I thought the Ayn Rand comment was funny, although while I think she was wrong about a lot of stuff, not necessarily wrong to take the government benefits. That is, if she'd had to pay tax to support medicare against her will, then why shouldn't she get the benefit from it? If not, maybe she'd have been more able to buy private insurance. I admit, refusing to take any of the benefits of government even if you can't avoid paying taxes[1] is a much more firm and dramatic objection, and the sort of thing she'd have liked to have done, but it doesn't necessarily make her a hypocrite. What does is failing later to consider that maybe, you know, other people in similar situations are not evil either!
[1] Insert rant about how most people don't have the luxury of living entirely off their own land without using government-supplied roads, rubbish vans, water, electricity, etc, etc.
Hm. I agree with the principle behind ignosticism, in that if a concept is undefined it's pointless to debate about what you guess it might mean, while someone argues about their own completely different guess.
But provided people define God in sufficiently vague terms, I agree there's no point quibbling about it, but I'm not yet convinced everyone does. Even if it's common to say "God exists 'in a very real sense'" I think many people would say God does exist (or doesn't exist).
I've yet to test this theory, but I think if you asked people if they thought prayer for healing would show scientifically verifiable results, some people would say "it works, but it wouldn't show verifiable results because [good reason]" but others would say "it doesn't work" or "it would show verifiable results"
I like the idea of ignosticism, but it's interesting that it's distinct from other theological positions in that it's predicated on someone else's belief.
For instance I can define myself as atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic about any (of an infinite) set of gods, but in any given argument I can be ignostic until the other party has defined just which god they mean.
I suppose it's like having a map (in the computing sense) with an index of god and a value of a theism/gnosticism tuple (plus a function to define that tuple for any new god key), the problem being those people who keep trying to access your map without first initialising their key value.
I intensely enjoyed looking through the self portraits Bryan Saunders did while he was on various highs. Something I haven't thought of in my own artwork. I have done a few self portraits to get across what I was feeling at the time. Too bad the days of experimenting have past. I would be tempted to follow suit. I do associate with a few. PCP is believable. And Psilocybin Mushrooms, way too hilarious. I totally agree!!
I don't see that taking advantage of things that the state offers you even if you don't feel that the state should offer them is hypocritical. There are lots of things that I don't think the state should provide out of taxation. However, I have to pay that tax whether I like it or not, so I'd be 'cutting off my own nose to spite my face' if I didn't what the state said I was entitled to.
In re Juden raus: See also Swastika Night, a novel published in 1937 and set 700 years later after a Nazi victory, which includes the extermination of the Jews.
Various links (most of which copy each other) mention that Juden Raus was heavily criticized by the Nazis, but no one has explained why.
Ignosticism: You might be interested in Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht, a history of ideas of the limits of knowledge.
The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. I've only read about half of it, but it's an extended exploration of the fact that your idea of yourself isn't the same as your actual self.
Ralston is a martial artist who's used logic and introspection to go deep into the roots of action and perception.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
[1] Insert rant about how most people don't have the luxury of living entirely off their own land without using government-supplied roads, rubbish vans, water, electricity, etc, etc.
no subject
But provided people define God in sufficiently vague terms, I agree there's no point quibbling about it, but I'm not yet convinced everyone does. Even if it's common to say "God exists 'in a very real sense'" I think many people would say God does exist (or doesn't exist).
I've yet to test this theory, but I think if you asked people if they thought prayer for healing would show scientifically verifiable results, some people would say "it works, but it wouldn't show verifiable results because [good reason]" but others would say "it doesn't work" or "it would show verifiable results"
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Social Security taxes go into a special fund which earns interest. The program pays for itself.
(no subject)
no subject
For instance I can define myself as atheist/theist and agnostic/gnostic about any (of an infinite) set of gods, but in any given argument I can be ignostic until the other party has defined just which god they mean.
I suppose it's like having a map (in the computing sense) with an index of god and a value of a theism/gnosticism tuple (plus a function to define that tuple for any new god key), the problem being those people who keep trying to access your map without first initialising their key value.
I have been programming all weekend.
RE: This is Your Artistic Brain on Drugs...
no subject
I don't see that taking advantage of things that the state offers you even if you don't feel that the state should offer them is hypocritical. There are lots of things that I don't think the state should provide out of taxation. However, I have to pay that tax whether I like it or not, so I'd be 'cutting off my own nose to spite my face' if I didn't what the state said I was entitled to.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Various links (most of which copy each other) mention that Juden Raus was heavily criticized by the Nazis, but no one has explained why.
Ignosticism: You might be interested in Doubt by Jennifer Michael Hecht, a history of ideas of the limits of knowledge.
The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. I've only read about half of it, but it's an extended exploration of the fact that your idea of yourself isn't the same as your actual self.
Ralston is a martial artist who's used logic and introspection to go deep into the roots of action and perception.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)