Non-Conformist Philosophies

[Snorri1234]

And I'm supposed to believe that you understand them? Why do you think you can get a free pass out of any critical thought whatsoever? Until you explain how exactly I'm wrong, I maintain that I understand them, that you don't, and that you're just trying to cover your ass for not seeing how two views could be reconciled.

Even on the most basic level they are fundamentally opposed.

Objectivism goes purely for selfishness, one's own happiness or rational self-interest are what everybody must strive for. It's important to understand that when Rand talks about "happiness" she is not talking about "whatever makes you happy" but about what can be called rational self interest. This means that selfless acts don't count as acting for your own happiness no matter if you think they make you happy. Altruism is deeply and fundamentally rejected. Objectivism is a form of Ethical Egoism.

Utilitarianism goes entirely the other direction. It holds that any action must be judged by how it benefits the most people the best. When what one persons wants conflicts with what other people want, it's that which the most people want and makes them the happiest that is the correct action to take. It's basically math with happiness where the greater number wins.

A basic example and one that illustrates teh fundamental difference is taxes. To an Objectivist taxation is theft unless it is for the purpose of protection, to an Utilitarian it is perfectly fine because for the most part taxes give greater happiness to more people essentially outweighing the loss for the taxpayer.

The problem with your view is that it's neither Objectivist nor Utilitarian. You believe that you should make a personal choice to help others, which any true Objectivist will tell you SHOULD NEVER BE DONE. Seriously, any action you take should be out of pure self-interest and that is the basis of it. It's what it begins with.


It's like calling yourself a christian because you believe in the golden rule.

[john9blue]

You have a point but it's debatable whether the two are fundamentally opposed. Objectivists primarily have their own self-interest at heart, but that doesn't rule out all altruism, it just rules out forced altruism, such as taxation. If I was filthy rich and wanted to give money to the poor, because it makes ME happy, I can do that and still be an Objectivist. Most of the world's richest people in fact do donate astronomical sums of money to charity, not because they have to, but because they want to... although concerns about their legacy may play a role (but to the Objectivist these concerns mean nothing).

Further, a Utilitarian can oppose taxation if the taxes are being used to support a bloated government that reduces the greater prosperity of a nation, as opposed to less taxation funding a smaller government that limits itself to a government's proper role.

[Snorri1234]

You have a point but it's debatable whether the two are fundamentally opposed. Objectivists primarily have their own self-interest at heart, but that doesn't rule out all altruism, it just rules out forced altruism, such as taxation.

No it rules out all altruism. As an ethical system it says that altruism and charity are wrong. It's merely recognised that you also can't force people to not be altruistic. In an Objectivist society man is free to be altruistic, he just isn't supposed to be from the objectivist doctrine.

If I was filthy rich and wanted to give money to the poor, because it makes ME happy, I can do that and still be an Objectivist. Most of the world's richest people in fact do donate astronomical sums of money to charity, not because they have to, but because they want to... although concerns about their legacy may play a role (but to the Objectivist these concerns mean nothing).

For the Objectivist giving money to the poor because it makes you happy is wrong. Rand advocates rational egoism, the idea that an action is only rational if it serves your self-interest. Furthermore, the "happiness" thing doesn't mean you should do anything that makes you happy. Getting drunk all the time and throwing parties might make you happy in a way, but it's not what the real Objectivist would do.

And the worlds richest people mostly aren't Objectivists.

Further, a Utilitarian can oppose taxation if the taxes are being used to support a bloated government that reduces the greater prosperity of a nation, as opposed to less taxation funding a smaller government that limits itself to a government's proper role.

"A government's proper role" for an Utilitarian is promotion of general welfare. Of course an utilitarian can oppose taxation, but he doesn't oppose it on principle. That's just a question of practical application.

[MeDeFe]

Is it possible to rebel against someone who encourages free-thought?

Didn't we have a guy like that on these very fora a while back? Some 16-year old from the UK I think, I've forgotten his name though.

[tzor]

"First, I see no reason to believe in a god." ... Well isn't that nice. I thought you needed faith not reason to believe; I could be wrong.

"Second, I believe that everything is ultimately predetermined." ... I believe in quantum mechanics.

"Third, I believe that the universe is infinitely large." ... You believe in an Open Universe. I prefer a closed one but both are possible.

"Fourth..." I would say this constantly when I play golf ... if only my swing were good enough to get in anyone's way.

"Fifth, based on my fourth belief stated, reincarnation is real." ... Well, if you believe in doing the same thing again and again and getting different results (especially when the results are pre-determined in the first place) I feel sorry for you; really I do.

[john9blue]

No it rules out all altruism. As an ethical system it says that altruism and charity are wrong. It's merely recognised that you also can't force people to not be altruistic. In an Objectivist society man is free to be altruistic, he just isn't supposed to be from the objectivist doctrine.

For the Objectivist giving money to the poor because it makes you happy is wrong. Rand advocates rational egoism, the idea that an action is only rational if it serves your self-interest. Furthermore, the "happiness" thing doesn't mean you should do anything that makes you happy. Getting drunk all the time and throwing parties might make you happy in a way, but it's not what the real Objectivist would do.

And the worlds richest people mostly aren't Objectivists.

"A government's proper role" for an Utilitarian is promotion of general welfare. Of course an utilitarian can oppose taxation, but he doesn't oppose it on principle. That's just a question of practical application.

Altruism for the purposes of self satisfaction is not incompatible with Objectivism. Since some people derive the greatest personal pleasure from using their money to help others, it follows from ethical egoism that this action is rational. I'm sure that there are some Objectivists that despise charity because they don't fully understand how it could make a person happy. I suspect this is the minority, however. Lack of full understanding does not make an action irrational. An Objectivist could enjoy a massage without being aware of the nervous and chemical functions that make him want it.

The world's poorest also mostly aren't Objectivists. Keep in mind though that Objectivism isn't a strict doctrine; every Objectivist does not believe the exact same things.

The proper role of government is definitely debatable. The Objectivist seeks to make the government that suits his needs best. The Utilitarian seeks to make the government that suits everyone's needs best. Again, the two are not incompatible.

[Snorri1234]

Altruism for the purposes of self satisfaction is not incompatible with Objectivism. Since some people derive the greatest personal pleasure from using their money to help others, it follows from ethical egoism that this action is rational. I'm sure that there are some Objectivists that despise charity because they don't fully understand how it could make a person happy. I suspect this is the minority, however. Lack of full understanding does not make an action irrational. An Objectivist could enjoy a massage without being aware of the nervous and chemical functions that make him want it.

The world's poorest also mostly aren't Objectivists. Keep in mind though that Objectivism isn't a strict doctrine; every Objectivist does not believe the exact same things.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you really don't seem to know a lot about Objectivism. That is, you are saying things which truly go against what Objectivism means.

Altruism is incompatible with Objectivism. Ignoring the fact that in Rand's worldview any charity would be pointless anyway, it strongly goes against the principles of rational self-interest. You're not supposed to feel good by giving to charity, much like you're not supposed to feel happy by mindless hedonism. The idea is that when sitting down to really think about it you will realise that charity is basically keeping the Looters alive and well. To Rand and any Objectivist charity and altruism are pointless and wrong.

I don't mean to offend you or imply that you are wrong in being charitable, I'm just saying that it's not what Objectivism is. If anything, I think the label Christian Libertarian probably applies to you the most. You're libertarian in your views on government and christian (or just...you know, nice) in your views on society/other people. Your Libertarian view is not Objectivist (though it might superficially seem so) gathering from your posts because a true Objectivist opposes any government that is not police/military on principle no matter if they are really, really good for society as a whole.

Maybe a theoretical example can help!
Let's say there is a tax with the following traits:
A.) It helps thousands of people get healthcare who otherwise couldn't afford it.
B.) The people who pay the tax get almost no negative effect from it. Like, the difference is 100$ on the million. The people who pay it can live their lives the same way they always have.
C.) there is no negative effect on the economy. (for purposes of the example let's assume that is true.)

Good idea, yes or no? (save all comments about this being unrealistic, that's not the point and really doesn't matter)


If you think this theoretical tax is a good idea you are not an Objectivist.



Note that you can then still be a libertarian, you just can't be an Objectivist. While obviously Objectivism is fueled by the idea that taxes never work the argument for it doesn't revolve around it.

The proper role of government is definitely debatable. The Objectivist seeks to make the government that suits his needs best. The Utilitarian seeks to make the government that suits everyone's needs best. Again, the two are not incompatible.

They are very much incompatible. The Objectivist don't "seek" a government to suit their needs, the government that suits their needs is already defined. It's a government which does nothing but keep the people's rights secure.

[Woodruff]

A.K.A. - The type you weren't TOLD to believe in.

For example: If your family was Lutheran and you are Lutheran, this thread is not intended for you to post your beliefs unless it has nothing to do with what you were preached to with.

No offense meant, but, I'd like to see what people have come to believe in on their own.
That and I'd like to discuss them.
*I will not steal ideas. I simply wish to hear your thoughts on reality as we know it and I will amend my own if your logic is completely sound to me.
On a side note, I do wish to compile a series of answers I seek over my life time. (A.K.A. - Questions, not actual answers.)

As for my own, I have several beliefs regarding reality as we know it...

• First, I see no reason to believe in a god. -I don't condemn people for believing that a god is out 'there', but a specific god with specific traits is, in my opinion, beyond extremely presumptuous. You cannot even begin to define such a 'being'. The arrogance of, specifically, three dominant religions in defining such a 'being' is astounding. (I am intrigued by many of the other gods, but I mock them as well.)
• Second, I believe that everything is ultimately predetermined. (A.K.A. - There is no free will... it is just an illusion.) [You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear the rest of what I have to say about this.]
• Third, I believe that the universe is infinitely large.[You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear the rest of what I have to say about this.]
• Fourth... [You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear ANY of what I have to say about this.]
• Fifth, based on my fourth belief stated, reincarnation is real. [You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear the rest of what I have to say about this.]

Try as you might to coax me into revealing the full extent of my philosophies, but, I will do my best to keep it from you... for now...

You're saxitoxin's multi, aren't you?

As far as my personal philosophies, they largely boil down to this:

1) I try to expose myself to as many different ideas as I can, believing that I'm smart enough to be able to coalesce them into "the truth". That's one of the things I think is great about these particular fora.

2) Firmly believing that I am always correct because I am just that damn smart...until I am shown TO MY SATISFACTION to be incorrect.

So basically...pretty much everything is fair game, in my view and I'm smarter than all you poor bastards.

[2dimes]

I just ate one of those ice cream bars dipped in chocolate and rolled in chopped nuts.

[Woodruff]

Maugena: if you believe in hard determinism, why do you even bother making this thread?

He couldn't help himself - he just had to do it! (Yeah, I know...)

[john9blue]

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you really don't seem to know a lot about Objectivism. That is, you are saying things which truly go against what Objectivism means.

Altruism is incompatible with Objectivism. Ignoring the fact that in Rand's worldview any charity would be pointless anyway, it strongly goes against the principles of rational self-interest. You're not supposed to feel good by giving to charity, much like you're not supposed to feel happy by mindless hedonism. The idea is that when sitting down to really think about it you will realise that charity is basically keeping the Looters alive and well. To Rand and any Objectivist charity and altruism are pointless and wrong.

I don't mean to offend you or imply that you are wrong in being charitable, I'm just saying that it's not what Objectivism is. If anything, I think the label Christian Libertarian probably applies to you the most. You're libertarian in your views on government and christian (or just...you know, nice) in your views on society/other people. Your Libertarian view is not Objectivist (though it might superficially seem so) gathering from your posts because a true Objectivist opposes any government that is not police/military on principle no matter if they are really, really good for society as a whole.

Maybe a theoretical example can help!
Let's say there is a tax with the following traits:
A.) It helps thousands of people get healthcare who otherwise couldn't afford it.
B.) The people who pay the tax get almost no negative effect from it. Like, the difference is 100$ on the million. The people who pay it can live their lives the same way they always have.
C.) there is no negative effect on the economy. (for purposes of the example let's assume that is true.)

Good idea, yes or no? (save all comments about this being unrealistic, that's not the point and really doesn't matter)


If you think this theoretical tax is a good idea you are not an Objectivist.



Note that you can then still be a libertarian, you just can't be an Objectivist. While obviously Objectivism is fueled by the idea that taxes never work the argument for it doesn't revolve around it.


They are very much incompatible. The Objectivist don't "seek" a government to suit their needs, the government that suits their needs is already defined. It's a government which does nothing but keep the people's rights secure.

My understanding of Objectivism is based on the Rand novels I've read as well as some online articles. I can't be exactly like Rand because she said Objectivism was an atheist philosophy, but I don't hesitate to use it as a foundation of ideas, so to speak. The only thing that Objectivism has to say about morality is that the right action is always the one that maximizes your own happiness and self-interest. source, read #3 You can do this and still be altruistic, examples below.

Suppose for the sake of example that the government chooses to take over the health care industry. In the short run this has slightly negative effects on the economy, and gives you slightly less freedom, but since the government is (in this example) more proficient at advancing medical technology than the private sector, the chances of you living a longer and healthier life become greater as a result of this takeover. An Objectivist would support this expansion of government and limitation of freedom out of pure self-interest. Others would benefit as well.

Regarding the tax, I do think it's good but I think a rational Objectivist would also see it as good. Humans are social creatures and it would make sense for something that benefits others to indirectly benefit yourself. For example, one of the people you save may start a company that produces your soon-to-be favorite brand of clothes. A dumb example but you see where I'm going with this. Selfishness does not need to come at the expense of others. A CEO of a company could (for example) donate a large sum of money to charity, increasing the reputation and sales of his company, and being beneficial to him in the long run.

Someone acting in their own self-interest can, with some foresight, rationally help the people around them. It is selfishness and altruism at the same time. There are no Objectivist commandments that state "thou must allow the government to only do this and this and this". It is a highly flexible philosophy whose only moral imperative is the pursuit of happiness, which can be achieved (through direct means of triggering happy endorphins in your brain or indirect means of helping people who then help you) through altruism. I have a hard time believing that Ayn Rand herself would stick to the exact same views on government role and size her entire life, if it came at the expense of her own happiness.

[Snorri1234]

Suppose for the sake of example that the government chooses to take over the health care industry. In the short run this has slightly negative effects on the economy, and gives you slightly less freedom, but since the government is (in this example) more proficient at advancing medical technology than the private sector, the chances of you living a longer and healthier life become greater as a result of this takeover. An Objectivist would support this expansion of government and limitation of freedom out of pure self-interest. Others would benefit as well.

See...this is why I say that you don't understand Objectivism because seriously this is not what an Objectivist would say.

Regarding the tax, I do think it's good but I think a rational Objectivist would also see it as good. Humans are social creatures and it would make sense for something that benefits others to indirectly benefit yourself. For example, one of the people you save may start a company that produces your soon-to-be favorite brand of clothes. A dumb example but you see where I'm going with this. Selfishness does not need to come at the expense of others. A CEO of a company could (for example) donate a large sum of money to charity, increasing the reputation and sales of his company, and being beneficial to him in the long run.

Yes, but in an Objectivist society that CEO wouldn't because of LOL RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST meaning that all the other objectivists wouldn't care about it.

There are no Objectivist commandments that state "thou must allow the government to only do this and this and this".

Yes there are. Objectivist government isn't allowed to do anything that doesn't do just protection of the people. All else is not okay. It shouldn't be done by the government.

It is a highly flexible philosophy whose only moral imperative is the pursuit of happiness, which can be achieved (through direct means of triggering happy endorphins in your brain or indirect means of helping people who then help you) through altruism. I have a hard time believing that Ayn Rand herself would stick to the exact same views on government role and size her entire life, if it came at the expense of her own happiness.

She did. At least, even in her personal life when her Objectivist philosphy started to conflict with basic human emotions she had to make shit up to fit everything in her worldview. She thought altruism was deeply wrong, even on the basic emotional level.

[Burrito]

My understanding of Objectivism is based on the Rand novels I've read as well as some online articles. I can't be exactly like Rand because she said Objectivism was an atheist philosophy, but I don't hesitate to use it as a foundation of ideas, so to speak. The only thing that Objectivism has to say about morality is that the right action is always the one that maximizes your own happiness and self-interest. source, read #3 You can do this and still be altruistic, examples below.

Suppose for the sake of example that the government chooses to take over the health care industry. In the short run this has slightly negative effects on the economy, and gives you slightly less freedom, but since the government is (in this example) more proficient at advancing medical technology than the private sector, the chances of you living a longer and healthier life become greater as a result of this takeover. An Objectivist would support this expansion of government and limitation of freedom out of pure self-interest. Others would benefit as well.

Regarding the tax, I do think it's good but I think a rational Objectivist would also see it as good. Humans are social creatures and it would make sense for something that benefits others to indirectly benefit yourself. For example, one of the people you save may start a company that produces your soon-to-be favorite brand of clothes. A dumb example but you see where I'm going with this. Selfishness does not need to come at the expense of others. A CEO of a company could (for example) donate a large sum of money to charity, increasing the reputation and sales of his company, and being beneficial to him in the long run.

Someone acting in their own self-interest can, with some foresight, rationally help the people around them. It is selfishness and altruism at the same time. There are no Objectivist commandments that state "thou must allow the government to only do this and this and this". It is a highly flexible philosophy whose only moral imperative is the pursuit of happiness, which can be achieved (through direct means of triggering happy endorphins in your brain or indirect means of helping people who then help you) through altruism. I have a hard time believing that Ayn Rand herself would stick to the exact same views on government role and size her entire life, if it came at the expense of her own happiness.

John, you are correct based upon your definition of happiness. However, if you scroll down that page you linked (BTW, anyone who clicks that link, be ready to scream on horror and fight the desire to scratch your eyes out) and click the link labeled happiness, you will see that according to Ayn Rand (What kind of name is Ayn?) all joy is not joy. "Mindless" joy (i.e. getting drunk) is not joy, but pleasure simply in existence and pursuit of rational goals is joy. Which contradicts her first point about objective reality, as joy is simply the release of chemicals i your brain, so any stimulus that triggers that reaction would be the same. (Based purely on reality)

[john9blue]

Well based on both responses it seems that I'm more practical and willing to shift my principles than a dogmatic Objectivist. What it boils down to I suppose is what the basic requirements are for being considered an Objectivist. I would agree though that someone who follows every one of Rand's teachings strictly on faith and principle could not logically be altruistic or allow for expansion of government, even if this made them unhappy. Then we get that dual-happiness contradiction that Burrito was talking about (nice to see you posting again btw). Now I know where some of the criticism of Objectivism comes from... lol. It would still be a mistake though to say that Rand hasn't influenced my worldview much, which was I think the point of the thread before this little tangent.

[Burrito]

Well now that we got that straightened out, I suppose I should state my philosophy. BTW, good to be back. I do hate it when real life interferes with CC. Anyways:

1. No god. I understand why people believe in some sort of higher power (fear of death, explanation of existence, hope), but see no reason to spend my time worshiping something that I cannot interact with. That said, god as an idea is very real. The idea of god shapes many people's lives. Their fear/hope/belief of a higher power drives them to do certain things they would not otherwise do.
If I die and there turns out to really be a god, I would hope that he judges me based on my actions and intentions, not whether I prayed to him five times a day or went to church every Sunday.
That means that this life is all we have, so might as well make the most of it.

2. More or less Libertarian. I believe in the most freedom possible while still providing an adequate framework for society. That means flat rate taxes, a minimalist government, no attempted behavioral modification or social engineering, basic rights such as life, liberty, etc. However, despite its effectiveness thus far and superiority over other forms of government, democracy is certainly not the best form of government. It is the majority pushing their will against the minority. It is the slavery of governments, albeit in afar more complex and dynamic way. The ideal government would be more like Socialism, not in state control of the means of production, but in the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution". You get what you put into your work, no more, no less.

3. Despite not having fear of divine retribution and hope of eternal paradise, I still try to be the best I can. I live by a code (damn that sounds cheesy) somewhere along the lines of chivalry. I help my elderly neighbor with her yardwork, I don't go around randomly starting fights because someone looks at me funny (usually ), I try not to be excessive. However, I am by no means the model of chaste virtue. I stay out all night drinking, I drive recklessly (which according to the Catholic catechism is a deadly sin ), I like having sex. In short, although I would generally be considered a good guy, I still like to go out and have fun (where fun is generally dangerous, reckless, and considered "wrong" by someone).

4. Don't particularly care about the size or beginning of the universe, except as something to discuss occasionally, or in relation to another topic.

[Maugena]

Maugena: if you believe in hard determinism, why do you even bother making this thread? And why should morality or anything else be your concern?

I have pondered whether or not everything is pointless, yes.
After much debate between myself and I and a very long depression that I went through, I figured that I'm lucky to have this life and that I should enjoy it while I have it rather than just say... well, I 'know' what the truth is, so I'll throw my life away because of this 'knowledge'. (I won't call it actually knowing because it can't be proven or disproven, technically.)
And in my belief of reincarnation, I might not exactly be as lucky and priviledged in my next life, so I might as well make the best of this one.
As for morality... it's much more complicated than just a perception of reality, in my opinion, that's why I tend to stay away from discussing it. You can almost always be met with opposition.

[Maugena]

Even on the most basic level they are fundamentally opposed.

Objectivism goes purely for selfishness, one's own happiness or rational self-interest are what everybody must strive for. It's important to understand that when Rand talks about "happiness" she is not talking about "whatever makes you happy" but about what can be called rational self interest. This means that selfless acts don't count as acting for your own happiness no matter if you think they make you happy. Altruism is deeply and fundamentally rejected. Objectivism is a form of Ethical Egoism.

Utilitarianism goes entirely the other direction. It holds that any action must be judged by how it benefits the most people the best. When what one persons wants conflicts with what other people want, it's that which the most people want and makes them the happiest that is the correct action to take. It's basically math with happiness where the greater number wins.

A basic example and one that illustrates teh fundamental difference is taxes. To an Objectivist taxation is theft unless it is for the purpose of protection, to an Utilitarian it is perfectly fine because for the most part taxes give greater happiness to more people essentially outweighing the loss for the taxpayer.

The problem with your view is that it's neither Objectivist nor Utilitarian. You believe that you should make a personal choice to help others, which any true Objectivist will tell you SHOULD NEVER BE DONE. Seriously, any action you take should be out of pure self-interest and that is the basis of it. It's what it begins with.


It's like calling yourself a christian because you believe in the golden rule.

Now Snorri, I'd like to make a statement.
I've actually had conversations about Objectivism with my philosophy teacher back in college, now that I think about it.
(As I had stated before, I try to stay out of 'morality' and such because it's very tricky... but... here we go.)

Let's say, for example, that an elderly woman falls on the ground and can't back up.
There just so happens to be a man nearby that notices this.
He gets satisfaction/pleasure from helping this elderly woman out of her situation.
Was his act selfless or selfish? Did he do it to feel good about himself or to strictly help her and receive absolutely no recognition for his deed(by his own self or others)?

On the surface it seems to be for the greater good, selfless or not.
My apologies if it's not a great example, but that's the gist of the idea.
Let me know if you understand what I'm getting at.
(Of course, this can't always apply to everything, a part of debating is to frequently attempt debunking a person's argument as a whole.)

Edit:
I believe what john9blue is trying to say is that he believes thoroughly in this 'bridge' I tried giving an example of.
That... or... he selectively agrees and disagrees with each of them.

[saxitoxin]

A.K.A. - The type you weren't TOLD to believe in.

For example: If your family was Lutheran and you are Lutheran, this thread is not intended for you to post your beliefs unless it has nothing to do with what you were preached to with.

No offense meant, but, I'd like to see what people have come to believe in on their own.
That and I'd like to discuss them.
*I will not steal ideas. I simply wish to hear your thoughts on reality as we know it and I will amend my own if your logic is completely sound to me.
On a side note, I do wish to compile a series of answers I seek over my life time. (A.K.A. - Questions, not actual answers.)

As for my own, I have several beliefs regarding reality as we know it...

• First, I see no reason to believe in a god. -I don't condemn people for believing that a god is out 'there', but a specific god with specific traits is, in my opinion, beyond extremely presumptuous. You cannot even begin to define such a 'being'. The arrogance of, specifically, three dominant religions in defining such a 'being' is astounding. (I am intrigued by many of the other gods, but I mock them as well.)
• Second, I believe that everything is ultimately predetermined. (A.K.A. - There is no free will... it is just an illusion.) [You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear the rest of what I have to say about this.]
• Third, I believe that the universe is infinitely large.[You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear the rest of what I have to say about this.]
• Fourth... [You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear ANY of what I have to say about this.]
• Fifth, based on my fourth belief stated, reincarnation is real. [You will have to read my book I will come out with much later in life in order to hear the rest of what I have to say about this.]

Try as you might to coax me into revealing the full extent of my philosophies, but, I will do my best to keep it from you... for now...

You're saxitoxin's multi, aren't you?

EXCUSE ME, I only have 1 multi and I have already admitted to said multi's identity here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=95795&p=2190614&hilit=admit+colton24+saxitoxin#p2190614

That said, it is true ol' Saxi - as a progressive and a didactic Marxist-Leninist in ideological compliance with the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism - is an atheist, however, ol' Sax would never support the notion of reincarnation as that is superstitious drivel designed to subjugate working families as are all superstitions. Maugena, do not bait ol' Sax with stories of past-life regression, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Charles Tramont, the UVA Personality Studies experiments, the pseudo-science of NDEs or whatever other junk/Hollywood psychiatry you can dig up. As a once celebrated, but unfairly discredited, mental health professional ol' Sax will speedily and handidly dismiss their lunacy with the searing efficiency of a hot knife cutting through butter.

Maugena, you must learn from the zeal of your countrymen, from their thirst for democracy and their desire for liberation from supertitious nonsense!



Thanky, gang!
- Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

[Maugena]

EXCUSE ME, I only have 1 multi and I have already admitted to said multi's identity here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=95795&p=2190614&hilit=admit+colton24+saxitoxin#p2190614

That said, it is true ol' Saxi - as a progressive and a didactic Marxist-Leninist in ideological compliance with the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism - is an atheist, however, ol' Sax would never support the notion of reincarnation as that is superstitious drivel designed to subjugate working families as are all superstitions. Maugena, do not bait ol' Sax with stories of past-life regression, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Charles Tramont, the UVA Personality Studies experiments, the pseudo-science of NDEs or whatever other junk/Hollywood psychiatry you can dig up. As a once celebrated, but unfairly discredited, mental health professional ol' Sax will speedily and handidly dismiss their lunacy with the searing efficiency of a hot knife cutting through butter.

Maugena, you must learn from the zeal of your countrymen, from their thirst for democracy and their desire for liberation from supertitious nonsense!



Thanky, gang!
- Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

XD

Well, Saxi.
See, this is the part that I haven't told you yet.
And in giving you said part, I'd be giving away critical information that will be put in my book.
Reincarnation is by no means superstitious.
I never stated the rules or means by which reincarnation works.
I take it that you assume that I meant coming back alive as a human being in <5000 years or something of that sort.
The only thing I will say about this without ruining my book will be, "if it happened once, it can happen again."
That's all I can say to you, for now.
Would love to put down the rest, but I don't want idea theft. (Not that it's terribly original... but that all of together makes my own experience/philosophies and if you were to take them all, I'd have nothing to base my own book off of. I hope you understand.)

Edit:
Cut out multiple quotes. XO

[BigBallinStalin]

A book on reincarnation? Sounds original.

Anyway, good luck writing it, and good luck getting it published.


@ARMY of GOD: Be forewarned, I've already written a book that I'm about to write regarding your "yet to be written but simultaneously completed" book regarding Mageuna's "not quite out of the brainstorming phase but definitely not yet a rough manuscript" book as soon as mine is published from McGill University in a date yet to be disclosed.

[saxitoxin]

EXCUSE ME, I only have 1 multi and I have already admitted to said multi's identity here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=95795&p=2190614&hilit=admit+colton24+saxitoxin#p2190614

That said, it is true ol' Saxi - as a progressive and a didactic Marxist-Leninist in ideological compliance with the IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism - is an atheist, however, ol' Sax would never support the notion of reincarnation as that is superstitious drivel designed to subjugate working families as are all superstitions. Maugena, do not bait ol' Sax with stories of past-life regression, Dr. Brian Weiss, Dr. Charles Tramont, the UVA Personality Studies experiments, the pseudo-science of NDEs or whatever other junk/Hollywood psychiatry you can dig up. As a once celebrated, but unfairly discredited, mental health professional ol' Sax will speedily and handidly dismiss their lunacy with the searing efficiency of a hot knife cutting through butter.

Maugena, you must learn from the zeal of your countrymen, from their thirst for democracy and their desire for liberation from supertitious nonsense!



Thanky, gang!
- Saxi!
Unofficial CC Happiness Ombudsman

XD

Well, Saxi.
See, this is the part that I haven't told you yet.
And in giving you said part, I'd be giving away critical information that will be put in my book.
Reincarnation is by no means superstitious.
I never stated the rules or means by which reincarnation works.
I take it that you assume that I meant coming back alive as a human being in <5000 years or something of that sort.
The only thing I will say about this without ruining my book will be, "if it happened once, it can happen again."
That's all I can say to you, for now.
Would love to put down the rest, but I don't want idea theft. (Not that it's terribly original... but that all of together makes my own experience/philosophies and if you were to take them all, I'd have nothing to base my own book off of. I hope you understand.)

Edit:
Cut out multiple quotes. XO

No offense, M, but this sounds like any run-of-the-mill New Age guru trying to flog a book. Unless your definition of reincarnation means decomposition, there is no such thing!

[Maugena]

A book on reincarnation? Sounds original.

Anyway, good luck writing it, and good luck getting it published.


@ARMY of GOD: Be forewarned, I've already written a book that I'm about to write regarding your "yet to be written but simultaneously completed" book regarding Mageuna's "not quite out of the brainstorming phase but definitely not yet a rough manuscript" book as soon as mine is published from McGill University in a date yet to be disclosed.

Nah, reincarnation is only a part of a whole.
It doesn't run the show.
Thanks and thanks, lol.
And again, lol.

No offense, M, but this sounds like any run-of-the-mill New Age guru trying to flog a book. Unless your definition of reincarnation means decomposition, there is no such thing!

Let me ask you a question, Saxi.
Where do you think our conciousness comes from?
Something intangible?
I personally don't think so.
I think it is very real.
Grrr. Yet again, I'd love to get into detail, but I'm going to keep you from revealing my thoughts.
By the way, I believe I had already stated it in another thread, but it got deleted somehow. (And no, I didn't delete it.)

[saxitoxin]

A book on reincarnation? Sounds original.

Anyway, good luck writing it, and good luck getting it published.


@ARMY of GOD: Be forewarned, I've already written a book that I'm about to write regarding your "yet to be written but simultaneously completed" book regarding Mageuna's "not quite out of the brainstorming phase but definitely not yet a rough manuscript" book as soon as mine is published from McGill University in a date yet to be disclosed.

Nah, reincarnation is only a part of a whole.
It doesn't run the show.
Thanks and thanks, lol.
And again, lol.

No offense, M, but this sounds like any run-of-the-mill New Age guru trying to flog a book. Unless your definition of reincarnation means decomposition, there is no such thing!

Let me ask you a question, Saxi.
Where do you think our conciousness comes from?
Something intangible?

It doesn't "come" from anywhere. It is developed as the sum of sensory inputs acting on the brain's neural network.

The gas in your car's tank doesn't magically "transmigrate" (as the Buddhists would say) into it. You fill the tank up.

Your consciousness isn't magically transmigrated into your brain. The environment your senses intake fills your brain, completing your perception of reality.

If consciousness transmigrated there is no reason infants shouldn't have functional environmental knowledge. We can easily observe the development of functional skills. This cannot be logically explained away. It can only be explained away if you overlay the "magic" of transmigration with yet more "magical" explanations.

"I don't see any God up here."
- Col. Yuri Gagarin; first man in space
Medal of the Hero of the Soviet Union (1964)
Medal of the Hero of Socialist Labor (1965)
Order of the October Revolution (1962)

[Maugena]

It doesn't "come" from anywhere. It is developed as the sum of sensory inputs acting on the brain's neural network.

The gas in your car's tank doesn't magically "transmigrate" (as the Buddhists would say) into it. You fill the tank up.

Your consciousness isn't magically transmigrated into your brain. The environment your senses intake fills your brain, completing your perception of reality.

So you think our conciousness derives from a process in the brain?
I disagree.
I have already heard of that theory and I have developed my own, in turn.
I never said it was magical. I said it was very real. A physical reality. Not intangible. Not mystical. Unknown, yes.
I believe in taking a scientific approach to understanding the things around us.
You don't quite seem to understand just how I'm trying to do that. Mostly because I'm not willing to go into the detail at this point in time, but rest assured, it will happen eventually.

[saxitoxin]

It doesn't "come" from anywhere. It is developed as the sum of sensory inputs acting on the brain's neural network.

The gas in your car's tank doesn't magically "transmigrate" (as the Buddhists would say) into it. You fill the tank up.

Your consciousness isn't magically transmigrated into your brain. The environment your senses intake fills your brain, completing your perception of reality.

So you think our conciousness derives from a process in the brain?
I disagree.
I have already heard of that theory and I have developed my own, in turn.
I never said it was magical. I said it was very real. A physical reality. Not intangible. Not mystical. Unknown, yes.
I believe in taking a scientific approach to understanding the things around us.
You don't quite seem to understand just how I'm trying to do that. Mostly because I'm not willing to go into the detail at this point in time, but rest assured, it will happen eventually.

Well it's not really a theory anymore than it's a theory the Earth revolves around the Sun. This is scientific fact. Of course, you are free to disagree that the Earth revolves around the Sun or that consciousness is a neurobiological process.

The mind and brain are co-existent. When electric functions in the brain cease the mind terminates and consciousness is permanently erased.

This is nothing spectacularly new. Every New Age guru and voodoo witch doctor terminates the discussion when presented with science on the excuse that they are privy to some great, esoteric secret that cannot be divulged but proves all that has been claimed, we just have to trust them. Recently the New Age camp - like the witch doctors at the UVA medical school - have been trying to "explain" reincarnation in faux scientific terms, all of which is simply putting a new coat of paint on an old idea. It's pseudo-science, junk science. It belongs in the realm of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

Yawners, gang.
*Saxi Yawns and Stretches Out to Rest His Feet on His Big Furry Wolfound, Big Bo Bop; Big Bo Bop Barks Loudly and Saxi sits back, startled. Then Saxi plays Tumble Tornado with Big Bo Bop and Big Bo Bop WINS!*