iouswuoibev

I doubt that, and it doesn't explain the contradiction in definition.

I thought I had grasped the difference between an existent and an entity, but a passage on OPAR lead me to question my understanding of the terms. By my current understanding, an existent refers to "anything that is part of reality", be it an object, concept, attribute, emotion, action... etcetera. An entity on the other hand refers only to things, as distinguished at the perceptual level. The passage that lead me to question my understanding is as follows: Here Piekoff defines "existent" the way I (and the AR lexicon, apparently) defined it (EDIT: defined "entity"). What's going on?

Are you omniscient? If not then how do you know this? No, the hodgepodge is the fact that you would be combining contradictory principles. e.g. trying to agree with her moral basis of capitalism, while at the same time advocating christianity. And perhaps then... calling it Objectivism! She said no such thing. She said that someone attempting to pass off their own philosophy as hers [Objectivism], would be doing that. What of it?

No, I already made it quite clear why I said that. I'm ignoring you now.

Let me ask you this. Suppose that an entity existed on earth that looked exactly like Michelangelo's David. Except, it was never created. It is in fact, an eternal, inviolate metaphysical necessity of existence, just like the universe. It is indestructable. It has always existed and always will exist. This entity just happens to look like that statue, standing on a pedestal, by accident. Does this statue-like entity, by itself, express anything? Or how about: you find what to all appearances is a piece of paper with this message on it: only, nobody ever wrote it. It is eternal. Does it express anything?

Alertness and focus is not accomplished by "sheer will" but by proper use of one's mind. For instance, if you can't seem to concentrate on an activity, but it is in your self-interest to do it, you need to discover what is preventing you from concentrating. Or, you could pop a pill or drink something that enables you do focus on it without altering your method of thinking. With the first solution, you learn something about how to use your mind better to deal with reality. With vigilance the solution will be permenant. On the other hand, if you use a drug to achieve that same state of mind, once the drug wears off you are back where you started. You may have completed the task you wanted, but you are mentally as incapable of dealing with that situation as before. You will be harming yourself in the long run by evading the responsibility of controlling your own thinking. You will be impairing your ability to use your mind and interact with reality. It is no different than achieving your happiness through productive accomplishment, versus injecting heroin. In the most abstract sense, I am asking: why would anyone want to achieve ANY state of consciousness through any means other than their consciousness? If you can't achieve the state of consciousness you desire, there is a reason. Bypassing the problem by means of a drug is like healing skin over dirt. I don't know what you mean by "heightened consciousness". I said the drug would make you more alert and focused. When I said "interference with consciousness" I meant it in the broadest sense: that is, interfering with your ability to use your mind by means of providing a mental crutch that forces it into a certain state. Insignificant, or not existing; what does it matter in either case?

You're totally wrong on both accounts. I drink very rarely and avoid getting drunk while doing so, and am far from overweight. The rate and severity of drunkenness I experience depends on the substance I'm drinking. I don't feel too different from a shot of whiskey. A glass of wine will make me tispy, and a pint of beer will do even more than that. I am not sure why this is the case, but it probably has something to do with the percentage of alcohol, and how fast it is absorbed into my body.

I don't think it is the state of focus that determines whether I would detect such a change, but rather, where I am focusing. If my attention is on my work, for example, I probably wouldn't notice it. If my attention is turned towards my state of mind, and I examine every nuance of feeling passing through my head, then yes, I do find myself feeling very subtly different. Could you clarify what you mean by focus. I regard focus to be refering to concentration directed at a particular object or activity. Using your mind to focus on everything at once then would be a wasteful use of one's resources.

I meant achieving that state of consciousness through the use of your mind, not through the use of the drug. That is, you directly alter your consciousness through volition, not indirectly alter it through means of a drug (whether you took that drug through a choice or by force of a gun is totally irrelevent to my argument).

Communism doesn't "work" period. It is contradictory to the facts of reality and can only harm man's life. Laissez-faire can work, but people have to choose it. It doesn't necessarily have to be a majority, but there has to be a force out there that is rational and that can establish a government restricted to protecting individual rights. There also has to be enough rationality among people to permit such a government to take root in the first place.

When it is not an act of volition, it is an interference with your consciousness in order to give rise to that state of mind.

Does this rule apply to smoking and drugs too? Wrong. The effects are diverse among different people. I for instance tend to speak out every thought that occurs to me, and, if very intoxicated, will laugh at things without reason. It makes you slow and therefore thinking is more difficult. You can still choose to think, but it will be much more strenuous to do so and you might forget what your thoughts were. Why is it fun? A sensation isn't an end in itself, and should not be pursued just because it feels nice.

When I said that laissez-faire couldn't happen in an irrational society, I was speaking in the sense that laissez-faire is a rational system, and it would require rational people to support and vote for it, and a rational government to adhere to it. Laissez-faire doesn't happen by itself. EDIT: Fixed bad quote.

How do you suppose art "expresses" anything? Any unconscious entity by itself can express nothing, and therefore cannot be art. It presupposes an artist, a creator, behind it. No man-made object creates itself. No work of art lacks a consciousness that created it. Now what is the distinguishing characteristic that makes an object art, as opposed to any other creation? We say that the artist selectively recreated reality according to his value judgements (held consciously or not). How do you suppose you distinguish between a work of art and just some decoration? Simple, you consult the definition above. You'll notice that the defining characteristic is epistemological: it belongs to the consciousness behind the creation of the piece, rather than being something metaphysically present in the creation itself. We discover whether it is art by examining the details in the piece, then make a reasoned estimate as to what kind of thought process brought it about. That is how you tell if it is art or not (of course, ideally we'd want to look inside the creators' mind, but that isn't possible). As long as you know why you like it, and find nothing immoral with it (through consulting reason, not your emotional responses), then there is nothing wrong with that.

It must also be made apparent that there has never been a true laissez-faire regime in history before. It is no coincidence: the rationality of a society and the political system it coincides with are corollaries. That people are not 100% rational all the time is a man-made fact, and so it is within man's power to change. It is true that laissez-faire won't work so long as people CHOOSE to be irrational. It is precisely when and to the extent that people are rational, however, that the moral philosophy and political system triumphs. Where people are rational, it will give rise to a better society. Where they don't, it won't.

You can never mention it too many times. It is great.

Normally I don't drink any. The few times I've drank it (and other caffienated drinks) I either feel nothing, or I end up feeling like a puppet propelled by strings. I experience a physical difference but I can't sit still long enough to engage in any mental activities.

Coffee has never provided me with more control. Quite the opposite actually; I feel a powerful urge to pace around and be physically active, even when I don't have the energy for it.

I'd like to know from where you heard that. I hope your latter statement isn't your only justification of the former. It is also a customary western tradition to smoke a cigar when a man becomes a father. I don't recognise such "customs" as having any merit. If you can rationalize having one cigar on that irrational basis, you can rationalize having any amount of cigars at anytime. I'm not sure whether I agree with TomL or not that it is always immoral; that would depend on how profound an effect alcohol has on one's consciousness when drank in moderation, and without actually getting to the stage of being drunk. I can drink a shot of whiskey, for instance, without feeling any different at all. If the effect on consciousness is so negligable as to be unnoticable, and you happen to like the taste of the drink, and you aren't in a situation where the effects of alcohol could be a risk, then there's nothing immoral about it. Here's a question for you all: suppose there was a drink that tasted just like alcohol, but it had the opposite effects on your brain. That is, it makes you more alert, focused, aware of your surroundings and inner state, and in control. Would it be as immoral to get intoxicated on such a substance, as drinking alcohol? Is the intereference with consciousness always wrong, period? Or is it only when the effects are detrimental to your well-being? I've already formed my conclusion but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.

Absolutely, I'd like to know that as well. Without sounding crazy? What does that mean? Are you crazy? If not how can you sound crazy? Presumably you mean you will be saying something out of the ordinary. Well, if that bothers her, the error is hers. Be wary of the desire to conform to other people's arbitrary standards of what is normal. Go only by your own rational judgement in deciding what is acceptable to say and what is not, not by how it will be received. How should you go about stating your objection? Well, first you have to be certain that you really do have an objection, and by the fact that you've posted this thread you aren't certain, yet. You also need to decide whether her getting drunk is something you can accept if she continues to do it. How she reacts to your objection may tell you something new about her, or it may be what you already expected. If and when you do have an objection to make, then it's simple, you just say it. Don't dumb down or sugarcoat your words to try and make them "fit in", just speak clearly and rationally. e.g. here's what you might say: "I want you to know that I like you a lot, for many reasons (you could state what those reasons are). However, I object to the fact that you choose to get drunk. I'm curious as to why you do it. Perhaps you can't answer that offhand. If that's the case, I think you should consider asking yourself why. I myself can't see any value in doing it, because... [and here you need to know why you think getting drunk is immoral, and say it]." Now suppose she reacts by looking at you as if you were crazy, and perhaps says words to that effect. The question to ask is: Who is in the right? Is it her, with her absorbed arbitrary social standards grating against the presence of someone who speaks "abnormally"? Or are you right, by speaking with clarity and confidence, and showing a respect for her intelligence and her ability to address your argument as rationally as you put it forward? Well, who is right? And if that is her response, you can either dump her then and there, but more likely you don't want to dismiss the other values she has to offer so rashly. You need to know how deeply the attitude that made her react that way is entrenched in her personality. If she reacted that way, she certainly would not be 100% independant in thought or 100% rational. You need to find out what percentage she is independant and rational (metaphorically speaking). And then use reason to figure out where to go from there. Anyway, I went off on a bit of a tangent, but I hope that answers your question. EDIT: Inserted quotation marks where appropriate.

I challenge that statement. It depends on why you got drunk. If you pursued drunkenness as a goal and that is the reason you drink, then it is immoral. Who would want to interfere with their consciousness in such a way? Being drunk is like taking a break from reality itself. It dims your awareness and makes you uninhibited, or to put it another way, irresponsible. I suspect most people who try to get drunk are trying to relinquish responsibility for their actions; anything from acts of consciousness to words spoken. If anyone feels the desire to get drunk in any situation, they should strongly question why they feel that way, by doing some introspection. Now on the other hand, being drunk as an accident of drinking something you enjoy is not immoral, providing you recognise that drunkenness to any degree is a non-value and that you then aim to drink within moderation. On another note, I've observed that many people who attend parties, particularly younger people, tend to drink to excess. Why do you suppose this is? And what, do you suppose, would happen if alchohol and any similar drug ceased to exist? Would they still go to these parties? Would they enjoy them as much?

Some people wouldn't know how to hit upon the answer while looking at the source.

This is impossible because, by definition, altruism is unselfish. Perhaps you're confusing altruism with charity. The latter is a type of action that can be moral and selfish within the proper circumstances. Altruism, however, is a moral code that permits no selfishness, because its standard is self-sacrifice. And that can never be to the interest of the perpetrator. I recommend Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness" for further reading, as that book addresses this issue in detail.

One argument I keep hearing about a taxless government is that "people aren't charitable". Only, giving money to the government isn't mere charity, since you reap immediate benefits for doing so. It is in your rational self-interest not to allow anarchy to occur, and only a rational society filled with predominantly rational people would give rise to a lassiez-faire government in the first place. So there's really no question as to whether they would pay the government or not.

I've observed that subtlety, by many people, is considered a value in some works of art (particularly fiction and song lyrics/poetry). I've drawn the conclusion that the primary reason for this is because it permits the viewer to use their own mind in discovering the intended meaning of the work. I've come to discover for myself that the kind of art I have come to appreciate most is that which does "show" rather than "tell", because it has been my own personal quest to discover what is being told. The satisfaction from achieving this understanding (which can be grasped in mere seconds, or many years), combined with an uplifting nature of the message involved, is immense. By contrast, when something is explicitly stated, it is an insult to the reader or listener, because it is (implicitly) saying: I don't trust that you are able to use your own mind to discover my meaning, so I'm just going to have to tell you outright. Or to state it metaphorically: the material you are absorbing from the work is pre-digested by someone else, and that is an insult. Being subtle does not mean that the artist hides his meaning in any literal sense; rather he "camouflages" it, by means of symbolism and metaphor (and perhaps other devices). It is a talent on behalf of the artist when he succeeds in preserving the meaning uncorrupted within the "camouflage", and this enchances the viewers' appreciation of the artist and his work if and when he understands it. My question is, do you value subtlety in any work of art, and what are your reasons?