Want to start learning..

Re: .

It is very annoying, and a sign that you have not researched the issue, that you equate Buddhism with religion, mysticism and the undefined. You are entitled to think that Buddhist thinking is nonsense, but at least try to grasp what it's about first.

I cannot imagine a worse philosopher to study than Rand if you want to understand anything at all about yourself or the world. In any less materialistic society than the USA Rand's ideas, which accord beautifully with the notions of freedom from morality and the perpetuam mobile of materialist wealth-creation, would have sunk without trace. As it is they have been warmly welcomed as a vindication for carrying on the same way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow...you sound like you know what your talking about canute.

*which accord beautifully with the notions of freedom from morality*

Just curious what you base your morality on.What is your standard of comparison?And if you consider your morality good,do you think maybe other people could benfit from it too?
Thanks
Peace Out:m:

P.S. What do you consider to be Rands worst Idea?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess I was wrong about buddism being in the religous category.
But I always thought that in the majority of what one might call Mysticism, they pronounce truth as being beyond words,that it is not describable, something like"you can say ,water, water ,water," but just saying the word will not quench your thirst .You have to experience it for yourself. Like the mystics say about truth,, you must experience it for yourself.

Something like that.
Could be wrong.

P.S. Could you please define mysticism for us.
Thanks again

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I consider someone who behaves morally to be someone who acts honestly according to their own ideas of right and wrong. Someone who has no concept of right and wrong would be ammoral rather than immoral. Immorality consists in not behaving according to ones own precepts, or in not bothering to think very hard about what is right and wrong.

Because it seems logical that to understand what is right and wrong requires having a proper understanding of life, the universe and so on it is also immoral to think dishonestly, since dishonest thinking must lead to false conclusions and thus a false morality.

I know that this answer begs the question of whether right and wrong have an objective existence but that's a much bigger issue.

On the second question I'll get back to you. I need to think a bit.

 

I wouldn't be so bold as to define mystical any differently to a dictionary. However it usually suggests something like 'beyond human understanding'. That was why I objected to the idea that Buddhist ideas were mystical.

Buddhism is as coldly rational a study of existence as science ('enlightened common sense' is the best description of it I've heard). However it does seem on the surface to be a form of mysticism.

This is because it is a consistent finding of Buddhist philosophers (and others) that what underlies physical existence is not describable in 'rational' (i.e. dualistic) terms. It is asserted that there is something that exists that lies not just beyond science, but beyond all our ways of thinking and conceiving.

This is odd, but it is not mystical. Buddhism does not assert that this underlying substrate cannot be known or (more or less) understood, just that it cannot be rationally proved, objectively observed or conceptually modelled.

This is because it is a non-dual substance, it does not have properties that are true or false. Any assertion we may make about it must be based on its aspects (hypothesised attributes). The problem is that it has wholly contradictory aspects depending on your viewpoint. This is a consequence of the fact that all our thinking is necessarily dual, whereas in this case the object of our thoughts is non-dual. There is therefore an inevitable mismatch between any thought we may have of this thing and the thing itself.

This may seem a bit nonsensical at first glance. However if you know Goedel's theorems you will know that (very loosely) for any system of rational thought (any system based on truth and falsity) there is always one truth that can be known but not proved, a theorem that cannot be true and cannot be false according to the system, but which can nevertheless be known to be true to the thinker. The thinker is able to create a meta-system of thought (to think outside the system) within which the truth or falsity of the theorem can be decided.

This is true ad infinitum, in other words however vast or complex the system of thinking the above is always true (although very simple systems escape this problem).

From this we know that at all times and places for all eternity there will be one truth that cannot be proved true. (Mathematicians do not conclude that this is always the same truth, but I do and I think Roger Penrose does also).

The best explanation for WHY Goedel's theorems are provably true is that all ways of thinking (all formal and axiomatic systems of proof above a certain level of complexity) are dual in nature (truth/falsity etc) but that there is something that exists which lies beyond dualism, and thus beyond thoughts of truth and falsity.

This can only be a non-dual substance, a thing of which nothing at all can be proved true or false. This thing is mystical in the sense that it lies beyond what Roger McGinn calls our 'epistemic limits' and what I would call the limits of dualism. But from Goedel we know that this does NOT mean that it is unknowable or not understandable. It is simply unprovable, it lies outside any possible system of proof.

As consciousness is the only non-dual substance of which we know (it can exist as no more that a fundamental and singular experience with no subject/object, inside/outside, true/false divisions), it seems reasonable to suppose that the monist substrate of existence is consciousness. This conclusion is supported by the fact that as yet there is no other explanation for the existence of consiousness that makes sense, as one would expect for soemthing that is truly and ultimately fundamental and therefore physically uncaused.

Goedel's theorems arise from the fact that for any proof to be completed consciousness must exist, yet consciousness lies always outside of any system of proofs of which we can be conscious. Thus Buddhism correctly asserts that to understand consciousness fully we must discard the notion of proof at some point and continue our research based on subjective experience alone. It advocates spending at least some of ones time attempting to experience what underlies our thinking, which involves not thinking at all and focussing on experience and knowing.

The problem with saying all this is that it is ex hypothesis unprovable and, beyond a certain point, undiscussable.

All this accords with philosopher Max Velman's assertion (as far as I know undisputed) that existence is epistemelogically dual yet ontologically monist, since this is structurally the only type of explanation that can logically work. It suggests that there is one more thing in existence than we can think about.

If that is confusing I apologise. It's difficult to talk about something that in principle one can't directly talk about. This is the reason Buddhists generally give self-contradictory or silly answers to deep questions.

 

Objectivism. It is an untenable position and fundamentally disempowering in that it states that conscious choice plays no part in human behaviour. Despite its nod towards ethics it suggests individuals have no responsibility for their actions and that the universe is strictly and physically determined in every single respect.

(Borrowing heavily from another critic) - Objectivism claims material reality as it's metaphysical basis. It maintains a strict belief in the law of cause and effect and specifically denies anything spiritual. Since human beings are also physical, including their brains, they must also be subject to cause and effect. If this is true our decisions are caused rather than chosen. Yet Rand maintains that choice is essential to ethics, so her metaphysical position undercuts her ethics.

Rand makes a bold claim when she says she has derived ethical truth from objective fact. Philosophers since Kant (I think it is) have been wary of such a move. This claim rests on the supposed objective value of life which she simply stipulates. In other words she offers no objective reason why life must be the primary value. She weakens her position further by qualifying that life does not mean mere survival but survival as a rational being. She has presupposed what kind of a life is valuable without any justification; this sort of judgment must be subjective not objective.

Her position is illogical and is NOT life affirming despite her claims to that effect. It is a philosophy that seems to have been derived backwards from the American dream of material advancement and freedom to act as one likes, not forwards from sound logical principles.

I admit that I do not know the details of her ideas - but with such a shaky foundation the details don't seem important.

 

=)

"Thus Buddhism correctly asserts that to understand consciousness fully we must discard the notion of proof at some point and continue our research based on subjective experience alone."

"I admit that I do not know the details of her ideas - but with such a shaky foundation the details don't seem important."


I guess nothing else really needs to be said.
N othing can be 'known' to you, and it will remain that way.
I suggest that you read her book " for the new intellectual" and you will understand completely.

Of course you will run from that book like a scared animal because you will be too afraid to accept its truth. You will not read it, becasue it attacks your belief system.
Its much 'safer' not to.

 

Re: =)

Sorry but I genuinely don't understand the meaning of this post. although I can see you seem to think I'm wrong about something. Can you sort out the quotes and make clear what it was I said that got you so upset?

 

if you want to know

read the book.

 

also.

would you happen to be a socialist canute? or a communist by any chance?

 

fuck you squash

 

Glad you did, perhaps Squash can learn something from your reasoned reply.

Quite agree. But Rand only looks at one side.

Yes but there are two problems. First is logically explaining the origins of the physical universe in these terms, second is how one can have a theory of ethics while stating that freewill doesn't exist.

I agree that winning the lottery seems to have nothing to do with praying. However it's quite hard to see how strict physical determinism could cause a person to undertake the infinity of actions entailed by buying a ticket and to care whether they win or not.

Agree completely.

To hell with comfort zones.

 

I'll check it out. Still my objection to Rand's metaphysics was a simple one, I don't see why I need to read a book to get an answer. Any supporter of Rand would surely have had to answer it for themselves at some point.

 

Of Rand? No way.

 

ignorance

its ignorance on your behalf canute.
Just go to the library and read the ayn rand lexicon objectivism from A-Z.
If you werent afraid of it, you would read it.

 

*Objectivism. It is an untenable position and fundamentally disempowering in that it states that conscious choice plays no part in human behaviour. *

Where did you find that.That sounds more like determinism.

Objectivism on ther other hand is the exact opposite.
It suggests that ones mind,specifically our ability to reason,must be focused not just some of the time,but living rationaly as a way of life.
"Existence exists."
This is the primary axiom from which this philosophy stems.
Sounds simple but you would be amazed at how many people would refute evn this statement.

"Rational selfishness"
This is the basis of it's morality.Man should be his own main beneficiary to his labours and actions.And that his own life is the standard by which his morality is judged.
Anything that adds to the value of a mans life is considered good.
Anything that destroys mans life is evil.
Failing to think for oneself is considered to be the greatest evil.

Man is free to seek his own happiness and freemdoms so long as it does not forcibly intefere with others.

These are a couple points.
And don't get me wrong,I come first before any relgion or school of thought.

 

Re: ignorance

Why don't you you try discussing the issue rather than just hurling schoolboy insults? I think Rand is wrong and you think she is right. What's the big deal. Almost certainly she isn't completely right or completely wrong. Just tell me where you think I'm wrong, that's the normal method.