Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Initially formed in the fall of 2004, the CGS Riverbend Class of 2008 had been together of an epic four years of high school. It disbanded in 2008 after graduation, but it still remains the best in all of CGS history.
29 comments:
I did not know that, thank you for enlightening my soul. I feel as if it could fly away, its so enlightened... woops, there it went.
Now you'll have to keep in mind I no longer have a soul, unless it gets heavy and falls back down to Earth.
Kevin, you didn't have a soul to begin with.
And that's pretty spiffy, but I don't understand it at all. What signifigance do those numbers have?
just that it's nifty. it won't be 123456 for another mellinium. doesn't that make you feel cool?
Of course it doesn't make Eric feel cool, how could he get any cooler?, I'm asking myself.
What about 1:02:03 AM?
Largely irrelevant though.
x.x
what do you have against objectivism?
Life. Moral values. Ethics. My conscience. (Speaking for Eric, of course, but I feel exactly the same way.)
Objectivism is the easy way in life. And of course you'll ask whats wrong with the easy way? And if you can't answer that yourself, I'm not going to ruin your bubble.
{Those last comments were for Colin, not you Toni, because I don't know you well enough to predict how you would respond to me.)
Kevin knows Colin very well. One could even say he knows him intimately.
how is objectivism the easy way? i think living by that philosophy is harder than you might think.
Objectivism is not the easy way in life.
Life, moral values and ethics? Ah yes, because a philosophy that says you shouldn't kill yourself for those that don't deserve it is obviously inherently evil. Oh wait. It isn't.
I'll not ask whats wrong with the easy way. No. However, I will ask you to justify that statement.
"Ah yes, because a philosophy that says you shouldn't kill yourself for those that don't deserve it is obviously inherently evil."
You mean it does tell you to kill yourself for those that do deserve it?
This is how I see objectivism.
Its outdated.
Seriously. The human instincts upon which she bases her philosophy (selfishness being the big one) come from a time when humans needed to be selfish in order to survive. They are old instincts, and in the current times they no longer should control a human's mind.
Granted, we as humans still need to be selfish in order to survive, but not nearly to the extent that the Randroid philosophy implies. Rand believe we should be completely independent of others, and that through this we can find true happiness. Colin (I don't know about Rand) believes that this includes socially as well. How can one be socially independent of others, and yet still be socially happy? Its illigocal.
Sorry this comment is so long.
No. You can. If you determine that they deserve. If you determine that you should, for a reason.
Outdated? How is it outdated?
In the long term, how different is the 1930s-1960s from the 2000s? Not that different.
You're question in the third paragraph is erroneous, in the sense that you liken social happiness to happiness. They are not necessarily the same. And she did not say that we should be totally indepent-that would never work in a capitalist system.
Could you please define social independance?
And as for the happiness thing, it would depend on what you value and if those values are rational (although I know you don't see the connection between rationality and happiness (or maybe we just hold different definitions of rationality)).
I don't believe anyone could ever earn the life of another. It has to be given.
Of course the 1930's aren't any different than the 2000's. I'm talking a time scale of thousands of years. A time when man was on his own, without society or civilization to support him. A time when he had to do everything in his power just to make it to the next day. Then civilization showed up, and we no longer should submit to those self-driven instincts that so drove our ancestors.
Happiness comes in many different forms and guises. I, however, consider social happiness the greatest happiness. I'm sure that deep down inside you do too, though you will deny it til the day you die.
I did not say one could. But, for instance, one may die for another when one's love is so great that they could not live without the other. ["I would die for you. But I could not and would not live for you." The Fountainhead]
But they are still the fundamentals of nature. One cannot survive without them, even in this day and age (you claim selflessness is the best; give away all your food and all your possessions and deny all food and help, and see how long you last).
I don't believe social happiness is the greatest happiness there is. Intrinsic happiness, I believe, is much greater.
Once again, please define social independance. And, for more clarification, define social happiness, please.
Good quote, Colin. :)
And I completely agree. With Colin, that is.
Social happiness, the greatest? What are you thinking? Okay, so I can be one of the most popular kids in school, and be socially happy. Thats the greatest happiness? No. Happiness that comes from the joy of simply living life is the greatest happiness. Being happy simply because you can, that is the greatest happiness.
I don't think you can even begin to talk about happiness and which kind is the greatest until you have experienced the greatest sadness.
Colin you just proved our point that you can no longer think without bringing a Rand argument into the process.
And you should know I haven't and will most likely not read The Fountainhead, so that quote has no effect on me. Maybe you did know that...
Yes, social happiness is the greatest happiness. And by that I mean its the most powerful, not the most significant. Your example of popular kids aids my argument, after all, most of them are happy, are they not? It may be a very superficial happiness, but thats beside the point.
I'm pretty sure I can talk about happiness without experiencing sadness, although I wonder how you could possibly know what sadness I've had in my life?
Colin:
Your qoute ("I would die for you. But I could not and would not live for you.") Just means that you are too much of a coward to live without them. Think of it this way, you have a husband and wife, and if they truly love eachother and one has to die, dying is the easy way out. Dying makes it so that you don't have to live without the other person, but it also makes them live without you, causing them to suffer instead of you, hence, cowardly.
Well, I think I would rather have a real kind of happiness instead of a superficial happiness.
And the rest of your comments aren't worth commenting on.
The fact that it come from The Fountainhead has little to do with it having no effect on you, I imagine.
Once again, please define social happiness. And social independence.
How does one achieve social happiness then?
It'd start with intrinsic happiness.
And it comes down to how much you value truth. Which, from my experiences, you do not value all that highly.
And, to note, Toni did not say how much sadness you had in your life.
Eric, it's not the easy way out. Sure, you don't have to suffer, but nor do you ever get to experience joy or happiness or love again. And bravery has naught to do with it. Oh, and don't assume they'd suffer without you.
x.x
Thank you, Toni, I know my thoughts are worthless.
You get angry with me for assuming things about you, Colin, even though you basically just said that I don't value truth highly.
Oh, of course, you put in there "from my experiences," which is just a way for you to make it seem as if you weren't assuming things about me.
So how about this: "From my experiences," Colin, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Colin:
I said assuming they both do love each other, some people actually do, you know, if they both did, then yes the other would suffer. And it is the easy way out. You never get to feel joy, happiness or love again, you say? What kind of Catholic are you? Whatever happend to the eternal bliss of heaven?
I'm assuming nothing. That's what I've learned, from my experiences. Especially from my experiences of talking. With you.
What experiences are you referring to, Kevin?
Eric, give me a real life situation in which one of two people that love each other would have to die.
x.x
Well, you see, if the wife was getting shot at, the husband could either jump in the way and die, or let his wife get her face blown off.
Eric, bad example. The husband still has a choice.
Colin, bad question. Everyone has to die.
The only question I presented was what experiences you were referring to. Which you, incidentally, did not answer.
And of course everyone has to die. But going by I wanted an example where one of two people would have to die at that given moment.
And that was a bad example, Eric. Consider, the husband jumps in the way, dies, and then the gunman kills the wife. A lot of good that did.
Kevin, the point was the choice. And if the gunman killed the wife, how would the husband know? He would have already made his deciscion about to die for her.
But he would not have achieved the goal of his dying [to save her]. His death would've been in vain.
You'll most likely point out that he would not know this. Firstly, he may. Secondly, I find this irrelevant in any case.
x.x
Yes, he wouldn't know, but that is irrelavent, he already made up his mind, he already did or didn't sacrifice his life. The nice thing to do would be to let her take the bullet.
Post a Comment