Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
HunterShaw

SoT philosophy - weird

Recommended Posts

Lets dicuss the very strange philosophy in Sot. It seems to be a very confused mixture of religions and contains a small bit of truth that has been so twisted that I can hardly understand the worldveiw.

A world veiw is two questions: what is the nature of God, and what is the nature of man. there is more to it of course, but that is the core. So, any thoughts on this matter? :?:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The philosophy is that of Objectivism, which was started by the reknowned author Ayn Rand. Goodkind is a big follower of it. It all has to do with the idea that man is a noble being who has no responsibility to live up to anyone elses expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Objectivism in general and Goodkind in particular reject the notion of there being any kind of supernatural entity and that faith is a pointless concept since it means abdicating responsibility for your self and your own actions? Whilst I'm a fan of neither Objectivism nor Goodkind, this sub-concept seems interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

would you mind expounding Werthead? I only made this thread so I could read other peoples opinions after all. What is interesting about the idea of faith being a reason to stop acting sensably? or that there is no God?

 

How many of you think there is a God? Why or why not?

Does Anne Ryne's philosophy have value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've never read rand, but i understand that her arguements are well founded. however a well founded arguement in philosophy has little or no relevence on it's application in real life. so ayn rand's philosophy has value according to philosophic method, but i've never met an objectivist who i could maintain a friendly relationship with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant is that, regardless of whether you believe in God or not, faith is sometimes used as a scapegoat or get-out clause for committing evil acts. The Spanish Inquisition, the Chinese Taiping rebels of the 19th Century, Al-Qaeda and other groups have used the excuse of justification from God to carry out atrocities and thus avoid taking responsibility for them personally. The rejection of that notion is I think a good thing, regardless of how pointless or dislikable the rest of the philosophy seems to be.

 

I discussed Rand's writing with Scott Bakker, author of the excellent Prince of Nothing Trilogy and a philosopy teacher, and he pointed out that in the profession of philosophy professors in American and Canadian universities, Ayn Rand is treated as something of a joke. Certainly the only value I can see in it is attempting to give the ludicrous right-wing American belief that the world can be divided into Good and Evil and the utter rejection of the notion of shades of grey some kind of legitimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Goodkind either doesn't know what he wants to say, or doesn't know how to say it. He throws in subtle (and not so subtle: see the reaction to Richard's statue in Faith of the Fallen) hints at the independence of man, allowing reason to rule, recognizing that each human being knows that his/her actions are the only right ones, etc. But I don't think the books are well enough centered around any of these theories to say that he's trying to put out one singular philosophy or world view. He might be more successful if he attempted to write an actual series of books, the way WoT is a series, instead of writing independent books that happen to relate to one another in a timeline.

I think that bugs me more than anything else, really. I mean, I'm all about exciting endings, but I'm also interested in not rushing to the ending...it seems like Goodkind always rushes to the endings of his books, things just conveniently fall into place for no reason other than convenience.

-shrug-

Gee, I think I went off topic. My bad. :oops:

 

[edit]

Also, to respond regarding Ayn Rand and whether her ideas are well-founded:

From what I understand Rand (and I see the trend in Goodkind, too) is a proponent of laissez-faire economics. Such a program can only work in the mind of an optimist, much like communism (I hear Rand was Russian). At their core, both sound like good ideas. However, in this world, neither can work, both for the same reason: human greed. Communism doesn't work because people are uninterested in actually sharing all they've worked for with the common good, and they've got the misplaced notion that freedom of mobility and self is essential to life.

Laissez-faire economics has also failed. Unfortunately, without government intervention, the world ends up with "robber barons" instead of "captains of industry." Monopolies begin and are perpetuated due to unfair tactics by those in charge of them. Thus, laissez-faire market practices are only practical in an ideal world, where no man wants more than what he can actually do of his own will and by his own hand.

[/edit]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodkind does not support communism at all. I asked him about it at a book signing for Faith of the Fallen, I asked if the Imperial Order's way of life was a take on communism and he said it was collectivism in general. And collectivism is basically that the individual has little to no value. And he said yes, communism is a type of collectivism.

 

Goodkind's writing stresses the Power of the Individual. Richard meets people and makes them believe they are important to the world, not just another cog in a machine, and they should strive to be the best they can be for their own benefit.

 

I read Aye Rand's Fountain Head and I like the "think outside the box" message behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I came by here, but there is some interesting things that turned up. Werthead, you say that she is "attempting to give the ludicrous right-wing American belief" some credit. Are you saying that is good or bad? It sounds like you are dismissing this view out of hand. Details gave a good assesment. I agree that a human being is more than a worthless cog, but Goodkind seems to over do it when he has Richard slash through hundreds of people in pursuit of his own goals. There must be a better reaction than turning into a whirlwind of slaughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclamer: I use the word 'God' very loosely. I am in no way refrencing any earthly deity of any kind.

 

*********************

 

God is infinate. God is everything. If thats true, then every individual particle is a tiny piece of God. That makes humans tiny fragments of God. God created everything, and everything is God, therefore God created itself. That is why God is so special.

 

If the charge on an electron or proton were any different, I mean even the slightest, nothing would exist as we know it. We probably wouldnt. All of the math suggests that chance is pretty much not an option. Someone or somthing had to bring this into being.

 

*********************

 

My belief is this: That big bang singularity, where all matter existed in the exact same point in space, was "God" in its purest form. A Supreme Consciousness. God is not some anthropromorphic entity sitting on a throne in some etherial plane. God is everything and everyone. God permiates all of existance expirencing all expirences being expirenced indefinantly. God does not judge. All expirences are important to God. God cannot expirence emotion like we expirence in 'His' purest form. What could God fear? What could God hate? God's love is platonic. God does not feel sexual love. This is why we exist. We are mortal, which means we have to make the most of our consciousness. We have to go expirence as many expirences as we can, because, eventually, we will die. We cannot say for sure what happens to our consciousness when we die. Does it go to heaven? Does it return to that Supreme Mind? Does it just disappear? Thats why we feel all of those emotions, they let us know that we are, for the little time that we can be sure.

 

...Im not really quite sure where im going anymore. *Bubble, Bubble, Bubble. FOOOSHH! *smile*...*

 

I do believe that God will be whole again. This will only happen when all things expirence the exact same expirence at the exact same time. When we become one.

 

I think the only thing anybody should do is live their life the way they belive it should be lived. Wether your a devout Christian, or a child molestor. All expirences are important to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting idea Jack. That God is everything. What do you call someone who believes what you do? Is it new age or something? So in the begining, God created himself, and now he is just recording every expirience that happens to anyone?

I am a Christian and I have a relationship with God. Please don't start shouting "Bigot!" I believe that in the begining God was there, and there was nothing else except God the Trinity. I admit that I do not understand the concept of "Three in one". What do you mean by platonic? I do not know that term. You say that God created himself, but that does not make sense because if he did not exist before, then how can nothing make something? I say that God is infinite, but if we follow the assumption that he created everything, then it is unlikely that he IS everthing as well. You said that the big bang singularity was God in his purest form. Does that imply that he is in a less pure form now? At the end you said that everyone should live their life as they think it should be lived. Does that excuse murder? If you think "I want to be president, and then conquer the world", are you saying that is exceptable to you? Or how about a suicidal who wishes the world would end? It looks to me that with the current argument you are imploying, any action is exceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Platonic love is like the love a parrent has for its child, or the love you have for your pet. you love your dog, but arent in love with your dog. you're not sexually attracted to your dog...hopefully.

 

Its not called anything. Its my own personal belief based on the expirences that ive had.

 

When I say purest form I'm refering to the fact that all matter is no longer that single point of infinate mass and infinate energy that I belive to be "God"...The All is really a better description, but God is a simpler noun. That singularity expanded bring everything into being. We have so far been unable to determine why it did so. It just did. All laws of physics break down at that instant before the Big Bang. This suggests that whatever that singularity is it defies all logic. In my book thats a huge neon sign saying "Supernatural Being"

 

Gods Debris (happens to be the title to a thought expirement by scott adams. its free, just google it. Im also not stating this as a refrence. Im not claiming that its a piece of fact, I just enjoy the term 'Gods Debris') has clumped together over time, first forming elementary particles, then atoms and molecules, and eventually us.

 

I never, at any point, stated that at some point God didnt exist. All I said was God is the creator, and everything is God. A paradox occurs that would make you believe that at some point God didnt exist. That singularity is infinate matter, and all that matter now makes up the universe. Right now, God is not conscious of itself. We are conscious of ourselves, and our brains are powerful enough for us to figure out the workings of the universe, tiny fragment by tiny fragment. We think logically, and from a logical standpoint existance happening by chance is nil. Somthing must have created it.

 

Honestly, you're going to have to do a bunch of LSD, and DMT to understand my perspective. Its entirely too complicated to go into full detail. These are just some broad concepts that I work with.

 

With regards to the last bit, its not acceptable to me, or you, or most people on this plante, but it is acceptable to God. An expirence is an expirence. They dont have connotation like good or bad, they just are. We are the ones who judge. To make sure that expirences keep being expirenced.

 

I suppose its about time to give you all one of the fundamental answers. At this point its the only one I have. Why do we exist? A question that has plagued mankind since the moment we were able to ask it. Well, I have the answer. But to understand why somthing was created, you have to understand what that thing does.

 

Example : Car : What does a car do? It can transport a number of beings from point A to point B significantly faster and more efficient than vehicles before. Its also quite a bit more convenient than some. Unlike trains and planes, cars can take you directly to the place you wish to be. There is no station. Needless to say, we understand what a car does therefore we can understand why it was created.

 

Now lets pose this with respect to humans. What do humans do? Some are doctors, or athletes, or buisness people. But these are professions. They arent the same. We must look at a more basic attribute.

 

If I give you an apple, the first thing you must do is look at it so you can take it. you will see that it is green, or red, or yellow..whatever color apple i choose to hand you. When you take it you can feel that it is firm, but not too solid. The skin is smooth. When you raise it up to your mouth you can begin to smell it, though it does smell stronger after the skin is broken. You can taste it in your mouth. All of these are expirences, that the majority of mankind can expirence. There are those few who do not have one or more of their senses, but they are exceptions. You can feel love and fear. Hate and joy. The number of emotions that can be felt is enormous. All of these are expirences.

 

That is why we exist, To Expirence.

 

On a final note, I must say that you are not bigot. You have a religion, wich is cool. You are able to discuss ideas that disagree with your beliefs in a rational and intelectual maner. You are thinking for yourself, and thats all that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that God created himself, but that he already existed before? I have a question. How do you relate to this God of platonic love? He lover you and everyone the way you or I might love a dog?

Do you consider it your duty to expirience as much as possable? If God created the universe, then why do you even need the big bang? I have heard that the universe is expanding, but I have not recieved any solid evidence for this claim. Now, this God debris,

So all matter just form similar to the way the theory of evolution is supposed to work? This just clumped into more and more complicated forms until life came along? You said that God is not concious at this time. When will he awaken? What will he be like when he awakens? Oh, back to the expiriences, I think that our purpose will cause us, as humans, to feel fulfilled and satisfied. Seeking after physical or mental pleasure does not do that for me, neither does abstaining from those. When I worship and walk with God, then I feel fulfilled. I do not think I would like a God to whom all actions are exceptable on the basis of the expiriences from each. You gave the apple example. How about a murder? The murderer will likely expirience Hate or anger, or merely apathy while the victim will have phisical pain as well as fear, or surprise. Why would a God want these kind of emotions? Can he have emotions on his own? Perhaps your God is without feeling and is gathering expiriences so that it can try to understand? What is LSD and DMT? So far I understand pretty well where you are coming from. (By the way, My view of pleasure came from my great books class from readings of Plato. There is the example of a man who makes himself itchy so he can scratch, and a pot that has a hole in it. With the pot, the more you pour in, the greater the hole (appitite) and you are never satisfied.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, one more thing. Do you believe in universal truth? I don't think you would, because if you believe that all actions are equal because of the expiriences attached, than there would be no place for right and wrong. C. S. Lewis gives an amazing argument in Mere Christianity, (which is not about how to be a Christian. It is so logical it makes my head spin) for universal truth. I don't remember what is is, but I will go and get my copy and relate it to you.

 

Oh, and also, did you see the post with my novel? Take a look and tell me what you think. It is intellectually challenging to debate with you like this. Very fun! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...