Mitchell's Convert Me Challenge

[t_h_mitchell]

1. Intro
I posted my original convert_me challenge 4 years ago today ( here). I think it's about time I rewrote it. :)

Comments

[chiasmushf]

Take a swing at Kierkegaard. He's a lot of fun. In particular, I'd recommend Purity of Heart to you. If you want to try to get into his pseudonymous writings (there be Dragons), do Either/Or, Fear and Trembling, and Concluding Unscientific Postscript, in that order.

It's really Fear and Trembling that gets the most into why Kierkegaard is considered the father of existentialism (IMHO), but that text is also one of the hardest to comprehend, because it's riddled with personas, indirect communication, and subtle satire

N vs R

[t_h_mitchell]

To the existentialist, it's simply ridiculous to try to build a philosophical structure that can fully comprehend the absurdity of the human condition.

If that's true, that's another good reason not to call myself an existentialist (even though I doubt I can "fully" comprehend the human condition, I still try to understand it to the best of my abilities--which sounds akin to "building a philosophical structure" about it).

so it's kind of odd to list them both as positive influences.

I see them as different influences for different topics. Actually, I think morality-wise Nietzsche would agree that not all people are "great". Rand uses the term "looters" to describe some, LeVay uses the term "psychic vampires" to describe some, and Nietzsche used the term "maggots on the bread of life" to describe some.

When it comes to objective/subjective reality, however, I see your point (they seem like very different thinkers on that topic).

[noneuklid]

It might be a bit too technocentric for your tastes, but have you ever looked into transhumanism? It seems like the core principles, at least, are much as you've described in 2.8.

trans-what?

[t_h_mitchell]

Never even heard of the term. I'll look into it and get back to you.

cheers,

MITCHELL

Re: trans-what?

[einprosess]

I seem to recall that extimelord wrote a brief post about that a long time ago.

Re: trans-what?

[einprosess]

Found it. It was briefer than I remembered. http://community.livejournal.com/convert_me/146071.html

Maybe I was one of the few people who read it:P

[lucypevensie]

I thought the reason one was supposed to kill the Buddha one meets on the road was that accepting a form creates dogma.

Perhaps I am way off base, though.

[t_h_mitchell]

accepting a form creates dogma

I don't think that's too different from what I said, really. One can either accept some form of dogma (from Jesus or Buddha or what have you), or one can create their own X (building upon others here and there and such).

[enders_shadow]

What I know of Buddhism tells me that the reason you kill the Buddha when you see the Buddha is that encountering a Buddha puts you off the path to becoming Buddha yourself, since you will likely try to become like that Buddha instead of your own Buddha.

Not to mention, Buddha is only alive by default. Buddha craves neither death nor life, so to kill him (or her) would be no means upset the Buddha, but help further you on your own path to Buddhahood.

I too, could be WAY off base. But I hope not.

tenets, dammit, tenets

[essentialsaltes]

the basic tenants

/pet peeve off

Re: tenets, dammit, tenets

[noneuklid]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about people who actually rent property in Secular Humanism. I hear the rent's not too bad, but you have to put up with some real shit from the neighbors.

Re: tenets, dammit, tenets

[t_h_mitchell]

Corrected, thank you. :)

Re: tenets, dammit, tenets

[essentialsaltes]

Try again.

[grappleyo]

Ayn Rand now? Ayn Rand, now? Yes, CAPITALISM. What exactly are your problems with Capitalism, if you just gave that spiel on how "all humans aren't created equal"? Serious question.

[t_h_mitchell]

What exactly are your problems with Capitalism

I'd rather not get into that with this thread.

[grappleyo]

Well, ok. Then what do you mean that "all humans are not created equal"? I've only seen that used as a justification for capitalism, social darwinism, imperialism, and racial supremacy. Do you think some people were "created" to be on top and others "created" to serve them?

"Guns, Germs, and Steel", "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens", "Medical Apartheid", "American Apartheid" (the one by Mr. Wright but especially the one by Mr. Massey / Ms. Denton), "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa", "Lockdown America", "The Heart of Whiteness", "Democracy for the Few", "Toward an American Revolution: Exposing the Constitution and Other Illusions", "No Equal Justice", "Whitewashing Race", "What Uncle Sam Really Wants", "Freeing the World to Death", "Racist America", "Profit over People", "Merchants of Misery", "When Affirmative Action Was White", "Racism Without Racists". Read a book, any book, there are hundreds of others, hell read a newspaper for all I care. You can say you don't care about justice, you got yours, and leave it there.