Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ferris

Regulars
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ferris

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Hawaii
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    Philosopher
  • School or University
    Hawaiian University
  • Occupation
    Philosopher
  1. Hey guys, I`m reading OPAR and I came up with 3 important questions that I didn`t really understand. #1. Universe On page 16 of OPAR, Dr Peikoff explains that the universe is eternal: "Some of the things commonly referred as 'entities' do not come into being or pass away, but are eternal - e.g., the universe as a whole. The universe simply is; it is an irreducible primary. An entity may be said to have a cause only if it is the kind of entity that is noneternal." I understand this, since, according to the primary of existence, there could have been no "conciousness" to create the universe in the first place. But lets take a look at another thing he says on page 31 about the universe: "Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well." Based on what objective fact/observation/line of thoughts does he know enough to claim that the universe is not infinite? As far as i`m concerned, nobody knows that. #2. Senses Lets consider the following facts: Reality exists. We can perceive reality through our human senses. There is no object alone, or perceiver alone, but only object-as-perceived. The validity of the senses is an axiom. Having said that, suppose that a certain specie of animal (lets say, a dog) perceive the leaves of a tree to be blue. We, humans, perceive a leaf to be green. The eyes of the dog processes the light differently from the way our eyes perceive it, but what actually IS the color of the leaf and how can we be sure of that? In answer to that, Ayn Rand would say that the quality "color" is not in the object, nor in our mind, but is a product of the interaction between two entities: object and apparatus. Can we conclude then, that in a world without consciousness, or perceivers, all the entities would be colorless? And what would something look like without a color? Suppose that there would be light (coming from a sun), what would the color of the reflection be? #3. Focus Dr. Peikoff says: " 'Focus' (in the conceptual realm) names a quality of purposeful alertness in a man`s mental state. 'Focus' is the state of a goal-directed mind committed to attaining full awareness of reality" He continues by saying that one should struggle to be in a state of 'focus' more often. I understand that you have to focus in order to do somethings, like, solve a problem, study or have a conversation with someone, but, what would a full awareness state be like when someone is just relaxing and doing nothing? What should someone focus on when there is nothing to focus about? Like... suppose i`m walking home from work, what should I focus on? I don`t know if you guys understood my question, but try to understand it.
  2. Friend, you might not have sex with her, but - if you`re really a heterosexual male - you would feel atracted to her. Atraction is a biological response.
  3. Sorry dude, but i`m a man and I like women. I don’t know about Roark or Galt or Rearden but I feel attracted by the opposite sex. I understand that sex is much better with feelings and with someone who has a very deep connection with you, but if I would wait to have sex only with these girls, i`ll have a hard time finding them. I think there is not a true man in this world (I mean a heterosexual male), that will not have sex with a hot girl only because she believes in God, or sacrificed her life for ill people (I MEAN HAVE SEX, not a relationship) I totally agree with you. You`re right. But if, differently from Roark (and other AR heroes) you are not passionate about any profession?
  4. i`m sorry I should have said that he had, 3 or 4 friends.
  5. *** Mod's note: Merged with a previous topic *** Although i`m a very objective person, and starting my journey towards a more objective life, there is something that I do not agree. I see nothing wrong with wanting to be social and having more friends, even just for the sake of “having more friends”. I don’t see nothing wrong with having friends whose view of the world are different from mine – what matters is if we have fun together and enjoy each others company. For instance: Peter Keating was social, everyone liked him and he could have any girl he wanted (nice!). On the other hand, Roark didn`t have any friends in school, and was lonely like a baby in the womb. What was Roark`s problem? Why couldn`t he go to a party, have sex with girls, and have fun for gods sake? I personally value these things very much, even though there is not a important and serious purpose behind these activities. Whenever Roark entered a room, people felt uncomfortable, and his face was closed like a vault. What is the advantage of being like that? I don`t see why he couldn`t be social, have a lot of friends, join the fraternity, and still be loyal to his principles, and still stand for his ideas, do you guys get my point? Does living objectively in the context of human interactions means having just few friends who share your views, just sitting by their side doing nothing and acknowledging their existence? That seems pretty boring to me. In Atlas Shrugged, the playboy life Francisco was having seemed pretty cool and exciting. Why couldn`t someone lead a life with a lot of fun and parties and girls and still be productive and objective? For instance yesterday I decided to learn to surf. I live In a coastal city and it would be fun to surf. Then I asked myself: why do you want to surf? And I didn`t know a reason, besides: I just want it, it must be fun! According to Roark, he would say: since there is no reason for me wanting to learn how to surf, besides my wish to do it, I wont do it. I remember a time in the book when Keating called Roark to go out and have a beer. Roark said: what for? For gods sake, what was the problem of going out for a beer????? He would stay home doing nothing anyway!!!!! I don’t want to realize with 80 years old that I lived my life as a lonely bastard who didn`t have fun at all. Do you guys understand what i`m saying?
  6. I`ve been interested in NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) for a long time and I would like to know your objectivist views on that. For those of you that don`t know what NLP is, it means the science of using language to organize thoughts, to be a better communicator and to change habits/beliefs. Lets discuss.
  7. Hey there! I finished reading Atlas Shrugged when I was 17 years-old and “fell in love” with it. Then I read The Fountainhead, Anthem, Night of January 16th, and Objectivism by Leonard Peikoff. I decided that I would do anything I to model and be like Howard Roark, John Galt and the other heroes. This may seem silly, but in the day of my 18th anniversary I took the same oath as John Galt did in the novel: that I would never live for the sake of someone else and never let someone else live live for mine. (i`m 18 years-old by the way.) Although I may have some knowledge about Objectivism, I still feel like something is missing. I came here so I can learn from those people who were able to make a shift in their lives towards objectivity and clarity. Sometimes I wonder if living a life like Howard Roark or John Galt is possible. As I said in the other thread, sometimes I still catch myself thinking about people, thinking about what they think of me, gossiping and thinking other stuff that I know are unreasonable, but they happen so naturally. Those of you who have been students of objectivism for a while, I please ask you to tell me what to do next in my journey. I know I have to study more and learn more about objectivism, but if someone with a greater experience got a special advise or recommendation that would make my life easier, I`ll be glad to hear it. I`m kind of introducing myself on this thread, since I consider this time in my life (18 years old) the start of my journey and of my adult life. One thing is for sure, i`ll never stop trying until I live my life 100% objective. Sorry for any grammar mistakes, I live in Brazil and English is not my first language. That is it my friends. Ferris.
  8. Thanks everyone for the response! I think i`m getting what some of you are saying here. I understand that emotions of any kind are not causeless and that in order to stop having them I have to check my premises and change them. But how to do that exactly? I`ll give an example that is currently bothering me a lot: I broke up with a long time girlfriend and last week I saw her with another guy. You have NO IDEA of the kind of feelings that were running through my body at the time. I felt anger towards myself for feeling them. Even though I knew, logically, that we broke up, and that she was doing nothing wrong, I still couldn’t help it. A lot of you said that it takes time and practice to realle become and adopt Objectivity in one`s life. By time and practice you mean a lot of reading? A lot of studying? Maken, I want to change my sense of reality. Since you have done it, can you tell me what you did to accomplish it?
  9. I`ve always admired Ayn Rand heroes, especially Roark. I`m reading the Fountainhead for the second time now, studying Roark`s actions and how he moves through the world. I really admire and find completely amazing the way he is indifferent to the people and focus only on what he wants. I`m so passionate about the way he lives his life in the novel, that I find myself trying to model him in my daily life. “Howard Roark saw no one. For him, the streets were empty. He could have walked there naked without concern.” The problem is that I can`t manage to do it. I can`t help noticing people in the streets, and sometimes I catch myself thinking about and judging acquaintances in my mind. I can’t` help it! If someone says something bad about me or I hear that someone is trying to let me down, I get pissed off! Diffferently from Roark who remained calm and centered, without hard feelings for Keating. “He turned to look at her, trying to remember who she was.” I don`t know if it is just me, but it is impossible to control our feelings. For instance, I`m not comfortable walking on the street without a shirt, let alone naked like the quote above! Also, if I`m in a restaurant and I notice that a person that I don`t like is in the house, I get uncomfortable. I care about what people say about me. But I guess that is because all my life I learned to care about that, and now it is automatic, and worst: unconscious! When I face problems or decisions I can be quite objective, but when it regards my thoughts and body and other people I just can`t handle it. I don`t know how to fully adopt objectivism in my daily life and I need help from you guys. I want to be like Roark, indifferent to the people that don`t mean nothing to me. I know that he is a fictional character but does anyone leads a life like this? How to apply the principles of objectivism in our daily lives? How to be and live like Howard Roark?
  10. Yes it is. Thank you Maken. Let me ask just one more thing. How or in what ways would the thing which the statue represented be degraded if ever presented to the second-handers? Dominique knew what the statue represented and what it meat to her, but would anybody`s opinion on that change the way she thought about it? Are other people`s opinions really important to her?
  11. Quick question that popped up in my mind while I was reading The Fountainhead: Dominique mentions to Alvah Scarret that she destroyed a very beautiful statue she loved. She did that so that no one else would ever see it. If she valued the statue, why did she destroyed it? ? She had bought the statue, so why didn`t she hide it in a room in her house, making her the only person able to see and apreciate it? That seems an irrational behavior...
×
×
  • Create New...