Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tonix777

Regulars
  • Content Count

    142
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tonix777

  1. Agree with whYNOT, Objectivism is the best philosophical foundation to build the structure of our mind, but there is in the World much more to know and to learn beside Objectivism. It is up to each one of us to select the mix of knowledge we integrate into our mental structure as long as we do it in a non-contradictory way. Objectivism is a wonderful tool to manage fundamentals and hierarchy in that structure
  2. Agree with Tensorman, AR didn't know so well the biology of the brain the emotions and the subconscious, understandable because being a writer and philosopher she wasn't neither a psychologist nor a biologist. Plus she grew up in a time when the knowledge about the physiology of our brain was far less than current. I don't think anyway that this invalidates any part of her philosophy and it is our "duty" to continue knowing deeper about this matter On the other hand "Emotions" is a broad term, some fast-non-exhaustive research in Wikipedia tells that there are few primary emotions and a bu
  3. Good point, agreed that no conceptual knowledge comes inside before birth I also despise non-rigorous people without consistent moral and/or logical principles I give these issues upmost importance: I knew Objectivism late in my life, around my 40's in a foreign Country where nobody knows about it. It made me to review absolutely all my previous premises that I held during most of my adult lifespan, "restart" my brain, fight with all my relatives and friends and finally leave my Country with my wife and kids to come to live in NY, all thanks to Ayn Rand. So don't tell me I don't take th
  4. Agreed and congratulations, I like to think the same way about myself but even when I am prepared and somewhat trained in 47 years I never had YET to hurt anyone in self defense besides a couple of street fights in my youth. Experience also tells me that "thinking" that you can is not the same as actually can, but the proper self-image is a good start anyway Returning to the topic I have the impression just by looking around that most people aren't as prepared as you are. I live in NY and it seems to me that majority of population here is quite "domesticated"
  5. You are right about the difference between the two types of Altruism BUT I believe the philosophical Altruism grown thanks to the biological one The LA Times article I cited speaks about inherited traits used by religions as "building blocks" of their business, one of these traits is the biological Altruism which served as foundation for the religious Altruism which in turn gave birth to the philosophical one since Philosophy was more or less born from Religion. These three types of Altruism reinforce each other in a vicious circle in modern society
  6. You are right I think I misused the term "primitivism" according to the Dictionary: "primitivism |ˈprimətivˌizəm| noun 1 a belief in the value of what is simple and unsophisticated, expressed as a philosophy of life or through art or literature. 2 unsophisticated behavior that is unaffected by objective reasoning." I was referring more to the idea I have that our sophisticated and pacific lifestyle makes us somewhat weak or should I better say "unprepared" for limit situations Have you by example ever had to defend yourself or your family from direct violence without intervention of
  7. Well... Before nothing I think this topic is very debatable so it should go in the Debate Section but I couldn't find a way to post there, it used to be more easy in the past... So it would be great if someone can move it there About "Tabula Rasa" it is not a concept so strictly defined as you think, as example see this brief article in Wikipedia Here the somewhat broader definition also mention "...aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence..." No doubt the brain doesn't carry at birth any "high level" information but it has been demonstrated by se
  8. More than 50 years after Atlas Shrugged and after much years of being Objectivist, I strongly believe that some update is necessary to Rand's original approach In fact more than an update is an extension consisting in applying Objectivism deeper to the Human Animal: Ourselves The Aristotelian "A is A" means also that WE are what we are, and in recent years after Rand's main body of work, several science disciplines has gone much further in the research about our very own nature as "biological machines". In an oversimplified analogy our body and specially our brain would be the "hardware"
  9. Could you please explain how to start a new topic with the new policy? Thanks
  10. Well... I don't want to open than can of worms specially since I got beaten pretty hard already But I can tell you that I consider myself as a "frontier" person in general (I have my own somewhat complex theory for that) thus I am also a "frontier" Objectivist, meaning that I am more on the edge sometimes called Neo-Objectivism than in the center which I would call Orthodox-Objectivism currently directed by Peikoff By example I have read almost all AR but also Nathaniel Branden or David Kelley and I like most of their work, and I understand them both had been "expelled" from official Obje
  11. I know "why" I like it, I know myself quite well (probable more than the average I would say). The point in this topic was that most other people didn't like my reasons for liking it or my proposed scientific explanations And by the way I don't share in this case your previous poison/food analogy: In a hierarchical mind-structure not everything has the same magnitude and some people are not capable to give things the correct scale of importance which is essential for the proper functioning of a logic mind Finally I would add that I don't share the quest for perfection showed by some Object
  12. I don't think simple "interest" would be a problem, no subject has a virus that you can catch if you study it. In any case problems could eventually begin with what you do with the results of your study... And if you read my posts I am not giving any credit to the supernatural, it was all about some possible "religious instinct" inside our own minds as species
  13. Ok thanks for taking your time for this recommendation. I will probably buy it when I have a chance I have read a couple of Peikoff's essays and they are worth the money
  14. I have read Atlas Shrugged The Fountainhead Anthem For the New Intellectual (twice) The Virtue of Selfishnes Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Return of the Primitive Philosophy: Who Needs It And some books of Nathaniel Branden and David Kelley I am half thru now of Ayn Rand: The voice of reason and The Romantic Manifesto Perhaps instead of reading Peikoff's book you recommend I could re-read one or several of the books I already have? (Specially in order to amortize the investment I already made) Please advise
  15. At this point I already realized that it was a mistake telling about my little personal joke/practice/ceremony about the Elder Scrolls Pantheon I officially regret/retire my comments
  16. Oh well... I am sorry but you don't have the authority to say whether I am Objectivist or not About the Elder Scroll Pantheon I just like it, and since all Gods are invented then why one would be better than other?
  17. Alper doesn't say that what "the vast majority does is good" in fact he is an atheist, his research or theory or whatever you want to call it is abut the following question: Why mankind invented Gods? I will try to read Emerson, thanks for the advice and please don't get mad, this discussion is not personal, it is about philosophy. In a previous post you spoke about "childish insults" and I didn't know what were you talking about, I am sorry if my non-orthodox ideas offended you
  18. First than nothing please allow me to point out that "necessary" is an opinion not a fact. Necessary according to who or for whom? According to what standard? and besides this I don't do only "necessary" things in my life, I also do things that I just enjoy whether or not I have a full explicit explanation of why I enjoy them. Here I agree with AR when she said that over time your sense-of-life becomes the product of your conscious philosophy, so I usually trust my sense-of-life in most matters On the other hand Objectivism for me is not a full-time occupation, it gave me somewhat late in my
  19. "For fun"? Whose fun? Yours? OK there it goes "Transcendental" in this context is a special sensation/feeling/emotion/mental state that connects with Alper's "instinctual tendency" I spoke about before I you accept Alper's theory I guess this special sensation/feeling/emotion/mental state is probably generated in the "God part of the brain" If you don't accept Alper's theory then I will not try to explain it deeper in order not to increase your "fun" beyond the limits of decency
  20. Ok let's cut it in "I like it" which is true
  21. "pointed out" doesn't mean demonstrated as far as my concern And I "pray" to the Nine Divines for several good reasons indeed: 1-I like it 2-I like the Elder Scrolls games 3-It reminds me about important concepts in life represented by those virtual deities (could have been represented by other metaphors of course) and also helps me put in perspective the daily struggles of mundane life. 4-None of these concepts gets in contradiction with my Objectivist values. The key here is that I integrated this into my mind without incongruity as I did also by example with Bushido the ancient c
  22. Perhaps I misunderstood your first statement "You are consulting the special sciences for an answer to a philosophical question" My interpretation was that you propose to know the answer to the question "Do Man have instincts?" only using philosophy... The Metaphysics and Epistemology are of course Objectivist and using the Scientific Method of research. My point is that you can't find in philosophy answers to specific questions like "How the digestive system of a turtle functions?" You need special sciences for this. Philosophy only gives you the method of research and validate your ans
  23. According to Wikipedia only 2.5% of humankind is atheist and 12.7% non-religious so these numbers seem to be in line with Alper's research... On the other hand I can guess 99% of Objectivists are atheists, so this Forum is probably not the best place to look for adherents to Alper's theory
  24. About you in particular as individual, possibly you belong to the statistic group less affected by this "instinctual tendency" Alper's scientific research is polemical because it is based on statistical information. When you say that a group (in this case the whole mankind) has some statistical trait, you can always find inside this group individuals that have the trait enhanced, diminished or even annulated compared to group's average I read Alper's interesting book some years ago but I forgot the details so for a short explanation of this theory I will quote Alper himself: "...For eve
×
×
  • Create New...