Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on July 10

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

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

22114 profile views
  1. Eiuol

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    You probably exaggerate what the average woman does, and you probably underexaggerate how long it takes you to shave and take care of your skin after shaving, and anything else to look good. A good and proper shave takes 15 minutes, sometimes even 30 minutes depending on what you're going for. And you mentioned a lot more than just shaving your face... And even then, it really doesn't take that long to do more. Maybe if the makeup was extravagant, but most makeup would only take about five minutes to put on at most? It wouldn't even be that weird for a guy to put on concealer. And if you skip makeup, it really doesn't take long at all. Clearly proper clothing choices and jewelry choices takes time. But this only takes women longer because there are more choices. Male clothing is so limited that it is rather boring and unexpressive. The only difference between genders (in America) is for whatever reason, guys on average don't care. They don't care about looking like slobs. They don't learn how to shave properly. If you only take 5 hours per month to meet grooming standards of men today, you're doing something wrong.
  2. I don't think it's so sinister. It's a misattribution that without context doesn't say anything much negative because it's too ambiguous. I found the quote here, about four minutes in:
  3. The fact is, you can't really know this. This is why some sort of transparency or directness would have been wise. The only way you can know is to ask her, particularly because you gave every indication that you were not interested in her.
  4. Sure, but you've ignored basically every suggestion before. The hole continues to get deeper. What you've described is mostly self-sabotage. But is this a real scenario? The last thread you made, you admitted that it was fabricated.
  5. The context is different because the person in that podcast has a crush on a girl who had no romantic interest. In your context, it's a girl who did show interest, but you chose to do nothing. The advice there kind of presumes that you acted on your feelings and were honest about them, enough so to figure out what the other person thinks. Are you looking to talk about something specific? Or are you looking for advice?
  6. I think that's the right conclusion. But there might be a simple solution to resolving your feelings. If you realize now that it was a major mistake to not take her up on her offers and overtures, you can admit that. You can tell her that you know now it was a mistake, and now that you lost the opportunity, you feel bad about it. If you resolve things maturely, at the very least, you might actually feel okay being her friend. Who knows. Maybe she will appreciate the honesty.
  7. The blog post you linked is basically expanding on something like Rand's stated view on romance, she didn't have healthy romantic relationships, and I think her marriage contradicted those views. Using her love life as an example is very messy, and many things went wrong. I don't think any of us could say why she loved him (only she could really know), but we can be sure it wasn't because of a manifestation of power. I think you're right about her view about her husband. I like the idea that intellect is extremely important! I like to think of it as one of the most important features of your personality. We just need to remember that there are many ways to have intellect besides the analytical kind.
  8. Those differences aren't genetic. You can get better at all of those things. At best they are partially genetic, but still in large part under your control. But there's a few more things you're assuming. What does it matter if she's better at you at some things? If she's better at you at some things, why does that mean she cares? Having more friends doesn't make her a better person; having more suitors doesn't mean they see her mind as valuable; being wittier doesn't mean your sense of humor is boring to her. If she goes further than you, how does that matter for romantic compatibility? It's the whole wrong look at it. Think in terms of what values can be mutually admired and enjoyed. It's not as if you need to gain points to earn the girl, as if she's an achievement you unlock. You don't need to defeat her. You just need to be valuable. It's not about your real-life stats, it's about finding people to grow with. What counts as if you are in the same league morally speaking. You make me think of this song: Notice how he isn't angry or even upset. He's feeling bad about what might have been. It's the Platonic fantasy ("more than just a dream") that got him down, not the actual girl. Whoever he's thinking of, makes him feel very happy. I don't think he literally means he can't get the girl - he means he can't get the girl that doesn't even exist. It's a song basically about what happens when you get what I call the "out of my league" syndrome.
  9. That's a very broad and vague way to think about it. There is a lot more to intelligence in general than raw thinking power. Imagine you were a pretty good chef at a restaurant, but not particularly great at academics or school. Then imagine she were some PhD student in physics. Is her mind overall better than yours? Not really. To be a good chef, it requires different types of thinking and skills and practice. There is nothing that would make you inferior as a person. You would just be a different person than her. The quality of your mind is more about being a virtuous person. If she doesn't want to be with you romantically, it doesn't mean you're out of her league. You could be, if she cared about things like that, but you wouldn't want a relationship with someone who thought that. On the other hand, maybe she does value someone in academics like her, someone who can talk about those complex and abstract subjects important to her. You probably admire this about her. But the truth is, physics isn't that important to you. You don't like to read books about it. You prefer to think about other subjects. While the fantasy of being with her romantically makes you very happy, your values don't really match up. You might want to blame being not smart enough, or there's something inferior about you, but there's no reason to do that. If your values don't match enough, it won't matter. There's more to any relationship, friendship or otherwise, than what you imagine could happen. What you imagine isn't how things are. If you find out the future you hope for isn't going to happen, that doesn't destroy the value you have now. If you get value out of her company, don't abandon that. She does something good for your life. Why be vindictive and cut her out just because she didn't give you what you wanted? If she isn't interested, the easiest thing to do is focus on the value she provides today. Nicky offers great advice - just take the short-term pain. You'll be rewarded in the long run, with emotional maturity for getting through it and possibly lifetime friendship.
  10. What do you mean unattainable? I mean, it's not like relationships are about acquiring people, like acquiring cars or houses. You don't need to worry about getting her. A better question is to ask whether she is a good fit for you anyway. But just because she might be a bad fit romantically doesn't mean she's a bad fit as a friend. I think this is part of what Nicky is saying. I asked what you mean by unattainable because some people think in terms of people being out of their league. This might mean you don't think you're the best person you can be, or there are a lot of flaws in yourself that you see that you think should be improved upon. That would make sense. If that's all it was, all you need to do is improve yourself. But maybe you mean that you think you're too low on the social pecking order. This isn't so great because you'd be devaluing yourself about something that has nothing to do with whether you're a good match. If that mattered to her, then you need to reevaluate whether she's someone you want to even pursue in the first place.
  11. Eiuol

    I am a bit confused...

    It is fine to admire the achievements of various people. If they happen to be from your native country, that's fine too. It's also great to admire the achievements of people that you know personally. But it's important to remember that this really has nothing to do with the history of your family. Whether someone is your grandfather doesn't matter, because birth family doesn't have any bearing on what makes someone admirable or not.
  12. Eiuol

    Just Shut Up and Think

    It doesn't seem like there's any more agenda than you would have on many measures of cognitive performance. Sure, we should nail down better what it is you mean by "best answer". But even on pattern matching tests, where you have 7 items in a sequence and need to select the 8th item, there are best answers. You could say that technically any answer is correct, because the pattern is man-made. From what I can tell, most puzzles like this are developed with some specific conceptual common denominator or fundamental characteristic. I don't take it as any more serious than a crossword puzzle or logic puzzle. I like how you draw out the ways we can ask what makes the best answer. But how would you explain psychological tests of cognitive performance? Those don't seem to take much effort to know what people mean by best answer.
  13. Eiuol

    The Genuine Problem Of Universals

    Can you link the original source? Or is this full context?
  14. Eiuol


    Just so I know where you're coming from, are you getting the terminology 'logos' from Jordan Peterson? It would affect my response. I've heard it in other contexts such as stoicism and Christian theology in case you meant those, but the only contemporary use I've seen is from him.