Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Isn't Zen Buddhism compatible w/ Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Truthseeker
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is a known problem and we are working on it. When you joined the forum the Cabal was supposed to inform you of the secret handshake as well as send you the secret decoder ring. The messages you are reading are really in code and you cannot discern their true meaning until you employ the secret decoder ring. Please be patient. Your decoder ring is in the mail.

In the meantime, I do want you to know that your posts here have been a true inspiration to us. I am sure with enough of your special training we too can become rational and also eventually believe in God just like you.

Mediatate on that, and be sure to let the door slam you in the rear on your way out.

p.s. I have printed out your wonderful words ...

... and put them in a frame, hanging on the wall between a picture of Jesus Christ and Rodney Dangerfield. It was difficult deciding which of these pictures your framed words should be closest to, so I put them in the middle.

Make fun of me all you want. However, realize that people who utilize your line of "rational thinking" once thought the earth was flat. Then someone came along who was open to all ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Make fun of me all you want.

Make fun of you? How could I possibly make fun of someone so perceptive as to identify Objectivists as "religious fanatics?"

However, realize that people who utilize your line of "rational thinking" once thought the earth was flat.
What???? The Earth is NOT flat???? Stop the presses....

Then someone came along who was open to all ideas.

Yes, I remember him well. His name was Joe. Nice guy, but he only lasted a few years, though. His mind was so open that his brain slid right out. A very sad sight.

Keep up the good work.

p.s. Are you having trouble finding the exit door?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I thought this quote from a recent Dr Hurd article would be relevant to this thread.

The ultimate escape from responsibility is belief in a Higher Being. Belief in a higher being encourages one to view unhappy events as something "done to" them, while happy occurrences are viewed as blessings "bestowed upon" them. This supernatural belief has the psychological consequence of keeping the individual from looking at his own role in both the good and bad things that happen in his life. This detachment between self and events in the world can lead to a whole host of psychological problems and disorders: clinical depression, paralyzing anxiety, and much else.

The rest of the article can be found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This detachment between self and events in the world can lead to a whole host of psychological problems and disorders: clinical depression, paralyzing anxiety, and much else.

This is almost the exact same warning that Christians issue with respect to the nihilism that results from scientific materialism's denial of consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been one of the best threads on this board. I love this stuff...lol.

As for the Dr. Hurd article, I've been saying the same thing for a while now. It makes so much sense psychologically.

Why don't we have more people in the psychiatry field with Objectivism theories? Why hasn't philosophy and psychology merged yet? Why doesn't psychiatry acknowledge that psychiatry presupposes philosophy and not the other way around?

/endoffsubjectrant/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't we have more people in the psychiatry field with Objectivism theories? 

Why hasn't philosophy and psychology merged yet?  Why doesn't psychiatry acknowledge that psychiatry presupposes philosophy and not the other way around? 

Cultural change takes TIME -- but it is happening.

In the meantime, there are many fine Objectivist therapists out there including psychologists (Ellen Kenner, Edwin Locke, Michael Hurd, Cynthia Peikoff, etc.) and psychiatrists (Jonathan Rosman, Arthur Mode).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Then someone came along who was open to all ideas.

I seriously doubt Christopher Columbus was open to "all ideas." Educated men had known since Plato and Aristotle that the world was round by scientific calculations. They just didn't admit it publically because of fear of the Catholic church.

Being open to all ideas is a dangerous thing. In order to be open to an idea I want rational proof of why I should be open to that idea. Your method seems to be arbitraily suggest an idea and then get mad when we don't accept it as canon based on your word. You also don't define what type of meditation you mean: whether transcendental meditation, relaxation, or the literal dictionary meaning of mediation, "thinking deeply."

I agree with a previous poster on here: your ideas don't seem to be clear in your own mind and that is why people are perceiving them wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone else I know says, we sinful men must "stumble and bumble" our way through life, relying on the mercy of God.

Speak for yourself. I am without God and sin. I do not stumble, and I do not bumble. I rely on nobody's mercy.

You are the blight on humanity. Not me. For, you have orphaned your own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Catholics have done wrong things in the past.  Does that mean that the Church is now inadequate?  No.  As someone else I know says, we sinful men must "stumble and bumble" our way through life, relying on the mercy of God.  The same goes for the Church.

Does the fact that Catholics have done "wrong things" mean that the church IS adequate???

The catholic church, as it exists today, is even worse an institution than it was in past centuries. and it was dreadful then.

Anyway, why would any religious person post here??

I wouldn't bring a ouija board to a chess tournament.

And you shouldn't bring nonsense here.

We are here to get away from nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt Christopher Columbus was open to "all ideas." Educated men had known since Plato and Aristotle that the world was round by scientific calculations. They just didn't admit it publically because of fear of the Catholic church.

Ummm....the fact that the world was round was not a well-known fact at all. In fact, even in classical times the predominant consensus that the world was flat. Although the ideas were there, they were often mocked by classical authors, and later medieval authors. Saint Augustine compared belief in the antipodae (the notion that at the other side of the world people walk with feet wacing us) to the heretical sect of the Manichaeans. Although this theory was advanced by Aristarchus of Samos, Eratosthes, and Ptolemy, Plato's flat-earth theory was far more accepted because his opinions were valued so much more. You are insisting that the Catholic Church didnt promote education, when in fact all of Europe's old universities are Catholic in origin. We preserved writing, believe it or not, and we promoted scholasticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself. I am without God and sin. I do not stumble, and I do not bumble. I rely on nobody's mercy.
...whatever you say, is true...

Does the fact that Catholics have done "wrong things" mean that the church IS adequate???

It is by virtue of the fact that Jesus Christ established the Church, and the gift of the Holy Spirit which she recieved at Pentecost, which means that the Church will always be adequate.

Anyway, why would any religious person post here??
To talk to you. What does anyone care why I want to post here? I am here, and that is all that matters now.

And you shouldn't bring nonsense here.

We are here to get away from nonsense.

The idea that the earth was round was at first "nonsense" too, my good sir.

How can this be an "objective" forum if a person calls something else nonsense right off the bat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe I am trolling.  Why is there such hostility when I try to defend MY beliefs?  Are you objective, or are you book-burners?  I have not attacked objectivism on this thread once.

I don't believe you're a troll, and I believe that you mean well.

You might find people are warmest to you if you stay to the Introductions area initially, however. In most areas here, discussion is about coming to understand or to further Objectivism. Distracting others from that end could be considered hostile, and indeed -- many visitors do this deliberately.

In the Introductions area, the thread can be about you and all that you wish to share. There, it is very appropriate to discuss personal beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm....the fact that the world was round was not a well-known fact at all.

Of course it was. The fact that ignorant men choose to ignore it didn't make it go away.

In fact, even in classical times the predominant consensus that the world was flat.  Although the ideas were there, they were often mocked by classical authors, and later medieval authors.  Saint Augustine compared belief in the antipodae (the notion that at the other side of the world people walk with feet wacing us) to the heretical sect of the Manichaeans.
Augustine is hardly a representative for rational people of any era.

Although this theory was advanced by Aristarchus of Samos, Eratosthes, and Ptolemy, Plato's flat-earth theory was far more accepted because his opinions were valued so much more.  You are insisting that the Catholic Church didnt promote education, when in fact all of Europe's old universities are Catholic in origin.  We preserved writing, believe it or not, and we promoted scholasticism.

You seem to be practicing revisionist history. If you will remember, the Catholic church threatened to kill Galileo if he didn't recant his theory that the sun was at the center of the solar system. It is also the church, Catholic and Protestant, which has been the most vocal in opposing the end to every social evil (discrimination, slavery) and in opposing scientific progress (the Big Bang theory, the theory of Evolution). The Catholic church is also notorious for opposing contraceptives (see Ayn Rand's Return of the Primitive for an analysis of this).

The Catholic church has supported education when it suited their needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not believe I am trolling ... I have not attacked objectivism on this thread once.

Not only have you attacked Objectivism, but you have attacked all of humanity with your "sinful man" nonsense. You bear false witness against your neighbors--every single day. Can you honestly and reasonably defend your belief that every man, woman, and child is born with the sin of Adam?

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?

I suggest that you throw away that useless faith of yours, look at the world around you, and jumpstart your brain. I, for one, will not stand for your faith-based jabs at my glorious consciousness.

If it makes you feel better to believe that you are a product of sin, then that's your problem. But don't accuse everyone else on this planet of being like you.

There is a better moral system than yours. It's called Objectivism. You should read about it, before you start judging people like me. I've done my homework on Christianity. Have you done yours on Objectivism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only have you attacked Objectivism, but you have attacked all of humanity with your "sinful man" nonsense. You bear false witness against your neighbors--every single day. Can you honestly and reasonably defend your belief that every man, woman, and child is born with the sin of Adam?

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?

I suggest that you throw away that useless faith of yours, look at the world around you, and jumpstart your brain. I, for one, will not stand for your faith-based jabs at my glorious consciousness.

If it makes you feel better to believe that you are a product of sin, then that's your problem. But don't accuse everyone else on this planet of being like you.

There is a better moral system than yours. It's called Objectivism. You should read about it, before you start judging people like me. I've done my homework on Christianity. Have you done yours on Objectivism?

Do I have to respond to a post like this? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I have to respond to a post like this? :lol:

No. You do not have to respond. You also do not have to bring your religion to the doorstep of those whose philosophy is antithetical to your own. We do not comprise our reason to your faith, nor do we sacrifice our proper morality to your fantasy of God. We would never think of knocking on your door -- you represent no value to us -- so why do you continue to pound on the door to our forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 8th path is that of meditation and meditation is not a state of deep introspection; it is the attempt to obliterate all thought. 

Yes. The last time I studied the topic, the purpose of Zen Bhuddist meditation was to obliterate rationality. The ZB student is peppered with nonsensical sayings all day (such as the ever-popular "What is the sound of one hand clapping?") and told to empty their mind during meditation, to basically become nothing. It is truly the exact polar opposite of Objectivism; it's a desire to achieve a state of non-existence.

I take "meditation" to mean mental relaxation, or quiet thinking about a subject, uninterrupted by daily concerns. If I get stressed out, it helps me to relax. I fail to see how that is irrational, or an indication of not being healthy - except overstressed.

Many people seem to use intuition to mean what Ayn Rand thought of as well-integrated knowledge; things that we know so well that we no longer have to explicitly make the mental connections we used to to learn them in the first place; we just know it. Why can "intuition" not be used to describe this?

What about creativity, which involves simply trying out combinations of things in new ways, that have not been done before? I am fully aware that this is based on rational thought and knowledge (or can be), but it is not determined by that prior knowledge. What should be used to describe mental leaps to radically new ideas? Or am I simply applying rationality in too narrow a scope, and in fact this is reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...