midniterequiem

I have a bad history with reading books haha. I like reading, just not being still. The more I read about Objectivism here and online though, the more interesting it is. My life philosophy works well for me though, so I don't see myself making any huge changes, although I agree a lot with Ayn Rand, and therefore Objectivism already. Although I still remain a socialist, by pre-marxist standards, or maybe my own kind. I think I'm going to redirect some my friends here, or at least somewhere at Objectivism, though. While my life philosophy works very well for me, they typically don't even have one; I don't consider anything intrinsic much of a way to see the world. One of my friends actually likes Nietsche. I hate Nietsche! Not really, I just don't like a lot of his ideas. Anyway, adieu.

It's not much of a debate as Chops points out (never considered the acronym part! From now on, I am MR I guess), but I suppose I'll go and see what others think.

A) You don't have to call me MR. haha, I'm sure you're older than I. My current God theory is that God exists, has consciousness and facilitated the creation of the universe. No, I have no evidence haha XD C) Yes, an undefined God has 0 meaning, but that's what the searching is for. The problem is that I really don't think I'll ever find any conclusive answers, unless he shows himself to me in a tangible way. D) All of that is basically a "yes, I have no idea." lol about the original, I voted for religion too as more dangerous, but i agree with moebius. When asked "socialism or religion?" you sort of just have to make a quick-call. If you think of it in terms of how bad they can escalate, I would think religion still takes the cake because socialism at its worst (i.e. Communism) already failed once, but religious wars still persist.

I'm doing fine. I wasn't rationalizing my habit, I denounce it personally. I just noted that "right" and "wrong" is very subjective and attached mostly to societal norms. I found this site by a fluke. I was bored and looking up what people thought was the "worst moment in history" because I wanted to see how many people actually think it was 9/11, and I found a link taking me to a discussion on this forum. I was under the false impression that this site was dedicate to debate under the idea of "objectivity" like in journalism. This wasn't disappointing though because I found most of the people's comments and discussions to be intellectually stimulating (which I love... except this one on whether or not we should just nuke tehran haha that was just funny). Then I dug further until I realized what Objectivism, and not Objectivity, was. I have read nothing, nor do I really intend to, besides ask questions. If the main goal of Objectivism is that every person's life goal is the pursuit of one's own happiness, then we agree. My philosophy is based on that single idea 1) reaching contentment, the state where one is happy with one's self, their surroundings and how they interact with those surroundings. Everything else I call my "sub-philosophy" because I think most things are subjective (which would be my difference). My idea is that reality exists apart from our perception, but we have nothing else to draw from except our perception which is incomplete; basically it doesn't matter what is "real" because whatever you believe is what will run your life. I know that my knowledge is largely incomplete, but I have noticed some trends, at least on some posts here. The objectivists seem to take on the persona of Ayn Rand. She grew up in a Communist society, so from a psychological standpoint, it seems logical that she would denounce Communism and its little brother socialism. I myself am a socialist of sorts, but not of the Communist variety, more along the lines of the hopelessly unrealistic utopian socialists, pre-marxist socialism haha. I know, it won't happen, so realistically I do agree with Ayn Rand. Well this is going to keep my mind flowing a time to come :] I spend a long time writing these things not only because i write a lot, but because I literally sit and think for 10-30 minutes every so often while I'm writing.

what exactly are you suggesting mr swig? that it's better to have a defined God based on things that can't even be proven? That's irrational. Besides, life has no meaning either. Ethics comes into play only after the decision of continued life is made, what for? there is no reason except the affirmitive.

the more i think about it, the more it appears to be subjectivism. Rather, the more I think about it, the more subjectivism seems to be objectivism. Or maybe I've always practiced objectivism and just didnt know it had a name. For example, awhile ago, when i was depressed beyond words, I thought about suicide, but to me suicide is stupid because death offers nothing and life offers opportunity. But I also picked up a bad habit of cutting myself. I was wondering one day what made it "wrong" to cut myself? Why was it a big deal when I had no intentions of taking my life, and I washed the knife i used in soap and water? I realized there is no "wrong" or "right" in that scenario. In africa, many tribes practice self-mutilation as a right of passage, and indeed, I thought of my scars more as a reminder to live and not forget next time that I've been through these things before. Here in the states its taboo. Either or view is subjective on the matter, but I'm thinking my "objectivism" is the ability to see all subjective frames and realize when and why certain ones were appropriate. If I'm right, then I have a new word for my pre-existing philosophies, but I would still hesitate to associate myself with a leader-figure.

Rationality is based on logic isn't it? So wouldn't it be illogical to assume the existence of a super-being without any evidence and then to actually describe said super-being? Whereas, there is no confirmation nor denial of (a) super-being(s), so looking for information to validate or disproove it is not illogical; it's just a search (albeit with most likely no end). haha, i might be using another term too freely again though :] that is my greatest problem, clearly defining terms; like asking what the meaning of life is... I realized I hadn't even defined "meaning"; then I realized its subjective so there is no "meaning" of life the way people might want it to exist. Even if we are mysteriously upholding some balance in the universe, there is nothing to posit that it needs to be maintained. In this case, rationality would mean uncertain, but sensible. Since possibility of a God isn't impossible, it's a rational thought... i think haha *** Mod's note: Replies that focus on God etc. -- rather than religion vs. socialism -- have been moved here ***

Why should man survive?

And so it be's!!! In a nutshell, I basically just said maybe I use the term too freely, because to me socialism is more about the individual working for the individual on a mutual understanding of productivity. I do not envision anyone being subjected to the whim of the society, they would be free to pursue their dreams (depending on what they are because Stalin jr is unnecessary). I have not come up with an elaborate plan for how this society works, merely dreamt about it (figuratively). The problem with my vision is that it requires people to work for others interests in order to work for their own, selfishness does not mix well with this. If you had an army of Joseph's (that would be me), then socialized medicine wouldn't be so bad because I do such things for the love of doing it, and finding better medications to help my fellow human sounds exhilirating. This stems from my vision of Personal Success. I am what you might call a Co-dependent; I attach myself very strongly to people who depend on me. My greatest joy in life is to help other people fulfill there dreams, while simultaneously becoming a melting pot of knowledge and wisdom. What do you mean by moral? If by moral you mean "right", then I find it interesting that you would make such adamant assumptions. Don't get me wrong, I agree that is right; I believe all we can do in our lives is to attain Personal Success, but I believe this while acknowledging that it is based on assumption because there is no right or wrong in nature; there is nothing moral about it, it is simply what I prefer to think. As for religion, let me clearly define what I mean by religion "the organized, hierarchical system that makes doctrines irrationally". It is not irrational to think the possibility of a God-creature or creatures, but it is irrational to make any statements about its/their character and desires. Since the possibility is open, however, the search is also not irrational, however unlikely you are to actually turn up solid answers. I think that was it. So maybe I'm not a real socialist, maybe you call me a utopian socialist? I hear they were ridiculed by people like Marx haha. I can't blame him for ridiculing it. It's not feasible in the world today. I do believe that the full potential of humanity is to transcend the Survival of the fittest notion and defend the weak. We already care for the lesser animals when we save them from extinction, so why not our own kind? My "socialist" ideas also come from the fact I perform much better in "no competition" things; for example lifting weights. It's so much more peaceful and lovely. Just one more rep for the hell of it. And why not one more? No one's watching, try again. Probably all product of my deeper psyche.

I think I've made up my mind religion poses the greatest threat to any civilized society. I believe in God, but religion is not God. The way I see it, every human has a natural desire to seek the truth of life (some ignore it), but so few are afraid of the possibilities that they cut it short in favor of a sure doctrine decided upon by mortal man anyway. Even a short study of history will show how the dominant Judeo-Christian and Islamic religions incorporated pagan rituals and customs into their belief system; not to mention their holy books are in no way perserved. In the case of christianity, the bible was never agreed upon until the Roman Catholic Church prevailed over the smaller christian churches and dominated for 1000 years +. The main theme is that most people are either afraid, stupid or lazy. To assume that any world religion is the absolute correct path is nothing short of idiocy, it's like supporting the democratic candidate in an election simply because you associate yourself with democrats. It's always best to mediate and think. I believe in God, and I really doubt he gave us our incredible minds just for show. On top of all that, people forget, the only way to tell if something is a metaphor is if it betrays practical reality, and in the case of christianity, there is nothing in the bible stating "this is literal". My beliefs are christian in origin, so I can't say much about the other world religions, however, I have briefly looked into Islam (briefly). As for socialism, it's a very nice idea and maybe someday humans will be ready for it, but as it stands, it is impossible in its entirety. Maybe some of its philosophies are useful, but as for universal medical insurance or what have you, I don't think the United States can afford things like that right now, seeing as Social Security is dying (correct me if I'm wrong, I came here to learn XD)

1) Use of Nuclear Force will upset China, Russia, the rest of the world; I don't care how powerful you think we are, we can't take on the entire world. 2) Use of Nuclear Force will upset the American People (majority) 3) Radiation will spread with the winds 4) Nukes kill indiscriminantly and that would make us no better than terrorists (terrorists attack civilian targets afterall) 5) We owe it to the people who died on 9/11 to cherish their memories and protect ALL people from stupid terrorists And some events tied to the those five 6) It will NOT make the US more safe because then the entire world will be wanting our downfall. 7) It will NOT make the US more safe because its own population will probably revolt or at least protest maniacally. 8) Nuclear Wars are no fun 9) To use Nuclear Weapons, you'd have to bypass much of our entire Congressional system and give the Commander-in-Cheif insane power, which is exactly what the US does NOT need because that's what our founding fathers fought against. Unless