Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    182

Nicky last won the day on October 17

Nicky had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About Nicky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

15052 profile views
  1. For the most part, yes. You're still conscious of some things, but certainly not of the immediate reality around you.
  2. Nicky

    Grieving the loss of God

    Oh, I got the point. Just didn't wanna open with a "THAT'S A FALLACY!" type post. Wanted to be extra scrupulous, and see if you will spell it out, before the inevitable: "The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. " That is what psychologists (who embrace the doctrine of the primacy of emotions) are doing, when they put the "psychological" adjective in front of various concepts (like loss), in an effort to detach them from the real world. And it's ironic, given the name of the profession. So please, let's do be literal, and spell out what the loss is, logically, and while staying grounded in reality. If there's any loss, that is. I don't think there is (at least not for people who don't also lose a family or community, when they stop believing in God).
  3. Two points: 1. In general, men are sexually attracted to women, and women are sexually attracted to men. You don't have to do anything to turn that switch, it's on by default. You just have to avoid doing things that turn it off. The most common way I see even rich, good looking men turn that switch off is by making women uncomfortable (or by projecting a sense that they won't be able to maintain a comfortable relationship, in a more intimate setting...by avoiding one on one interaction, or failing to respond comfortably to small gestures of intimacy, like a hug or a touch, for instance). And I can't imagine a single thing that would accomplish that faster than trying to play this "game" you are describing. It doesn't work. It's a scam. Only time it ever works is when the guy doing it is already someone who's comfortable around women (and therefor doesn't flip their switch off). If you wanna become that guy, BE friends with women. Seek them out, on ANY terms. Pushing them away when they just want to be your friend, in an attempt to mimic this mythical alpha behavior would just deprive you from the only learning tool you have, when it comes to developing confidence and a comfort level around women: actually getting close to, and staying close with, women. 2. I haven't been friends with anyone since high school, who fits into this "alpha male" category. This is how juveniles behave, and what young girls who haven't had time to know any better fall for. This is not how adult men and women behave. If you behave this way in the adult world, you'll just be locked out by everyone around you. Even if you find a woman willing to put up with you, she's gonna be your only link to the rest of the world. I actually work with a young couple like this, where the guy is a charming, good looking prick, and the girl couldn't be nicer and more personable. Which, ironically, makes the guy even more dependent on her than if he was a lowly beta who seeks her approval at every turn. Only reason why he even has a job is because the company doesn't want to lose her, by firing him.
  4. Nicky

    What is the relationship between Christianity and altruism?

    Allowing yourself to be crucified to redeem the sins of man does, though. Jesus was more of a lead by example than a preachin' kinda fictional character.
  5. Nicky

    Grieving the loss of God

    Sure. Like the one you describe next: it entails the loss of parental support, and the gain of independence (or the shedding of dependence, whichever you want to go with). It does not entail the "loss of dependence", however. That's a misnomer. You lose things of value. Parental support is valuable (because it allows a person of any age to focus on personal development, they don't need to worry about earning a living right away), dependence is not. Mystical beliefs are not valuable either, and saying you "lost" them is just as much a misnomer as saying you lost dependence. So is the phrase "grieving the loss of God".
  6. Nicky

    Grieving the loss of God

    Change and loss are not synonyms. In fact, what you are describing is improvement, which is the antonym of loss. So no, there's no grief involved when you improve.
  7. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no "we". You and I are not a team. As for how I know things, I don't think you'd understand if I tried to explain it.
  8. Nicky

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    The logical consequences of an obligation to passing down the family's genes are pretty striking. It means for instance that an adopted child can not be part of the family. It also means that people unfit to have children should bring them into the world, and raise them in misery and abuse, rather than just "break the link". It also means that family supersedes justice, and powerful families have a duty to protect a criminal son or daughter from the consequences of their actions, lest that breaks the genetic link. Conversely, it means that children born into dysfunctional or criminal families (like the Mafia) should remain in the fold, and lead the irrational, destructive way of life that family imposes on them. Some humans. Not all. There are plenty of examples, throughout the ages, of people who've been able to remain rational in the face of cultural pressure to set reason aside when it comes to family.
  9. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Of course we know...because we know that the claim that blacks have an inferior intellect due to genetic differences, is arbitrary. It has no basis in reality. That's what "not true" means. That's how we know there's no God, that's how we know there's not a porcelain elephant on the dark side of the Moon, etc., etc. ... when faced with an arbitrary claim, the rational response is to dismiss it, not to reserve judgement until we can go and check.
  10. Nicky

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Wow. You went from this: to only being interested in who's "losing the argument". So which is it? Are you here for help with your "struggles with fundamental problems", and to have your misunderstandings corrected? Or are you here to win arguments? They're not even debates anymore, now they're full blown arguments...give it two more pages, and you're at war.
  11. Nicky

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    If anyone's interested in shifting gears just a bit (because, honestly, enough already with this duty nonsense), here's a take on the disintegration of the concept of family that I stumbled upon by accident, and found interesting. I'll admit, I was looking for all the sex talk in the first 13 minutes of the clip...the relevant conversation, starting at the 13:00 minute mark, which connects the breakdown of family life back in the 60's, 70's and 80's to the current cultural crisis going on in the United Sates, I stumbled upon by accident...and I found it very compelling, figured I'd share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_SP8wwu0QE
  12. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Really? Who's in this "movement" that you know for a fact exists? Please note that the only way to back up the claim that an organization's existence is an "objective fact" is to provide a list of members, and verifiable proof that they are in fact members. Which of course shouldn't be too difficult with modern technology. If you're in possession of information that proves an objective fact, it should take a few seconds to copy/paste that information into the same box you just typed your claim into.
  13. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Objectivism is a philosophy, not a movement. There is no reason for Objectivism to be a movement. It's perfectly fine the way it is, with people knowing exactly what it is, and free to subscribe to the philosophy, in whole or in part, and free to choose whether to work together for some common goal, or not. If it ever becomes a single, "open" movement, that movement will end up with leaders, and the leaders will want to add their own ideas to the tenets of the movement, and, since Ayn Rand was a genius, them and their ideas will end up not living up to her intellect...and then that will be that, because no one will care about another self-contradicting Libertarian political movement that can be thoroughly demolished by anyone with half a brain. That's what an "open Objectivist movement" is, btw. : Libertarianism. They took a few really good ideas (mostly Ayn Rand's, and a few Economists'), formed a movement and opened it up to whatever ideas anyone willing to participate could come up with. Now their movement has religious fanatics, pacifists, anarchists, anarcho-socialists, protectionists, isolationists, nationalists, wackos and weirdos and dingbats and dodos... everything except for intellectually consistent defenders of individual rights.
  14. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Precisely because Objectivism is one of the few ideologies rational enough that there's no one at the door checking for emotional investment. All you need to be accepted by its proponents is Reason. Not devotion, not being a disciple, not emotional attachment. I can just live my life, and pop in once in a while, see if there's something interesting being discussed. Starting to feel like I'm out of luck today...but maybe not, I still haven't checked Gus van Horn's blog feed.
  15. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Everyone gets to decide it, obviously. And we have: everyone who favors closed Objectivism already decided. I don't. Never met her, she was never even alive while I was alive. She's just a historical figure to me. If you wanted to speak for other dead philosophers, I would've told you the same exact thing: don't. Speak for yourself. That goes for what you said about me, too. I'm not Ayn Rand's disciple, I'm an independent thinker. I have drawn a very clear line of separation between my ideas and Objectivism. I suggest you do the same, because you can't be a confident, self respecting thinker and a disciple at the same time.
×