Eiuol

I understand what you mean, but what sorts of capacities are actually lost? Would pruning of neurons necessarily mean the loss of capacity rather than an increase in efficiency? I would be curious as to any sorts of studies there are regarding how long it takes an adult or teenager to become fluent in a language in comparison to a child. I would suspect many people have not developed great methods of learning language. The experience most people seem to have with languages is in high school, where it is required and there are plenty of bad teachers, so it would seem that kids are simply better at learning language before they've even gone to school.

I don't think it's really true that a child's brain is more powerful than an adult's brain. I'd suspect that more *needs* to be processed as a baby in order to function independently, so it would seem that babies are just better at it. An adult's brain is only unlike a baby's brain to the extent I baby has almost nothing automatized. You are older and wiser now, so if anything, if you develop a rational method, you'll be able to become fluent in a language much faster than a kid. An immersion type process is good I think, because it *requires* you to learn what's going on, unless you are alright with simply hearing gibberish all day. Even then, a focused effort at grammar would help things a lot. (Japanese is the language I've put my effort towards studying)

A lot of context seems to be missing. Are we speaking of the exotic dancer type of stripper, or the kind who works at a trashy strip club? Stripping could be treated as performance art, which may or may not be trashy.

How can morality - according to the Objectivist conception of it - provide any understanding of what you should in a social context? All that matters in a social context is that you do not violate rights. Taking anything more than that into consideration would be deciding the right course of action based on how someone else would like you to act. The distinction you are trying to make COULD make sense if you accept that you should balance selfless and self-interested actions, but since the only right actions are self-interested ones, you do not need to take into consideration what custom says you should do.

It seems that you are arguing that ethics refers to what is "right" to do regarding social convention, which is not really important. I haven't heard of anyone who has ever used ethics to mean that unless they already labeled morality to be what is right regarding social convention as well. You'd be better off just making up a new word, since I see no reason to think that ethics is defined wrong.

This is about the legality, though.

It seems to me that you're suggesting that women approach romantic interests in a way that is completely different from men. It's rare for any person at all to be ready to have sex within 90 seconds of meeting someone, at least if we are not discussing people who only are looking for sex and nothing else. I'm sure plenty of guys make a decision within a minute of meeting someone too, though I think that is pretty irrational. There's no real reason for attraction and romance to revolve around animalistic (emotion based) mating rituals of the male making showy or flirty appeals to the female. Maybe your observations are true here, but I'm not sure how it'd be in your self-interest to be with someone who makes such important decisions with minimal or no thought. A "probably no" or "probably yes" are perfectly fine - you can get decent impression of someone based on how they portray themselves - as it implies that it really does matter what sort of ideas a person holds. So in the end, there is no real need to really think of any special way to attract people, because acting in a way other than "yourself" would only attract people who are probably as second-handed as you are acting.

How can one imagine or dream something if their mind is absent of any content? Sensations and percepts are necessary to form concepts and abstractions. Without those, you wouldn't have anything TO imagine in the first place.

I actually think this is probably a legitimate way to alter subconscious thinking, even psycho-epistemology. To an extent, I think I caused this in myself. Since art in the proper sense of the term is a concretization of an abstraction of an artist's metaphysical value judgments - amongst other things - it is possible to consciously focus on more at once, avoiding problem I'd suspect of your automatized thought processes integrating too much without conscious control. The more wide abstractions and you can consciously focus on conceptually, the more success I think anyone would have in overcoming problems of the subconscious. It almost sounds a little bizarre to say art can change a person, as though it is some sort of homeopathic therapy, but since psycho-epistemology involves integration, changing an improper psycho-epistemology would require some way of minimizing its use while still being able to integrate new knowledge.

I'm not sure why principles of romance pertaining to heterosexual love would or should be any different than any other kind of romantic love.

I'm inclined to agree with this, but in what way could you really realize when your subconscious way of thinking, your psycho-epistemology, is proper or not? You could consciously decide to think according to principles of reason, and still operate like an emotionalist because you are on some level automatically integrating improperly. You may consciously do many things right when you are trying to consciously focus on a particular idea, but subconsciously misintegrate on parts of that idea you are not focusing on. If some of your psycho-epistemology is not entirely proper, implications of complex ideas could also create issues when you're trying to consider a wide context and you can only focus on so much at a time. I'm sure with enough practice you'd notice when false or misintegrated conclusions are made, but I'm not sure how exactly you could check if your psycho-epistemology is any good.

I'm trying to acquire a better understanding of what psycho-epistemology is. From what I understand, one's psycho-epistemology is one's subconscious cognitive habits. It is similar to the concept of sense of life, except this relates to methods of cognition. It is clear from experience that everyone has their own way of thinking, in the sense they many approach questions and answers in a certain way. The issue I'm having is thinking about cognitive habits. Is there anything more to it than the extent in which someone has automatized the use of reason? More specifically, are the "kinds" of psycho-epistemology parallel to one's explicit method of cognition, like emotionalism, for example? Also, if one has automatized a method of cognition, could it really ever be undone? Once you've automatized such an important process as cognition, it would seem to me that you are forever stuck with that method of cognition. How could one acquire knowledge of an alternative means of cognition - and eventually change their psycho-epistemology - if they subconsciously acquire knowledge in an improper way in the first place?

But will those reasons of hers even be rational? Maybe you should explain more what a feeling of jealousy is. Jealousy is a pretty negative emotion and a fear of losing a value (or potential high value), and may make some act in desperation. What sort of context would that be rational in? Not only that, the goal here seems to be flat out manipulation. And why do you think that is? Probably because you'd obviously be acting manipulative in the worst of ways: toying with someone's emotions. Definitely not something in your self-interest. Are you really suggesting you should make another person be jealous, but you yourself should not be jealous? Isn't that hypocritical? It is a very bad idea to advocate because you would be suggesting it is fine for the person you are pursuing to be doing something you yourself think is bad in the same context.

There is so much context missing it is hard to really debate it. In any normal circumstance, say, if you were living in the US today, the only way you'd be in a situation where the only options truly are death or stealing is if you've lived life as a parasite consistently, such that no rational employer would want to hire them and give them a paycheck. If you redeemed yourself, then there is potential to make a non-monetary trade even if you had no money. There are always options - unless you decide to live as an intellectual dependent upon others. That is why reason is a primary, not an ethical rule like "do not initiate force." The right thing to do is what is in your selfish interest, which implies not initiating force in this example. Another possible context is a dictatorship. Since we're talking about a hypothetical, consider the book "We The Living." I recall a scene where Kira stole a loaf of bread. This context is different because Soviet Russia was a sort of emergency situation where any normal conditions - conditions where using your own mind to achieve your own chosen course of action and thus life is possible - did not exist. The standard upon which morality in Objectivist thought is based off is one's own life, and when the means of living life is made literally impossible, there is no basis on which to discuss right or wrong. Initiation of force denies a person the ability to use reason, their means of survival, which is the whole point of the quote "morality ends at the barrel of a gun" (I think I butchered the quote, but I imagine you know which one I'm referring to). Thus is the evil of statism in general. You must always keep in mind the context, and I would say the utter annihilation of individual rights is the only context in which stealing is permissible (again, that is not to suggest that we can even apply morality in such a situation).

This does imply "absolute" rationality, though. Rationality involves recognition of one's full context of existence, including what is required of living. Completely eliminating yummy foods would be irrational if they are part of your flourishing as an individual. But of course, one must recognize that consumption of such foods could lead to death in the long-term context. "Absolute" rationality is required to determine if "giving up" all (or some of) your favorite yummy foods will add to or detract from your flourishing. It would not be rational to consider life to be just maximizing heartbeats; it is redundant to label an action as "rationally moral." An action is either rational or it is not. Any rational choice is morally good. No qualifier is required. If you are designed to live, that is just determinism, because it would be to say you have no choice in the matter. It is true that virtually no one chooses death the first time such a choice is made, so it may be better to suggest that feelings of pleasure are what lead to the choice to live when you are first born. Still, there is nothing "built-in" about that. A choice still must be made, even if the choice is seemingly easy to make. Jeez, where did you hear that? Anyway, you seem to be suggesting that one has reason and emotions, and that reason can supersede emotion. To be compelled to find pleasure is an emotion, to be compelled to achieve "genetic dominance" (whatever that is supposed to be) is an emotion, so you can't suggest either of these are biological mechanisms like reflexes. Use (or improper use in this case) of reason is what determines what emotions you have. It is not a matter of subordination, but of causality.

Since Rand did not discuss either concept specifically, can you maybe elaborate on the distinction between eros and agape you are making? If it involves unconditional love, as agape seems to mean in my minimal research, there is plenty Rand has written on that idea. Love would properly be the response to the aspects that one values in another. To love a person regardless of any bad they do is to deny any value in treating people how they deserve to be treated, whether as a value, or not as a value.

Suicide isn't a question of being immoral or not. If life ceases to be a value to you for some reason and you decide to choose death, then you can't really say what is the "right" thing to do. Morality depends on choosing life in the first place. It may be a false conclusion, however, for one to evaluate that their life is no longer worth living, to evaluate that it is impossible to achieve any important values except just existing.

There are so many ways in which to approach this, it really depends on who it is you are trying to convince. I think this is a good video to show anyone, though. Atlas Shrugged does speak a lot of capitalism, but it is still a great literary piece and should be read for that reason. Personally, I first read it a few years ago because it sounded cool that powerful industrialists would decide to go on strike. I didn't need any more than that. If the people you are trying to convince to read it aren't so big on reading fiction or literature in general, you would probably be best off mentioning how it has had an impact on your way of thinking.

"Rushing" probably would imply evading some pertinent facts in order to reach a conclusion quickly. That's the only way in which any kind of transition in thinking could be immoral, because that would be willfully ignoring reality it some manner. The rate in which you come to a conclusion alone won't tell you anything important.

There's no reason that couldn't be reversed and say the female in such a scenario is the one being a cheapskate (I'm not suggesting that the OP is).

I think that's the point. There is a "vision" involved, something that is not just a profit motive. People actually do tend to like that and support such people, or at least it seems more the case in today's world. And in fact, it is even more profitable, monetarily speaking, to live for yourself in the long-run. I did not think the speaker was suggesting profit should be the fundamental motivation.

It may be a useful tool, but only insofar as it is manipulative of a person's emotions. You can get a lot of people to think various things simply because implications are "disturbing." If you already disagree on ethical premises, you can't really even agree what is disturbing about a particular moral code, because something would only be disturbing to them based on the standards of *their* adopted moral code. It is disturbing to me that Christianity implies selflessness, but if I pointed that out to a Christian, I'm sure they'd see nothing disturbing about it.

I'm not sure if that is an important point to make, as it seems that most kids go to college anyway, in spite of their dissatisfaction with school. However, their emphasis does not seem to be on education, at least at my college. I would approach this point more like "Taking classes one is not particularly enthused about or interested in is not conducive to a learning environment." I would approach this portion of the article in a different way. Given the scope and audience, more emphasis on how private schools make for a better learning environment would give reason to support such schools, rather than someone coming off with ideas like "the government just needs to do even better!" A government could mandate policies that would be present at a private school, but the point is, the government shouldn't even do that. I think this is a good way to end the article. It summarizes what you wrote and ends with a positive note.

It agree that it is highly doubtful these ancient mystics even realized their moral rules could have a rational justification. The fact that the justification in these cases is related to religion is reason enough to suggest that the rules were set on nothing more than faith. In other words, whoever decided to obey these rules simply got lucky that there is some real benefit. Even still, I am fairly certain that some modern philosophers would suggest the examples Hairnet gave illustrate the idea that morality is a result of evolution, not of reason. Morality is viewed as nothing more than a survival mechanism in the sense that certain rules simply happen to help one survive. By extension, I know that some who support this sort of viewpoint would say that morality is nothing more than a story you tell yourself. Not eating shellfish is an example. Someone somewhere probably just thought shellfish was plain icky, and explained that feeling as god being present within them indicating that shellfish is infused with some sort of immorality. Various other people probably felt this way too. This icky feeling is argued to be an inborn intuition which is strong enough to make one feel utterly compelled to act in a particular manner. This moral rule is then perpetuated throughout generations because of how it happened to serve a survival role. I would agree with these philosophers only as far as saying that many people do operate on emotion and the results are exactly what can be observed regarding morality of all sorts, but the major difference is my agreement with the Objectivist view that emotions are the result of conscious evaluation. Some people hold such a vast array of misintegrations that it would seem humans are a mess of emotion and reason. The truth of the matter is that poor use of reason only puts one closer to the level of animal thought than conceptual thought.

I'm kind of confused what you mean here. "Applied" metaphysics? I'm not sure what your question is.