Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Squashbuckler, Aug 13, 2003.

  1. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    That is very incorrect.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    These are the ideas that you reject?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    HERE YOU ALL GO:

    Here it is then :
    The flaws that buddhism teaches :

    #1.Reducing attachment towards life.
    #2. Elimination of desire.
    #3. Eliminating self-cherishing.
    #4. Considering yourself the lowest, and most humble.
    #5. Altruism, help others before yourself.
    #6.Loving everyone. Wouldnt you say that loving everyone equally would be an injustice to those who deserve to be loved?
    Not everyone deserves to be loved.
    #8. The statement that pure contentment is suicidal.
    #9.Wanting to eliminate "I" and the ego.
    #10. The idea that karma will get all those who have mistreated you.

    All of these will lead to low self-esteem.
    If you want to learn further about self esteem and its importance, look into reading the book " honoring the self" (which is contrary to buddhism)



    "So you're saying , just think about your survival? Lie, cheat , steal, and kill for survival?Do whatever you need to survive? Thats kind of pointless."
    -I did not say to lie cheat or steal mainly because that will not be conducive to your happiness.If you think that surviving is pointless, then you had better die and make space for those we values thier lives, this planet, and thier happiness. Lying will only turn you into a fraud like peter keating. You dont earn anything if you cheat, hence , you wont achieve any sense of glory in such an action. What is the purpose of killing?
    Objectivism does not teach to live like a moocher or a club-wielding brute, it teaches the complete opposite, to be a productive person. Buddhism teaches to sit around and stagnate.
    Its self-immolation. IF you supoort buddhism, then you might as well support communism, if you so reject the material, why dont you remove the material from your life? it is precisely that material that allows your survival!




    "Objectvism teaches to instead of looking into the non-material things for happiness look to the material things."
    -Does it really say that? It says to reject mysticm and the unreal.
    It says to appreciate and enjoy productive work, as opposed to meditation in a corner (which realy helps no-one at all anyways)
    If i produce goods, and you produce goods, then we trade, that would be much mroe beneficial to both of our happiness.
    It realates to our survival and happiness.


    "Don't care about someone's personality, care about there appearance, that is what really matters since its material. Objectivism teaches that only material things in this world matter. It teaches that being greedy is good for survival."
    -IT teaches to love those who deserve to be loved based on their values. It teaches that friendship is a mutually pleasurable trade.
    It teaches that man should be a trader. It teaches that productiveness is essential to human survival.



    "Don't help others, that would sacrificing yourself to them. Don't show compassion for others.

    "It is true that knowledge is a matter of opinion, no one can be certain of anything."
    -You sound like kant. Logic is knowledge. The fact of non contradictory identification. A is A. A rock is a rock. We see that rock, we define it as such. If you say that nothing can be known, That is the worst kind of fraud you can perpetrate upon yourself.
    If i shoot you, you will die. Cause and effect is VERY REAL.



    Even though all reality is subjective, objectivism rejects subjectvism because it would collapse the whole idea of objectivism.
    -Reality is not subjective. Reality is very much objective.Cause and effect are real.Things can be identified.





    "Objectivism also rejects altruism, which states that the highest good is service to others."
    -And rightfully so. Self immolation at the expense of helping others is ludicris.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    194



    Is that what you think? Watch the movie the " the miracle worker" with patty duke.
     
  8. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    I checked "undeserved" and it seems to mean something different of what I was thinking about... Anyway I'm still against the main idea : INDIVIDUALISM. The one that I see when I write this word is Jerrek (and if I well remember, he likes Rand).
    She lived with communism and the only thing she seemed to want was : everything BUT communism. That seems to include the solidarity.
     
  9. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    communism

    Do you preach communism?
     
  10. SG-N Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,051
    Re: communism

    Ooooh... What an answer!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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" (because I don't know any stronger word in english)

    Anyway, if I would have to choose between communism and your "society", my choice would be easy.

    If I were not so good, I would wish that one day, you would be as poor as possible! I wonder what you would do in the streets while no one would help you... Good luck without food, without warm clothes, with nowhere to go when it rains or snows... In your society, what would you become then? "I would work hard and earn money..." is not a possible answer, because in your society, I don't know why a boss woud give you a job while a stronger/better guy is able to do it : no pity!
     
  11. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Re: HERE YOU ALL GO:

    You have a muddled concept of Buddhism. Also it hardly constitutes an argument just to assert that these things are 'flaws'. What you mean is that you think these teachings are are flawed. In this you are probably absolutely correct, you do. Why not pick one and give your reasons for thinking it flawed.

    You must have a very strange teacher.

    A very, very strange teacher.

    And you consider this tautological nonsense a good reason to reject subjectivism?

    Identified by whom I wonder.

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

    Messages:
    194
    Re: Re: HERE YOU ALL GO:

    It is senseless to have a discussion with you if you refuse to believe that things can be known. "if you prick us do we not bleed?"

    If you stand back and take a look at the flaws that i have mentioned, you will understand that elimination of the ego will ultimately lead to a lack of self-esteem, among other problems. If you care to learn WHY IT WILL, Im not going to waste my time typing it to you when you can simply go out and buy " honoring the self" by nathanial brandon.

    doesnt it seem self evident why reducing attachment towards your life wont help you? The same with the elimination of desire? or being humble?
    Is it not true that buddhism wants to bring you to the stage of an animal. where you no longer try to think, only try to keep an empty mind.
    That stage is like an animal, but an animal without an ID!

    How can you remove the ID? you cannot! IT is programmed in us all. The repression of desire will inevitably lead to a conflict between the ego and the superego. A buddhism super ego seems to be merely blocking off the desires of the ID.

    So where does your happiness come from? the elimination of your desires? ??
    Happiness is having nothing at all? that makes much sense.

    Anyhow, Id rather have the whole world as buddhist as opposed to any other religion.
     
  13. Squashbuckler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    194
    Individualism:
    Individualism regards man-every man- as an independant, sovereign entity who possess an inalienable right to his own life,a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Indicidualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation, or peaceful coexistance among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights- and that group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.

    Do not make mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says " ill do as i please at everybody elses expense"
    An individualist is a man who recogizes the inalienable rights of man- his own and those of others.
    An individualist is one who says " i will not run anyones life- nor let anyone run mine"
    I will not rule, nor be ruled. I will not be a master, or a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone, or anyone to myself.
    I will be a trader.
     
  14. spookz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,390
    you are fabulously insane

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    VitalOne you wrote: Objectivism also rejects altruism, which states that the highest good is service to others.

    Who has decided that the highest good is service to others? I do not swallow Rand whole but neither do I believe service to others is the highest good. The highest good must always be what meets the needs of the individual. What the individual understands as their personal purpose and achivement of those goals for themselves is always the highest good. For some that may mean living like Mother Theresa and that is fine. But Theresa made an individual choice and I am sure she felt no sense of self-denial in doing so but a sense of personal vocation which she found personally enriching. We cannot all make that choice. When individuals are strengthened then the whole will take care of itself. A collective is only a group of individuals, if they are individually weak then so is the whole of their society. If all individuals were self-sustaining and self-reliant then there would be no need to give 'service' to others. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for any collective to ensure individual growth and freedom. We are all inter-dependent yes, I agree with that. But it seems that huge disparities in wealth, access and education creates instability for those whom have and are able. In this sense I think it wise for ones own security and survival to offer advantage to those lacking, but only those individuals willing and able can take the opportunities and utilize them for their own good.


    Squashbuckler: I think to love everyone is to love no one. It is impossible to love everyone. What is possible is to treat everyone fairly.


    VitalOne: The materials were there before people existed to identify and utilize them.
    Interpretations of reality may be subjective but reality itself is not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2003
  16. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    Quote

    VitalOne
    Objectivism in my opinion, sucks. It basically says that all reality has to do with is material things. But our mind creates the material things, which collapses the whole philosophy. Material things are really just electrical signals interpreted by our brains, nothing more. The only things that truly exists are our minds
    ---
    it was soo good it deserved another reference

    as it is most common objectivism is commonly used to validate
    lack of control to change the inner self
    and thus an attempt to celerbrate the ability to be ego centric and selfish

    the reason police would not want peace and harmony is because they would all be out of jobs
    hence self worth attached to the value of crime being current and
    extreemly undesirable
    would it be a fair comment to suggest that one who profits and finds glory in crime is also guilty to some point if you are to speak purely philisophicaly about it

    but then i get the distinct impresion this thread is not based in philosophy but biggotry because it is not allowing discusion but only advertising the desire for collective repulsion
    or groupy behaviour

    leader of the pack
    ohh hang on what does that relate to?
    revenge
    selfish motivation
    the inbreeding social value of having control over others

    Squashbuckler
    have you ever tried to imagine that your first impresion is not always correct
    maybe you have not found any literature that is written by eastern buhdists
    AND
    surely your knolledge of the things people do would illistrate how what is percieved on the surface is not always the correct set of events

    you are stating you know all about buhdism
    to a point where you think it is invalid and non consistant with productivre society
    the same could be said about any religion if you point at the top end of the philisophical doctrines

    surely you are not soo closed minded
    try not to be offended by my comments i am mearly
    replying in a philisophical manner as a perspective to reply in

    groove on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Squashbuckler: If cause and effect are very real then why isnt Karma? Karma is just another way of pointing to consequences of action. One sows what they reap so to speak. I think there is truth to that if one takes reincarnation out of the context. On the other hand there are people like Idi Amin who's mother was a sorcerer and believed in it himself, he grew up poor and uneducated. He was a brutal murdering dictator who never paid for his crimes. He lived to a ripe old age in luxury and prosperity. By all accounts he was happy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    He cheated and killed and it brought him glory even if he was too stupid to realize he was the only one enjoying and admiring its result. You say cheating and killing is not conducive to ones happiness but it certainly worked for him!

    Rands objectivism is contingent on the individual attaining a certain moral idealism. There are those who have no ideals and will still lead lives they consider successful.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2003
  18. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Squashbucker where did you get the idea that meditation is equivalent to not having an idea in ones head and then sitting around stagnating? First of all if one did not have a thought in their head they would be physically dead. Its just a fact. Meditation is a technique utilized to discern our thoughts, to detach enough from the noise in our head so we can take a good look at its content. It also fosters focus and mental discipline, so that when we undertake a task we are fully there and not elsewhere in our minds thinking other thoughts. Haven't you ever experienced this? Walking down the street and you are so lost thinking about what you will do when you arrive at your destination, the errands to run, what happened yesterday and god only knows what else, and then you realize you are at the bus station unawares of the process of getting there? Just moving through activity without being present? Well meditation is not about sitting around doing nothing. Meditation teaches you self-awareness so you focus on walking, the scenery and what is present instead of being lost in mental activity. You know being in the NOW. If knowing oneself is important to personal happiness then meditation is a potentially useful tool.

    Ego in the East does not have the same definition as it does in the West. I have some literature concerning this and will have to look for it, but there is a huge difference in connotation of the word and how it is used.

    I understand you love and respect Rand's teachings. But to accept her thoughts completely is the same as renouncing your own. Don't swallow ANYTHING whole. To be an individual also means having the ability to see the flaws in Rands theory. Why don't you try playing devils advocate with her teachings and see what you find?
     
  19. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Lucy - very good points.

    Of course things can be known. Our disagreement is over which things thay are.

    I don't know what you mean by 'ego' so I will use 'sense of self'. Buddhists do not try to eliminate their 'sense of self'. They come to realise that their 'sense of self' is a personal construct. This is not a 'goal', it is just a conclusion that most Buddhist practitioners reach from experience. It is not to assert that 'sense of self' doesn't or shouldn't exist, it asserts simply that it is not fundamental. In the same way QM doesn't assert that chemistry doesn't exist, but just that QM is more fundamental.

    No, I'm afraid it doesn't. Perhaps you would understand this better if you used 'dependence' instead of 'attachment'.

    No, I'm afraid it isn't. Budhists think a great deal, or at least they do until they realise they don't need to. You misunderstand Buddhism badly. It is not a religion. Buddhism does not 'want' you to do anything. Buddhism is a philosophical practice, an investigation into reality. The fact that most people who do the practice find that they reach the same conclusions is not because they all accept some central dogma, it is just what happens.

    Don't quite understand that. There is no 'repression' of desire or removal of a Freudian ID (whatever that may be).

    This is muddled. It is perfectly sensible to achieve a stable happiness despite not having ones desires fulfilled. If your happiness depends on fulfilling ones desires then happiness is forever beyond you, for how can one eliminate desire, and how can one attain all that one desires?

    I respect your honesty for saying this, since you are an opponent of Buddhism. (Absolutely no sarcasm intended). However why would this be true? What is it about Buddhists that leads you to say this?
     
  20. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Rather than looking at what different people said and completely commit myself to the words and ideas of a single person/philosophy while rejecting all others, I prefer to listen to what different people have to say, learn what I can from them, temper that with my personal experiences and think for myself.

    I think that my personal philosophy lies somwehere between Objectivism and Buddhism and my greatest goal (and most difficult challenge) has been to reconcile the tendencies I have toward each of them and strike a balance.

    I don't think the ideals defined in each have to be mutually exclusive.

    "The unexamined life is not worth living" - Socrates
    Look inside yourself to find your own personal philosophy rather than looking for a philosophy to apply to your life.
     
  21. ripleofdeath Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,762
    one_raven
    RE your last post inclusive of the Socrates quote

    and so the nature of the artist is born
    and so the free will expresses in freedom

    unfortunately most people think you have to have the shit kicked out of you, dragged though a puddle of shit spun dry
    and walk in to a large sum of money before most think you
    have the ability to render art/philosophy yet all people look to is the recanting of missery that soo many hang on like a S&M
    soap drama fanatic getting their latest fix

    society is soo crazzy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    groove on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Interpretations of reality are what created the idea of reality (obviously). You basically said interpretations may be subjective but interpretations that created an idea itself is not.

    In the little picture, this could make sense. The only reason that materials seem to be there is because there are people who have the same senses. Its all an elaborate illusion. In dreams (much like reality) your brain stem sends signals and your brain tries to interpret them. Are things in dreams also true? Do they also exist?

    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.


    Where did I say that I supported altruism? I stated that objectivism strongly rejects altruism. In Buddhism, altruism is accepted because it is not as selfish. Helping one is considered a good deed.



    Squashbuckler: You obviously don't understand Buddhism. It is a philosophy based finding inner peace. It tries to lead mankind away from suffering and pain.

    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....
     
  23. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Very well put, if you don't mind me saying so.

    We monitor nothing but electro-chemical activity, all the rest is concepts.
     

Share This Page