LoBagola

I used to be really confused and frustrated by questions like "how do you know what you see is real"? I've just been lying down thinking about this for past hour and now I'm really excited as I think I've just attained a new level of understanding. I realized whenever I get into these discussions with myself or other people no one actually knows what they are talking about. Please let me know if I'm getting this. Since I'm not so good at articulating, let me show you: Man A: "how do you know what you see is real"? Man B: "Define real" Man A: "ummmm I don't know, it's stuff..." Man B: "Stuff? so something which exists?" Man A: "I guess so, yes" Well this question doesn't make any sense at all!!! the word "what" refers to something, i.e. something which exists. So this is like asking how do you know that you are running when you are running!!!!??? Man A will still not really get this...since so many words to him are just "feelings" and he'll make sentences suit his philosophical beliefs (as I have done and failed to notice). Another example: Man A: "Ok, fine fine I yield" (unlikely) "but then how do you know that your senses are valid"? Man B: "Define valid" Man A: "ummmm I don't know, it's stuff..." vague associations with other words come to mind - accurate, real, helpful, useful Man B: "So by valid do you mean your senses are perceiving that which exists?" Man A: "No, I mean... they are perceiving something inaccurately - something which isn't there" Man B: "How can you perceive something which isn't".... Anyway this can go on for ages because none of these words have any solid anchoring to reality. I have this issue!!! I've been turning over all kinds of concepts in my mind and many of them I can't really define without referring to vague feelings or other words which are also defined in the same way. People will also talk this way all the time - they'll say things that they don't understand. E.g. I might say to myself "gosh your such an idiot " but ask me to define idiot and i'll probably tell you "someone stupid". Ask me to dig deeper and then I'll realize I just made random noises in accordance with some feelings I had at the time.

If someone laughs at Ayn Rand and ridicules people who think her philosophy is worth studying I start to feel fear/anxiety and lose some of my composure. I'm trying to understand whether this feeling is serving me in an beneficial way or not, and whether it's root is valid. Note that I usually haven't seen philosophical arguments made I've just received overwhelmingly negative responses when trying to find people interested in studying on campus. I feel powerless in response since I have not yet fully understand and worked through the whole philosophy. I'm just very confused by how what seems like a very positive system of ideas can be met with such strong resistance by so many people. I'd like to get some feedback on the above and also my emotional response. I think there's a few things that cause this: 1. If people think her philosophy is so bad as to be something to laugh at then the world is evil. These people outnumber me and therefore I'm powerless even if I consciously prove it to myself. Response: I felt this way when I held invalid beliefs that were challenged too. I "felt" I was right and anyone who challenged my view was evil - I saw their ideas as causing pain, suffering etc. Is the world really evil because some people laugh at her philosophy? Are these people who laugh at the philosophy convincing everyone else? What power do they have? Should I concern myself with them? What purpose to my feelings serve here - they don't help me at all. I'm not in this to help people but to make my life better and dedicating a portion of my time concerning myself with others ideas will not make my life better. 2. I'm still studying and trying to consciously work through everything right from the base, so right now all I have is 'feeling' for some of her ideas. I don't feel like I'm able to defend my beliefs against many arguments and every additional argument mean something else I'll have to study - which overwhelms me as trying to work through epistemology is frustrating enough. Response: this is a valid concern - how can I study philosophy properly when I keep getting thrown astray by all kinds of concepts I don't understand. I've spent long enough as it is slowly working my way through OPAR.

There have been some enormous changes to my life over the past 3 months. Most of them hugely positive. The positive changes have all had to do with my personality, relationships and ability to summon courage. I think I've done some seriously amazing things in these areas. However, there have also been some realizations which have left me with depressed, unmotivated and confused. I'm not sure about my central purpose in life anymore - and it's so painful to be unsure since I've spent an enormous portion of my life dedicated towards getting there. I don't know if my feelings are telling me that I shouldn't do it? or if I'm just being a loser and giving up? if my feelings are justified? I don't really know anything else either as I've been focused on one thing for so long. I've been working hard towards becoming a financial trader since 14 (I'm 24 now). I used to trade and made and lost a great deal in stocks, commodities, futures etc. There were times I would spent 8-10 hours 6 days per week working on something related to this. If I had to rate my life in terms of happiness up until this point I'd give it 3/10 - but I don't know this could be subject to a lot of cognitive biases as we feel the pain much more than the feelings of happiness (I've had huge amounts of money stolen from me and other bad stuff happen). Early on I took a shot at some firms and financial backing without going to university and it didn't work out. I went to university, excelled with top grades while working night shifts 4-5 days a week. Eventually, I got an internship at a big investment bank and hated it (it wasn't the specific role I wanted). I may come off as ungrateful here - I did learn a great deal but I mean I didn't enjoy the job, the environment and the type of people who are attracted to work there. I took a solo trip overseas for a few months, came back really awakened and desperate to live - up until this point I was passive in many other areas of my life (you could see my other threads in this sub-forum). I realized how much bullshit my whole degree is and how it adds up to absolutely nothing. Honestly it was luck. My degree didn't get me the internship. My marks didn't mean anything. It got me in the door (maybe) and then it meant nothing at all. My interviewer and me got along, that's all. There is so much ROTE and useless material no one would ever use in the real world. I tried to get the most I could from it by doing difficult maths subjects, hoping they would teach me to improve my thinking, but then I realized it was somewhat the same even in the maths department. I'm about to graduate (at the end of this year) and doing a bunch of subjects I cannot sum up any motivation for. Learning about utility curves with apples and hamburgers etc. It's so far removed from anything anyone would ever use, and at times plain wrong, I just cannot focus. It drives me insane. I look back at many subjects I've done and can't even remember anything at all from them - even though I spent enormous amounts of extra time researching deeper pre-requisite topics. I regret this so much now - I gave up so much socially and it feels like it was for nothing.Anyway, I'm not going to keep ranting on about how much I hate how things are taught at university. I'm quite set on dropping out next semester if I don't get any graduate jobs offers I like. At this point I'd rather work at a flower shop than some corporate office with douchebag finance graduates who talk money all the time. There are a few firms I'm still interested in work at - they are much less corporate but they are also very hard to succeed at or get into. They have these aptitude tests I'm unable to pass without practicing for an enormous amount of time. I think I'd need to do 3 hours+ a day for many months to develop the skills needed to pass these tests. I don't think this is anything to do with my intelligence because the tests look for something very specific which some people were taught as kids. Anyway, I can't sum up motivation to do this because I don't even know if I'll get in after I practice (I might still fail something). I also don't even know if I'll like it once I'm there. I'm also starting to think I really enjoy doing weird, creative things as I've picked up improvised drama and really like it (I don't think I could see myself doing it full-time though). Maybe I'd be a really good musician or film director (unlikely now, but who knows what *could* have been) - I mean this in the sense that I think what if instead of caring so much about money when I was 14 someone got me into film or music and I may have had an awesome combination of talent (which I don't know about) and my work ethic - maybe that was 'supposed' to be my thing but it's escaped me and now it's too late. Everything I've done till now has felt really forced. In-fact I feel less intelligent (in specific contexts or subjects) then alot of people, but that I have work ethic to make up for it. If I ask myself "What would I do if money wasn't an issue?". My mind goes blank. I'm so money motivated that all I care about is how I can risk money to make more money. It's not the type that wants to get a lawyer job. It's the type that wants to get good at taking capital and turning it into capital * 1 million. But this desire is not backed by anything of substance or any other meaning or activity. I have dedicated a huge portion of my life towards figuring out how to make big money (and never did) and now I know nothing else and am very confused as to my future. However, better I tackle this now and make sure I work towards something good. Hopefully with your help.

Measurement omission is preformed automatically by our mind. Are there not then basic concepts which our mind can form automatically? Once we start getting onto forming concepts which require antecedent concepts that's when we'll need to use volition and the principles of concept formation right?

I'm having trouble / confused with the following passage from OPAR: "A definition in terms of fundamentals can be formulated only by reference to one's full knowledge of the units. In order to identify a fundamental distinguishing characteristic (and a fundamental integrating characteristic—the genus), one must take into account all the known facts in the case. One must bear in mind how the units differ from other things, how they resemble other things, and what causal relationships obtain within these two sets of attributes. Only on this basis can one establish that a certain characteristic is fundamental (within that context of knowledge)." the attributes are differences and resemblances? I don't think a difference is an attribute. It's a property or some kinda relationship between attributes. what is meant by "what casual relationships obtain within these two sets of attributes". What kind of casual relationships? How can you go within attributes? On this basis - What basis? is it the basis of genus? or the previously mentioned attibutes / what casual relationships obtain. I've been working through this book for months and I'm still not even half way

How does one determine what is necessary and what is not necessary to discuss during conversation? I moderate my words and how much I reveal by social instinct at the moment but it would be nice to get some deeper theoretical understanding, if that's even possible. I'm hoping I can guide myself to better, more enjoyable and productive conversations. I started recently mostly putting my heart on the line (barring unnecessary details) to let people either hate me or love. Saves me, and them time. I don't mean I just go up to a random person and blurt out details about my value and life. I fit it into the natural flow of conversation as much as I can and gauge reactions. I don't want people in my life who think I'm weird for wanting/thinking about growing as a person. If I was in a work/corporate job type atmosphere I might never discuss what I've discussed here or in my other posts. This is instinct - but I think it's because it's irrelevant to the context. We are there to work together on something - not discuss politics, philosophy or life values. Sometimes some banter/chatter is okay - like sports - to make us connect a little more. However, with my friends I want them to know. I don't want to hide the fact I think and introspect alot about philosophy / self-development. If they think I'm weird or silly for thinking about these things - I almost never want them in my life or around me. Only a few weeks ago I used to have many people like this in my life and I've finally decided to leave them.

To be clear guys I didn't intend not to care what others think. I just couldn't articulate my thoughts well. I very much agree that it's important, hence the post. I emphatically agree. I came to this conclusion on my own while putting myself out of comfort zones. In some instances the fear is uprooted once you repeat something enough times, but in other cases I think there might be some deep rooted instincts or fears which can't be removed (e.g. for me approaching a stranger or group of strangers). But this is totally okay. It's what you do about it, not what you feel. At some point the fear also stops effecting you physiologically and mentally. This was more symbolic or ritualistic for me. When I say ritual, I don't mean it in some magicla sense. It was just something with minimal risk and the gain was that I was conquering some fear of people laughing at me, or talking behind my back about how stupid I was - I will never see them again and don't care about them as far as my image goes. It was a spare of the moment thing when I was thinking about all the fears I've bean beaten up by, and all the missed opportunities. Obviously I wouldn't want to hurt anyone - and FWIW once I put my shirt back on I started a very interesting conversation with the man in-front of me - we discussed what I'm posting about here. I've replaced this with a different ritual which is showering as usual, then getting out and putting on the coldest water. I tell myself it's pointless, silly, uncomfortable, scary... Repeat "I can't do it"... blah blah - these are the usual excuses I might make in an unrelated scenario. E.g. speaking out is pointless (I some how irrationally justify it). So once i've said these things I get in for a min or so and finish my shower. I don't know why, but it really helps me during the day when I'm pushing through new fears. I'm certainly not a shy person. I just want to be much stronger. I want to choose who will be in my life rather than let other people choose me. A lot of my friends have just 'been there', but I don't think they suit my life/values/ambitions. I think chatting to strangers before was a little irrational, but now it's opened up a whole new world for me. It was actually all about my fear of being rejected, the maybe/possible/what if. It prevented me from making new friends in even the more conventional environments (class, clubs etc). Now, I can often make friends with anyone who appears to be interesting in the most random locations - and this had the added benefit of making the more familiar environments soooo much easier.

How does one stop caring about what others think? I believe there is a problem with getting to the core of this issue. Perhaps it's in the wording. I've read an article saying you should smash your phone to detach yourself from routine, try talk to one stranger a day to put you out of your comfort zone, dance in public etc etc I think sometimes this is sometimes misguided as there is some level of caring required. Since I can't articulate what I want to say well I'll give examples of situations: You see a gorgeous girl but your paralyzed with fear to talk to her. Your scared that you might be rejected. My rational thinking tells me this fear is irrational - you should be able to talk to her without fear, asses whether she is someone you'd like to befriend or more / and vice versa. If she doesn't like you, that's fine. You might both be on different paths or you could treat it as some feedback on your own personality. Regardless of this rationale my emotions paralyze me because I'm scared of what she might think of me. You are in a class but are too scared to ask a question because you think people might think your stupid. Or maybe the class is a class of 300 people and you'll have to talk into a microphone Maybe your voice is bad and your embarrassed what people might think of it. My rational mind tells me this is stupid - I have to put myself out there. I have to be true to myself. I'm interested in asking a question so I need to. If everyone wants to laugh at me (extremely unlikely picture my brain conjures) then so be it. You want to dance and have fun but are too scared what others might think of you. Whether they might laugh at you. I've begun working on this but I'm not sure if what I'm doing is somewhat misguided. I've done stuff like take my shirt off on the train, talk to many many strangers, taken up improv acting classes - I'm thinking about walking around shirtless, dancing in public, singing in public. Yes, people might think I'm an idiot or a fool (I'll likely never see them again) but I hate this feeling of caring about others so much. I just want to be rid of it. I'm working through OPAR right now but it seems like it may take me many many years to understand and integrate the philosophy and caring about others thoughts is something I want to address now. I feel like I'm not living if I close myself off to opportunities because I'm afraid what others might think. How can I work on this area? Is there any *basic* material someone recommends which doesn't recommend jumping on your phone?

I found the answer here: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/message/133

In OPAR I'm up to "Volition as Axiomatic". It's stated that The concept of “volition” is one of the roots of the concept of “validation” (and of its subdivisions, such as “proof”). A validation of ideas is necessary and possible only because man’s consciousness is volitional. This applies to any midea, including the advocacy of free will: to ask for its proof is to presuppose the reality of free will. Is this because "asking" a question contains the concept of volition? Regardless of whether he chose to or was caused to ask a question by external factors - can someone who has no volition not still be capable of asking a question?

In OPAR there is a passage describing the perceptual level as the given and then it goes on to say "The reason you see an entity is that you have experienced many kinds of sensations from similar objects in the past, and your brain has retained and integrated them: it has put them together to form an indivisible whole." ... " The result is your ability, when you look out, to see not merely a patch of brown, but a table." Concept is defined as a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition. (The romantic manifesto) This description should also apply to table right? Except precepts are formed automatically whereas concepts require some mental effort.

Language relies on concepts and concept formation depend on man choosing to focus. According to AR, focus cannot be forced and is totally independent of teachers, parents, anatomy, condition, environment, heredity etc. Why then does every child learn to talk and understand the local language. Isn't it likely that some children will chose non-focus and therefore be unable to speak or understand anything?

a difference in sensory form among perceivers is precisely that: it is a difference in the form of perceiving the same objects, the same one reality. Such a difference does not pertain to cognitive content and does not indicate any disagreement among the partie. The senses of a man with normal vision, to take the standard example do not contradict those of a color-blind man. when the former says about some object, “It is red,” he must in reason mean by the statement: “It is an entity in reality of a specific nature such that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it in the form of red color.” That is true; that is what it is. Similarly, if the color-blind man says “It is gray,” he has to mean: “It is an entity in reality of a specific nature such that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it in the form of gray color.” ... Nor will these two men or any other perciver with an intellrct come to different conclusion about the nature of the object. In this respect, differences in sensory form do not matter. They have no consequences in regard to the content of cognition. I understand form to mean the object as perceived (i.e. not existing totally in the mind and not totally in reality but in the act of stimulus acting upon sense organs). However, I do not understand what is "content of cognition". If it is not object as perceived, nor object as it is in reality then what is it? Also how do I know these two men will not come to different conclusions about the nature of an object? isn't the property of color able to be considered a nature? - (perhaps this will be answered once I understand what content of cognition means). Thanks guys! I'm really encouraged to keep studying with all the replies I've been getting here.

When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero. Basically what is said is proving existence is impossible, since proof relies upon the identification and acceptance of these (axioms) primary facts of reality. However, I don't think a savages question is implicitly asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness. The section seems like a stylistic thing right? it would be equivalent to saying he is asking you to prove it by means of you turning into a 8 legged frog. Wasn't sure if to even post this because it's so minor, but I'm just curious if I missed something.

I can see why "existence does not exist" must be wrong: If you define existence as everything which exists then you cannot use it and then negate it in the same sentence (stolen concept), but I'm not sure why/how a tautology is a methodological guide for telling us this?

Thanks for clarifying, that helped.

Anyone interested in working through this book with me online?

I've spent some time thinking about this and am having trouble converting some ideas/statements to tautologies. E.g. I like to eat because food is good - that's a tautology? Farmers farm... tautology? But what about a false statement like all dogs are red because they are red (isn't this a tautology?) So saying existence might be imaginary is basically a fallacious statement, your using a concept your denying. Cool ! Ahhh! Now I tell A this but he says a transient being beyond our ability to define is falling for the illusion. I then get back to that topic of the need for words to have defintions in a discssion and don't know how to tackle it again. I know you might say don't argue with someone like this but I get really frustrated in not knowing why I can't completely destroy his arguments - which is due to what I think is a lack of solid understanding of principles on my part. Here I will be taken back to the issue of what if what I perceive is different from what you perceive. How do you really know the red you see is the red I see blah blah. (I'm not expecting you to smash out huge answers to my questions just hoping there might be some underlying theme / concept to my problems with these type of arguments and that I could pick up a book and work it out).

Reidy would you say Wittgenstein's book is a little advanced? I study computer science and have for the most part avoided anything in the humanities or involving reading/writing - so I'm taking this slow.

I'm confused by this. No illusions if no correctness. Correctness of what? Why would anyone argue that consciousness only exists in machines made by living intelligence? You say "Both sides have given reasons and evidence. There is no need for either side to assert their view groundlessly (arbitrarily)." I'm not sure how these two sentences are connected. Why would they be asserting their views groundless if they have given reason and evidence? (Maybe I misunderstood) Thanks for the pointers to the additional reading.

- OPAR I've thought up and heard some confusing arguments in reply and will attempt to answer them as best I can and then hopefully receive some comments / help from you. I have no training in logic / argumentation / philosophy so these might be really basic but I find them so slippery and frustrating. Any pointers to helpful resources is much appreciated. So A is the other guy. Conversation 1 A:existence exists is just a meaningless tautology. It's just like me saying farmers farm. How does that help you? Why must you begin with this if we discuss a philosophical issue? Me: You must begin with this because if nothing exists then there is nothing for us to investigate. A: No, maybe nothing exists and this is all some imaginary world. We still have to do the best we can. M: I didn't say anything about the nature of existence. Only that *something* must exist. An illusion is something. A: No an illusion is not real, by definition. Anyway, the argument just seems to go around in circles and I have trouble getting to the root of the issue or argument. Conversation 2 A: How do you know it's really you perceiving that which exists? Maybe there is no you but your only an illusion. Me: ?? Conversation 3 A: How can you just arbitrarily define consciousness to be what you want it to be? Who said that your definition of consciousness is true? Me: in order to discuss some topic we have to start with some common definitions. A: But there are many things that will have different definitions given our experience, so it's impossible to redefine every word. Then the topic goes onto epistemology and linguistics which I don't know much about. Conversation 4 A:How do you know a world without conscious organisms is possible? Maybe consciousness is inherent in the fact of existence, but your just arbitrarily saying it's not. Me: ?? This is not really one person but I've heard variations of these things and I find myself confused about what is even being said and how to address it.