Isn't Zen Buddhism compatible w/ Objectivism?

[stephen_speicher]

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?

Oops. That should be "We do not COMPROMISE our reason to your faith ..."

[Free Capitalist]

Ambrose, a claim that someone else is evil by nature, that all of us here are evil by nature, is a personal affront of the worst kind. So don't say that you haven't attacked Objectivism, or do not deserve hostile remarks. Withdraw your insult immediately.

As to your other claims about classical authors mocking round world views, please support this very big claim with substantive facts, or withdraw it.

As to your statement that

in fact all of Europe's old universities are Catholic in origin.

That is flat out false. 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.

In general, please amend your behavior because we take ideas seriously. Unlike most other forums on the net, ideas can't just be thrown down here by anyone who wishes to unload some refuse from their heart.

[Sherlock]

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.

[Free Capitalist]

When were they collectively dismissed?

[Sherlock]

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.

[MisterSwig]

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.

1. What isn't a fair charge? That you can't defend original sin without using the Bible myths? Did Aquinas defend original sin using reason? If so, show me where, and I'll look at it.

2. Or do you have a problem with the formulation of my subsequent question? Which wasn't exactly a "charge," but more like a challenge to Ambrose, who, as far as I can tell, has little in common with Aquinas.

Anyway, I'm not going to address Aquinas' arguments for God on this thread. My focus here will remain on the accusation of original sin. If you want to start a new thread on the "five ways," be my guest. I'm sure some people will have a few criticisms for you.

[Free Capitalist]

Men like Aquinas were learned exceptions. And even they had a lot to say that was wrong.

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. He created interest within Christianity for Aristotle, and enabled his transmission to the future. So while Aquinas was head and shoulders above the rest of his contemporaries, on the grand scale of things I wouldn't give him a great deal of personal acknowledgement. Take Aristotle away, and what does Aquinas have left?

That's the story everywhere in Christianity - everything that's good in it was borrowed from the Ancients, even things like the Christmas holiday. 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. It's a small wonder that even the names of these Greek schools were adopted by the new universities.

But with all that said, I still don't see where the Christians have been collectively dismissed. I've never said, "Disregard them because there's nothing there to learn or understand." There's a lot there to learn and understand, quite a bit to consider, such as their (Aquinas') arguments for God. I hope this answers your objection.

[Sherlock]

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.