Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

coirecfox

Regulars
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by coirecfox

  1. I don't mean this to be a long philosophical rant, but I think you have misunderstood Objectivism's view of emotions. First you need to understand that; then look for evidence for justification. Rand simply defines emotions as responses to facts of reality or responses to entities. Most basically, a response to reality requires some way to perceive reality, that is, some method of "sense." I think you will agree that animals possess senses. If you consider the stages of cognition that Rand outlines--sensation, perception, and conception, I think it would be logical to say that, animals, because of their similar biological organization (that is, a skeletal system, muscular system, etc, most importantly here, a nervous system) would respond in a manner similar to humans at each stage of cognition. The only difference is animals never reach the conceptual stage of cognition--they can sense entities, identify entities, and respond to entities that they have already identified. Those responses include, if not are in their entirety, emotions. The difference is, humans can identify those emotions, isolate what caused them, and logically process the new information into a system of living. Yes, emotions come before reason, but reason is not built on emotions. And emotions can be the byproduct of certain tasks of reason, that is, organizing what one knows is good or bad for his happiness, but they are not caused by reason. The root of emotions lies in entities and a response to them. Reason is just the means to properly identify and organize such responses.
  2. pvtmorriscsa, what is writen above is an article about the article "the tyranny of choice", not my personal thoughts. I am not arguing for anything in my post. Inspector, NO!!! of course i dont believe any of that. I found it astonishing. My friend told me that his prof at Notre Dame was talking about how great this article is. I just posted it to provide more evidence(not that we dont have enough already) that the quality of the education my generation is receiving is declining.
  3. I was wondering if anyone here has heard of this book. Apparently it talks about how people have more choices nowadays--and resent it! The author states that people have become increasingly irritated with making choices and claims that, in truth, we dont have real choices anymore because most of the time people choose wrongly and are disappointed. Does anyone else see this going on around them? Being a college student, I see it all around me, especially in the form of people getting drunk to evade reality. [edit] I think "The Tyranny of Choice" may actually be an article. It's written by Barry Schwartz. "In an article titled, 'The Tyranny of Choice', Barry Schwartz, professor of social theory and social action at Swarthmore College, wrote: "Although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less." Schwartz, who is also the author of "Maximizing Versus Satisficing: Happiness is a Matter of Choice," points to studies by David Myers of Hope College and Robert Lane of Yale University, who conducted surveys on individual well being. They found that increased choice and increased influence have been accompanied by a decrease in well-being. "As the gross domestic product more than doubled in the past 30 years, the proportion of the population describing itself as 'very happy' declined by about 5 percent, or some 14 million people," Schwartz writes. And more Americans are clinically depressed than at any other time in our history. Schwartz is quick to point out that no single factor explains America's blues. However, "a number of findings indicate that the explosion of choice plays an important role." Schwartz conducted his own research and, in doing so, categorizes his subjects into "maximizers" and "satisficers." Maximizers are "those who always aim to make the best possible choice" and satisficers are "those who aim for 'good enough'." Through Schwartz's study, it was found that maximizers are the least happy. "Naturally, no one can check every option, but maximizers strive toward that goal, and so making a decision becomes increasingly daunting as the number of choices rises. "In the end, they are more likely to make better objective choices than satisficers but get less satisfaction from them," Schwartz writes. There are several factors that explain why more choice is not always better than less, especially for maximizers -- one being what economists call "opportunity costs," which is to say that any given choice can't be assessed in isolation from the alternatives. So, the cost of choosing 'A' is the loss of opportunity that would have come if you had chosen 'B.' "If we assume that opportunity costs reduce the overall desirability of the most preferred choice, then the more alternatives there are, the deeper our sense of loss will be and the less satisfaction we will derive from our ultimate decision," Schwartz explains. Then there's adaptation, which is simply the human propensity to get used to things. And as a result of adaptability, most things turn out to be not quite as good as expected. Add to that the effort many of us invest in the decisions we make and you've got a recipe for unhappiness. For example, "spending four months deciding what car stereo to buy is not so bad if you really enjoy that stereo for 15 years. But if you end up being excited by it for six months and then adapting, you may feel like a fool for having put in all the effort." It appears Mom was right -- too much of anything isn't good -- even choice. Of course, we have to distinguish between meaningful choices and trivial concerns, but Schwartz's research shouldn't be dealt with too lightly. After all, at a time when "free trade" and "globalization" are held up as goods of the highest order, Schwartz's insight can help us begin to understand why some people say: "No thanks. I'd rather be happy." And that's something that not even a year's worth of columns by Thomas "You-Idiots-Just-Don't-Understand-Economics" Sowell could change." http://www.alternet.org/story/18390 <---heres the website I found the article about "tyranny of choice" on
  4. If I remember correctly, Rand said another quality of a work of art is that it is an end in itself. If this is true, I can understand why she didn't classify paintings for postage stamps as art. That painting when used for a postage stamp then becomes the means to an end.
  5. THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE! Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This has basically allowed Congress to do whatever they want without changing the Constitution in any way. It has allowed for the creation of Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, etc in conjuction with the general welfare clause. It has allowed the creation of the Federal Reserve in the case McCullogh vs. Maryland and in conjunction with the coin money clause. It has allowed the creation of all regulatory bodies in conjuction with the regulate commerce clause. Basically everything Objectivists would consider an improper function of government has come through this clause.
  6. I don't think bringing the Koran in would be a great idea. My prof is Middle Eastern or Indian, so there is a possibility that she is Muslim. I want to make the class think, not get kicked out.
  7. The instructor in my speech class told us to bring in a newspaper/magazine article or book that is ethically controversial. Her ethics, and those of the entire class, most certainly do not reflect my own. I thought to myself that I should bring in something that, by their standards would be ethically wrong, and just talk about how great it is. I think, however, that I should do the opposite and take in the Bible and just talk about how it's the handbook for the standard of death. What do you guys think?
  8. i got to the second page of that test and couldnt continue. it was the statement "Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment" that did it for me.
  9. BurgessLau, Why, after all you have said condemning his value system, do you still say he is a decent man?
  10. But did she ever analyze it or did she just say he was wrong and ignore it?
  11. I have never read, seen, or heard about any instance where Rand address Aristotle's Prime Mover? Did she ever? If she didn't, why not?
  12. ah, thank you all...i think many people out there think objectivists are rationalists because of Rand's statement "reason is a man's only means to knowledge"(she did say that, right?)...have any of you founf this to be true?...and btw... online gamers spell "newb," "noob"...that's why i spelled it that way
  13. Ok, i'm a big noob to Objectivism(been studying for two years)...What is rationalism, exactly? i kinda have an idea but some clarificaition would help, because reading these posts makes me think i have been guilty of it...
  14. I'm sorry, I forgot to ask you: Do you ever feel anxious around her? and I don't mean the good kind of anxious. Do you ever feel like something is wrong when you're with her? With my girl, I would go about two weeks being around her and the third week would be terrible because the anxiousness became so overwhelming. I would almost blow up at her and we had fights and "break-ups" and it just got bad.
  15. I know exactly what you're going through. I just recently got out of a relationship with the type of girl you're talking about. I have a question about your girl: Does she believe in God? Mine did and being new to Objectivist thought it was something I thought I could just ignore for a while. That was the major problem in our relationship. Whenever we would get into a disscussion I discovered that most of the beliefs and ideas she held she could not rationally defend, and whenever I would try to get her to think using logic(of which she thinks there are many different kinds...yes...kinds of logic), she would always cite faith and "Well, I just feel it." The relationship you are talking about will ultimately fail or cause you to sacrifice your beliefs. That's how I knew, anyway: the day I said "I guess I could give God a shot" I realized what Rand meant by "sacrifice," and that was the end of that relationship. Now I look back and understand that the only way that relationship could have continued was through a full sacrifice on my part. There was no other way. I still felt attracted toward her and still am in a way. It's the nostalgia of our relationship and thinking I had found love that causes those feelings. It wasn't love though, it was the subconcious programming from my pre-Rand years telling me that everyone is deserving of love and love cant be explained and any attempt to explain it ruins it the whole a thing is not great if one can reach it deal. Lemme know if that helps or you want to hear more of my realizations and discoveries about women (at least those kind, because I still haven't experienced any woman deserving of my true love yet).
×
×
  • Create New...