Philosophy on LiveJournal
philosophy
.:.....::. .: ..::...:::.
Shlomi Fish [userpic]
My Philosophical Creations

Having been introduced to this forum, and having posted a few comments on other people's posts, I'd like to introduce myself and my philosophical creations. My name is Shlomi Fish, and I have been writing stories and essays and published most of them on my homepage under liberal licences. Both of them convey my viewpoint and influences as an Objectivist, a software developer, an amateur mathematician, and someone who is enthusiastic about the open-source/open-content movements and is an active contributor to them.

I'll be happy if you can take a look at some of the many things I wrote there. While I have many essays, I believe that my stories also vividly convey my philosophy. Among the highlights on what you can find there are:

I've also been placing some philosophical thoughts and insights, which I did find mature or large-scope enough for a dedicated essay on my homepage, on my blogs.

Anyway, I'd be happy to hear what you think about the stuff I wrote.

Regards, -- Shlomi Fish.

Current Location: Home
Current Mood: productiveproductive
Current Music: Rogue Traders - Voodoo Child
Comments

I was interested to see how an Objectivist would critique Scientology and, just curious:

"...since Jesus was in fact a hallucinating, scizophrenic [sic] Mystic, who said a great deal of things that are obviously wrong, then advocating the belief that he was a genius, also indicates that the Church of Scientology is irrational."

...are you serious? He may have said things that are "obviously wrong"; so do a lot of so-called geniuses; but I do not see any good reason why that should completely nullify our crediting him for what he said that was right.

And even if it were the case that he was hallucinating and schizophrenic and suffering from a "I am the Messiah" delusion, the discounting of his claims based on that alleged fact is actually making the ad hominem logical fallacy, which you mention in 1.

The point is that there must be better arguments against the rationality of Scientology than, “they hold that Jesus was a controversial genius in his time,” because I don’t think that is really such an outrageous claim to make.

By the way, I am talking about this essay.

What I meant

There may be a grain of truth to what you say. However, what I meant was that Jesus said mostly bad things, which we no reasonable man can take seriously, and that he said out of the property of the fact he was schizophrenic/possessed. You can find a lot of quotes from the new testament.

Here's another: 'But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.'. A man has no control on his own immediate emotions. As a result of this sentence the early Christians were able to make people feel guilty for committing crimes for every "bad" emotion they felt.

Jesus' sayings contradicted the Old Testament, and are not approved by the Jews. I personally also hold the Ethics projected by the Old Testament in contempt. Every idea system that approves of Jesus is wrong in this respect, and thus can be rejected. And like I said, this head of the Scientology Church said it to an Israeli audience, who whether religious or secular, would tend to share my opinions of Jesus, which would have cause them to automatically reject Scientology.

I've also said some other things against Scientology in my article, and think they still hold.

Re: What I meant

Regarding the quotes from the New Testament, a lot of what Jesus says must be historically contextualized and probably does not hold true to the social reality we are living in today, and a lot of what he says in those linked sayings is not to be taken literally...e.g. he wasn't actually advocating literal cannibalism and vampirism.

"Every idea system that approves of Jesus is wrong in this respect, and thus can be rejected."

I'm not sure in what respect you mean. Is it because he contradicted the Old Testament? But you also reject the Old Testament, so... or because he "said mostly bad things," (and I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that; I just don't know if I agree with your reasons why some of the things he said are bad)...

"...out of the property of the fact he was schizophrenic/possessed"? This seems like an unsubstantiated claim to me. How do we know that he was?

Your other reasons were that the tone of the article was patronizing and arrogant, the guy clearly should have known the views of the audience a little better, and he made the ad hominem fallacy...but it seems that there are more condemning criticisms that you could make for example regarding the Xenu story, and the actual philosophy of Scientology, otherwise it seems that you are actually committing the ad hominem fallacy with those other reasons as well.

Re: What I meant

However, what I meant was that Jesus said mostly bad things, which we no reasonable man can take seriously, and that he said out of the property of the fact he was schizophrenic/possessed. You can find a lot of quotes from the new testament.

Haha that link is absolutely hilarious! Never have I in all my life witnessed such baffling incompetence in hermeneutics! Talk about unreasonable, whoever wrote this has to be kidding.... they ARE kidding, right?

This one might be my favorite here:

JESUS ON HELL & SELF MUTILATION - Matthew 5:29-30 [OUCH!]
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."

Haha, I mean I will admit that sometimes it can be difficult to make sense between a literal statement and a really subtle metaphor... That said, this definitely isn't one of those cases. It is really amusing the idiotic lengths to which people will go to try to make themselves feel better about (ironically enough) the 'rationality' of their beliefs.

Re: What I meant

No kidding. I like this one:

JESUS KILLS A FIG TREE - Matthew 21:18-19
Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he hungered. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said to it, "Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever." And presently the fig tree withered away.

OMG, He killed a fig tree? Nooooooooo! :(

Re: What I meant

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, poor fig tree! What did it ever do to HIM, huh?

Re: What I meant

Little known fact, but wood from that fig tree was used to make the Cross.

Re: What I meant

OMG I'll bet he was the fig tree they cut up to make the cross!

Re: What I meant

WAS JESUS GAY? - John 20:2
So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved.
[Or the other disciple could have been an unnamed woman.]

Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Let's see... you reference Hitler in your first sentance...and then go on to talk about committing genocide.

Let me be clear: Committing genocide is wrong. Period. That should go without saying...but I guess it had to be said.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Let's see... you reference Hitler in your first sentance

That's a Style over Substance fallacy - so what if I did?

and then go on to talk about committing genocide.

Now I don't. I don't advocate Genocide and never did. Where do you see that?

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

And I will indeed haunt them and if I have my way, eradicate all of the "gentility" off the planet.

Maybe your definition of "eradicate" is different than mine.
Or maybe you argue: it's not a culture, so it's not genocide. Just mass murder.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

I was speaking metaphorically. What I meant was that the people who are value destroyers and stand against the future prosperity of humanity (which I called "gentiles"), will have to become value producers or simply won't be able to survive any longer. But I don't support murdering non-Jews in the sense of people who are not Jewish by race/peopleship/religion/etc. as long as they are good people who don't harm others.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Next time for the love of all that is good PLEASE pick a better metaphor.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

I am... an Objectivist, a software developer, an amateur mathematician, and someone who is enthusiastic about the open-source/open-content movements and is an active contributor to them.


Wow, and on the internet, no less.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

He's a Walkin' Talkin' Stereotype! Entering a philosophy forum! I have a feeling this thread is going to become a bathtub full of piranhas.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

As it has been and always shall be, amen.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

It gets better. He seems to be into an even crazier, somewhat cultish, version of objectivism called 'Neo-Tech'.

lollllll

http://web.archive.org/web/20030415200701/www.neo-tech.com/global/
http://web.archive.org/web/20030417093925/www.neo-tech.com/zonpower/

Read these pages and then enjoy the irony of his writings ridiculing Scientology.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

God damn. That stuff reads like the guy from TimeCube giving a motivational business seminar.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

I would go to a motivational seminar put on by Gene Ray, the TimeCube guy. But this is less entertainingly bizarre and more dangerously stupid.

Favorite sentence so far: "Recognize that the business is the source of work, values, and the future for all employees. By contrast, mysticism is nothing more than a rationalized escape from life -- from effort, development, and responsibility."

Because obviously St. Anthony and Gautama Buddha were just lazy sonsabitches who didn't have the gumption to become CEOs.

Also apparently because I'm an environment-protecting, suffering-reducing liberal it's impossible for me to live a happy life?

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Troll. I smell the hand of vox_diabolica in this.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

True, someone could have FAKED being the crazy person. However, the crazy person exists nonetheless.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Actually, the more I read, the more I think it's real. No one is that dedicated to an Internet hoax. Truth is more fucked up than fiction.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

you never met my friend rob. used to have an lj called "nurbist" but he most unfortunately deleted it.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Nah, I unbanned Mark a couple of weeks ago. He'll do his own trolling.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

Yeah, this thing is actually too weird to be fake, you know? It's like that wildly improbable urban legend type story you hear about your hometown, then you visit and bam! It's true.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

No. When I saw the confluence of furry, Objectivist, Internet nerd, programmer and "warrior-philosopher" with a Messianic complex, I knew that we were dealing with the genuine article here. I swear, I wish I had a million dollars to donate to the psychological study of this phenomenon.

Re: Your philosophy in "The Eternal Jew" is evil.

That's a eugenics program we could all support.

Another thing that may be of interest to you: the term "19th century" is generally a term of praise in a philosophy community, not an insult.

Then again, that's probably just my ivory tower showing again.

19th Century


Well, for my intended audience for that essay (Internet surfers, and mostly open-source enthusiasts), according to what I could perceive, saying that "Closed Books are So 19th Century" meant that they were a non-desirable thing of the past. I admit that I have not studied philosophy too professionally, but still - it's all about context.

What do you think is the pervasive feature of objectivists that makes them more inclined to choose objectivism over other actually legitimate philosophies? (are you overweight? are you autistic? are you heavily involved in world of warcraft? were you rejected by the theatre kids in highschool?)

Ouch! By the theatre kids of all people? Insult of insults.

I don't think theatre kids (who I usually like), with their emphasis on emotions and sensitivity could produce this kind of ignorant self-reliance!

You are largely correct, although in my experience theatre kids were as emotional as they were self-involved.

That said, I did quiz bowl, which is to academia what theatre club is to drama proper.

I was Senior Beau of the drama club at my high school. Does that make me like King Nerd or something?

What do you think is the pervasive feature of objectivists that makes them more inclined to choose objectivism over other actually legitimate philosophies?

Sexual frustration and borderline illiteracy coupled with narcissistic personality disorder.

We figured this out a couple of years ago with some of the more prolific Objectivists who used to hang around here.

LOL. I don't have time to respond to this right now, but if you'd just read chapter eight of the fountainhead... LOL.

Is that the one with the raping?

His close-to-pure-philosophy article, The Eternal Jew, starts out by claiming that he will live forever because (a) he wants to and (b) someone might implement biological life-rejuvenation. Then he claims to be the messiah, after which he claims to be a warrior-philosopher. For some reason that escapes me, his grandiose screed culminates with a paean to open source software.

So much for the stereotype of Jews having higher than average intelligence.

Anyway, I'd be happy to hear what you think about the stuff I wrote.

You know, since you're apparently some sort of extra-crazy Objectivist, I'm pretty sure that sentence is false.

Oh, but not when uttered by me. I would like to hear what you personally think on this subject.

Well, Lane, it's pretty simple.

The "philosophical creations" presented for our inspection appear to be at best gibberish and at worst a conscious attempt to do intellectual harm to any unfortunate enough to read them.

Objectivism is, as you know, the non-philosophy hole to which ugly and stupid narcissists always go - but this, this... this is worse. The author of these pathetic ramblings is clearly suffering from some sort of hideous psychological defect, probably related to a crippling social disability in some way.

There is nothing here of positive value. The pitiful creature who is responsible for the production of these texts should have been drowned at birth; indeed, its continued survival constitutes prima facie damning evidence for the Problem of Evil.

I like how he hasn't responded.

Did you really expect him to?

I was hoping, but not really expecting...

I'd like to note that I replied to some criticisms of “The Eternal Jew” in the reception section and especially see
the combined meme somewhat below that. An important note that I now think nowadays everyone should believe that he or she are the Messiah without exception, because either you are a superheroic man or woman or alternatively you eventually deteriorate into something much worse, and it doesn't matter what you are actually doing in real life (as I eventually learned from Atlas Shrugged). This is not unrealistic as reality is what we make of it.