Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jimbean

Regulars
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jimbean

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified

Recent Profile Visitors

586 profile views
  1. In which case the method of cognition is false. This goes back to my premise 7; faith is an emotion, emotions are automatic and are not fit for the formation of principles because reality is abstract by definition.
  2. I could say that a drug addict would be as happy when he has his drugs as a mystic when his false premises are reinforced. That's not an argument, but it is a metaphor to guide in the understanding of epistemology. Rand would have put it more eloquently than that.
  3. I need more practice. If anyone can critique my reasoning I would appreciate it. Me: It is never in the interest of any conscious being to hold untrue beliefs. It brings one into conflict with reality and in conflict with one's own life. Him: That premise isn't obviously true. It depends how you specify 'in the interest of'. For instance studies show that religiousity, a set of false beliefs, correlates with greater wellbeing (happiness contentment etc). Me: correlation does not equal causation. Perhaps in those religious beliefs there are habits that are healthy and are moral to practice. So those religious people would be right for the wrong reasons, and they would be even happier if the continued to practice healthy habits, as well as discarding their mystical beliefs. Him: "and they would be even happier if the continued to practice healthy habits, as well as discarding their mystical beliefs." Those mystical beliefs are comforting to many (life after death), so again this isn't obviously true. Your claim "It is never in the interest of any conscious being to hold untrue beliefs." sounds like unfalsifiable dogma. Me: Premise 1: A living thing requires values to sustain its own life. Premise 2: Existence exists and there is only one reality. Premise 3: A value is something that a living organism seeks to gain and keep. Premise 4: All values exist in reality. Premise 5: Conscious beings can hold untrue beliefs. Premise 6: Conscious beings can attempt to attain perceived values that do not exist in realty. Premise 7: Unlike reason, emotions are automatic reactions and are not abstract enough to perceive the abstractions that are inherent in reality. Premise 8: A living thing must expend resources (value) to gain a value. Premise 9: Conscious beings can expend values to seek to gain a non-value. Conclusion: The automatic emotional response of happiness can be subject to a non-value; and therefore, one’s gainful condition metaphysically contradict reality. Him: P7 isn't clear to me, the 2nd clause. The conclusion isn't clear to me either. Can't follow that wording.
  4. I am starting a podcast in a week and a half from now and debating is one of my strengths. I studied Objectivism a long time ago when I was introduced to it by something called Neo-Tech back in 2003 (one of those offshoots of Objectivism). My goal is to get a proper grounding to reality so that I can effectively defend capitalism, individualism, and ethics. What I really would like to do is debate high profile individuals on social media. So it is not just Objectivism I need to re-learn, but also public speaking and presentation. In my opinion, I have the intelligence and work ethic, but I need proper training.
  5. In terms of learning objectivism, I thought the fundamental goal for personal understanding objectivism might be to make the widest integrations like Ayn Rand herself were able to do. To integrate from the axiom of existence exists to capitalism in such a way that is both local, abstract, clearly understood by other people, and entertaining enough for people to want to comprehend, for example. What are your thoughts? Do you agree?
  6. I think it also give some clues about what free will is.
  7. Free will is a corollary of consciousness. Julian Jaynes proposes a very interesting theory of consciousness that runs parallel with Objectivism.
  8. Have you ever read "On The Origin of Consciousness, The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes?
  9. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    Or if I were a multi-billionaire donating money to that kind of research.
  10. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    "...acts to gain..." I missed that "acts to" part, so by definition it is possible to integrate with reality while acting to gain the ability to reverse the aging process if one is qualified to do that kind of work in bio-medical engineering, or whatever related field of study. Thanks for the observation. In a debate with someone like stefan molyneux, that would make the difference haha)
  11. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    I have been submersed into irrational society that my psycho-epistemology is cluttered with subjectivity; I'm still at the metaphysics and epistemology stage of re-learning Objectivism. Life presupposes the act of valuing. Your own life is the basis of all other values you have. Your efforts are at least an attempt to sustain your life, so for example, if you can act in such a way that would reverse the aging process (i.e. extending your telomeres, or boosting HGH long term), then you would do that since it would sustain your life, similarly in the way you sustain your life by eating.
  12. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    I thought about this a little more. I should specify that it is not a disintegration from reality if someone works to gain the attributes of youth, but to work to gain youth as a whole is a disintegration.
  13. Jimbean

    Youth as a value

    Excuse me if this is a stupid question. If there is any materiel that comes to mind to anyone reading this, please refer it to me as I am in the process of re-learning objectivism. Values are defined as what an organism gains and keeps for survival. Aging is a process that occurs regardless if the person wants it to happen or not; aging can be slowed down, but it cannot be stopped with current medical technology. Is it appropriate to value youth, or anti-aging? To value something that cannot be gained or kept? People buy into "anti-aging" products, but this only gives the characterization of youth. One can make changes to one's habits, or engage in certain exercises to gain youthful characteristics, but that does not actually stop, or reverse the aging process.
  14. And for the sake of informing, here is a good little article on some real conspiracies: http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-ins...y-happened.html
  15. This might have be be moved, I am putting this here because I am not sure where I should post it. I am a lurker to this forum, I don't post much, but I have a question and then a set of questions: Why is it that Objectivists do not argue with someone who subscribes to conspiracy theory. One explanation that I came across is that by arguing with someone who subscribes to conspiracy theory, some credibility is given to them, therefore Objectivists do not argue with them. What other reasons are there, if any, that an Objectivist does not argue against conspiracy if they do not believe it? My second question is more controversial, I do not wish to stir anything up here, so I apologize if I do, but here it is: Conspiracy theory by itself without evidence is an invalid method of thinking because then the theory is taken on faith. If there is any evidence of a conspiracy, it is approached inductively and gets shown to be false. But what about the conspiracies that are shown to be true? Was it natural to be wrong in that case? Or by being wrong means one had slipped into an inductive fallacy?
×
×
  • Create New...