Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sherlock

Regulars
  • Posts

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sherlock

  1. GoodOrigamiMan, You wrote: "You might want do draw a line for yourself between Philosophy and Psychology – then try and keep them separate in discussion." Why? If a philosophy is to be more than mind games and hypotheticals, it must be lived. I see no reason to examine the topic of suicide on some purely hypothetical level with no bearing on the real world. You wrote: "Also, please try using proper quotes - it will make your posts much easier to read." I'm something of a Luddite, I will freely admit. I haven't bothered to find out how to snip quotes, and may not get around to it anytime soon, as I am usually in a hurry when I am posting here, snatching a little bit of time here and there. If I have a surplus of time, however, I promise you that I will at least read the instructions. Gadfly, You wrote: "It is not necessary to be omniscient to be able to determine what one's future will be... in some cases." True enough: if I lost an eye, I can say with confidence that I won't be seeing with two eyes in the future. I guess I had in mind "situations" wherein the permanence was not a matter of fact but of fallible human assessment (rather than "conditions" that are facts to be dealt with). You wrote: "OK, suppose there existed a real couple exactly like Hank and Dagny." If I have to make them up in my mind, then they don't exist. I was asking for real-life scenarios. You asked, "What if we rule out the cases were mental illness/unhappiness is involved, and are left with the question: is there any circumstance in which a clear-headed, mentally healthy, rational individual would be right to commit suicide?" Well, I mentioned Hitler in a previous post: obviously his happiness would have been seriously hampered by the Allies if he had been caught and made to face the consequences of his actions. So, if the purpose of suicide is to avoid unpleasant consequences of one's actions, then it can achieve that end. Also, I'm sure there are cases where individuals have chosen to commit suicide rather than face the physical pain of torture: again, suicide achieves that end. But avoidance of consequences or avoidance of physical pain do not, in themselves, answer whether or not the action of suicide in these cases is "right", they only provide the circumstances that we would find understandable. If, in either of these two circumstances, the individuals chose not to commit suicide, I would be hard pressed to say that they did the "wrong" thing (which would be the implication if suicide in those cases was "right"). In any case, to say that suicide is "life-affirming" is, as I said in an earlier post, very Orwellian. I suspect that people who say such things have little real experience with suicide, so that they are able to entertain lofty, high-minded fantasies about it. Since I have lost two brothers to suicide, I have no tendencies towards idle day-dreaming on this topic and little patience for those who do.
  2. Megan, You wrote: "When you say depressed you mean clinically depressed." That's right. Most people who commit suicide are suffering from it. You wrote: "I do not mention depression, I mention a sadness produces as a reaction in a rational person." This kind of sadness does not typically result in suicide. Which is a good thing, as individuals usually "get over" the kind of sadness you're speaking of. You wrote: "A person's goal is to achieve and sustain this happiness, and in a situation where this is impossible, a person's decision to take her life is rational. You are correct in asserting that we are not omniscient, we must, however, be capable of making causal, rational judgements." Yes, but the judgement "this situation renders it impossible for me to be happy, and it will never, ever change" requires omniscience. Failing that ability, it is not a rational assessment. You wrote: "Its a fallacy to say that everyone who commits suicide has a mental disorder." I didn't say that. Nor would I say it, as I don't believe it. Hitler, for example, committed suicide, and the action was quite a rational one (there is no evidence that he was suffering from clinical depression; rather, it is more likely he wanted to avoid facing the consequences of his actions). You wrote: "To live, just to survive would deprive me of any purpose. Yes, I would commit suicide." Easily said from the comfort of one's home, sitting at a computer, in temperature-controlled, cushy surroundings. History shows us a different story: people in the Soviet gulags and Nazi concentration camps hung on. Obviously, some survived to be thankful that they had not taken your option.
  3. Punk, You wrote: "The real reformation was in the Anabaptists who were trying to free the people from an oppressive clergy." They were interested in setting up an oppressive clergy of their own: look at what what happened when they took over the government of the city Münster in 1534. Treasures of literature and art were destroyed; communism and polygamy were introduced. It is true that they mellowed---the Amish of today are descendants of that movement.
  4. Megan, You wrote: "Although I was depressed and on the brink of suicide, the obvious potential of the rest of my life prevented me from taking my own life." Which merely means that you were not so depressed that you you couldn't recognize that "obvious" potential. Seriously depressed people's brains are so messed up that they can't recognize potential when it is staring them in the face. You wrote: " A situation that warrants suicide is a permanent one, it is one the denies value to you for the rest of your life...yes...like Socrates." First off, Socrates was ORDERED to commit suicide; he didn't pass that sentence on himself. His accusers merely used his own hands to administer capital punishment. He was a martyr for truth, not a suicide for truth. Secondly, in order for one to determine if a situation is permanent, one would need to be omniscient. "Even the wise cannot see all ends", to borrow a line... You wrote: "For a person who DOES (when he is allowed to achieve value) value his life it is a very brave decision to make to take take ones own life, to affirm that only he has the power to control or to extinguish his being." In the real world, I don't see that happening. I see people screwing up, then getting back on their feet. Those who commit suicide, more often than not, are people who are depressed and thus unable to think rationally. You wrote: " To those who commit suicide due to a depression caused by bad philosophy, yes the death was unnecessary and no it was not cowardly. Rather, a very serious and difficult decision." Yes, a very serious and difficult decision. In order to make serious and difficult decisions, it is necessary that one have full grasp of one's rational faculties. By definition, a depressed person does not.
  5. Redfarmer, Atlas Shrugged is fiction. John Galt didn't exist. I'm interested in real life situations, not fantasy: give me a comparable real-life situation in which suicide is life-affirming. This is so Orwellian: next you'll be telling me that the chocolate ration has been increased from three ounces to one.
  6. Ooops, in re-reading my post I see a typo: that should be "sola fide", not sole fide.
  7. I don't agree with your reasoning. Indivisibility is not the essential aspect of a society: by definition, a society is made up of more than one individual. One individual does not a society make---by definition, a society (especially in its larger sense, i.e: an enduring and cooperating group, interacting with one another, having common traditions, interests, etc. such as a nation) has to consist of more than one individual. Therefore, divisibility will always be a hallmark of a society. Also, families produce children, not individuals. The more prone to divisibility the family is (high divorce rates, etc), the less stable the resulting society is (for example, fatherless children are more inclined to violence than those raised in two-parent, stable households). You can have a society without families, but not for very long. So you need to take a different approach, as this one doesn't work.
  8. Suicide is a cop-out. Megan wrote: " To live it not a value, but to live happily is". Eh? Then few teenagers would live to see their twenties, as most seem to go through a period of swimming in angst and misery. Should I consider killing myself if my spouse leaves me? Should I kill myself if my girlfriend screws around? Should I kill myself if my compnay goes under and I am laid off? All of these situations would tend to cause unhappiness. A man puts up with what life dishes out. A man doesn't wimp out and take the easy way out. A person who has reached the point of suicide is not likely to be operating with the full use of his faculties anyway, as depression screws up a person's capacity to think. Speaking as a person who has lost two brothers to suicide...
  9. Hi Wishbone, You asked, "What would you say would be a "standing on one leg" summary of Luther's message?" I'm not sure that such a summary would be useful, or fair to Luther! But I would have to say that "sole fide" would certainly be the overiding message. Luther's writings make for interesting reading. A picture of a very conflicted man emerges... You wrote: "BTW: Are you implying that being "tolerant of divergent viewpoints" a good thing, regardless of what those divergent viewpoints are?" It depends on what you mean by "tolerant". Luther encouraged the princes to slaughter rebelling peasants (resulting in an estimated 100,000 deaths), so I don't see him as a figure who championed individual rights. Carlstadt and Zwingli became bitter enemies merely because they disgreed with him, and Luther attributed satanic influences to those who dared to do so. You wrote: "At any rate, there is a certain progession of ideas that build upon each other, or revolt against the other, but are still linked in a historical progression." I agree.
  10. Free Capitalist, Yes, it does answer my objection; thank you for clarifying. You wrote: "Aquinas' value lies primarily not in what he said, which wasn't that much, but what influence the little that he said had on the rest of the church." I would dispute your claim that he didn't have much to say, however I will agree that his value was chiefly in his influence on the rest of the Church. You wrote: "So if you point to things like the early Christian universities, I will point to the inspiration and the intellectual models for these early institutions: the Academy and the Lyceum." Actually, I was not pointing to anything. I was merely responding to your answer to another poster regarding the role that the church played in establishing many of Europe's universities.
  11. Wishbone, Luther's message was most emphatically NOT, as you put it, "don't listen to the church, think for yourself". Luther's message was, "Listen to ME". He was not at all tolerant of divergent viewpoints. You wrote: "History doesn't move from imperfect to perfect in one jump." I would question the premise that it moves from imperfect to perfect at all: the premise that modern thought is superior to all past forms of understanding reality needs to be proven first. Also, it is an oversimplification to state the progression as "a line running from Catholics, to Luterans, to Deists, and then... branching out to Kant." It is essential to understand the underlying philosophies behind and originating in the Reformation. Luther had a tendency towards scrupulosity; this could be traced at least partly (he may have also suffered from OCD) to the influence of Ockhamism, which injected arbitrariness---quite the opposite of Thomism. Ockhamism laid the foundation, so to speak, for Luther's actions and their success. But I will agree with you that it could be argued that Kant could be a "descendant" of Luther...
  12. I would agree with BurgessLau: "family values" generally means, 1) Valuing the family as the basic unit of society, and 2) Valuing anything which either supports or protects the family. Arguments against this, then, need to argue first against the family as the basic unit of society. If it is, then that obviously that justifies and necessitates #2. So, how would you argue against #1?
  13. Free capitalist, You asked, "When were they collectively dismissed?" In your previous post, you stated "All of Europe's old universities were founded on the ancient Greek model, by those of the Christians who were a little less irrational than the rest." The set "Christians", consists then, in this case, of a sub-set who founded Europe's old universities and "the rest" (meaning, all others). Irrationality is attached to the group, the only difference being the degree. This can reasonably be said to be a collective dismissal of their rationality. Since this group also includes Aquinas, I cannot agree with your assessment.
  14. Wishbone, I don't agree that the Protestant Reformation was a step along the way toward a more reason-based philosophy. I would argue quite the opposite: the Reformation mainstreamed relativism and subjectivism. Protestantism today has splintered into 30,000+ denominations, each with its own version of "truth", which often contradicts the 'truth" of the next Protestant church down the street. If everything is truth, then nothing is truth.
  15. Free Capitalist, Regardless of what Europe's universities were modeled on, it is true that many of them were founded by Catholic monks. Facts are facts. And the intellectual tradition of Catholicism includes heavyweights such as Aquinas, so it would be better to address the arguments presented by such philosophers than to dismiss them collectively.
  16. Misterswig, You wrote: "No, you can't. Not without a myth or two from the Bible. In fact, you can't prove anything without shoving the Bible in someone's face and demanding that they have faith in its nonsense, can you?" That's not actually a fair charge. Aquinas, who took Aristotle and "Christianized" it, certainly appeals to logic and reason. It would be better to challenge Aquinas' "five ways", then to make charges that sound too irrational and, frankly, overly emotional. You are not doing your "argument" any favors.
  17. I can only speak to my own experience: I found the opposite to be true. When I attended a Baptist church in my twenties, I found that I thought more about what happened after I died, and how I could best live to obtain heaven. Meaning, these thoughts affected what I did and did not do. Becoming an atheist was to take a much easier road: no heaven or hell, no alteration necessary in lifestyle.
  18. Hey Jay P, You wrote: "Being dogmatic means accepting things on the basis of somebody else's authority." Actually, that's not an accurate definition. Dogma being defined as "something held as an established opinion; esp. : a definite authoratative tenet", I don't have a problem with Objectivism being seen as dogmatic. It is, nor do I think we need shy away from that fact, but should be unafraid of pronouncing what we believe---else why believe it? If something is true, why should I be afraid of saying so?
×
×
  • Create New...