StrictlyLogical

Ah... so a disembodied artificial immortal (til the heat death of the universe) intelligence has a somewhat platonic perspective on the external world. But in some sense this would be expected? I suspect the sense of “dream” used also is broad and poetic rather than technical. Myhaps there are times such advice is not wholly useless, and perhaps at others even to reverse the metaphor, while careful not to stray into self abnegation.. treat yourself as a precious and unique dream the universe is having, one which it will awake from never to have again.

Which character is the originator of this platonic view? Not the protagonist I presume?

Care to share?

I see. Well now I am in suspense.

I wonder, if the "power" of refrainment is not "deliberate" in what sense is it willed or free?

Boydstun, have you read this? I am a little concerned with the synopsis claiming she argues "indeterminism" can be of no possible help. IF a system exhibits "choosiness" which is neither "determined" nor "indetermined" nor a mixture of the two... (a mixture of something which "can be of no possible help" might as well just be a mixture without that something) I wonder just what IS it? Anyway, curious about your thoughts of the book and whether it is worth a purchase.

Although it sounds paradoxical, subjective pleasure and happiness are objective values. We are mental as well as physical creatures, and our mental health plays just as an important role in self-sustenance as our physical health. In fact, more so in the modern world.

What you observe here are "free will" and the "man made". These are somewhat different from the primacy of consciousness. The relationship between existence and consciousness in the same thing is hierarchical. Your consciousness is possible due to and indeed arose from existence. You weren't, then you were (now you are) and your consciousness is, but one day you simply won't be. Technically, the existence of you, in all your complexity, does not at once "cause" you to be conscious... you ARE conscious because of your identity... the whole nature of the complexity of you... things are

I think it is uncontroversial here to say that capitalism CAUSES no racism.

Actually no. Identifying that IT IS AN ERROR to draw a conclusion that X MUST be the case from premises which do not logically necessitate X, is not itself an error. I must disagree. Your line of reasoning implies that Rand justified or showed capitalism was good based on purported results or outcomes of the system, "productivity", "innovation", people "generally" getting what they "deserve". On the contrary, what Rand held as the justification of Capitalism, is not the outcome but the opportunity and freedom a moral and ethical system absent initiation of force, provide

Nice to meet you Sebastien. Neat and tidy conceptualization... very important for proper thought. Query: Why do some tend to avoid neat and tidy conceptualization? What is achieved by "avoiding" it? What motivations are at play? The left will conflate and equivocate and provide arguments which are semi-formed, confusingly self-contradictory and anti-conceptual... how does a person adhering to reason "argue" against a position which inherently eschews neat and tidy thought? In the end I suppose being clear in your own mind is more important than worrying about another's lack of under

This has me thinking about the common conflation between "objective" and "universal" in morality by O'ists as well.... and perhaps I am being influenced by similar sentiments... I like your emergent presentation of neuroplasticity... it raises a more urgent and important aspect than my mentioning in passing that tastes can change... indeed as Rand observed we are the self-makers of our own souls... and I would add for good or ill, by both what we do and what we fail to do. In that aspect not only are some values, personal... their very existence may be crafted by one's own determination

As a preliminary what I find as interesting here is an accent on motivation rather than consequence. Which brings up a subtle issue.. are you more interested in asking whether the action of a person (while making a choice) is moral or not or in determining whether the choice presented is a moral one or not? There is the question of "being good" but also there is the question of "what IS the good". I think in terms of "traditional" subjective philosophies about morality, the motivation of a person, their subjective intent to be moral "as such", i.e. to do what they think is their dut

I think "gradation" is a good way to characterize the fact that although reality and causation are one and intertwined so that every little decision one makes does affect oneself, technically speaking, it should be remembered that those effects or consequences of some decisions persist or become part of a causal chain which persists (a tattoo, or amputation) while the effects and consequences of others do not (writing a phone number on one's palm). Things whose effects are impermanent or do not form part of some causal chain which has permanent effects generally do not affect the whole of

Before I read Rand, I would have said Capitalism is an economic only system, independent of politics. After Rand, Capitalism is a new concept for me (as new as morality became for me), and is not so much economics as an economy defined by politics... and I cannot but utter the implied preface "Laissez-faire"... even though ironically insistence on that is as redundant as saying "independent" before "thought". Ownership, refers primarily only to the rights in one's property. But can we say that (capital C) Capitalism is a system agnostic to freedom of speech? What about freedom of a