Everything you say.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.
"mhm" "smh"-dave"man" "bro"-kk
"........"-LJS
"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockMithrandir50
do me
Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.
coolbeans90
You should read Platos "The Republic". Maybe you will realise you're a technocrat.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]"mhm" "smh"-dave
"man" "bro"-kk
"........"-LJS
"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockLaihendi
do me
"I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."That only makes him a logical person lai.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.
frannkzappa
You should read Platos "The Republic". Maybe you will realise you're a technocrat.
I have read it, and it didn't leave me with any such impression. It was a philosophical exercise that didn't address real world problems associated with centralized power structures left solely to their own devices.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] "I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."Laihendi
That only makes him a logical person lai.
No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]"mhm" "smh"-dave
"man" "bro"-kk
"........"-LJS
"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockLaihendi
do me
"I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."moar like:
"I used to be a libertarian until I realized that libertarianism as a movement has problems which were clearly illustrated by a popular book amongst libertarian circles, problems with both its disconcerting dogma and, worse, its cultish following."
No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
That only makes him a logical person lai.
frannkzappa
Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
That only makes him a logical person lai.
frannkzappa
Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.Laihendi
Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.let me give you an example:John Galt
Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.
Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.Laihendi
Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.It is in a logical persons best interest to go along with a proper technocratic government. A logical person would realize that a person has more freedom, happiness and fulfillment as part of a well organized,regulated and governed collective.
What? No! Laihendi is easily the most intelligent user OT has ever known. HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!![QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
No TC I'm pretty sure that quip is common among those who have read Atlas Shrugged as well.
But for dumb quotes, take pretty much anything that hartsick or Laihendi says.
heeweesRus
What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
frannkzappa
let me give you an example:John Galt
Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.
Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.
You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.
You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.
frannkzappa
It is in a logical persons best interest to go along with a proper technocratic government. A logical person would realize that a person has more freedom, happiness and fulfillment as part of a well organized,regulated and governed collective.
So then you advocate a voluntary libertarian technocratic society rather than an authoritarian one? Because if it were logical for people to freely consent to a government without being compelled by force then there would be no reason for that government to be authoritarian.Gamespot ICE! lovely theme I miss it :(If you're super old school, you'll remember this. Good times. :lol:
Yama
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.Laihendi
let me give you an example:John Galt
Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.
Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.
I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".
lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.
What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).
Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.
The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.Laihendi
It is in a logical persons best interest to go along with a proper technocratic government. A logical person would realize that a person has more freedom, happiness and fulfillment as part of a well organized,regulated and governed collective.
So then you advocate a voluntary libertarian technocratic society rather than an authoritarian one? Because if it were logical for people to freely consent to a government without being compelled by force then there would be no reason for that government to be authoritarian.No, what you claim asserts that there are no hostile foreign parties, nor illogical people. An authoritarian government is necessary to protect from foreign intrusion and radical anti-government individuals. Most people do not know what is best for them.
So you have pictures of pyramids with the lowest section labeled as "lovers of money"? Someone could just as easily make a pyramid with the bottom section labeled "spirited emotions". What does "spirited emotion" even mean? What is "unspirited" about about recognizing the necessity of material wealth for life on a material world? What is a high value? What makes it better than the low values? What is lowly about the material? You are not actually explaining anything.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
let me give you an example:John Galt
Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.
Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.
frannkzappa
I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".
lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.
What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).
Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.
The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.
If I have the attention span necessary I'll read the Republic, but considering a number of things it espouses in its theoretical system (massive censorship, for example) don't sound all that appealing.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]So you have pictures of pyramids with the lowest section labeled as "lovers of money"? Someone could just as easily make a pyramid with the bottom section labeled "spirited emotions". What does "spirited emotion" even mean? What is "unspirited" about about recognizing the necessity of material wealth for life on a material world? What is a high value? What makes it better than the low values? What is lowly about the material? You are not actually explaining anything. PannicAtack
I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".
lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.
What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).
Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.
The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.
If I have the attention span necessary I'll read the Republic, but considering a number of things it espouses in its theoretical system (massive censorship, for example) don't sound all that appealing.Plato was a visionary, but not the be all end all. Make sure to read the book in context.
If I have the attention span necessary I'll read the Republic, but considering a number of things it espouses in its theoretical system (massive censorship, for example) don't sound all that appealing.[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".
lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.
What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).
Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.
The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.
frannkzappa
Plato was a visionary, but not the be all end all. Make sure to read the book in context.
Fair enough.Why read Plato when Aristotle exists and is infinitely better?
Aljosa23
Aristotle is the worst thing Plato ever had anything to do with. Never in human history has so much wrong been concentrated in one man.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment