Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nerian

Regulars
  • Content count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Nerian last won the day on July 16

Nerian had the most liked content!

About Nerian

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

194 profile views
  1. My "Ethics Cheat Sheet"

    Your career doesn't have to make money. It just has to be productive. Productive means it creates values. Material wealth is one value. There's a difference. You could make money at your job, and make no money at your career. I like the virtue cheat sheet idea!
  2. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    From my research, raw cacao contains anandamide, also known as the 'bliss molecule'. I suspect that I got a mild anandamide high.
  3. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    Trust me. It was the smoothie. I know you're looking for a psychological method... but chemistry is the only way I've ever experienced bliss.
  4. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    One time I had a bag of raw cacao nibs. I bought them thinking they would be a nice healthy snack, but they were way too bitter and didn't taste good at all. One day I was making a smoothie and I thought why not just dump them in this smoothie? I knew if I didn't use these nibs they would eventually go off, so I thought I may as well experiment. I dumped most of them in the smoothie and blended them in. The smoothie was very grainy with all these nib pieces and wasn't very nice at all so I just chugged the whole thing. What followed was the closest thing to bliss I have ever experienced in my life. I experienced a sense of profound well being like I cannot describe. I was also very motivated to fix anything wrong in my life, and I was happy to accept the challenge. Nothing could bring me down in that state. The world seemed bright. Everything seemed right. I tried to recreate this feeling with another smoothie but I felt nothing the second time... much to my chagrin
  5. Pleasure and Value

    How is it worth going through all that mental suffering for a rare ephemeral scrap of mental enjoyment?
  6. Pleasure and Value

    Thank you, kind stranger
  7. Pleasure and Value

    Are they innate? I don't know. I don't know anything anymore. I don't know what there is even to do in life. What's the point of any of it. What's innate, what's learned? I don't know. But there seems to be nothing worth the struggle. Happiness? A brief spurt of emotional pleasure in a long drag of suffering and effort. How is that worth it? I don't know. It seems like nothing much is worth it.
  8. All non-zero temperature bodies produce electromagnetic radiation so generating heat in some sense always generates light Just playing.
  9. Sorry you feel that way. Who in their right mind would say I haven't at least done due diligence after all that? I just think a better philosophy can be constructed around the ideas that stand up. A return to egoism and a focus on individual happiness is so sorely needed for one thing. I value Rand's work immensely.
  10. Then can we throw out life as the standard of value? Unless you want life with its particular concrete values to be the standard of value, in which case, we are using values to determine a standard of value... which to my mind is about as circular as a circle.
  11. I guess a couple hundred hours of study wasn't enough for me then. My bad. .... or maybe the ideas don't make sense. I guess I can only go with my own judgement. That's all I have. I think I'm aware of the nuances that supposedly solve the problems, I just disagree with them. They are like backward rationalizations and switching meanings mid-argument in most cases. I don't think anyone would say I didn't put in enough study, if they knew how much time I've spent reading and listening to lectures about it. And anyone who thinks I never really understood the ideas, I dunno what to say. No true scotsman I suppose.
  12. What facts of reality make valuing that process of self sustaining action objective, when in the foundation of a system of objective values we have not yet established any objective values? (Since objective values stem from the choice to live in Objectivist theory, surely you cannot use these values to establish the very same values.) And in Objectivist theory, the values you enjoy are supposed to be rationally, objectively determined by the standard of life. Life is the standard of value, and enjoying life is part of life, and how does ne enjoy life? By pursuing and achieving ones values. What values? Those rational objective values, those that support your life! Can you see the problem here? How is this not sophistry? Does Objectivism really sanction enjoying yourself for its own sake? This is condemned as whim worship. Doing something 'because you feel like it' is an Objectivist sin. You're supposed to enjoy life the Objectivist way, the rational way! Otherwise you're not really happy, not really enjoying life. You're on a road to self destruction and your subconscious knows it! Isn't this just a convenient redefinition of terms? First we define it as a process of self sustaining action. Argue from this basis, and then we throw pleasure in because it's convenient. but those are some of the most enjoyable activities. And whence comes the judgement of rational? What I'm trying to point out is that the ethics cannot support the meta-ethical foundations of that very ethics. It's rational if it serves your life... which you value because you choose to live... which you choose on what rational basis? Remember what is rational to you is defined by your ethics and that is the very thing you are trying to establish.
  13. Happiness surely includes the positive emotions sometimes labelled joy. Feeling joy is doing life? How is this empirically true when there are millions of people living counterexamples right now? People doing life, living, surviving, in some cases doing very well, but suffering, unhappy, miserable and in some cases actually depressed. There are high functioning depressives out there. If happiness does not include that, then I have no idea what we are talking about by happiness, and I have little interest in it. What a chore if there's no reward. If you just redefine that as not really living, then that convinces me of nothing about reality. Let's just use terms in their plain meanings. Playing with definitions is meaningless. I really don't see the point in it. I want to get to truth about reality, not play with definitions until my model of reality fits conveniently. For many Objectivists, they never even read the original works! And they feel justified in this. True. But I just gave some opinions and people asked me questions and I responded. It has diverged away from the point, but isn't that the fun of a discussion forum? A spark leads to a fire. It'd be nice if there were a way to split a thread organically, rather than start a new one.
  14. Boom. Because it's a drive, an inclination, an instinct. Man has a nature. Man has innate drives. Values are not chosen. Don't be afraid to throw out tabula rasa.
  15. Isn't that just an apology for a circular argument? People survive all the time and aren't happy. The idea that you need to survive to be alive, and you need to be alive to bhappy, I have no problem with. Obviously, life is a prerequisite for, but doesn't lead to. And the fact that life is a prerequisite says nothing about what in life will make you happy. Achieving life might be in itself pretty boring and unfulfilling. Meaningless even. Life to life, what a drag. All behaviour is based on a drive. What other type of behaviour could there be? Non-driven behaviour? If you choose not to act on drive A that's just because drive B - not to act on it for some other drive - was stronger. I want the cake, but I don't want to be fat, so I don't eat it. A behaviour without a pre-rational drive is in essence a causeless behaviour. I find that logically incomprehensible. Perhaps you have a solution? Well, her whole idea that value's can be based on reason is a pretty big part of Rand. One can only reason from one's pre-rational values, to determine higher order abstract values. because abstract, rational values only have value if they fulfil some pre-rational value. I have no problem with principles that help guide one's actions like independence in matter and spirit, integrity, etc. But living by those principles isn't the path to happiness, nor are they totally required for happiness. They are just functionally useful for getting through life with less problems.
×