Felix

Do you actually want to tell me that you found the meaning of life?

The funny thing is, that all this means that philosophy cannot answer the questions: "Why live?" and "What is the meaning of life?"

I agree. But if that initial choice is arbitrary, doesn't that make all the rest that is tied to it arbitrary, too? You can always argue with "That's just because of your arbitrary choice to value life in the first place." How do you answer that?

Don't underestimate me. I just ordered it new for 21.30€, which is $25.60. With free shipping. So you agree that it is arbitrary. What ruins it all for me is that the foundation of ethics is built upon such an arbitrary choice where I would expect something ... well ... more solid. And if the very foundation is arbitrary, doesn't it transfer to the entirety of Objectivist Ethics, as they are logically deducted from that first choice? Just like when you wiggle one end of a stick, the rest wiggles, too? That's what still gets me. All this effort to build something based on reason and reality. And then, in the end, it all boils down to an arbitrary choice. What do you answer a subjectivist who says that the very foundation of Objectivist Ethics is subjective and arbitrary?

No, sorry, it doesn't. Hm. Maybe this way to put it sheds light on my problem: Does the choice to live have any foundation whatsoever? Yes or No? (I actually want to hear a yes or a no.) And if no (which is what I think): (1) Why is it a choice? Or more precisely: What kind of a choice is it? It's not a moral choice, because it presupposes any moral behavior. It's also not an epistemological choice between right or wrong, because this has nothing to do with it. (2) How come one can make it? How do you make a pre-moral choice? How do you choose if there is no foundation? How do you evaluate your alternatives? (I think you can't.) A choice means that you have alternatives and that you can choose. But without a standard that choice is completely arbitrary. Do I just throw a coin? I mean at that premoral point, before you've chosen life as a value, there is nothing but a big void and zero guidance as to how to make the decision. Maybe stating my problem this way helped clarify my point. David, keep pushing. You're trying to tell me something, but I haven't understood what it is you want to tell me, yet. I think you already know the answer. The problem is to make it enter my stubborn mind.

So basically the question "Why do you live?" is nonsensical? How do you make the choice to live then? You just do it? I'm still puzzled. I agree. But what does it say about the choice to live? It is a pre-moral choice then. And why, then, is suicide considered evil? After all that would be a choice beyond the realm of ethics, because you don't realize life as a value in the first place.

As far as I understand the Objectivist Ethics, the choice to live is the fundamental choice. And once you accepted life as the ultimate standard, you have a measuring stick which helps you make choices in your life. But all this seems to lack a foundation, because on which grounds do you make the choice to live in the first place? I value life because I just happen to value it, seems to be the answer. I don't feel right about that, because it makes the very basis of ethics, valuing life at all, subjective.

Brokeback to the Future.

Hm. I don't know if this is of any help, but I couldn't resist saying at least something here. I am usually very pragmatic about that. I really don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings here. My main theory here is that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. One thing that always gets me out of a negative mental state is to take a look at my goals. At what I want in life. As far as I see it you want four things: keep your house fix the roof support your family make more money You don't want to sell your house anyway, so don't think about this. Think about how you keep it. Then I look at what it takes to get it: what does it cost per month to keep your house? what does it cost per month to support your family? how much money do you want to make per month? Get clear about this. Get three actual numbers. You now have specific goals to work towards. The roof costs 70.000$, you said. The next thing I usually do is to take a look at whatever opportunities I have: You said that you have many skills, but none of them fully developed. Which skills are they and what can you do with them to make money. Could you get a job in one of these areas that paid you more than what you do now? What other skills do you have to develop? You said that you are not a good marketer. Can you hire someone to do marketing for you on a commission basis? Can you learn more about marketing yourself? Can you use your current skills for other clients than radio stations? Maybe then you don't have to drive so much. Given that your current business doesn't pay very much right now and one of your main problems seems to be money, I'd say that you focus on that. Maybe you should do your business part-time (just so you don't lose your sanity) and start to look for a job you can stand that makes you more money and to keep looking for other jobs that pay more and "suck" less aswell as for ways to make more money with your business. Given that you said that you have bad marketing skills, I would suggest to work on that. Can't you get a job where you do pretty much the same things you with your business, but don't have to drive so much? Perhaps you could work more, get paid more per hour, and actually have more time. It seems to me that you are exhausted by your really long working hours which -as far as I see it- is one of the reasons for your bad feelings. You really have good work ethics and the sad thing (which causes your hopelessness, I suppose) is the fact that it doesn't pay as well as it should. There must be a way for you to make more money and have more time if you rearrange what you do for a living. And I recommend that you do that. Doing something you don't really like for some hours a day won't kill you, especially if this gives you more time and more money and thereby helps you to keep your house. The main goal of this entire exercise is to get you out of the mental rut you seem to be in. It doesn't help you. Take a look at what you want and fight for it. You said life is not meant to be suffering. Then make it so. As far as I see it this will be a hell of a lot of work. But there's no way around this. The earlier you get going, the better. As once you are back on your feet financially, you can over time tackle other problems. If I misinterpreted your situation or hurt your feelings, I honestly apologize, this was not my intention. I really want to help. My gung ho method is usually seen as quite a hit in the face by everyone I do this with, but it usually works to give people a sense of direction again. So I hope it helped a little. Don't let the bastards grind you down.

As far as I have read the reason is that training puts a strain on your entire body (organs) and not just the muscles. They need more time off than the muscles themselves. I have no validation for this. So just take it for what it is for now: an opinion. Maybe someone else can back up my claim.

"Remember Sammy Jenkins." That's the sentence Leonard always tells himself after he wakes up. Sammy is the character in his cover-up story.

Have you recognized that at some point in the movie when he remembers Sammy Jenkins you see Sammy and then a person walks through the screen and then for a very short time you see Leonard instead of Sammy sitting there. The cut comes shortly after that. It's a nice little treat for people who have seen this movie way too often.

For more info, some excerpts, and a complete Table of contents... Here's the link: www.healthyselfishness.com

Food is a drug. If you eat too much sugar, your insulin level rises, lowering your bloodsugar distinctively. This will make you unconcentrated. If you eat lots of protein, your testosterone level rises. This makes you more aggressive. A drug is more like functional food. You take certain ingredients and eat them in massive doses to maximise their effect. And a healthy diet is beneficial to your mental functioning.

I really put a lot of context around that statement. In fact, taking a drug like marijuana once is less harmful than getting drunk once. And smoking dope once a month is also better than getting drunk once a month. Of course it is better not to do both of this at all. But to make such a fuss about some drugs, especially when they are used with the avoidance of bad effects in mind, really makes no sense to me. You can't compare my drug experience with russian roulette, because my life wasn't even remotely in danger at that time. Actually the relaxed state I was in for weeks was more likely to be beneficial to my health. And there's a difference between someone who smokes a cigarette once a month and a five-packages-a-day chain smoker. The dose makes the poison. Of course it is more healthy not to smoke at all. But it's also more healthy not to eat chocolate at all and I still do it once in a while without any negative effects. If the benefit is way higher than the cost (which is practically zero), what's the problem? As long as you don't overdo it and put your mind at risk, recreational drug use is ok. Oh, I almost forgot: I love my steak!!! And I know that it's healthy!!! That makes it even better! I just had to say that.

For me this feeling was something I have never had before. For the first time of my life I had a feeling that living is good. I just lay there in the grass looking at the sun and felt good. I never felt that way before. I always had to do something, was always under some sort of stress and pressure. Never just happy, always looking for more. I never stopped to appreciate the simple fact that I am alive. I never felt that living as such is something positive. I then made two choices: To appreciate living more, now that I knew that it was possible and not to take that drug for a long long time. One person even said that I had changed and that by basic sadness was gone. She was right. As Jennifer correctly stated, drugs are a shortcut to good feelings. And the problem of just wanting more drugs instead of searching for something that gives you that feeling in real life is very real. But food, too, is such a shortcut. And funny movies. My conclusion here is: As long as you have your life straight, there is no problem with taking shortcuts on occasion. They help. But they only do so if you take them as proof that life in general can provide happiness and not that the only way is drugs.

Now food is really a basic thing. Usually this is nothing special. But sometimes when I have a good steak I have to think: It's cool to be alive. Maybe that's because I do the BBQing myself and I get the meat just as I like it. But then: I have that feeling when eating out, too. It's just enjoying mere existence. And eating good food is a way to do it. What it does is show you immediately that living is something worth doing. That life is enjoyable. And that's a feeling that stays with me for quite a time and makes life more enjoyable in general. That's what I mean. I need some form of physical pleasure once in a while. After all, I am a living being. And since I don't have the money for lots of luxurious food, good food is something special to me, and so I celebrate it. Not doing so, to me seems like pointless ascetism. I don't see any sense in diminishing the value of simple innocent physical pleasures.

This is getting way out of hand. I really don't intend to annoy anyone here. All I wanted to state is that for recreational purposes it doesn't matter if you use drugs reasonably, eat a juicy steak or watch a good movie (or maybe all three of it at once). As long as you don't have side-effects because of controlled use I see no difference. Yes, once you are on drugs, you are not capable of handling heavy machinery. But you don't intend to work during your free time. This is time off. You don't use heavy machinery (or perform brain surgery) while watching a movie or eating a steak. If you intend to just take it for the sake of the feeling it gives you, I see no problem whatsoever with doing it. I don't say that you should be drugged all the time or that while being drugged you are more capable of living. All I was saying was that a controlled drug experience without side-effects can show you a feeling of happiness which you can then pursue in your real, sober life which, you said, is an experience you share. And I think that art and good food serve the same purpose. And the reason why I don't give art a special place here could be because I have no idea of Objecitivist Aesthetics simply because I don't have any interest in the arts and thought it wasn't necessary. Maybe I didn't state all that correctly. [edit] The funny thing is: I only smoked marijuana once years ago and haven't touched it ever since.

First of all, I've been capable of reproducing that drug feeling without drugs several times. So it's not the chemical ingredient that does it. It just helped me experience it in the first place. I don't understand what you mean by 1) and 2) The reason you think this is because you believe that there is no link between a drugged mind and a clean mind. That you can't access the state of the drugged mind without drugs. That's wrong. Why do you think that the state of mind you are usually in is more "natural" or healthy than the state you reach accidentally by taking a drug. There are people out there whose "natural" state is one of depression and it's not caused by biological factors. Here the medical (controlled) use of marijuana shows tremendous positive results.

I agree. If you think that the only way to achieve happiness is through drugs, then this is not okay. That's an addiction of some sort, too. Here I disagree. Drugs show you directly that a feeling of happiness exists. That you are capable of feeling good. This is way more convincing than any art. Art is like reading that there is something called happiness. If you have no direct experience, you can also think that happiness is just something Hollywood has invented. A myth you tell little children so that they do their homework. But once you have had the direct experience, there is no doubt possible. You know it.

Okay, the comparison with food makes sense. But what makes the pleasure of art so distinctively different? And why isn't physical pleasure life-affirming? As I already said, I have no knowledge whatsoever of Objectivist Aesthetics. But this distiction makes no sense to me. Well, you are in a different state of mind when you've seen a good movie. If you've seen 'The Shawnshank Redemption' or 'The Edge', I think you know what I mean. At least for me, these movies change the way I feel for the rest of the day. Same goes with good music and in rare cases art. I think that my Shawnshank-quote made my point clear. And my drug experience wasn't different on principle. It was just more intense.

Ahem, okay. Where is the difference, then? I don't see it.

I have something to say about the positive effects of "mind-altering". Do you remember the scene in 'The Shawnshank Redemption' when Dufresne switched on Mozart (without dope ). He said that that music was necessary because this reminded him that "there are places in the world that are still beautiful." I think that any "mind-altering" thing (be it music, paintings, movies, drugs, whatever ...) that has that effect is a good thing. (Given, of course, that you don't get addicted) And since that drug use of mine had such a positive effect (very much like the one Dufresne referred to), I would conclude that this very act of taking it was profoundly moral since it showed me that life in general can be worth living. I am extremely ignorant in regard to art and also in regard to Objectivist Aesthetics, but unless Art makes us feel good, unless it shows us that life is worth living, what good is it? Art is precisely that: Mind-altering. It changes your perception of the world. It gives you a new perspective or allows you (or better: helps you) to keep the one you already have. What else do we have art for? And why is there something like recreation at all? ... if not for that very purpose. And all this 'drug use show's you're a worthless bum'-talk is nothing but ignorant puritanistic garbage. Taking drugs has the same moral position as watching a movie. (Always under the condition of non-addictiveness and care in use)

I have nothing against ads. But practically deleting the quotes for that was not a good idea. I think that making the top banner bigger, you could put the quotes back there and have the ad shown. I'd really like to see them again.

As far as I know, man is the ape that entered the savanna. He lost most of his body hair and developed a special kind of sweat that evaporates very fast. He also learned/evolved towards both bipedal movement, tool production and hunting, all of which went hand in hand. Man's gut became smaller as he was eating more and more meat above anything else (It's denser food. Just see what digestive system a cow has to get something of value out of grass), which allowed more energy to be used for his brain (instead of his stomach), which then improved his tool-making capabilities as well as his capabilities to outsmart and thereby hunt down prey more easily. Which then increased his meat consumption... Before the "dawn of civilization", also known as the beginning of agriculture some 10.000 years ago, man was the most efficient hunter there was. He even extinguished an entire bear species by hunting for its flesh (and - because it happened to live in caves humans wanted to live in). Archeologists determine whether a man lived before or after this 10.000 year mark by taking a look at the bones. If they are longer and more dense, then he lived before agriculture. Usually seen as an improvement in human health, it is now known that the step from hunting to agriculture was hazardous to man's health. Why this shift happened still puzzles Anthropologists today.