Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

hunterrose

Regulars
  • Posts

    1217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hunterrose

  1. Welcome This is probably the easiest to answer. While having some feelings of depression might be a warning sign, you seem to have a pretty good idea about what you want, and what it takes. I would say the dividing line on when you're overworking is (at the least) when your gains are diminishing as a result of the overworking. I noticed you say "I can't quit x, y, z" a lot. It would be better to say (and realize?) that you can indeed quit, but you feel the advantages of pushing so hard outweigh the detriments. More specifically, if your results start to decrease (not necessarily going to happen,) you should consider whether it'd be better to get the desired results albeit slower, or make the desired time limit albeit with less achievement. Fencing? Now that's cool Incidentally, what's your name refer to? Not having heard of it, I googled it, but didn't get much back other than some fiction references.
  2. Kinda, I guess *hunterrose scurries away to "camp" topic* I look at it this way: what benefit do you get from excessively worrying and waiting by the phone? If she truly questioned Moose's love, or further professions of amore could sway her, this might help, true. Big IF, though. Hasn't he already done everything? If she thinks he's indifferent, she might decide to break up. But there's no need to be indifferent, just not so ... clingy? Is it really likely that the young miss is needing a sign from Moose, or deciding his love's strength? If it's not the case, what benefit cancels out the obvious detriment of worrying? Perhaps a good question is what would her reaction be if she knew Moose was so greatly concerned over whether she called at x o'clock [ not to be asked of her, of course!] If she'd be pleased, then I guess you're doing the right thing. If she wouldn't, maybe you're not. Ultimately, I don't mean play "hard to get" so much as play cool, and not so much play cool as be cool. If you are truly at ease with the situation (not just acting a role,) I think good things would come of it. IMO if you really, really, really fear missing one of her calls, you NEED to miss one of her calls. For the relationship, and more importantly, for yourself. Don't you mean that you fear she would get used to not talking until the relationship died? Course I'm not trying to push anything on you, so take this with a grain of salt
  3. Very interesting. I've never seen anyone actually go through the effect to even make a draft! Kudos. I'd take a lot of the government transgression details out; simply stating that the government has violated the rights of the people might be sufficient... and make it a lot shorter I also wouldn't mind something to the effect of all people are really created equal, i.e. minorities have equal rights. That could get contentious...
  4. Boy, do you have it bad That's not a bad thing in and of itself, of course, but you can't let this pull you apart. BE COOL. You've gotta show her that: - you really like her, but you're not to worry about things you can't affect. - you know she knows how you feel, so you don't feel the need to constantly show/state it. - if she wants to break up, you'll be sad, but you'll accept it. I wouldn't say those things in so many words, but if you take such an attitude, you won't have to explicitly say it for her to realize your level-headedness. Personally, I think you'd be better of if you intentionally missed one of her calls. And didn't give an explanation (anything plausible) why unless she asked. Whether or not you do that, I suggest you take a calmer approach to the whole thing.
  5. Oh, I agree absolutely with that. My point was merely that while refusing to face the arbitrary nature of "god" is blatant evasion, saying that the concept of "god" is contradictory is a wholly different beast. It's a more definitive claim, but also more difficult to demonstrate. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't ignoring the arbitrary nature of "god;" I was just going off the initial post's statements:
  6. Ooh la la I think it may indeed be a product of society. I personally find aggressiveness attractive in a woman, and I don't know a good reason to see it otherwise. ...maybe. Pink tends to connote Barbie (to me)... which isn't the best basis for femininity. That's not to say Barbie is the only or correct connotation of pink, though. While fiction generally has views of femininity that I disagree with, I had little problem with the depiction of Dominique and Dagny. A lot of literature I read has women as either passive or self-destructively aggressive, I dichotomy I strongly disagree with. Dominique could be agrued to start out in that latter category, though she fortunately realized her error
  7. That particular quote is non-contradiction, which isn't quite the same as saying that every existent is completely delimited. To use the "god and boulder" example: If nothing can be A and non-A, it would be contradictory to say that a god could lift any weight, but not a weight too heavy for him to lift. But if the god's ability is to lift any liftable (i.e. non-infinite) weight? It can be argued that an omnipotence limited by non-contradiction isn't really omnipotence (i.e. questions the godhood,) but nevertheless the quote you refer to doesn't say that the ability to lift any quantifiable mass is contradictory to identity. Ah, that expands it from contradicting identity to contradicting a host of metaphysical issues. Points taken, though I'm not sure it's prudent on my part to (devil's) advocate an elaborate rebuttal. Even questioning all of those things would likely be too many directions for a topic. I'll keep your quote in mind, but I'll try to limit my case to whether "god" has to contradict "identity." Just so it doesn't seem like I'm being evasive, I'm working from the idea of a god as - creator of physical universe, powers at the least limited by non-contradiction, not necessarily omniscient. I'm not trying to be difficult, but does such a idea of "god" necessarily contradict identity and/or godhood?
  8. If you knew you were going to be shipwrecked by a hurricane onto an island some time in 2020, and that whatever was in your cabin was going to end up on the island with you, would you consider that "coercion?" Suppose I live on a farm. I have no kids or wife, whereas my neighbor has a spouse and 8 children to help out on his farm. I demand the "positive freedom" to get farm help - adoption of two of his male children and taking one of his female children as a wife should suffice. Can you isolate "positive freedom?" as medical help from "positive freedom" as farm help?
  9. But why is identity "all or nothing?" And must god - qua creator of the physical universe - contradict identity in the first place? It may be a semantic issue, but "supernatural" also means outside the "natural" - qua physical - world. If a god were supernatural in this sense, he wouldn't necessarily contradict identity. On the other hand, if supernatural" is taken as "beyond identity/quantifying," that isn't necessarily a god quality. Pagan gods generally operated under certain rules i.e. they weren't generally omnipotent or omniscient. Ah, I was going off the initial post's asking for a definitive proof that a god can or can't exist. While I don't believe there could be a definitive proof that a god does exist, I also question whether the "establishment" of any given metaphysical system can be considered a definitive proof that a god doesn't exist.
  10. My post, page 3 Peikoff speaks about the consequences to the theist. As he didn't touch it, you have to show how those consequences inevitably flow over onto the theist's spouse. Gaining more knowledge is a never-ending process, and any person's definition of what is "sufficient" is highly subjective.
  11. I had to google "boggart!" Well, I meant it in the sense that the (theoretical) existence of a god wouldn't necessarily be contradictory. That is, if a god's existence and an altered principle of identity themselves didn't contradict anything else (and don't contradict each other), the concept of "god" wouldn't be blatantly contradictory. As my sig might suggest, I don't endorse such a theory (it'd still have no evidence backing it,) but it seems questionable whether such a theory is contradictory and thus evasion. As far as the boggart comparison goes, I'd say yes in the sense that both would be of questionable nature, but no in the sense that the god wouldn't necessarily be "dangerously undefinable!"
  12. You haven't said how a wife's theism (in every possible variation) is harmful to the husband. *Sigh* You, being of sound mind, should have no problem with this contradiction/evasion
  13. Hmm. My initial thought is that a god (i.e. not necessarily the Christian god, but some "supernatural" being with "nigh-omnipotence") could exist. Such a being would have to contradict the Objectivist principle of identity; however, that wouldn't have to necessarily mean that identity couldn't exist - it might mean that identity didn't apply to particular existents (e.g. supernaturals were excepted,) or that particular entities could only partially be identified (e.g. supernaturals had some limits, but weren't totally delimited.)
  14. True, but whether or not anyone has bothered to "integrate" esthetics is irrelevant; if being "fully integrated" is a necessary condition for marriage, it would be immoral to jump the broom until such questions had been resolved. Focus granted. I have to take a stance similar to Ms. Snow here. Token theism isn't a problem in a spouse IMO. A spouse may believe there is an intelligent designer, but not know or care what the designer wants from us. She may not desire such a unprovable theory be taught. Or the spouse may espouse some nominal form of Christianity or some innoculous version of Shintoism. While perhaps silly, I wouldn't regard such theism as a deal-breaker to marriage.
  15. Why are you so defensive all of a sudden? You're being off-topic and digressing, but no part of Objectivism is optional to Objectivism. If there's any intellectual dishonesty, it'd be on your part. You imply that philosophical "peripheries" are "optional" in a marriage partner. It would be "insane" to state that you had the desire to continue your relationship with your wife WHETHER OR NOT she fully integrates esthetics. You would in that case be treating her irrationality as if it were harmless, isolated, and nonessential in the superlative embodiment of values a wife represents. It most emphatically would NOT be. Such an evasive and compromising relationship could stay together only if one or both parties had completely given in to the other's vices and had abandoned all hope of the happiness they once desired. There's no good reason why an integrated Objectivist would have to settle for marrying someone who wouldn't reject a terribly irrational esthetics. Whereas with an animal, the only way to stay in such a relationship would be to give in to the irrational beliefs of one who couldn't be convinced with reason. You would have to destroy all of the personal values and aspirations which would become impossible because of those irrational beliefs. Often a person would destroy their ambitions so completely that they would appear "content." Which'd be true. They'd be "content" to be half the man or woman that they could have been. Would a "relationship" be worth that? NO: a lesser relationship is not worth having. Only a couple that is completely rational and integrated can hope to have a relationship in which there is NEVER compromise and NEVER sacrifice. If you want my opinion, I don't think anyone who couldn't grasp the superiority of Hugo over Dostoevsky is ready for any kind of relationship at all.
  16. Welcome Economics is a great subject to be taking up. I wish to delve more deeply into it myself when I get the time. It's sorta ironic; I'm a tremendous sports fan, but I don't know that much about hockey. I'm going to have to get out and learn more about it so I can keep my sports rep
  17. "Optional" in regard to being morally acceptable as a marriage partner? Yes. It's not necessary to work out every complicated nuance of esthetics to be considered the "embodiment of my values." If a wife has hesitation over whether Victor Hugo is superior to Dostoevsky, is that moral grounds for the husband to divorce?? If the girlfriend doesn't resolve her "disintegration" over whether Sergio Leone's works are a higher value than Peter Jackson's, can the boyfriend ever morally marry her??
  18. It wasn't ignored; I just didn't think the transcription was a convincing case that holding any aspect of religion constitutes an inevitable slide into total irrationality and death. I suppose since I don't accept that "proof" that I am irrational But no philosophical value is optional to a "fully integrated" Objectivist, correct? Isn't it immoral for a person to marry until he/she has "fully integrated" every possible philosophical concept? Not to mention that any new philosophical innovation is grounds for divorce, as the couple can remarry should the mate grasp the concept after a day or two. It's one thing to say that religion is a matter of faith, and without material proof; it's a whole other argument to say that it is contradictory.
  19. *sigh* Must we drag this out? What's meant by the "embodiment of your values?" Surely not that the mate possesses every value I have. Must she value Boston Red Sox tickets and Final Fantasy Tactics??? I can only assume you then mean the embodiment of your "important" values. For myself, the most important value would be that a mate attempts to be (philosophically) right i.e. refuses to ignore contradictions in her beliefs... What qualities are necessary to create the "embodiment of your values??" Is it not enough that she refuses to ignore contradictions in her beliefs? Or must she know every possible philosophical datum before she is qualified to marry?
  20. I do not see the problem, perhaps you would elucidate me
  21. You are assuming there has to be a compromise in a O'ist marrying a student of O'ism. Basis? What's meant by the "embodiment of your values?" Surely not that the mate possesses every value I have. Must she value Boston Red Sox tickets and Final Fantasy Tactics??? I can only assume you then mean the embodiment of your "important" values. For myself, the most important value would be that a mate attempts to be (philosophically) right i.e. refuses to ignore contradictions in her beliefs. Being a theist would in no way prevent her from having a relentless pursuit of the truth. If an O'ist shared a similar "embodiment," I don't see how marrying a non-O'ist is automatically immoral.
  22. Perhaps he doesn't consider her becoming "fully integrated" a difference maker in terms of the relationship. Was that an evasion So an O'ist marrying a non-O'ist isn't automatically immoral? Would you say that it's a possibility that a theist of some type could be extremely rational and integrated?
  23. Because an O'ist who strives for perfect adherence with reality is no more perfect than a theist who strives for perfect adherence with reality. ...Is it immoral for a "fully integrated" Objectivist to marry a student of Objectivism?
  24. Is it immoral for a "fully integrated" Objectivist to marry a student of Objectivism?
  25. Blarg. Friggin' overconfident Objectivists Oh come on However that is to be interpreted, I can't see how it's true. Suppose I have a religious gf I wish to marry, and we constantly have philosophical discussions. We both wish to be right i.e. rational and consistent with reality. Furthermore, she constantly out-argues (not merely out-maneuvers) me. Would this mean she is irrational? Of course not, she hasn't been proven wrong. In fact, the stronger her intellect and philosophical integrity, the more rational she is for maintaining her theism in the light of so-far inferior alternatives. Should this lass never come across convincing reasons to eschew theism, what would make automatically irrational, less than ideal? The fact that she's not convinced by my inferior philosophical skills?? Several people seem to assume that the O'ist position is obviously rational, and thus anyone who disagrees with it, is obviously irrational. The fact a person hasn't been convinced of the merits of O'ism doesn't mean they are irrational, or that marrying them is "settling." Noted Are all of those qualities impossible in a non-O'ist? Ah. The fact is that you all wouldn't be happy with a non-O'ist. No offense meant, but your points don't really contribute much to to the original question: whether O'ists in general can/should marry non-O'ists elaborate?
×
×
  • Create New...