iouswuoibev
-
Posts
392 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by iouswuoibev
-
-
You sure their not just being sarcastic?
I'm sure they are very sincerely sarcastic about freedom being important.
-
I was just looking at their tagline: "'The Free Radical - Politics, Economics & Life As If Freedom Mattered'!!"
As if freedom mattered? When I read this, I thought it was their idea of a rather crude joke. That it was actually serious was quite a shock to me. I had no idea just how appallingly irrational these so-called "Objectivists" are.
Has anyone read the interview in this publication? Is it as uncritical and sympathetic as I am suspecting but would no longer find at all surprising?
-
No, though they are related. A person's psycho-epistemology refers mainly to his psychology of thinking, his overall method of cognition -- a highly-conscious conceptual term -- whereas sense of life is more emotional -- the emotional form in which your subconscious integrates all of the thinking that you have done, or failed to do -- an emotional sum total on the grand level of who and what you are and how you view life and existence.
Thank you for your response. I already suspected that those might be the differing abstract concepts involved. However, they aren't very descriptive in telling me what the meaning of those differentia are. Could you go into detail as to what you mean by "a highly-conscious conceptual term", and "more emotional" or otherwise point me to a source which goes into more detail to marking the differences between the two concepts (I own all of Rand's literature and OPAR)?
From what I've understood, the "emotional form" that your subconscious takes is the same thing (or bound to the same causes) as a person's overall method of congnition (which could be called a "habit" of cognition, the performance and functioning of which is determined by the individuals' subconscious). This is why I reasoned that they are refering to the same thing, and simply explained using different terms and/or approached the defining process from a different angle.
Or is the difference being, that psycho-epistemology refers to the actuality of the frame of your sub-conscious, whereas "sense-of-life" is the product of a certain psycho-epistemology (your emotional responses, or "automated value-judgements".) Or to put it another way, one is the cause, the other is the effect? And if that is accurate, what is a psycho-epistemology when seperated from the sum of your emotional responses (up to now, that's all I've considered it to be)?
Thanks for your time
-
Do the concepts "Psycho-epistemology" and "sense of life" hold the same meaning? I checked the Ayn Rand Lexicon and apart from slightly different wording, they seem to be equivilant (although "sense of life" seems to be used more in the context of Esthetics, whereas "psycho-epistemology" is more confined to psychology and epistemology.)
-
It looks superb. Only problem is the location!
-
While I have no difficulty with the idea of killing animals, I am adverse to the idea of them suffering. If an animal is being tortured I respond with anger, much as I would if it were a human, only to a lesser degree. If animals are merely organic robots with no awareness, is it even valid to feel this way? And are animals merely organic robots with no awareness?
-
-
Anyone experience similiar?
~Michael
I tend to keep my views to myself until it becomes relevent. I realise this doesn't address your query, but I'm wondering if you've had any positive responses from anyone regarding your views, or if they've all been bad?
-
I'm not sure you understand what I was trying to get at...
It's a problem because the sciopath can say "yes I understand others have rights that should logically be respected but I don't care." I point this out as a problem because such a person COULD have self-esteem and happiness (not pleaseure, but more of a psychological well being) and still be a cold-blooded killer because they have no empathy for anyone. Like Vincent in "Collateral" they could actually take pride in how well they do their job and how professional they are.
So treat a cold-blooded killer for what he is. Lock him up or execute him. Problem solved.
I still don't see what the problem is. To whom is being a sociopath a problem? They still have the capacity for free will. Once they actually commit a crime, then they should be treated accordingly.
-
I think you underestimate what I personally think of as "the problem of the sociopath." This is the kind of person who CAN value his or her own life, but is so lacking in empathy that they do not care for others. Even if shown how there is a logical contradiction in how they can value their own life but not others, they can simply say "you're right, but I don't care."
Why is this a problem? Treat them as any human being, even if they are not.
-
It's funny actually. People die fighting capitalism, the productive and republicanism which gives them life but when it comes to fighting the real enemy, they put their arms down and submit.
I think it's rather sad.
-
I've just watched what is undoubtably the most horrible film I've ever seen: Magnolia. I watched it all the way through to the end and then went online to look up a synopsis because I still hadn't a clue what it was about. If you want to see three hours of people blubbering and screaming at each other, now is your chance. I think it had something to do with religion but I'm still not sure. I didn't really want to delve deep into it to find out what the message was (if there was one) as I was already quite horrified by the depravity of it all. Has anyone else seen this and can they tell me if I'm justified to hate it as much as I did? I'd never recommend it to anyone except perhaps to illustrate what is wrong with the world.
And just to make this thread a bit more interesting, what are your least favourite movies and why wouldn't you recommend them?
-
If you want to know what Ayn Rand thinks of unconditional love, read Atlas Shrugged. It's all there, particularly in the character of James Taggart.
People want unconditional love because it rewards and comforts them for avoiding the effort of correcting and improving themselves. The desire for and acceptance of unconditional love stems from the accepting - implicitly or explicitly - that it is impossible to be consistently moral all the time. Once this is accepted, one feels they shouldn't be blamed, judged or criticised when they make the wrong decisions, since they would be expected to act on the impossible (because acting on a vague or contradictory code of ethics consistently is impossible.) They cannot make right choices consistently or even be certain when they are making the right choice because their code of ethics and their rational mind tell them two different things. This leads to them conclude that morality itself is not objective, that nothing is necessarily right or wrong; and then they fluctuate between acting on whim and acting on what they think is the "right" thing to do.
Because of this, morality as they accept it would only get in the way of the possibility of feeling anything for each other. In order to maintain what feeling they have for each other, it is necessary to suspend their consciousness; to turn off their critical mind and accept each other on faith, just as one would leap into an abyss. They turn a blind eye to their partners' faults and conclude that this blindness is part of what love is; which by their standards, it has to be. Eventually, they can no longer ignore what is right before them and conflict errupts.
This kind of fraud is what "love" frequently means to people these days. "Love" to them is merely a causeless feeling. It can only exist by "blotting out" that which the other person knows to be wrong. Eventually, reality catches up with them, and they see the irrational and while they know they don't like it, they can't turn to morality for guidance in order to explain why what they think is wrong, is wrong. Eventually they shrug and say "Who am I to know?" and in fear of lonliness, they scramble to blot out the irrational once more.
Thus, the spectacle you see in relationships where the two lovers oscillate between mutual affection and mutual resentment, quarreling and compromising endlessly. Unconditional love is an escape from reality.
-
I've just started the series myself, have only read the first novel, and think that the Objectivist influence is already bloody obvious (though not entirely consistent) from the start, particularly in the political themes. For instance, remember the scene in which Queen Milena's court brings in the "fool," ridiculing him as selfish for not wanting to work for the public good.
I think he does play more to the general audience in his earlier books. I recall in Wizard's First Rule a scene where Kahlan remarks that she "never knew Giller capable of such a selfless act." That word appears a few more times in a way that denotes virtuous qualities. He stops using that word around book 3.
-
I bought this watch last week. I think it is one of the best pieces of design I've ever seen.
I just bidded on one of these on ebay... then on a second glance I saw that the LCD display is green on the ebay one (The one you have shown has a black display). Do you know if you can get them in both colours or is one image inaccurate?
-
I've tried uploading a new avatar, but the one I currently have keeps coming up instead. I've even tried removing the current avatar first and then uploading a different one, but the old one still comes back up. What's going on?
-
I've looked at the "Rational Man" website and can't find any information on the artist/author. Who is he?
-
Question for you: did you ever play "Planescape: Torment" for the PC? While it didn't have ALL the right values I do think it was probably the best RPG ever made the the closest to acheiving the of "art" as I have ever seen a game come.
I own this game. I got terribly bored after playing for about half an hour, and that was it.
-
I agree with Bowzer that you are conflating a number of separate terms, each that has both an historical basis and a proper conceptual one. But, I am curious as to where you are getting your information from. Are you perhaps reading Dennett?
No, at the moment I only have the dictionary to hand, and what that says is vague. Which is why I explained what I meant by the terms I was using. I don't think I conflated the terms "reflex" and "instinct", but nor did I specify what the difference was. Hence I stuck to using the word "instinct" to describe any inborn, automatic behaviour; a definition that I am sure is accurate, if not very specific (because I don't have a specific definition to hand), and abandoned the word "reflex". I don't think I confused the term "volition" at all.
These are the dictionary definitions I have:
Instinct: Inborn pattern of behaviour often responsive to specific stimuli
Reflex: An automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus
Piekoff adds that instinct is automatic. I was attempting to explain that man has automatic, inborn patterns of behaviour, and based on the definition of "instinct" and the examples I gave, instinct is real in man.
@Bowser: What seperates instinct from reflexes?
-
Actually I'm quite surprised that you didn't list sex as another one of our "instincts."
I agree with Dr. Peikoff when he writes,
You are confusing reflexes (which man does possess) with instincts.
An instinct is an inborn pattern of behaviour. Reflexes are a form of instinct. Some instincts are not beyond our conscious control, but that does not mean they are not automatic. They are automatic because if the conscious mind does not intercept the instinctive behaviour, we would perform the action, without deliberate initiation. Where we are still volatile is in our choice to ignore the instinct and not intervene.
I would further define "instinct" as being a behaviour that is inborn, requires no conscious effort to initiate, and has a certain degree of automation. We are the only being that can consciously control most of our instincts, and reflexes. We can choose not to sneeze, and we can choose not to vomit. But if we make no choice, we default to performing the action, without any conscious thought. On the other hand, if we feel hungry, this will not automatically make us find and cook our food. We have to learn how to do this. We can however, retract our conscious mind, and perform the cooking as it has been learned by rote. This does not make it instinctive because of how we discovered cooking: consciously.
I don't agree with Piekoff when he concludes that man does not have instinct. Man cannot function merely by the guidance of sensations or percepts, but that does not disprove the existence of instinct in man.
-
Man has no instincts--not even so much as a relic of one.
This is untrue. We are equipt with mental behaviour which is not learned and exists within us. Everything from the ability to recognise facial expressions and read body language, to jumping at the sound of a gun; from vomiting to breast-feeding, is instinctive. We aren't taught to do it.
And I suppose you think having an erection is an act of volition...?
-
Here's something I just stumbled across... it's especially funny if you've seen the original ad.
-
There appears to be another director interested in reproducing The Fountainhead.
-
I just watched that again this week. Loved it.
By the way, I also just watched "The Secret Window." Well acted, and well-done overall I suppose, but... Spoiler ahead (not that it matters much): Is anyone else sick of movies where it turns out that the main character is insane, and some other character in the movie was another of their personalities? Identity, Fight Club, Secret Window, and others... seems like half of the movies which have came out in the last few years use this gimmick. And, to me at least, it's getting really old.
You forgot "A Beautiful Mind".
Which I thought was rather good, incidently.
Dictionary
in Intellectuals and the Media
Posted
I recently read (don't recall the source) by Ayn Rand that most modern dictionaries are not as objective in their definitions as those from the turn of the century. I'm wondering if anyone here agrees with this, and if they can recommend an objective (or more/most objective) English Dictionary.