Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

volco

Regulars
  • Posts

    785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by volco

  1. Someone who specializes in a specific area of knowledge obviously knows more about it than someone who knows generalities about it. However there is SOME kind of danger, of potential harm, in being a patient of a mental health professional. Everybody can make mistakes, but unlike medicine, or more specifically neurology, psychiatry is not YET an applied science, or rather it's more like medicine used to be for most but the latest years of human history, iatrogenic whether a science or not. To back up the above statement we can compare a life saving neurosurgery with a life destroying psycho surgery, now replaced by chemical intervention. As I said there is a potential harm in seeking the advice of this kind of professional. Irrational authority is vested on the professional and people can relegate judgement to the specialist. This is completely rational when dealing with a medical doctor for the simple fact that you hear stories, empirically, that -body- medicine does cure with a very slim chance of iatrogenesis. Psychiatry, that is the administering of experimental drugs to alter the function of the organ we know the least of, can have enduring harmful effects. Only recently, while the history repeats itself, drugs that were thought almost harmless are found to have a very lasting effect on the brain, according to the foggy knowledge an image analysis can get us in 2011. So GS seek professional help if you really feel you need it, but think it not twice but thrice before taking a pill. That said, psychiatry has made SOME advances and at least in the area of schizophrenia it would appear that they figured out how it relates with Dopamine with acceptable results provided the individual is not happier as a diagnosed schizophrenic. So drugs might help, but it's surely a gamble. so as i said, better not to be a guinea pig.
  2. Of course it can be possible you are imagining it (in psych. it's called suggestion), you are exposed to culture of over and self diagnosis of mental health. Those symptoms you mention are symptoms of being 18. check with a medical doctor first, not a psychologist and NOT a psychiatrist. Then try your self-discipline, if you never trained for that it wont come just because you try hard. Don't try hard, rather persevere. Physical exercise can help both focus and acquire discipline. Try and find something you enjoy. Read this essay, and apply it, walk 3 hours a day. After those steps, if the problem continues, ask for expert psychological help for free at the most reputable source I know of, Dr Bonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine Research If all of the above fails, go, fully conscious of the decision you are taking, to ask for mainstream psychiatric help. Beware though that this is alchemy to a yet non existent chemistry. Doctors, as qualified as they can be, just don't know how the relation between brain and mind actually works simply because nobody knows. Maybe in some decades we'll see improvements, but in the meantime Don't be a guinea pig!!! edit, you might also find it soothing to learn about the life of Temple Grandin, full blown autistic who turned up fully functional in the most conservative terms. "woman who thinks like a cow" youtube, "world needs all kind of minds" fora tv and there's a good movie by HBO.
  3. Etruria was paved over by Rome, but the valley of the Tiber, the Lazio, was Southernmost point of Etruscan expansion before Rome. Just as proper French is the Parisian dialect, or Modern "Francien", proper Italian is the Tuscan dialect, the tongue of Dante, a Florentine. So maybe you have something there
  4. Les Miserables by Victor Hugo deals with the subject. Ayn Rand loved Victor Hugo, and indeed referenced to him and also to the problem of stealing a loaf of bread - can't back that up with a quote by I know it's there. In We the living, you'll see somewhat similar problems in practice. simple answer. if it's a loaf of bread because you're starving it'd be altruist not to eat it. If you're trying to extrapolate that situation to something more general, that would be another more general question. @Dante, I recently watched the office all in a row, having never watched it before. I remember that situation, but throughout the whole show it seems like that guy is trying to have it both ways with his 'family of employees'.
  5. homogenization, the unwanted but seemingly unavoidable part of globalization. Europe would be just "too good" if it wasn't for reality. i don't really care to elaborate, i chose not to live there.
  6. I used to feel horribly ostracized when i became very outspoken on Ayn Rand's philosophy and applied it everywhere. I've learnt to be more selective, and to adapt to reading in between lines instead of expecting the rest of the world to talk literally. Sometimes it's more selfish not to say something. And no, people in general, whether or not they can handle it, they chose not to handle the truth, or to handle as little of it as they can. They even pay (to churches and television networks to handle even less truth. The reason for this is because being fully aware of the human condition is intolerable. for more information on the psychology beneath it search for "Celia Green" a British admirer of Ayn Rand and her book "the human evasion"
  7. Just for what I read from her novels, and from Freud's dictum "love and work", I believe happiness is mostly being able to attain what Dr Mihaly C calls state of Flow (think of Roark on the draftboard, or Dagny, her eyes on the map) and Romantic love pretty much as passionately described by Miss Rand. That said, I know of "Positive Thinking" and other behavioral techniques of self delusion and suggestion, and I have been pushed by nothing less than a biz partner to adopt them. I correlate it with social engineering and its results. I'm confident that as long as I have the aim clear of the yet fuzzy bridge I'm building, I'll continue being happy even in my worst adolescednt hour. I'd like to be happy like Doug in some decades! happiness implies tranquility, and accomplishment, definitely no the right feeling for someone in his 20s.
  8. It uses the word "indigenist" which is what I call Hitler's racism. I hate indigenism, I love internationalism and being a citizen of the world. the only country I truly admire is the one that has no official language and no official or unofficial ethnicity. That said, living in Latin America, I can see how celebrated "Indigenism" (nativism) is in the left. What is "Right" in Europe is "Left" in Latin America, Africa, Russia, and probably some parts of Asia.
  9. I'm skimming over the "manifesto", it does say many things that I'd find appealing, but in a horrible "reactionary" context. It raises valid points but with an agenda worse than the one it tries to combat. Need to finish reading it. it's torture.
  10. btw, I didn't say Wilders was admirable I implied that it was only time for a non violent dissident to be blamed for this violence. When and to the extent that happens will mean the extent of free speech for the next years in Europe.
  11. Individual Muslims are not more evil intrinsically, Islam just happens to be experimenting a fundamental reformation at the same time they spearhead the counter-colonialism movement going on since the last decades (islam is the only thing in common among the recently decolonized nations of africa and asia). What Islam is doing in Europe it is also doing in India, and In Africa. now with some backlashes (like the newly Republic of South Sudan, the unpublished darfur) I believe Breivik is disgusting just as the Southern Sudanese freedom fighters are disgusting, just as Ted Kaczinski was/is disgusting. But that doesn't mean they sometimes write truth albeit mixed with other essences. Didn't Ayn Rand said that for a lie to be more efficient it had to be mixed with truth... Please don't call my reading of the manifesto and recognizing its many parts of small truths among a lot of hate as a "position".
  12. Bienvenido! It's good to have another Spanish speaking member and it's good to know that Ayn Rand's works are picking up in Mexico. Greetings from Argentina (sometimes Uruguay)
  13. Golden silence, You don't need to sugarcoat it, you can say it right the way it is. Why isn't cheap labor coming from Russia instead of the Middle East. Likewise why was (is!) Turkey considered for admission into the EU instead of "reaching out" to Russia, towards an OECD community. True Turkey is nato while the russia state hates europe, but russians don't hate europe, they do anything to get a passport. So we don't have to pretend there isn't an agenda. Maybe half of Breivik's "manifesto" is not too far from the current situation. @TheEgoist. those incentives and statist benefits are there for a reason, not just because of the prevailing welfare state climate, but for a consciously designed agenda that no one officially denies to "spice up" the European population so they can somehow erase the stigma of Europeans brief moment in the sun (Oct 1492 to Apr 1945). now with what happened in Norway it's the time to be strongest in refusing islam as much as we refuse statism, and move heaven and earth not to be confused with the terrorists and the "Knights Templar". (specially in Europe) we are in the McCarthy era, only left is now right. matter of time till this is blamed on Mr Wilders.
  14. Amen, fratello, I guess Greece was as much an Eastern civilization as Egypt and Krete were Western! It's impossible to mark an east west frontier. The term might come from "Western Christendom" after the schism, or more likely Western v Eastern Roman Empire, the border being the Adriatic (and to this day to the west of that sea lies a prime country and nation, and to the east of it contraband, civil war, and a cycle of conflict, the Balkans. So since east west borders are not meaningful I see history in trends. From that pov, most of Rome was a westward civilization, much like Spain (Plvs Vltra) Alexander is, for me, the archetype of Napoleon and Adolf. Born in the west, in a neighboring mark (Macedonian barbarian not Greek, Corsican not French, Austro-Hungarian subect not German) they pushed East as to try to redeem themselves and their national identity by conquering the intimidating asian (or russian) seemingly super civilization, the kind the American founding fathers knew they would best by doing the exact opposite. interesting how psychological charged longitude is, while how technologically adaptable latitude is. To some ridiculous extents (h.D. Thoreau on the settlement of Australia
  15. Amen, fratello, I guess Greece was as much an Eastern civilization as Egypt and Krete were Western! It's impossible to mark an east west frontier. The term might come from "Western Christendom" after the schism, or more likely Western v Eastern Roman Empire, the border being the Adriatic (and to this day to the west of that sea lies a prime country and nation, and to the east of it contraband, civil war, and a cycle of conflict, the Balkans. So since east west borders are not meaningful I see history in trends. From that pov, most of Rome was a westward civilization, much like Spain (Plvs Vltra) Alexander is, for me, the archetype of Napoleon and Adolf. Born in the west, in a neighboring mark (Macedonian barbarian not Greek, Corsican not French, Austro-Hungarian subect not German) they pushed East as to try to redeem themselves and their national identity by conquering the intimidating asian (or russian) seemingly super civilization, the kind the American founding fathers knew they would best by doing the exact opposite. interesting how psychological charged longitude is, while how technologically adaptable latitude is. To some ridiculous extents (h.D. Thoreau on the settlement of Australia
  16. / and that's all there is to Objectivism officially, Ayn Rand's works and how you understand and apply them to your life. Our answers are not endorsed by Ayn Rand for metaphysical circumstances, so double check with her volumes of work and also use your own imagination to figure out how "it would be". I'll now gladly provide a piece of mine because I extract a personal benefit in doing so (so thanks for raising the questions!) Yes but all property would also be private and within private land and systems owners be it shareholders, home owners, etc, are able to set rules and internal codes which are a non coercive form of regulation. By means of a contract one would enter one or another system (by means of living or working in or passing by, private land) thus reducing the amount of potential lawsuits which is a very valid point. Everything has its downturn and I also suspected that would be one out of a contractual society. That scenario applies a future speculatively "Objectivist" court system under the actual real circumstances. You can't have both the FDA and the contractual lawsuit society at the same time (other than during transition). People will still want to eat non toxic stuff, private agencies can compete in qualifying products better than a single agency, so long as those private agencies live in a world where money is not also monopolized in another single agency per country. Then don't go to Disney, or don't become a Scientologist which better describes your example. It's like going to a fourth world country on vacations you run the risk of gratuitous police brutality, but you still chose to do it without anyone forcing you. The beaches of Anobon, Equatorial Guinea, or Imperial Beach, ca might seem beautiful but whom do you sue when you find that the sand in the beach has been emanating dumped toxins.... Go apologize somewhere else! be proud to have a curious mind, you are not forcing anyone to answer. 2. Objectivism is not Platonic, don't believe in a perfect world, in the same way, we can't expect (perhaps in the future but certainly not in the past) a perfectly anything. The ideology of the Renaissance was after all within the context of Christianity (luckily in its self detriment). In the same way the freer market of the Industrial Revolution was after all within the context of the British Empire with its many monopolies on natural resources but also with its free trade within the Empire. That, in the worst case (the best being 19th c USA)is evidence that the free market produces amazing results. 3.maybe it's more efficient to have about that number of auto companies in just one country. surely without later regulations new companies or branches would have tapped the compact auto market instead of giving it free to the Japanese and Koreans. 4. No, intrinsically they can't have. It is much of a problem in the biggest Corporation of all, the United States of America. But you might have a point here worth exploring in another thread. 5. with fatigue and exasperation 6. YES. and as in the above answer, if a developer over develops, in a free market it'd be his fault and a risk he'd probably not take. In Uruguay and in Brazil the international housing crisis has not dropped the value of the square meter because there's never been too much lending. That sucks in good times, but saves us in bad times. Can't have risk, growth and protection and ultra safe safety net at the same time - unless you are wise and magical enough to have your cake and eat it too, but I don't have that secret. 7. sic transit gloria. 8. Company towns are the hope of the world and the reason of my own life. Just as cruise ships began out of an industry that was famous for being the most detestable of ordeals, a trans oceanic journey on a potential wooden coffin infested with all sort of critters- and ended up being a synonym of leisure and in some cases even luxury, company towns can and are evolving into "planned communities" or Alphavilles interconnected and increasingly (at least in some parts of the World) more accessible. the starving was because of the isolation and how back warded and adventurous the industry was. in remote places like the amazon (Para to be precise) those company towns like the mining towns of the 19th century america exist today with thinly veiled serfdom. Problem is mate, if you go and ask the workers (difficult going to 19th century but you can go to Asia or Latin America) themselves, not their "human rights representatives", they'll tell you they chose to do it, they bless the presence of ANY sort of work in a world of absolute freedom, freedom to hunt and gather your food and medicines from the forest. nice dream for a suburbanite or even an urbanite, but the guys who were born in those conditions, love being exploited in company tent towns. If they drink too much, that's their own fault for getting in debt, that's not how the companies make their money. Probably you don't know the levels of poverty I'm referring to and likewise you are still to realize how great the bazaar or free market is in contrast to the tribe.
  17. That's pretty much the same meaning it has everywhere else in the West. This reminds me when that Swedish MP was shot... Olof..
  18. yes it's off topic we've established that. Of course not, and it does sound funny when I read it, but it's also concrete evidence that humans change faster than natural selection has it with other species. (wolves also changed, into dogs, with human interaction, we also changed, losing much of our sense of smell and dedicating more "energy" to visual and abstract thought instead). Less concrete but still very likely evidence is that our rational faculty does change when we are over generations exposed to a peculiar type of technology, codification. As I pointed out, historic literacy rates correlate perfectly with general IQ by region. correct - unless indeed our rational faculty changes, or gets better, or at least presents significant variation. controversial, and definitely off topic.
  19. Is it just as relevant to an tribal elder in Papua New Guinea than to a constituency in New Zealand. First of all the tribes in New Guinea will understand it differently no matter whether they chose to deny it, just because of their cultural framework. Maybe you;re confused I'm not arguing I'm making observations potentially interested in feedback from anyone. One of those observations is that language and the way Ayn Rand is understood (both because of time and cultural distance, the greater the both in the future) is relevant to how Objectivism will "manifest" itself in the future. We are already in the future of Ayn Rand, and this forum is indeed a manifestation, among others, of it. I believe you can deduce everything else from there, if not you may re read my posts as many times as you like. I expect feedback from anyone interested in as I said, these observations.
  20. Objectivism is a peculiar philosophy in that she rejects the dichotomy between mind and body, and theory and practice. So when I refer to Objectivism, while I do refer to the body of work of Ayn Rand, and nothing else (maybe some Peikoff) as the only theory for Objectivism, by its nature (as outlined by its creator) I'm also referring to its being practiced and more importantly understood. Objectivist theory will not change, it is already written as you say, it is a finished product. That finished product, like Aristotle's should be able to outlast the world and time in which it was created. Aristotle's word outlasted the institution of slavery (for the sake of the thread and a good example). Thomas Aquinas work is also a finished product but his ideas, transcendental to his time and context (of which he, nor anyone has any choice of), outlasted Catholic dominance of intellectual thought. Human nature does change (not merely animal like evolution). Because both our ancestors have been living more or less within civilization and engaging in all sorts of ridiculously artificial activities like drinking milk as adults, or writing and sitting, we are not able to fully squat, our tendons can't make it, while people who have only cared over tropical crops for all their recent genetic history indeed can fully squat. This is just a tiny piece of evidence of how human nature (in this case our bodies) is changing more rapidly than natural selection would have it because of our own technological innovations. I'd guess that reading and writing for a few generations makes the person in question smarter, no other way to explain the obvious differences in IQ in continents falsely attributed to the illusion of race. Objectivism, that is the body of work Ayn Rand created, will not change other than being translated into other languages (huge problem here, better if everyone just learnt early 20th century English in the future), and I never challenge that, indeed obvious fact. However by the nature of Objectivism, its theory is only relevant when practiced (to a reasonably expected extent), and practitioners change, and so does their nature, and specially does not only the social and political structures, but the technologies that are creating and being exposed to. This (or any other) forum is a good example.
  21. Whose Grandma???????? collecting social security checks doesn't hurt a geezer, living a life counting on that system does.
  22. Correction, we are at the *beginning* of the story of Objectivism. She rather explicitly explained her philosophy was for the future, for (slow) cultural change. Certainly not the end of the story. As long as the word of Rand is not corrupted, as long as it remains in comprehensible English untouched and unchanged, then anyone can go to the source which is the *only* closed part of Objectivism. The theory. When practiced, by anyone except the creator of the philosophy in question, inevitably by the nature of reality, a new situation is created (and over and over again in each distinct individual reading, studying and finally calling her or himself Objectivist, or student of). not magically, but human nature does change, and there is some hard evidence, that it does so at a faster and faster pace. draw a chart and visualize it if you need to. Back to the thread, Aristotle spoke (dismissively) of those trying to change the content within the form ("to bring about a revolution within the state" but it can be applied to everything). What I say about Ayn Rand, Objectivism and its present and future practice, is that its form is evidently changing, but hopefully not its content. I agree with the rest.
  23. Let's go a step further away from the the US just for the sake of making a point. I hear that Cuba is relatively ok with the financial crisis. That the life of Cubans has not notably changed for the worse because of the international financial crisis. The obvious point is that the more conservative the attitude of "an" economy (to the extreme of socialism, which is the most conservative economic stance, that is utter stagnation), the less affected will it be by outside factors, be them good or bad. If they always had it bad, why would they notice when everybody else is as well. Canada is not socialist, and even less is Australia, but still those economies can't be compared with the biggest risk taker on human history, the American economy. When someone points out how America suffered disproportionately out of this crisis (besides other historical factors, like the possibility of apex point) you may as well point out how, by the same mechanisms, America has benefited disproportionately out of times of growth. This is I believe just plain common sense, not an Objectivist answer and I'm not an economist.
  24. But isn't it central to Objectivism that theory should correspond with practice? In that way Objectivism, even as a closed (defined) set of ideas, can only be "activated" (by the definition of the author) when practiced (adopted and used)
  25. You are correct that this is off topic. So you don't believe that the current enlightenment (sorry I didn't mean enlightment, my fault), that is, the fall of the Soviet Union, the freedom of its satellite states, the liberalization of China, Vietnam and Cambodia, Democratization all over Latin America, Thatcher and Reagan, slow but constant progress of the new African countries, Worldwide globalization with less trade barriers than in the preceding five decades, and unprecedented free flow of information, all of which happened right after Ayn Rand's demise, will make any difference, or as I put it, affect Objectivism in any way? Wow! I didn't even say that it would change its core principles, I just implied it is and it will be fascinating to see how Objectivism is taken by a wholy different generation(s) and World than the one its creator lived in. Thank god Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas didn't "close" their systems, otherwise Ayn Rand could not have studied them, maybe even heard of them! and thank god for all the minds (like Ayn Rand's) who can differentiate a euphemism from literal speech. i.e. "God Bless America" - Ayn Rand can't wait to see all the reputation this post will give me, but sorry I couldn't help it.
×
×
  • Create New...