Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Xaviered

Regulars
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Xaviered

  1. Hello everyone, Some of you might remember me from last year, lamenting on my teen angst and on how I am unable to act, to decide on a course of action at a cross road in my life. Many thanks to the great advice given to me then, it helped me tremedously. Not to sound mushy, but the community here, and Objectivism in general, changed my life to no small degree(There are just about no Objectivists in Singapore) . Back then, I was so uncertain of the future, of what to do, of who I am. Though many of the questions have not been fully answered, I believe I am well on my way, and on the right track. And if I am not, I know for a fact that I will deal with it, and will do my best to emerge triumphant with whatever obstacles I might encounter. Now I am in junior college(which is the most prestigious educational institution for my age in Singapore). It is something I would not have expected last year. I will graduate next year, and then do my time in the Singapore Army, which is required for all males 18 of age in my country. That is, if I do not wish to go to jail (and I do not). Despite approaching a new cross road next year, in which I will need to choose once again, which course(s) to take in university, I go forth with a fire in my heart that is rather difficult to describe, but which I am sure you are all familiar with. Now, to the matter at hand. We have been given an assignment in my junior college. Here, we just refer to it as ''The Project'' or ''Project Work''. It is a very vital part of our curriculum. Simply put, this year's project involves us taking a famous person and trying to extract learning points from his/her journey and how it might be applied so people can learn from them. Quite immediately, I chose Ayn Rand. It was rather self evident to me, and I felt I would be in a way, paying tribute to a set of ideas that have so influenced me. The thing is, I require ideas. I would need to somehow propose ideas on how to promote Objectivism and Ayn Rand to the youth in my country (though it is not limited to just my countrymen). And they need to be unconventional for them to stand out. As it is, I told my teacher(who had no idea who Ayn Rand was) that I chose Ayn Rand, and presented to her a set of proposals, which include : A series of talks and discussion groups on Objectivism formed in junior colleges and secondary schools, a weeklong holiday camp touching in the history of philosophy to learn how objectivism relates to other philosophies, and a debating competition in collaboration with the Debate Association of Singapore in which an Objectivist debate team will defend rational stands against any opposition and win (hopefully). Much to my dismay, though I believe my ideas to have merit, my teacher wants me to be more ''unconventional'' in my ideas to promote Objectivism and the rational way of life. I have been mulling this over, and have not made much progress. Would any of you like to share your ideas with me? Perhaps if you offered a pointer or two, it might spark up some idea that I simply didn't ''get'' in my attempts to rake it up.
  2. I am a Singaporean, so I have lived with the knowledge of the drug laws my whole life, so I am not shocked by it. I do not see why the death penalty for drug possession is wrong. Drug use here is all but unheard of, and most, if not all use of it is kept underground, and if you believe the reports, are being slowly stamped out as we speak. I do not think drugs should be allowed on the basis that it is addictive in nature, a bad personal choice that can have dire consequences on more than the individual concerned. Furthermore, it is unnecessary, and one would have to go through quite a bit of trouble to acquire drugs in Singapore. So people are deterred from using drugs. To make it short, I think the harsh drug laws in Singapore have benefited Singapore as a whole. Everyone benefits, except the drug smugglers. So it might be said that it is in our selfish interest to ban drugs. It is hard to argue from an individualistic standpoint on this, but if allowing drugs, like allowing guns would result in long term negative effects, wouldn't it be better to ban them? I would have you know beforehand that I have read our first prime minister's memoir, and he clearly states that his methods are pragmatic in nature. This is irrelevant, but an interesting tidbit of knowledge: Singapore also bans gambling. Well, large scale organised gambling, anyway. We have, however, recently opened a casino. Bad news for gamblers is that it costs about an extra hundred dollars for Singaporeans to play in the casino. I look forward to your responses, please correct any errors I might have made.
  3. Thank you very much for your response. Do you take the objectivists' stand or Pirsigs', or some other stand entirely?
  4. I believe what he said of quality is that it's a pre-intellectual function. It is not intrinsic, because what has 'quality' is different for everyone. It's so hard to put my finger on it. Something feels wrong. Acknowledgment of his theory as truth would have implications I cannot imagine, both in my life and in my way of thinking.
  5. I did some thinking, and now I wonder if there is perhaps someway to reconcile the Quality of Metaphysics with Objectivism. Perhaps what the author of ''Zen and the art of Motorcycle'' intended was not to deny the essential objective identities of objects, but merely to raise the possibility of a different level of awareness in regards to them.
  6. I will admit it openly, so as to not give anyone false impressions. I do not fully understand the book. If you were to tell me to explain it right now, I could probably explain the ideas, using the words and concepts presented by the author, but true understanding, the innate and unquestioned belief that you understand, is beyond me presently. What do the people here think of this book? Do the book's ''Metaphysics of Quality'' clash or compliment the philosophy of Objectivism? I would love to hear your views on this matter, because I have not found the right information to clarify my thoughts on this. Thank you.
  7. Haha, thank you, Tenure. I must admit, I never saw it that way. Put into that perspective, it does seem rather ridiculous, and very mafia-ish.
  8. Yes, it is explained in the link in my previous post better than I can possibly explain it myself. Substitute ''government'' for ''agency'' each with their own variations for justice. Every individual should belong under the jurisdiction of one agency or another, something like different governments in different countries, except more than one agency can coexist within a certain geographical location. An example of a variation in the law would be, lets say, the death penalty. I believe it is explained in the link how if two individuals belong to different agencies, they will require their respective agencies to reach an agreement which will benefit both sides. I would like to stress that this is not my argument, I am merely trying to find out if theirs have merits.
  9. If someone is born with a lifelong illness, that would ensure their death at a young age, to what extent do Objectivist ethics possibly apply to her? How can someone who knows he/she is going to die, take any comfort in Objectivism?
  10. Suppose a group of people get together and say ''Hey, I want to start a company which handles matters of the law, dealing with the dispensing of justice. It seems to have good potential.'' In order words, these people wish to start a competing system of law. To maintain a monopoly, the government would need to initiate force to maintain it's monopoly, which is why he claims it is a contradiction, since force would be initiated on part of the government. Check this out : http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/...Chapter_29.html
  11. Thank you for responding. He has some links on his description section. I have not read them comprehensively yet, but one of the links state that instead of a government, which in order to assert it's monopoly on the use of force, would be using force to prevent other agencies from performing the same function. This is what, he argues, the government must do to maintain a monopoly on the use of force, which he claims, would be contradicting the Objectivist principle of not initiating force. Instead, he advocates a certain political groundwork which allows for different agencies to function the way a government would. I am not too versed in the specifics, but he managed to make it sound plausible, so I wanted more perspectives on this. Thank you.
  12. This video claims there is a contradiction in Objectivist politics. Is there any merit to its argument? I can find no flaw with what he is basically stating.
  13. I am sorry, I fail to see the difference between whims and interests/passions. Please give me a clearer definition of it. My definition of whim is an urge or desire which has no logical basis. I would consider my urge to produce music a whim as well, though one could call it the urge for self expression. I suppose I call it a whim because it, like I said, has no basis in reality. As in, there is no reason why I SHOULD feel that way, yet I do. Take your daughter for instance, do you choose to maintain her as a value because she is beneficial to your life? By your life, I mean your happiness. Of course you do. But by what standard of evaluation do you decide what contributes to your happiness? Why does it contribute to your happiness? Is it irrational? Those are the questions I am asking. Finally, is the difference between personal expression and whim is the fact that in personal expression you take the time to examine your impulses before acting on them? But then again, I could take all form of self directed action as a form of personal expression. Thank you for your response.
  14. One should strive for ideals. Ideals are abstractions, that with productive effort directed by reason, can be realised as concretes. The question here is one of application, not of theory. Take a starving artist for example. Take Howard Roark, from the Fountainhead. We know that morality is guided by that which is pro-life, that is, that which benefits one's life. (As a rational being) Beyond basic needs, what can be objectively viewed to benefit life? More money? Should an artist with vision, such as Howard Roark, take the risk of starving for the sake of achieving his ideals? How does one justify one's ideals as rational? Is this self evident? By what objective standards do you judge : 1) Having a secure life, and, 2)Throwing yourself out in the line for the sake of your ideals (which are abstractions yet to be realised), as more rational than the other? Or does the issue of personal vision come into play as well. Yet that would negate objectivity, because there HAS to be one option that is better than the other, is there? Does ''that which benefits my life as a rational being'' include taking the risk of starving for the sake of something not yet realised? (An abstraction) For what, for the sake of fulfillment, and happiness? That, itself, is an abstraction, is it not? Fulfillment can never be realised as a concrete.Does that not lead us down the path of hedonism? Happiness is the achievement of one's rational values, rationally. And what sets the standards for our values is what is good for our life. My life, in this case. What is rational about wanting to paint, or design buildings like Howard Roark did, in his own personal vision, as compared to any other option, all which would ensure one's survival as a rational being? Is the pursuit of values in the name of one's life, merely a pursuit of whims using rational means and applying rational methods? Wouldn't that make us advocates of reason only in the sphere of pursuing our goals (Which might not be rational, but conform to Objectivist morality i.e. ''Don't infringe on other people's rights etc) Surely there must be some sort of objective standard of evaluation one can apply to one's own life. If money is to be obtained with pride, as a sign of value obtained via productive effort by a free mind, then does that not mean more money = good? And that being poor means that somehow, in some fundamental respect, you have failed as a rational being? I know this to be untrue, because there are irrational rich people, yet it is hard to reconcile both facts. And what if the pursuit of your ideals beggars you? What then? Values are concretes, are they not? Yet if you have no concretes to show for your work, will you have failed as a human being? ( I am using a lot of ''yets'' I noticed) I am confused in this respect, please enlighten me. A detailed response would be appreciated. Sorry if it is very disorganised, I sort of allowed my rather confused thoughts to be made tangible by typing whatever came to mind, since it was so hard to pinpoint the exact dilemma directly. I am not sure if all these questions stem from a single source or contradiction, or they are the result of many. So if it has been a difficult read, so sorry. I would still appreciate a response though, it really IS bothering me quite a bit.
  15. So we're in a bind here. We can't stop technological progress or industry, because it would mean destroying man's means of survival, but if we were to continue as we are now, we'll be finished in a few generations? Here's hoping that there would indeed be a new form of technology to deal with this crisis.
  16. I read on the news that the world's environmental scientists claim the world is reaching the ''point of no return''. As objectivists, are we morally obligated to play an active part in preventing such an outcome by taking part in environmental causes? Would it be altruism if we devote, consciously, a large amount of our personal will and effort towards ''saving the environment?''. If half of what the scientists say is true, shouldn't anyone with an interest in the continued survival of mankind pursue such a course of action? There have been so many reports on how the world's resources are getting depleted rapidly and how we're going to fly past the point of no return that it's hard to understand why, if it's true, no one is panicking. Well, should we?
  17. My reasoning tells me that Objectivism is sound. But something I don't get is, if Objectivism is so obvious that a 16 year old like me can grasp it, why isn't it popular and widespread? I know the popularity of an idea does not indicate truth, but I did some searching on the internet on ''Criticisms of Objectivist'' and though I cannot comprehend much of the jargon they used, especially in relation to the criticism of the Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology, I wondered if there was something I'm missing. Because Objectivism is so logical and so obvious in my mind, and I cannot understand why anyone would fault it, much less self proclaimed ''philosophers'' with credentials. I am sorry for being vague, I hope I've clarified a bit of what I meant by my question.
  18. The criticisms of Objectivism, questioning the validity of it as a philosophy, are they in any way justified? As in, since reason is the main tenet in Objectivism (Probably the only tenet), are the criticisms of Objectivism (whatever they may be) valid in any way? Or is Objectivism by and far a sound ideology?
  19. How does one know what career is best for him? Through introspection? I know life is the standard of morality, but aside from sustaining life, it also said something about ''living as a man i.e living as a rational being.'' To live as a rational being, one must apply reason to one's life. Thing is, there is little in the way of rationality in one's choice of career, other then whim.''I simply like it.'' Thanks, i like my name too. United States scares me a bit. I don't know much about it, but it seems to be vastly different from Singapore, with fundamentalists and all that. Perhaps it's just a stereotyped impression. I do know that United States is known for free speech and freedom and everything, but it seems that many Americans are unhappy with their country and many countries (mine excluded) criticise the US alot and give them quite a bit of flak.
  20. Thank you for your detailed response. I have a question though. In your third alternative, do you still get to do what you love (Your game designing), or are you pursuing a different kind of passion (Business)? You have my admiration, though, for having the guts to go for business. I am sure you (like me) have been told that it's risky, and that you'd be foolish to do it, yet you tried, and succeeded anyway.
  21. Thank you. Haha, I too, am a fan of bodybuilding, as soon as I graduate, I'm going to start bulking ^^. Thanks for the advice, especially the one about comparing the different possibilities and conditioning myself to them, I never really thought of that before.
  22. A bit about myself. I am a 16 year old Chinese student from Singapore. I am not sure at what age do the teenagers in your respective countries graduate from high school, but this is the year I am. As you might guess, I am at something of a crossroads of my life, and I recently discovered objectivism, and I was glad I did. A Sense Of Life For quite a while, the past three years or so, I have been struggling with a sense of guilt, or rather, an undefined fear that I am unable to put my finger on. I still cannot truly grasp the nature of that fear. This might sound completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is the question of my prospective career, but allow me to continue. Ayn Rand's writings have resulted in a significant change in thinking, that I am sure most, if not all of you experienced on first contact with her ideas. My only regret is that I did not discover her ideas 3 years earlier, when it might have made a larger difference. You see, I have been entertaining thoughts of this nature for the past three years : That I am fundamentally flawed in some manner. Of course, back then the thought of it was incoherent, and I did wrestle with it, some part of me recoiling at that thought, and what it meant by implication. I had mood swings, black moods descending out of nowhere in an instant, at some trigger, a senseless act I read on the news, the irrationality of other people, etc. Even then, I had a respect for the rational, or rather, ''the things that made sense'' or are self evident. In fact, I took personal pride in my own perceived rationality above others, though now I realise how much I have to learn about reason and its applications. I understand completely if you are thinking that I was suffering( and still am) from depression, though I hesitate to call it such, despite having been diagnosed as such before(After several outbreaks of violence, none of which I am proud of, in any way.). After all, I am not certain what constitutes depression and I am generally mistrustful of doctors of the mind in general as they would have everything to gain and nothing to lose with that diagnosis (I would have to come back for therapy and medication). This is just background information, and I apologise if I bored you, but I see it as essential in order to appreciate my situation. (Continued) I have questioned relentlessly on questions I thought fundamentally and vitally important to me in the past three years. I am not certain if this ''awakening'' of the consciousness is unique to me, or to all the teenagers in the world, but though I used to revel in the knowledge that I am somehow ''different' by virtue of the thoughts I hold, it used to cause me pain as well, back then, when I tried, and failed to find satisfactory answers to those questions. Some of them are ''What is the meaning of life?'' ( I know how Ayn Rand hated this question. She states that it is self-evident in the fountainhead) ''What is the ideal life?/What should a man be?, ''What is happiness, and how does one achieve it, and when one does, does he place it above all other areas of consideration?'', and so forth. You probably get the drift, by now. My parents, my teachers, and god forbid, my friends, have served only to muddle, to distort, or even sometimes, to try to comfort me in the knowledge that they don't know the answers, that, maybe, there isn't a way to truly know the answers, and that the best thing to do would be probably just to live life as it is. The worse criticism was probably from my parents: ''Why do you have to be like this?'' ''Why can't you simply just be like other kids, and get good grades, and be happy?'' And even sometimes, I received attacks on my intelligence. On Chinese New Year (an annual gathering with distant and near relatives) My father even once mockingly said loudly to all present, whilst pointing towards my cousins (some of whom are incredibly successful students). ''There are your cousins, why don't you go ask them all your useless questions?'' That incident, though it took place many months ago, still stings. I remember the humiliation, and the shame, as though I was a bright student, I was vastly overshadowed by my cousins, and academic achievement, in my country, and especially among those of my culture, is held to be a hallmark, a sign of future success, of doing honor to one self and one's family. I had no way of venturing any form of dignified response then, without appearing to be a pretentious upstart, out of place, and insignificant. As probably was what my father intended to achieve - ridiculing me. I knew my parents could not offer me any answers. They were not inclined to consider those questions and often had stock answers to give me, quick responses for every kind of situation, some of them blatantly contradicting. ''never trust anyone'' says my mother, one of her more favourite quips. And on other occasions, she calls me selfish, for my moodiness, my questioning. I understand that I am probably to blame for some of those criticisms directed at me. However, the evasions, the stock answers and the direct insults to my intelligence, are unforgivable. ''You'll grow up.'' ''The reason why you are so ungrateful to question such stuff is because you've never suffered.'' I feel as if they are bludgeoning me with a club that they, with greater age and experience, whatever that counts for (notice how we have to respect age in most cases, as if it confers some unseen dignity or clarity of insight to a person by virtue of being older, or having more wrinkles), have the privilege of wielding. I don't want this to be a whine against life in general, though it probably seems like it by now to you, reader. I am not as bitter as I sound while typing this, nor am I wrecked with teenage angst, I am just vaguely reflective. To be frank with all, I do not know for certain, why I posted here looking for answers, except that I have a tremendous respect for Ayn Rand's philosophy, and seeing as she founded the objectivist movement, you guys can't be that bad.^^ After discovering Ayn Rand's philosophy, I felt spurts of inspiration and moment of truth. Brief glimpses of ''Ah! That's how it is! I agree, and I am so glad that I've found you, you who sees the world as I do and understand what I am feeling!'' which only truly insightful and poignantly beautiful art can induce in me. Most of you would understand what I mean. I have always felt the urge, the need to give shape to something by my life, to state boldly that ''But for me, that thing wouldn't exist. But for me, that would not have occurred. I am the source of conscious, directed change''. '' I have devoted my life to a purpose. That purpose is me'' And now, to the first main issue. I feel...I know that thought precedes emotion in most cases, but in my case, the emotions are rather overwhelming. I feel...crippled in some sense. I know of what Ayn Rand meant by a sense of life, of how it works subconsciously when a human is too young to rationally integrate concepts. But I fear in my case (oh how I wish that it might not be so!) that the damage to my sense of is beyond repair. I feel spurts of inspiration and moments of truth, I have said, but yet in most of my waking moments, I am deprived of that sense of joy that seems to pervade Ayn Rand's heroes. My respect for Objectivism lies in the fact that it is ''What can be, and what should be'', that the ideals are achievable, that it is not impossible to be both practical and idealistic, and the union of those two principles is undiluted happiness. But I can't. The happiness, the joy, so clear, so bright to me in some moments, are lost in others. I feel like I am grasping at phantoms and ghosts. I want the happiness, and I want the certainty. I feel crippled. Betrayed, in some way. Crippled in that all the subconscious junk I have absorbed is too much for me, and betrayed in that it need not have to be so, that it could have been different, that I wish...I wish that someone had told me all these before when i was younger, so I would never know the fear that Ayn Rand describes so well ( The fear of life, of the irrational in life, that nothing makes sense and nothing will, because you cannot know for sure). The fear that made me turn to existentialism for answers once, when it sounded to promising, only to realise that it merely reinforced what I thought then about the human condition, but offered no remedy, no solution. It's back, and I don't know how to fight it. Many times in my life, I have felt this, this black wave of despair collapse on me. Many times, even before I discovered Ayn Rand, I had felt moments when it lifted, when I told myself, ''Alright, this is it, you'll never let yourself be eroded by that blasted thing again.'' Needless to say, I have failed in that promise, time and time again. The thing about it is that it's a despair that creeps up on you. That begins with a feeling of vague discontent, which triggers the thoughts, which increase the discontent etc, until all is left is an avalanche of negativity, of twisted, raped illogic that I consciously acknowledge as such, but am unable to deny. Is my sense of life too deeply ingrained in me? I don't feel I deserve, in fact, I don't feel anyone deserves this. I am not consciously trying to sound pitiful. I see no value in being sad, unlike many of my peers, I do not think there is anything romantic about being a tragically melancholy person. Share your experiences with me, maybe offer some advice. I am prepared to wrestle with this for the rest of my life, no way in hell will I commit suicide or self destruct, but please, if you have anything at all to say that can help me. Please do. Crossroads I stated earlier that I am at a crossroads of my life. Well, I still am, at the point of writing this post. ^^ Though most would tell me not to worry about it, that I still have my time in college to think it over, this question of what I am going to do for the rest of my life bothers me, as my decision in this would determine my present actions. For the purpose of keeping this simple, there are two viable career paths, they differ in that one is a radical step away from the accepted norm within my culture, unlike the other. One is the pursuit of something which I have a passion for (which has in some ways, been corrupted by my sense of life as well): Music. I love music, and I know I can do something with it with the appropriate hard work, discipline and persistence. I play the drums, and I aren't bad at it at all. I like what music represents, speaking in a language of the senses, a musician being a person who perfects something of a third language. A musician's skill reflects his ability of self expression, and a perfect, ideal musician is a medium, a conduit, for his thoughts, his feelings, his sense of life. However this would represent a break in tradition, I am not going to attempt to be modest by saying I'm a fairly good student. I am a brilliant student, and I know it. My cousins may overshadow me in this respect but it's not through an overabundance of talent on their part. I can match them, To accept music, which most regard as a dead end career as it conjures up images (at least in the minds of most people I know) of starvation, of constant struggling and of life in relative ignominy, would be, to my parents, a betrayal, of all the money and time and effort they spent on raising me. And I can't deny that. I feel I owe them something in return, and this is a source of conflict for me. The other path should be known to all. The ''right'' track. Getting a good job, with definite prospects, and (what else!) making it big, getting rich, having...whatever it is you do with your money. Contentment and general happiness follows, along with the right to say at the end of your life that you've lived it well. Oh, don't forget the lovely, pretty wife and a few kids as well, hopefully all on their way to becoming a success, just like their old man. It isn't that bad, actually, and I hope I don't come across as cynical. That was just a reaction to the general opinion of people's view on life ''as it should be lived''. I know most people are not mindless drones in their work. It means something to them, and that is how it should be. And this course is not entirely without merit either. I could (possibly) find fulfillment in this path. However, I fear being disillusioned as times goes by, and of regretting. I have a certain revulsion towards such a life that I can't coherently express. That my life, might have no significance whatsoever, that I might be part of the status quo. Here is when I start losing my train of thought. Pardon me if my statements here lack particular clarity. I am fully aware that my state of mind is not optimal at the moment. Hah, optimal. Always wanted to use that word. I know none of you are obliged to offer me any advice. Some of you might even sneer at this display of teenage ignorance and think that I am struggling with childish concerns you have long outgrown. I do not blame you. Perhaps you have outgrown me, I cannot judge you, for you have offered me nothing to judge, while I have...well, I have sort of confessed alot here, haven't I? So.....there's that. All of you are lovely people, and I love you all. Whimsical whimsical whimsical The other path is probably what most would consider the safest bet to a good life. What do you think?
×
×
  • Create New...