Eiuol

What I mean is that I can't tell if you're saying drugs for treating psychological medical conditions are across the board bad, or if you are saying failing to use psychological treatment in conjunction with medication is bad. I agree with the latter, but not the former. Psychological issues do not necessarily represent a failed education of morality, or even a person failure of being moral. Medication is not supposed to be a chemical solution to immorality, because psychological problems are not considered moral problems by a doctor. A doctor should care about treating a disorder, not about fixing moral failings. Anything related to morality is an individual issue. However, maladaptive thinking patterns interfere with self-improvement, thinking patterns that require further treatment along with medication. That doesn't excuse the shooting, but mental health is too often ignored by doctors who fail to do their due diligence for treating their patients.

Taking drugs for mental conditions is no problem, the problem is if he may have taken medication *without* proper psychological treatment at the same time. Even still, what does that have to do with what led him to go on a shooting spree? I don't see how too much reliance on drugs led to this event, unless you mean some doctors may have thought "he's medicated, my job is done".

I agree with your points overall, but no, I don't think Darrel is thinking of "Going Galt" as a collective decision. The first line you quoted doesn't seem to be an argument at all, just a statement of opinion. Actually, that sounds like Dagny's reasoning in Atlas Shrugged about why she refused to ever give up on Taggart Transcontinental. Her attitude was "try harder if things get bad" probably in part because of a belief that it's bad to ever leave anything before its last moment. Of course, she learned otherwise over time. I wouldn't consider moving to Singapore "going Galt", though.

Why do you want to qualify for a better job?

You could also say "there would be no reason for the state to kill a killer". I think the point of Kate's question is why should enacting justice include subjecting a criminal to the same act they committed.

Like breaking up with anyone: being openly honest, explaining the sufficient reasons to break up. This doesn't have to involve totally excising the other person from your life at all, even if the one being broken up with would be sad for a while. John could remain friends with Maggie if he so chose, and given that you proposed no notable relationship problems in the scenario, I have no reason to suppose a lasting friendship would be impossible. Preference for exclusivity isn't important here, though. I'm assuming that whatever the preference is, the difference in value between Maggie and Anna is so significant that John would find breaking the romantic relationship with Maggie as the most honest action to take. Hairnet, I understand you spoke of potential. I took that into account earlier by saying that a great value can be attained by pursuing a potential, even if it's a risk to some extent. So many things are potential values in life that if all one ever pursued is guarantees, no grand values can ever be attained. John pursuing Maggie at first would have been a potential as well, just like any relationship. John deciding to pursue Anna would be equally a potential, except that considerations mentioned in FeatherFall's post would have a heavy weight on how to consider new potentials. When there are long-term joint activities, there is a lot more to lose out of being mistaken, so if two people buy a house, that probably reflects a degree of valuation. It reflects a degree that a relationship is viewed to be long-term. Having children is another way to reflect degree of valuation in a relationship, where there is a considerable amount of integrated values. There are other ways to reflect degree of value. FeatherFall, I don't follow what you mean by asking if there are times when the introspection I mentioned is inappropriate. I read that as "are there times when thinking is inappropriate" to which I'd reply "No."

She said "that one's on me" at the end. For all I know, she paid for the doughnuts, rendering your point moot.

I do not mean to suggest "throwing" anyone away as though they lose all value entirely, nor do I like that characterization. I'll start by answering your question about the John/Maggie/Anna scenario. With that scenario, I'll be keeping in mind that you said nothing in particular is wrong with John's relationship with Maggie, and it qualifies as the relationship A in my example. So, why would John ever conceivably break up with Maggie? Well, it's rather simple - John feels a greater connection to Anna than with Maggie. Values are discovered, not decided upon, meaning that perhaps John's value hierarchy has changed. Without ever meeting Anna, how could John possibly discover a value that is significantly greater than Maggie? Sitting down and introspecting earlier about Maggie wouldn't be able to reveal much, especially since my premise is that only discovering new values will alter existing values. Another possibility is noting a mistake that John only comes to notice after meeting Anna. In either case, no one can know their needs as though it's just "out there" and nothing less than platonic perfection is acceptable. The idea of discovering values, though, is almost exactly what happened with Dagny. She was quite attracted to Rearden, clearly, and knew nothing about Galt. Introspecting wouldn't somehow indicate Rearden is not worth her time or incompatible. But then, she meets Galt! At that point, it is absolutely possible to introspect, make a comparison between values, and discover: "aha! I like Galt so much more, even though Rearden is a fantastic person." Rearden wasn't thrown to the curb as though he never existed. (I couldn't help but notice this after reading Bluecherry's previous post, and it is relevant to the point I want to make.) Going back to the Maggie/John/Anna scenario, John isn't necessarily bordering on cheating, lacking introspection, or impulsive. Go more abstract than the immediacy one relationship ending and another starting. Values as a whole should be pursued once they are evaluated to be better than an alternative. That's how any value is discovered: comparison between alternatives, and experiencing the relevant values. I'd even say not pursuing a better alternative is self-sacrificial, substituting a greater value for a lesser value. True, you said potential, that's why picking a new relationship is no simple task. Sometimes, great value can be gained from pursuing a potential. A risk, I could say (albeit, it should only be taken if it's almost a certainty it's too important to take lightly). The bottom line is that values change over the course of a lifetime.

Reading the Wikipedia suggests that you're wrong, that Rand didn't come up with the term. I'm aware that she defined it uniquely and had other unique considerations, but is it accurate to say she came up with it? Or do you mean others may have said romantic realism, but Rand spoke of a *particular* viewpoint that is more specific than others?

Suppose you are in relationship A. It's going on alright, and is actually satisfying. You see potential for relationship B that is *more* satisfying than A. Having that comparison in mind, A becomes unsatisfying to the degree that A is inferior to B. Realizing one relationship will likely be better than another can create a feeling of unsatisfaction. Satisfaction depends on both alternatives and nature of current values. I simply don't understand this part. I believe you're saying that one shouldn't be in an unsatisfying relationship. So breaking up is best in that circumstance. This is true if the relationship is relatively unfixable or not worth the effort to fix. Keep in mind, though, that unsatisfaction can be due to noting new alternatives as well, so something with greater potential ought to be pursued. If one is looking while in a relationship, that isn't necessarily dishonest - some people would say that multiple romantic relationships at once is perfectly moral. Sure, dishonest cases would involve lying and secrecy, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Objectivism more specifically is just the name given to Ayn Rand's philosophy, thus it is thought of as a proper noun in that sense. As a whole system, it talks about way more than objectivity. Objectivism is also used in a general way and refers to a viewpoint on objectivity, but that's entirely different than the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

While risk/reward is part of many decisions, philosophic inquiry helps to illuminate relevant questions. You could say "use reason" and leave all questions at that. In my posts, I've been attempting to bring out crucial philosophical distinctions that should be addressed by anyone who wants to answer Hernan's question. Hernan, despite the general reply Nelli gave you, I find that it's fine for a quick answer. What about that reply makes it hard to understand some of the answers given earlier? I don't see any incompatibilities.

I'll read the whole study before I comment further. Popular science articles are great at misinterpreting science data, so I'll see if the real thing jives with what I am saying.

The definition of ball has nothing to do with the experiment, because it speaks about identification of a particular object. A dog can recognize a ball; I don't mean the concept ball, but a dog can recognize a ball compared to a bone. Anything with a visual system identifies objects, including dogs, and the point is, dogs make their identifications primarily through perceptual properties of size/texture. This interpretation is perfectly valid because percepts don't require conceptual knowledge on a human level, yet dogs do have a mental capacity that enables them to at least pick out concretes when trained. Even without training, in a dog's mental life, there are still salient properties apparent to a dog's senses that a dog can make decision of what is and is not prey. It's just easier to study that by training a dog, since in either case, a dog is using perceptual information to interact with the world. Yes, children learn an impressive number of words, perhaps many before they can even speak. But conceptual ability is not the same. That takes time to develop, so it is questionable if a child 24-36 months old really knows anything about rough/smooth. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes longer to grasp those concepts any better than a dog at that age (or at least you need evidence that toddlers know about concepts of textures by that age). This study isn't even talking about concepts, only percepts, that is, what properties a dog's perceptual system uses to distinguish various objects *automatically*. The only way to figure out how any distinctions are made is asking a dog to complete a task. Studies are done on humans in the same way.

You defined honor, but what do you mean by a thief?

I believe it means a perceptual bias, as in, shape has a greater impact on a human learning to identify a ball than size or texture. The study was if dogs do the same. A dog certainly can hear "ball" and pick a ball just as well as a toddler who hears "ball" picks a ball, but dogs clearly make that identification based on perceiving size or texture, while a child makes that identification based on perceiving shape. These are concretes, a toddler probably does not need to know anything about small/big or rough/smooth (are you sure most toddlers actually know what small/big refers to?)

Do you recall the name? I still don't see how that is possible, because the drawings would be detailed enough to be overwhelming. The only pictographic writing system I can imagine is a story like on ancient Greek pottery, which is plausible, but I wouldn't really call that writing at all, just drawing.

I'm the only one who said offensive, but my point was, even if I'm the only one who finds that particular line offensive, it could use some explaining. Not understanding what you meant was the purpose of my first sentence, the second sentence was my particular opinion. The statement can be construed as implying that there is no way for a woman to experience romance in the fullest sense if she does *not* do what you describe. Or if you don't like *those* questions I referenced, my question in post #54 is especially relevant.

I hope you respond about this eventually, as questioned in post #67. I hope you see how this part I quoted would be easily read as offensive.

Your analogy would only work if someone should be *in charge* of a romantic relationship, like a boss is *in charge* of their assistant. Do you believe that to be true?

Whatever your belief, it doesn't matter, because you explicitly said you have nothing in regard to evidence.

Would working for a homophobe really be worthwhile? I fail to see the use of anti-discrimination laws except to force nasty people to hire you. By working for a homophobe, you're only giving them a livelihood, which I'd say is absolutely unjust if you know about it. Worse, when it's illegal to say bigoted remarks or act bigoted, it's more difficult to see who is in fact bigoted anyway! If there are threats of violence, that's another story.

This is way off topic, probably better to start a new thread for this bit.

To clarify, I meant more like reason as a means of existence can only beat force by retaliating against initiation of force. How to retaliate, of course, is the main idea of this thread.

Blame was supposed to just highlight the fact that a particular person caused a negative action through their own volition. The purpose of pointing that out is to differentiate from unfortunate events not caused by anyone. When lightning strikes a tree, there is no one to blame, so there is no moral aspect as far as the lightning is concerned. I can't say or do to lightning to stop or prevent any future tree accidents. When events can be attributed to a person, a moral dimension is added where it is justified to act against another person, although not physically if force has not been involved (someone lying about how good your new shoes look would not justify force). As I was explaining before, only a physical consequence can force me to do anything without use of my faculty of reason. When full use of my means of survival have been denied, forceful action becomes justified. In this conversation, we are primarily concerned when force is either a) planning to be used, which I covered in my previous post or b ) has been initiated on a wide scale. By paralysis of reason, I do not mean that all choices have been removed and I have essentially been rendered a fish flopping around on dry land. I agree that it is a toxic thought to say all choices have been removed. I even agree that it is crucial to think clearly and creatively. My point was that some person has constrained my use of reason by *their* choice to constrain my use of reason beyond normal limitations of existence. Things like denying me access to property is not constraining my use of reason because property is actually an extension of reason as the means of survival, so to abuse your property also qualifies as constraining your use of reason. Destroying your car forcefully denies you choices for pursuing your career, as does taxing you in order to fund universal health care. Returning to options still remaining, sure, I can do things to normalize the situation by means of reasoning, but that doesn't change the fact I was denied my use of reason in its full capacity. When saying someone has initiated force, we're implicitly discussing unreasonable people. Persuasion is likely to be pointless for people who are initiating force, but there are degrees in which a person is unreasonable. Sometimes, logic will work, but that's really case-by-case. Force is by nature unreasonable, so really the options in regards to persuasion are minimal and likely a waste of time. A whole big point of Atlas Shrugged is deciding that giving the benefit of the doubt to those who initiate force is really bad to one's own life. Rand called it "sanction of the victim", where ultimately the victims of force are permitting injustice to themselves by not acting. In some sense, you are claiming that persuasion is sanction of the victim. I'd say that force always beats out reason; force can only be met by force. Going about your business like normal won't undo or even stop force. Being a victim of force demands some type of action. Earlier, I explained when persuasion is perhaps particularly useful, which is before the implementation of some policy. But as you said, your interest is what to do towards unreasonable people, so I don't need to elaborate on that point further. I liked this "hierarchy" earlier: The first one fits under "before implementation", when people are reasonable. The second is when force is initiated, so resorting to some force may actually be necessary, at least in the realm of where that initiated force applies. For instance, I think the US is a pretty good place to live, despite things like income tax because I have enough options to live my life pretty well. But where force does exist, I'm not going to be any pleased. Still, I have to consider my options. Ignoring the immoral laws would get me into trouble that I cannot combat well alone. The third one I see as when things get really bad, oppressive government level of bad, or some other really bad scenario. Depending on the circumstance, accepting the violation may be the only way to survive (money or my life; I'd likely be best off handing over the money). If the circumstance is more indirect (the IRS wants my money, but it'll be a while before I am taken into court and so on from there), I have a much greater range of options. I disagree with the initiating rights violations against others, but that's only because at this stage, if I am responding to an initiation force, I am not violating the rights of anyone. I am unsure what step to take next in discussion, so I'll at least emphasize that force can only be met with force. At the same time, a reasoned, philosophical basis ought to be promoted, on top of retaliatory force where applicable. Ideas are important because that's how to maintain a rational, reasonable society, but that doesn't mean one should sanction their victimization. Otherwise, the same rights violations will reoccur. Stopping terrorism is similar - killing the right people still doesn't stop people from adopting rights-violating philosophies. Some convincing has to go on. The reverse is also true. Presenting a pro-rights philosophy isn't going to stop the people who are so unreasonable that they want to blow up a populated building. Those people have to be stopped with force.