Everything in Scientology is based on logic

The BBQ Pit
1

I’ve opened two other pit threads in the past few days, but I couldn’t resist, this one’s a mini. Then I’ll restrain myself for a little bit.

Danny Masterson: ‘Everything in Scientology Is Based on Logic’
Wait, did you just say… logic?

Danny Masterson: 'Everything in Scientology Is Based on Logic'

It’s based on logic, just like** hollywood movies are based on true stories.
**
The christian creation museum where you can ride a dinosaur with a saddle is based on actual science, too. After all, science agrees there were dinosaurs at one time.

And Danny Masterson’s career is based on actual talent. I imagine it took some very talented writers to get America to swallow his acting ability, with the kind of dramatic range he brings, but then again, we’re the same folks who sit around watching the Kardashians and guys jumping off of rooftops to try to land in shopping carts, so in retrospect, nah, not really.

Hold on, I’ll be right back, I have to go fuck myself for being a Scientology critic.

With gusto, mister Masterson, with gusto. It would be a far more productive use of one’s time than studying Hubbard’s universally discredited mental masturbation. I mean, you can study TimeCube, but does that count as actually studying anything?

P.S. Don’t forget to donate all your excessive earnings to the church, I’m sure it will help all the poor, suffering Miscaviges of the world. Don’t forget to renew when your billion-year contract is up, if it seems like the logical thing to do.

2

“There’s books and lectures and whatnot, and then there’s the stuff in Dianetics, which is the auditing, which is basically going through painful incidents in one’s life and erasing them so that they don’t upset you.”

I would call that denial and bottling up explosive materials under pressure and hoping it doesn’t explode someday.

Wait, I mean it sounds perfectly logical. And healthy, for sure!

3

What’s the real deal on what he’s talking about regarding why the book wasn’t published in the UK? He cites libel laws and that the book was all lies, but I suspect there is more to this story.

4

Everything in Aristotle is based on logic, and modern philosophers and scientists reject almost every bit of it.

5

And the books are printed on, like, real paper. I mean, these books are real, man, you can touch them and the words inside are actual, like words.

Woahhhh!

6

It’s because Scientology is highly litigious and the libel laws in the UK put the burden of proof on the defendant. Wright could be sued into oblivion for libeling the church, even if everything he said was factual.

If you aren’t familiar with it and have any interest in the shit show that is Scientology, I recommend Tony Ortega’s blog he’s been following them for a long time (and has a book coming out on one of their more unpleasant escapades).

7

Serenity now, serenity now.

8

I am recalling Sylvester Stallone talking about his mother’s astrology: “It’s really scientific, with these big books and a lot of math and stuff.”

9

I recently read that she’s doing ass readings now. She calls is “rumpology”. I can’t believe it’s not called “Asstrology”.

10

That’s pretty facile. Aristotelian biology and physical science aren’t accepted, but Aristotelian philosophy is taken seriously (and in some respects van even be considered in revival). [/hijack]

11

Well, I’m getting that from Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. He conclusively demonstrates that almost everything in Aristotle’s philosophy – including even his system of logic – is either wrong or trivial or morally repellent to modern minds. He also notes the existence (in 1945) of philosophers who cling to Aristotle – Roman Catholic philosophers in the Thomist school – but to the extent they do so, they are not modern philosophers. The chapter “Aristotle’s Logic” concludes:

12

It’s science. It’s right there in the name.

13

if I were having a serious debate about Scientology with one of its believers, I’d ask why Scientology has so many secrets. If they have this information that would help so many people, why don’t they release it? Wouldn’t everyone benefit from knowing the true history of the world and useful processes for reducing human suffering?

The fact that Scientology claims to have this information but is withholding it hurts their reputation. It makes it look like they have something to hide. Or, if you accept that everything they say is true, it makes it look like they are hoarding this information out of greed.

14

Russell’s history is entertaining and well written. It’s worth reading as a smart guys opinion and even enlightining at times. It is absolutely worthless as an objective history of philosophy, unless read with other calmer writers who actually take the time to understand schools they might disagree with.

I could have sworn people have tried to explain this to you before. In any event try this instead.

15

Olentzero did once, but he was defending Marxism, so I did not take it all that seriously. Aristotle I studied some in college, and have never found any reason to disagree with Russell’s take on him.

16

OK, I absolutely love that he said this:

[QUOTE=Danny Masterson]
But you know, my religion’s fair game, I guess, 'cause it’s new.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder why he had that particular term on the tip of his tongue?

17

Come to think of it, you seem to be saying that no actual philosopher can write an objective history of philosophy, because he is too engaged, will have a partisan (if the word applies) take on any philosophical (as distinct from historical) question that is in any way controversial.

Are Solomon and Higgins philosophers?

18

Subterraneus did, in this thread (Post #14, and maybe also #21).

And you yourself (Larry Borgia) weighed in on Russell’s History in this thread (Posts #45 and #47).

19

Huh. I honestly didn’t remember that was me. I feel like a reverse Brian Williams here.

20

Would that be a William Brians?