Interesting stuff. :)
Interesting stuff. :)
From the massive missive: " Those who assume (often unconsciously) that it is impossible to achieve their life's desires-and, thus, that it is futile to fight for themselves--usually end up fighting for an ideal or cause instead. They may appear to engage in self-directed activity, but in reality they have accepted alienation from their desires as a way of life. All subjugations of personal desires to the dictates of a cause or ideology are reactionary no matter how "revolutionary" the actions arising from such subjugations may appear. "
Touches on the age-old dilemna of going independent versus joining forces for a common good.
Preeminent stumbler Jack Benny points out that there's always a price to pay for swimming against the tide. Yet this piece reminds us of the price paid for giving up individuality, of just going along with the flow mindlessly.
In the end its a question of whether or not you believe there is anything bigger and more important than your self to which you would defer. Just remember that he would save his life - that is , live only according to your own will & desires - will instead loss it. Going to that extreme will cloud your peception with a severe, nay, a deadly "I" problem. The same problem that caused a certain being to say :" I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also on the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:......" .
Just the same its an interesting read.
Any system of ideas with an abstraction at its center--an abstraction which assigns you a role or duties--is an ideology. An ideology provides those who accept it with a false consciousness, a necessary component of which is other-directedness. This leads those who accept the ideology to behave as "objects" rather than "subjects," to allow themselves to be used rather than to act to attain their own desires.
Well, maybe what this article is stating, is the fact that the abstract concept of "life", with which you associate your current existence, has no meaning or purpose whatsoever, and anyone who attempts to convince you otherwise is simply lying or doesn't know better. Of course what you can do is choose a purpose for your life, but in order to make sure that's really YOUR purpose and not somebody else's, you probably must check that is based on things that YOU believe are real and true, and you actually know why they are so...
In my opinion, the article actually does a good job in making the reader think about his/her perception about life, and the people who are criticizing it, have simply missed the point...
So I was all like "wow! this is badass awesome!! Think for yourself?? Hell yeah!!"
But then around #10 and ESPECIALLY #11 they shoot themselves in the foot with bullshit. By the end I felt like they were just trying to thrust themselves upon me, quite contrary to the supposed intent of allowing you to "think for yourself".
Just as the author stated, dumping and appropriating is excellent. I think I'll do what the author suggests and throw out the bullshit, keep what I like, and have myself a unified theory for myself. Screw revolution, I just don't care. And I can say that because I don't feel I SHOULD care; anyone who tells me otherwise is contradicting the basic idea behind "thinking for yourself." Until we upload all our minds into computers, global harmony and de-mysticism will not happen; misunderstandings and human shortcomings will always exist otherwise. Don't take that to mean I'm a singularitarian or anything - I honestly don't care. I just want to play bass, eat food, and follow the absurd constructs of my mind like any other animal with no REAL free will (what humans are).
But then again that's my opinion. :D
based entirely on the old-fashioned concept of the self as a unified, singular object with clear distinctions between "self" and "not-self." the people who wrote this had good intentions, but the hidden implication that there is a single definition of self is, to me, more constricting than it is liberating. although the article probably comes off as rebellious and forward-thinking, in the scope of philosophy over the last century, these ideas are actually rather outdated and conservative. one need only browse a textbook on post-strucuralism to see the inherent logical fallacies in this article's stance.
"The Revolutionary Pleasure of
Thinking for Yourself"
Always helpful advice for living a happy life.
If only more people thought for themselves..
Just more of the same.
I'm definately coming back to this. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting bit of philosophy here, reminds me of Ayn Rand's way of thinking- that bitterness with regards to mediocrity ;)
Bookmarked for later.
The essay reaches good conclusions, but I don't see how they can get from an egotistical doctrine of acting purely on one's own impulses, to acting in a way that betters the world. Unless one's desire was for other people to live good lives as well. Hmm..