A fundamentalist nun? Sacrilege! Somebody call 911! dj
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:51 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lets be honest, both women had a list of detractors...and both for > good reason. > > Mommie Dearest > The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a > fraud. > By Christopher Hitchens > http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/ > > By Erich Vieth on May 21st, 2008 > The dark side of Mother Teresa > http://dangerousintersection.org/2008/05/21/the-dark-side-of-mother-teresa/ > > "India has no reason to be grateful to Mother Teresa" > Sanal Edamaruku > http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm > > On Sep 13, 8:19 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Taken in a philosophical vein, it could be said that Mother Teresa had >> many, many children. For instance, how many people that met her >> refereed to her as "Mother?" How many loved her more then their own >> actual mother? Whereas Rand may have inspired 'disciples' no one >> would make the leap to mother. From what I've read of her personal >> life; she didn't seem like much of a nurturer. What Rigsy's comment >> suggested to me is that if Rand HAD had children perhaps her >> philosophy would have changed or softened in some way. Perhaps. It's >> interesting to speculate. >> >> dj >> >> >> >> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Neither was Mother Teresa, so what's your point? >> >> > On Sep 13, 6:39 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Rand was never a mother. >> >> >> On Sep 13, 2:25 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > Thanks for the link Molly; >> >> > Lee, >> >> > It's really just a ground level platform on which to expand. Rand >> >> > simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled >> >> > world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, >> >> > so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile >> >> > commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk >> >> > but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are not >> >> > dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can altruistically give >> >> > a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you will >> >> > still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try in some >> >> > way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes >> >> > precedence over the other. Rand states: >> >> > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. >> >> > He 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." >> >> > It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, that >> >> > is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part of your >> >> > own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much good if >> >> > you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if you >> >> > were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide in >> >> > excess of your self interest and happiness. >> >> >> > On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy of Rand. >> >> > > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with. >> >> >> > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose, can >> >> > > readily fit alongside my own, 'right to be'. But this idea that we >> >> > > all should rely on our own (absolute) reason, negects some inherent >> >> > > parts of our 'nature'. >> >> >> > > We are not purely reasonable creatures, and some of us seem to live a >> >> > > life without any form or reason at all. It is admiral that we seek to >> >> > > better ourselves, yet not all of us do, it is admiral that we seek a >> >> > > morality with which to better ourselvs, yet some are bound to disagree >> >> > > on what that morality should be. >> >> >> > > All in all I think that any philosophy NOT grounded in the reality of >> >> > > the situation is bound to fail. Rand discounts that most of us work >> >> > > on multilevels, some of our decistions and actions stem from emotion, >> >> > > some of our belifes are unreasonable. To suggest that doing so is >> >> > > unethical ignores the way we work, indeed as I have said to Chris, I >> >> > > have met enough followers of Rand's philosophy to make up my mind on >> >> > > how such philosophy actualy works in the real world and what it does >> >> > > to people. They are on the whole, cold, selfish, unemotional people, >> >> > > yes of course this is merely my opinion but one I certianly hold to be >> >> > > true due to my experiances. >> >> >> > > Rands objectivism simply does not work, if followed it changes people, >> >> > > and not for the better. >> >> >> > > On 8 Sep, 01:16, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > There is substance there if one considers the indiscriminate drive >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > love one another, the warped sense of loving thy enemies. We know >> >> > > > that one cannot begin to love another without loving self first. >> >> > > > I've >> >> > > > counseled many who stated "my whole world revolved around her/him", >> >> > > > which obviously reveals itself to be the problematic issue, we must >> >> > > > support our individuality. Once we lose our individuality we fade >> >> > > > away, exist without substance. Rand's sacrificial analogy is not >> >> > > > without relevance in that we should not become martyrs for the sake >> >> > > > of someone's survival, and of course the issue of whether someone >> >> > > > even >> >> > > > deserves the love or attention. I agree that we all should rely on >> >> > > > our own (absolute) reason and reiterate Kant's "duty of happiness". >> >> > > > Rand lays it out as achieving our own happiness as the highest moral >> >> > > > purpose. I've recently jousted with Lee on that very ideal in >> >> > > > which I >> >> > > > felt his concern for families of murderers was misguided and without >> >> > > > foundation which reveals his personal slant toward the opposing side >> >> > > > of Rand's proposal which ultimately resulted in assessing my view as >> >> > > > selfish. I think Rand sees through all the bullshit and all the >> >> > > > corruptness that comes with modified government regulated capitalism >> >> > > > (now that's a laugh). Altruism is somewhat honorable when you have >> >> > > > billions of dollars but for most it is simply a way to dig a grave. >> >> > > > It's funny that Wallace spews out how we are taught to have concern >> >> > > > for our fellow man, a "religious" indoctrination by which people >> >> > > > become subservient with the notion that they are somehow fulfilling >> >> > > > some kind of altruistic duty towards a God. I agree with Rand that >> >> > > > I >> >> > > > am entitled to my own happiness and also that I must achieve it on >> >> > > > my >> >> > > > own, for if not that then others will leach and suck the life blood >> >> > > > out of me, however, if my happiness should become so abundant that I >> >> > > > have the capacity to share it the by all means I would then give in >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > altruism. In aquatic life saving techniques there is a maneuver >> >> > > > that >> >> > > > pushes away the drowning person so that they don't kill you trying >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > save themselves. I don't love everyone and I've made that clear on >> >> > > > several occasions and I agree with Rand that it would be impossible >> >> > > > to >> >> > > > love everyone. Value and Virtue do play a role in loving and so why >> >> > > > should I be asked to love lowlife dregs of society? As much as I >> >> > > > have >> >> > > > helped many I have let many slither back under the rock from which >> >> > > > they came. I've said it before, I'm not Ghandi, step over the line >> >> > > > and >> >> > > > I won't have any problem with shooting your head clean off. >> >> >> > > > On Sep 7, 1:54 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > ““The lower, and purely intellectual, is nearest to the principle >> >> > > > > of >> >> > > > > Desire, and is thus distinguished from its other side which has >> >> > > > > affinity for the spiritual principles above. If the Thinker >> >> > > > > becomes >> >> > > > > wholly intellectual, the entire nature begins to tend downward—for >> >> > > > > intellect alone is cold, heartless, selfish.” – W. Q. Judge: “The >> >> > > > > Ocean of Theosophy” >> >> >> > > > > We were discussing things like love and compassion along with >> >> > > > > consciousness in another thread. Here is a view from one extreme >> >> > > > > point >> >> > > > > on the spectrum…that of Ayn Rand. Since she has been mentioned >> >> > > > > now and >> >> > > > > then here, for those of you who have little exposure to her, her >> >> > > > > books >> >> > > > > and/or philosophy, here is a short video interview that may >> >> > > > > provide a >> >> > > > > fairly rapid and direct access to what is called objectivism. >> >> >> > > > > While the video is on a Theosophy site, read the other stuff only >> >> > > > > if >> >> > > > > you are attracted, if not, that is fine too…scroll down to the 4th >> >> > > > > picture and click on it for the video to start. >> >> >> > > > > “Objectivism vs Altruism” >> >> >> > > > >http://theosophywatch.com/2009/09/07/the-caring-spirit/-Hidequotedtext- >> >> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
