join you by your side,
where we can gaze into the stars.
And sit together,
now and forever.
For it is plain as anyone can see,
we're simply meant to be


Closing

And finally, everything worked out just fine.
Christmas was saved, though there wasn't much time.
But after that night, things were never the same—
Each holiday now knew the other ones' name.
And though that one Christmas things got out of hand,
I'm still rather fond of that skeleton man.
So many years later I thought I'd drop in,
and there was old Jack still looking quite thin,
with four or five skeleton children at hand
playing strange little tunes in their xylophone band.
And I asked old Jack, "Do you remember the night
when the sky was so dark and the moon shone so bright?
When a million small children pretending to sleep
nearly didn't have Christmas at all, so to speak?”
And would you, if you could, turn that mighty clock back
to that long, fateful night, now think carefully, Jack.
Would you do the whole thing all over again,
knowing what you know now, knowing what you knew then?"
And he smiled, like the old Pumpkin King that I knew,
then turned and asked softly of me, "Wouldn't you?"

YouTube - Final Reprise - The Nightmare Before Christmas - FFVII

(-;;-)
__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM
^You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT

~777~
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:58 AM
Political Junkie
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 147
Default

The Golden Rule teaches: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And, as Jesus taught: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew, 22:39 (KJV). This basic rule is hard of practice, for people, as a rule, are egocentric in their relations with others. Christ’s message of universal love is contrary to human nature; it requires one to be outgoing and forgiving of the faults of others - even to “turn the other cheek.” However, Christ - if he walked this earth - was an unworldly philosopher. The sad truth is that we are not that way; and if God intended man to be good, indeed, He should have made us better.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2007, 08:21 AM
ONEWHITEDUCK's Avatar
ONEWHITEDUCK
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 18,120
Cool

egocentric =

The Invention of the Monsters, 1937

it requires* one to be outgoing and forgiving of the faults of others - even to “turn the other cheek.”

if God intended man to be good, indeed, He should have made us better.


YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT YOU ARE A FAGGOT......now turn the other cheek you cheecky fucker......I'LL GIVE YOU THE SECOND CUMMING JESUS

THE NEW IMPROVED VERSION

The Sacred Heart of Jesus, 1962

^I^
__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUncnWxjUXM
^You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

PSI TECH INVESTIGATIONS and LAW ENFORCEMENT

~777~
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-14-2007, 10:38 AM
Political Junkie
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: My mothers basement
Posts: 280
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherWarrior View Post
You mention More's Utopia..
coincidence..
In my following of words, names, and such I was refreshing my knowledge of Marx. they are alive and well, and organizing their worldwide bid to remake the world for the proletariat.
THEY revere More and that work, and consider it the wellspring of their ideology.
They view that dream as a desirable end.. a perfect society that we can have .. right here on earth..
and all one has to do is to join it root and stem, lock stock and barrell,
and remake your mind to accept the eternal struggle to free the unterclass with violent revolution.
To attain an eternal peaceful Utopia of course.
I'm not ridiculing you Rod, and More is deeper and more insightful than the ever resentful Marx/Lenin/Engel dreams.

The enlightenment brought a lot of new ideas. The new technologies of the press and industries WERE bringing changes that were not properly ( to this day) properly reconciled.
Few of these thinkers were Aristotlian. Many were using flawed premises
( and knew it!) and most acknowledged that the status quo was the greatest of inertias. Marx chose the human as collective perspective ( not surprising, given the dominance in european academia) and focused on his audiences desires resentments and ignorant jealousies.
he used pseudo science, formulated his own philosophy to support a school of social economics and by couching it all as one of the "OldGuard/Classic"
intellectuals he spawned dozens of pseudo-scientific "social" scientists.

Today, in our schools.. from the Ivy league down , now, to grammar school.. Our teachers and professors teach by "dialectics".. They consistently consider every issue from the elements perspective and analyze events and historical periods from changing and radical viewpoints. The pervasive desire by academia to "help" remake society in a more tolerant view..
is identical from school zone to school zone.
The schools of various disciplines have been assimilated into "intra-dependent" curriculums. These academics work to bring ALL science into the same relativist "results-oriented" patterns as their social engineering brethren.
. These are all derivatives and offshoots of the contradictory teachings from Rouseau, Kant, Hegel, and more recently, Dewey, Galbraith, Laurence Tribe.
The contradiction of anarchic individualism, anti-authority willfulness, and unconscious actions by the body-politic
strangely come together in the basic denial of human nature and civilization.
THERE is where Rand and the insight to the "voluntary" and conscious nature
of man is different than ALL other thinkers.
She starts her reasoning from Mans start. What we are percieving and how we conceptualize it. How we percieve and how we conceptualise ( identify anything) IS our first concerns.. She then builds on a consistent frame from THAT beginning. She ( like Aristotle) insists on recognizing things for their essense.. their irreducible primaries..
This is a process of thinking that frequently reexamines that which is already known.
In essence, the scientist as a person.

hmm.. must go I will return..
Ummmm.....the fact that PhilosopherWarrior suddeny appeared on my thread, and hadnt been seen for weeks before, and hasnt been seen since, is ummmmm....just a coinsidence.
yeah, thats it......just a fluke.

Oh shit. Everyone already knows that PhilosopherWarrior is just one of the many screen names i use huh ?

Nevermind
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


» Navigation

Political Links Page

Blogs by AWE Members

Advertisers support this site - if you're interested in their product, take a look!


test

$5 monthly donation:

$10 monthly donation:



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Poltical Topsites PolitiPoll.net - Political Web Rankings