Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

According to Heinrich Harrer, friend of the 13th Dalai Lama, and author of Seven Years in Tibet [1953]:

 

"Whether it is Lhasa or Rome -- all are united by one wish: to find God and to serve Him." 

 

This is true. But ultimately no person, institution or concept is noble or great enough. Only the Holy Individual is worth finding and serving in all His potential nobility and greatness. 

Edited by Garshasp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the premise is true. I doubt people would even think up the concept of "God" if other people didn't first plant the idea in their heads -- and even then it would soon be dismissed if it weren't for the generations of tradition meant to dispel doubt and foster mindless obedience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Heinrich Harrer, friend of the 13th Dalai Lama, and author of Seven Years in Tibet [1953]:

 

"Whether it is Lhasa or Rome -- all are united by one wish: to find God and to serve Him." 

 

This is true. But ultimately no person, institution or concept is noble or great enough. Only the Holy Individual is worth finding and serving in all His potential nobility and greatness. 

You wandered into the wrong forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I serve His Noodliness by sabotaging the competition. I once filled a pizza delivery truck's tank with ketchup.

 

Needless to say, the Holy Individual was pleased that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....I doubt people would even think up the concept of "God" if other people didn't first plant the idea in their heads -- and even then it would soon be dismissed if it weren't for the generations of tradition meant to dispel doubt and foster mindless obedience.

 

I meant "god" metaphorically. I think there's a very deep human need to serve something like god. It could also be called "something above, beyond or greater than the self." And these two concepts -- religiosity and altruism -- have been closely linked historically. Objectivism may need to find a concept and sacred ideal to replace "god" in order to give people a properly full, rich, fulfilling, meaningful, purposeful life. I think a superior substitute for the deity is a noble and great One. If this isn't good enough I'm open to suggestions...     

Edited by Garshasp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fullness" and "Richness" and "Purpose" are all achieved through human values, things like inventing iPhones and playing video games and going on a trip with friends. Only a poor substitute for meaning is achieved by being mostly concerned with something other than yourself, wrought with eventual emptiness, bitterness, and confusion. How could you give your life meaning without actually affecting the particulars of your life?

Speaking as an ex-Christian, I can tell you that the religious solution of god and altruism don't produce their professed results, and once you give that crap up and start sinning instead, you begin getting that meaning you're after. Someone else would probably be better than me at guessing why religion and altruism have managed to keep such a stronghold on civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell me you do not use Ragu on the euchrust

During the Holy Communion, the Ragu becomes the blood that flows through His tentacles. A thick, meaty blood, but actual, physical blood nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant "god" metaphorically. I think there's a very deep human need to serve something like god. It could also be called "something above, beyond or greater than the self." And these two concepts -- religiosity and altruism -- have been closely linked historically. Objectivism may need to find a concept and sacred ideal to replace "god" in order to give people a properly full, rich, fulfilling, meaningful, purposeful life. I think a superior substitute for the deity is a noble and great One. If this isn't good enough I'm open to suggestions...     

 

Feuerbach (the “religion of humanity”) and Hegel (“the State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth”) had some suggestions for you, but you won’t find a lot of sympathy for their viewpoints around here.

 

An Objectivist doesn’t recognize the need for any allegiance to a supreme consciousness or higher power other than his own brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feuerbach (the “religion of humanity”) and Hegel (“the State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth”) had some suggestions for you, but you won’t find a lot of sympathy for their viewpoints around here.

 

An Objectivist doesn’t recognize the need for any allegiance to a supreme consciousness or higher power other than his own brain.

 

Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) may not offer us much help. But I'm grateful to you for mentioning Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), who seems like he might be worth investigating. I like it when Feuerbach states: "In the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature," and "If man is to find contentment in God, he must find himself in God."

 

I think a proper Objectivist has to see the Holy Individual as a kind of demi-god. All of society should be dedicated toward serving and uplifting Him and his consciousness/brain (along his hopefully high ideals and noble, great values). I think that's the true meaning of that Heinrich Harrer quote I started with. 

Edited by Garshasp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) may not offer us much help. But I'm grateful to you for mentioning Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), who seems like he might be worth investigating. I like it when Feuerbach states: "In the consciousness of the infinite, the conscious subject has for his object the infinity of his own nature," and "If man is to find contentment in God, he must find himself in God."

 

I think a proper Objectivist has to see the Holy Individual as a kind of demi-god. All of society should be dedicated toward serving and uplifting Him and his consciousness/brain (along his hopefully high ideals and noble, great values). I think that's the true meaning of that Heinrich Harrer quote I started with. 

 

  The Buddhists call this "Eternalism" . You want to find something permanent in reality to dedicate yourself too so that in some sense, you won't have to die. Its a way to escape your mortality. 

  

  I understand, totally. However its not valid.  I don't know of anything that is eternal. Even a Holy Individual will die, become broken, and fail. She will become dust, and even her greatest achievements will fade in the greatest scheme of things. 

 

   http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24800&hl=

 

     Anyways, the point of selfishness is to avoid this fallacy. To live your life to the fullest because there is no other rational option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a proper Objectivist has to see the Holy Individual as a kind of demi-god. All of society should be dedicated toward serving and uplifting Him and his consciousness/brain (along his hopefully high ideals and noble, great values). I think that's the true meaning of that Heinrich Harrer quote I started with.

I you're using this kind of classical/theological terminology to say that each man is an end in itself, it is -- at very least -- not optimal. The human quest for meaning is fundamentally a biological fact: it is a fact about how our brains work well when we have motivation. Objectivism says that each man's end is his owns life. Talking about the "Holy Individual" as "demi-god" is needless terminology that does nothing to make things clearer and may simply confuse the facts.. which are really rather simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a proper Objectivist has to see the Holy Individual as a kind of demi-god. All of society should be dedicated toward serving and uplifting Him and his consciousness/brain (along his hopefully high ideals and noble, great values).

 

As written, this quote is closer to Nazism than anything else. Rand was completely against servitude (ie: the weak should serve the strong, or the stupid should serve the smart). I think she would cringe at the idea that an individual should serve or deify those who 'society' deems to be more successful or 'greater' than us in some way.

 

Society as a whole doesn't have any version of an ideal man, because society is made up of individuals who admire and respect different men and different ideas. Rand's whole point is that on an individual level, we should strive to be better each day, and respect and admire only those who deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As written, this quote is closer to Nazism than anything else. Rand was completely against servitude (ie: the weak should serve the strong, or the stupid should serve the smart). I think she would cringe at the idea that an individual should serve or deify those who 'society' deems to be more successful or 'greater' than us in some way.

 

What I meant is that society should orient itself around the Holy Individual, and do everything to serve the individual, as in all individuals, as in everyone. Society shouldn't serve the collective, nor should any individual serve any other individual. Not sure where the Nazism is in that!

Edited by Garshasp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. When you said 'Holy Individual' it seemed like you were referring to one type of individual (ie: the ideal man). I interpreted your sentence as, "Society should serve the_ideal_man." (Hitler's version of the ideal man was an arian soldier.)

 

 

What I meant is that society should orient itself around the Holy Individual, and do everything to serve the individual, as in all individuals, as in everyone. Society shouldn't serve the collective, nor should any individual serve any other individual.

 

I take it you mean that all individuals should serve/deify themselves, not that society should serve everyone? That's still off-putting, in my opinion. For example, I understand that I'm an end in myself. I'm not here to save the world or save anyone's soul- I'm just here to do things that make me happy and enjoy my life. BUT- if you were to ask me, who is smarter, more important to future generations, etc.. me or Elon Musk? :whistle: Well, I would definitely say Elon Musk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT- if you were to ask me, who is smarter, more important to future generations, etc.. me or Elon Musk?

Do you mean to imply that a person's estimation of themselves needs to be judged or justified by others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone wants to play tennis.

Don't be tempted by badminton.

 

If you think you don't want to play tennis you're just trying to replace the tennis ball in your life with something else.

 

No individual is worthy of playing tennis with, only yourself against a wall. The true monstrosity of badminton is that you can't play it against a wall. (It even says bad right in the name!)

Edited by FrolicsomeQuipster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(It even says bad right in the name!)

:) A guy claiming to be a Rand fan once told me that Objectivism ought to include a God component -- a mystical even irrational component. He topped off by saying "after all 'rational' is contained within 'irrational'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT- if you were to ask me, who is smarter, more important to future generations, etc.. me or Elon Musk?

Do you mean to imply that a person's estimation of themselves needs to be judged or justified by others?

No, she's telling you an objective fact. Are you telling us that self esteem ought to be built at the expense of objective facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, she's telling you an objective fact. Are you telling us that self esteem ought to be built at the expense of objective facts?

 No, self esteem has to be based on facts, and a person's ability to see objective facts about themselves. I think in her original quote I put undue weight on the 'more important to future generations..' than was warranted.

Edited by tadmjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×