Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

msfreemind

Regulars
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About msfreemind

  • Birthday 09/27/1986

Profile Information

  • Location
    Alberta
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Alberta
  • Country
    Canada
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Mark

msfreemind's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I am interested in meeting any Objectivists in Calgary, as well.
  2. Right. I mean, I understand that a purpose is specific and individual. The way I interpreted her advice, though, was that in thinking about this question she posed, it would help me to discover what purpose I should choose. But, in order to be successful in this, I would have to know exactly what she meant by the question so that I can answer it properly. Are you saying that when she asks, "... what do you consider the most important thing in life, and why?", you believe she wants the answer to THAT question to be a person's career choice? Because the way I interpreted her advice was that you first answer that question and THEN the choice of a career will "suggest itself".
  3. *** Mod's note: Merged topics. - sN *** In "Letters of Ayn Rand", Ayn Rand gives this advice to a young person who is trying to discover what career he should choose: "What you should do is ask yourself what do you consider the most important thing in life, and why? When you have thought that out carefully, the work that you want to do will suggest itself, and also the desire to do it." What, exactly, does she mean by this question? I could see people interpreting it in different ways. One person might say, "The most important thing in life is to be rational." In this interpretation, the person would be responding with an ACTION TO TAKE in life, which he considers the most important thing to do. Another person might say, "The most important thing in life is happiness." In this interpretation, the person would be responding with a REWARD of life, which he considers the most important reward to achieve. Still, another person might say, "The most important thing in life is my life." In this interpretation, the person would be responding with his HIGHEST VALUE. So, what does she mean by the question? I would like to know because I am trying to choose my own purpose in life.
  4. The OP didn't say that he was planning on explicitly telling the kid that he "forgives him", as if the OP's rights or personal boundaries had been violated. I think what that the OP meant is can he forgive the kid's actions, as in, is it possible that this 15 year old is honestly mistaken.
  5. OK, yes. I think I see what you mean. Merely saying "25% of the population" doesn't mean 1 in "every 4 people", because the murderers could, say, exist in higher or lower numbers depending on the neighborhood of the city. What I should have said is that 1 in every 4 people in the city are murderers.
  6. OK. I think we all know what is meant by what I said. It's like picking a red ball out of a bag, where 1 in every 4 balls are red. If you pick a random ball, there is a 1 in 4 chance that it will be a red ball. That is what I'm saying in my example. Thanks for the notes. They are interesting. I hope they finish the update to the Ayn Rand Bookstore so I can get products like this. I'll come back with an update, when I have more time.
  7. No, I'm saying that when gathering evidence for a claim, there are the three stages of certainty, depending on how much evidence there is to support the claim: possible, probable and certain. Without any evidence, a claim is arbitrary. To say that a given person might be a murderer, which is the same as saying that it's "possible" that a given is a murderer, there has to be evidence supporting that claim. The fact that it is *physically possible* for people to murder is not the same as saying that it is *possible* that a given person is a murderer. There has to be evidence showing that *that specific person* might be a murderer. Peikoff uses a hypothetical example in OPAR. In the example, one student suggests that a given professor might be an impostor, because, after all, men are capable of being impostors. Peikoff explains that the mere fact that men have the physical capability to do something is not evidence that, in a given context, that capability is being exercised. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that the professor might be an impostor, if the physical capability of being an impostor is all that's being offered as "evidence".
  8. No, it won't. You need evidence before you say something "might be". The fact that people are physically capable of murder is not sufficient evidence to say that it's possible that someone is a murderer. Let's say in the future, mankind were to reach the point where hundreds of years went by without any murders. In that context, it would be incorrect to say that a random person might be a murderer, even if he is physically capable of being one. There's no evidence to support the claim. However, I would think that given a random collection of people where a significant percentage of them are murderers, then that is enough evidence to say that a random person within that collection might be a murderer. After all, if you were walking through such a neighborhood at night, would you not be wary of any person you saw? The question is: when does that percentage become significant enough that you can make the claim that "any random person might be a murderer"?
  9. It's really not a question about law or even humans. It's an epistemological question. Forget the example involving humans, entirely. We'll use vehicles with hidden damage. Let's say there are two cities: - In City A, 1 in 10 million vehicles have hidden damage - In City B, 1 in 10 vehicles have hidden damage 1. Would it not be correct to point at a random vehicle in City B and say, "That might have hidden damage"? 2. What about in City A? Would it be arbitrary to make that claim? If the claim in City A is arbitrary, at what percentage does the statement stop being arbitrary? Does it even make sense to ask "at what percentage" or is it like the beard example that Peikoff gives in one of his podcasts, where: - If a person has little to no stubble, then he definitely doesn't have a beard - If he has a lot of hair, then he definitely has a beard - If a person has some stubble, it might fall into this indeterminate zone where it might not be clear whether it's a beard or not? If the claim in City A is not arbitrary, why not? That is definitely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that given a random individual in, say, City B, there is a 1 in 4 chance that he's a murderer, which means that any random person you see might be a murderer. I'm not saying that each person is 25% of a murderer.
  10. OK, so let's say there are two different cities: City A and City B. Let's say you're in City A, which is your average city, and you point to a random person and say, "He might be a murderer." I get the sense that that claim would be arbitrary. Now, let's say you're in City B, where 25% of the people there are murderers (just as an example), and you point to a random person and say the same thing. I think the claim would be valid in that context, since, after all, 25% of the people there are murderers. My questions are: Is the claim actually arbitrary in City A? I mean, yes, if it's a typical city then it's not like City B, where 25% of people are murderers. But there might still be some percentage of murderers, however small. Going just based off statistics, can't you say that, in City A, a random person MIGHT be a murderer, but the chances are very small? If you can't say that, then, assuming the claim *is* valid in City B, the only logical conclusion is that when the percentage of murderers in a city is high enough, you are justified in claiming that a random person might be a murderer -- but then, at what point does this occur? At what point do you say that the percentage of people is too small and the claim is arbitrary vs. the percentage is high enough and the claim is justified?
  11. During my youth, I committed several crimes of vandalism, petty theft and mischief. On a few occasions, I drove under the influence. Some of these I did as a minor and sometimes older than a minor, and usually while intoxicated. The theft was fairly light, such as stealing chips from convenience stores, sampling food at grocery stores and stealing Red Bulls from bar counters. Although on two separate occasions, I stole fire extinguishers. In terms of vandalism, I broke several school windows. On one occasion, I actually broke into a locked portable by smashing the glass of the door and unlocking it from the outside. Also when I was 13, I damaged a van windshield quite badly with rocks. Finally with the DUI, there was definitely one occasion when I was 23, where I drove home intoxicated. There were probably a few other times around the ages of 21-23. Now, one of my plans is to estimate the cost of each of these crimes and anonymously mail an apology with money, making sure to include extra money to be sure I cover the damage. But there are two issues which make me unsure of this approach. The first is with the windshield I broke when I was 13. That happened many years ago and I can think of no way to personally track down the owner. The only thing I can think of is going to the police and confessing to the crime, because maybe there was a police report filed for it. I know the location and can probably guess the time period fairly accurately, so it's possible they could link me to the report, in which case I would be able to make reparations. Otherwise, I would have no way to repay that damage. The other issue is with the DUI. Now, I got home safe and sound...no damage was done. With this one, I'm a little on the fence. On one hand, there are no real "reparations" to make with anyone. On the other hand, driving under the influence is incredibly irresponsible and a legitimate crime. So I'm wondering whether I should confess to that. So the dilemma is whether to confess to the crimes or anonymously mail the people who were affected. If I choose not to confess to the crimes, I have to accept the fact that I cannot make reparations to the person whose windshield I damaged. The reason I hesitate to confess to the crimes is the possibility of gaining a criminal record, which can be very disabling. First of all, I would lose my current job, which requires me to have zero criminal record. I would be restricted from several future jobs, in spite of having an engineering degree. Also from what I understand, I could be prevented from travelling internationally. I could also be restricted from renting certain property, if landlords do a background check and don’t like what they see. And I can honestly say that I would never do any of these things again. I rarely drink anymore, as in I might have a glass of wine once a month. The idea of vandalism or theft is so absurd that I can’t even process it. I am a very different person than I was when I did these things. I did almost all of them when I was intoxicated and/or when I was a minor. I really lacked philosophical direction and was swaying in the direction of hedonism and pragmatism. Is it not adequate to make the reparations anonymously, given the potential criminal record and the massive restrictions which that would impose? And I realize most of these would be minor offences, or summary offences, as they are referred to here in Canada, so there is a good chance I wouldn’t get a criminal record. Even a DUI, on first offence, is typically considered a minor offence in Canada, and usually just met with a fine. And if I knew that I could turn myself in and these would just be treated as minor offences, then I would gladly do that. I would pay all of the fines/damages and personally apologize to as many people as I could. But the fact is that I’m not completely sure it would be treated that way or whether I would get a criminal record. But there’s also this to consider: is it not fraudulent to work for a company who performs a background check on me? Even though I don’t actually have a criminal record, am I not essentially being deceptive…because if I had actually been caught for these crimes, I might have had a criminal record?
  12. I've been thinking about this issue more and I think I'm understanding it better. But to answer your question, it's not so much a difference that "arises in casual conversation". That's too explicit and surface-level. I have no problem verbally expressing disagreement with someone on a specific point. The issue occurs when someone has a view of me that I disagree with, but which is not communicated explicitly. It's just implicit in their very manner of interacting with me, like how someone will "talk down" to others that he feels are inferior to himself. He doesn't actually explicitly say anything disrespectful, but it's subcommunicated through his mannerisms. When I interact with someone who I believe views me as inferior to himself, I find myself in this Catch-22. On the one hand, if I'm benevolent with this person then it's almost like I'm slapping myself in the face because I'm letting this person "talk down" to me. On the other hand, the person I'm interacting with is not actually "doing anything" explicitly disrespectful so it's not like I can point to something concrete in an attempt to enforce my personal boundaries. The result is this sort of halfway response on my part, where I utter only the minimum amount of words necessary to interact with the person, while holding back my emotions. But I think I'm close to the solution. Obviously, I can't be responsible for the contents of another person's consciousness. If I have to deal with someone who views me in a disrespectful manner, that is his choice. I think now that it's not benevolence that I hold back, but exaltation. Because if I allow myself to feel exaltation in the presence of someone who is disrespectful, then it's like I'm condoning the disrespect. Ultimately I think it's just a lack of courage. I lack the courage to express myself freely and assertively in these contexts, and as such I get wrapped up in trivial, petty considerations.
  13. I have a very strong desire to be benevolent to people, but I am frequently torn in a value conflict. I want to be benevolent with, let's say, my parents, but I don't want to give the impression that I approve of their values. But it seems like if I were to be friendly and open with them, I would be doing exactly that. The result is I often hold back my emotions and the things I want to say and do, for fear of giving acceptance to irrationality. But that's just one example. I act this way with almost anyone that I don't feel is on my "intellectual level". How far does benevolence extend? At what point is it moral treason? And how do you act benevolently to someone with whom you have disagreements, without implying that you approve of their implicit assumptions?
×
×
  • Create New...