Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

KorbenDallas

Regulars
  • Content count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About KorbenDallas

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. KorbenDallas

    A Complex Standard of Value

    "Ill-health" is more generally stated than what I said. I stated ill-health due to bad lifestyle choices. This is well said. I could say more on the topic, but we can agree to disagree, I have no problem with that. I think I found a post closest to our discussion:
  2. KorbenDallas

    A Complex Standard of Value

    Sure, rational in some areas then and perhaps not others, their body health. Later in life you're mind might be healthy but your body won't, so you'll be introducing a mind/body dichotomy, whereas if you thought it through you could have taken care of your body now, and not had problems later. There is a mountain of facts out there to show that people who are overweight or obese are more likely to have health problems earlier in life than someone who took care of themselves, and those who have health problems earlier in life shorten their lifespan. So if someone is an athiest they recognize that this life is the only one they have, why would they shorten their life when there is a mountain of facts out there? Evasion? A choice?
  3. KorbenDallas

    Just working a job to make money

    I don't think it's always possible to have a complete integration between our productivity and true pursuits. Plenty of artists take less-stressful jobs to pursue their art, and get spiritual fulfillment and productive in that realm, while maintaining their material values with a working job. It's interesting that a bodybuilder did this. I've recently learned Rucka Rucka Ali is a Youtuber, an Objectivist, and currently works a 9-5. I don't see anything wrong with taking a less stressful job in order to have other pursuits. Having an integration between the two is the goal, but in how our economy is setup, that might not always be possible. Being productive doesn't always mean making money at it, as long as they are providing for themselves and aren't dependent on others for their material values, a person could still live and lead a fulfilling life working a job for money and pursue other productive interests.
  4. KorbenDallas

    A Complex Standard of Value

    Nerian I like this quite a bit, I didn't quote the whole thing, but I liked the whole of it. In my opinion, you're right about Rand and some Objectvists focusing more on mind and ignoring the body or not focusing on it enough. Rand smoked and took uppers, for instance--perhaps the science wasn't quite there for her to completely know they were dangerous for her health, but there it is. I know she took walks quite a bit, she said it helped her cognition (ref. The Art of Fiction audio series). I think having proper focus on bodily health is essential for a proper mind/body integration, and harmony. I've mentioned Nathaniel Branden on here before, so I'll mention him again, that I think he was more focused on mind/body health than Rand was. I think I'm more focused than Branden was. So I completely agree with you, and proper nutrition, diet, exercise, sleep, etc. are essential for total health. One big thing in Objectivism is to plan long range, and if this life is the only one we have, then why wouldn't we take care of our body more, to extend our own lifespan to its fullest? I think it's practicing self-responsibility in doing so. As I said before, I liked the whole of your post. I don't know if you've seen David Kelly's Logical Structure of Objectivism, both the book and the diagram. In the book, Kelly touches on some topics you've came up with yourself, with a hierarchy of values, material values, spiritual, etc. I thought I'd suggest it as something for you to look at, but as I've said I like what you came up with. It was well thought out and organized.
  5. KorbenDallas

    Is it moral not to have a productive purpose?

    I think being productive has to do with the mind being efficacious more fundamentally than producing material values, though generally I get more of a sense of achievement when there is physical involvement. The latter I think has to do with the body and stagnation. For example when Rand would get stuck with writing or have writer's block, she would take a walk. This would more often clear her up and she could continue writing. This isn't to say that one can't gain a sense of enormous achievement from purely mental productivity, but there is a connection. Professional video gamers often intermix exercising with their video game training and cite they have more mental focus in doing so.
  6. Right, knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical. If someone has a false premise they need to check their premises down to reality, to what exists.
  7. How many of the Wal-Mart workers/associates took Galt's Oath?
  8. KorbenDallas

    Choosing to Live, Choosing to Die

    Thanks, that is contextual. Upthread you mentioned something I agree with, "I personally agree with Peikoff that ethics is not for the dying." My thoughts are that ethics are normative and are a tool for living, so figuring if it is moral to commit suicide seems contradictory. But I think there certain contexts where man could maintain his life as his ultimate value and still end it, for example having a terminal illness that is causing him tremendous pain. The concept of man's life as the standard of value or happiness as the ultimate purpose isn't possible anymore. He would value his life enough, ie. living it, enough to know that it isn't possible and choose to end it. (Checking OPAR, I'm seeing some of this on p247-248.)
  9. KorbenDallas

    Choosing to Live, Choosing to Die

    Realizing there are other connecting threads to this one, I'm not sure if this has been posted:
  10. I recommend a study in logic. Peikoff has a good one: Introduction to Logic Lionel Ruby's Logic: An Introduction is a good textbook to use with the course. Also, Rand goes over abstraction in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
  11. KorbenDallas

    Pleasure and Value

    If I could wave a magic wand (well, I could, but what good would it do me?), I would try to get people (and especially Objectivists) to relax a bit on the issue of whether something is or is not "Objectivism proper." At least at first: there is a fine, but secondary, conversation to have as to whether or not something is or is not Objectivist, strictly speaking. What we ought to discuss at first, rather, is whether something is or is not real. Whether we're describing reality accurately, and in concord with reason. I dare say that this approach is "the Objectivist approach," which is itself more essential to Objectivist philosophy than any specific position (except the embrace of reason and reality in itself). If it turns out to be the case that something is real, but inconsistent with Objectivism, well then, so much the worse for Objectivism. If it turns out that something is real, and consistent with Objectivism, but that our earlier understanding of Objectivism was flawed (such that what we believed to be a "contradiction" was not), then there is no actual conflict. In either case, what matters most (by far) is: what is real. Sure, but that's a bit out of context to me, 'Objectivism proper' was Nerian's premise which I was responding to. The entire context of my reply to him began with recognizing reality, then building a definition, presenting it (also saying, "But even if one doesn't accept that definition,...), and then contrasting it with his current view. I agree Objectivism proper/not-proper doesn't lead to fruitful conversations. Rand's philosophy is part of what exists, and it is up to the individual to judge whether or not it is for them, aspects of it, different versions, or whatever.
  12. KorbenDallas

    Pleasure and Value

    When I think of value I often think, "what standard"? Surely people use different ways for choosing values, perhaps they think they are 'innate', perhaps they believe they are intrinsic, perhaps they think it's determinism, perhaps by caprice, perhaps by consensus (whether the group is present at the time, or thinking about the group), perhaps trying to uphold or gain prestige, perhaps by emotion, ... and so on. Nathaniel Branden described* value as presupposing a few things: an object (whether tangible or intangible, like an idea), a standard, a purpose, and necessitated action to gain or keep the object in light of alternatives--these are the concepts that hierarchically lie beneath "value". I drew attention to the standard part earlier, which helps define what value is, and we know Objectivism says it's "that which one acts to gain or keep." But even if one doesn't accept that definition, there is still the object, purpose, and action--these are a matter of identity and causation. So if you're saying that value is "that which gives you pleasure," then yes, you're arguing against Objectivism and any form I know about. With emotionalism, all bets are off in having that argument because it will be largely based off of your emotion, not reason, trying to use your emotions as a standard of judgment--reality is something we can all talk about**... it's objective. ______ * From The Basic Principles of Objectivism lecture series, also in book form as The Vision of Ayn Rand ** From Ayn Rand and the "New Intellectual" interview
  13. KorbenDallas

    Nathaniel Branden

    This does nothing to break what I've said (which _is_ Objectivism), all you've accomplished here is to put all of your misunderstandings in one place. Check YOUR premises. Though you have TWO correct statements in there, how you arrived at them is wrong. I am finished here.
×