Avila

Hah! Well, I can use all the inspiration you want to send my way...



Sounds like a good exchange. I have never bought (even when I was an atheist) the idea that if one believed there was no life after death, that that somehow made meaningful actions meaningless. Hell, then why not just sit in a corner and die sooner than later? I wonder how much of that is really a mask for the unwillingness to exert oneself to meaningful, purposeful action.

"Self-awareness is just awareness or perception of a fact of reality, self. Man can perceive more, he can perceive concepts from his percepts. Man uses his concepts to broaden his awareness/perception of reality but the faculty is the same, looking at reality."

I'm not so sure it's the same faculty, though certainly it is related. Being self-aware, to be able to know one's own being, and to be able to judge one's own relation to reality: that kind of intellectual reflection is more than just a highly developed ability to process sensory information. It's a huge leap.

"Yes this value (to pursue productive values) is a good value because this value in particular is not produced by that man, he cannot change the need for this value it is out of his control."

This is confusing at best. First off, if a "value" is so needed that it is out of man's control to reject or accept, then it would appear to be a built-in part of the human nature, not a "value" per se. Also, by what standard, then, is this supposed "value" a "good" value? Doesn't saying something is "good" imply a standard by which they are judged? There's something circular here in how you put this, though I am probably not being clear enough in stating it.

"How I understand it is that man's consciousness is the faculty of perceiving reality."

I don't think this is quite specific enough: a dog's senses provides it with information about its environment, reality, as well. Self-awareness, which other animals do not possess, and the ability to use the reasoning faculty to extrapolate, deduce, etc. -- those are more specifically man's consciousness.


"The only proper way to use this faculty to further one's life is to direct/focus this faculty on the pursuit/production of rational(meaning true to reality) values."

But as soon as you use the term "proper", you are ascribing a value to an activity. In this case, you are saying, then, that it is a good value to pursue values -- in other words, the existence of values predates their "pursuit/production", as unless the "pursuit/production" of values is iself a value, they won't be pursued or produced.

Jaskn,

Given the quality of your comments here and elsewhere, I've concluded that you're not worth responding to. So you're just wasting your time.

If logical progression is insufficient in arriving at truth, then what do you think constitutes a sufficient means?

Dreamspirit,

The way you have reacted to other's well-meaning (and generally wise) advice on this thread, and on the one regarding your boyfriend, suggests to me that it is highly likely that "racism" is NOT the real problem here. You come off as brittle, angry, and thin-skinned, and based on that I'm guessing you've done a good job of alienating people around you. That's the problem, not your last name.

"Some of those armed force people are just really F*cked up in the head. I should have spoken up and told him that if he wants to go that far, he'd better go get a condom, but he knew what he was doing."

Well, so did you. Or did you not know that sexual activity can transmit sexually-transmitted diseases? I also have a hard time believing that "armed force people are just really F*cked up in the head" anymore than the rest of us. Trust me, ordinary non-military folks can be just as screwed up. Don't make blanket statements about the military, many of which are good and decent men and women serving their country.

I was initially at least somewhat sympathetic to your plight, but the more you have written, the more I feel sorry for this boyfriend of yours. You are indeed trying to "fix" him, which is death for any long-term relationship.

Let me play armchair psychologist for a moment: I don't think that your boyfriend is actually worried about STDs. I think that what you are seeing is a passive-aggressive response to your dismissal of his upbringing and his mores as "stupid". He's not man enough (yet) to actually challenge your attitudes about sex and any other modern notions you might hold that make him uncomfortable, but no doubt he can see the difference between his parents' and grandparents' more elevated view of sex, and your more modern attitude (his grandparents probably didn't have to worry about STDs -- you do).

I didn't erase anything, to my knowledge, so I don't know what you're saying and I have no reason to trust your views.

Apparently you think "onthology" is a word. Hint: it's not. So much for your sneering. But it is what I have come to expect from you.

I disagree whole-heartedly: this gets us into the realm of universals, which might be one of Rand's weakest points.

I can certainly conceive of the color "red", without its being attached to any entity. Granted, this will have been the result of the cumulative perceiving of what "red" means, that is, as an accident attached to a subject. What is particularly interesting is how the mind will "group" these accidents together, so that a warm red, and a cool red, will still be seen as belonging to the family of "red".

I disagree whole-heartedly: this gets us into the realm of universals, which might be one of Rand's weakest points.

I can certainly conceive of the color "red", without its being attached to any entity. Granted, this will have been the result of the cumulative perceiving of what "red" means, that is, as an accident attached to a subject. What is particularly interesting is how the mind will "group" these accidents together, so that a warm red, and a cool red, will still be seen as belonging to the family of "red".

Apparently you think "onthology" is a word. Hint: it's not. So much for your sneering. But it is what I have come to expect from you.

What the heck is "onthology"?

Apparently you think "onthology" is a word. Hint: it's not. So much for your sneering. But it is what I have come to expect from you.

What the heck is "onthology"?

If the definition of altruism is as broad as some here would have it, then John Galt's willingness to die to shield Dagny would be an act of altruism. Now, because I think the definition of altruism is a lot narrower, I don't think Galt was acting altruistically, but rather in accordance with his hierarchy of values: a life without Dagney is of little value to him.

As for "well-known Objectivists", I am thinking of Diana Hsieh working on a big paper against the personhood movement. She mentioned, in the process, that it took a lot of time and effort (time away from other projects) and so she would appreciate any financial contributions. Is that being altruistic? I don't think so -- she is sacrificing her time because it is of value to her. But if your definition of altruism is broad enough, her working on something to benefit others, that takes away from her own productive work, would appear to qualify.

The original question was, can altruists be happy? If you're using a very broad definition, then yes, many are, and the research shows that altruism leads to greater happiness. I don't think true altruists, using the narrower definition that was mentioned previously (quoting Rand) could be happy. I also don't think there are that many of them.



Again, unless we are using the same definition of altruism, then it's difficult to discuss this with any clarity. But, in a broader sense, if charity towards others rewards the actor with greater happiness, and if that actor is a Christian who believes that charity will be rewarded in heaven, then clearly it is beneficial to him first, and others secondarily. So why should that bother Objectivists so?




This is rather all quite dramatic, though I've never seen it (and I know a lot of serious Christians). But at any rate the same sorts of actions are quite visible in the non-religious -- athletes, for example, give up food and perform all kinds of mortifications that the rest of us wouldn't care to do, in order to achieve a goal which is valuable to them. From where I'm sitting, I can look out the window and see five of my neighbors' homes. All of them are Christian: three are Catholic, one is Methodist, and another is Lutheran. They are all fine, upstanding, intelligent people. They contribute to our little Midwestern town in a number of capacities. They all take their faith quite seriously, and yet haven't done any of the things you claim they do.



You're sounding a bit hysterical. Certainly one can think of happy, prosperous, productive Christians: C.S. Lewis, G.K Chesterton (both ex-atheists), Tolkien, etc. I can think of happy, prosperous, productive atheists. Having meaning and purpose in one's life is conducive to happiness and joy, and whether one has that through a devotion to Objectivism or a devotion to God -- so what? Why do you care so much?



Euiol, since you're plainly incapable of mature discussion (one without distorting the positions of those you disagree with), I won't be replying to your posts.

Actually, research shows that altruistic people are generally happier than others:
http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/altruism/altruism-happiness
http://www.wholeliving.com/article/giving-is-good-for-you
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p13s02-lire.html

There's a sort of debased kind of altruism, I'm sure, but I doubt it applies to most people.

As for Mother Theresa, that's not quite accurate -- what she describes in her diaries is what is known, in Catholic circles, as the "dark night of the soul". It's a phenomenom that's been described by other religious (St. John of the Cross, etc.) and is not to be understood as unhappiness.

That's not what I meant by the term. "Logic" includes inductive reasoning -- that is, the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations. It is logical, then, for me to derive a reliable generalization of what Muslim actions might be in the future by observing what they've done in the past.



We agree about the first part, but not about the second: individual Muslims may not be a problem, but their belief system is, as it is emphatically opposed to a number of freedoms that we maintain. For example, the separation of church and state; religious freedom (conversion from Islam is punishable by death); women's rights.



First, it is indeed a problem when a majority of the citizens of a European city decide that sharia law trumps the civil law. You do realize, don't you, that that is happening in Muslim enclaves in some European cities where Muslims are now the majority?

Secondly, you are ignorant of the Christian view of homosexuality. It is regarded as a disorder. The person who suffers from the disorder is not evil, but homosexual acts are considered sinful. I speak here of the Catholic and Orthodox view, which make up the vast majority of Christians. There might be some nutcase Protestant wierdos who think homosexuals are evil, but it is not a common or orthodox view. I might add, by the way, that homosexuality is punishable by death in Islam.

Where did the energy come from? Did it cause itself to come into existence? In which case, is energy volitional?

"Worship"??

What you tell me by this inflammatory use of the term is that no rational discussion with you is possible. Good day, sir.

"Worship"??

What you tell me by this inflammatory use of the term is that no rational discussion with you is possible. Good day, sir.