psychotrope
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by psychotrope
-
-
The video was removed from youtube.
Anyone know where I can see it?I found the book the Jesus Puzzle very insightful on this topic. That link is to the online version. It's also available in book form.
-
Thanks for your reply. I find this quite helpful. I should clarify that I was not in anyway suggesting that one "has no choice" but to betray one's values. I agree with you entirely in your evaluation of that position---the idea that one might "have no choice but to be immoral'---a position that I was not putting forward.
I am just wanting to know how people on this forum would apply objectivist ethics in such cases. The two cases you mentioned are quite clear cut. But what if the job is to promote an organization such as the Sierra Club or another less radical environmentalist group that is soliciting donations to fund their lobbying to get the government to do irrational things like sue the auto makers in California? I'm not opposed to people exercising their free speech, even if what they say is irrational. But when they're using their free speech to try to convince the government to initiate force against innocent parties, then am I obligated to reject such a job?
Or to get off the enviro examples, what if a community church wants a direct mailing brochure inviting the community to come in for fellowship and the teaching of Christian values? Sure, they're not initiating force against anybody, but they are promoting irrational values. Some would even call their message poisonous and destructive. Is helping them spread that message by designing their ad an ethical violation? Is it betraying myself, since I may not agree with what they're teaching? Or should I just say "hey, it's money for me, and too bad for those who are too gullible to see through the christian propoganda."
I'd just like to get some input.
The point is that the requirement to avoid impure people has to be reduced to the immorality of your decision to betray yourself, and not the immorality or irrationality of these other people. You should live your life for your own sake, and not for the sake of others or for the sake of avoiding certain others.This is an excellent statement.
-
If there's already a thread that discusses this, perhaps someone could point it out to me, I couldn't find it.
What is one's responsibility when doing contract work in regard to who one does business with? For example, a freelance designer might be approached by environmental groups wanting to have brochures, posters, ads, etc. designed promoting their socialist/environmentalist causes. As a freelance contractor, does one have a responsibility to reject all such immoral causes? And how far do you take this? Once you start eliminating irrational and unethical trading partners and causes you not left with much.
My main concern is whether or not it is morally acceptable to do contract business with such immoral causes as evironmentalism or anything anti-capitalist, or if one is required to reject trading services for money in any case where your services would help further the immoral cause.
-
My dad had malware that took over his browser and kept feeding popups which were immune to pop-up blockers since the problem was coming from inside.
We used BHODemon and Ad-Aware, but in the end I had to call in an expert to get rid of it using some of his expert tools since it was a really nasty one.
Ad-Aware is always a good thing to use and BHODemon can help you figure out what programs are attaching themselves to your browser and allow you to disable unwanted BHOs.
-
Interesting way to finger a G major..
Yeah, I got into the habit of using my thumb to chord an open G. Maybe it was because my hands weren't flexible enough when I was first learning to play. That and I taught myself off of tabs, not from a teacher. Bad habits die hard. When I'm really lazy, I only use my thumb and fourth finger to do an open G, using my thumb to also mute the B string so I don't have to reach my index finger all the way down there.
3 (ring finger)
3 (ring finger)
-
-
x (thumb mute)
3 (thumb)
-
My avatar IS a real picture of me. As you can tell, I suffer from over-color-saturation syndrome or OCSS. It's rough. Here's a less saturated photo:
...
And to go with the guitar theme (that's my cat Moby trying to play):
-
I find that the best hobbies are the ones where you're learning something. Especially if by learning you are also developing marketable skills (for example, teaching yourself a new computer program.) This makes a good hobby because learning is a key component of "fun", and the hobby is satisfying because it is contributing to your earning ability or may contribute to it in the future.
-
1.)
The concept of "right" and "wrong", when it comes to animals, has absolutely nothing to do with "right for the animal" -- it's all about "right for the person".2.)
Torturing an animal to death isn't ever rightGiven 1.), on what basis do you assert 2.)?
-
The March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics was dedicated to debunking the 9/11 myths. I thought it was well done. I guess that just means that PM is part of the vast right-wing oil/power conspiracy.
-
A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.
As I understand it, that is the key. The criteria for the plea is "Can the supposed insane person distinguish right from wrong?" However, what is not often mentioned is that you CAN be both insane and still able to distinguish right from wrong. And that's important because in Andrea Yates' case, she was clearly able to distinguish right from wrong, even in her state of delusion. Everything I've watched and read on the subject has reinforced to me that beyond any shadow of a doubt, she knew for sure that what she was doing was completely wrong. Note that it was Satan telling her to kill her kids, not God. And she knew the difference and knew which one was evil and which one was good.
Was she insane? Yes, probably. But could she tell right from wrong? Yes. Therefore, the insanity plea should not apply. I fear that the sympathy for sufferers of post-partum depression out of political correctness may have influenced the case.
Furthermore, I find her delusion only slightly beyond typical religious extremism. As I've pointed out in another thread, if you truly believe in eternal heaven and eternal hell, wouldn't we be justified in doing anything we could to ensure our kids end up in the right place for eternity? Nevertheless, she still knew what she was doing was wrong.
-
Thanks, Dismuke!
-
I'm wanting to know if there's an Objectivist club in the Fort Worth area. Dallas is a little far to drive from where I'm at. I couldn't seem to find a list of local clubs on the site. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place.
-
Thanks for that review. I had heard about that film and was wondering if it might be good, since it was made by a libertarian and not, well, Michael Moore. From the description on the film's web site, it did seem a bit paranoid. Your review confirms my suspicions.
One wonders, how can a libertarian make a film that comes across as so anti-capitalist? It's propaganda like this that make people associate capitalism with corruption and corporatism till it gets to the point where capitalism is a bad word.
-
Here's a wikipedia article on a critical book. It basically says that Mother Theresa used these people's suffering to get financing for spreading her catholic cult.
Thanks for that. That's really interesting. It reminds me of how many activists in the US (such as Jesse Jackson) are doing the same thing with their "victims." That is, using the "victims" in order to push a political agenda and raise money. Jesse Jackson and those like him have nothing to gain if racism and injustice end. But by perpetuating it, they keep their wallets full and their faces on television.
I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.What a contemptible, miserable statement to make.
Of course, in the irrational view of Christians, what is 80 years of suffering in order to gain eternal bliss? What is 80 years of pleasure if you end up in eternal suffering? In such a view, Andrea Yates (recently found "not guilty") was fully justified in drowning her five children in order to send them to heaven instead of hell. Such is the anti-life creed of the Christian.
-
I disagree. Nathaniel Branden's article "Isn't Everyone Selfish" and Leonard Peikoff in "Objectivism Through Induction cover this nicely. These people are NOT being selfish. Selfish does NOT mean being motivated by any value at all; this is a subjectivist definition. Why does the person who feels guilt actually feel guilt? Because he is NOT being altruistic. The motivation for the feeling is an altruistic one, so the person you described is not selfish.
Again, I agree with you completely. I am NOT saying that a person who works at a soup kitchen is actually selfish. Thank you for the clarification, though. It is an important point that you make.
The question that began this thread was:
When someone asks you, "Why is it good to be selfish?" - what do you say?I was merely trying to show a way you could discuss the issue and bring into question conventional definitions of selfishness and unselfishness. By pointing out the contradictions inherent in the traditional way of thinking about selfishness, you may open the person up to thinking about it in a new way. Please see my response to Blinky above.
And JMeganSnow, I don't consider calling selfishness "rational self-interest" as sneaking it in the backdoor. Aren't they one and the same thing? I wouldn't deny that the term selfishness applies, I would just gravitate toward the term which will cause less defensiveness and cognitive dissonance while maintaining all of the meaning. Or are you saying that this method won't work because people will see through it? I may be misunderstanding what you're saying.
-
I don´t see how could be wasting time considered selfish...
That is exactly what you refuted paragraph above. Selfish isn´t something that you just do because you feel like doing it.
Thanks, Blinky, I agree. Excellent point. My point in stating that was to give ideas for finding common ground with someone of traditional moral values. These are ways to begin a conversation about the virtue of selfishness in a way that will help to open the other person's mind, challenging traditional thought. And what one would be pointing out to that person is that the traditional concepts of selfishness and unselfishness are full of contridictions. According to how most people think of "selfishness," i.e. do what you feel like, many actions traditionally thought of as "unselfish" (such as working at a soup kitchen because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling) really are "selfish" according to the traditional concept. It would be important to update this thinking through the course of the discussion to a more reasonable definition of "selfishness" (i.e. rational self interest), differentiating it from the traditional view of selfishness.
Thank you for helping me to clarify that.
-
The key to true capitalism is that all interaction is voluntary. Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. They are simply interacting and trading based on mutually agreeable conditions. Any other system is dependent on people interacting with force and coercion. One cannot stress this enough.
-
One thing that can help in such discussions is to try to eliminate the negative connotations that inevitably come along with the word "selfishness." People who believe in conventional morality can NEVER seem to accept selfishness as a virtue as long as you use that word.
Try starting out by saying, "The word selfishness has such negative connotations, I prefer the term 'rational self-interest.'" Then discuss things in terms of your belief in rational self-interest, as opposed to selfishness. I find that this small steps allows your listener to be much more open to your ideas.
I also like to point out the difference between "selfishness" and "self-destructive selfishness." Even if you read the bible, a lot of the examples of "sinful" selfishness are really a condemnation of self-destructive selfishness or hedonism, which is not seflishness at all. (And I'm certainly NOT defending the bible here --- just finding common ground.) To give in to every "sinful" pleasure I might desire in a given moment is not in my rational self-interest. To treat my family and friends like dirt because I "feel like it" is also not in my rational self-interest, therefore it is not truly selfish. True unselfishness is by definition self-destructive (i.e. acting against your own self-interest). This exercise in semantics can help make sure everyone has their definitions straight. Often, when they hear the word "selfishness", people assume you mean "do whatever you feel like it, treat everyone else like dirt, and do whatever feels good."
Another technique is to draw attention to the fact that everyone is far more selfish than they realize. Even the altruist who spends time volunteering at a soup kitchen does so because it makes them feel good, or it alleviates guilt they might have. You could consider this selfish. Even acting on empathy can be described as selfish. If you feel empathy for someone who you see suffering, that means that you feel their pain. So you act to alleviate their suffering. But would you have acted if you had no empathy? No, you wouldn't have. Therefore, your action was because of YOUR suffering (empathy), not theirs.
A big part of accepting the morality of selfishness is to understand and accept the selfish motivations you already have for many things you do. Of course there will be changes to the way you act as well, but accepting yourself and your natural, moral drive for rational self-interest is an extremely important part of it.
There was an excellent article the ARI put out around valentine's day about so-called "selfless love" and what a crock it is. I found it an excellent piece for discussion with traditional moralists.
-
That is very interesting. Tell me, was that indeed a gun in the suspects hand on video 2? It's a bit hard to tell.
-
"Liberal" means open-minded, more or less, and liberals keep pushing the boundaries of that in which they can believe.Also, I find the conservative point of view more dangerous or at least disadvantageous because Objectivism can never thrive in an unthinking culture.
(bold mine)
It seems that this discussion is going back and forth between different definitions of liberal and conservative. The literal definition of the terms and the beliefs and/or platform held by the corresponding political parties are two distinct concepts. Using them interchangeably is clouding the issue.
What I've found is that people wear their political affliliations like football jerseys (or war uniforms). Loyal to the death. The enemy is the enemy no matter what he believes, as long as he's wearing the opposing team's uniform. Polarizing figures like Clinton and now Bush have made this even more true.
Perhaps, as Objectivists, it is not fruitful to argue over "which is worse: democrats or republicans." I apologize if this is the conversation I started. I was merely wishing to discuss the ties between atheism and anti-capitalist thinking --- as a barrier for the person who has recently accepted reason as a guide to life instead of some two-thousand year old book --- not the merits of Bush's politics vs. the leftists.
On that note, the discussion of what it means to be "open-minded" vs. "close-minded", regardless of political labels, is bound to be a much more useful endeavor than which is the lesser evil.
-
But if they were my friends, I would clear up any pretense as to whether it is a loan if they only pay you back about half the time. I'm personally more inclined to just buy them lunch without any pretense of a loan for similar reasons to those mentioned in the other responses.
That way you get the credit for buying them lunch, instead of them convincing themselves that you haven't done anything for them since they are going to pay you back someday.
One irony of altruism is that the "altruistic thing to do" is often not in the best interest of the recipient. For years I was an enabler for a friend who always "forgot" her wallet and promised to pay me back but rarely did. I realized that even if I subscribed to an altruistic view of the world, I wasn't acting in her best interest since I was perpetuating her cycle of dependence and lack of responsibility. I think deep down she felt that I could afford it and she couldn't, so it was okay. Either that or she really was just extremely forgetful.
In the end, doing what was in my own self-interest (not loaning to such a person), would have been in her best interest as well. It's amazing how often that's the case.
-
I don't talk with people when they poke the muzzle of a gun in my side. Goodbye.
How is asking someone to abide by the rules of the forum the same thing as "poking the muzzle of a gun in [your] side?" I'm calling the Obtuse Metaphor police.
-
It's scary how any film maker with the right connections and a budget can push his/her irrational view in a professionally produced documentary and make it look like authority (see Michael Moore). I think that what documentaries like this (which should really be called "propogandumentaries") bank on is the fact that most people naturally assume that "if it's in a documentary, it must be true." But movies like this don't even deserve to be called documentaries.
Dictionary.com's definition of "documentary": Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Unfortunately most of the "documentaries" you see today, and pretty much all of the ones that win awards for "best documentary" don't conform to this definition. But the definition is changing. Although I believe it was traditionally a part of the definition of "documentary", it seems that the "objective" part of the definition is often dropped through common usage so that a documentary ends up being "something someone put together that makes some statements about some stuff." Wikipedia defines a "documentary film" as "a broad category of cinematic expression united by the intent to remain factual or non-fictional."
In the end, I think that viewers still mistakenly hold the view that a documentary is an objective piece presenting factual information. But documentary makers subscribe to the newer definition which simply says that it falls in the realm of "non-fiction" work. It is this discrepancy of expectation that creates problems.
-
Is it just me, or does it seem that when a person first opens the door of the closet of religion out into the world of rationalism, beginning their journey to reason and enlightenment, they are almost always seduced by the dark side of politics --- i.e., liberalism, i.e. anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-freedom. The would-be rational, led by the majority view held by atheists, ventures into another, even deeper and darker closet. Instead of being an instrument of reason and freedom, they become a tool of the anti-capitalism machine, doing far more damage with their illogical political philosophy, than with their former illogical religious philosophy.
As long as they're not tyring to force their religion on others (Intelligent Design, illegality of certain sex acts, etc.), and not trying to enforce altruism (foreign aid, welfare, etc.) Christians are largely benign in society, compared to the poison that an illconceived political philosophy spreads in the name of "reason" and "intellectualism". Christians won't force me to worship Jesus, but liberals will force me to support their altruistic causes through taxes, respect their concept of the environment through regulation, and conform to their fascist social agenda through smoking bans (and foie gras bans
) and anti-freedom of speech laws.Don't get me wrong, Christianity is an assault on reason. But religious mystics are much easier to ignore than the liberal political movement which seeks to legislate EVERYTHING.
Although both are evils, it would appear that the second evil is far worse than the first. How does one fight this de-railing on the train tracks to objectivism? Do any newborn rationals stand a chance with such an enemy standing at the exit door of religion?
New Zealand - What Is Notable About It?
in New Zealand
Posted
When I think of New Zealand, I think of their great Sauvignon Blanc wines from the Marlborough region, on the north tip of the south island. Particularly the Matua Paretai Sauvignon Blanc 2004 or 2005.
if anyone else has had Sauv. Blanc from Marlborough, i'd be curious to know if you agree with me that it's the best Sauv. Blanc in the world (or at least ONE of the best). (And usually under $20.)