Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Content Count

    440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Easy Truth last won the day on February 1 2018

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

About Easy Truth

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

922 profile views
  1. Which is kind of a circular answer in that the person is asking "what is worth sustaining". Isn't this basically determined by emotional response? Not sure when rationality comes in without knowing what you like. Your examples are in fact what the young person wants to know. The hypothetical young person is asking for advice on how to give meaning in his life and the examples you give should be helpful. Now, the idea of "his moral ideal" can be interpreted as subjective or objective. On the other hand "image of man" seems to be objective. What does "image of man" mean in this context"? In theory that could help my hypothetical young person. But ... there is the person that has done ALL that he set out to do. Now, he is in a sense, restarting his life, the question of meaning comes up again. He has done the career and the children thing. Now what? What objective image of man is there to follow in this case?
  2. Yes, but are all of his values chosen? Aren't some of one's values "inclinations/tendencies" that one is born with. As in some have a craving for sugary stuff. Some sleep only 4 hours, some can't sleep less than 8 (like me). Apparently men like "things" and women prefer "people" which pushes people into those type of careers.(I saw this in a Jordan Peterson interview). In other words, I would agree with "within the context of his values", but it seems that the context, takes away some free will. When I was formally doing "growth work", i.e. working on my self psychologically, usually it is about changing oneself, going a better direction. Sometimes one sees its won't happen, I have tried everything, and it is concluded that "this is me", this is who I am, it is not going to change. As in "I will never be skinny", "I will never obtain a Doctorate in Anthropology", become like my father etc. etc. I suppose capability and talent also shape one's values, as in preventing certain avenues from being pursued. Bottom line, if a young person asks you, "how can I make my life meaningful", the question one asks is "what do you really want in life?". They sometimes will ask "What should I want?". Now one can warn that it is a way of becoming a "second hander", that the person has the obligation to come up with the answer for them self. That is all well and good, but it does not answer the question what is "meaningful" for a human being. In other words, what does "meaningful" mean in this context.
  3. I would agree with David. You may have to limit your definition to human life because your requirements push it in that direction. Unfortunately there are other problems to sort out in your formulation. Some human may want to replicate, but some don't and won't and they are alive and have an opportunity and desire to flourish. Question is if the nature of a human requires that they replicate to be happy. Some can't have children. If this premise was true then same sex couples and people that can't have children are doomed to never flourish. I have not seen data on this but I have not seen epidemic type conditions indicating medication or psychological help for these populations. In other words, there is no indication that lack of replication causes prevention of flourishing. We will assume that those who want to commit suicide are aberrations, abnormal, diseased. So a life not worth living would be lived by some who flourish (a contradiction). Now, it is true that without replication humans would not survive as a race. Is species survival equivalent to human life or a necessity of human life? Then you are talking about group life, not an individual life. If so, you have to explain the needs of both. How does an individual flourish vs. how does a group flourish. You talk about patterns of thought and replication. That implies certain thoughts have to be replicated for the species to survive or flourish. Maybe, not sure. So bottom line, it needs some work.
  4. By pattern I am looking at the way one uses it to find the similar. In software engineering one does a lot of pattern matching. I see "concept formation" as "coming up with the pattern" and "concept recognition" as "pattern matching" once you have the pattern. (I will look at what the guy says further) I am not talking about the pattern that grass makes. A blade of grass has a pattern to it. That pattern does not exist in a table or car. I use pattern more like "definition". The aspect of concepts that stands out in this context is that it is a template to recognize (potential) referents with. If I know "table-ness", then I recognize the pattern, the design, the outline, the definition ... when I see another one, a new one. I am actually wondering what you and others think in this regard, I have my confusions. I want to see if I am completely off. My understanding is that if there were no minds, there would be no patterns (in this sense). I define patterns as a set of relationships. Does a relationship exist based on consciousness recognizing it, or is a relationship physical/metaphysical?
  5. Yes and I agree with all of what you have said. Just trying to resolve some questions that come up. I am concerned that "concepts are also in time, in "change"" is interpreted as an intrinsic view of concepts. I think of concepts as patterns you can find out there. The argument can be made the pattern is out there no matter if I (we) see it or not. At the heart of the question is: at what point does a concept exist? From what I understand if all billions of humans have never come up with the concept via induction it does not exist. When one person comes up with the concept (even if he has not communicated it to any one else), then the concept "exists", i.e. it is real. That concept did not exist in the physical realm or else we would have said it always existed. Isn't the conclusion: Therefore, it is not physical i.e. matter. The other thing I notice is that for a concept to stop existing, it has to become unimportant and forgotten by ALL humanity. It is a mistaken contradictory concept that once existed as a valid concept, then changed to a known contradiction, and then poof ... gone. Maybe its a rationalistic thought process, but I can't help follow the logic.
  6. First I want to focus on the concept itself. Is the concept matter? (or is "a" concept matter) I grant you that a concept is "represented" somehow in the brain. I would argue that the representation mechanism is not the "thing represented". The projector is not what you see on the screen although it does cause it. Kind of like saying "you see that film on the screen, it is a projector". I see it similar to a "pointer" in a computer program that points to a memory location. The pointer is not the memory location, it points to it. I hope I am not muddying the water by my examples.
  7. I can see that the mind controls the hand and I can't explain the connection. But the thought or concept "isolation" or "swimming" has no weight or location. How does that get reconciled?
  8. Causal connection. Physical, material causality through direct and indirect contact or through fields or whatever else physics may discover. Then that thing would be unknowable, and it would be arbitrary to speculate about its existence. So based on that, a false thought, a mistake or contradiction, a thought without referent, is "somehow" connected to everything/existence. That seems to be a known-unknown (a known nonsense). As opposed to a non-existent which is not connected and not noticed at all. That seems to be an unknown-unknown. (or would this be an unknowable or both) How do I know about the unknowable when it is not connected? (Why is one capable of forming the concept)
  9. How much awareness of anything do you have to have for it to be itself? Split second awareness? or some sort of continuous awareness? Doesn't induction requires a series of "hits" to one's perception mechanism.
  10. SL When you do the DA stuff I don't know who is who, I will just put in my two cents and talk about the particular statements: When I am asleep, and others are conscious of my existence, do I exist? Doesn't including a "subjective/objective delineation" necessary to deal with this issue. Subjectively speaking: Every item in existence, exists dependent on my consciousness of it That includes me as one of the items in existence. I do need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". Objectively speaking: Every item in existence, exists independent of any consciousness of it (mine or others). That includes me as one of the items in existence. I do not need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". I need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" to know that I exist to have the full subjective perspective, the subjective perspective of self. But the objective perspective of self comes from the fact of knowing "I was asleep, they know I was here even though I don't" I can't be aware of the fact that I am not aware of myself. Also Philosophically speaking, is there an awareness that is not conscious? (you say "conscious awareness" - seems redundant) Are you saying subconscious awareness of self? (certainly not unconscious awareness) My understanding is that philosophically, consciousness means "conscious of". Not the levels of consciousness in psychology.
  11. I will make a decision based on what I know. I could be wrong. When I decide, I will be certain that I am doing the best of all my choices. Otherwise, I would be in paralysis. Now, that is human certainty, that is the certainty that is possible, that is the certainty that is. You are implying that Rand said that you can't be wrong which is not true. The kind of certainty you are talking about is an omniscient type certainty, a supernatural certainty, a certainty that does not exist in this world. Knowing what will happen in 5 minutes, without possibility of error, means I have no free will. I can't do anything else, I can't chose anything else, I already know what I will do.
  12. And yet, you are certain about that. Then you might be dead. This is not an insult, simply playing out the logic you are putting forth. Or, maybe you are not honest. Or maybe you are honest but wrong.
  13. Not that simple. The common example is "tell that to the Nazi concentration camp guard". He was being responsible and realistic, he knew Jews and others were subhuman and should be treated like that. He probably was compassionate and loving when he went home at night. All he had that may have protected him, or illuminated him, were in fact his emotions, the gnawing feeling that something is wrong. But rationality was to ignore them.
  14. Having a meaningful life seems to be a necessity of survival qua man. A meaningless life, is painful, leading to depression anxiety etc. And granted for each it takes a different path, there are different interests etc. But there must be a core definition that is common to all. That all meaningful lives share. Further more, in the context, "meaning" has a particular definition. It is not like reading something and determining what it "means". Life has to have a meaning. Well, it is what it is. It has a nature. I have a nature. What can a person bring to it, other than observing this "so called meaning". In psychology, the closest seems to be the concept of the "flow". Being in the flow. But one can argue that one can be engrossed in the flow of meaningless activity too. There is also another aspect, that of being "good", avoiding being "evil".
  15. And yet, you are certain about that.
×
×
  • Create New...