The definition you provided was just basic Capitalism. I don't call that greed.
The definition I supplied steps over the bound into what I'd call true greed.
SELF-SACRIFICE: the tool of the MYSTICS
by Terry 105 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
NewYork44M
By the way you jumped in to defend the term, I'd say you still have a need to explain yourself
Didn't mean to appear to jump in. Just started reading the thread and wanted to add a few thoughts. I don't usually jump into AR threads, but this seemed especially interesting.
If you like greed, that makes me happy. I am greedy and very happy. Thank you very much.
-
NewYork44M
Greed - I'd define that somewhat differently in that it knows few bounds, putting "self" above the needs of the "group", to the detriment of the group. Hence it's pretty much looked down upon by every civilisation.
Since my escape from the mind -controlling group of witnesses I stay as far away from groups as possible. If I even hear the word "group" I get a little nervous.
-
kid-A
"A man has a right to exist and maintain his life through his own actions: some call this SELFISHNESS.
The Kantian tells us we better do our duty and serve SOCIETY with self-sacrifice.
Which philosophy leads to Hitler?
Where does Kant say values come from?
Where does Rand say values come from.
There, my friend, is the answer to your question."
Well no, not really. This does not even approximate an answer. You are drawing illusory distinctions between Kant and Rand. Besides, my comment was addressing the point of objectivism, not the intrinsic value of "morals". You did not answer my question nor address the point raised: namely, ALL sensory information is purely subjective and filtered through a biological system that therefore renders "objectivism" an impossible state of knowledge. Objective reality is a CROCK, and the closest approximation we have is the data resulting from collectively agreed upon empirical experimental methodologies and the application of falsifiable hypotheses via scientific research. Even then, we are at the mercy of our limited perceptual filters.
Regarding the moral positions of Kant, his recognition of the inherent worth of human beings is a key feature of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. As part of his method for recognizing moral duties, Kant insisted that we always act so as to treat others as ends in themselves and never completely as means to an end. In other words, we are not to use other people or treat them merely as objects. He rationalized that all human beings were owed a minimum of respect simply because they were human beings and capable of reason—in the same way as other natural rights philosophers believed that we are all born with "certain inalienable rights." For Kant, we all had the right to basic respect as human beings. Only if we demonstrated that we did not deserve to be respected would we relinquish that right. In other words, every person’s autonomy would be respected except in cases in which the exercise of that autonomy conflicted with the public good (as represented by the laws of the state). Kant’s method of arriving at moral rules allows not only individuals to construct moral guidelines for themselves, but it also permits whole communities to formulate laws for the governance of an entire political system under which individual rights are also clearly recognized.
As for the rather bizarre playing of the "Hitler card", obviously Rands greed based moral nihilism provides a much firmer foundation for Hitler-like philosophies, given that Hitler established the ultimate cult of the "individual" , and merely followed Rands rejection of social responsibility to its logical conclusions....
-
Satanus
Were any chemicals involved?
Yes. A low dosage of tetrahydracanabinol. Does that change something?S
-
LittleToe
Given that our neuronal system works using chemical and electrical reactions, the use of chemicals is surely a given, even in a tee-totaler.
In my own experience even moderate amounts of alcohol actually detract.
-
Robdar
If you like greed, that makes me happy. I am greedy and very happy. Thank you very much.
-
peacefulpete
Chambers Dictionary, mysticism is defined as "the habit or tendency of religious thought and feeling of those who seek direct communion with God or the divine"
I suspect youv'e left the argument Narkissos but I'm honestly not clear with the distinction your'e drawing. Do not most individual Christians seek and feel they have personal communion with God? Is not the religion based upon the premise that members of their faith had direct revelation from God? So without the core mystical element the religion does not exist. I understand that strictly speaking a person seeking direct communion with God does not consciously allow someone to become the object of their devotion but the desire to do what is impossible makes them susceptible to such control. Not trying to match wits (I have no chance) or debate semantics but I really don't understand your point.
-
Narkissos
Do not most individual Christians seek and feel they have personal communion with God? Is not the religion based upon the premise that members of their faith had direct revelation from God? So without the core mystical element the religion does not exist. I understand that strictly speaking a person seeking direct communion with God does not consciously allow someone to become the object of their devotion but the desire to do what is impossible makes them susceptible to such control.
Sure.
It seems to me that mysticism (in common usage) points to one specific aspect of religion (and, by extension, of some non-religious systems). I.e., something that analysis isolates but in fact does not exist separately. Just like a person's "emotions" can be analytically distinguished from his/her "mind" or "body" but do not really exist apart of them.
Under this reservation, the "mystical pole" can be distinguished from other aspects of religion such as:
- ritual
- doctrine
- hierarchy
- tradition
- morals
- group dynamics...
(Again, not that such things are incompatible in actuality.)One might actually typify different religions by the relative weight of those different aspects. JWs would rate very low in "mysticism" as opposed to, say, the Quakers or mahayana Buddhists. In the NT the Johannine community would rate high when compared to the churches of the Pastorals.
No religion is completely devoid of mysticism. Without it it would be dead. But if mysticism is, so to say, the "soul of religion," it is also potentially subversive. The "mystical motivation" which can make a "good adept" can also turn him/her away from other aspects of religion. So what really matters is the structure which combinates all "aspects" and leaves more or less room to each one of them. In JW land any "personal mysticism" is very much controlled by doctrine and hierarchy for instance. Much of Catholic mysticism has been controlled (and instrumentalised) by the institutional system of (especially contemplative) religious orders. The irony (and here I agree with Terry) is that mysticism, which is all about immediacy, can so easily be used as a tool of mediation and control. But it is also potentially liberating, inasmuch as the genuine mystic is not someone you can easily control.
-
LittleToe
Pete:
I don't think the thread is merely about Christians, but we can take that as an example if you like.
The "mystic" in a church will usually be a [born again (and I don't mean that in its perjorative American sense)] Christian, rather than a "seeking" adherent. That may or may not be the Minister, but since the main purpose of the church is to help others attain direct communion it stands to reason that he should take a role in assisting others to that end, as will other Christians.
Where the rub comes can be two-fold. In some cases Ministers can become intoxicated with the role of being a leader. In many cases the laity can become addicted to "religion" resulting in either vainly going through the motions and never actually achieving what they set out to do (connect) or succeeding in direct communion (connecting) but continuing to put the religion ahead of genuine communion.
Hence, in a VERY general sense what Terry has to say about religion is true. My only issue is that it's too general because it's disingenuous to the multitude of genuine communicants who resist such temptations.
My own take on it is that religion CAN be a useful tool/stepping-stone in assisting people to connect to the Divine (the hand pointing to the moon), but once that connection has been made it becomes a very slippery stepping stone indeed, if the leap of faith isn't completed. It can still remain a useful tool afterwards, as communal worship has its place, but should never take the highest priority. Where it does, there will only be trouble.