Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Invictus2017 last won the day on July 11

Invictus2017 had the most liked content!

About Invictus2017

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    I move a lot.
  • Interests
    computers, Objectivism, and starting an Objectivism-based society

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
  • Interested in meeting
    Yes, very.
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive, since 1983. I've read most, maybe all, of the important books and periodicals published before the mid 90's.

Recent Profile Visitors

1193 profile views
  1. It's immoral to pointlessly prolong your own suffering. How she feels and who she is seeing is her business, not yours. You really have just two choices here, assuming you respect yourself and you respect her: Either you talk to her and explain your prior stupidity or you absolutely abandon any possibility of a relationship beyond friendship. Anything else is a self-destructive compromise. If you can do neither, you have doomed yourself (and maybe her, depending on how screwed up you let yourself become) to wholly unnecessary misery. If you do the former, the worst that'll happen, beyond the embarrassment of admitting your own foolishness, is that she'll tell you that you had your chance and blew it. But even then, you'll at least know where you stand. If you do the latter, you can then begin self-policing the part of you that insists on the impossible and thereby hasten your psychological recovery from your mistake. I'd recommend, in this case, staying away from her until you've managed that recovery, but I wouldn't say that it is essential to do so.
  2. She expressed interest. You played hard to get and then acted disinterested. Anyone would likely have dropped you under those circumstances. She then went looking for someone who was interested and not playing games. (Yes, I know that's not how you see it. But it is likely how she saw it.) What else would you expect? If you want her, stop playing games with yourself about being "not in her league" and get your ass onto the playing field. Otherwise, get out of the situation and stop making yourself miserable. Remember: You and you alone are responsible for your choices. And if you want a consequence, you and you alone are responsible for enacting the cause of your desired consequence.
  3. Invictus2017

    Link needs fixing?

    1) The index page has no links like that. 2) That person has no apparent reason to be on this site. 3) The bulk of the message is an ad for staysafe.org. 4) That person claims the link is relevant to this site, when anyone reading it would know better. 5) The two similar messages were sent almost two months apart. In short, this is pure spam. It's an old variety: "We're not really spamming, we're providing a public service, notifying of broken links!" (Or some other excuse.)
  4. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    You are equivocating. Rand meant by this that one should not read into things that which is not there, that one should use the actual meanings of the words, not some approximation. That's a proper use of "literal". But you're looking for the "one true meaning" of a statement, which you want to exist independently of the context of the statement. That's not "literal", that's "arbitrary". Come back when you've learned the difference. For now, you're in my ignore list.
  5. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    In my case, the issue is simple: Money. Or, rather, the lack of it.....
  6. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    The literal interpretation you're asking for does not exist. Such could only exist if each word and each syntactic structure had exactly one meaning. Language does not work that way. Understanding any statement requires interpreting it within its context, rather than as an isolated statement. The operative principle is that of benevolence. One assumes, unless it is proven otherwise, that a writer (or speaker) has something meaningful to say. This requires, not literal interpretation, but contextual interpretation. The question is not, "what meaning is assigned to this statement by the dictionary and rules of grammar?" (a question that essentially never has a determinate answer) but "what meaning, among the possible legitimate meanings, will make this statement part of a coherent whole?". As a general rule, the demand for a literal interpretation (or the insistence on a particular interpretation as "the" literal interpretation) is an attempt to inject the arbitrary into a discussion. It should be rejected with whatever degree of firmness is necessary to preserve the integrity of the discussion forum.
  7. If a government says, "OK, now we let you do X", that does not in any way indicate a respect for the right to do X. And it says nothing about whether it will change its mind later. If a government does not respect rights in principle, nothing it does should be regarded as "respecting" rights, and to read current events as evidencing a growth in that nonexistent respect is to profoundly misunderstand those events and their likely consequences. (The same critique applies to hurrahs when America's government announces that it will no longer violate this or that right.)
  8. This is an age of moral panics, stirred up by government employees and agents, politicians, and other sociopaths who want attention and control. Almost all of this is based on willful deception by those who stand to gain from the panics; the evils they speak of either do not exist or are trivial in comparison to actual dangers -- dangers that get neglected because of the focus on the unreal.
  9. Invictus2017

    Reblogged:Rude and Concerned Are Not Synonyms

    If I was in a hurry, I'd tell such people to go fuck themselves. If not, I'd call the park police and complain about harassment. Such people do not deserve the courtesy of an etiquette citation, especially since they're likely to take any such response as "proof" of their righteousness. Someday, I might write a post on the virtue of incivility.
  10. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    This remains true. I'm out of this discussion, since I can see no benefit to myself from further participation.
  11. Invictus2017

    Fallacy of Logical Omniscience

    Evasion is knowing that 2+2=4 and then refusing to accept one's own conclusion. I see a man who I admire take something from a store, actively concealing it from the store clerk. Because I admire the person, I refuse to see that he is a thief. I see a politician advocate for something completely antithetical to his stated principles. Because he is of my party, I invent wildly implausible excuses for his behavior, instead of accepting that he is hypocritical or worse. I see all the instances where socialism has failed and, because I believe wholly in socialism, repeat loudly to myself that those things were not "real" socialism, so socialism has never actually been tried, much less failed. See the pattern? A fact enters my consciousness. I don't want the fact to be true. So I do something to deny the fact. This something might actually prevent me from having full conscious awareness of the fact or it might be some form of rationalization. But either way I take active measure, to deny what some part of me knows is true or, having reason to think something might be true, to refuse to investigate what I know so as to avoid the possibility of knowing the truth.
  12. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    Of course it is always possible to put things on a scale -- if you're willing to adopt an arbitrary scale. So what? The arbitrary is not of value. The mere fact that you can compare characteristics does not mean that the resulting ranking is meaningful. That you can rank values based on some feature of values in no way proves that there is a meaningful way to rank one person's values against those of another. I say that you can't do it at all, because the relevant scale for each person's values is his own life. You have yet to provide a reason for me to think otherwise.
  13. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    You assert this. But there is no reason to accept it as true. Rand's epistemology makes no such claim. Indeed she did -- a single person's values, ranked against his own values. But again, a single person's values. Note also that her "hierarchy" was not of degree of value, but of logical interrelation and fundamentality. Added: I note that with ethic's values, the hierarchy is the same for each person because the reasoning validating these values is the same for each person -- because they are the same kind of entity. So with these -- abstract -- values, one could have a common ranking based on the common hierarchy. But this isn't useful here, if for no other reason than that one exchanges concretes, not abstracts.
  14. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    You benefit no one with gratuitous insults. You also pretend to knowledge you do not have. You have therefore earned a place in my ignore list. Bye.
  15. Invictus2017

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    It's a tricky topic, but for present purposes it suffices to say that existents are commensurable if they can be meaningfully ordered by some property. E.g., rocks are commensurable in that they can be meaningfully ordered by hardness. But you can't say that rocks are commensurable in that they can be classified by type; there is no non-arbitrary ordering of the types of rocks (as far as I know). Similarly, colors are commensurable because they can be meaningfully ordered by how they appear in a rainbow.