Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (27028)	8/30/2009 2:25:20 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I certainly respect the journey your life has taken you on or the journey you took your life on or whatever. Yet when I read Rand I am struck by how similar she often sounds to many existential authors I've read... “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals. It is interesting that Rand wanted to name her philosophy "existentialism" as it is based on the primacy of existence but the word had already been taken... And let me add that there is NOTHING in Rand's philosophy that obstructs or discourages a life of service to others, to the planet, or to anything one happens to "VALUE". NOTHING WHATSOEVER.

To: koan who wrote (27028)	8/30/2009 2:38:35 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Koan: "I have spent my life trying to understand my existence. We had this luck to live at a time when science can teach us so much. You and I have this one life. And we were lucky to live in a country at peace and where we can access a great education. So I have dedicated my life to two things: One, is understanding as much as I can. Quantum physics is my passion now. Two, is to do as much good as I can. I do not try to intellectualize either one. I look back over my life and feel lucky I was able to understand those two things. I have two daughters whom I was always encouraging to learn. They went to fine universities, and have great compassion. I feel I will leave the earth a better place than I found it; and I feel my daughters will do the same. That is enough for me. SHE SURELY DOES TALK A LOT LIKE YOU, MR. KOAN! "Man cannot properly live with indecision. He must decide what his values are and why, and then what purpose he wants to pursue. When he has chosen a central purpose, that will give him the lead by which he can organize his whole hierarchy of values. Without that central purpose integrating his values, he can neither be happy nor know what will make him happy"

To: koan who wrote (27028)	8/30/2009 3:37:28 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

And, by the way, thank you for your personalized take on existentialism. It has made me think (a lot). But you treat it as though it were knowable (or understandable) as a "three diminsional abstract concept"--which most fail to know or to "understand". I went down and got myself a bottle of scotch (and drank it)in order to solve this puzzle, but I'm still struggling with your meaning. I think this is the first time I have seen the words "three diminsional abstract concept") lined up in a row--where reason is a mere myth and one must simply feel or act or think of something to do? But leaving aside the source of your opinions (reason, logic, intuition, the speed of a shoe)--I guess you are reifying an abstract concept if you give it dimensions (sic)--but WHAT are you reifying? Life? Existence? Meaning? Mind? ... or just the IDEA of existentialism??? And my respect to your wonderful daughters. You are a lucky man and I guess they were wonderfully lucky, as well.