Axiomatic

I therefore challenge you to give up drinking alcohol for the rest fo your life and endure the psycological/socialogical pain. Plus, alcohol withdrawl, if in fact you are gorssly habitual, is one of the worst forms of withdrawl known to man. I have seen it first hand. EDIT: Also, I know of occasional Opiate users who are far less agressive and far less prone to infringe apon anothers rights of life, liberty and propery. Now what is your definition of 'safe'? An occasional drunk who loses his ability to control himself in public? Or an Opiate user who can maintain his occasional useage and does so passivley, as per the drug induced state?

I will have to read this later as this library is closing. Is there any chance that you could summarize it a little? I know its not in your self-interest, but come on man, spoon feed me a little.

I'm not sure if I hit upon this with certainty in my post, and I know I ranted a lot so lets make this a little clearer. How I think Mysticism has made its claim on Science is in the supposid contradiction between the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The theory of Relativity, very simply, posits that things on a large 'observable' scale act in a certain manner. Quantum mechanics however says that on a much smaller, finer scale, things seem to act randomly and in contradiction to the laws of cause and effect. Not only that but in Quantum mechanics, the observer effects the results simply by the act of observation. This apprent contradticion (which is supposidly solved by String/M-theory) is exploited by the Mystics to the degree that they can split the world into two Platonic elements, one of the Relative reality, and one of the Absolute where there world of fantasy supposidly exists. The Realtive reality is negated by the fact that Quantum mechanics states that not only do, at a fundamental level, the laws of realtivity break down, but that they are effected by the observer. This leaves a very good case for the mystics to claim that our Reality is not truly real, and that it is our minds that are directly affecting the view of this world merely by the fact that we posses have an obervational faculty of conciousness. Not only that, but the mystics claim that we can develop a 'sixth' sense that can penetrate the unreality of our world and direct the unreality like a magician on a whim by the harnessing of powers that exist beyond the rational mind that percieves it. This metaphysical position serves to undercut confidence in the validity of our senses to receive full knowledge of the world, and thereby cuts mans very mode of survival at the root. Now I realize that this has already been said by Ayn Rand in much better words, but its connection to modern science is what I find astounding. I also have a beef towards (and yes I've read the threads for and against) why Objectivists still wish to knock string theory, when it states that there is an uncuttable, definable, single attribute underlying this reality and solving the problem of Relativity vs Quantum. This seemingly would underscore the fundamental axiom that 'existence exists' by confirming 'how' in fact existence extists absolutely (being that a string, like any other phenomenon, would be an absolute). I am new to Objectvism obviously, so If anyone wants to flesh out this topic a little in this thread, perhaps for thier own amusement or benefit, it would be much appreciated.

Opiates are not actually as incremementally destructive as alcohol as far as I'm aware. The majority of harm related to the use of opiates is high mainly due to inconsistency of the product you purchase, which is the harm factor created by a black market. Most heroin users die from overdose, not liver/kidney failure, and the overdose is related to the fact that they can never be aware of the strength of the product from purchase to purchase. I'm not suggesting however that it is not 'life destroying' when it becomes a habitual 'need' in the long run, but the good applications of opiates for individuals (from a healthcare point of view) far outwiegh the bad. For alcohol however there are very few medical applications and it is just as much, if not more of a slippery slope (due to scoial acceptability) than opiates. I do think that alcohol has two very positive uses. As a fuel and as an on-the-spot antiseptic.

The Steppenwolf is a disturbingly brilliant book. After I read that book I read Ayn Rands the Lone Wolf Mentality essay and the book made so much more sense.

I would also have added to his reamrk of "to a nation that has provided us all with so much." with the question : Who is this 'nation' that provides? Does money now grow on trees, or does God throw it like flowers from the sky?

He is in the media. We might see him run for U.S Prez in 2012. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TnDye3sqB54

I know that there are benefits to some forms of meditation, but they work despite the bad philispohical systems that they are used in. Meditation can be used effectivley for taking a mental inventory of your mind. This helps one to see more clearly the concepts and premises by which our mind is operating more clearly. It can help us to let go of the useless and take up the useful. Of course there are benefits to increased clarity, concentration and relaxation, as well as the added bonus of insight into the functioning of the mind which can be very revealing. States of physical and mental pleasure can definitely achieved along with increased clarity of mind. However there are very real dangers when combined with the wrong philisophical systems. The experiences in meditation are often used to justify to systems under which they are used.

bluey, a little adivce that I always take If they push issues, ask them to turn the other cheek. If they bring up your lapse in faith, ask them politely to forgive you Just use the bible against them, its always the best way.

It is, by far, one of the best TV shows on British Television.

Yes, that does make sense. Its also a kind of fuzzy moral relativism that is very pervasive in our society today. No, its not really anything new but its been stepped up a whole bucnh of notches since Iraq. Not that I agree at all with the invasion of Iraq. I think multiculturalism could be largley responsible for Anti-American sentiment as it seems to be the general rhetoric of the political establishment here to jump on that bandwagon. No I wasn't aware of that, generally becuase I avoid watching T.V. nowadays, especially any twisted news from the BBC. But that is atrocious, now Isreal can't even defend itself against terrorists that like to kill Isreali civilians and hide out in civilian terriritories. The blood is on the hands of Palistinians who voted in Hamas. Yes, I am better off walking away, I see that. But this kind of view is much more pervasive than you might think.

I've recently been having various debates with people on philisophical and political topics, both of which I have most definetly won. I'm not ashamed at all to say that I love debating and I enjoy winning a whole lot more than losing. What I find intruiging is the amount of times afetr winning a debate I was confronted with the phrase 'Well, thats just like, your opinion man'. I thought about this a bit and what kind of mind would make such a statement in the face of defeat. Correct me if I'm wrong but a person that holds the view that all knowledge is uncertain and relative, that no-one can ever be sure that something is true, and that all knowledge in essence just an opinion, must have been influenced to some degree by Kantian philosophy? Either way I've found it useless to debate with these kinds of people, they never learn anything from it. I do however always retort with the phrase "Are you certain of that?". At least then I can smile and enjoy the victory. Another point I want to make is that here in Britain there is a mainstream mindset to be against everything American since the Iraqi occupation. This really angers me and is one occasion I can really lose my cool with people. Its as if some people think they can suckle on America's teat whilst punching it in the other. Most British won't even acknowledge that America is the freest and wealthiest nation and that wealth is a GOOD thing. There is so much more I could say, but sufficed to say that Anti-Americanism makes me sick and very angry to the point where I cannot debate rationally.

It matters to the Tibetans, yes. Certainly it matters to the priestly class who want to take their country back and exploit thier people futher, with muscle and mind. By what right do the Tibetans have to their own land when the history is taken into consideration? The Chinese have built roads, infrastructure and modernized Tibet in many ways. They have also done atrocious things to the indigineous people's. It's a mixed bag and the Chinese had no right to take the land, I agree with you on that. But, the big question now should be, I think, is it possible in reality for Tibet to be under the control of Tibetans again? Is China ever going to give Tibet back to its people? I think the rational answer given the possibilities is, no. So what can be done by Tibetans for Tibet as it is now? I think Tibetans should be focused on bettering themselves and their own living standards under their current government. Thats my two cents anyway.

Not true, Buddhist generally see happiness as a lacking of suffering, basically its just another neutral zero worshipping cult.

Does it really matter? We are talking about the lesser of two evils. Thats still evil. There are no other points to consider on the issue really. I remember watching a Penn and Teller episode about Tibet where they bring up this issue.

They would probably answer: 1. Life is suffering - Thats an anti-life position straight off the bat.

It is a leap and I'm glad to have made it. O'ism is the anti-thesis of mysticism but I've always had secular, atheistic leanings. I was what you'd once consider a Leftist Liberal with a sympathy for all doctrines (however irrational) on the grounds that they were all equal in there moral principles with which I agreed. What changed my mind was seeing the shady underbelly of this kind of collectivism and the havock it wraught, not only on my own mind and self-esteem but on the minds of people I once considered to be of value. I kept my mouth shut and observed 'objectivly' what was being said and what was going on within the groups. It came to a point where the full understanding of their agenda became shockingly clear and I had to cut myself off from those people completely. It doesn't take much clear thinking to distinguish that these collective mystics are based upon the illogical axiom of death and unreality and there followers are led like lambs to the slaughter. I stumbled upon O'ism through my study and interest in politics and my knowledge progressed from there. Now I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for another man nor will I ask another man live for mine.

Can you direct me to any material related to this causal relationship between science and mysticism in the 20-21st century? I'd be interested to study about this. Eastern Mysticism is so popular now that the Dalai Lama has a congressional medal of honor! Think of it, a self-confessed Marxist Monk with a Congressional Medal!? He incidentally has written and co-authored books on the parralels between Science and Buddhist Philosophy. I can't say I'm all that knowledgeable in Science, although I have read a few Brian Green books on Physics and some Dawkins on Evolution. Can't say I know a lot about Greece yet either, though I am going to watch some of MrCropper's video's on Youtube when I get the chance.

I'd like to start by saying that I am in no way an expert on this subject. Eastern Mystics are using scientific data to attempt to back up their claims on thier views and negations of objective reality.The justification goes something to the affect that since it is percieveable in Quantum Physics that an observer can change the outcome and results of the experimental data in certain quatum experiements that this is an affirmation and evidence for the premise than the universe is, at a fundamental level, changing and modifying itself in relation to subjective viewing of reality. This premise then leads the eastern mystics to assert that ultimatly it is our minds that are creating the conditions for the world to manifest around us (like a ever-changing flux of relativism, that can be controlled and mastered by only a few highly skilled manipulators). Eastern Mysticism is almost Kantian in its estimation of reality as being unreal and its assault on reason and knowledge. Here in the West, Kant asserted that the Ultimate reality is unknowable, and we should sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice itself (leaving no reward for ether ourselves or others). The mystics of the East however assert that through meditative techniques one can know the Ultimate reality, and gain direct insight and knowledge to confirm its existence. They also assert that through knowing this reality one automatically assumes the role of a beneficiary to those 'poor souls' who are not privie to such special knowledge. They preach that one of the means in realitive reality to attain the goals of perception of the Ultimate is to develop an 'unlimited' and 'unconditional' love and compassion for 'all beings'. At the same time they nullify and relegate the Relative reality that we experience through the senses as an illusionary, magical display. This goes for all forms of Hinduism and Buddhism. The mess of contradition and sacrifical dogma that these preachers are getting away with is overhwhelming in scale, especially since it is true that mostly intelligent and otherwise capable human beings in the West are now falling for this Myth of Shang Ri La nonsense. Worse than just subordinating reason to faith, these doctrines seek to use and eventually usurp and reverse the reasoning faculty of the conceptual mind, cutting the throat of reason itself. Incidentally I'd be interested to hear what Objectivists think about meditation in general and whether there might be some beneficial applications that do not conflict with Objectivist metaphysics and epsitemology. I know from the John Galt speech that a refutation of these terse philosophies can be done generally, but I think that a more specific approach may be nessasery as these creeds spread across the Western world.

Didn't Rand say something to the effect of, 'if there is a disagreement between rational men, reality will be the final judge'? So if there are two people with two different ideas as to what the objective truth is, only one can be right (or both can be wrong) because reality is not relative to those who view, it is absolute and independent of the viewer.

Hello, I've recently come to Objectivism from a background of Eastern Mysticism. I've only just finished reading Atlas Shrugged (read John Galts speech 4 times over) and absolutely loved the book. I'm a student currently studying in the UK, and well, thats about it. I'm just happy to have come to this philosophy sooner rather than later. I think this philosophy may have saved me just before the point of no return to reality. Happy to be here with you guys and look forward to learning more.