Chapter 1 : Philosophers' dilemma
>>>>> Theists often use the term "Absolute Truth" or "Ultimate Truth". "Pursuit of Truth" is such a complicated & tiring process that even the seasoned philosophers tend to promote the so called virtues of falsehood. In the absence of any obvious & tangible incentives, does it really make any sense in dying for Truth ? Instead of developing an urge to unearth the Truth, what will happen if we wholeheartedly embrace falsehood without any accompanying guilt ? If we are free to hold any opinion we like, why shouldn't we seek falsehood, uncertainty or even ignorance ?
>>>>> The mode of reasoning, based upon the assumption that TRUTH is a theist delusion, discloses the typical prejudices by which atheist intellectuals of all times are recognized. This mode of verification forms the backbone of their so called logical procedure. Through this "belief" of theirs, they exert temselves for their "knowledge" & for something that is solely based upon "collaborative opinion" having no "rational justification" whatsoever.
>>>>> Is there any origin for an urge to unearth the Truth ? In the absence of falsehood, there won't be any such urge. In the absence of selfishness there won't be any generous deed. Does everything originate out of its opposite ? That's silly. Only a plain stupid will propose such genesis. Things must stand on their own. In this impermanent, dynamic & materialistic world, things of higher value cannot depend upon any other source. They must have an ORIGIN of their own.
>>>>> The fundamental belief of atheist intellectuals is : "Theists are at junior level of morality development." Without logical arguments, you cannot assume your opponent to be wrong. But atheist intellectuals don't agree with this very foundation of LOGIC. For them, "collaborative opinion" alone is sufficient to prove their point. Once something is endorsed by "collaborative opinion", knowledgeable person is not allowed to raise any doubt. In short, atheist intellectuals are very much convinced that "collaborative opinion" can be used as a substitute for "rational justification". That's ridiculous.
>>>>> On the other hand, metaphysicians base their arguments upon BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. Can their be anything besides "Absolute Truth" on which the popular valuations & antitheses of values are set? After labeling TRUTH as theist delusion, atheist intellectuals argue that higher value can be assigned to "pretence" or to the "will to delusion, selfishness & cupidity". Whether these intellectuals sould be called as philosophers or not is an entirely different sphere of arguments.
>>>>> If popular valuations deviate from TRUTH, then absurd inferences will crop up. It will appear that behind all logic, there are valuations & not vice vera. The greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher will appear to be secretly influenced by his instincts which in turn are conditioned by the physiological demands aimed at maintaining a definite mode of life. In that case "uncertain" will look more valuable than "certain" or "illusion" will appear more creditworthy than "reality".
>>>>> Is it possible to use LOGIC for justifying false opinions ? If we say "yes", then renunciation of false opinions will mean renunciation of life. Only a person without common sense will accept falsehood as a condition of life. "Collaborative opinion" cannot be the basis for deciding truthfulness. But whenever the "collaborative opinion" gets challenged by a slightest mention of the word TRUTH, it is interesting to see how often atheist intellectuals make mistakes & lose their way. In a childish or childlike manner, they all raise loud & virtuous outcry while defending "collaborative opinion". What they claim to be their "real opinion attained through the self evolving of a hot, pure & scientifically indifferent dialectic" is in fact, "a prejudiced proposition, idea or so called expert's opinion" defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. What they basically defend is their heart's desire abstracted & refined. Usually, such advocates of their own prejudices are far from having the conscience which could have bravely admited this to itself. Those, who appreciate rationality, find no small amusement in spying out subtle tricks of these new age morons who claim to be the whole & sole defenders of scientific temper. When their so called scientific temper prompts them to go against mathematics, it does make fastidious metaphysicians smile. How much of a personal mediocrity & superficiality does this masquerade of sickly social animals betray !
Chapter 2. Origin of Philosophy
>>>>> By keeping an eye on the so called logical procedure of atheist intellectuals, we will now analyze the terms -
a. conscious thinking,
b. instinctive thinking &
c. intuitive thinking.
>>> Instinctive thinking of the deer prompts it to run away from tiger and this decision is quite logical. For an average homo sapien also, instinctive thinking will happen to be in line with logical thinking only when there is a direct threat to survival. Usually the egotists assume that instinctive thinking is not much different from conscious thinking because if logic is deeply embedded in the subconscious mind, then the flash decisions taken through instinctive thinking will be more or less similar to the decisions taken through conscious thinking. That's why some media outlets which define "talent" in a peculiar manner, place heavy emphasis on spontaneity. According to them, such emphasis enables them to retain best talent in the industry. Of course, many people argue that such spontaneity simply creates a herd of talkative impatient extroverts.
>>> We analyze information by using logic. Lack of authentic information puts obvious limitations on conscious thinking. In that case we normally rely upon intuition. If your intuitive thinking is in line with TRUTH, you are on the path of achieving higher conscience. When your intuition pushes you away from TRUTH or reality, society identifies you as a schizophrenic person.
>>>>> Any great philosophy is usually pioneered by its originator. At the starting point of any philosophy, its originator does not have any reference knowledge-base of the past. Over a period of time, that originator gains an insight by observing the real-life events taking place around him throughout his life. Eventually, what looks like an involuntary & unconscious autobiography forms the vital seed which transforms into a huge tree of philosophy. When the followers of that originator use their own lifetime experiences for furthering this basic philosophy, branches & sub-braches are added to the tree. Only the branches that are strong enough to face the storms survive, while other branches simply break apart.
>>>>> Inquisitive mind forms a crucial element that distinguishes homo sapien from rest of the animals. This inquisitive mind induces "pursuit of knowledge" which is NOT found in any other animal. Do fundamental impulses form the basis for any philosophy ? NO. Fundamental impulses can either be GOOD or BAD. It is PHILOSOPHY which enables us to separate good from bad. Every impulse which is naturally imperious cannot philosophize unless it is in line with LOGIC or TRUTH. "Being natural" does not necessarily mean "being logical". If an illogical impulse attempts to philosophize, that will give rise to "bad philosophy".
>>>>> Most of the atheist intellectuals are under the impression that collectivism is inherently more valuable than individualism. Their fallacy gets exposed whenever an entire group deviates from TRUTH. When all think alike, nobody thinks; rather all fools think alike. Atheist intellectuals belong to such illogical herd that mistakes "evolution theory" for a scientific theory. Evolution theory is nothing but an atheist delusion having no scientific base whatsoever. Another example is from India. Sometime back, almost entire Indian market had unanimously endorsed that "Lord Ganesha (Elephant God) actually drank milk". Even though large number of persons unanimously embrace superstitions or delusions, that group cannot be considered as a creditworthy group. You cannot create a herd of stupids & claim that the overall credit for the herd should increase in proportion to the number of stupids joining that group. Entire global market driven economy is nothing but an absurd herd of irrational stupids. Just like atheist intellectuals, they want their stupidity to be mistaken for their confidence.
>>>>> It is quite interesting to analyze the behaviour of those who are labeled as SCHOLARS by atheist intellectuals. Intellectuals openly admit that the real "interests" of a scholar are generally in the direction of family, money-making or politics. Everything else, including personal liberty, is of secondary importance. Everything is impersonal. Such scholars do not make choices; rather they are comfortable with whatever choices their nation state assigns to them. Whether a young scholar becomes dentist, sweeper or philologist; he is not characterized by becoming this or that. Scholars do not mind some "big brother" watching them continuously. Such scholarly attitude does not give too much importance to moralists. Neither do they subscribe wholeheartedly to procedures which are traditionally labeled as immoral. In short, scholars do not take any polarised stand as such. Indian philosophy calls this attitude as राजसी वृत्ती.
>>>>> In this seductive, transitory & illusive world, making proper choices will be somewhat difficult for a FREE person, if he doesn't understand equinimity. Ignorance of atheist intellectuals prompts them to ridicule equinimity. To them, equinimity simply means indifference. Imagine two persons subjected to similar conditions of life. The person capable of enduring more pain - both physiologically & emotionally - will be more comfortable while facing life's ups & downs. That is the basis for EQUINIMITY. Stoicism places plenty of emphasis on self-inflicted pain to boost your endurance levels. Inflicting physiological pain is not an END in itself; rather it is the MEANS with which equinimity & subsequent higher-conscience is to be achieved. However, if someone practices equinimity, atheists assume that they have the licence to inflict pain upon such person. That simply exposes the abysmally low calibre of mediocre atheists.
(Incomplete...)
The above article is being written in response to the points mentioned in "Beyond Good & Evil" (by Friedrich W. Nietzschhe)
>>>>> Theists often use the term "Absolute Truth" or "Ultimate Truth". "Pursuit of Truth" is such a complicated & tiring process that even the seasoned philosophers tend to promote the so called virtues of falsehood. In the absence of any obvious & tangible incentives, does it really make any sense in dying for Truth ? Instead of developing an urge to unearth the Truth, what will happen if we wholeheartedly embrace falsehood without any accompanying guilt ? If we are free to hold any opinion we like, why shouldn't we seek falsehood, uncertainty or even ignorance ?
>>>>> The mode of reasoning, based upon the assumption that TRUTH is a theist delusion, discloses the typical prejudices by which atheist intellectuals of all times are recognized. This mode of verification forms the backbone of their so called logical procedure. Through this "belief" of theirs, they exert temselves for their "knowledge" & for something that is solely based upon "collaborative opinion" having no "rational justification" whatsoever.
>>>>> Is there any origin for an urge to unearth the Truth ? In the absence of falsehood, there won't be any such urge. In the absence of selfishness there won't be any generous deed. Does everything originate out of its opposite ? That's silly. Only a plain stupid will propose such genesis. Things must stand on their own. In this impermanent, dynamic & materialistic world, things of higher value cannot depend upon any other source. They must have an ORIGIN of their own.
>>>>> The fundamental belief of atheist intellectuals is : "Theists are at junior level of morality development." Without logical arguments, you cannot assume your opponent to be wrong. But atheist intellectuals don't agree with this very foundation of LOGIC. For them, "collaborative opinion" alone is sufficient to prove their point. Once something is endorsed by "collaborative opinion", knowledgeable person is not allowed to raise any doubt. In short, atheist intellectuals are very much convinced that "collaborative opinion" can be used as a substitute for "rational justification". That's ridiculous.
>>>>> On the other hand, metaphysicians base their arguments upon BELIEF IN ANTITHESES OF VALUES. Can their be anything besides "Absolute Truth" on which the popular valuations & antitheses of values are set? After labeling TRUTH as theist delusion, atheist intellectuals argue that higher value can be assigned to "pretence" or to the "will to delusion, selfishness & cupidity". Whether these intellectuals sould be called as philosophers or not is an entirely different sphere of arguments.
>>>>> If popular valuations deviate from TRUTH, then absurd inferences will crop up. It will appear that behind all logic, there are valuations & not vice vera. The greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher will appear to be secretly influenced by his instincts which in turn are conditioned by the physiological demands aimed at maintaining a definite mode of life. In that case "uncertain" will look more valuable than "certain" or "illusion" will appear more creditworthy than "reality".
>>>>> Is it possible to use LOGIC for justifying false opinions ? If we say "yes", then renunciation of false opinions will mean renunciation of life. Only a person without common sense will accept falsehood as a condition of life. "Collaborative opinion" cannot be the basis for deciding truthfulness. But whenever the "collaborative opinion" gets challenged by a slightest mention of the word TRUTH, it is interesting to see how often atheist intellectuals make mistakes & lose their way. In a childish or childlike manner, they all raise loud & virtuous outcry while defending "collaborative opinion". What they claim to be their "real opinion attained through the self evolving of a hot, pure & scientifically indifferent dialectic" is in fact, "a prejudiced proposition, idea or so called expert's opinion" defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. What they basically defend is their heart's desire abstracted & refined. Usually, such advocates of their own prejudices are far from having the conscience which could have bravely admited this to itself. Those, who appreciate rationality, find no small amusement in spying out subtle tricks of these new age morons who claim to be the whole & sole defenders of scientific temper. When their so called scientific temper prompts them to go against mathematics, it does make fastidious metaphysicians smile. How much of a personal mediocrity & superficiality does this masquerade of sickly social animals betray !
Chapter 2. Origin of Philosophy
>>>>> By keeping an eye on the so called logical procedure of atheist intellectuals, we will now analyze the terms -
a. conscious thinking,
b. instinctive thinking &
c. intuitive thinking.
>>> Instinctive thinking of the deer prompts it to run away from tiger and this decision is quite logical. For an average homo sapien also, instinctive thinking will happen to be in line with logical thinking only when there is a direct threat to survival. Usually the egotists assume that instinctive thinking is not much different from conscious thinking because if logic is deeply embedded in the subconscious mind, then the flash decisions taken through instinctive thinking will be more or less similar to the decisions taken through conscious thinking. That's why some media outlets which define "talent" in a peculiar manner, place heavy emphasis on spontaneity. According to them, such emphasis enables them to retain best talent in the industry. Of course, many people argue that such spontaneity simply creates a herd of talkative impatient extroverts.
>>> We analyze information by using logic. Lack of authentic information puts obvious limitations on conscious thinking. In that case we normally rely upon intuition. If your intuitive thinking is in line with TRUTH, you are on the path of achieving higher conscience. When your intuition pushes you away from TRUTH or reality, society identifies you as a schizophrenic person.
>>>>> Any great philosophy is usually pioneered by its originator. At the starting point of any philosophy, its originator does not have any reference knowledge-base of the past. Over a period of time, that originator gains an insight by observing the real-life events taking place around him throughout his life. Eventually, what looks like an involuntary & unconscious autobiography forms the vital seed which transforms into a huge tree of philosophy. When the followers of that originator use their own lifetime experiences for furthering this basic philosophy, branches & sub-braches are added to the tree. Only the branches that are strong enough to face the storms survive, while other branches simply break apart.
>>>>> Inquisitive mind forms a crucial element that distinguishes homo sapien from rest of the animals. This inquisitive mind induces "pursuit of knowledge" which is NOT found in any other animal. Do fundamental impulses form the basis for any philosophy ? NO. Fundamental impulses can either be GOOD or BAD. It is PHILOSOPHY which enables us to separate good from bad. Every impulse which is naturally imperious cannot philosophize unless it is in line with LOGIC or TRUTH. "Being natural" does not necessarily mean "being logical". If an illogical impulse attempts to philosophize, that will give rise to "bad philosophy".
>>>>> Most of the atheist intellectuals are under the impression that collectivism is inherently more valuable than individualism. Their fallacy gets exposed whenever an entire group deviates from TRUTH. When all think alike, nobody thinks; rather all fools think alike. Atheist intellectuals belong to such illogical herd that mistakes "evolution theory" for a scientific theory. Evolution theory is nothing but an atheist delusion having no scientific base whatsoever. Another example is from India. Sometime back, almost entire Indian market had unanimously endorsed that "Lord Ganesha (Elephant God) actually drank milk". Even though large number of persons unanimously embrace superstitions or delusions, that group cannot be considered as a creditworthy group. You cannot create a herd of stupids & claim that the overall credit for the herd should increase in proportion to the number of stupids joining that group. Entire global market driven economy is nothing but an absurd herd of irrational stupids. Just like atheist intellectuals, they want their stupidity to be mistaken for their confidence.
>>>>> It is quite interesting to analyze the behaviour of those who are labeled as SCHOLARS by atheist intellectuals. Intellectuals openly admit that the real "interests" of a scholar are generally in the direction of family, money-making or politics. Everything else, including personal liberty, is of secondary importance. Everything is impersonal. Such scholars do not make choices; rather they are comfortable with whatever choices their nation state assigns to them. Whether a young scholar becomes dentist, sweeper or philologist; he is not characterized by becoming this or that. Scholars do not mind some "big brother" watching them continuously. Such scholarly attitude does not give too much importance to moralists. Neither do they subscribe wholeheartedly to procedures which are traditionally labeled as immoral. In short, scholars do not take any polarised stand as such. Indian philosophy calls this attitude as राजसी वृत्ती.
>>>>> In this seductive, transitory & illusive world, making proper choices will be somewhat difficult for a FREE person, if he doesn't understand equinimity. Ignorance of atheist intellectuals prompts them to ridicule equinimity. To them, equinimity simply means indifference. Imagine two persons subjected to similar conditions of life. The person capable of enduring more pain - both physiologically & emotionally - will be more comfortable while facing life's ups & downs. That is the basis for EQUINIMITY. Stoicism places plenty of emphasis on self-inflicted pain to boost your endurance levels. Inflicting physiological pain is not an END in itself; rather it is the MEANS with which equinimity & subsequent higher-conscience is to be achieved. However, if someone practices equinimity, atheists assume that they have the licence to inflict pain upon such person. That simply exposes the abysmally low calibre of mediocre atheists.
(Incomplete...)
The above article is being written in response to the points mentioned in "Beyond Good & Evil" (by Friedrich W. Nietzschhe)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
We strongly believe in Freedom of Expression. So, comments or criticism in abusive language also is allowed here.
(of course we retain the authority to delete SPAM !)