Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content count

    1166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

MisterSwig last won the day on November 18

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Politics

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Recent Profile Visitors

2514 profile views
  1. A Complex Standard of Value

    Yeah, that sounds like something. I'll look into it. Too bad I'm not a very visual thinker or else I might invent some charts of my own. Maybe balance is the virtue that integrates three simple standards into one complex one. The balancing act would be similar but not the same for everyone, because people have different lives with different values.
  2. A Complex Standard of Value

    Kind of like a First Cause for volition? I don't think that's quite how it works though. I have a theory on free will and how it develops during childhood. In a nutshell, we learn to act volitionally by experiencing ourselves act reflexively. Essentially choice is a learned skill that we perform by an act of will. The "meta-choice" you describe might be the will focusing consciousness inward. It's basically introspection of your mental content. This is indeed a real choice. It is the choice to introspect rather than extrospect. It is the necessary first choice before you can deliberate upon various thoughts. If that doesn't seem right to you, let me know, because I'm most curious about this subject and how others experience their mental aspect.
  3. The Law of Identity

    Identity is a social construct don't ya know? You could be whatever gender or race you want nowadays. In fact, at birth I was assigned a racist white male identity, but now I'm a self-confirmed beautiful brown female. Viva Heraclitus!
  4. A Complex Standard of Value

    I think of her cardinal values as types of critical knowledge. They pertain to the mental aspect. And I agree that they are cardinal values, because you really aren't a man without a rational mind. My three values are more like cardinal standards. Yes, but it has to be applied within the proper context of man's other aspects. Let's take the drug abuser as an example. He's probably indulging in pleasure to the detriment of both his knowledge and health. If he's experiencing ignorance (memory loss, stupidity, confusion) and sickness (withdrawls, blackouts, malnutrition), he should immediately reduce or end the drug use. Or seek professional help if he's physically addicted to a hard substance.
  5. A Complex Standard of Value

    This is puzzling me. Are you saying that since we create thoughts which are part of our life, we therefore gain life when we deliberate and make decisions? To compare this to the material realm, it might be like growing new skin cells. The cells are alive, and therefore we have gained new life.
  6. A Complex Standard of Value

    Such a determination depends on the context of one's life. Normally all of the standards should be integrated so that you're acting knowledgeably, pleasurably, and healthily. However, if an indulgence in one aspect detrimentally affects another, then consider reducing the indulgence to achieve a desired balance. For example, don't drink so much alcohol that you black out and hurt yourself (pleasure over health). Maybe limit consumption to two glasses of wine instead of a whole bottle.
  7. A Complex Standard of Value

    Here's the thing about life: you are born with it. You did not gain it. Your parents did that for you. However, you do have to sustain and improve it, or you'll lose it. Life is not a final end in a chain of values that you did not possess beforehand. It's that ultimate thing that you already have and must work to keep by gaining other values which sustain it. What are the primary values that sustain human life? I say they are pleasure, health, and knowledge. There is some confusion regarding what I mean by pleasure, so let me be clear. I don't mean mental or emotional pleasure, i.e. happiness. I mean physical, sensory pleasure. A positive feeling or sensation. I mean everything from simple comfort in the womb to orgasmic ecstasy with a lover. Such pleasure is the ultimate physical value, and thus the standard for this aspect of human life. I think that's a fair description, keeping in mind my response about life as the ultimate sustained (not gained) value.
  8. Jan Helfeld Interviews

    Yes, that was his main point, which I don't think he supported very well. In my initial response I wrote: Do you have a solid rebuttal for such a position in today's political context? I'm not sure I do, except to make a similar argument as Rand. Basically that anarchy exposes everyone to the constant threat of force, an environment in which reason cannot thrive. Reason being man's means of survival must be protected.
  9. Jan Helfeld Interviews

    I'm pretty sure that I married them. Why do you think I divorced them?
  10. Jan Helfeld Interviews

    Not really. The question was more rhetorical, meaning he can't know that which doesn't exist. Values are not intrinsic, you see. When he goes to the supermarket, he can't know through reason alone which items will lead to a long and happy life. This requires experience and recall of the experience in addition to reason.
  11. Jan Helfeld Interviews

    Reason? More like rationalism, I think. Socrates was also an insufferable idealist. Makes sense that Helfeld would use the same annoying conversational style.
  12. A Complex Standard of Value

    I actually said "pleasure over pain." You're right that an alternative is not a standard. Which is why I said that pleasure is the standard. Not pain. Think of it this way: what is the alternative to life? It's death. So you could say that the standard is life over death. That doesn't mean death is part of the standard. It means it's the absence of the standard. Yes, I basically agree with your thoughts on deliberation. Hopefully I cleared up the confusion about alternatives.
  13. Jan Helfeld Interviews

    No. I'm saying Helfeld has collectivized the ultimate value, whereas Rand individualized it. For Rand it was man's specific, concrete life, his particular objective existence. For Helfeld it appears to be man's general, abstract life, his universal intrinsic existence. Maybe I'm not explaining this very well. But I also noticed some of this in his interview style, especially the one with Chris Matthews. Notice how Helfeld is completely obsessed with one question about the redistribution of wealth. It's like he can't move on until he gets the answer he wants from Matthews. He is willing to spoil the entire interview on account of his one purpose: to get the answer he wants. Matthews is a bright enough guy and realizes that he's dealing with something odd, right? So he tries to pump Helfeld for more context, but Helfeld resists and can barely engage in a real back and forth. It's like he has this ideal question and answer session in his head, and when reality doesn't comply, he hits a mental roadblock and can't move on. I believe his standard of value failed him. He didn't value the interview or Matthews. He valued some abstract purpose, which was to get a particular answer to his particular question.
  14. A Complex Standard of Value

    Fascinating. It never even occurred to me that I could possibly measure these aspects. Actually I would categorize entertainment (movies and music) with knowledge. Pleasure is physical pleasure, not the mental kind. I'll think about this and see if I can categorize more items.
  15. A Complex Standard of Value

    Yes, further distinction is needed because the human body requires values for two primary systems: sensation and motion. We need pleasure for our sensory system. And we need health for our motor system. I believe each primary bodily system requires certain values in order to function properly. And therefore a standard of value is needed for each one. I don't think the mind has a similar division because it doesn't directly sense the outside world. It relies on the body for that.
×