Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Life from a consumer's perspective

I woke up with a very profound thought today...

Take whatever you get from life, if you try to take more than what you want.. more than what you have.. then it will be a waste anyway. Not only will the extra stuff rot, you will have no need for it anyway..

Its like studying consumer behavior.. If you buy more than what you need, and more than what can fit in your shopping basket and shelf at home, the extra products will have no use and will hence rot. Hence it is best to understand your needs and not fake them to reach for more.


I guess this is my tribute to "The greatest Philosopher with Golden words", Ayn Rand and it is my way of asserting that the only religion or philosophy I follow is Objectivism.

11 comments:

'nonnymus said...

Objectivism, hedonism, and the rest are simply half baked attitudes and not religions. Religion does not just define ur perspective but ur entire personality, your roots as well as ur atitude towards life. People who put forward these 'attitudes' are people who are still vaguely searching themselves and are incapable of dealing with the aspects of religion they fail to comprehend. True you may not be following a 'proclaimed' religion if you're not satisfied with them or convinced. But that does not mean that objectivism can be proclaimed to be a religion. Besides ther are wider prameters to define religion than a few peoples attitude.

'nonnymus said...

i forgot to mention tht religion defines entire societies as well. and also that i take VERY GREAT OFFENSE to smthing u've said here.

Aniruddha said...

Good one ! a different perspective of looking at life .. just that I am not sure if I would like to wake up to such a profound thought :) ..

probably this is none of my business, but
@anonymous, what did you find so offensive here ? What you mentioned are your opinions and what she has mentioned are hers ... every one is entitled to have one's own opinion... religion/philosophy is something one defines for oneself .. your definitions and Ayn Rand's (& hence Pragni's) definitions dont match thats all .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ObjectivisM

pragni~dreamcatcher~ said...

'nonnymous - Its people like you who make religion your entire personality. I wouldn't ever dream of letting anything or anyone define me by something as common as a religion. Religion might influence your attitude, but I, for one, am strongly against letting it define my roots, myself or my personality. People who refute others perspective, and label it as half-baked, vague or incapable are the ones who have lost their own sense of being and are so rigid that they refuse to understand that there is another world, another perspective and another life beyond theirs.

Yes, I have read up on as many religions as I could, but none of them have satisfied me and hence I follow none of them, but if the ideologies and philosophies of Objectivism are what I deem correct, then I have the bloody right to proclaim it as my religion if I want to (Though I haven't reached that frenzy yet).

Besides if there are wider parameters to define a religion, who decides these parameters??

Also it is the very fact that religion today defines societies that I found absolutely stupid. How can anyone let just an idea (because that's what it is at grass root level, an idea and a lot of shit adorning it) define an individual, a way of life and an entire society.

And if this is not it, what more is it that you take such great offense too??

Also may I add that I take offense to the fact that you stole the thunder from my profound thought by getting into this debate. :-p The blog was originally about the thought you know..

Ani-Thank god atleast you noticed the thought.. hehe... Lol I woke up to this because I dreamt of something that led to this thought. And surprisingly the dream was about Bigg Boss, this new reality show here.

And why the hell is it not your business to comment on an anonymous comment. Plus I like inter-comment communication!! Even if one identity is unknown and another is known...

anu said...

i agree tht sum1 dint really undrstnd wot the original idea of the blog ws..
n wot u spoke of pragni is the general attitude of people today,esp while shoppin durin sales or 'sumthn free'offers..lol
people r always wantin more..nt jst for ambition or need or want bt nly coz its 'more'more thn wot they have or even wot they need..i dnt kno if am able to express myself in an undrstndable manner..hope u get the gist of it..
n as far as the religion debate goes..i wish people wud stop gettin fanatic every time the word religion is mentioned sumwer..all r entitled to their views..
n while v r at it,i wish tht people realise tht wot each religion actually preaches is forgotten by most of the people harpin abt it..wot v see 2day is the interpretation by people as is suitin them..the original idea hs been lost sumwer by people..

'nonnymus said...

Lol. the comments are becoming longer than the entire

blog! Though I seriously doubt how many here have

understood the full implication of my words. I was

initially planning a short response but ur 'story'

has tempted me to write more.

Pragni. Religion has already defined ur roots. And

this would be better argued with by ur parents rather

than me.

As any and every rational human being you have a

reasoning power that justifies what you think and

believe and come across. The same reasoning also does

the job of refuting ideologies and beliefs, and

separating dogmas from verifiable, comprehendable and

acceptable facts and ideals.

Let me make it clear that I raise no objection

whatsoever to your 'profound thought' of not grabbing

more from life than what you want and what you have.

You however, have missed the most important

criterion, need. And your secondary mention to it

just robs it off its significance. And that mam, is

the difference between philosophy and religion.

Besides, all these half-baked attitudes are nothing

but snippets of religions that have defined them long

before those who put them forward were born. It would

be wrong to call them wrong or inappropriate. They're

merely incomplete.

If you have read up on as many religions as you

could, it seems that you have just mechanically

scanned them through, or you would have more to say

about them besides calling them an idea. It is really

surprising the number of misconceptions that todays

immature generation conjures up as far as religion is

concerned. Ladies and gentlemen, Religion is NOT

rites and rituals, but a way of life, your entire

schedule. And let me remind you that the 'shit'

adorning it is thrown up by people who refuse to

understand religion in its entirety and let it rot.

And as for your taking offense to my stealing the

thunder from your 'profound thought, young lady,

stick your tongue back in and accept the fact that ur

blog is a thought. It is bound to raise more

thoughts, and thoughts are made to clash, interact

and generally grow. If you cannot handle that, than

I'd advise that you stop blogging. Or make sure that

you do not raise controversial issues if you do not

have the guts to handle it. Or should we say, stick

to the 'pink' side of it.

Aniruddha: Do not hesitate to express what you feel.

Thats what blogs are for. I doubt however, whether

you were wakefully thinking when you wrote that

comment, 'cause it sounds like while reminding me

that pragni has the right to express her opinion,

you're reprimanding me for expressing mine out here!

As far as Ayn Rand's ideology goes, I'm not offended

in the least with it, nor am I commenting on its

pro's and cons, merely stating that calling it a

religion is a mistake.

Anu: very well said. religion is actually forgotten

in its true colour and thats why people like me are,

like you put it, 'harping' about it. What I would

like to point out here to everyone is that there seem

to be a lot of dark areas in my earlier comment that

have been misterpretted. Unfortunately I cannot do

anything about it.

Anyway kids. Dont mind the lecture ;-)

'nonnymus said...

(Sorry couldnt resist.)
Pragni: Liked your views on Gandhigiri. Religion too is somewhat similar to Gandhigiri. Difficult to understand, more difficult to accept, and most difficult to sensibly practise. Not to mention what a staunch believe Gandhiji himself was on religion.
and sorry or the typos, if any.

Pri said...

who is this guy nonnymus....pragni why dont you ask him to fuck off from here?

pragni~dreamcatcher~ said...

'nonnymous- You know you can speak for yourself. Why would you want to comment about whether religion has or has not already defined my roots. What doe the significance of need have to do with religion or philoshophy?? Defining the priniciples and ideologies that one follows as religion or philosophy is not so superficial. When you call your principles religion it is because you have been conditionied by the society to do so and when you call your priniciples philosophy it is coz you are arrogant enough to believe that you have taught yourself the ideologies and have not followed them blindly and inherently. I am arrogant by my own submission and hence fall in the later category. And if you did not realize, I encourage such arguments and discussion on my blog, in the comments section or even around me. This is obvious from the comment I have left for Anirudha but if you are blind enough to not read it, then I think you must refrain from asking anyone at all to stop blogging. I understand that as someone elder to me (as it seems from your comment), you feel the need to track us kids but I would request you to not try and rule people who are just bloggers expressing their thoughts and views.

About your asking me to not raise controversial topics if I cant handle them, I really must say that you are awefully presumptous because all I did was to state what I follow. It was you who raised this entire hullabalo and not only that you have the gall to insult me and my fellow commentors.

And if your earlier comment did have a lot of unexplained statements, it is your fault and no one else's.

I would also like to say, that it is obvious from your 'lecture' that you have very deliberately tried to insult and offend a lot of people. That is entirely your choice but it does not do much to add weight to your argument.

Pri-When people deliberately try to offend you, you must not fall in the trap and utter profanities. That's just what they want you to do. 'nonnymous uncle has full rights to express his opinion in a decent manner, if not a polite manner, but your response is definately niether decent nor polite.

'nonnymus said...

Definitely too much food for thought for one person. I dont know why you should feel at all insulted by any of my comments since you have such defined ideologies of yours that you believe in so firmly(its hardly like I've succeeded in rusbbishing any of them for u ;-)). anyways, i intended the 'lecture' to b humorous, but looks like i chose the wrong words. Or maybe like you point out, I am too 'old' to enter into a discussion with young blood such as urs. So I withdraw. But I enjoyed the tete-a-tete.

pragni~dreamcatcher~ said...

It dint look like you are someone who would withdraw so easily sir. Am surprised and disappointed.