Peter Morris

I have the exact same problem at the moment. I can't identify rational reasons for why I like things and it makes me feel guilty and paralyses me. If you discover a solution, I'd love to know it.

The biggest problem with your view of wealth is that wealth is not physical, but configuration. Even though there is only a finite amount of so-called resources, and we have never consumed more of it than we do now, the price of almost every single commodity is lower than ever before in history, and the standard of living of people is higher than ever before. The source of wealth is man's mind, not the earth, the soil, the rocks, the inanimate matter around us. What man's mind does is master the matter, and configures it as her will's it, and makes it into wealth where before it was nothing of value at all. And the consumption of wealth is not the consumption of matter, but of the configuration of that matter. There are no limits to wealth creation and consumption. Even on a finite planet. And we needn't keep to this planet.

I've been having a few disturbing thoughts. I need someone to slap me down and explain why I'm wrong. Every value that we hold dear requires effort to gain and keep. We must fight entropy. We must fight comfort. We might struggle through the pain to get it. How can we live this way and still be happy? If every little thing that makes us happy requires so much voluntarily accepted pain, in order to escape some other pain, how can we ever see life as anything other than pain and relief from it? How can we get up each day and see a life filled with constant pain and struggle and not feel down about it? Ms. Rand said, "To a Money-Maker, as well as to an artist, work is not a painful duty or a necessary evil, but a way of life; to him, productive activity is the essence, the meaning and the enjoyment of existence; it is the state of being alive." How on earth could I live that way? How can work be enjoyment? How can work not be pain? It makes me want to cry reading her words sometimes. I want to believe such a life is possible. Listening to the audiobook of the Fountainhead on the bus on my way to uni, I have nearly cried. "The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure . . . . A chronic lack of pleasure, of any enjoyable, rewarding or stimulating experiences, produces a slow, gradual, day-by-day erosion of man’s emotional vitality, which he may ignore or repress, but which is recorded by the relentless computer of his subconscious mechanism that registers an ebbing flow, then a trickle, then a few last drops of fuel—until the day when his inner motor stops and he wonders desperately why he has no desire to go on, unable to find any definable cause of his hopeless, chronic sense of exhaustion." - Ayn Rand I identify with this feeling. I don't get much pleasure out of anything I do. And I cannot figure out why anything should give me any pleasure, physically or emotionally. I can't figure out how I can value anything. If I'm meant to value my life, and my life is a drag, then how can I go on valuing it?

I don't see any reason why those are specifically important, but I think if you need to pick a few topics to teach a child to develop their ability to think and understand the world they would be sound choices. For some reason, I cannot stand reading plain history. Most history is the history of wars and power struggles, and that bores me to tears. But if it's the history of something that I'm interested in then it can be quite fascinating, like the history of computing, the history of the industrial revolution, the history of Microsoft, the history of science, the history of financial bubbles, and so on. I have only vague knowledge of recent history. Everything I know I've gleamed from other people's discussions, from short reading on Wikipedia, and from documentaries. I went through a period of deep fascination and interest with economics and now I can't stand to read any more about it. I know enough. I understand enough. I got what I wanted from it, and now I'm content. It's evolved more into an interest in the specifics of finance, investment and business, and the specific history and mechanisms of actual markets. But to address your questions, For physics and mathematics, you could study for 20 years and never know it all. You will have to constrain your breadth and depth. You can find a great many free books and a great many guides if you Google around. I also highly recommend that you read 'Logical Leap: Induction in Physics' before you begin. I believe that'll give you a great base and context in which to think about physics. Then you can track down physics textbooks and dive in. Amazon lists are also very useful. I'd stick with classical physics such as Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics and electromagnetism first. The same advice goes for mathematics. There are plenty of threads around the internet on a self study course for mathematics, and free videos and books are numerous. I think it generally goes: Geometry, Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus. But you can find that if you Google it. For calculus, I highly, highly recommend you start with 'Calculus Made Easy' (public domain and free) which I wish I had read in high school. It would have saved me so much confusion.

Impossible. No would could possibly think that. Well, I tend to think it will lead to a greater sense of purpose. I think that focus makes life have more meaning and purpose because every life action, in Rand's words, can be integrated towards that purpose. I never know what I'm doing or why. I find myself in the middle of reading something interesting and feeling profoundly stupid and hopeless. Why am I doing this? Why am I interested? How does this benefit me? I have narrowed down a little bit of what it is a really like. I realized that I don't like science qua science, but I like technology and the things you can do with knowledge. Although, I found the book 'Logical Leap: Induction in Physics' one of the most exhilarating reads of my life. That was pure philosophy of science and physics. I do love theory, I do love thinking about things for its own sake, but I love what theory can do which is probably why I love theory in the first place. If I could turn back time, I would have tried my hardest to get into Computer Science at university fresh out of high school at 18. I had the math skill and hobby programming skills. It would have been a great fit. I would not have felt guilty for my interest in programming which I only gave up because I thought it would make it impossible for me to find a girlfriend. In retrospect, that was a horrible mistake, but I was young and stupid. I guess I lack purpose. I need some sort of integrating life purpose to orient me in life. Some main focus is what I want, and I can dabble in other things for interest if I have time, but a main focus would be nice. I've thought about being a translator, perhaps of technical material to use my science/tech knowledge, from French and/or Japanese to English, but then I feel like that might be a life wasted, and not have much opportunity for growth. I always felt like I was going to do something more epic with my life, like run a gigantic technology conglomerate that makes humanoid robots like 'USR' in the movie 'I, Robot' or 'Massive Dynamic' in the Sci Fi series 'Fringe'. lol. Actually, if I had half the IQ of Elon Musk, I wouldn't mind being whatever he is.

I move from one thing to another, but I don't like it. I wish I didn't. There are a group of types of things I like which stays the same, I guess, but I often find myself wondering why I'm interested in any of it. I can't find a good reason and that bothers. I tend to start to feel guilty when I start liking one thing too much. I'm not very adventurous. In some periods of my life, I have been. I'm no enthusiastic unless it's something I think will be fun. Very few things ever look fun. I've been looking for a physical activity for health reason that I could get into. I lift weights twice a week, and occasionally do some cardio when I finally force myself to do it. I think I would love to learn to dance. My girlfriend did mean the world to me, but due to our differences and no sex, she lost that place in my mind, sometimes it sparks again but it soon dies. I'm noncommittal. I always have been. I've never wanted to get married or have kids. I don't see there ever being anyone who would be worth committing completely to. Marriage seems akin to death in my mind. Having kids seems like hell on earth, and I have never understood why anyone would do it. Men in marriages seem like the living dead, whatever life force they had is completely gone; you can see it in their droopy, vacant, lifeless eyes and their cowering demeanor around their overlords/wives. I've had insane crushes which I keep private. I tend to ignore and act indifferent towards them. I start to hate myself for being so taken by someone. And I assume that they automatically hate my guts even if they don't know me. Would the idea of staying on your own in hotels for prolonged periods be a nightmare? No. I'm very solitary. I live alone and like it. I like being alone. If I had something to read or internet connection being alone in a hotel wouldn't be much different from my regular life. I don't care much for people. I have tried to care and socialize. I've tried to want it, but I just don't. The only people I feel an urge to engage are attractive females, since that's the only way to meet them. But talking to them is like trying to communicate with an alien species. In any case, I only need small amounts of socializing to stay sane. I have to force myself to do it because I know it keeps me happier and saner, but I have to force it. I like talking with friends who can talk about something of common interest, even if it's just TV shows, lifting weights and women. If they can talk about ideas, even if they have very different ideas, I really like it, but then I feel really stupid afterwards and wish I hadn't talked so openly. Are you someone who most people would say is positive and likes the good in life above and beyond the norm? No. People have said I'm a bit bipolar. I'm either really bright and positive, or dark and reserved. I do indeed crave and want the good in life way beyond the norm. But I think to some extent that is silly thinking. I dream a lot about being an awesome man and living an awesome life. I have always hated the idea of living a normal life like everyone else. Be normal, get a job, get married, save money, have kids, pay off your house, retire, sit around doing crosswords waiting to die. That makes me want to run and cry. It always has. But that is the life many people really want. I always thought they just did because they were told to, or because they didn't know better, but I think some people really want that kind of life. That kind of life makes me cringe. I don't think I can do anything truly great anymore, but I think I can achieve on my own modest level of ability. I certainly shirk the 'norm' with a superior kind of contempt. lol. I find myself asking myself a lot recently, 'what is the point of it all?' I know the point is happiness, but it seems paradoxical in my mind. Why should I feel happy about any of it? I've rarely ever felt any happiness in my life. Even when I achieve goals I rarely feel happy. It might be happiness in the Aristotelian good life sense, but it's not happiness in the feeling good sense.

Your whole question is so absurd that I cannot understand how you could have so completely missed the point. Atlas Shrugged is a fictional novel. Furthermore, real life billionaires are not all Randian style abstract Objectivist heroes. Moreover, Ayn Rand did not advocate anyone "going Galt". The current world is not as bad as the world of Atlas Shrugged, and the point of the plot was: 'what if all the productive achievers went on strike'.

Honestly, I don't know, but it won't be another Tienanmen square. I have long thought that if Hong Kong became a proper republic, it would be ruined.

I'm always in awe of people who have one or two narrow interests and throw themselves at them with everything they are. I have always wished I had such a thing in my life. Why do some people have these strong focuses? How can I develop a passion for one thing and focus on it? How can I stop thinking of other things, switching interests, dabbling and never focusing? My interest are too scattered, and I start to feel down and like I'm 'missing out' whenever I focus on one thing for too long. I always think I've chosen the wrong thing or that there's something better, or that I should be doing something else in addition, or that this won't lead to any good. Out of all the many fields of interest and possible careers, how can one possibly just throw themselves into one without being curious about the others? Without feeling like one is becoming too specialized and like an idiot savant? How does one know that is the right thing for them?

The real issue is whether my keeping what I earned is justified or not regardless of any effect on the growth of the economy. The answer is yes, regardless of whether it does or does not slow down the growth of the economy by some metric. Don't fight them on their terms. You will lose if you play their game. The cause of equality or whether inequality has any effect on the economy is not the issue.

I really hate this 10,000 hour thing because so many people don't understand it. It's been misused all over the place that it's lost its meaning. 10,000 hours of deliberate practice was the time it took to reach absolute world-class mastery, as in a world class professional in some field, it wasn't for learning something well. You can learn a new skill and be good at it, without being the best in the world. You can learn to speak decent French in 500 hours of study. You can learn to play guitar in 1000 hours of study. You just won't be the best in the world. Anyway, studying Objectivism for me is not like studying other subjects. I listen a lot, I read whenever I want, I talk about it, I think about it and try to apply it. It's been years of sporadic interest. I'm not an expert, but it doesn't bother me. I know a fair bit, and I will continue to refine my knowledge, and possibly branch out some more. I sometimes go months without any 'study'. But sometimes I get interested or need to answer a question for myself and I binge on Objectivist material. If you spend 30 minutes a day on it, you will learn a whole lot in 1 year. Do you take the bus? Listen to Leonard Peikoff's podcasts or Diana Hsieh's podcasts. Go to audible and get peikoff's OPAR and listen to that whenever you can. Do you ever wait in line? Walk around? Any mindless time? Doing housework? Listen to it then too. Download all the ayn rand estore lectures and listen to them while doing housework like I do. I've learned so much while scrubbing dishes. Most of all, don't stress about it. And you don't need 10,000 hours to learn anything, not Objectivism, not anything. If you want hours, aim for 250 hours.

"Is inequality the enemy of growth?" Even if it is, it's irrelevant. The point of human life is not the growth of the economy.

It's a fascinating thing to think about. I don't see any country as being a 'great country' the way America once was. There will probably no other super power except maybe China. India, Brazil and Russia are just pipe dreams unless they radically change. Russia has all the potential, but it's too wretched. Also America is going to become oil independent, and it's going to start exporting oil. That's going to lessen Russia's power, politically and economically. Digging up resources and selling them is about all these primitive cultures can achieve. (Too bad Russia sucks so much because Russian women are incredible.) On India, you need only listen to Jim Rogers on why it's simply a mess. And there's an old saying that goes: Brazil is the next great country in the world, and always will be. Africa is laughable. It won't happen. Disintegration through and through. So, I'm particularly interested in the Chinese mode. That country is going to grow into 40% of the world's GDP by 2040, unless they stall along the way. China has been the center of the world before. The Chinese are highly pragmatic. They have a communist party that embraced market and entrepreneurship. I think that's because the Chinese are Chinese first, and everything else comes second. They also see knowledge and certainty differently. The Chinese mind sees things in shades of grey rather than black and white. That is a double edged sword. It means that they can open up markets while calling themselves communist and get away with it in their own minds, but it also means that there is room for bad ideas. Think of China as a gigantic Taiwan. If anyone doubts they have the culture and mindset to be a first world country, I ask you what the hell are Taiwan and Hong Kong if not first world Chinese countries? There's nothing about them that prevents them from developing per se. Developing with a 1.3 billion people is just a bit more turbulent. If the economy stalls to any extent, I have no doubt they will happily go further towards even more market ownership to continue their path. They are not stubborn, they are dynamic, and many of their leaders engineers. They are not communists first, they are Chinese first, and they want to see China become a first world country above all, and they will do what they have to get it. They still think of themselves as the middle kingdom, the center of the world. They also have huge foreign reserves. In addition, Chinese people can buy Chinese goods, they don't need to export forever. This has happened before, just look at Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and HK for an idea of how it goes. It is almost formulaic. You said that they will 'collapse' because they have copied America. I think you are misinformed. China's economy is quite different from America's. They produce and export and save a lot. America borrows and imports and saves nothing and goes into debt. There's a big difference there. In addition, many of China's major industries are state owned. Banks are much more state regulated and owned than in the US. The communist party has much more control over their economy. Direct control. But they are moving away from that, as America moves towards more control. Economic power brings potential military power. That is a concern. China's culture is influenced mainly by Confucianism and Taoism. Major religions are Buddhism and 'Chinese folk religion'. Now Confucianism is really mixed. There are good parts and bad parts. Confucianism is better than Christianity, and there were enlightenment thinkers who were quite enamored with Confucianism, considering it supremely rational. If the Chinese focus on the good parts then they will do better. Still, they may be mystical in some aspects of their lives, but that doesn't prevent them too much from being rational and pragmatic in their business and career. I guess I would see their mode as misintegration, definitely not disintegration. As Peikoff states, that mode can last indefinitely, since it's mixed. I don't see them ever moving to integration. There is the sliver of hope though. Yangism was a 'rational self interest' type philosophy. Confucianism itself is apparently a mix of Moism, the altruist philosophy of ancient China, and Yangism, the egoist philosophy of ancient China. I see the communist party as just another dynasty. The leader is just another emperor. And the communist party is full of modern day 'mandarins'. Study hard enough and you can be part of the party too. There are actually benefits to monarchy over democracy, especially social democracy. (Democracy: the god that failed. Hans Hermann Hoppe.) The communist party can make quick changes, and they can make long term plans without worrying about re-election. How many politicians in America were engineers or scientists? The communist party has an incentive to be the ruler of a prosperous country, since it's in power. And many Chinese consider the economic growth to legitimize their rule. And in terms of Russia, I think Rand was once asked if there was any hope for Russia. She said simply, 'no.' I think that's about right. They will probably hover around second world status and throw their weight around, but full development is unlikely. Misintergration. There is no I mode country.

You don't perceptually see what something's function is. You don't perceive function strictly speaking. That's a conceptual level thought. You use the percepts to form concepts which you use to form the concept of 'jar' and to understand function. So, 'jar' is not a percept either. That's a concept.

The 'let's play videos' are indeed a creation, even if they are not particularly difficult to make, they are still a creation in themselves. In any case, it's not as easy as you think, if it were simple then anyone could do it, but they can't. Obviously their commentary and way of playing and video editing plays a large role in their popularity. I imagine it took them a long time and a fair bit of behind the scenes work to make the videos and promote their channels. There are many such channels, and not many accrue that many viewers. They are definitely not parasitical on those who made the games. As for their psychology, I see nothing wrong with it. Playing video games is fine, so long as it's done rationally. And if you can make a living doing something you enjoy and would do for fun, then not only is it preferable, it's down right moral. That's rationally selfish! And we are for that! As for the viewers, watching such videos for entertainment and relaxation is perfectly fine, if done rationally. Why would you be frustrated? What is there to be frustrated about? They certainly aren't 'living off someone else's content', for one thing. And in terms of people watching 'trash videos': you may look down on such content, and think little of people who do, but why on earth would it bother you in the slightest. Egoism isn't about crusading to save people from themselves, it's about focusing on yourself and what's good for you. Ignore the peasants lol. Just live your life. Lead by example of the greatness in your own life. Give advice when asked if you care to. Metaphysical justice is a bitch. If these people are watching trash, unfocused and rotting their mind, they will get their just suffering.

This is really fascinating. I was reading about it and came here to see if there was a thread on it. This is a way to reach Chinese people today. THe Chinese will listen more readily to egoism if they can see that it is in their past. Confucianism is apparently a mid-way of Yangism (egoism) and Moism(altruism).

what could possibly show that something in reality is causeless? Nothing. And that's the point. There is not and could never be and will never be any observations that could cast any doubt on causality.

After reading your post, I have no idea what you are saying or what your argument is. Physical determinsm must be true since entities behave in accordance to their natures. It cannot behave in any other way. Hence, the idea of cause and effect. I still have some difficulty with free will, but I guess I am at least a capatibilist. The brain is a physical system, and the mind emerges from its functioning, and since it is physical, everything in it is behaving in accordance with its nature, and the brain is also functioning in accordance with its nature in the only way that it can. It cannot not act based on the physical laws that govern it. That is why many say free will is silly. Your brain couldn't have done anything else, it had to do what it did. The way I see it is that although this is so, it doesn't mean that we don't have the freedom to choose. Yet, it still bothers me, because the brain itself could not have done anything other than it did. I think it requires a narrower view of what free will is, and we still have it, but just not in any mystical sense that violates physical cause and effect.

There are a thousand and one ways to practice, and many people practice a lot and end up just drilling in the wrong thing. Practice is too vague. I want to know her methods.

I also would love to know this. It wasn't just her writing, but her speaking. She spoke without making any grammatical mistakes. I know she had 20+ years living in America, but there are plenty of people who live and work in America for that long and never learn the language properly. She must have had a method for learning. She knew English, French and Russian, and she could read German well enough to translate philosophy articles Peikoff gave to her in German. Mastery of English as a second language is in itself an admirable and formidable achivement.

Screw it, I'm going to stop feeling guilty, cast off these irrational ideas keeping me from being happy and pursue the path of the player.

I highly recommend 'Objectivism through induction', it should help eradicate any rationalism, if you have it.

Just once. And I haven't read the fountainhead, currently listening to it.

It still bothers me that I am not in control of my sexual desires. I want to believe in Rand's idea, but it just doesn't square up to everything I know and experience. I have no choice about feeling horny or being sexually attracted to a certain type of female. So I'm to repress myself or indulge in self destruction. It seems like a lose-lose situation. Sex is the last bastion of my malevolent universe premises. Everything else is win-win, but of sex and love, everything seems lose-lose.

No. It's not right. It cannot be a basis for rights in any way. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is really vacuous. It's not profound. It's not clever. It doesn't even have any justification. It's just a sound bite. Someone might like to be sacrificed to others and have them be sacrifised to you. Right there, you can see that it doesn't stand up. Rights are a moral sanction to action. Just because you like something done to you, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that you can do it to others. You are opening the door for anything. Any sort of psychological, moral, or other aberration that might lead people to 'like having done unto them' things that you find abhorrent. The basis for your rights is in your nature as a human being. These are objective facts. "as you would have them do unto you" is in the consciousness of the person. Rights are not based on anyone's thoughts or feelings. They come from objective facts.