D
DÛke
Guest
...
Back note: if the Rand you are speaking of is Ayn Rand, then yes...I am familiar with her - I do not like her because, for example, in her work "Anthem," she basically stole what existentialist philosophers before her, like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Jaspers have hinted at over and over again. Additionally, I do not like her "cult" status - any philosopher who wants followers, in my opinion, is not a philosopher, but a very bad actor who wanted fans through some mean, preferably through music or acting, but was inept, therefore choosing philosophy - this sounds like Rand to me. That you tell me she is important...I laugh at that! She is important! That creates a vague image of what you call "important." <laughs>
Americans, yes, consider Rand great - they read her, they love her...one of her books (I forgot which it is), is the second most important book to them next to the Bible even...but what does that tell us? That Americans, the weakest and most decadent, most inept, the great error of humanity, that these kind of people enjoy her - that is a poor sign of a poor philosophy.
To attract worms and all sorts of vicious, beastlike parasites as such...please! We ought to repel rather than attract!
And I noticed that you would just love to label me, to place a tag behind my back - no matter what it is - just for the sake of placing a "name" on me. "Punk Rocker"? - I do not care for the name that you place on me, but I find the act of trying to "classify" me very "normal" - the first thing you want to do is "confine" me between narrow words and shallow definitions. A second example of this we see here:
For a different note...
The problem is...most people do not know what they believe - most people posses a "subconscious," most people are double and multi-minded - we cannot take their "beliefs" seriously - hence, they are victims of their own feelings, thoughts, and bodies...they are sick.
And again, every time I mention a majority or a "most people," I find myself running to the same wall: just who are the majority? Who are these "most people"? But O how pleasurable it will be, when the definitions of these living diseases become all the more clear...and believe me, I have taken the task to define who these ill-breds are...
Back note: if the Rand you are speaking of is Ayn Rand, then yes...I am familiar with her - I do not like her because, for example, in her work "Anthem," she basically stole what existentialist philosophers before her, like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Jaspers have hinted at over and over again. Additionally, I do not like her "cult" status - any philosopher who wants followers, in my opinion, is not a philosopher, but a very bad actor who wanted fans through some mean, preferably through music or acting, but was inept, therefore choosing philosophy - this sounds like Rand to me. That you tell me she is important...I laugh at that! She is important! That creates a vague image of what you call "important." <laughs>
Americans, yes, consider Rand great - they read her, they love her...one of her books (I forgot which it is), is the second most important book to them next to the Bible even...but what does that tell us? That Americans, the weakest and most decadent, most inept, the great error of humanity, that these kind of people enjoy her - that is a poor sign of a poor philosophy.
To attract worms and all sorts of vicious, beastlike parasites as such...please! We ought to repel rather than attract!
And I noticed that you would just love to label me, to place a tag behind my back - no matter what it is - just for the sake of placing a "name" on me. "Punk Rocker"? - I do not care for the name that you place on me, but I find the act of trying to "classify" me very "normal" - the first thing you want to do is "confine" me between narrow words and shallow definitions. A second example of this we see here:
Me - a "scholar of philosophers"? You realize that I am 20, first of all, and quite busy - the term "scholar" here is nice product derived from your imagination, and solely your imagination. That I know a good few names above and beyond what the average man does, does not make me a "scholar," it makes me...nothing. But you want me to be "something." You know why? So you can "prove" to me how I am not that "thing," and instead, how I might be "nothing" or less of the "something." But I never said I am a scholar, or that I am a professor, or anything. I am student, in fact, merely a sophomore student. Please, do not make me sound bigger than I am...but do not belittle me either. But am I simply being paranoid, perhaps? No! We finally confront what you wanted to feel:...or that you are scholar of philosophers...
Have fun in your perch.That you are unfamiliar with Godel and Rand, well, has just for me created a perch.
For a different note...
Have you taken psychology? I would love to sit down and tell you how so-called "atheists," most the average atheists - or...an American atheists, for example - how they are sick. Professional "atheists," like Nietzsche, have their own stories - and that is why I am, in my first book, taking the time to shatter all professional atheism, especially that of Sartre and Nietzsche.Rakamir:
Atheists have the greatest faith of all, DUke. They BELIEVE in "nothing," which I find to be retarded, without proof.
Would you like to retract these words, or at least, rephrase them so that you only include yourself as the victim of such an inability? No - maybe you cannot analyze agnostics; I, on the contrary, have. My biggest problem is that I do not know of any professional agnostics - I have my "unbelievers" in Nietzsche and Sartre, and my believers under Kierkegaard, Pascal, Descartes...and I am sure I can find more. I have Jung...and...Freud...to thank for giving me the gift of seeing through garbage, all I need, now is a professional agnostic. The average agnostic is easy to analyze, but, since he is average, he does not make a big proof. Imagine refuting a concept of Nietzsche or Sartre - how more profound it is...versus refuting what...for example, you say you believe.Rakamir:
Agnostics cannot be analyzed, DUke.
The problem is...most people do not know what they believe - most people posses a "subconscious," most people are double and multi-minded - we cannot take their "beliefs" seriously - hence, they are victims of their own feelings, thoughts, and bodies...they are sick.
And again, every time I mention a majority or a "most people," I find myself running to the same wall: just who are the majority? Who are these "most people"? But O how pleasurable it will be, when the definitions of these living diseases become all the more clear...and believe me, I have taken the task to define who these ill-breds are...