Ed from OC
-
Posts
240 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Ed from OC
-
-
One tip: don't idealize your ex. Keep in mind the bad as well as the good. Remember all those things about her that bugged you? Now some other guy has to put up with them. And that's something you don't have to feel jealous about. In fact, aren't you relieved to be free of that, and able to look for better women?
-
What turned me off to the show was the transparent propaganda. I wanted a good story above all. The fact that they were pro-environmentalist was a secondary concern.
Does anyone remember the "Care Bears?" Same deal. Yecch.
-
The Jesuits used to say (paraphrasing), "Give me a child for his first seven years and you can do what you want with him after that." I think there's a lot of truth to the idea that the first few years of a person's life have tremendous impact on the rest.....is an Objectivist made or born? Are there certain things that had to happen in their life to lead them there or could anyone become an Objectivist if they just read Ayn Rand?There can be many reasons why a particular person would simply never become an Objectivist. But a child who is a strong valuer, who trusts his mind, and who asks questions about everything shows good promise as a future Objectivist. Whether that promise lasts into adulthood is another matter.
-
Nope. Too busy imagining Zell Miller vs. Condi Rice.
Actually, I'm thinking it will be Hillary vs. Giuliani (possibly with Schwarzenegger as VP).
The Dems keep losing, shift more to the left, and lose even more.
The GOP could clean up with someone like the former NYC mayor: pro-choice, pro-law enforcement, refused Saudi payoff post-9/11, minimally religious, good name recognition. Offhand I don't recall his economic policies, but want to say they were better than average.
Down side: he crucified Milken. Not to be forgotten or forgiven.
-
What is the point in having custody over your child, then?
In a communist country, there's no such thing as custody rights.
-
My personal picks of the current crop:
Top Pick: 24
Runners-up:
Alias
Gilmore Girls (at its best, it reminds me of the old witty, fast-banter comedies of the '30s)
South Park
Law and Order
My all-time favorite: Twilight Zone
-
I agree that there can different reasons for being right on the Elian case. But if a person is wrong about it, what could be more telling than that about their character (in a quick-snapshot sense)?
What does a stance on a political issue tell you about how he lives his life? I agree it may indicate something substantial -- to the degree he is consistent. What if he isn't? What if he says one thing and does another? What if he holds conflicting political ideas?
As far as single data points go, I think this is a good one. The instantaneous, sense-of-life response it indicates gives you some insight into a fellow's character. But it is only one data point.
People are free to change. They may recongize a contradiction in their ideas, resolve it, and change their opinions, and that's especially true about concretes. So, for instance, someone may say, "Well, Cuba's not so bad, and he should be with his Dad." Later he realizes how much freedom matters, and that Cuba has none, so Elian should remain in the US. In which case, the underlying rationality of the person would not be revealed by this test.
And, back to the point that interests me, I don't think another single concrete question can work as a means of instantly determining someone's essential character. So substituting another for this wouldn't help.
-
I’ve found no “litmus test” for an individual’s basic philosophy however, because it’s so common to superficially accept one philosophy – like Objectivism, Christianity, or hedonism while living by another. The only sure way of finding out what philosophy someone lives by is to observe him practicing it.
Ultimately, I agree. But I think there are pointed questions one can ask to extract essential information, which can help. The big caution is that any single, concrete issue (like Elian) can be misunderstood. There can be very different reasons for holding the same stance on an issue. And even if they have the right reasons, it may be compartmentalized.
More broadly, I don't approach people and engage in a detective hunt as to their character. If I meet someone in a business context, I treat them with professional courtesy at first. As I get to know them, I gradually adjust my behavior accordingly. If I have some reason to concern myself with them personally, then I would start to deal with them on a more personal level. By that time, I'm no longer dealing with them in a vacuum, and I have a context within which to draw a composite sketch.
Some examples of pointed questions that can illuminate:
Do they have deep personal values? (within some concrete area, like movies) Are they in a clear hierarchy? Do they absolutely love some things and hate others -- or are they more apathetic?
If office gossip circulates about an ethical issue, how do they respond? If the boss is sleeping with the new employee who suddenly gets a promotion -- is there jealousy, or indignation that such people make it harder for women to be taken seriously at work?
When you discuss some specific issue related to work, is the person's train of thought clear and focused, or easily derailed? Do they bring new and interesting information to the discussion, or steer the conversation off topic?
Notice that a lot of these are questions that you can ask yourself about what you observe. Usually questions like these are in the background of normal life for me. As I interact with people, I have a habit of noting particularly good or bad signs. Sometimes I note it and move on, other times I ask a question or two.
Bottom line: an accurate, detailed profile of the people you meet takes time and observation. A few probing questions at the right time can dig up essential information. I've found I don't have a need to get too detailed in profiling most people I meet, as I don't have a need or interest in such detail.
-
I'd put it this way: there are a growing number of groups and individuals who claim to promote Objectivism. However, as the meaning of that term is disagreed upon, they can't really be said to be promoting the same thing.
For instance, some assert that "Objectivism" is a proper noun (i.e., ARI, who hold it is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy) while others hold that it is somehow both a concept (in that it is open to revision without end) and a noun.
-
It's a pity so many Objectivists (though not all) seem to have a problem with viewing movies. If I publicly praise something that's good, I often get responses that are critical of the movie, or of my recommendation.
All of Pixar's movies have been terrific, and "Incredibles" was the one I most enjoyed. It has some moderately good thematic elements (i.e., praising the great and dismissing conformity), but it is a far cry from Galt's speech. I didn't make an Ayn Rand connection to the movie until I saw reviews that did so. Yet some Objectivists are upset because, apparently, they went in expecting some sort of deep connection with Objectivism.
I'm all for getting excited about an upcoming film, but I don't drop context in doing so. Did Hollywood suddenly change? Did the film-going public? Of course not.
-
I think that all of one's actions ought to be integrated to one's central purpose in life, which may differ from person to person. However, making sure your choices all further your central purpose rather than hinder it is a matter of ethics. So I still think ethics applies to all choices, not just some.
How does saying "ethics applies to all choices" equate with "all choices are ethical issues?"
As I wrote: all choices should be consistent with one's ethics, but that does not mean all choices are in themselves ethical ones.
A question: do you believe there are optional values? These are values that lie within a range of options, but philosophy offers no means of ranking one option above another.
One example is choice of career. Ethics won't tell you which specific career to pursue. It can rule out some (mobster, drug dealer, tax collector), but beyond that, it cannot say a doctor or ditch digger is more moral than, say, an architect or scientist.
-
Ed, dosn't one decide to have steak or lobster based on their taste, cost, effect on health, ease to cook, and other matters?
That's what I do and think is the right way to decide.
-
I am not personally offended when a person attacks Ayn Rand. I merely ignore the statement if I do not see a point in it. I can tolerate opposing views, so long as the person is not ridiculing and thus trying to bring me down.
If someone says, "Ayn Rand was wrong on this issue, and here's why..." then I am not offended. Such an attitude should be welcome to a public discussion.
But if someone slanders her, calls her names, ridicules her personally, then I get angry. Same goes for those who KNOWINGLY support those who slander her.
I've gotten so much value from her over the last 14 years that I hold her in very high esteem. I am perpetually indebted to her for the incredible art she created that I can enjoy again and again. I don't mean to say she is a good writer; she is a great one. Her novels are so sublime that I get a sense of exaltation reading them that I can rarely find elsewhere. That is precious to me and I value her for giving that to me.
And then there's the whole philosophy she generated that has improved my life in so many ways. I honestly cannot say what my life would be like today if I had never met her novels or ideas, beyond recognizing the huge benefits they've given me.
For these reasons, I take offense when people attack Ayn Rand. I have no patience for them.
And by the way, seeing someone attack Ayn Rand tells me something about them. Either they haven't read anything, and hence are willing to attack without understanding beforehand; or they have read some things, and don't understand, in which case I have nothing to learn from them; or they have read, and do understand, in which case they are vile, disgustingly evil creatures.
I want nothing to do with them. I say: ban them, ban them, and ban them again! As to the issue at hand, I think the current forum rules and moderation policies are fine. Anyone who gets banned should have given sufficient evidence of bile and irrationality in his postings.
-
Thank you for the two poems, Brian. They're quite excellent. Each put a big grin on my face.
-
All questions of how to conduct oneself are ethical questions
I disagree. The distinction lies with the level of abstraction involved. Not all issues of behavior rise to the level of ethics. They should be consistent, but they are not equivalent.
For example: what should I have for dinner? Ethics CANNOT tell me whether to have lobster or steak. It can tell me that a certain range of food will benefit me, that eating in certain locations is immoral (e.g., a restaurant owned by a mobster), that I should respect the rights of the restaurant owner, and so on.
But a proper code of ethics is not in the business of handing down concrete decrees. Leave that to religion ("eat only kosher food", "don't eat meat on Fridays", etc.).
-
It's an interesting question. Given the connection between religion and philosophy, I think religious ceremonies, services, and locations serve both, in different ways. We definitely don't want a church per se, but regular gatherings of a certain type may be a good thing.
A few less-than-complete thoughts:
What role do ceremonies play for religion? For big events in life (birth, death, marriage, transition into adulthood) there are religious services (baptism, funeral, wedding, confirmation / bar mitzvah). Keeping those tied closely to the church serves to reinforce the idea that religion is very important to your life. Everything about the ceremony, from the architecture to the fashion, is geared toward that.
Moreover, the nature of the ceremonies are keyed to a religious approach to life. A sermon, by its very nature, is proper to a dogmatic, intrinsicist authority looking to control the masses. The congregation recites memorized dogma. They pray on their knees. They bow their heads to acknowledge their willing submission. These are not good things, but ceremonies as such need not incorporate them.
By the same token, those very same big events in life could be coupled with Objectivism. I don't think the point, though, would be indoctrination, but rather celebration of objective values (e.g., reason, pride, honesty, freedom, reality, achievement, science, etc.). While we can do that with quiet reflection in solitude, there is something gained by doing it socially.
---
I don't see a need for starting a tradition of repetitive, dogmatic, concrete actions (e.g., replacing the signing of the cross with the signing of the dollar sign, or replacing "May the peace of God be with you" with "May good premises be with you"). I do, however, like the idea of regular periods of time set aside to focus one's awareness on the "big picture" (philosophically speaking), of celebrating one's values socially, of a location for celebrating the big events in one's life.
---
If we are talking about the distant future, would there someday be a standard form of wedding ceremony? It seems like every time an Objectivist couple marries, the format varies widely. Some see a justice of the peace, some go to Vegas, some create their own vows, and so on. Is there value in having a standard one? (Not that one would be forced to use it, though.)
---
How about other events in life? As Objectivists, are there certain events in our lives that deserve celebration that non-Objectivists don't have? For example, graduating from a course on Objectivism, or having a "committment" day (to celebrate that time of your life when you understood enough about Objectivism to publicly declare that you actually are now a committed Objectivist) are possiblities off the top of my head. Maybe the day you start the first job in your chosen line of work. Maybe the day you first read "The Fountainhead."
---
In any case, given a life based on reason and reality (as opposed to faith and the supernatural) I don't think some church-like entity would or should play nearly as large a role in our lives as the church does for the pious. We simply don't share the secondhanded, parasitical need that the church pretends to satisfy, even if we appropriate and modify some things.
---
It's interesting that the concept "sacred", for most people, combines the religious element with the "deeply important" part. The church certainly benefits from that. While we want to cut out religion, recognizing and celebrating the "deeply important" part should be kept.
I think men have a need for regular focus on the sacred or the sublime. It energizes the soul with an overpowering and deep pleasure and sense of exaltation. We can get it from art (the best symphonies or books, for instance). It's possible to get it from sex. Are those the only possible sources, or is there another? Might some elements of lectures, music, debates, and so on be available as a regular service? I don't have anything specific in mind, but maybe someday someone else would invent something.
-
I hope no one would find offense with my post, but why bother with philosophy? Isn't it just mental/intellectual acrobatics?
Philosohpy is not a luxury, but a life-and-death issue -- literally. We could not live at all if we consistently applied anti-life premises and principles.
If we believed, for instance, that eternal happiness was ours after death -- why not commit suicide? Too far-fetched? Ask a suicide bomber.
If science tells us human life requires certain things, do we acknowledge that and act accordingly -- or do we consult the arbitrary scribblings of an ancient text? Can we do both?
If we really believe that consciousness creates reality, do we need to step out of the way of a speeding truck -- or just wish it out of existence?
If we reject the law of identity, can we spend all of our savings on a wild party tonight, take on credit beyond our means to buy a Ferrari -- and not be bankrupt in the morning?
If we reject the need for principles and thinking long-term, what will our situation be tomorrow? Next week? In five years? Will retirement be possible? Will America be free?
I could go on, but you get the idea. Philosophy fulfills certain needs of human beings. As volitional beings, we need principles to guide our actions (ethics). As conceptual beings, with no means of automatic knowledge, we need to validate our knowledge (epistemology). We need to know what is real (metaphysics). As social beings, we need to identify the proper basis for society (political philosophy).
-
While I have no interest in joining the modern-day Freemasons, their history is something I would like to learn more about someday. It's interesting that many scholars, scientists, inventors, artists, and businessmen of the Enlightenment were masons. Often it served to bring together these people for in-depth discussions of the latest ideas, or even to witness demonstrations of inventions and scientific experiments (though some turned out to be pseudo-science). Also, many in revolutionary America belonged.
From what I know at the moment, the Freemasons during the period of the Enlightenment were generally more pro-reason, pro-reality and pro-liberty then other groups. That's admirable for that context. But today's masons have little to do with that, having more in common with Elks or Rotarians.
-
Isn't that statement itself an abstraction -- and therefore self-refuting?You cant prove an abstract concept. -
Oh please. Do you KNOW that God doesnt exist?
Of course. He told me himself.
-
If he is working, aka being productive,
Be careful here. Holding a job is not the same as practicing the virtue of productiveness. A tax collector or drug enforcement agent does not produce life-promoting values. What makes a job moral is the opportunity to create objective values that enhance one's life. Plenty of jobs today (especially in government) involve the violation of rights, making them fundamentally attacks on values. An artist creating inspirational work, a dentist providing clean teeth, a scientist curing cancer, an accountant keeping corporate finances in order are just a few examples of the process of creating values.
-
As I understand growth in a philosophy is a personal thing I can only guess how much he had applied to his life.
Pardon my bluntness, but why do you have to guess? If you've been dating this guy for some time, then I assume you know quite a lot about his life -- his career, his hobbies, his family, his friends, his interests, his goals, his habits, etc. From such an intimate perspective I think you would be able to see plenty of evidence of what matters to him, how he approaches different aspects of his life, and so on. Based on that you ought to be able to do better than making a blind guess.
That sounds like a very big issue. Going into ANY career for the money alone is a mistake. That could be the heart of the issue. It's unfortunately pretty common for people to make mistakes about their career choice. The best thing to do once you realize you made such a mistake is to re-evaluate your career choice and find something better. It may take time to figure that out. It may take time to get trained in a new field. It may take years of scraping by before the new career becomes financially viable (or before you get back to the same level of income). But it would be worth it, instead of letting the problem get worse....ten years ago while he was in college he decided to become a computer guy because he could earn good money, but he hates his job.It can be really intimidating to write off 10 years of your life, set aside the gains you've made there, and essentially start over. It can create a huge amount of anxiety, which many people "handle" by procrastinating. Of course, that doesn't fix the problem, and in fact serves to enhance the anxiety. Maybe (and again I stress my limited perspective) that is what is bothering him.
Thank you for saying that I have a nasty habit of blaming myself for everything. Its easier, though, to slap me and say stop it. ... I agree with the philosophy but find fault in myself that prevents me from perusing it.I'm not a psychologist, but as I read this, what jumps out is a self-esteem issue. It personally bothers me to see someone attack herself, as it looks like you're doing here.
As a general suggestion, you may want to take a look at the websites of a couple of psychologists -- Dr. Hurd and Dr. Kenner -- who are also Objectivists and have experience dealing with self-esteem issues. I've been impressed by Dr. Kenner's lectures and radio show, and I hear good things about Dr. Hurd from a patient of his.
The point of having a rational, true philosophy is that it enhances one's life. Frankly, it's a cop-out to say "I'm not good enough" in this context. Why? Because we are talking about, primarily, ethics and epistemology. It makes no sense to say "I'm not good enough to be rational" or "I don't deserve to act morally." Thinking clearly and acting according to what you know is right are both matters of choice. That is, they are available to any human being, but require the decision, the act of will, to engage. It's not as if you spend years studying the rules of logic and then reach a point where you become rational. You can be rational immediately, by choosing to be so. (Studying logic enhances one's skills, but does not create a capacity that was not already there to some degree.)
And the same with morality. It sounds like you have enough of an idea about Objectivist ethics that you should have an understanding of the major virtues, like honesty. If one knows what honesty is, and that it is proper, there is no excuse not to practice it. And the same with the other virtues.
Given a certain level of knowledge of morality, a person can accept it and act accordingly, or not. A person can choose to be good, or not. If one grasps what is moral, but chooses not to practice it, that person doesn't get a third option. (The exception would be someone ignorant of morality, but that exception expires with age and only applies to someone willing to learn. Even then, it is not absolute: a child with no formal knowledge of philosophy is not exempt from morality. A certain leniency may be due, but no more.)
While on the subject of self-esteem, you said:
He has judged himself to be lazy and evasive, and is hard on himself coming home from work and vegging in front of the computer to unwind instead of working towards his goals.That raises yet another possibility: that of unrealistic goals. Does he think he should be a John Galt of computers? That happens occasionally. After reading Ayn Rand's novels, occasionally someone may feel guilty or worthless if they aren't the very best in their field. But that's a misinterpretation. Not everyone can be the very best. What matters is the attempt. What matters is the passion. Eddie Willers hadn't the ability of Dagny, Rearden, or Galt, but was their equal in terms of how good a person he was. That is, it is the yardstick of morality that matters for judging people.
That may or may not be the issue here. I don't know.
-
Best-selling author Ira Levin, who was a student of Objectivism in the 1950s and 60s...
I had no idea. Is that info available somewhere, in a book or website? Or is it something you know from being around Objectivists for a long time?
Anyway, thanks for the info. I'll make it a point to read that book (and more) ASAP.
I saw his movie "A Kiss Before Dying" several years ago and was quite impressed. But why didn't Ayn Rand point out that Levin was a student of Objectivism at one point when she discussed his writing?
-
I worry in rising up to his level I pulled him down.
I don't know how that's possible. If he's done some things that have helped you become a better, happier person -- how could that make him unhappy or a bad person? My point is I can see absolutely no reason to beat yourself up.
His Grandfather died and he went back home for the funeral, during this time he examined his life and decided he wasn't where he wanted to be, doing what he wanted to do, or the person he wanted to be. He started to withdraw. Mounting pressure at work has gotten him to the point all he wants to do is survive. Get from one day to the next until the weekend, which he also hates because a new workweek is around the corner.Where at one point in his life he would enjoy lively discussions and debates about his beliefs he now only "what-ever's" and retreats. He knows where he is now does not fit in with his Objectivist beliefs and he seems to have stalled in getting himself back to where he wants to be.
There are so many variables and details involved here that I would take advice offered by strangers on an online forum with a grain of salt. There may be (and probably are) significant details left out of your description.
That said, what stands out from what you wrote is that he is he is frustrated with his life and looking to change. It isn't clear whether he knows which way he wants to go, or if he is, how committed he is to changing.
Some things to consider: How willing is he to discuss his frustrations? How detailed are his identifications of what he dislikes about his current situation and his plans for change? (If he hasn't a clear idea of either, that can really amplify his frustration.)
Is his unwillingness to discuss and "debate" his beliefs limited to less personal things (e.g., general philosophy, current events, etc.)? If that's the case, it could just be he sees these things as far less important than the other matters that are pressing on him. However, if he is unwilling to discuss (i.e., communicate, not debate) personal matters with you personally, then that is a whole other problem.
It's not uncommon for people to encounter turning points in their life. Perhaps having mortality thrust to the forefront with recent events has led him to re-prioritize his values. Emotionally that can be really draining, as one can feel disconnected from the driving passions one used to have. It can take quite some time to restructure one's hierarchy of personal values, but if done correctly, the biggest passions can re-ignite one's joy of living and end up being even brighter. So this may be temporary.
But these are just a few possibilities. Really the only piece of advice I can offer is to communicate effectively. If that's already the case, then maybe some therapy would help him sort out his situation.
Objectivists: Made or Born?
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
What would be the best Objectivist retort to that?
Maybe: "The rights of the individual outweigh the needs of the many."