EC

My position on this matter is identical to all of ARI's positions in every respect. And not because they said it but because I completely agree with everything that they have released and there is a ton of content on this subject released from them that goes explicitly into each position and issue involved. I'm not going to go over every aspect of every issue here which is what this would require from innocents in war, the history of the situation, what Justice requires, the list is endless and I know how the discussions on this forum on an issue like this goes with context constantly dropped (not accusing you of that) and random questions thrown out. ARI's many analysis videos and commentary on this subject from the very start of this context (and really since 9/11) match my own with me having arrived at the same conclusions for the same reasons but they answer everything explicitly and in the detail I wouldn't want to personally attempt here. But will state being against those supporting and/or engaging in terrorism is not in any way equivalent to being against any true innocents involved in the conflict (or any conflict for that matter). I just see zero reason to reargue what has been essentially near perfectly argued by them here and in this sort of an environment where I can predict how this sort of conversation will go and mostly by which members. There is no point in rearguing and explaining what is done over and over again in elegant manner by ARI and is freely available to all in this format which quickly becomes a crapshoot of essentially randomly thrown out questions when every question, answer, explanation, and moral principle is covered in that manner. I don't have the time or energy to do that here versus hostile individuals or groups and refer them to that mass of content that made every argument while covering essentially every possible objection already perfectly.

Did you actually watch the video because that is not the argument at all, it is both much more complex and much simpler in other ways.

This answers all of the nonsense stated here accurately. And no, I won't be responding to those who promote it and evil. https://newideal.aynrand.org/hamas-and-the-tyranny-of-need/

So a modern day promoter of modern Nazism and terrorists in SK is going to be allowed to post here?

You are evil if this is what you think. Don't speak to me again. I don't interact with the explicitly evil who support terrorism, murder, rape, racism of aggressors in an unprovoked attack. And I mean it don't *ever* respond to me ever again.

Two things. One needs to think about what is necessary to succeed at something and all the concrete steps and full knowledge needed. Second the subconscious automatizes what the conscious mind provides it so one must be explicit in one's self-programming to achieve the desired results, check all premises and constantly use reason to know one's knowledge is accurate. There's no need to "trick" oneself into proper confidence when one follows this process at all times for all situations and can verify the results and can prove success to oneself in reality. As an aside, always following this process and reason automatically leads to one's emotional responses being inline with reality and proper. This is the state I myself achieved long ago so can attest to its possibility and existence once an individual has checked all premises and corrected any contradictions in one's thoughts, values, principles, and convictions. I'm not any type of therapist but I'm not going to pull that cowardly wording that people use when they say this isn't advice for x, legal, mental, medical, etc., because it one hundred percent is advice and advice that is exponentially better than you would likely get from some deterministic based therapist or psychologicalist who likely shouldn't even be employed in that field and is essentially stealing money from their "patients" in many cases.

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge — that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers — and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically — one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second. The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide — it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality." “WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN ETHICS?” The Objectivist Newsletter/, Feb. 1965, 7

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to seeking "sympathy" with anyone. I showed you the correct answers and won't have any further discussion with an irrational person that shouldn't even be allowed to post this type of complete irrational nonsense here as it's a violation of Forum rules and the site's purpose. Don't respond to me again nor send me any private messages trying to get around Euiol.

I thumbed this up even though all of it isn't true although somewhat better than what the other guy spewed. It does not result from consciousness quite the opposite. From the Lexicon: The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists — and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness — the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. “THE METAPHYSICAL VERSUS THE MAN-MADE” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24 SHARE

Not true.

Exactly, he both ignored than completely flipped the meaning of my statement. Reality is the final arbiter of truth, and one's mind and grasp of reality is the final authority of all knowledge. (and as I'm writing this the word "God" *which is the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus keeps popping up because the evil hacking part of the campaign against myself is a mixture of different types of altruists/collectivists/authoritarian that want me to accept every form of tyranny ever created, which of course will never happen and they are blatantly evil in every manner by doing these crimes). They also (and the guy above we are talking about is likely one of them and not simply a random "troll" equate falsely the man made with the metaphysical or reality as such in their deluded minds.

So are we to accept the "authority" of non-reality instead? At least, implicit in all of this is your true goal.

Most of the "disagreements" O_V boil down to non-integration of ideas and concepts that he has claimed to have read. Both Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff wrote in plain language, provided examples of every concept and explicitly defined all terms used at every point in every discussion. Someone that claims to have read the entire corpus but needs some sort of reinterpretation of every idea, principle, and explicitly defined term is most likely being dishonest whether intellectually or in their true purpose. The Objectivist corpus isn't written in run-on paragraphs and other means of obscuring meaning like someone like Kant's is. It is very explicit and to the point in common language with explicit objective definitions provided at all times when needed. That doesn't mean that there are subtleties and specific applications of knowledge that are beyond rational discussion, but it does mean that after reading and integrating all of the basics one should be at a different level of discussion than what seems to be presented here. Also as an aside, note that this side discussion buries Gus’s theme.

Self-sacrifice is the antesis of rational/good always. Remember in any compromise between food and poison it's only good that is killed. Also, even though I’m an Objectivist, I am one because the ideas are true in reality which is what should be pu front and center, or else an individual just comes across as a proponent of some philosophy, instead of the facts of reality as such where facts and open to random opinions of others instead.