http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-05-Ayn-Rand-and-Jesus-dont-mix_n.htm I am starting to believe that the reason there is a such dichotomy in peoples thinking is that we have become so specialized, that we don't see the synthesis that is necessary to weave all our beliefs into a holistic existence that allows for harmony in all. When you are an economist or a trader, all you see are numbers and efficiency and productivity or lack thereof. When you are a deeply spiritual person, you cannot come to terms with the lack of compassion that is most economic thinking. But all we need is a hierarchy of thinking, where we consider all theories at once. I wrote about this somewhere in a different but still interesting way, but I can't find my own stuff on ET anymore.
There is no "lack of compassion" in bettering oneself. The better I do for me, the better I do for my family and friends, which makes the world a better place. Can you become poor enough to make a poor man wealthy, in mind, body, or spirit.??
Yes. But Ayn Rand is a poser. I went through that phase too (in highschool) but then you quickly realize that her beliefs are more idealistic than those she railed against. They sound good because we all wish we were Howard Roark or John Galt.
People argue over the beliefs they have built from the axiomitic principles they stand on. No one argues over the axioms, only the branches and leaves from which they grow. Debate in such fashion is futile.
Beliefs mean nothing, have no value by themsleves. It is how you justify them that matters and gives them value.
an interesting discussion i had with a good friend over coffee kinda touched on this subject lightly. It began with some shooting the sht about whether human beings can know what really is "in harmony" The raising of the question itself asserts that people are already in a state of disharmony where it is possible that the current state of humanity assumes an already harmonious state. A funny point was made that perhaps for some, those that seem unthinking, insensitive, unconcerned have already achieved a state of harmony whereas those who continue to look for those elusive hardline answers questioning everything have not. I don't condone that things cannot be improved nor should they or do they remain static, but that those things in themselves might not be synonymous with harmony. some guy i was watching david chalmers a philosopher of conciousness raised an interesting point at a symposium on singularity, and the possibilities of it. He mentioned that yes it could be possible that human beings can bring about an intelligence that is larger, smarter more powerful than themselves, but it might emerge not from direct contribution towards a definitive work, but through "dumb evolution" where it will emerge from the aggregate of human actions unexpectedly kinda by accident. Maybe our understanding of harmony might run a similar route.
Good post. Some of the axioms are mistaken. I think you meant "only the branches and leaves that grow from them." But I get your point, which is a good one.
âThere are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year oldâs life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.â -- Paul Krugman "Where knowledge ends, religion begins." -- Benjamin Disraeli "In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." -- Nietzsche No, not at odds, just more manufactured crap.