To all atheist

[Egoist]

---

by the way the child i have gotten over ayn rand hehehe i do not like her too much goal-directed character.

[bluedes]

actually sakto ang blog if the criteria is Rand's philosophical system. Rand detested mysticism, in all its forms. so before you guys, criticize the author's thought on rand, i think you should read Rand first, i mean read it, not just the excerpts.

Rand is against mysticism.. but her arguments against mysticism fails.. because she seems to have a very narrow view of mysticism. I doubt she is even contesting the true mysticism.. I wonder how much of mysticism Rand actually knows.

Her strong opposition on Altruism mistakenly crosses over Mysticism, which is not correct anymore.

[The_Child]

good for you, but rand although having a cult-following, still has her essentials. interestingly, she her ethics although selfish, is not utilitarian, but actually deontological. but she is too modern for me... too obsolete.

[Egoist]

kanindot sa iyang g.offer about self hehehe tan.awa ang istorya iniyahay lag depensa wahahaha sakto ba ko?

[The_Child]

Rand is against mysticism.. but her arguments against mysticism fails.. because she seems to have a very narrow view of mysticism. I doubt she is even contesting the true mysticism.. I wonder how much of mysticism Rand actually knows.

Her strong opposition on Altruism mistakenly crosses over Mysticism, which is not correct anymore.

any judgement in recourse to mysticism will fail, i.e., because there is just no criteria to deal with mysticism. So i disagree that one could say rand's perspective on mysticism fails or not, because to judge that situation is to consider a criteria, but there is no criteria in the first place.

for her mysticism is just anything that lends itself to be explained through superstition. so yes, it maybe narrow, but then we cannot really judge, because as ive said, there is no yardstick from which to measure it with certainty.

i dont understand altruism crossing over mysticism though.
cheers!

[bluedes]

any judgement in recourse to mysticism will fail, i.e., because there is just no criteria to deal with mysticism. So i disagree that one could say rand's perspective on mysticism fails or not, because to judge that situation is to consider a criteria, but there is no criteria in the first place.

for her mysticism is just anything that lends itself to be explained through superstition. so yes, it maybe narrow, but then we cannot really judge, because as ive said, there is no yardstick from which to measure it with certainty.

i dont understand altruism crossing over mysticism though.
cheers!

I understand Rayn's stand against Altruism.. and it crosses over what she thinks is Mysticism also..

Contrary to what you say, you can define what mysticism is. From the books I've read on Sufism, and threading on the Path to Discipleship, and some books on Krishnamurti, Ayn Rand falls short of her arguments against mysticism. She mistakes absolute altruism as the basis of mysticism. In fact, to my knowledge, Rand's "selfishness" is a necessary step-ladder towards attaining a mystic level of consciousness.. Beyond that, Rand's "selfishness" is discarded by the mystic as he has no "need" of it anymore..

[Egoist]

so you are suggesting that the criteria of mysticism is according to that books you have mentioned?

[bluedes]

so you are suggesting that the criteria of mysticism is according to that books you have mentioned?

yeah.. mysticism is not that difficult to understand.. in fact, its very technical to a certain degree.
read books written by mystics of the persian or arabian origin, they are not confusing at all..

personally, that's what i think at least.. i understand what they have written.. its very nice and clear..

[The_Child]

I understand Rayn's stand against Altruism.. and it crosses over what she thinks is Mysticism also..

Contrary to what you say, you can define what mysticism is. From the books I've read on Sufism, and threading on the Path to Discipleship, and some books on Krishnamurti, Ayn Rand falls short of her arguments against mysticism. She mistakes absolute altruism as the basis of mysticism. In fact, to my knowledge, Rand's "selfishness" is a necessary step-ladder towards attaining a mystic level of consciousness.. Beyond that, Rand's "selfishness" is discarded by the mystic as he has no "need" of it anymore..

for her, mysticism is synonymous with irrationality. just that. it has nothing to do with transcending notions, because for her, those could not be accounted for by reason.

she has no levels of consciousness, she did not delve into the subject of consciousness except for the idea that consciousness is almost synonymous to awareness of real objects.

her "selfishness" is not mystical, it is not even platonic, but rather primarily aristotelian, to be "selfish" to be rationally selfish is aim towards the aristotelian ethics, that is, "to live the good life" nothing mystical really.

so for her mysticism is just another word for non-rationality. a projection of limitation to a constructed entity inorder to bypass the use of reason for more convenient and less excruciating means: resign it too god. thats rand's idea though. not mine.

[tatakalz]

..nanghinaut ko nga wala ni mosimang sa thread....
I believe in Cultural Relativism that right and wrong is merely an opinions and opinions base from one culture to another culture....

meaning you can't judge them because they are different; they have their own practice and beliefs.and you must not change them in accordance to your belief, ( pasagdi cla nga mangita sa kamatuoran )

ex. Greek believe that is right to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believe that it is wrong to eat the dead..

...therefore eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong, it is a matter of opinions base on their cultures....