Why Do Europeans Hate Us?

orion · December 3, 2007, 7:15pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote: Please, Google some Nietzsche or better some Ayn Rand (she’s less obscure) today!

…if i didn’t think you’re mentally disturbed, i’d go into a discussion with you about the inane, selfserving philosophies of Rand, but as you would misinterpret all i write to fit your warped views, that’ll be a exercise in futility. Us awaits a Pyrrhus victory, but at least you can beat yourself on your chest and say: ‘we won!’…

Show me a non-self serving philosophy.

People who have the desperate desire to sacrifice their lifes for others could very well suffer from some sort of ascetic narcissism, the overwhelming desire to live up to simple and strict ideals they should have outgrown long ago.

Having to live in the real world cures most of them. Therefore the saying, if you are not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you are still one at thirty you have no brain.

Just because those people may be able to rationalize their neurotic mental structure does not make them any less inmature whereas true egoism requires a high degree of maturity and cooperation.

…your point being?

Since most philosophies demanding more or less mandatory altruism are logically flawed and very likely also self serving, the point that Ayn Rands philosophies may be self-serving is moot.

So what if they are?

She believed that individuals must choose their values and actions solely by reason, and that “Man ï¿½?? every man ï¿½?? is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.” According to Rand, the individual “must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”[2]

…the philosophies i’m familiar with, buddhism/non-duality/Advaita Vedanta, may seem logically flawed but are far from selfserving. So, no moot point was made…[/quote]

I asking you do look deeper into these philosophies and examine where this desire to help others comes from.

If you feel better by helping others, or which approaches the pathological, need to “help” others to be able to live with yourself, those desires are as self serving as pure unadulterated egoism.

It is not important what you desire, the fact that YOU desire it makes it self serving, if you pursue goals in your philosophies name.

Headhunter · December 3, 2007, 7:19pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote: More T!! Man, are you a Lebensborn baby?

…how old do you think i am? My mother was born in '40, you idiot ((-:

Well, out of respect for her, I won’t ask the obvious question wrt her, as the Lebensborn program was in full swing by then.

What fascinated me was the effeminate sound of the ‘bend over’ post and then the somewhat more masculine tone of these last few.

Do you really think that physical objects, like the jar of baby food sitting in front of your child, are of no meaning? Its okay to spout nonsensical philosophies on here but what do you do wrt the hungry baby? Chant ‘Ohms’ while it screams?

…trust me when i say that my mother would not have been Ã¿bermensch material, despite the fact she gave birth to very intelligent children. Wrt your misrepresentation or simply misunderstanding of what i qualified as ‘material’ in that other post; i’m not going to bother explaining what i meant as it should’ve been clear to anyone reading with just a modicum of objective reasoning skills…

[/quote]

Hmmm…your philosophy of Buddhism/Sikhism teaches love for all and such touchy feely stuff. Yet now, you simply say you don’t want to be bothered helping another human being, disturbed as he might be. Which is it? If you embrace some sort of altruistic unselfish philosophy, doesn’t that philosophy apply in this situation? If I’m mentally deficient, aren’t you even MORE obligated to help me?

Why doesn’t the food for a baby qualify for discussion? Its solid and has mass and so forth. Is it only magical fairy dust and things like that to which which your philosophy applies?

I contend that your philosophy is untenable and you won’t explain it to me. Not very unselfish of you…

ephrem · December 3, 2007, 8:14pm

[quote]orion wrote: I asking you do look deeper into these philosophies and examine where this desire to help others comes from.

If you feel better by helping others, or which approaches the pathological, need to “help” others to be able to live with yourself, those desires are as self serving as pure unadulterated egoism.

It is not important what you desire, the fact that YOU desire it makes it self serving, if you pursue goals in your philosophies name. [/quote]

…let me ask you why you’ve leaped to the conclusion that i have a strong desire to help people? I don’t think i give off that impression, tbh. I only ask that we take eachother into consideration instead of creating a false casm between us and ‘them’…

ephrem · December 3, 2007, 8:21pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote: Hmmm…your philosophy of Buddhism/Sikhism teaches love for all and such touchy feely stuff. Yet now, you simply say you don’t want to be bothered helping another human being, disturbed as he might be. Which is it? If you embrace some sort of altruistic unselfish philosophy, doesn’t that philosophy apply in this situation? If I’m mentally deficient, aren’t you even MORE obligated to help me?

Why doesn’t the food for a baby qualify for discussion? Its solid and has mass and so forth. Is it only magical fairy dust and things like that to which which your philosophy applies?

I contend that your philosophy is untenable and you won’t explain it to me. Not very unselfish of you…[/quote]

…the reason for not responding to you in the manner you want me to is because i think you are wilfully ignorant; and that means you lack sincerity. You might be mentally disturbed, but that doesn’t mean i think you’re dumb. Many sociopaths are intelligent HH. Don’t feed the troll, and you won’t get bit…

Mishima · December 3, 2007, 9:02pm

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…your philosophy of Buddhism/Sikhism teaches love for all and such touchy feely stuff.
[/quote]

What buddhist teaching did you read? The pali canon? The zen-teachings or the tibetan tantras?

Headhunter · December 3, 2007, 9:20pm

[quote]Mishima wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…your philosophy of Buddhism/Sikhism teaches love for all and such touchy feely stuff.

What buddhist teaching did you read? The pali canon? The zen-teachings or the tibetan tantras? Nietzsche in “the antichrist” is very much pro buddhism. [/quote]

Lots. And Epherem’s posts are about Nirvana and Mahayana.
He’s a Buddhist.

Nietsche’s ‘flaw’ is that he refuses to accept the supremacy of rational selfishness, and hence collapses into praise of irrational selfishness. His embracing of Eastern religious thought is pretty bizarre, though therefore logical.

orion · December 3, 2007, 4:30pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: I asking you do look deeper into these philosophies and examine where this desire to help others comes from.

If you feel better by helping others, or which approaches the pathological, need to “help” others to be able to live with yourself, those desires are as self serving as pure unadulterated egoism.

It is not important what you desire, the fact that YOU desire it makes it self serving, if you pursue goals in your philosophies name.

…let me ask you why you’ve leaped to the conclusion that i have a strong desire to help people? I don’t think i give off that impression, tbh. I only ask that we take eachother into consideration instead of creating a false casm between us and ‘them’…

[/quote]

I meant a metaphorical you, hence the “if”…

I am pretty sure however that you have the desire to help others if you can at a reasonable cost.

That is perfectly human.

The question is, and that is where Ayn Rand has her strong points, if our instincts that evolved because of and to deal with a very specific situation are fit to be the guiding principles ia a situation that has fundamentally changed.

ephrem · December 3, 2007, 10:02pm

…i honestly think our species is [about to arrive] at a point in it’s development where blatant egoism and selfpreservation is no longer needed. We can feed the poor, solve our energyproblems, settle petty disputes, if only the inclination would exist. I’m realistic enough to understand that’s still a long way off, but Rand’s philosophy only dichotomizes us further by confirming the validity of a natural instinct that only humans [as a species] can overcome. Precisely because our situation changed fundamentally, these instincts should no longer apply, and that is why i think Rand’s philosophy is not worth contemplating…

orion · December 3, 2007, 10:32pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: The question is, and that is where Ayn Rand has her strong points, if our instincts that evolved because of and to deal with a very specific situation are fit to be the guiding principles ia a situation that has fundamentally changed.

…i honestly think our species is [about to arrive] at a point in it’s development where blatant egoism and selfpreservation is no longer needed. We can feed the poor, solve our energyproblems, settle petty disputes, if only the inclination would exist. I’m realistic enough to understand that’s still a long way off, but Rand’s philosophy only dichotomizes us further by confirming the validity of a natural instinct that only humans [as a species] can overcome. Precisely because our situation changed fundamentally, these instincts should no longer apply, and that is why i think Rand’s philosophy is not worth contemplating…[/quote]

The conservative argument, or rather the libertarian argument is , that the natural instinct to be altruistic is the “Road to tyrannny” if applied to the whole of society and not just friends and family.

Our moral instincts lead to collectivist nightmares, our egoism to freedom.

ephrem · December 3, 2007, 11:08pm

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: The question is, and that is where Ayn Rand has her strong points, if our instincts that evolved because of and to deal with a very specific situation are fit to be the guiding principles ia a situation that has fundamentally changed.

…i honestly think our species is [about to arrive] at a point in it’s development where blatant egoism and selfpreservation is no longer needed. We can feed the poor, solve our energyproblems, settle petty disputes, if only the inclination would exist. I’m realistic enough to understand that’s still a long way off, but Rand’s philosophy only dichotomizes us further by confirming the validity of a natural instinct that only humans [as a species] can overcome. Precisely because our situation changed fundamentally, these instincts should no longer apply, and that is why i think Rand’s philosophy is not worth contemplating…

The conservative argument, or rather the libertarian argument is , that the natural instinct to be altruistic is the “Road to tyrannny” if applied to the whole of society and not just friends and family.

Our moral instincts lead to collectivist nightmares, our egoism to freedom.
[/quote]

…i don’t care what the arguement is, let alone follow someone else’s. I never understood the principle of politics where voting for one party gives you the right to no longer care what happens to those who lost the election.

I get that if one tribe conquers a piece of land at the expense of another, they live happily ever after [until they get defeated]. But when the entire planet is at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to our selfish actions, there’ll be nothing left to enjoy, is there?

…the Human Genome Project traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, our shared ancestors. All of us humans can be traced back to a man and a woman that lived a long time ago. Society is family, beit the ultimate disfunctional family ofcourse…

Headhunter · December 4, 2007, 1:57am

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: The question is, and that is where Ayn Rand has her strong points, if our instincts that evolved because of and to deal with a very specific situation are fit to be the guiding principles ia a situation that has fundamentally changed.

…i honestly think our species is [about to arrive] at a point in it’s development where blatant egoism and selfpreservation is no longer needed. We can feed the poor, solve our energyproblems, settle petty disputes, if only the inclination would exist. I’m realistic enough to understand that’s still a long way off, but Rand’s philosophy only dichotomizes us further by confirming the validity of a natural instinct that only humans [as a species] can overcome. Precisely because our situation changed fundamentally, these instincts should no longer apply, and that is why i think Rand’s philosophy is not worth contemplating…

The conservative argument, or rather the libertarian argument is , that the natural instinct to be altruistic is the “Road to tyrannny” if applied to the whole of society and not just friends and family.

Our moral instincts lead to collectivist nightmares, our egoism to freedom.

…i don’t care what the arguement is, let alone follow someone else’s. I never understood the principle of politics where voting for one party gives you the right to no longer care what happens to those who lost the election.

I get that if one tribe conquers a piece of land at the expense of another, they live happily ever after [until they get defeated]. But when the entire planet is at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to our selfish actions, there’ll be nothing left to enjoy, is there?

…the Human Genome Project traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, our shared ancestors. All of us humans can be traced back to a man and a woman that lived a long time ago. Society is family, beit the ultimate disfunctional family ofcourse…
[/quote]

It is unselfishness that is ravaging the planet. The Communists demanded that people live not for themselves but for the mystical ‘proletariat’. The Nazis demanded that individuals live for the ‘Aryan Race’, not for themselves. Environmentalists tell us to live for the benefit of polar bears, toads, and other such creatures. Its all the same evil unselfishness shrieked at us by philosophical con artists.

How about living for YOURSELF as a rational being — not as some beast of prey but as a MAN?

Kick all the mystical crapola that Lib/Leftist maniacs have filled you with back into the swamps from which it came. ‘Nirvana’ can be reached when you say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Rand)

ephrem · December 4, 2007, 9:19am

[quote]Headhunter wrote: It is unselfishness that is ravaging the planet. The Communists demanded that people live not for themselves but for the mystical ‘proletariat’. The Nazis demanded that individuals live for the ‘Aryan Race’, not for themselves. Environmentalists tell us to live for the benefit of polar bears, toads, and other such creatures. Its all the same evil unselfishness shrieked at us by philosophical con artists.

How about living for YOURSELF as a rational being — not as some beast of prey but as a MAN?

Kick all the mystical crapola that Lib/Leftist maniacs have filled you with back into the swamps from which it came. ‘Nirvana’ can be reached when you say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Rand)[/quote]

…exhausting natural resources, polluting the environment, species of animal going extinct due to our actions and introducing genetically engineered DNA into our foodchain is the result of unselfishness?

…you call yourself a rational man, living by the words of a woman?

…i suggest that you, for once, try to think for yourself and form your own ideas and opinions instead of leeching off of those you happen to agree with. From all that you wrote thus far it’s clear that you’re a follower, a yes-man, a lackey, who’s words are inconsequential. Have a nice day!

orion · December 4, 2007, 9:22am

[quote]ephrem wrote:
orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
orion wrote: The question is, and that is where Ayn Rand has her strong points, if our instincts that evolved because of and to deal with a very specific situation are fit to be the guiding principles ia a situation that has fundamentally changed.

…i honestly think our species is [about to arrive] at a point in it’s development where blatant egoism and selfpreservation is no longer needed. We can feed the poor, solve our energyproblems, settle petty disputes, if only the inclination would exist. I’m realistic enough to understand that’s still a long way off, but Rand’s philosophy only dichotomizes us further by confirming the validity of a natural instinct that only humans [as a species] can overcome. Precisely because our situation changed fundamentally, these instincts should no longer apply, and that is why i think Rand’s philosophy is not worth contemplating…

The conservative argument, or rather the libertarian argument is , that the natural instinct to be altruistic is the “Road to tyrannny” if applied to the whole of society and not just friends and family.

Our moral instincts lead to collectivist nightmares, our egoism to freedom.

…i don’t care what the arguement is, let alone follow someone else’s. I never understood the principle of politics where voting for one party gives you the right to no longer care what happens to those who lost the election.

I get that if one tribe conquers a piece of land at the expense of another, they live happily ever after [until they get defeated]. But when the entire planet is at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to our selfish actions, there’ll be nothing left to enjoy, is there?

…the Human Genome Project traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, our shared ancestors. All of us humans can be traced back to a man and a woman that lived a long time ago. Society is family, beit the ultimate disfunctional family ofcourse…
[/quote]

But maybe you should care for the argument, because your approach does not consist of feeding the poor but of forcing others to feed them.

Ayn Rand is saying that she was hardly born to be forced at gun point to slave for people that are less well off than her.

Her philosophy does not require the use of violence, yours inevitably does.

Therefore my point that your moral instincts lead to theft, coercion and murder if applied on a large scale.

orion · December 4, 2007, 9:33am

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

It is unselfishness that is ravaging the planet. The Communists demanded that people live not for themselves but for the mystical ‘proletariat’. The Nazis demanded that individuals live for the ‘Aryan Race’, not for themselves. Environmentalists tell us to live for the benefit of polar bears, toads, and other such creatures. Its all the same evil unselfishness shrieked at us by philosophical con artists.

How about living for YOURSELF as a rational being — not as some beast of prey but as a MAN?

Kick all the mystical crapola that Lib/Leftist maniacs have filled you with back into the swamps from which it came. ‘Nirvana’ can be reached when you say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Rand)

[/quote]

All those people demanding altruism and solidarity at gun point make real altruism and true solidarity impossible because it is either done because you want to yourself or it is just a form of robbery.

However much I detest forced “altruism”, or to be exact, because of it, I admire true altruism. Of course it has its roots in egoism but why should not someone help other people if he enjoys it? If helping other people satisfies someone more than a third car or fifth flat screen he would hurt himself by not doing it.

lixy · December 4, 2007, 11:14am

[quote]orion wrote:
Ayn Rand is saying that she was hardly born to be forced at gun point to slave for people that are less well off than her.

Her philosophy does not require the use of violence, yours inevitably does. [/quote]

True. But then again, if I had lived her traumatic childhood, I’d probably have similar radical ideas.

ephrem · December 4, 2007, 12:07pm

[quote]orion wrote: …i don’t care what the arguement is, let alone follow someone else’s. I never understood the principle of politics where voting for one party gives you the right to no longer care what happens to those who lost the election.

I get that if one tribe conquers a piece of land at the expense of another, they live happily ever after [until they get defeated]. But when the entire planet is at risk of becoming uninhabitable due to our selfish actions, there’ll be nothing left to enjoy, is there?

…the Human Genome Project traced via mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome, our shared ancestors. All of us humans can be traced back to a man and a woman that lived a long time ago. Society is family, beit the ultimate disfunctional family ofcourse…

But maybe you should care for the argument, because your approach does not consist of feeding the poor but of forcing others to feed them.

Ayn Rand is saying that she was hardly born to be forced at gun point to slave for people that are less well off than her.

Her philosophy does not require the use of violence, yours inevitably does.

Therefore my point that your moral instincts lead to theft, coercion and murder if applied on a large scale.[/quote]

…see, i’ve never said i follow a certain philosophy or creed, nor have i ever quoted someone to clarify my point of view. Your conclusions do follow a path that infers i’m an adherent of someone else’s viewpoint, and those conclusions are therefore invariably incorrect. I can’t tell any difference between our current state of worldy affairs and the consequences you attribute to a more social and humane stance towards people in general. Do you agree that a change is needed? A change from the cynical me-first-and-other’s-be-damned approach to life? Because from where i’m sitting, that causes the largest scale of theft, coercion and murder in history…

Headhunter · December 4, 2007, 1:41pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote: It is unselfishness that is ravaging the planet. The Communists demanded that people live not for themselves but for the mystical ‘proletariat’. The Nazis demanded that individuals live for the ‘Aryan Race’, not for themselves. Environmentalists tell us to live for the benefit of polar bears, toads, and other such creatures. Its all the same evil unselfishness shrieked at us by philosophical con artists.

How about living for YOURSELF as a rational being — not as some beast of prey but as a MAN?

Kick all the mystical crapola that Lib/Leftist maniacs have filled you with back into the swamps from which it came. ‘Nirvana’ can be reached when you say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Rand)

…exhausting natural resources, polluting the environment, species of animal going extinct due to our actions and introducing genetically engineered DNA into our foodchain is the result of unselfishness?

…you call yourself a rational man, living by the words of a woman?

…i suggest that you, for once, try to think for yourself and form your own ideas and opinions instead of leeching off of those you happen to agree with. From all that you wrote thus far it’s clear that you’re a follower, a yes-man, a lackey, who’s words are inconsequential. Have a nice day!

[/quote]

I was about to say the same to you, almost word for word —except for the rip on women. I’m not a sexist.

Interesting how the same philosophy that destroyed you simultaneously prevented you from observing it happening. That is one of the very powerful parts of organised religions; preventing the victims from knowing what’s happening, by making them irrational.

You are caught in a trap. I sincerely hope you free yourself one day.

Headhunter · December 4, 2007, 1:45pm

[quote]orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

It is unselfishness that is ravaging the planet. The Communists demanded that people live not for themselves but for the mystical ‘proletariat’. The Nazis demanded that individuals live for the ‘Aryan Race’, not for themselves. Environmentalists tell us to live for the benefit of polar bears, toads, and other such creatures. Its all the same evil unselfishness shrieked at us by philosophical con artists.

How about living for YOURSELF as a rational being — not as some beast of prey but as a MAN?

Kick all the mystical crapola that Lib/Leftist maniacs have filled you with back into the swamps from which it came. ‘Nirvana’ can be reached when you say: “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (Rand)

All those people demanding altruism and solidarity at gun point make real altruism and true solidarity impossible because it is either done because you want to yourself or it is just a form of robbery.

However much I detest forced “altruism”, or to be exact, because of it, I admire true altruism. Of course it has its roots in egoism but why should not someone help other people if he enjoys it? If helping other people satisfies someone more than a third car or fifth flat screen he would hurt himself by not doing it. [/quote]

Only a true and rational egoist can be ever really be benevolent. That is because helping others is then done freely and not because of some moral imperative.

Read what Nietzsche has to say about Kant. He says it much better than I.

Wreckless · December 6, 2007, 12:32am

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Headhunter wrote: It is unselfishness that is ravaging the planet. The Communists demanded that people live not for themselves but for the mystical ‘proletariat’. The Nazis demanded that individuals live for the ‘Aryan Race’, not for themselves. Environmentalists tell us to live for the benefit of polar bears, toads, and other such creatures. Its all the same evil unselfishness shrieked at us by philosophical con artists.