Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on September 11

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/89

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

20903 profile views
  1. Grames, the point is that there is no -rational- reply to discussions on race. Using a phrase made by neo-Nazis ("it's okay to be white") would willfully ignore the clear philosophical roots. Part of their means is to use benign-sounding phrases without calling for critical thinking on race. They would rather claim "white pride" is just as valid as "black pride". The rational reply is to say the deep errors of racial pride, and pointing out the arbitrariness of race as a classifier. No one here would say there is an original sin of a race - we'd all rather eliminate racism. You're good about epistemology, but it looks like you are taking one bite out of the alt-right message until one day you'll be the Heidegger of Objectivism. You posting an image without explanation suggests you are throwing away rational discussion on race. Wouldn't you rather engage an argument or tell us your own position?
  2. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    My thinking is that it often reflects an insecurity to tell oneself "I'm great" as a form of meditation is going as far as to say emotions may be willed. What I tried to say earlier is that this isn't so good, and I say so from a point of view where I'm in a state where I feel balanced and successful.
  3. Depends if the rudeness is mean. Personally I'm always respectful in terms of arguing and not using insults. But as far as interacting with certain authority figures or higher ranking people, I tend to be rude in terms of treating them as an equal and not obeying the usual norms of formality. It's not mean or cruel, but some people get upset when I don't "know my place". I don't do this to be rebellious, but to get at the truth better. I think rudeness is rarely justified towards peers. Worth noting is that the Hannibal example isn't about being kind or not using insults. When Hannibal says that, he means ignoring social norms like how to make a nice gourmet meal. In that case to Hannibal, it's rude to wear baggy clothes to that event or eat a steak by jamming a fork into it without cutting it first.
  4. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    Perhaps, but it's important to note that the founders who supported anti-Federalism lost the debate to Federalists, who had a lot more to say than a mere statement of balance, piety, and patriotism. The comparison I'm making is that the alt-right is making the same type of argument. They 'd rather argue for an ethnostate in the sense that ethnic and cultural unity is fundamental to a proper society. They'd see a solution as some sort of pullback on the Federal government. I'd argue that that any Bill of Rights or Tolerances is just to appease people who fear "big government" for no other reason than it's "big" - whatever that means. If anything, good foundational principles will be lost to concrete-bound Buzzfeed articles listing "The 10 best rights". My wider point is that Regnery is a false ally. He may seem to be bad and good, good as far as promoting freedom of association, bad as far as being racist. But that's the thing. Freedom of association demands people to be condemned on moral grounds, in the spirit of Hamilton (contra Jefferson who didn't like conflict). The enemy isn't a neoliberal who wants egalitarianism, but an alt-rightist (and his ally's) who stands against how the Constitution was actually supported and argued for. I support the Constitution not as a relic, but something that has grown from its whole history of discussion.
  5. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    I'll talk about it if you start a separate thread. There is a role for state government I think for geographical reasons for some local laws, but not much past that. The Federal government ought to be primary in order to keep its role constrained and running well - and to avoid groupthink or over-valuing "comfort" among one's tribe.
  6. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    "Tolerate" is perhaps the wrong word, but it fits as far as how, all things being equal, one should accept the errors of others on a political level even if distasteful. CRA is misguided in method, but it's far from "the most evil". There was and is a lot worse out there.
  7. The Moneyman Behind The Alt-Right

    An interesting thing to note is that way back in 1786, some anti-Federalists supported states' rights or a focus on lower-level government in order to gain more harmony among local regions and comfort among those people and like-mindedness. Federalists, in particular Hamilton, did not like that because it would incline people towards groupthink. He preferred a system where people would argue and all that, perhaps to extreme ends (not violence) so that no one would just accept what one hears without someone dissenting. In other words, Hamilton was for something like a "national discomfort" as far as how the government operates. "Comfort" and "harmony" is dangerous despite its attempt to be kind.
  8. I'm saying IQ does not and cannot be used to explain differences in beliefs (even on a cultural level) or intelligence as far as intelligence as a whole. Race is minor at best, on top of how there are methodological issues with applying an IQ tests to people who don't attend decent schools.
  9. No, you just don't notice that your belaboring is -showing- the very things I'm saying you're wrong about. The more you say to justify your claims, the more racist (read: tribalist) you appear. It is absolutely fine to say there are populations which have a lower average IQ, but that's not the problem. The problem is attempting to generalize that information to explain why capitalism did not develop in Africa. Such reasoning is invalid. The problem with it is that it is not possible to explain beliefs with IQ. To do so would be racist because it depends on saying race plays a major role in one's beliefs or abilities in life. You would be able to say "white people are on average smarter than black people". This is an abuse of IQ. Although you claim the opposite, you are also saying that some content is inherited or heavily influenced by genetics. That's the only way your claims could work.
  10. I don't think anyone misunderstands you or is prejudiced. Either you truly don't understand the implications of your words and where it logically leads, or there is some willful compartmentalization going on. Do you really think we're all just prejudiced? No - there are some huge errors and people point that out by saying what it is: "race realism". The doctrine that any observed social differences between cultures is necessarily rooted in inborn genetic-based attributes. It appears very smart and scientific by mentioning IQ and statistical information, but this is why people not well-versed as scientists think it makes a lot of sense when they see arguments. That's all that happened here. But you aren't so responsive to argument and other signs suggest you are really are taking a racist perspective and embracing it. I don't suffer racists nor should anyone else. No more than we suffer Communists railing against capitalism all the time. Some points: -IQ doesn't "correlate" with intelligence. It IS a measure of intelligence, and only one of several. It measures strictly deductive sorts of intelligence and not spatial, lateral, or proper work ethic. Plus IQ is not meant to apply to all populations. If you study a tribe in the Amazon, a typical IQ test is hard to administer or properly measure their IQ. -People with high IQs are just as easily going to be socialists as anyone else. Marx was no dummy, and neither was any other big name Communist. In other words, IQ is not going to tell you a lot. -If you are mentioning that poor education in Africa for hundreds of years is why capitalism didn't grow there, that's fine. But IQ is not a plausible reason, nor can IQ be generalized to a population as big as "black people". The line is so blurry that even dividing on European and African descent is arbitrary. And make no mistake: African in this context is going to apply to black Americans as well. -"African nations have a lower IQ score than European nations." What, and we're supposed to forget African nations are a huge proportion black, that blacks in America have ancestors in those same countries, and you're really hammering in genetic arguments? Anyway, it may be farewell now, Carts.
  11. But the claim you made is that African's -by nature- have lower IQs than European people. More specifically, you are saying -white people- are by nature smarter than blacks. You didn't say that Africa has poorer education. You're saying black people are stupid. There are many issues and errors with "race realism".
  12. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    I wasn't asking for you to answer. My point is that anyone deserving to be happy is not a given. Your bliss technique relies on assuming you or anyone else is good as undeniably true and true because you are alive. If you want to just feel good, fine, but doesn't mean all methods to get there are good. That is, telling yourself no one's opinion matters and you are of course wonderful is not a path to honesty or authenticity. I know you mean in the moment, but that's why I'm saying you or anyone else doesn't need the reassurance of a mantra. I didn't say that there is a single ritual. I'm saying this ritual of yours seems half good and half not so good. Authenticity means a sort of effortless honesty I'd say, where not even bliss needs to be willed. It's mind-body unity. It's not supposed to get you there on its own. There is no fast-track to feeling bliss, it takes time. What it gets you is centeredness so that you are able to stay in a happy state. Monks who do it smile and laugh a lot. Not that I endorse a Buddhist monk's lifestyle, but their meditation methods work well with the nature of the mind. I'm glad you're striving for bliss, so I'm offering ways to help get you there by improving what you start with.
  13. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    Yeah, that's not a sensible view. You don't just deserve to be happy - what are the reasons you deserve it? In other words, mantras like the one you suggest only encourage yourself to see yourself as amazing without further thought. The point of any meditation is either in the sense of focusing on givens, or the other sense of the word as deep reflection. Your opinion is not the only one that matters. I'm reminded of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ldAQ6Rh5ZI I'll put it this way. Any emotion you can "will" into being is by definition not authentic. Authentic emotions arise automatically from habits. Focus on the chair in front of you. On the tree. On the backyard. On concretes. No abstractions. This type of focus orients your mind to existence as it is. You would then be better at making rational judgments when you are no longer meditating. Better yet, you wouldn't need platitudes like "I deserve to be happy" you use for your bliss meditation. Essentially, mindful meditation (your 1 and 2) is training in attention and the choice to focus. This will lead to happiness, as long as you apply your growing skill to rational judgment.
  14. How Do You Achieve Bliss?

    Some of this is good. Your intent here is the value of meditation. It's not about feeling happy per se, but being content and focused. On the other hand, points 3 to 4 are honestly a lot of vanity. One, telling yourself you're just wonderful because you're you is empty. Who says you deserve to be happy? Also, you will not be able to make yourself feel this way by saying so. I'd avoid all three - they're exercises in vanity. Again, meditation is good. But you don't need mantras to say you're purely amazing. Just focus on existence.