Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Repairman

Regulars
  • Content Count

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Repairman reacted to Boris Rarden in Atlas Shrugged: An English newbie's review.   
    Adrian, I'm re-reading Atlas Shrugged for the third time, 10 years since my previous reading. I found that she repeats the same point a lot upon my first reading, and perhaps the second reading, but I don't find it anymore. The repeating is necessary, to make it more convincing and dramatic. To stress the importance of the point. You know, the principle that altruism is evil can be summarized in one sentence, but it's the role of fiction to put the principle in as many concrete terms as possible, making the reader to discover it for himself. It's the principle of "show, don't tell."  By the way, do you find "War and Peace" as repeating the same point many times? 
    Rereading Atlas Shrugged for the third time, I'm dumbfounded by this book. It's remarkable on so many levels. For one, it is cross genre, it defines categorization. Is it a science fiction, a romance novel, a detective story, a self-help book, a philosophical treatise, a political satire, a prophecy, an action adventure, a poetic hymn (like the Greek myths)? 
    Second, many books are spoiled if you know the ending, or if you know the hidden secret. But, this book reveals a secondary meaning and depth only if you know what's coming at the end. You say that the dialog is not as developed: the dialog is ingenious because every sentence is first understood as metaphorical, while on a repeated reading (once you know the secret), it's read as literal! She hid things in plain sight.  
  2. Like
    Repairman reacted to whYNOT in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    Might seem off topic, at first. I was reminded last night catching a glimpse of the film I'd seen before, The Pursuit of HappYness. I don't know how it slipped through the movie moguls' attention, but here's a rare movie that encapsulates America. I.e. A black man who is not a victim. In this fortuitous passage I watched, the character played by Will Smith, despondently muses to himself after a particularly trying day coping with his little boy  (heroic, too) and two jobs: WHY did Thomas Jefferson come up with "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? Did he know that it was only to be "a pursuit", never achieved? (Roughly). He by dint of energy, values and application eventually realizes his ambitions (based on true life story of a man who built up his own insurance company). I first considered, now here's a man who could never tolerate a Jefferson statue be torn down. And, "freedom"? that's what you make for yourself. Wherever there is no "systemic" restriction put upon you, in a free nation. Irrespective of past injustices. Very smart topic, this, and extremely incisive responses made; beginning from an innocuous product it touches all bases of present 'Social Metaphysics' experienced in every country. 
  3. Thanks
    Repairman got a reaction from MisterSwig in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    "The famous image of Aunt Jemima was based on the real image of Nancy Green, who was known as a magnificent cook, an attractive woman of outgoing nature and friendly personality, an original painting of which sold for $9,030 at MastroNet. The painting was rendered by A. B. Frost, who is now well known as one of the great illustrators of the Golden Age of American Illustration.[13]"
    This quote is from the Wikipedia article covering the life of Nancy Green, the original celebrity personality representing the soon to be discontinued brand, known as, Aunt Jemima. 
    I hope there is common ground among the other contributors to this thread regarding the nature of the decision of the Quaker Oats company. Their decision is a meaningless gesture pandering to the Social Justice Warriors, who will, no doubt, glow with pride for their valiant campaign to retire poor Aunt Jemima. Quaker Oats can breathe easier now. But, I can't truly cooperate with any sort of boycott of Quaker Oats products, as I can't remember the last time I've purchased any. Pancakes and syrup are a little too rich for my breakfast diet.
    This has all been somewhat educational; I was unfamiliar with the story of Nancy Green, until yesterday. I have been aware of the very controversial "mammy stereotype," or archetype, which every you prefer. According to the available resources, Nancy Green made a success from her personality, as well as her apparent abundance of other virtues. Whether or not one might approve of her persona, it served her well, as it served the needs of industry marketing of a fine product. She was born a slave, but she chose to be the person she became, with the help of free enterprise. She was not forced to cook pancakes; she was a free woman. I don't know how much money she made, but she didn't die in poverty, as far too many other African-Americans of her generation did. I think it would be reasonable to promote awareness of her life story, as well as other early-twentieth century African-American celebrities and entrepreneurs. Regardless of the means of her success, Nancy Green deserves some credit for not only achieving the American dream, but for her efforts in promoting the dream to others.
    I stand by my position that it seems pathetic, silly, and wasteful to try to persuade others to believe in the heinous nature of a harmless logo. The heinous nature of racism will never be properly understood, when SJWs waste their 15 minutes of fame trying to harpoon red herrings such, "plausible" racism found in marketing logos. How will the conversation be taken seriously as this goes on? The mammy-image of Aunt Jemima had been revised for years, but some people will take offense at anything. You can remove the image of every human, anthropomorphic animal, vegetable and/or extraterrestrial alien from children's cereal boxes, and it won't make a damn bit of difference in progress toward changing the justice system. If you'll indulge me a slippery-slope argument, we may all be satisfied, if not thrilled, when the food products available arrive in plain beige containers, marked, Brands X, Y, and Z, after all mascots have been deemed unlawful. And the only place you'll find a representational image of slave-holder George Washington will be the statue on display in Trafalgar Square.
    And that's about all I have to say about that. Eioul, go ahead and pick all of the nits from my statement you want until your heart's content.
  4. Thanks
    Repairman got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    "The famous image of Aunt Jemima was based on the real image of Nancy Green, who was known as a magnificent cook, an attractive woman of outgoing nature and friendly personality, an original painting of which sold for $9,030 at MastroNet. The painting was rendered by A. B. Frost, who is now well known as one of the great illustrators of the Golden Age of American Illustration.[13]"
    This quote is from the Wikipedia article covering the life of Nancy Green, the original celebrity personality representing the soon to be discontinued brand, known as, Aunt Jemima. 
    I hope there is common ground among the other contributors to this thread regarding the nature of the decision of the Quaker Oats company. Their decision is a meaningless gesture pandering to the Social Justice Warriors, who will, no doubt, glow with pride for their valiant campaign to retire poor Aunt Jemima. Quaker Oats can breathe easier now. But, I can't truly cooperate with any sort of boycott of Quaker Oats products, as I can't remember the last time I've purchased any. Pancakes and syrup are a little too rich for my breakfast diet.
    This has all been somewhat educational; I was unfamiliar with the story of Nancy Green, until yesterday. I have been aware of the very controversial "mammy stereotype," or archetype, which every you prefer. According to the available resources, Nancy Green made a success from her personality, as well as her apparent abundance of other virtues. Whether or not one might approve of her persona, it served her well, as it served the needs of industry marketing of a fine product. She was born a slave, but she chose to be the person she became, with the help of free enterprise. She was not forced to cook pancakes; she was a free woman. I don't know how much money she made, but she didn't die in poverty, as far too many other African-Americans of her generation did. I think it would be reasonable to promote awareness of her life story, as well as other early-twentieth century African-American celebrities and entrepreneurs. Regardless of the means of her success, Nancy Green deserves some credit for not only achieving the American dream, but for her efforts in promoting the dream to others.
    I stand by my position that it seems pathetic, silly, and wasteful to try to persuade others to believe in the heinous nature of a harmless logo. The heinous nature of racism will never be properly understood, when SJWs waste their 15 minutes of fame trying to harpoon red herrings such, "plausible" racism found in marketing logos. How will the conversation be taken seriously as this goes on? The mammy-image of Aunt Jemima had been revised for years, but some people will take offense at anything. You can remove the image of every human, anthropomorphic animal, vegetable and/or extraterrestrial alien from children's cereal boxes, and it won't make a damn bit of difference in progress toward changing the justice system. If you'll indulge me a slippery-slope argument, we may all be satisfied, if not thrilled, when the food products available arrive in plain beige containers, marked, Brands X, Y, and Z, after all mascots have been deemed unlawful. And the only place you'll find a representational image of slave-holder George Washington will be the statue on display in Trafalgar Square.
    And that's about all I have to say about that. Eioul, go ahead and pick all of the nits from my statement you want until your heart's content.
  5. Like
    Repairman reacted to whYNOT in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    This is all part of the cleaning up of past history as if it never existed. A statue offends one or only a minority of individuals in one group, tear it down. An innocent image on a box by another, the same. This has a little to do with people not wanting to offend some others too delicate to handle reality, but mostly to do with mind control for political power. You can hardly blame a company's flip-flop marketing strategy, their profits are at the mercy of activists' mass action. On the broad front, all capitalist enterprise can end up 'owned' by the people. Marxism wins without a shot fired. We, the people, deserve what we get when we perceive symbols as reality and substitute feelings for free minds. How far men sink into apologism for their very existence is yet to be seen.
  6. Like
    Repairman got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    The Onion article also points out the absurdity of your case.
  7. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    Redd Foxx, may have been a real person, but what about Fred G. Sanford? (Interesting to note, Redd Foxx's christian name was John Elroy Sanford.)
    The only thing offensive about the quarter box of pancake mix in my cupboard is the expiration date: Oct 23 09
    Somehow, even boycotting the pancake mix would seem an exercise in futility on that note. Goodreads has a ready made replacement for it as of 1998:
    Eioul, for an individual that overturned my take on the mantra I learned as a child, your position on this issue comes across as tilting at a windmill. Turns out the words to that song aren't as I remember them though. "Red and yellow, black and white" is what I recall.
  8. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    Am I missing the 'thrust' of the conversation here?
    Or is the "Jolly Green Giant" not a real person either? (in the context of either metaphor: Aunt Jemima Syrup, or the metaphor; Aunt Jemima Pancake Mix?
  9. Like
    Repairman got a reaction from dream_weaver in In Today's Crazy - Vote with your wallet   
    I've got to admit, it's a bit confusing. It wasn't that long ago that critics of modern advertising hurled complaints about the overexposure of wafer-thin Caucasian women, usually blondes, as the ideal feminine image for the purpose of marketing consumer goods and services. They insisted that more African-American women with more "realistic" proportions and deeper skin-tones need to be represented in advertising. What ever happened to that? 
    I'm 6' 6", and I've been called "Jolly Green Giant" on more than one occasion. Maybe I'll initiate a movement to remove that guy from the shelves. While I'm not unsympathetic to folks who want to make changes, removing the image of an underappreciated success, such as Aunt Jemima, is a mistake and lowers the dignity of the more serious discussion. Success stories are hard to come by; wouldn't it be better to learn more from her biography, instead of air-brushing her out of history and continue the rhetoric that there is no such thing as "the American Dream"?
  10. Like
    Repairman got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Do objectivists have skin in the game of life?   
    Anyone expecting of the governments of the world, or the gatekeepers of popular culture to swing toward condemnation of the current cultural trend will be disappointed. Expecting any organization to engage in a counter-movement to the current culture will result in disappointment. Anyone spending time or money on any organization that claims to wage such a counter-movement will likely find they have wasted their time and/or money. My only recommendation is to support the very few innovators producing cultural products that reinforce Objectivists points of view. There are producers of movies, music, literature, graphic novels, Youtube videos, alternative school systems, and many forms of popular culture that persuade individual opinions. There are public speakers who may not have any idea what Objectivism is, and yet they convey some of the ideas valued in Objectivism. The situation is not hopeless, but it will require a proverbial sea-change of popular culture to counter act the current cultural norms. I don't know how far things will get, but my approach has always been to take control of those matters in one's own life, and worry less about providing proper direction for a disoriented mob. Am I a bystander in the decline of Western Civilization? I will leave that for others to decide, if they wish. But if I really want to make a contribution to progress toward a more rational society, I would become one of those innovators of new and rational ideas, and find a way to market/distribute those ideas.
  11. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in Do objectivists have skin in the game of life?   
    New Ideal presents writings that address some of what you identify.
    Today's politics and politicians are symptomatic of the deeper underlying causes at play. Early in Galt's speech, this is addressed in the following manner:
    "You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, . . .
    So while so many are aghast at what they see, far fewer understand that what they see is the product and image of the virtues (in the broadest sense) of the culture at large that has brought it into being.
    On a positive note, Ayn Rand observed and published many of her discoveries. You are investigating them. You have the opportunity to share them with others you think may be seeking such answers also.
     
  12. Like
    Repairman reacted to StrictlyLogical in Do objectivists have skin in the game of life?   
    I do not equate philosophy for living, and living one’s life with anything like political activism.
     
    Life requires knowledge and a philosophy, so having “skin in the game” is to take it seriously and to live by it.  You only have one life and it’s yours to live.
    Some “activists” of a quite different political flavor from myself feel quite strongly that “real life” is lived in the political sphere... the body politic, society as a collective endeavour... and hence participating in life is measured by them by how loudly one shouts and how many likes one receives.  These activists of course define and identify themselves not as individuals but literally as parts or units of groups. 
    On the contrary, I tend to see the choice to live life and the philosophy by which one lives it, as much more profoundly and intimately personal and individual than anything those “activists” could even imagine.
    I dare say, a private individual life well lived in accordance with proper knowledge i.e. correct philosophy, has more real skin in the game than any activist could hope to have.  Of course their whole goal is to change others and change the world, but they are oblivious  to the fact that they are so focused on everyone else’s lives that they are bystanders of their own lives.
     
    I think most Objectivists have skin in their game, in the reality of their own lives, and I also happen to think most Objectivists are not Activists, nor do they believe in Activism.
  13. Thanks
    Repairman got a reaction from Giemel Regis in Hello   
    Welcome to the forum, Giemel,
    Your experience seems similar to my own. Reading through the many posts, you will find that there are as many differing views contesting to be the most rational point of view. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to identify as Objectivist, as I would see it more as an aspiration, rather than an identity. Most people I've discussed ideas with have never heard of Ayn Rand, let alone any philosophical school of thought. Most people are religious and anti-intellectual. There's little you can do about it. In conversation, I usually identify as "rational egoist," if that's any help to you. If they wish to know more, they need to listen, or it's their loss. In any case, it's a comfort to know our ranks are growing.
  14. Thanks
    Repairman got a reaction from Lawrence Edward Richard in Hello   
    Welcome to the forum, Giemel,
    Your experience seems similar to my own. Reading through the many posts, you will find that there are as many differing views contesting to be the most rational point of view. I wouldn't worry too much about trying to identify as Objectivist, as I would see it more as an aspiration, rather than an identity. Most people I've discussed ideas with have never heard of Ayn Rand, let alone any philosophical school of thought. Most people are religious and anti-intellectual. There's little you can do about it. In conversation, I usually identify as "rational egoist," if that's any help to you. If they wish to know more, they need to listen, or it's their loss. In any case, it's a comfort to know our ranks are growing.
  15. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in Just War Theory   
    (Thread title changed from "Democratic Just War Theory")
    To add a bit more depth to what @Repairman  brought up on another thread:
    Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) codified Augustine's reflections into the distinct criteria that remain the basis of Just War Theory as it is used today. The need by a civil society to provide sound justification for going to war is one of the many practical influences that Philosophy has on our lives. — Just War Theory - Oregon State University
  16. Like
    Repairman reacted to Easy Truth in How would an Objectivist Based Government have Dealt with Covid-19   
    The severity, ease and method of transmission is different. So there is a higher threat assessment. It does not give authorities any expanded rights. Activities can change because of threat level, that's all.
  17. Like
    Repairman reacted to StrictlyLogical in How would an Objectivist Based Government have Dealt with Covid-19   
    Given the nature of the threat I think we have to start with a "new" set of what is normal when thinking of the relationship of activities we take for granted with rights.
    Why?  Because even though the nature of rights does NOT change, given the situation, our normal concrete assumptions about how those rights are exercised and protected has to change, and our normal assumptions about what activities infringes rights or constitutes the initiation of harm changes. So, ASSUMPTIONS about freedom of movement, about what does or does not constitute harm, has to change.  ASSUMPTIONS about the rate of crime and frequency of violation of rights and hence what kind of police and how many officers also necessarily changes.
     
    First of all we have to side, as the norm, with those who are uninfected, and harming no one.  People who have no symptoms and who have diligently not come into contact with people who exhibit symptoms, have no reasons to believe they are dangerous, and hence should not be restricted in any way.
    Conversely, however, given the nature of the threat, anyone who exhibits symptoms of the virus, or who knows they have been in contact with people who have exhibited symptoms, or knows they have been in contact with a group of people, one of whom has the virus, that person HAS reason to believe they pose a danger.
    Authorities also have reasonable grounds to believe they pose a danger. 
    The process of protecting the innocent, is necessarily preventive, and uses the same standards regarding evidence of a threat to bodily harm/life as in any other case, although the standard for the evidence depends also on the science of the particular kind of threat.  We do not arrest a man for making a small campfire in is rural back yard, we arrest a man who repeatedly makes a huge 30 ft spark throwing bonfire in his suburban backyard... here the science of FIRE is used to assess the thresholds.
     
    The number of perpetrators, and offenders, those who are criminally negligent, and exposing innocent people to the deadly virus, will far exceed the number of common thugs we are used to seeing lurking in our streets.  Enforcement and protection of the innocent during such a plague require greater number of police officers and diligent citizens reporting criminally negligent behavior. 
     
    This is nothing like life as normal, because rights are being violated by negligence, at a rate far exceeding anything  we have personally ever seen.
  18. Like
    Repairman got a reaction from JASKN in Some beginner questions about morality and human nature   
    Human, you seem to see things as they are, without considering an optimistic vision of the way things could be. While I commend you for your grasp of the predicament facing Western Civilization, your emphasis on the multitudes of collectivist irrationality, my best counter-argument is that until the worst outcome is manifest, the best within each of us must continue the struggle to achieve the best outcome, by whatever definition you hold as the standard of the "best overcome."
    And so it is true. We make the best use of our freedom to exchange information, to innovate or engineer, and to create our own enterprises.  I recommend to you to try to disregard the masses and their collectivist agenda. When conditions allow, argue the best case for reason to those who know only how to follow. Perhaps they may find new leaders one day. You may never "convert" some people, but if one individual begins to doubt his/her beliefs, you might make them aware of the fact that there are alternatives to mainstream myopia.
    Objectivism celebrates the great achievements of capitalism, and other movements advocating personal prosperity, constructive purpose, and entrepreneurial success are gaining popularity. Using our freedom of communication, you could create a video exposing the absurdity of the socialist agenda.
    This is a very important question: A regular cycle of history, or a Second Dark Age??? So many modern nation-states have experienced the pains of reforming runaway socialist economic systems. If we learn anything from it, I'm fairly confident that the USA will not have to endure the worst privations that have resulted in the failure of other economic systems. If they're unaware of the causes, they will only continue to treat the symptoms. It sure would be a shame, and it'll be wild ride to the bottom. Either way, the men of the mind may go on strike for a period, but eventually a few of them will emerge, and the arch of history marches on.
  19. Like
    Repairman reacted to whYNOT in Do Objectivists truly believe Objectivism will ever be more than a philosophy of the few?   
    The upward trajectory, in the most general terms, is what you say. Which doesn't predict anything about mankind's immediate prospects. 
    It's like the arguments for how much we've progressed due to technology. Such hi-tech can be applied to our downfall as much as to our upliftment. 
    Which leads straight back to the original question. How much influence can this philosophy wield over those who refuse a rational, individualist philosophy? 
  20. Like
    Repairman reacted to 2046 in Do Objectivists truly believe Objectivism will ever be more than a philosophy of the few?   
    Well let's hope they don't "behave like Objectivists" because most people running calling themselves that are dumb as hell. But it's not really clear what the question is. There's like 5 or 6 different questions in there. 
    One thing is, it doesn't really follow from "the world is nothing like X, and never has been" to "mankind can never achieve X." That's just bad reasoning. It's not really clear what we're supposed to be inferring here. It's also not really valid to use a premise about how many people are rational or irrational from the armchair. Unless you're just speaking anecdotally, you're going to need some social science research.
    Industrial societies haven't been around that long. Individualism is still pretty widespread. More people are being lifted out of poverty and ignorance than ever. There was once a time when all "great" countries were monarchies. There was once a time when slavery was widespread in every country. The Soviet Union used to control half of Europe. What got these things to change was, partially, people changing their ideas and seeing what worked and didn't work. I mean if we're going to say everyone is just in principle irrational and can do no other, then no political philosophy is going to be acceptable.
    Another approach would be to figure out why people believe what they believe, and do the things they do, and try to then account for that, and that's part of what we do in political philosophy and poli sci, economics, etc.: Finding workable solutions to political problems that takes into account what human beings are actually like and what motivates them.
    But overall, I mean, modern democratic liberalism is pretty good as a political system, if you ask "compared to what" in human history. Markets and peaceful cooperation brought about by liberalism didn't happen by an absolute monistic conception of politics that the Western world overnight suddenly read a single book and then decided to adopt. Liberal institutional arrangements are themselves spontaneous order mechanism that facilitate discovery processes to the things that make human flourishing possible. And things change on the margin, little by little, for the most part. You're not going to beat people over the head with Atlas Shrugged, silly.
     
     
     
  21. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))   
    Delving a bit deeper into Objectivity in this 121st post, a definition which was requested and provided as the 41st post in this thread, a complimentary passage can be found in Who Is The Final Authority In Ethics.
    It is obvious that the root of such questions ["Is it intellectual plagiarism to accept and even to use philosophical principles and values discovered by someone else?"] is a certain kind of conceptual vacuum: the absence of the concept of objectivity in the questioner's mind.
    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.
    This provides some rationale why volitional adherence to reality is prudent. It does not cover the fact that spectacular views of the Atlantic Ocean or of the Rocky Mountains exist. It does point out that in any given context, only one answer is true, thus trying to decide in a vacuum, i.e., trying to make a contextless decision, would be a departure from objectivity.
    If you do lift the corner of the aforementioned rug, could you check to see if this was inadvertently swept under it as well?
    "Do you cry that you find no answers? By what means did you hope to find them? You reject your tool of perception—your mind—then complain that the universe is a mystery. You discard your key, then wail that all doors are locked against you. You start out in pursuit of the irrational, then damn existence for making no sense.
    — This is John Galt Speaking
  22. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))   
    Most returns on the quote as cited point to Friedrich Nietzsche —"One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil."
    Sensei used to say something along the lines "One learns more as a teacher than as a student." That  doesn't get nearly as many Google nibbles.
  23. Like
    Repairman reacted to MisterSwig in Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))   
    I don't know what you believe. That's why I asked you. Anyway, take care. I'm gonna climb into the peanut gallery for the rest of the show. 
  24. Like
    Repairman reacted to dream_weaver in Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))   
    When the pupil is ready, the teacher appears.
  25. Like
    Repairman got a reaction from dream_weaver in Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))   
    Jose,  judging by your responses to this exchange, it appears that you're somehow determined to demonstrate that objectivity can't exist. Am I wrong?
    I can't help noticing that you spell, "Subjective," as if it were related somehow to a specific religion or philosophical school of thought. And yet, in the following sentence, the word, "objective," is not capitalized, suggesting that we're not discussing Objectivism as all. But to address your reply to my comment: No, there is no objectivity necessary when making a subjective decision. Is going a restaurant an objective choice? Yes, if you wish it to be. However, wishing is a subjective practice. You may choose to overwhelm yourself with internal conflict over where to conduct your dining.  But, anyone who complicates their life with such indecision is loosing the opportunity to live freely. You are a slave to indecision. You are not pursuing Objectivist standards. If you wish to make an objective decision, make clear your criterion with regard to your intended end result before deciding o your conclusion.
    I clearly did not say that "all choices are subjective." You took that portion of words out of context from the entire statement. Was that intentional? Are we discussing Objectivism, or are you merely trolling?
       
×
×
  • Create New...