Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

KorbenDallas

Regulars
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KorbenDallas

  1. When he rejected her she saw she wasn't dependent upon him, so she went after him. They dated casually for five weeks, but she is promiscuous and she appears to go after men who she deems aren't dependent on her at all. I interpreted the friction they were having as her trying to establish more dominance in the relationship, when she couldn't get that she was gone. So, not the "exact opposite."
  2. You said that there was, " was nothing I wouldn’t blow off to be with her, and she must have picked up on it." And with the additional context you provided, fundamentally it sounds like she wants whatever man she is going after to be dependent on her. This guy Johnny, too. If you want an Objectivist answer, Independence is a virtue and you won't be able to practice it with her. She wants dependence and if she doesn't get it, she's gone. If you were to practice independence then you'll need a woman that practices that, too. With her you'll have to practice emotional and psychological dependency and try to mold yourself to be what she wants. This is my "blunt" opinion.
  3. It seems that when you say "business" you mean the Management or Organization Ethics of a business, which is more specific than the business itself. So I'm understanding that you're wanting use Management and Organizational Ethics and apply Objectivist principles there; it does seem that reason, purpose, and self-esteem are good values to start from and would benefit the business. But I still disagree that the social space of a business is non-political, even if management encourages and rewards rationality there will always be work politics and irrationality---meaning there will always be people using immoral tactics (ethics) to gain status or power. You're saying that the essence of Management or Organizational Ethics is a rational social space, but that doesn't seem like the essence, it seems normative.
  4. Respectfully, if you are implying that business is a non-political social space, I completely disagree.
  5. Most of the time, a narcissist has been that way for a long time. They've built up to it their entire life, testing methods, refining, thinking about "how to get away with it," etc. Their primary orientation toward other people are their narcissistic behavior and tactics, why? Because it works. It's rare for a narcissist to change, and promise of change is a lot of the time another tactic. Going no-contact with this person took some courage by you, and it sounds like it was a good first step to a positive life. As far as suggestions go, education will likely be a good endeavor. A good book on manipulators and their tactics is In Sheep's Clothing, and you can watch a few interviews by the author online to get a better idea what the book is about. I don't agree with everything in the book, but moreover I found it to be rational and helpful. It would also suggest to study/continue to study philosophy and psychology as well. It would be a more balanced approach this way, because taking a deep dive learning about manipulators and narcissists might cause someone to lose focus on themselves and the good. There are a lot of Youtube channels out there that can be helpful, but most of them aren't actual psychologists. Vital Mind Psychology is a Youtube channel that has many helpful videos and is a licensed and practicing psychologist, if you haven't found it already. It will likely take some time. I noticed you said you went no-contact just one week ago, so chances are you haven't heard the last of this person.
  6. I Googled, "ice cream leads to shorter lifespan" but it didn't return anything. What it did find were articles about obesity and life-shortening conditions resulting from obesity like diabetes and heart disease. So, as predicted, ice cream itself doesn't shorten a person's lifespan. If ice cream is an indicator of an unhealthy diet and lack of exercise, then it would be the unhealthy diet and lack of exercise that might lead to obesity, again not ice cream itself. Desserts can be part of a healthy diet, and can certainly provide satisfaction and pleasure if one so chooses. But here again arrives the question: Does someone necessarily have to choose a healthy diet to value their own life? The short answer is: No. What it means for someone to value their own life (in Objectivism) is for someone to take responsibility for their own life and to provide for themselves, without sacrificing others. Beyond that what someone chooses to do with their life is up to them. If someone like Steve Irwin wants to pursue a dangerous career, then as long as he's providing for himself and not sacrificing others then that's up to him. (As an aside, I enjoyed his show quite a bit.) Personally, I consciously made a decision that I value my life and I believe there is nothing after this life, so I wanted to live as long as possible. It's a value that I chose and I have been making decisions to try to achieve it like diet and exercise. But I enjoy dark chocolate and eat it everyday in moderation, with the occasional binge. It doesn't conflict with my other values like diet, and I get to enjoy sweets as well. Crocodiles, on the other hand, I should definitely stay away from them, I'd likely become their dessert.
  7. KyaryPamyu, where did these objections come from? Is there more context?
  8. Interesting, I drink one large cup of coffee per day to help wake up. I wasn't aware there was a study that suggests it might prolong life: https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20180702/can-coffee-extend-your-life#1 MONDAY, July 2, 2018 (HealthDay News) -- Having a morning cup of java -- and another and another -- might prolong your life, a new study suggests. In fact, drinking lots of coffee was associated with a lower risk of early death, including among people who downed eight or more cups per day. And it's not the caffeine. To reap the benefit, it doesn't matter if your coffee is decaf or instant or caffeinated, the researchers said. [...] I don't drink teas, and I am skeptical about drinking tea instead of plain water. I do drink plain water, perhaps around a gallon a day, and have been doing so for several years. On a normal day I eat two meals within an 8hr period then I don't eat another meal for 16hrs. But in the morning I have coffee with some milk and at night I have red wine. Perhaps this doesn't get the full effect of intermittent fasting, but the reason I started doing this is because I'm not hungry in the morning and don't gain an appetite until around midday. I didn't find out that intermittent fasting was a "thing" until just recently. About two years ago I reduced the number of calories of intake, and stopped eating breakfast. I re-worked my diet and began vitamin supplementation to help make up for reduced number of meals. If you burn more calories than you intake, you lose weight. So there will be a balance between caloric intake, body mass, metabolism, nutrition, and overall health. I suppose the process I underwent was "caloric restriction." For many years I reduced how much beef I ate and opted for fish, poultry, and low-fat ham instead. Again two years ago when I reworked my diet I changed that completely and I eat beef and hamburger regularly, and I've never felt better. The studies that showed red meat was bad for health were wrong. Healthy beef----ie. low in fat---is good for you and causes no cardiovascular risk. High quality beef as in grass-fed and grass-finished beef is the best and most nutritious and is what I eat. Personally I could never become a vegan, but I know many people who practice veganism say good things about it. Yet, I question what diet they practiced before becoming a vegan. If a person simply goes from an unhealthy diet to a healthy one, no matter what the healthy diet is, there would be a marked improvement in health. Veganism is trendy right now---which is great---but I won't ever become a vegan. With the bodybuilding example there is likely a difference between processed protein as one would get in protein powders vs. eating protein from natural food sources. I did the protein shake thing several years ago and I never felt sicker, but I find it hard to imagine that if someone were to consume the same amount of protein from natural food sources they would have such negative effects. I see someone consuming large amounts of protein for bodybuilding as purpose-driven, but for an everyday lifestyle consuming such large amounts of protein might be unnecessary. I'm skeptical about protein restriction to be honest. I cut out consuming large amounts of sugar and sweets in general, for me it was to cut out unnecessary carbs. Today I look forward to eating healthy meals as much as I used to look forward to sweets. It took a while, but my appetite did adjust. I stopped consuming almost all of the products that the fitness industry pushes and I've never felt healthier. I am extremely skeptical about the benefits of these powders, their long-term effects, and the ingredients and minerals/metals they contain. I supplement with vitamins, along with a healthy diet, and feel great. If prolonging life is the goal, I just suggest that people do their research and consider what they are putting into their bodies. I think this is the standout in the list. It seems that it's a matter of pride in western culture to accept stress and endure. Or accept stress and have a eustress balance. Or other coping mechanisms. But why not remove the stressor instead? For me, that's been a priority in life for several years now and I've had a marked improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health. National Geographic has a documentary that aired in 2008 that I found very helpful; Stress, Portrait of a Killer. Though some of the studies in the documentary are questionable, it was a real eye-opener for me and since that time more studies have come out to suggest that stress is linked to several life-shortening conditions and diseases, including cancer.
  9. I thought it was good. Identifying that struggle isn't a necessarily a value is what I thought was important to the scenario of climbing the mountain. Personally I could obtain a lot of value from a mild climb, enjoying nature and the experience. While someone different might value more of a challenge and my mild climb would seem boring. So when Veritas asks if one should take the hardest path on every endeavor, it depends one the particular person and how much they value the struggle. I would add that in general the greater the value, the harder it is to obtain, and the higher degree of rationality it takes to achieve it. Climbing Everest requires a high degree of reason to know the oxygen levels at different elevations, how much physical effort one can exert before needing rest, knowledge of frostbite, how the cold affects one's mind and biology, etc. I personally wouldn't attempt such a climb, or other similar peaks. I wouldn't value it at all, while there are others who value the struggle.
  10. "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:
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.)
  17. Realizing there are other connecting threads to this one, I'm not sure if this has been posted:
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. I used Rand's definition of thought, as conveyed by Barbara Branden when Barbara was with Rand. There aren't any parts that are off, they only seem off to you for the reasons I've stated already.
×
×
  • Create New...