Leaderboard

Sure, as soon as you articulate what your standard is, in response to this sentence. (so that I can find it more easily - I haven't read the whole thread). Sure, but only after you've come up with a rational and objective standard for what is a good and bad outcome. Wanting a positive outcome for every player, irrespective of that player's behavior, is irrational. If that is your standard of good (everyone wins, no matter how they "play"), then that's a terrible standard. There is no economic system that rewards both rationality/productivity, and irrationality/destruction. Irrationality and destruction can only be rewarded at the expense of a producer. Objectivism does have a standard by which to judge an economic system: its standard of a good economic system is one that rewards rationality and productivity. Objectivism argues that the use of force to obtain material values or benefits is irrational and destructive, not produtive.

I think that definitely may have been the start of it. People are looking for an emotional connection to an ideal, that adds to their overall happiness and helps them get through tough times. I know the Objectivist position is that if you're religious, you're irrational.. You're a sacrificial animal looking to serve other people, and you must disregard your own life. But is that actually true? I think religious people believe because they want to get more out of their lives. They do it with the main purpose of bettering themselves and the people around them. In my opinion, these are noble intentions. Wanting to feel a sense of purpose, of use, of belonging..that's what drives us all. But back to my other point: that catalyst for reverence, or happiness, or awe..the thing that causes that 'high,' if you will, should be based in reality. Our emotions are connected to our reasoning minds. If you're religious because you want to better yourself and others, and get more out of your life, you need to reconsider what it actually means to follow a religion. Before I read the Bible, I thought Christianity was all rainbows and butterflys. But then I read it and it was a huge wake up call. I realized that what I was getting out of it wasn't an honest moral code, or happiness, or applicable knowledge that I could use to better my life. I was reading about hate in it's truest and nastiest form.. and no First Corinthians passage could undo that. The feeling of reverence I once felt when reading a beautiful bible verse vanished when I flipped back and read the entire chapter. That the feeling I once got wasn't based in reality. In fact, I wasn't being true to myself OR the religion I claimed to be practicing. Sorry I've gone a little off topic, but my main point is that there's a difference between that 'high' feeling you get from something that isn't based in reality, and the one you get from actually opening your eyes and seeing things for what they really are. Reverence is so much cooler when it stems from something real, something tangible. When real, pure beauty strikes you.. yep. It's a wonderful feeling, something that's worth all the blood, sweat, and tears- so to speak.

Roark makes this point while being a starving architect in The Fountainhead: Would I be tempted to lie? Absolutely. Would I feel like a piece of shit after I did? Without a doubt. Would I enjoy the steak dinner it bought me? It would lack savour, and fail to nourish my integrity and self-esteem as it would my body. "Yes but a just a little teeny white lie!? You would feel so bad over a very small compromise of your values and integrity!?" Indeed I would. Hopefully it would cause me to realize I need to find a career where I can perform my work honestly, and more fruitfully than I have been. Dominique sums it up: There is no difference between "honest" and "totally honest" or "completely honest". You don't start sentences with "Let me be honest..." because it ought to be a given, and you shouln't have to make that distinction to youself when you realize you're speaking to someone else out loud instead of thinking privately; as if everything you say without that qualifier may or may not represent your true and actual thoughts and opinions, or reality. Either you're honest, or you're not. To yourself and to others. The first step to being honest with yourself is to stop trying to justify your dishonesty, especially with life-or-death scenarios that don't represent day-to-day life. Mr. Foddis, To be honest does not mean that you must reveal secrets, or may not have them. If she asked me, I would tell her the truth. If she didn't ask, I would die with that knowledge, hoping for her sake she'd never find out another way, because she would've rather heard it from the man she loves than his lover. Either way, the consequences of my dishonesty in the past are unescapable. I'm a wreck on my deathbed, and instead of a solemn, final goodbye I'm left consumed with guilt or a twice heartbroken soon-to-be-widow on my conscious. If I've lived dishonestly, what else should I expect? A person doesn't need to be honest 100% of the time. Certainly he can lie his way into a win-win situation, and even rationalize to himself that he did right, given the results. A man only needs to be honest to the extent that he values his integrity. Some men don't, and lie willingly, white or otherwise. And being honest doesn't mean broadcasting every thought in my head out loud for the world to hear. It just means if you ask, you'll get the truth. Again about the dress: if she asks for my opinion, I'm going to give it to her, because that's what she asked for. It's more important to my integrity to be honest to her than to lie to her, yes. Just because social considerations come into play doesn't mean that principles go out the window. Is there no other way to postpone a conversation than to lie? If you're saying I tweaked my argument to show that honesty was the only option, then certainly you're tweaking this whole argument to show that lying is the only option that wouldn't lead to a shit-storm. "...with Dude X? No thanks, everytime he's around my girlfiend he tries to get her to leave me for him. I'd rather not." The possibilities are endless. Just tell your buddy the truth. "Why not Dude X?" "Don't worry about it right now man, go enjoy yourselves, we'll catch up later on." Done. Conversation postponed, integrity intact. That's the nail being hit on the head right there.

Beauty is a kind of value judgment. As a value judgment, the standard of man’s life ultimately dictates the standard of beauty. More particularly, the objective standard of beauty is the physical nature of man qua man. The metaphysically given standard of beauty includes limited ranges of symmetry, proportions, hair colors, etc., all of which are identifiable with the nature of man qua man, and, ultimately, correlated to man’s life as the standard of value. Among other things, visible manifestations of good health contribute to a judgment of beauty, whereas visible manifestations of ill health detract, because these are directed to the requirements of man’s life. What dictates the limited ranges? Ultimately, man’s life qua man. For example, being relatively big or tall for a man can be considered a good attribute, but being too tall can shorten a man’s life, and be considered bad. It should be understood, of course, that the standards for beauty are somewhat different for man qua man and woman qua woman, but the same principle and ultimate standard applies. The measurement of these kinds of values, including beauty, is teleological, according to the objective standard of man’s life. The less relevant a physical characterisitc is to success in man's life qua man, the less relevant it is to objective beauty. For example, blondes may be a bit more popular, but this is far down the telelolgical scale of physical attributes directed to success in life, which means it can become a matter of personal, even subjective preference. BTW, no projection is needed regarding your animosity here, J. Nicky, for example, immediately noted it regarding your opening post. Animosity, including ad hominem, bursts and oozes from your opening post and others on this thread. Nevertheless, I hope you and others may find my post helpful, and I would value any mutually respectful and civil discussion.

I've read Tolle's literature before and imho there is some sense hidden under the neo-mystical hokum, especially if you are familiar with existentialism and Eastern thought. The Pain-Body is the accumulated frustation caused by the disparity between reality and the ego's expectations; the more unhealthy and irrational the ego, the wider the disparity. If this frustration is left to fester, there is the danger of identifying with the negative sentiment for various lengths of time. When this identification occurs, there is a strong tendency to reinforce it by placing yourself in self-defeating situations that accrue more negative sentiment (as a victim or aggressor, the goal is the same). This state is short-circuited and placed back into dormancy when you become conscious of the potential harm to yourself. But some people are so entrenched in the identification that any attempt to focus consciousness is disrupted by automatized evasion; a perfect example in fiction is James Taggart.