Pages: 1 2

 

2009-07-17 20:35:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

heyyyyyyyy I didn't see this because I left for 4 days.

An ubermensch cannot be restricted by social chains at all. If they are not restrictive because they align perfectly with his own morality then they do not need to be broken, but then they aren't really chains in the first place.

Wisdom is by definition a way of thinking passed down from elders. We usually view this advice as sound, but the fact that it does not come from within makes it nothing more than a burden to a would-be ubermensch. He may reach the same conclusions on his own, but he must reach those conclusions on his own.
We define wisdom differently.  I see it as the garnering of information and experience in such a way as to anticipate similar future occurrences and enable the most logical course of action in response to them.

To me, wisdom is not taught by others but learned through your own experiences -- although, you can learn from the mistakes and successes of others somewhat.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Unless you can prove to me that every second of your day is accounted for, battles are always worth fighting. Frankly the problem is lack of recognizable battles, not lack of time.
Part of maturity is making peace with reality.  Limiting your battles is a test of how much peace you have achieved.
2009-07-18 01:44:12
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

heyyyyyyyy I didn't see this because I left for 4 days.

An ubermensch cannot be restricted by social chains at all. If they are not restrictive because they align perfectly with his own morality then they do not need to be broken, but then they aren't really chains in the first place.

Wisdom is by definition a way of thinking passed down from elders. We usually view this advice as sound, but the fact that it does not come from within makes it nothing more than a burden to a would-be ubermensch. He may reach the same conclusions on his own, but he must reach those conclusions on his own.
We define wisdom differently.  I see it as the garnering of information and experience in such a way as to anticipate similar future occurrences and enable the most logical course of action in response to them.

To me, wisdom is not taught by others but learned through your own experiences -- although, you can learn from the mistakes and successes of others somewhat.
Then by your definition it's fine. Though I did say in the typical sense.

Turquoise wrote:

Part of maturity is making peace with reality.  Limiting your battles is a test of how much peace you have achieved.
Making peace is for the lazy and weak. Limiting - not delaying, not circumventing, not taking a strategic retreat, but limiting - your battles is a measure of how subdued you have become. How senseless you have been beaten by harsh reality.

Rand wrote:

It is not in the nature of man - nor of any living entity - to start out by giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's potential.
2009-07-18 05:48:35
cl4u53w1t2
Salon-Bolschewist
+269|6763|Kakanien
famous nietzsche-quotes:

"Ohne Musik wäre das Leben ein Irrtum"

"Blickst du zu lange in einen Abgrund, blickt der Abgrund irgendwann in dich"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2oh3h3DvY0
2009-07-18 11:51:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Making peace is for the lazy and weak. Limiting - not delaying, not circumventing, not taking a strategic retreat, but limiting - your battles is a measure of how subdued you have become. How senseless you have been beaten by harsh reality.
You're not a fan of the concept of nirvana, are you?
2009-07-18 20:04:32
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
Nirvana is a religious concept closely tied to the idea of reincarnation. lol.
2009-07-18 20:45:08
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6758
I love how FM tries to justify this crap.

All Nietzsche and Rand and the tools who worship them do is give an excuse for their own greed and selfishness.
2009-07-18 22:45:35
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5875

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

I love how FM tries to justify this crap.

All Nietzsche and Rand and the tools who worship them do is give an excuse for their own greed and selfishness.
I take it you've never read either of them.
2009-07-18 23:46:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Nirvana is a religious concept closely tied to the idea of reincarnation. lol.
Elements of Buddhism can be used for mental strength even if you don't believe in reincarnation.  For example, the meditative practices of Buddhism can literally make your temperament more levelheaded and your thought processes more focused.  Nirvana is a state of mind that can be achieved through said meditation.

What separates me from Buddhists is that I do not believe in any of the supernatural aspects of it.  I merely see the physiological benefits in living and thinking certain ways that Buddhists do.

Another good example of this sort of thing is Tai Chi.  While I am not a Taoist or Confucianist, I can appreciate the health benefits of this art.

Nirvana can be thought of as a mental form of Tai Chi, so to speak.  If one merely tries to affect positive changes to society while accepting that which one does not have the power to change, one's own sanity and temperament is much healthier.

In other words, again...  you choose your battles.
2009-07-18 23:52:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

I love how FM tries to justify this crap.

All Nietzsche and Rand and the tools who worship them do is give an excuse for their own greed and selfishness.
I take it you've never read either of them.
Nietzsche isn't so much about greed, but Rand really does have a pathological sense of it.  As I've said before, I think Rand's early experiences with the Soviets traumatized her sense of reason so that she became just as fanatical toward capitalism as her enemies became with Communism.

In short, Rand is to capitalist/Objectivist dogma what Lenin was to Communist/collectivist dogma.

If you go too far in either direction, you become unrealistic in your expectations and militant in your reasoning.
2009-07-19 02:51:42
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

I love how FM tries to justify this crap.

All Nietzsche and Rand and the tools who worship them do is give an excuse for their own greed and selfishness.
I bow before the succinct brilliance of your post.

Insert some fucking content next time, you could have insulted me much more simply via karma/pm.

Turq:

Frankly, if I want any of those benefits, I will join the Marines and go to the sniper school or the like. The forms of meditation you are talking about are really inextricably tied to spiritual aspects of the religions, and that part is about as necessary as Feung Shui.

It is not that difficult to come to terms with one's self if you really put some effort in. You don't need a formal meditation practice to become focused and self-aware. I do not understand why you are looking to the Eastern arts to understand something you have been living with your entire life.

Turquoise wrote:

If one merely tries to affect positive changes to society while accepting that which one does not have the power to change, one's own sanity and temperament is much healthier.
Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

One should not be able to find peace in an imperfect world. Real mental sickness is being completely sane in an insane world.

Turquoise wrote:

Nietzsche isn't so much about greed, but Rand really does have a pathological sense of it.  As I've said before, I think Rand's early experiences with the Soviets traumatized her sense of reason so that she became just as fanatical toward capitalism as her enemies became with Communism.

In short, Rand is to capitalist/Objectivist dogma what Lenin was to Communist/collectivist dogma.

If you go too far in either direction, you become unrealistic in your expectations and militant in your reasoning.
Just wondering, have you actually read Rand? Even the wiki?

1 - There is a big difference between greed and acting in your best interests. Greed is blind and irrational. Acting in your self-interest works out for the betterment of everyone - when you do well, I do well. I cannot understand why (other than utter ignorance) that some people believe Rand would advocate the likes of an MMA fighter beating the crap out of a fruit salesman and taking his cart...because it's in his "self-interest". It's not.

I firmly believe that the moral thing to do is the best thing to do, and vice versa. Not just because morality makes us a better person or some crap, but because the circumstances as a whole will work out to your - and everyone else's - favor.

2 - The fatal flaw in Communism is it's inability to deal with basic human nature. Communism demands everyone be perfect, Rand says everyone must only strive to be perfect in her system.

3 - Just to head this off, if anyone starts spouting off bullshit about randism, objectivism, atlas shruggedism, I'm going to shit a brick. Making "movements" around this crap is absurd, it's like a damn anarchist's convention. I remember after I read/liked The Fountainhead I went online to see what other people said about it, to find other forums like any reasonable soul would at such a time. It was all absolute shit. I got a sick feeling in my stomach when I found a post where a guy was talking about "how he had been trying to become an objectivist over the past 6 months". They imagine the characters in the book as something to strive to become, not looking inward for the ideals the characters represent.

My point being that there are at least as many people who have read, liked, and completely misunderstood her as those that have read, not liked, and completely misunderstood her. As with anything if you take individuals as a representation of the ideals they claim to worship (I saw that word as well on my internet expedition, jesus christ), the pile of shit you are looking at is the corrupt shell of the brilliant ideas you are dismissing.

I quote because I lack the fluidity and grace with words that she had in her later years. The ideas are mine, and I would not quote if the idea I am trying to express and the idea I believe to be expressed in the passage did not align very closely. There are differences however, even if we so often get caught up in the big ideas where Rand and I are typically in the same corner so I never get the chance to go toe-to-toe with her on the relatively small (but important) details. I would appreciate it if the difference between Rand and I is recognized and respected.
2009-07-19 09:26:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly, if I want any of those benefits, I will join the Marines and go to the sniper school or the like. The forms of meditation you are talking about are really inextricably tied to spiritual aspects of the religions, and that part is about as necessary as Feung Shui.

It is not that difficult to come to terms with one's self if you really put some effort in. You don't need a formal meditation practice to become focused and self-aware. I do not understand why you are looking to the Eastern arts to understand something you have been living with your entire life.
I really don't understand why you think you know the best way for everything.  There are multiple ways to achieve mental focus, meditation is one of many.  As you said, military training is another.  Still, there seems to be this dogma that blinds you to alternatives.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

One should not be able to find peace in an imperfect world. Real mental sickness is being completely sane in an insane world.
I suppose Rorschach would agree with you, and finding peace is not mandatory by any means.  I'm simply suggesting that it is preferable if sanity is your goal.  It would appear that it isn't yours.

I draw the line because I'd rather not spend the majority of my time fighting things.  It's hard to make and keep friends if you're always fired up about something.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Just wondering, have you actually read Rand? Even the wiki?

1 - There is a big difference between greed and acting in your best interests. Greed is blind and irrational. Acting in your self-interest works out for the betterment of everyone - when you do well, I do well. I cannot understand why (other than utter ignorance) that some people believe Rand would advocate the likes of an MMA fighter beating the crap out of a fruit salesman and taking his cart...because it's in his "self-interest". It's not.
Rand's opposition to certain societal functions (like social programs) shows that her concept of self-interest was painfully shortsighted.  There are elements of collectivism that align with self-interest, contrary to her absolute opposition to it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I firmly believe that the moral thing to do is the best thing to do, and vice versa. Not just because morality makes us a better person or some crap, but because the circumstances as a whole will work out to your - and everyone else's - favor.

2 - The fatal flaw in Communism is it's inability to deal with basic human nature. Communism demands everyone be perfect, Rand says everyone must only strive to be perfect in her system.
The fatal flaw in Objectivism is what I mentioned above.  Reality dictates a balance of collective and individual interests.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

3 - Just to head this off, if anyone starts spouting off bullshit about randism, objectivism, atlas shruggedism, I'm going to shit a brick. Making "movements" around this crap is absurd, it's like a damn anarchist's convention. I remember after I read/liked The Fountainhead I went online to see what other people said about it, to find other forums like any reasonable soul would at such a time. It was all absolute shit. I got a sick feeling in my stomach when I found a post where a guy was talking about "how he had been trying to become an objectivist over the past 6 months". They imagine the characters in the book as something to strive to become, not looking inward for the ideals the characters represent.

My point being that there are at least as many people who have read, liked, and completely misunderstood her as those that have read, not liked, and completely misunderstood her. As with anything if you take individuals as a representation of the ideals they claim to worship (I saw that word as well on my internet expedition, jesus christ), the pile of shit you are looking at is the corrupt shell of the brilliant ideas you are dismissing.
While I would agree that many people are prone to misunderstand philosophers like Rand because of the abstract nature of their ideas, just because you agree with something does not make it brilliant.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I quote because I lack the fluidity and grace with words that she had in her later years. The ideas are mine, and I would not quote if the idea I am trying to express and the idea I believe to be expressed in the passage did not align very closely. There are differences however, even if we so often get caught up in the big ideas where Rand and I are typically in the same corner so I never get the chance to go toe-to-toe with her on the relatively small (but important) details. I would appreciate it if the difference between Rand and I is recognized and respected.
Fair enough.  But the fact remains that many who claim to follow Rand's ideas are very shortsighted and selfish beyond rational self-interest.
2009-07-20 01:41:34
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

I really don't understand why you think you know the best way for everything.  There are multiple ways to achieve mental focus, meditation is one of many.  As you said, military training is another.  Still, there seems to be this dogma that blinds you to alternatives.
I don't know why you keep throwing the word dogma out. Just because of my strong language? Refusing to do something on the basis that there is no advantage to doing it is quite a bit different from refusing on the basis that it is against your personal beliefs.

I don't have a problem with mental focus. Despite what you may think I am quite level-headed, most of my rage and whatnot is contrived for my (and sometimes others') amusement. I'm not easily flustered, and it's very easy to make the other person lose their temper before I do. My thoughts have a very linear, logical progression that allows me to explain systems/laws of nature easily.

I'll pass with the spiritual crap kthx. You can get the same benefits with simple introspection.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

One should not be able to find peace in an imperfect world. Real mental sickness is being completely sane in an insane world.
I suppose Rorschach would agree with you, and finding peace is not mandatory by any means.  I'm simply suggesting that it is preferable if sanity is your goal.  It would appear that it isn't yours.

I draw the line because I'd rather not spend the majority of my time fighting things.  It's hard to make and keep friends if you're always fired up about something.
Sanity is the ultimate form of attempting to fit in to an impossibly arbitrary social norm. I can't possibly understand why it would be your goal to fit perfectly into a machine that you know is fucked up. If you want to merely coexist with that I can understand to some degree, so long as you at least understand that being an untermenschen is your goal. How you can have such a blind love for life, no matter what form it takes, I can't understand...


Turquoise wrote:

Rand's opposition to certain societal functions (like social programs) shows that her concept of self-interest was painfully shortsighted.  There are elements of collectivism that align with self-interest, contrary to her absolute opposition to it.
lol we've had this discussion before about long-sighted/short-sighted.

The transition to individualism sucks. This is the "long term" problem as you see it, but the long term as I see it is long after these growing pains.

You're talking about very fundamental societal chances...long term has to be considered >100 years. I know it's difficult for a typical American to think longer than 6 months ahead, much less 5 years, but if populations don't start looking at the cracks in the foundation and seriously contemplating long term solutions there is going to be a lot more political turmoil and physical destruction than something like the absence of social programs would create.

Collectivism does not play off the ideas of self-interest in  the transition however, which is the problem. You see a collectivist society demands "moral perfection" (as you might see it) up front, and then once everything is settled in the arrangement benefits the individual. An individualist society goes the other way. You play off self-interest in the beginning, and then work towards the final arrangement with moral perfection as Rand sees it. On paper it doesn't really matter, but I think it's obvious why the difference in order is very important.

Turquoise wrote:

]While I would agree that many people are prone to misunderstand philosophers like Rand because of the abstract nature of their ideas, just because you agree with something does not make it brilliant.
It's my opinion. Unless you want to qualify the definition of brilliant and make some sort of ranking system of ideas over the past 2000 years, I  don't know what you want.

Turquoise wrote:

Fair enough.  But the fact remains that many who claim to follow Rand's ideas people are very shortsighted and selfish beyond rational self-interest.
What was that you were saying about making peace with reality? lol
2009-07-20 15:40:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I don't know why you keep throwing the word dogma out. Just because of my strong language? Refusing to do something on the basis that there is no advantage to doing it is quite a bit different from refusing on the basis that it is against your personal beliefs.

I don't have a problem with mental focus. Despite what you may think I am quite level-headed, most of my rage and whatnot is contrived for my (and sometimes others') amusement. I'm not easily flustered, and it's very easy to make the other person lose their temper before I do. My thoughts have a very linear, logical progression that allows me to explain systems/laws of nature easily.
So you basically just admitted that you engage in trolling.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Sanity is the ultimate form of attempting to fit in to an impossibly arbitrary social norm. I can't possibly understand why it would be your goal to fit perfectly into a machine that you know is fucked up. If you want to merely coexist with that I can understand to some degree, so long as you at least understand that being an untermenschen is your goal. How you can have such a blind love for life, no matter what form it takes, I can't understand....
A love of life is better than perpetual disappointment.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You're talking about very fundamental societal chances...long term has to be considered >100 years. I know it's difficult for a typical American to think longer than 6 months ahead, much less 5 years, but if populations don't start looking at the cracks in the foundation and seriously contemplating long term solutions there is going to be a lot more political turmoil and physical destruction than something like the absence of social programs would create.

Collectivism does not play off the ideas of self-interest in  the transition however, which is the problem. You see a collectivist society demands "moral perfection" (as you might see it) up front, and then once everything is settled in the arrangement benefits the individual. An individualist society goes the other way. You play off self-interest in the beginning, and then work towards the final arrangement with moral perfection as Rand sees it. On paper it doesn't really matter, but I think it's obvious why the difference in order is very important.
About the farthest you can go with Rand's idea is what we've done with the Bill of Rights.  We have a government designed to provide us as much personal freedom as possible, but like anything else, there are limits to what can be allowed.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fair enough.  But the fact remains that many who claim to follow Rand's ideas people are very shortsighted and selfish beyond rational self-interest.
What was that you were saying about making peace with reality? lol
Limiting your battles does not mean refraining from all of them.  In many ways, I consider Objectivists as my primary adversaries in a societal sense.
2009-07-21 01:40:32
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85
you tired?

Turquoise wrote:

So you basically just admitted that you engage in trolling.
k, way to take a nearly inconsequential qualification to attempt a "gotcha" while ignoring entirely the point of the two paragraphs.

I prefer to write in a fiery, brash manner rather than a cold logical one because it is a helluva lot more fun. That is not even close to the same thing as being a troll. Frankly, I'm offended. I think I put a lot of effort into my posts compared to what a lot of people get away with.

Turquoise wrote:

A love of life is better than perpetual disappointment.
Honestly living in despair is better than ignorantly living in happiness.

Turquoise wrote:

About the farthest you can go with Rand's idea is what we've done with the Bill of Rights.  We have a government designed to provide us as much personal freedom as possible, but like anything else, there are limits to what can be allowed.
uhhhh..what? Rand doesn't even talk about the government very much, only that it should stay out of economic affairs. She is not an advocate of anarchy, and neither am I...I don't understand where you got this impression.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Fair enough.  But the fact remains that many who claim to follow Rand's ideas people are very shortsighted and selfish beyond rational self-interest.
What was that you were saying about making peace with reality? lol
Limiting your battles does not mean refraining from all of them.  In many ways, I consider Objectivists as my primary adversaries in a societal sense.
...wtf

My point was that all people are are shortsighted and selfish, not just those "who claim to follow Rand's ideas".
2009-07-21 16:49:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

you tired?
Tired of your arrogance perhaps....

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

k, way to take a nearly inconsequential qualification to attempt a "gotcha" while ignoring entirely the point of the two paragraphs.

I prefer to write in a fiery, brash manner rather than a cold logical one because it is a helluva lot more fun. That is not even close to the same thing as being a troll. Frankly, I'm offended. I think I put a lot of effort into my posts compared to what a lot of people get away with.
I can see the effort as well, but I often wonder why you choose the directions you do.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Honestly living in despair is better than ignorantly living in happiness.
There is such a thing as a middle ground.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

uhhhh..what? Rand doesn't even talk about the government very much, only that it should stay out of economic affairs. She is not an advocate of anarchy, and neither am I...I don't understand where you got this impression.
Because the government has to get involved in economic affairs....  Interstate commerce is the most base level of intervention that the Founders supported, but with time, other concerns arise in the interest of modernizing society.  Had we never implemented the New Deal, we'd probably have a much smaller middle class more reminiscent of Russia or Brazil.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...wtf

My point was that all people are are shortsighted and selfish, not just those "who claim to follow Rand's ideas".
Everyone has their limits to foresight, but as with most things, there is a wide spectrum of limits.  Capitalism in general has a tendency to make people more selfish than they are naturally.
2009-07-22 01:41:35
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6997|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

you tired?
Tired of your arrogance perhaps....
chill. I only asked because your last reply was not as...coherent? as usual, like something was up.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

k, way to take a nearly inconsequential qualification to attempt a "gotcha" while ignoring entirely the point of the two paragraphs.

I prefer to write in a fiery, brash manner rather than a cold logical one because it is a helluva lot more fun. That is not even close to the same thing as being a troll. Frankly, I'm offended. I think I put a lot of effort into my posts compared to what a lot of people get away with.
I can see the effort as well, but I often wonder why you choose the directions you do.
Well when you get done wondering are you going to reply to the point, or continue to lead the point off-topic? Quoted for convenience:

FM wrote:

I don't know why you keep throwing the word dogma out. Just because of my strong language? Refusing to do something on the basis that there is no advantage to doing it is quite a bit different from refusing on the basis that it is against your personal beliefs.

I don't have a problem with mental focus. Despite what you may think I am quite level-headed, most of my rage and whatnot is contrived for my (and sometimes others') amusement. I'm not easily flustered, and it's very easy to make the other person lose their temper before I do. My thoughts have a very linear, logical progression that allows me to explain systems/laws of nature easily.

I'll pass with the spiritual crap kthx. You can get the same benefits with simple introspection.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Honestly living in despair is better than ignorantly living in happiness.
There is such a thing as a middle ground.
Not really in this case. It's the red pill or the blue pill. You fully accept reality, or you don't.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

uhhhh..what? Rand doesn't even talk about the government very much, only that it should stay out of economic affairs. She is not an advocate of anarchy, and neither am I...I don't understand where you got this impression.
Because the government has to get involved in economic affairs....  Interstate commerce is the most base level of intervention that the Founders supported, but with time, other concerns arise in the interest of modernizing society.  Had we never implemented the New Deal, we'd probably have a much smaller middle class more reminiscent of Russia or Brazil.
If we had a largely laissez faire from the beginning with a focus on consumer education rather than government intervention, we would have a highly industrial, technologically advanced society with an intelligent population that lends itself to a very socially mobile society.

I can play "what if" too!

The government does not have to do anything...speaking in such absolutes just exemplifies how your agile mind has rusted into the place society dictates. There can be no historical proof against that which has not been tried, and bringing the inappropriate concrete to bear against the abstract makes me believe you have no appropriate abstract evidence otherwise.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...wtf

My point was that all people are are shortsighted and selfish, not just those "who claim to follow Rand's ideas".
Everyone has their limits to foresight, but as with most things, there is a wide spectrum of limits.  Capitalism in general has a tendency to make people more selfish than they are naturally.
How can you make something that is made up of nothing but ego-centrism more selfish?

Liberal societies tend to mask selfishness, by satisfying the ego through the superego. They denote some activities as rewarding, and treat them as such - so everyone is being selfish by being unselfish. It doesn't get rid of the fact that one always wants more than is at hand, it only makes it a far more insidious force.
2009-07-22 14:50:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You fully accept reality, or you don't.
We agree on this one point.  Beyond that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

As I've said before, I prefer to choose my battles.  This one doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard