Styles2112

Okay, Thanks for the clarification. And, yes, I agree.

But, concepts are a perception thing. Not everyone (even rational people) view things the same way. My exact defintion, or defining qualities, of happiness may not be the same as yours. The BASIC quality is there, but we all differ in it's application. I think I disagree with this. I think abstract ideas are a good thing. If everything was so clearly defined, then everything is known. If everything is known, we'd have nothing to talk about. Rationality, in my experience, does not have only one path. No. It's an emotive state. How can you measure an emotive state? (since I believe I see your argument in "identity" = "measurable"). Rationality does not affect happiness. Again, my argument, a believer in god is not less happy than a person who doesn't believe. There is no REAL measurement, just a judgement, that because through your (generic "your") rational thought says there isn't, you must happier than that individual, because you are "grounded in reality." I just don't see it. Happiness is happiness whether through rational or irrational means.

You're exactly right. However, are you saying that; either new words need to be created with more concrete definitions? Or that would need to RE-apply more concrete definitions to the words? I will also add (yes, I'm a bit emotional, from other conversations. I apologize) that, in many ways, you're right. I don't know what happiness is, in CONCRETE words. I do, however, know when I'm happy (though, I don't regard myself as happIER than anyone else...just happy). Actually, (epiphany strikes) maybe my struggle is not within the definition of happiness, but within the definition of reality. Happiness, in itself, shouldn't be measured (in my mind anyways). It's not a measureable object. It just...is.

Indeed it is. Should I be killed for it?

And how do you measure that? You don't know what my life, my goals and my successes are, so you could you POSSIBLY relate them to reality. Again, you assume reality has some sort of measuring stick attached to it, that everyone stands up against. None of my accomplishments have gone against any of my values, so there is no contradiction there (a part of your definition) so, tell me how you're a happier person. Please provide proof of your claim.

Wow. I'm perfectly happy. You have no measuring stick because reality cannot be measured. You THINK you're happier because you assume that following this philosophy makes you happier than me. You have no HONEST measuring stick. And I came here because I noticed that many of my beliefs were in line with Objectivist thinking. I, however, and not going to change them (especially when I see them as QUITE rational) to be an Objectivist. I simply wished to learn more and see how much I agreed with. But, go ahead, pull out a "My rational thought is more rational than your rational thought" argument.

How are you defining competent? Eddie was very good at his job. I would define that as competent. I think this goes back to Dominque's statement about structural systems. I.e. in the Army (or any military service) an officer is only as good as his subordinates and so on down the line. For me to be an effective leader, I need to have competent soldiers beneath me. HOWEVER, the best NCO (non-commissioned officer, for non-military) may not be the best officer, and vice versa. Same with idea with Hank Rearden to his workers. Rearden would not have been sucessful without competent people to do the work. Dagny, it could be implied, would not have been successful without Eddie (a competent person) to support her.

Now, I REALLY think you're making up definitions. Are you blaming language for the concepts of man? or are you blaming the concepts themselves, and saying that language doesn't represent them? Either way, it's still wrong to say that you're happier than I, because you have no way to measure it.

Which was a much better way of saying EXACTLY what I was getting at. Thanks.

So, my question (to join in) is, Is someone, who has more "natural talent" than the next, who has maxed his potential, better than the person who has less "natural talent," yet still maxed his potential? I see this as being, somewhat, the question. I apologize if I'm wrong, although the question still stands.

Well, to start how are they not interchangable? If I feel joy, I feel happy. If I'm happy, I'm full of Joy. I disagree with your chosen definitions of Joy and Happy. Some of the definitions I'm getting are contradictory (haha...and I'm not happy with them...irony, it's a blast )

Wow...I have this brand new idea for an Objectivist after school special.

That was a great show. I wish they had left it on a few more seasons. Unfortunately, I don't have cable so I could not see the mini movies. And my wife is the same way. She claims to know nothing about pop-culture, but she constantly spews it out. It makes me laugh. Anyways, if you get a chance, grab any "Calvin and Hobbes" book. Given what I've seen your, observed, humor to be, I think you'd enjoy them. Calvin is a great view of individual battle between rationality and irrationality.

So, I should shut up then, huh?

This is probably an absolutely poor time to get into this conversation, but is the idea of big and small only relative to each other, and set by a social standard/average? In the cases presented A big word is 7 letters in length A small word is 3 letters in length Big is defined as being more than small? I.e. 7 > 3? What about in terms of smaller gaps of numbers? 5>4 Is 5 letters big and 4 letters small? Or is it because on average most common words are around 5 letters long so a range of 6- whatever # is large, and 4 or less is small, based on a standard?

Yes, are goal is to DEFEAT the other side (not necessarily kill). But, the statements you made were about individual soldiers. My job is not to kill. Now my job may be to help others kill/defeat better, but that is a separate issue from the one you brought forth. That's true, to a point. If there is something that we have been told, that we disagree with so vehemently, we can take it to another another branch and lay down why we think it's an unlawful order, or such. It is then up to that unit to decide. I mean, if you're just discussing the idea of your superiour telling you to take out the trash, and you don't want to do it...well, that's just rediculous. It's no different than being in a corporate business and doing the things that your bosses tell you when they tell you to. In fact, the army is now, more or less, structuring themselves after business ideas. Of course, they insult you. It's intimidation. But, no, they don't use racial remarks, because if they do, they'll get chaptered out. And you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not meant to break down self-esteem. Self-esteem is only broken if the INDIVIDUAL allows it. My self-esteem was never broken...tested maybe, but never broken. We learned to work as a team, but constant Individual failure. They idea that you cannot progress without your peers and, more importantly, your subordinates. The insults are merely tests, and intimidation. Training/hazing, like anything, is what you make of it. If you see yourself as just being broken down, and you've lost your self-esteem. That's probably what it is. You should probably quit, and do something else. If you view it as training and gaining of discipline, the same is true, except, you're in the right job. There is plenty of individuality in the military. After all, I AM and army of one!

I agree with most of that. I think I just don't like the phrasing. My prerogative I guess.

I will say that I agree with what everyone else stated already, and I will add that it gets easier in College (if you're planning to go) I know I hated High School and pretty much everyone in it, but I found College to much more diverse. There will still be the people you hate there too (there's no getting rid of them!), but there will, probably, be more people on your level, holding the same values you do.

Well, stupidly enough, that was what I meant. I apologize for my poor use of language to convey what I meant.

I'd rather not start a new thread, since this directly pertains to the definition of happiness. But, there are two given definitions. The first on page 28. 4th paragraph down. "Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values." Now, this I can agree with, as it can be applied to anything that makes you happy. Whether it's finding a rational solution, serving god, playing drums, playing a video game, cooking dinner, etc. the second, from Galt's speech (It's funny to me, idolizing a fictional character) "Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy - a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction." So, how does happiness work for your own destruction? We now have different types of happiness? The contradictory and non-contradictory kind? Happiness with Guilt and penalty? Seems to me there is no happiness with guilt and penalty, so why is it addressed? In my opinion, and rational thought process, she would have just been better off to leave it at the first definition. Leaves less questions to be asked.

Yeah, of the things to remember in that book, that would be one of the weirder ones.

^ Now, that was an interesting thought. I always have such great things to go home and think about lately.

Isn't that, often, the definition of miscommunication? When one person thinks one thing, and the other thinks another? Isn't that, in many ways, what's funny about it? Like the "two men walk into a bar" joke. Is the idea that you're INTENTIONALLY miscommunicating the idea of what a bar is? Hence the play on words?

I could be COMPLETELY wrong in this, but I believe the basic question to be a matter of someone saying, Honest "mistake" Person 1- I believe in god because I was raised to do so. Person 2 - There is no god because these reasons (proceeds to use reason/logic to explain to person 1) Person 1- You may be right, I need to think more about this Evasion/evil/immorality Person 1- I believe in god because I was raised to do so. Person 2 - There is no god because these reasons (proceeds to use reason/logic to explain to person 1) Person 1- No! You're wrong, YOu're going to burn in Hell! At least, that's my interpretation of the question.

I completely agree. I really don't like those Dead baby jokes. I, personally, find them disgusting/revolting. However, I tend to make weird faces when I drum (because I'm focusing so much on what I'm doing), and if someone were to make fun of me for that, I'd probably laugh with them (especially if it were another drummer who made equally funny faces). The second example is not ground in any "Values" or in any "rational" or "Irrantional" thought. It's just something that happens, and even when I've seen video of myself drumming, I've had to laugh at the silly things I do. Some people don't have the ability to do this. But, then, some people think I'm weird because I don't think dead baby jokes are funny. It's about the audience.