Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

THE PRINCIPLE(S) BEHIND THE DEAN

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In the Fountainhead Roark takes notice of peculiar behaviour in others, which he then mentally files away. Once he’s collected enough information, he integrates and identifies a principle underlying that behaviour.  I have done this myself (see the patterns of ego dependency post), with some additional mental files I want to share. In sharing I’m hoping others may have seen this and may provide some insight into the underlying psychology. I'll update this as I learn more.

 

The Label

In casual conversation with a hairdresser. I tell him how I used to live in a gay suburb and I always found it so fun and funny to get hit on every day when I went for a walk. He then launched into a really strange string. Something like  “People shouldn’t label. Gay / Lesbian / Straight they’re just labels. It limits you. Labels are bad. It puts you in that category.” I tried to get him to elaborate, but he couldn’t. I feel like I’ve heard this before a few times, but variations of.

 

The ramble

A few times I’ve spoken with people well-read or very interested in philosophy. Not eastern philosophy types who say “we are just vibrations”, but the type who like Wittgenstein or Gadamer’s hermeneutics. It hasn’t happened often, since it’s just hard to find these people. But when it has happened I’ve noticed they will never directly answer any questions I ask. Or they talk SO much that I have no idea with what we even began.

E.g. Philosopher says he doesn’t agree with Rand’s principles.

Me: “What principles?”

Guy:  Launches into really random 5 minute shpiel on the mind and hermeneutics, analogue, digital and heuristics.

Me: So you think man cannot accurately form concepts?

Guy: Another 5 min shpiel about things I can’t remember

Me: “So you disagree with the principle of rationality?”

Guy: “Yes…” Goes on talking about hermeneutics and how knowledge is prejudice (prejudice apparently with another meaning, not the one used today).

This wasn’t an argument. I was just asking questions – but I’m confused how someone could be so up in the clouds and not ever give a solid answer to anything. This has happened before.  Actually one thing that appealed to me with Rand was that everything seemed to be straight to the point so I could read a passage and say “no” or “yes, makes sense”  or “what else am I missing here?” whereas everything else is just this stew of confusion and I’m left wondering what I even read.

 

 

Dirty Hairy Hippy Lovers

People who go to those outdoor music festivals where people smoke weed or the spiritual festivals where they do lots of chakra meditations and interactive activities like walking around telling everyone you love them, randomly holding hands and hugging everyone. There’s some commonality to the people who go here.  They love telling randoms they love them, or having randoms they love them, they love that everyone hugs one another and smiles and holds hands. “That’s what society should be like! That’s what things should be like!” Now FWIW I once went through a phase where I’d go to trance festivals and I didn’t feel anything except a desire to fit in, and try be all “chill” and “cool” about everything – which I cringe at looking back at it. Also the whole vibe of tranquillity felt feigned and stressed, so much so that it scares me a little.

 

Ghosts

People who believe in ghosts or swear they’ve seen one. With God I think I can understand this more, since a lot of us were taught to believe in it as children. I came from a somewhat religious background, but most people I know from that background actually are just unsure – “agnostic”. But with ghosts or fairies or other random shit it just seems so arbitrary. And yet I’ve met people who said they have actually seen it. Or somehow are convinced a light flickering means a ghost is in the house. Or who swear the Ouji board moved when they were with friends and it surely was a ghost. I know it seems quite crazy, but one of those people in particular, was extraordinarily intelligent and what I’d describe as a very unique, strong and peculiar individual. So that just left me confused.

 

I’m not sure about this one – but if I steal myself into old memories I had as a child lying. I remember making up some bull shit about being kidnapped by aliens, and in that moment I really wanted to believe it. I almost made myself believe it – like I had some weird emotional state change. I wanted to believe it (for whatever reason), so I told people this story.  I don’t know why I wanted to believe it… and I think that’s the key.

 

Don’t judge

You know people who always say “don’t judge”. I don’t know – depends on context, but sometimes it’s said with this kind of whingy love-all vibe that I don’t like at all and just makes me fucking angry.

 

 

Feeling small

This one’s in the Fountainhead

“It’s interesting to speculate on the reasons that make men so anxious to debase themselves. As in that idea of feeling small before nature. It’s not a bromide, it’s practically an institution. Have you noticed how self-righteous a man sounds when he tells you about it? Look, he seems to say, I’m so glad to be a pigmy, that’s how virtuous I am. Have you heard with what delight people quote some great celebrity who’s proclaimed that he’s not so great when he looks at Niagara Falls? It’s as if they were smacking their lips in sheer glee that their best is dust before the brute force of an earthquake. As if they were sprawling on all fours, rubbing their foreheads in the mud to the majesty of a hurricane. But that’s not the spirit that leashed fire, steam, electricity, that crossed oceans in sailing sloops, that built airplanes and dams ... and skyscrapers. What is it they fear? What is it they hate so much, those who love to crawl? And why?”

 

I’ve heard it expressed a lot by friends and randoms. They love the feeling they get when they see the wider universe, and see how small man is, and how their concerns and life doesn’t matter in the big scheme. And yet some of these people are very successful, intelligent, socially confident. You’d expect reading Rand that anyone irrational will be weak, confused, shy and yet so many of the strongest, socially confident, fun, intelligent people I’ve met have shown a lot of these random traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Telling others "don't judge" is a most conceited thing to say. To judge means to form an opinion or conclusion about something. If someone is telling you "don't judge", they must have come to the conclusion that you were judging. So they are judging. But they have the right to judge and you don't. I perceive it as an attempt to assert superiority. It's quite a McLeod Loser move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also had an apparently intelligent person tell me he saw someone in a mirror behind him, " a ghost", and that his wife had a similar sighting weeks earlier (a man of the same description).

 

He could be lying, or he and his wife were doing bad drugs (or really good ones?), or they convinced themselves of it, both watched the same fellow on TV and dreamt of the ghostly appearances...or someone broke into their house and screwed with their minds...

 

 

It baffles my mind to think of the myriad explanations.  But no matter what explanation is true, any and all of them, leave me disappointed in this person.  This person should start off with something other than "I saw a ghost".  Perhaps, "sometimes I have hallucinations or bad drug induced trips with my wife"... would at least give me the impression he KNOWS something is wrong with him, and that there are no ghosts.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Label

In casual conversation with a hairdresser. I tell him how I used to live in a gay suburb and I always found it so fun and funny to get hit on every day when I went for a walk. He then launched into a really strange string. Something like  “People shouldn’t label. Gay / Lesbian / Straight they’re just labels. It limits you. Labels are bad. It puts you in that category.” I tried to get him to elaborate, but he couldn’t. I feel like I’ve heard this before a few times, but variations of.

There are many people who are afraid of being quantified, measured or categorized.  They don't want others to understand them because they are, ultimately, afraid of understanding themselves.  It's the reason why so much sci-fi has been based on the premise that "AI would destroy humanity" because the concept of Artificial Intelligence, itself, means that our minds can be quantified (it's also what Jim Taggart meant about wanting "unconditional love").

Both "don't label" and "don't judge" seem like examples of that introspective phobia.

 

Dirty Hairy Hippy Lovers

People who go to those outdoor music festivals where people smoke weed or the spiritual festivals where they do lots of chakra meditations and interactive activities like walking around telling everyone you love them, randomly holding hands and hugging everyone. There’s some commonality to the people who go here. . .  Also the whole vibe of tranquillity felt feigned and stressed, so much so that it scares me a little.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NVs68X_S4

 

Actually one thing that appealed to me with Rand was that everything seemed to be straight to the point so I could read a passage and say “no” or “yes, makes sense”  or “what else am I missing here?” whereas everything else is just this stew of confusion and I’m left wondering what I even read.

Remember your first posts on this forum?  Have you seen mine, or anyone else's for that matter?

Sometimes it can be difficult for us to remember what it's like, to think in such squiggly terms.  I'd take it as a profoundly good sign that it struck you that way; it's indicative of the distance you've crossed.  B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is some rational explanation on ghosts. Apparently the places people call "haunted" are merely Infrasound Amplyfiers.

 

You cannot hear it, but the efects of prolonged exposure to infrasound are visual and hearing allucinations, produced by the fact that certain body tissues vibrate at low frecuencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually there is some rational explanation on ghosts.

He could be lying, or he and his wife were doing bad drugs (or really good ones?), or they convinced themselves of it, both watched the same fellow on TV and dreamt of the ghostly appearances...or someone broke into their house and screwed with their minds...

A percept (such as "a man" or "a computer") is a group of sensations automatically integrated by our subconscious minds.

The method by which this happens is analogous to the act of reading.

 

The only thing you see on your computer screen are patterns of pixels.  However, your mind automatically integrates them into words, sentences and ultimately ideas- because you've learned to read and write in English.

The same process of habituated inference also applies to irrational beliefs.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our normal perception of the world is heavily influenced by our own conception.  When people sincerely believe they've had a supernatural experience, it is precisely because of that.

I'm having trouble finding a better example of this process but if you've ever seen BBC's Sherlock, it provides a wonderfully elegant way to conceptualize it:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZWhdgL-VTo&list=PL4F66FFB5BE3917DC

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many people who are afraid of being quantified, measured or categorized.  They don't want others to understand them because they are, ultimately, afraid of understanding themselves.  It's the reason why so much sci-fi has been based on the premise that "AI would destroy humanity" because the concept of Artificial Intelligence, itself, means that our minds can be quantified (it's also what Jim Taggart meant about wanting "unconditional love").

Both "don't label" and "don't judge" seem like examples of that introspective phobia.

 

 

 

 

Why do you think they are afraid of understanding themselves? I think one reason could be that understanding a certain aspect of their personality may lead them to hate themselves and spiral into depression. It may not even be their fault. E.g. if my hairdresser is gay but comes from a catholic family, these two values (would you call them values?) clash and so he must somehow repress anything that makes this contradiction obvious.

 

 

The "controller":

So this one is much rarer, but it interests me more than the others. I love it when I meet people who dislike getting drunk (for reasons other than religion) - I find them fascinating. I've met two people who don't drink alcohol because they "like to be in control" (said to me in the same way in two different languages!) - which is rare given the prevalence of excessive drinking in today's youth. I used to like getting drunk because it made social situations easier, but I never do now. My reason is not so much fear of losing control, but wanting to experience everything with clarity and learn from it. If I'm nervous, then being aware of my nervousness and retaining a clarity of my own mental processes allows me to come out stronger and more capable the next time. But I can't really connect my own reasons with these few people I met who "like to be in control".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those people may just be lightweights. For a lightweight, drinking is one experience: a struggle against getting too drunk. One minute you're doing normal things in a social context, and the next, after consuming very little alcohol and at a time not of your choosing, you're trying to figure out how you'll put your drink down without knocking all the drinks on the table over. And, oh yeah, you needed to go to the restroom, you forgot (even though you really needed to go). Someone averts your attention and you have a time formulating a reply while the world around you is pulling your attention in now-exaggerated ways... And you forgot about the restroom again! Eventually you struggle to find the restroom and you struggle with the staircase and you struggle with the doorknob -- oops you forgot to turn the light on and now the door's shut with you in darkness. Fumbling for the light, where was that...

All of this could be summed up as, "No, I don't like not being in control.."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LoBagola, this is an interesting topic: observation of human behavior. I would caution against analyzing too much. There really is no genuine means to know exactly what is on someone's mind. Nonetheless, we all make judgements about people, as we very well should. The "No Labels/No Judgements" people are often well-meaning hypocrites. It is absolutely impossible to interact with people without making judgements, ultimately finding people with whom one is most comfortable. We judge these people to be trustworthy, or not, based on many reasons, but if one has no criterion for choosing friends, then anyone will do. And after mistakes are made, it's too late to make judgements.

People who "saw a ghost," had a "spiritual experience," or merely a hallucination are usually harmless, but I have to question their credibility if they can't draw the distinction between reality and an illusion. And it is true that some highly competent people can suffer from hallucinations, even without drugs. I am not a medical expert, so don't ask me why this happens. The "Feeling Small" people are a curiosity. I once heard a woman explain how she and her boyfriend were "awestruck" after watching a TV show about the universe. Was this the first time they had ever considered the limitlessness of infinity? And if it was, so what? You are, and it is. Deal with it. You still have to change your oil and pay your bills. For some people, these mundane accomplishments are enough to make them feel small. Staying on top of life's little inconveniences is a matter of pride for me, and no natural phenomenon can substitute for intelligent and suitable human company. If that company is a choice between "The Hippies" or the "The Controllers," no hesitations, I would chat with The Controllers. They may be more likely to carry a coherent conversation. You may even get into an argument based on reason. Overall, I find that if one's interactions are with "random" persons, one may develop a greater appreciation for solitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think they are afraid of understanding themselves? I think one reason could be that understanding a certain aspect of their personality may lead them to hate themselves and spiral into depression.

Precisely.

We're all familiar with the practice of evading reality; it's motivated by fear, for whatever reason, of a certain fact.  This is expressed in the saying "ignorance is bliss."  To believe that "ignorance is bliss" means that pretending not to know certain facts will basically erase them (implicit premise:  thoughts have nothing to do with action, anyway).  Pascal's Wager is an excellent illustration of that premise.

And just as evading reality causes fear of extrospective reason (which can be seen any time someone mentions "cold, heartless logic"), evading consciousness causes fear of introspection.

 

Fear of knowledge (in conjunction with Pascal's premise) causes evasion.

Evasion displaces that fear towards anything which could expose that knowledge.

In some cases the cycle becomes self-perpetuating; this is what causes a James Taggart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 if my hairdresser is gay but comes from a catholic family, these two values (would you call them values?) clash and so he must somehow repress anything that makes this contradiction obvious.

Yes, but notice something about that.

Nearly everyone on Earth has formed contradictory beliefs or values before, but not all contradictions are repressed.  They can be rationally examined and solved.  So every time someone realizes that they contradict themselves, they have a choice in what they do about it.

Now, as students of Objectivism, we know which choice to make; we know that allowing a contradiction to exist within our own minds is a delayed form of suicide.

 

But not everyone acts accordingly (some people repress or excuse their contradictions), which means that not only do they not know this, they actually believe (at least in those moments) the opposite.

There really is no genuine means to know exactly what is on someone's mind.

Why not?

Not to jump down your throat over a single sentence in an otherwise valid post, but it assumes the very thing I'm trying to point out.

 

Pascal's Wager runs as follows:

 

 

  • Either God exists, or he does not
  • If He exists then our beliefs will result in either infinite pleasure or infinite pain
  • If He does not exist then our beliefs will have no result, whatsoever 

Therefore, it is rational to believe in God.

 

Now, you can probably tell immediately that there is something very wrong with this theory.  Just so you know, the problem is that it's based on a specific idea which almost everyone accepts as "common knowledge".

 

I find it disturbing that nobody noticed, in all the centuries since Pascal- it's upside-down.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it is true that some highly competent people can suffer from hallucinations, even without drugs. I am not a medical expert, so don't ask me why this happens.

For the same reason that inkblots can be used to demonstrate someone's mental content.

Our real-time perceptions are influenced by our beliefs; even the most intelligent people cannot think better than the concepts they use.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is expressed in the saying "ignorance is bliss."  To believe that "ignorance is bliss" means that pretending not to know certain facts will basically erase them (implicit premise:  thoughts have nothing to do with action, anyway).  Pascal's Wager is an excellent illustration of that premise.

And just as evading reality causes fear of extrospective reason (which can be seen any time someone mentions "cold, heartless logic"), evading consciousness causes fear of introspection.

 

Fear of knowledge (in conjunction with Pascal's premise) causes evasion.

Evasion displaces that fear towards anything which could expose that knowledge.

In some cases the cycle becomes self-perpetuating; this is what causes a James Taggart.

 

 To believe that "ignorance is bliss" means that pretending not to know certain facts will basically erase them (implicit premise:  thoughts have nothing to do with action, anyway). 

I didn't understand this. Do you not mean pretending that you can erase certain facts? And shouldn't that mean thoughts have everything to do with action(reality), since ignoring something makes it go away?

 

Fear of knowledge (in conjunction with Pascal's premise) causes evasion.

Fear of knowledge alone is enough to cause evasion. How does Pascal's premise fit in?

 

Evasion displaces that fear towards anything which could expose that knowledge.

By what means do you think this occurs? For you to know that something could expose knowledge you must know:

-You must be aware of it

-You must know that it contradicts your pre-existing knowledge

 

I'm just guessing, but I'd think it is a type of emotional pressure felt somewhere in the periphery because you know you're wrong but actively choose to ignore it (although your subconscious registers that and pings you with that pressure). 

Edited by LoBagola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 To believe that "ignorance is bliss" means that pretending not to know certain facts will basically erase them (implicit premise:  thoughts have nothing to do with action, anyway). 

I didn't understand this. Do you not mean pretending that you can erase certain facts? And shouldn't that mean thoughts have everything to do with action(reality), since ignoring something makes it go away?

Yes, that's what I mean about erasing facts; by 'action' I meant 'physical action'.

 

Fear of knowledge (in conjunction with Pascal's premise) causes evasion.

Fear of knowledge alone is enough to cause evasion. How does Pascal's premise fit in?

If I showed you proof that in one year a meteor would destroy the Earth, would you evade that horrible fact or would you accept it- and then do something about it?

 

I'm just guessing, but I'd think it is a type of emotional pressure felt somewhere in the periphery because you know you're wrong but actively choose to ignore it (although your subconscious registers that and pings you with that pressure). 

Bingo.

 

Pascal's Wager hinges on the premise that "if God doesn't exist, belief or disbelief in him will have no consequences whatsoever".  Now stop and ask yourself what happens if an astronaut suddenly chooses to believe that it's okay to take your helmet off in space.  What happens to anyone who evades the law of gravity or their own hunger pangs?

 

Thoughts and feelings have consequences (namely actions).

Consequently, people who ignore too much of reality generally cannot do so for long.  Natural selection doesn't favor them.  Even the worst evaders on Earth, all things considered, select the least important (hence least harmful) facts to ignore.  They don't ignore the laws of physics or their own bodies; they ignore the source of man's prosperity (et cetera).  But when it comes to the knowledge of their own minds?

 

One can evade the knowledge of one's own mind without any consequences at all. . . For a while. . .  Which is why introspective evasion is far more common than extrospective.

And introspective evasion causes general introspective phobia, which is when people become afraid of being measured or understood by other people.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold, we may have a disagreement regarding analyzing casual acquaintances. Ink blot tests and other methods of psychoanalysis may only be partly useful when the subject is being completely honest. Many people are guarding their reactions. The hair-stylist who doesn't wish to openly "label" or stereotype people may wish to avoid saying something remotely offensive. He is guarding his own judgements, or denying them. Do we know if he really believes his claim that identifying people by their behavior is wrong, or is he simply avoiding saying anything that may be repeated and/or taken out of context, thus making him look like a "hater." 

In our "politically correct" social climate, many people are checking their speech, an act of insincerity, or remaining silent all to together. The man who claims he and his wife "saw a ghost" may be sticking to his story because he doesn't want a conflict with his wife. Or maybe not, but to claim that we really know what goes on in the heads of some people is a stretch. I would contend that people have a measure of credibility unique to their character, and that measure could be off-set by their trustworthiness. Does the hair-stylist give you a good hair cut? Are the "ghost-hunting" couple otherwise pleasant company? Does the "Dirty Hair Hippie Lover" pay for his own pot? I am perfectly willing to overlook an individual's "flake-factor" provided that person upholds their verbal or written contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Danneskjold, we may have a disagreement regarding analyzing casual acquaintances.

I don't think so.  We have a disagreement about its possibility but we're essentially on the same page as far as condemnation (though perhaps not for the same reasons).

 

Ink blot tests and other methods of psychoanalysis may only be partly useful when the subject is being completely honest.

Actually, they may provide greater insight when someone attempts to fake it; you'd just have to run them through a few repetitions in front of other people (who they may feel differently about) to see what they're trying to pass off.

 

The hair-stylist who doesn't wish to openly "label" or stereotype people may wish to avoid saying something remotely offensive.

Which tells us a few things about him, if that's the case (which could be determined by mentioning an unrelated, but also controversial, topic and giving him an opportunity to interject).

 

In our "politically correct" social climate, many people are checking their speech, an act of insincerity, or remaining silent all to together.

Agreed.  But that, in and of itself, lends us insight into those who do so.

---

No human being can avoid making choices, nor doing so for specific reasons.  It can't be done.

Many people lie (which is a choice); if you know it then you can determine why they chose to lie.  Many people feel the need to hide the content of their own minds; that tells you something already.  If you know which content they're ashamed of, and which they're proud of, you know their entire moral code.

So far from preventing accurate inference, all of these things actually make it much easier- if you know what to look for. 

I believe that's what this thread is about; trying to get an idea of what to look for and how.

 

I am perfectly willing to overlook an individual's "flake-factor" provided that person upholds their verbal or written contracts.

This I actually agree with you on, partially.  Not that I won't think less of someone who I know to be irrational or evil; if I infer that they are, I absolutely will.

. . . But it isn't my responsibility to do so out loud.  B)

 

Hence the value of "live long and prosper" in my interactions with intolerable people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what I mean about erasing facts; by 'action' I meant 'physical action'.

 

If I showed you proof that in one year a meteor would destroy the Earth, would you evade that horrible fact or would you accept it- and then do something about it?

 

Bingo.

 

Pascal's Wager hinges on the premise that "if God doesn't exist, belief or disbelief in him will have no consequences whatsoever".  Now stop and ask yourself what happens if an astronaut suddenly chooses to believe that it's okay to take your helmet off in space.  What happens to anyone who evades the law of gravity or their own hunger pangs?

 

Thoughts and feelings have consequences (namely actions).

Consequently, people who ignore too much of reality generally cannot do so for long.  Natural selection doesn't favor them.  Even the worst evaders on Earth, all things considered, select the least important (hence least harmful) facts to ignore.  They don't ignore the laws of physics or their own bodies; they ignore the source of man's prosperity (et cetera).  But when it comes to the knowledge of their own minds?

 

One can evade the knowledge of one's own mind without any consequences at all. . . For a while. . .  Which is why introspective evasion is far more common than extrospective.

And introspective evasion causes general introspective phobia, which is when people become afraid of being measured or understood by other people.

Okay. I think I understand. Pascals premise: thoughts don't affect action. But they do... even a random daydream will necessarily impact on my action, the way I move my head, what I do with one arm, whether or not I go get that cup of water in 1min or 10min (after my daydream). 

 

If I showed you proof that in one year a meteor would destroy the Earth, would you evade that horrible fact or would you accept it- and then do something about it?

I would accept it. The 'doing' would be a redesign of my life; I wouldn't not plan beyond the range of one year (assuming I can't avoid the disaster). Okay so somehow I have to come to accept Pascals premise in order for me to evade this piece of knowledge. I somehow have to come to the conclusion that whether I acknowledge the meteor or not, my actions will be the same. How in the heck??

 

And can't one not choose to evade as a primary?, just because he chooses to - he may be motivated by fear or something else, or he may not. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think so.  We have a disagreement about its possibility but we're essentially on the same page as far as condemnation (though perhaps not for the same reasons).

 

Actually, they may provide greater insight when someone attempts to fake it; you'd just have to run them through a few repetitions in front of other people (who they may feel differently about) to see what they're trying to pass off.

 

Which tells us a few things about him, if that's the case (which could be determined by mentioning an unrelated, but also controversial, topic and giving him an opportunity to interject).

 

Agreed.  But that, in and of itself, lends us insight into those who do so.

---

No human being can avoid making choices, nor doing so for specific reasons.  It can't be done.

Many people lie (which is a choice); if you know it then you can determine why they chose to lie.  Many people feel the need to hide the content of their own minds; that tells you something already.  If you know which content they're ashamed of, and which they're proud of, you know their entire moral code.

So far from preventing accurate inference, all of these things actually make it much easier- if you know what to look for. 

I believe that's what this thread is about; trying to get an idea of what to look for and how.

 

This I actually agree with you on, partially.  Not that I won't think less of someone who I know to be irrational or evil; if I infer that they are, I absolutely will.

. . . But it isn't my responsibility to do so out loud.  B)

 

Hence the value of "live long and prosper" in my interactions with intolerable people.

 

The aim of finding patterns and taking notes is to integrate knowledge and gain a better understanding of others. What judgments you make about the person depends on the integration. I don't think there's anywhere near enough information (in a forum thread) to pass judgment on a persons moral character (and for me until I first begin understanding/verifying my own beliefs), but there's enough to start noticing things you may see throughout the day, collect your own data samples and begin your own process of integration.

 

 

By the way, what is this inkblot stuff on reading people? I thought that was just pseudoscience. Looking it up now.

Edited by LoBagola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pascals premise: thoughts don't affect action. But they do... even a random daydream will necessarily impact on my action, the way I move my head, what I do with one arm, whether or not I go get that cup of water in 1min or 10min (after my daydream). 

Yes, but more importantly, how do you decide to act (whenever and wherever you do)?  Isn't every decision you make, from the most to the least important, based on your thoughts and feelings?

You're right about Pascal's premise; it means that your mind has nothing to do with your choices. . .

 

I somehow have to come to the conclusion that whether I acknowledge the meteor or not, my actions will be the same. How in the heck??

Precisely.  :thumbsup:

And as for how in the Heck, that's precisely right too.  There's a reason the best example of this idea can be found in defense of the super-natural (beyond measurement or comprehension). . .

 

And can't one not choose to evade as a primary?, just because he chooses to - he may be motivated by fear or something else, or he may not. 

Could you rephrase that?

 

By the way, what is this inkblot stuff on reading people? I thought that was just pseudoscience. Looking it up now.

Not that bit.

Some psychology has a sound and rational basis; especially cognitive psychology.  As the name implies, cognitive psychology is based on the premise that at least part of the human mind involves thinking.

 

The pseudoscience comes somewhat from Freud but it seems to me like the majority of it was Jung.  For example: Jung thought that part of each person's mind involved some 'collective unconscious' passed down from his ancestors.  Jung, by the way, is still taken halfway seriously.

 

I digress.  Modern psychology is a mixed bag; you really have to analyze every part of it individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Could you rephrase that?

 

 

 

I simply meant that in order for one to evade something, the only thing that is required is volition. Fear of knowledge combined with Pascal's premise is only a motivating factor, not a causal one. I'm not stating this to tell you, but rather to get some confirmation on what I'm thinking.

 

 

A new note file:

 

The pusher:

Okay so I've noticed this behavior in others (usually when they read some spiritual or self-help book), but I can provide most information by discussing myself. I do it all the time. I wonder if my desire to keep telling people, unsolicited, about Ayn Rand and specific essays is actually a trick I'm attempting to pull on myself. I.e. I'm subconsciously trying to seek affirmation from others, that what I really like is true and real. If they find it as fascinating as I do surely i'm on the right path. If they don't "oh no what's going on!!??". This is classic social metaphysics or ego dependency. It's the attempt to confirm "your reality".

 

Now, I do like to introspect a lot, but it's actually exceedingly difficult for me sometimes. For example, it took an enormous amount of work and certain difficult emotional experiences do discover what I did in that ego dependency thread and I have always made the attempt to be honest and discover truth - but it is not always easy. Which is why now I'm so much more interested in taking notes and collecting data which I can work with rather than make bold statements about behavior. I'm not really sure if my desire to share her works with others is exactly what I describe above or some perfectly normal desire to just share things I like with people. I wouldn't be surprised with either.

Edited by LoBagola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply meant that in order for one to evade something, the only thing that is required is volition. Fear of knowledge combined with Pascal's premise is only a motivating factor, not a causal one. I'm not stating this to tell you, but rather to get some confirmation on what I'm thinking.

Yes, but volition is only another sort of causality.

 

What causes fluctuations in the stock market?  Certainly the countless choices of countless investors- so why do they make the choices which they do?  Doesn't it all boil down to each investor's attempts to maximize their own profit?  And if it's nothing more than countless investors attempting to make money, then that would mean that if two different investors did two different things (such as buying X and selling X)- it can only be because they have different opinions of what the best way to make money is.

Once you grasp that fact then everything else will become much simpler and easier to understand.

 

Because the only difference between the stock market and every other sort of human activity is that in the stock market, there is a single and universal goal (to make money); in the rest of the world there are countless different goals all being pursued in different ways by different people.  But the extra level of complexity does not make it a different problem- only a more complicated one of the same sort.

 

So you're partially right.  In order to evade something, the only thing you must do is to choose to. . .  And by phrasing it in terms of cause and effect, I don't believe I was actually saying anything different from that.

Whenever I attempt to analyze anyone else's behavior, I first identify exactly what choices it involves (for them) and then I ask myself what I would have to want or believe, for that to seem logical to me.  The solutions I find to the second step are what I've been talking about in causal terms.

I wonder if my desire to keep telling people, unsolicited, about Ayn Rand and specific essays is actually a trick I'm attempting to pull on myself. I.e. I'm subconsciously trying to seek affirmation from others, that what I really like is true and real. If they find it as fascinating as I do surely i'm on the right path. If they don't "oh no what's going on!!??". This is classic social metaphysics or ego dependency. It's the attempt to confirm "your reality".

There are two different sorts of people who attempt to "push" their philosophy on others, and the difference between them is crucial.  There are people who push their philosophy because they want social validation and those who push it because they simply enjoy sharing the truth.

Take the Creationism versus Evolution debate for example, because there are people on both sides who push their opinions.  There are also people of both types on both sides, but notice something about the majority.

In general, a creationist doesn't actually care whether anyone agrees with him or not; he does not argue for his beliefs, but only against their alternative.  In general, his opponents will actually and explicitly argue for human evolution, not only against creationism.  One becomes angry when others declare his beliefs invalid; the other becomes confused (because they cannot imagine anyone being indifferent to the truth).

 

In general, most Creationist pushers are not arguing for their beliefs; they only want them to be given equal treatment with science. 

Most who believe in human evolution are against such equality; they are implicitly trying to deny that such beliefs are all equally valid.

---

 

So you shouldn't push your beliefs on those who aren't willing to hear them, at all.  It's a waste of time (and your life's time is finite); it isn't rational.  But before you pass moral judgment on yourself I think you should identify which is the motive behind your desire to "push" Ayn Rand.

And if you find that you're after permission to believe in Objectivism then some checking of premises is absolutely called for.  But if not (and I suspect not) then you shouldn't worry about it too much; just find some way to cope with the other type of pushers.

 

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27094&hl=

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...