iouswuoibev

I have read it, and it does show one example of recreation that would be moral. But that's all.

Since you've posted this publicly, it seems to be addressed to everyone. Since that is not the case, it would be proper to post your question to those people you respect the judgement of privately. I've read most of your posts, but I've also read most of other peoples' and there's nothing that made yours stand out to me to make me remember them (except this one). Unless there is some special reason why you grabbed someone's attention and gave them a reason to judge your character, they would have to re-read everything you have written and then judge it. Therefore, being as it is addressed to everyone, your post is presumptuous. It expects more personal attention than you have a right to expect. You also have still not found it necessary to explain why you want to know what other people think of you. I could hazard a guess that you want to know how "Objectivist" you are; but I shouldn't have to guess. Plus, if this kind post is acceptable, then on principle, it would have to be acceptable for everyone to make such posts, and then the whole purpose of this forum would have to change. It would become a people-oriented instead of idea-oriented forum. Can you envision the implications of that? The public section of this forum is for discussing ideas. When the subject is about an individual and not any single idea, such a subject should be discussed privately. That is my view anyway; I don't know what the mods/admins think.

Shouldn't you be more concerned with what you think of yourself? Since you're asking nobody in particular, you seem to be expecting people who have no particular vested interest in you to go out of their way to read all your posts and make a calculated judgement based on that; all without being offered a reason for doing so. In other words, you're asking for a sacrifice. EDIT: Reworded sentence.

I have some questions in regards to recreation. What defines a recreational activity? What purpose do they serve? When is it moral to engage in one? Should it have to enhance your productive life in some way in order to be moral?

You are implying that life has a higher value at a younger age. Why?

I took it to mean that the person who cannot afford the medicine is left with only two choices; obtain the medicine illegally, or die. No one has suggested killing anyone. Such an action cannot be undone. But stolen values can be returned. Principles are contextual. When adherence to a principle no longer enhances your life but would in fact lead to your death it should be discarded, because life is your highest value. Acting against principle in this case would not impaire your ability to deal with reality (whereas dying would), nor would it be immoral, so long as you acted to restitute your victim afterwards. On the other hand, choosing to die would be a mindlessly selfless act; it would be placing the commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" outside any context and above life itself.

You should try using search engine. It took me less than 60 seconds to find this: http://www.rmconverter.com/download.html

No and no. In an emergency situation, you are justified in taking that medicine so long as you make it up to your victim afterwards. I also think anyone who would choose to die in this situation is immoral. As a matter of priority, I'd rather live. Morality ceases to count in an emergency. Afterwards, when morality is restored the thief can work towards setting things right.

Looks like a hamster to me. The kind that wears shades.

Why would being emotionally attached lead you to thinking they exist?

There is no logic without the axioms. They are induced. You cannot deduce on an empty mind. Rejecting the axioms is tantamount to saying that proof requires proof. You can not prove existence; to prove something, you have to accept that there is a basis for proof: existence. You have to take the first initiative by accepting the axioms. Is that a leap of faith? No, faith would be rejecting the axioms, because they are implicit with everything you sense, think, or do. On the other hand, it would require something between immoral dishonesty and obscene self-delusion in order to reject the axioms. They are true, because otherwise you would see nothing; hear nothing; be nothing. If Mr. Atsea still refuses to acknowledge the axioms then we can at least give him the justice of ignoring him. He has no grounds to object, since he doesn't exist. EDIT: Grammar.

Yes, but I'll add: it took me over a year before I reached a non-contradictory state of happiness. I had to embark on a quest of identifying and replacing my false ideas. When I first discovered Ayn Rand, I agreed with most of her ideas, but at the same time they did not fit well with my personality. I could not let this rest: I had to discover whether it was my personality or Objectivism that was false. That alone took me many months, and I learned a lot in that process. After deciding that it was my personality that was wrong and that Objectivism was right, I had to learn by what method I was to change my personality to match my philosophy. That took longer still. Finally having done that, I went to the task of reinventing myself as I wanted myself to be. I am still doing that now, and draw closer to my ideal with every day that passes. People have two approaches to dealing with the unknown: knowing it, or fearing it. Discovering your own thought processes is something anyone can start doing at any moment, but most people fear the attempt. The more I've learned of my inner state, the less I have had to fear, and the more sure I am of myself; in the inside, and thus on the outside too. This is a great source of happiness. The fact that you don't know whether Objectivism has raised your happiness or not suggest that you are evading the truth of the matter. How can you not know such a thing? You needn't answer me that question, but I strongly recommend that you try to answer it for yourself. Objectivism requires induction. Unless and until you arrive at all the same conclusions that Objectivism upholds - solely of your own independant judgement and private observation - accepting Objectivism would mean taking it on faith. In order to have consistency in your mind, you need to know on which ideas you are operating. You also need to acknowledge that there is an idea at the root of every emotion (a fact that you also must induce), and then act accordingly. That means: know exactly what idea is behind ALL of your emotions. You cannot read this knowledge from a book; you must learn it all by yourself by the unrelenting use of your mind. Discovering the root of an emotion means being able to unquestioningly spell out: "THIS IS the idea that that emotion comes from." This is the method by which you reject false ideas and embrace new ones. It is also great fun, once you notice the positive effects that it has. I had no idea just how little thinking I had been doing in the past until I got into the habit of really doing it. Quite often I confused thinking with simply staring inward and flatly analysing my emotional state without identifying the root causes of that state. Again, this was caused by the acceptance of an idea: in this case, that the cause of an emotion can only be guessed at, and not objectively or certainly known. Ideas are the most fundamental part of your identity, and every single one of them is chosen. The idea that you can choose your ideas is the most powerful idea you can have. It is the idea by which you create your own destiny. You might do well to read Atlas Shrugged again. If you keep an active mind, you will grasp something new each time you read it. You don't even have to re-read it from the beginning; just dive in at any chapter and you will likely grasp things that you overlooked the first time. He obviously wasn't thinking of people like me when he said "NO". I wouldn't be half the man I was, if not for Objectivism. Before discovering it, I was an appeaser of anyone who didn't like me, which was almost everyone. They didn't like me because I was different. I didn't like myself because I accepted their standards over my own. I was both too honest and intelligent to drop my convictions and start being a conformist, yet too second-handed to accept the idea that I should accept my judgement over everyone elses. So I (unconsciously) took a middling stance. I hid my ideas and my hobbies from people as if it were a dirty vice, and engaged in them with the enthusiasm of a man acting on contradictory premises; never surrending who I was, yet never living up to who I could be. I had no idea what individualism was, and had no grasp of the concept, yet I hated the mindless and irrational, and held my mind as being the most precious thing I had. Unfortunately, my beliefs prevented me from using it. I was paralyzed. Without Objectivism, I very likely still would be.

I had to think on this a bit. I've reached the conclusion that yes, there is a difference in intensity, but that is not the essential characteristic. Craving is an emotion you experience towards something that you regard as being impossible to live without (EDIT: live qua man, not just be alive), AND which you lack. If you crave something, you are necessarily mentally stifled to some degree. A craving can be felt towards something that meets your immediate survival needs, such as food; towards things based on legitimate long-term values, such as your work; and towards things you don't need or can harm you, such as eating excessive, fatty food or having sex with rhinos. An obsession is a sub-category of a craving. It is a craving delimited to those demands of the mind and soul. In other words, obsession is felt towards things that don't necessarily meet the survival of your physical body, but bolster your self-concept and meet your (chosen) needs as a conceptual being. The concept of obsession frequently carries the connotation of being something irrational, but this is the result of common and erronous philosophy among people (hence, most obsessions you encounter will be irrational) rather than a negativeness existing in the definition itself. By these definitions, I think it is moral to desire companionship (for the right reasons) but I don't see any valid reasons to feel a craving (obsession) for it.

Just one more reason why Miss Rand is so frequently misinterpreted. But if you understand what she meant, why mention it?

I just want to point out that pleasure and happiness are two different things. If I remember what I read correctly, then pleasure is a sensory faculty, and happiness is a conceptual one. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I thought Iced Earth had disbanded (because the lead singer left). The last album I purchased was "Horror Show" which I very much enjoyed. I'll have to check them out again.

Nobody here said they feel that way. I think his questions were honest, and so he deserves a reply in kind. I think it is an understandable fallacy because there is an unfortunate abundance of females with the same attitude, and men can often fall into the wrong conclusion that that is what all women are like. Take this as an example: Seeing sex as merely a function of the flesh is an idea that a lot of people embrace. I point this out as a way of saying: so we should combat it with a better idea. Also, other people will be reading this thread, it may be of use to them as well as the person that the responses were intended for.

You said the problem lies at the sensory level, but then you say that the problem is clouding your judgement and hampers your ability to see long range - both of which are conceptual abilities. So which is it: conceptual or sensory? EDIT: For clarification.

First of all, I want to backtrack on my previous definition of "lonliness". The question is this: Is loneliness a desire for companionship, or the pain of not having it? They are two different things (and one may lead to another). I can desire a million dollars, for instance; such a thing would be a great enhancement to my life. But I feel no negative emotion such as sadness - whistful or otherwise - from not having it. I submit that loneliness is the pain of not having someone. There are degrees of second-handedness, a fact you seem to be ignoring here. I think a first-hander can and should desire (NOT crave) friendship and companionship, just as he can and should desire art to inspire him. Both are an enhancement to his existence, but not a requirement. Hence, he should not feel loneliness, but a desire for companionship. I said that loneliness is likely to be caused by second-handedness, because such a person feels that they can't move foward without having someone, anyone other than themselves, recognise their value. I know that from experience in having nobody value me and feeling lonely because of it. I no longer experience loneliness, but I still value (act to gain and keep) other people with whom I can be moved by, as you put it. EDIT: Fixed grammar.

I identify with your current state. I felt very much the same way for quite a while after (and always before) discovering Objectivism. Lonliness is an emotion that expresses a desire for another person. It can be satisfied one of two ways: either find the person you feel you desire, or figure out what idea is making you feel the desire, and change it. Of course, you should find out what motivates that desire anyway before you decide whether to act upon it. I think the pain you are experiencing is caused by second-handedness. Do you feel secure and happy while alone? Or do you feel that you need someone else in order for you to feel secure and happy (i.e. loneliness)? If the latter, that is second-handedness. Second-handed behaviour is very common, and it is not unlikely that you will have integrated bad ideas and coping strategies that depend on the existence, support, and/or approval of others, without ever having questioned them, or even having noticed them. Almost everyone accepts some of them. They will likely have slipped right under your nose. Even if you consciously recognise the validity of individualism, it can take much more than that recognition to evict any and all the second-handed notions from your personality. The alternatives of individuality versus second-handedness lie near the very core of man's personality. Consequently, any long-ago accepted second-handed ideas will be hard to detect and uproot, and may still affect you even when you believe you've accepted individuality as the good and true 100 percent. My advice is simply this: persist with what you are already doing, validate and integrate the true principles to replace the false ones. Be vigilant to the fact that there is always an idea behind any feelings you are having and that you must discover them. I might post more later.

Thanks for the compliment. Why did I respond to it? He reminded me of someone I used to know. It was a way of clarifying my own thoughts to myself. And it's fun to shoot down a badly presented argument. I got a good laugh out of Nxixcxk's response.

I realise that just as well as you did, but I didn't want to sidetrack from the point I was making. I think I was being imprecise rather than inaccurate. I agree totally that #1 is psuedo-self-esteem (because you're not actually holding yourself in any regard, since you didn't use your own judgement).

AFC = Average Frustrated Chump. i.e. "unlucky" with the ladies. This is a good start. Even better! Or to put it another way: you're average. But you don't really care about that... do you? WRONG. Don't care what other people tell you. Count ONLY on your own judgement. (Incidently, there's nothing wrong with skinny. But don't take my word for it.) If nobody told you that you were intelligent, would you still think that you are? Ask yourself this: do you really want it to work? If you could get a woman to have sex with you every time you wrote something witty, would that fulfill you and give you happiness? They actually scare a great deal of men, if that makes you feel any better. But ask yourself why. Ask yourself what kind of man would not be frightened, and again, why. Stop that. What kind of women do you think they are, if they like you when you're drunk? Do you really want that kind of woman? No really, ask yourself these questions. What kind of woman are they? It's not unmanly to try and see things from a woman's point of view. If you were a female, what kind of attitude and personality would you need to have to fall for some drunken guy flirting with you? And what kind of a man would settle for that? Why you? That's a good question. Here's a better one: Why her? You need to have higher standards - and in order to have higher standards, you have to have higher standards for YOURSELF. And in order to have higher standards for yourself, you need to have self-esteem. You need to be the one who is selective, not the one who gets selected. How does one get self-esteem? One of two ways: 1) Submit to other people's standards, seek their approval by whatever means possible. 2) Set your own standards and principles that you can be proud of, and live up to them. I suggest you read "The Fountainhead" if you haven't already, because it is very relevent to this subject. Who is "anyone I would want" and why would you want them? If I was a woman, you wouldn't get me, that's for sure. And as an aside question: Do you know if you're in the right forum?

Empathy is the ability to feel a sensation or emotion expressed by another person as if it were your own (whilst still being aware that it is not your own). To use an example, empathy is what causes you to wince when you observe someone doing something painful like breaking their finger in a door. I don't think empathy is actually an emotion, but a capacity. You don't have to pause and reflect on what breaking your finger feels like, even if you've never done it before. And the feeling is felt, not in your mind, but in your finger (or wherever the observed emotion/sensation occurs). (Incidently, something called "mirror neurons" are considered to be responsible for empathy; you might want to look it up). Sympathy is an emotion that might possibly occur after you have felt empathy (and in many other situations); it is a desire to support and/or comfort someone (hence: showing sympathy). But there is no necessity that you will sympathise after experiencing empathy. For instance, you might empathise with someone's passionate rage (i.e. recognise their feelings for what they are) and then feel a totally different emotion like disgust, or amusement, rather than sympathy. To put it a different way: empathy gives you immediate information (e.g. his finger is hurting badly) and sympathy results from a subsequent evaluation of that info (I want to comfort him). If you see an enemy hurt his finger in the same fashion, you'll still feel his pain, initially, but then you might be delighted about it. That is where the difference lies.

I don't know why people are discussing this. Once an objective definition has been established it is no longer open to debate. A is A, and the referent of the word Objectivism is the referent of the word Objectivism. Any perceived problems you have with this definition you will just have to swallow, because it is what it is. There is no reason to squabble over the name "Objectivism" when you can simply create a new word for whatever definition it is you are fighting for.