Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/23/21 in Posts

  1. Eiuol

    The Pluriverse

    I found this on his CV: https://greattransition.org/roundtable/human-rights-greg-anderson This essay shows how his thinking is just his own angle on critical theory. It seems that his Pluriverse is rooted in the social world. It's a literal social metaphysics. His framework of thinking seems to be exclusively focused on the social world with utterly no conception of reality. The reason we don't understand what he even means by reality is because I don't think he understands either. He doesn't define reality, he doesn't talk about in what way he means the indigenous world is a different reality. He is trapped between using metaphor and referring to reality, because he has no conceptual tool to distinguish between the two. So when we evaluate his arguments, we can't distinguish between the two either. Basically, he makes me think of a teenager's take on Nietzsche. He's trying to take Nietzsche's perspectivism (that what we know to be true or claim to be true is determined by our perspective) and sound even deeper by suggesting that ancient people lived in a different reality. This is your brain on critical theory:
    1 point
  2. That company does not strike a bell with me. The movie "Wanted" (2008) comes to mind.
    1 point
  3. Recently an acquaintance posted a plug for a move to watch for the season of lent: Chocolat (2000). The quip offered for watching it was a passage from the sermon offered by young priest Pere Henri. “…we can’t go round measuring our goodness by what we don’t do, by what we deny ourselves, what we resist, and who we exclude. I think we’ve got to measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create, and who we include." Trojan horse is a poetic conjecture. Consider that poetry through another poetic passage. "I have foreshortened the usual course of history . . ." In the same paragraph are the words "learn to stand at reverent attention when you face the achievements of man's mind." PragerU attracts many a mindset. Not every mindset enamored with a PragerU podcast is searching for "conservatism, with a bad intellectual quality". Can you put your finger on exactly what enamored you with the tenets of Objectivism? I didn't come looking for Objectivism until later, . . . after encountering it, and recognizing that it resonated with something deeper in my core, . . . my 'sense of life', if you will. The radio station that carried the message wasn't transmitting a 'Trojan horse.' The radio station was transmitting a show that turned a profit, that the advertising agents could promote to businesses an audience that was intelligent and would buy their products, provided that their products were aimed at a rational audience. If the only audience for Objectivism were Objectivists, the cart has truly been set before the horse. Such would be a denial of John Locke's identification of tabula-rasa from the outset.
    1 point
  4. "We The Dying", perhaps? To be taken as metaphor, but "better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". As the character Kira showed. I only caution to pick your fights carefully. I'm afraid this is one that no one can immediately win against the weight of 'public opinion' (emotions). Live to fight another day.
    1 point
  5. Well, even if we fully buy into the "good provider" theory, that is an evolutionary theory. In other words, it deals in men as they lived before specialization (as hunter gatherers, where you proved you are a good provider and protector through behavior, rather than any achievement or possession. And it was a very specific set of behaviors, because there was only one way to be a good provider and protector: be strong, fit, assertive, but also loving, open and honest. Specifically, EMOTIONALLY honest. This is what the "Red Pill" crowd fails to understand: being honest, being willing to put yourself out there (not being guarded, but rather being willing to take the risk of being hurt), being caring and genuinely curious about a woman's deepest emotions and experiences, etc. is just as attractive as being confident, strong and decisive...and to be attractive beyond a first few short encounters requires you to be both, and be so genuinely. Not play the role of the "nice friend who listens to her boyfriend problems", but be genuinely interested, and know how to make her comfortable to share those things with you. Also, you gotta know WHO to become genuinely interested in. If you're gonna insist on chasing after someone who rejected you, that's not "alpha male" behavior (I'm using it in quotes because it's a stupid term, I prefer to call it "selfish, confident man"), that's the very definition of a needy man who can't handle the rejection and must validate himself by changing this woman's opinion of him. An alpha male actually wants a woman to make her own decisions (by putting his honest self and his honest intentions, without any stupid tricks and games), and happily respects her decision, whichever way it goes. As for the reason why so called "good providers" get dumped: it's because they're only good providers materially. Not emotionally, not intellectually, and not sexually. They just bring home the bacon, and think that's good enough. So when the, again so called, alpha male comes around and knows how to make a woman feel sexually desired (which is a HUUUGE turn-on for women, probably the biggest), has interesting stories about people, travel, adventures, AND in general is a guy willing to take risks emotionally and connect on an emotional level, he's everything the bacon bringer-homer is not, in all the ways that actually count. Also (according to the theory), women aren't specifically attracted to a "good provider", but rather to a "potential good provider". Someone who proves that they have the ability to be good providers. Let's take two identical twins, who were separated at birth, and are now both age 20: The first one, Mr. A, is a billionaire CEO. He wears the same T-shirt and jeans everywhere he goes, he has a bland haircut, he spends 14 hours a day working, has a very serious demeanor, he hates talking about his personal life or his emotions to anyone except maybe his therapist or one or two of his closest friends. And he gets embarrassed any time someone openly talks about sex...especially if there are women present. He speaks well, but softly, and prefers to stick with a few of his favorite subjects, mostly work, politics, technology and his wood carving hobby. The second one, Mr. B, is a college kid who lives in a dorm, and has no material possessions or marketable skills. He has the same haircut as the dude from Vikings, he has cool tattoos, a leather jacket and clean but torn jeans, a V-neck Queens of the Stone Age T-shirt, dogtags and rings, and a big smile on his face. He's loud but friendly, gets along with people despite the fact that he never tries to cater to anyone's needs unsolicited. He'll help you out if you ask, but only if he likes you, and only if you have something to give back. He loves talking about himself, he's open about his emotional and sex life. Annoyingly open. He also doesn't take himself particularly seriously, he's actually a little dismissive about his own problems...he mentions them, but not to complain. Just as a matter of fact. Guess who is perceived as the "potentially good provider" by women. That's right, mr. B. Because 100,000 years ago, Mr A would've been a terrible provider and protector, while mr. B would've been excellent. Also, not much changed in 100,000 years. Mr. A has a lot of learning to do before he could be a truly good provider, even with billions in the bank. Because money is not enough, if you're not emotionally and physically available to your family. Meanwhile, Mr. B would do fine, if he decided to settle down and have a family. He doesn't want to do that, but that doesn't change the fact that he could if he wanted to...so he's attractive to women.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...