Please Heed My Advice And Save Yourselves.

Chalaco said:
There's empirical evidence that leans to the possibility/suggests that your mind will cease to exist after getting hit by a truck, sparky.
Making it as possible as reincarnation. :D



Chalaco said:
Said mind, not brain.
And I said it affects the mind. Objectively the brain is the only thing close to being the mind.
 
Last edited:
Chalaco said:
The man just called you "lost". Wrote why he feels you're lost. And you welcome him back by saying you're "glad" he's back? :eek:

And I can't be friendly because...? But I understand, you want to control my actions (even something like that).

Chalaco said:
Newsflash, Squashbuckler knows you're a charlatan (as do I).

Look at this sap trying to play it off as if he's still got some dignity left in him. :rolleyes:
Who were you talking about? And if it wasn't me, why did you quote Squashbuckler and say "Look at this sap".
 
Last edited:
Chalaco said:
Please :rolleyes: I've already stated that I fear death and already recanted my previous stance on the issue


Here's a thought, try looking up the words present in my posts if you don't understand them. I've posted before that I RECANT my previous stance on death, here's a memory refresher...



That takes care of that, consider this putative contradiction you speak of defenestrated (tossed out the window).
So basically I can't trust your statements because you may just recant them? Thanks for clearing that up for me.


Chalaco said:
Please :rolleyes:


EVERY feeling can be, and is, directly related to desire, you dope. There was no excuse for the redundance, stop searching.
But the feeling was exclusively related to desire, because it is the "desireles" feeling.




Chalaco said:
I took it back because I realized you were lying when you said he asked you to explain this putative "feeling/experience" you spoke of. You even admitted to lying...
I already cleared up why I said that. Do I need to do it again (that would be redundant)? He challenged my claim, and by challenging my claim, he indirectly asked me to prove my statement. Also, I said it was " completely wrong to say it the way I did".


Chalaco said:
I don't digress; you do, there's a difference.
Desire was directly related, again.






Chalaco said:
Yeah, I was citing Epicurus' stance on death, which I happened to share at the time. But then, here's the tricky part, you ready for this?............................ I RECANTED!. So there's no contradiction.



Hmmmm, considering I've since RECANTED that stance it doesn't make it a contradiction.

There's empirical evidence to the mind ending one the body passes away. I am an empiricist. Now, I don't know for sure, with certainty, and since I've recanted my Epicurian stance on death. And unlike you, or Epicurus, I shan't claim to know what happens to the mind once one passes away.
Where did you say that you recant your stance on what happens to the mind after death? All you seemed to have did was say two contradicting statements. There's empirical evidence to support a lot of things. When I did I claim to know what happens when you die?

Chalaco said:
Funny, I make a post about YOUR contradictions (which you have yet to prove as being otherwise) and, lo and behold (and that is the correct spelling), you make a post about my putative "contradictions". Well guess what, stooge? They weren't contradictions and you look even stupider (didn't think that was possible up until now).


You're trying to do what I do, but there's just one problem: even if you wore size thirty six you couldn't fit in these shoes.


You struck out on this one. Three times you tried pointing out stuff that just wasn't there. All you did was libel me, and even that doesn't phase me. Better luck next time.


Just in case you're wondering, the definition for recant is as follows...


re·cant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-knt)
v. re·cant·ed, re·cant·ing, re·cants
v. tr.
To make a formal retraction or disavowal of (a statement or belief to which one has previously committed oneself).
I've proved all the contradictions as being otherwise.
:rolleyes:
Also, you actually look more stupid because it shows that you constantly recant your statements, showing that no one should believe what you say because you might just recant it later on.
 
moementum7 said:
I am very attached to me.
ME ME ME.
I like the sound of that.
You guys are attached to this non-attachement thing eh?
This is the last thing you have to let go of.
Then you will be enlightened and can no longer hurt a fly.
Let us know when you are more one than anyone.
I can see both sides of the argument.
Lucky me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!
Peace Out

All I can say is..."WOW...I wonder how long you can stay happy in this state of mind?"
 
Squashbuckler said:
These are the ideas that you reject?

Dude, you ever read the study The Church of Satan's philosphical system? I sounds very similar to Rand's ideas. Everything is very self centered. It's the most illogical system I have ever encountered. Check it out sometime.

"Love and respect only those who deserve it."
"If you do something unlawful, don't get caught. If you do get caught, you deserve it."
"Stupid people don't deserve love"

Of course these are just paraphrases from what I read. You should check it out for yourself to get the original writings, I may have misread some of it. But since I wish you the best for your life, I thought I'd let you know that there is/are doctrines besides Rand's that may suit you more. BTW, I ain't religious.

:D
 
Squashbuckler said:
I used to love eastern philosophy. My best friends(and myself) used to practice zen buddhism. Please heed my advice, and read the one book that will save you, and change your life forever.
If you care about your well-being, youll read it, if you dont, then, you cannot be helped anyway.
My friend refuses to read it. He prefers to run from his fear and practice an irrational discipline: Buddhism.

READ THIS : " For the new intelectual" By AYN RAND.

READ ANYTHING BY AYN RAND.

Yeah, I read this in junior highschool and thought it was quite genius. But as long as I tried to follow it's principles, I encountered more suffering than before I read the damn thing. Oh, well, live and learn. Ayn is pretty intelligent, but she is not even close to being wise. I hope you can see the difference.

:D
 
Squashbuckler said:
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.

Man, I gotta tellya, I really, really (hmmm, used 2 reallys in one sentence...) like you. You are extremely entertaining! I DON'T MEAN THAT IN AN OFFENSIVE WAY AT ALL. I can't stop laughing, I'm new here so I haven't read all of your posts, but if they are all similar to what I've read so far, I won't have to go to any comedy clubs for an entire year! Whhewww!

You might wanna check or read more carefully about Buddhist doctrine before asserting that Buddhism teaches humans to not honor themselves. Not only does it teach you to honor yourself (the relative/conventional self), but it teaches that you should honor yourself by honoring others.

"Everywhere we go in the world, we find no one more important and valuable than ourself. Since everyman is so valuable to himself, let no one harm another..."

"See yourself in others, then what harm can you do?"

Joy and happiness, pleasure and enjoyment, there is nothing wrong with each of these things, it is only clinging to such things that cause you suffering. Why? because eventually, those things will change. Since all compounded things are impermanent, if you cling to such sensations/objects , it will cause you great suffering. Like wise, nothing is bad about having money or nice cars etc. It's the clinging to these things that will f-you up. Your car might get dented etc...

If you understand it as it actually is, when you are happy, you understand, "this is happiness" ...when you feel enjoyment, you understand "this is enjoyment" there is no problem. But when you feel enjoyment and fear its ceasing because of your attachment to the sensation, you are bound to suffer because it will eventually change.
 
<<<I am crazy enough to believe in myself.>>>
Peace Out

Hey Moe, it's very good that you believe in yourself. The Buddha's last words were..."Monks, be an island unto yourselves, a lamp unto yourselves. All compounded things are impermanent, strive diligently for your liberation."
 
Oh man, Chalaco, first let me complement you on your extremely agile mind! It is marvelous that you are so learned and intelligent. You're extremely articulate...so much so that I am very nervous of any typos in this post...

Now that the due complements are done, let's get down to business shall we?

<<< 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)
>>>

So it was said by you in regards to death. May I ask if you believe or accept scientific laws?
Such as..oh I don't know...how about -The law of conservation of mass and energy?

Based on no religious doctrine all, this makes your assumption that death=annihilation utterly
preposterous. So...proven science-not religious myth- has automatically voided your #1 and therefore #2 statement.
Ok, I better make sure we are on the same level here.
"Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only change states..."
Your body and brain is considered matter.
Your mind is considered energy based, since neuroelectricity is what makes it tick.

>>3. Death does not affect the living.

Sorry, wrong again dude. Death affects the living in every moment of their entire lives literally.
There is no time in which cells do not die and regenerate. Since that is so, each moment you are not the same person as the previous.

>>4. So, death is not bad for the living.

Well, here you used a subjective word "bad". Can't do that Mr. "Objectivist". As you so stated, in somewhat similar terms, what is painful for one person may be pleasurable for another...Ooops, so sorry Grasshopper!
So what is an "objective" word that we might be able to use? How about
suffering? Now that's what I call an absolute, what do you think ehh? Now wait! Let's see if we can argue about the word suffering..hmm. You were quite astute to point out that a masochist enjoys the sensation of pain, so that disqualifies pain as suffering doesn't it? So I guess suffering isn't neccessarily pain at all, although it could be to those who don't want to feel pain. So what the hell is suffering? It is whatever feels unpleasant to a person, be that physical or mental. that is why suffering is absolute and not subjective. If I like pain, then that pain is not suffering for me. Likewise, if I do not like the feeling of being loved, or having sex or being rich, then that is suffering for me, even though there are many others who would love such things.


>>5. For something to be bad for somebody, that person has to exist, at least.

Can't argue with you on that sir. Except for you used the word "bad" again.

>>6. The dead do not exist.

Have you read your own words? Or did you mistype your idea? "the dead" meaning a thing called
"the dead" so already, there exists something called "the dead"...then you typed.."do not exist". How can such a marvelous mind make such a grave error? This is on the order of George Bush's intelligence sir. If you equate existence with being alive, please say so. I suspect this is what you meant, but maybe I'm reading too much into the sentence....

>>7. Therefore, death is not bad for the dead.

You're right about that one too.

>>8. Therefore death is bad for neither the living nor the dead.

As for this statement, I think I have addressed these two during my analysis of your previous statements. Now on to the next analysis.

>>> 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; >>>

I agree that reality is what it is completely. It is independent of beliefs etc. 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;<<<

"Silly Rabbit, Trix is for kids!" Again sir, base upon no religious doctrine, this statement is utterly preposterous and misleading. When you hold an object and you think you are touching an object, in reality you are not at all. Why?
At the atomic level (which is real), there is always a small gap between your fingers and the object. This fact applies to all objects that seem to touch each other. Even if you crushed the two objects together, they would never touch on the atomic level. Why? Because atoms never touch each other, even atoms of the same element or object. They maintain their atomic structure via atomic forces of attraction and repulsion. Soooo....base on these facts, you sir and also every other human being on this planet have never actually touched anything at all. Never experienced an object directly in it's absolutely real form in real time! Which brings me to another obvious point, to supplement the touch issue. Not only have we never really touched any object in reality, but we never really experience the sensation in real time either since it takes time for the contact sensation to reach our brains and register etc...It seems then that what you consider real is not real at all, but only the sensation of the past. To think that you live in real time is fantasy.


>>>3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;<<<

Whoever wrote this obviously considers that it is possible to live in real time and possible to experience absolute reality. Which as we have seen is impossible. Therefore this statement is to be rejected because of its implication that "rational knowledge" allows us to experience reality.

>>>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;<<<

Good Heavens!, Well, since we can't make "appropriate assessments" of the nature of reality because we can't experience it according to scientific fact, how can we make "appropriate assessments" about the complexities of human nature let alone a banana?

>>>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;<<<

Yet another illogical statement. "Man's life?" what does that mean? A man or all mankind? or all womankind's life? In either case, neither man nor woman can survive alone let alone have well being. It is known that humans need contact with other humans or else they most like end up mentally dysfunctional. Furthermore, man is a part of "society" and society benefits man/woman. If you don't pay your taxes, you ain't gonna get police, sewage, education etc....As for God, that is irrelevent to me unless I need a deity for my mental stability.

>>>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;<<<

I agree on this one. If you want to be alone, if you don't want help anyone but yourself, it's your prerogative. Just don't come crying if no one wants to help you when you need it.

>>>7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;<<<

In this case, I think that the principles of justice and respect for individual autonomy, and personal rights MAY replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships. To say that they MUST is just glaring example of how stupid and contradictory this entire statement is. First, it asserts the importance of "individual autonomy and personal rights.." then it says that it MUST replace the principle of sacrifice. Totally contradicting the concept of individual autonomy. So if I chose to sacrifice my autonomy in this type of society, then I go against it's statement...EVENTHOUGH I'm choosing to exercise my freedom to choose? The whole thing is circular, there is no getting around it. It defeats itself as a principle. If I were a Christian, I'd attribute this to an attempt of Satan to lead you followers away from God.

<<<8. That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;>>>

Hmmm, it seems this ones good doesn't it?

>>>9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;<<<

I ain't gonna start preaching, so I'll leave this one alone. Because I understand the natural instinct for self preservation. But you gotta ask yourself, "permissible by whom?" I guess a concurring majority of the world society in this case.

<<<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>>>

Very good, very good, well said sir. This is agreeable.

May I ask you how you feel about this post? Does it sound belittling? If so, I apologize, I was just making some jokes with the "Trix are for kids stuff" But if it does sound belittling to you and you don't enjoy that sensation, please think
twice before writing such self righteous tone, such an arrogant tone. Because in the end, you AND I are in the same boat....We are both ignorant. :confused:
 
Squashbuckler said:
I used to love eastern philosophy. My best friends(and myself) used to practice zen buddhism. Please heed my advice, and read the one book that will save you, and change your life forever.
If you care about your well-being, youll read it, if you dont, then, you cannot be helped anyway.
My friend refuses to read it. He prefers to run from his fear and practice an irrational discipline: Buddhism.

READ THIS : " For the new intelectual" By AYN RAND.

READ ANYTHING BY AYN RAND.


How much do you know about Zen Buddhism? As far as I know, a full understanding of Zen Buddhism require a full understanding of Buddhism, while a full understanding of Buddhism require a full understanding of the history and contents of different schools of Buddhism (they describe the same thing from different perspectives for the same purpose). Many people know a summary of Buddhism even from the perspective a specific school, but do not know the detailed information of how the world, things, creatures, actions and consciousness come into being or be controlled, as explained by Buddhism as a whole. Actually, very few people know the essence of Zen Buddhism (which prevailed in China's Tang Dynasty, a dynasty with many erudite practioners who knew well and deeply of Buddhism theories, some of them were mistranslated even in ancient China, let alone retranslated accurately into Japanese or English, some even kept secret in Tibet at present and open only to Esoteric Buddhism practitioners). Due to language barriers, many buddhism sultras are wrongly translated and distributed online. It is really an uneasy task to get a full understanding of Buddhism. Many theories and stories were given by the Buddha to facilitate the understanding of learners in light of their own knowledge, conditions and life experiences, but unforturnately misunderstood by a greater number of people. Most Chinese find it difficult to understand so vast number of sultras, let alone you westerners. So, be carefull not to make an arbitrary decision.
 
Last edited:
Squashbuckler said:
I used to love eastern philosophy. My best friends(and myself) used to practice zen buddhism. Please heed my advice, and read the one book that will save you, and change your life forever.
If you care about your well-being, youll read it, if you dont, then, you cannot be helped anyway.
My friend refuses to read it. He prefers to run from his fear and practice an irrational discipline: Buddhism.

READ THIS : " For the new intelectual" By AYN RAND.

READ ANYTHING BY AYN RAND.

Atlas Shrugged, if you haven't read it already, should come next on your Randian to-do list. More prophetic, and frightening, than anything Buddha or Jesus could have come up with.
 
VitalOne said:
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...

You, apparently, haven't a clue what your talking about. Which is Ok. Once you've learned to read past the sixth grade level, try cracking the cover of a Rand book, and maybe you'll actually learn what Objectivism means.

In the mean time, let me try to help the cause by giving you a taste. Objective philosophy is the notion that one mans pleasure does not necesitate another mans pain.

That is, although you are incapable of differentiating between cheesy one-liners in The Matrix and actual natural philosophy, I don't have to feel guilty about it. And I certainly shouldn't have to subsidize an education system responsible for it.
 
I think as long as we realize that what we know is only relative to our experiences
and that what we know really has no meaning to what reality is, we can hypothesize all we want.... Its the person who believes his own bull@#$% that worries me
 
talk2farley said:
You, apparently, haven't a clue what your talking about. Which is Ok. Once you've learned to read past the sixth grade level, try cracking the cover of a Rand book, and maybe you'll actually learn what Objectivism means.

In the mean time, let me try to help the cause by giving you a taste. Objective philosophy is the notion that one mans pleasure does not necesitate another mans pain.

That is, although you are incapable of differentiating between cheesy one-liners in The Matrix and actual natural philosophy, I don't have to feel guilty about it. And I certainly shouldn't have to subsidize an education system responsible for it.
Uhm...you, apparently, don't know how to use the dictionary:
Philosophy. One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
That's what the dictionary says. When I said "It basically says that all reality has to do with is material things", I was technically right, material things being objective. The philosophy of Objectivism existed before Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand's philosophy is based on objectivism (some call it the essence of objectivism), but her philosophy isn't objectivism itself. Ayn Rand seems to pervert the definition of altruism, discouraging people from being unselfish. Her philosophy seems to be very righted-winged and liberatarian. She seems to encourage people to be very independant, and not help others. She also seems to lean towards the idea that being greedy is good for society.

Also, you make a lot of negative assumptions about me? What's that all about? I don't even like that Matrix movie, a lot of the philosophy in it doesn't make sense.
 
Back
Top