Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Posts

    7059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. 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.
  2. Eiuol

    Suicide

    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.
  3. 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.
  4. "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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. Eiuol

    Intuition

    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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. I'm kind of confused what you mean here. "Applied" metaphysics? I'm not sure what your question is.
  11. No, but that choice is irreducible to any other choices, and there is no "why" behind the choice. It would be *caused* by your brain, or more specifically, your consciousness. To clarify, I'm only pointing out that an entity is the cause of action here, not that the choice is deterministic.
  12. All actions have a cause, though. Life is an action (or a process if you prefer), not an entity.
  13. I'm sure he means literature or music, for example. I do think that since art can advance such a cause, then art ought to be made in order to advance that cause. Not only do I think that art reflects a culture, but it can also change a culture if there is an actual definable art movement. Genuine art - if there is a message behind it - in today's world spreads quickly and it *can* change a person's sense of life.
  14. I'm not sure much more needs to be said other than such values are (probably) irrationally held. Long term consequences are sometimes ignored. Still, one does not automatically know whether something is objectively valuable or not. It requires the use of reason, and mistakes can be made. Life being the standard of value is how one judges something as objectively valuable. It does not mean irrational values are not possible.
  15. While it may be true that that is what most men have told you about their fantasy life, it may also be true that this is a result of it being a cultural phenomenon or cultural norm for men to adopt. Since you are speaking of men and women in general, you should consider if a distinction between behavior of the sexes really ought to be made. It may matter to the extent you are figuring out cultural norms of some place or time. All people have volition and have no instincts, so there is no reason to suggest that a tendency towards certain behaviors is a biological characteristic of a particular sex. What you mentioned about men being physically oriented and women being emotionally oriented is something I've heard many times, but it isn't too hard to figure out why many people think in this way. Plenty of popular movies portray that (what I think is) false distinction, and many people adopt that viewpoint because it's popular or whatever other second-handed reason they may have. You may be right in observing the implications of holding such a distinction, but those differences aren't inherent in men or women and can be otherwise.
  16. If an individual recognizes that one country is more productive, they would want to migrate to that country. "Nation's" don't go insane, people do. If the immigrant is not a criminal, then there is no reason to forcibly deny entry onto the property owned by people within the government's jurisdiction. After all, entering a country implies stepping onto someone's property, and it's up to the property owner to decide who is allowed on their land. If a government is to protect individual rights, it only should get involved with initiation of force. If anything, the people leaving an unproductive area should be the most welcome immigrants. There is no sacrifice of values involved.
  17. That makes it sound like there are certain practices one must follow. Really, if you agree with the fundamentals, you can call yourself an Objectivist. Depending on your level of understanding, though, you may prefer a different label. What would "following Objectivism by the letter" even mean? There are no commandments, but if you did "deviate slightly" from Objectivism (there isn't much to deviate from...) of course you wouldn't be an Objectivist. But it's not like anyone is going to chase after you if you change your mind. And from the tiny bit of research I did, there isn't exactly a neutral definition of 'cult'. It's a pejoritive term, mainly. Even still, there is nothing about Objectivism to even suggest that it is a cult movement in the pop culture sense of the term.
  18. Nothing is valuable independent of consciousness, or more specifically, apart from the valuer. Life is not a value until it has been implicitly chosen. Before that choice is made, life has no value whatsoever.
  19. I would agree with that. Given what I've seen, clothes of utility are often great looking by most standards. Aesthetic is important, and just because something has utility does not preclude it from being "fashionable," if fashionable is to mean "of high aesthetic quality." After thinking about the topic more, not paying much attention to what you wear may not necessarily mean low self-esteem, but what it can tell you is there is room for self-esteem growth. But I would still say paying attention to what you wear is a sign of high self-esteem, minus the exceptional cases of people who take vanity to the degree of ignoring or forgetting about other important values.
  20. If they thought highly of their appearance, I would think that means they make an effort to look a certain way, thus there is an indication of good self-esteem. I haven't really discussed what sort of things constitute looking good regarding clothing. That would be a huge amount of content to cover. It's not so much "looking good" as much as it is "consciously portraying an external sense of self." The idea is that someone is putting forth an effort to appear in a certain way. "Looking bad" in this discussion would really just be putting forth minimal or zero effort into purchasing clothes and only do it so you don't freeze to death/get arrested. In response to an idea of a study, what you could do is record what someone is wearing and then ask what level of self-esteem they think they have in addition to taking an existing sort of psychological test for self-esteem. Of course, the problem remains in figuring out what constitutes a conscious portrayal of a sense of self as well as what good looking clothing is. I have next to no empirical evidence actually (I have some). I only used reasoning here. So that's why I made the topic, hopefully people have first-hand experience that I don't have.
  21. Are those types of people the norm, though? I do not think so. That is a second-handed person you're describing, sure, but I think it's safe to say you get an in general good idea about a person's self-esteem by looking at their clothing and the sort of attention they pay to their outward appearance which they can control. Clothing is a better indicator of self-esteem than keeping your kitchen clean or making sure your car is in good condition because it is declaring yourself to have a particular identity by means of your body. It is a placing a high value of your own body as well, because you are portraying an external image of your identity. Those actions you gave as an example can be indicators of self-esteem, but they are not as intimately connected to yourself. Cleaning your house would show you value your living space looking good, which you may value because it reflects that you see yourself as deserving of a house and deserving of making it appear how you want it to. Making your body look good is directly related to your sense of self, because it very much is what you are. There is no intermediate step in linking the action here to yourself. I cannot think of any more direct way to show your self-esteem than clothing or other similar means of expression (this includes manner of speaking too, as well as anything that alters your appearance).
  22. Welcome. Be careful when considering your pre-existing convictions. Really think hard about any new ideas you come across. If an idea contradicts an idea you already have, why does it contradict? Similarly, if an idea is consistent with the ideas you already have, why is it consistent? Don't accept any idea just because it sounds good! If you already do all this, that's great.
  23. Do you mean that a shower makes you feel "refreshed" and thus you have a little bit more of a positive attitude? I still think that the feeling is because of a sense of self-worth, because you are acting to better yourself. Maybe that is your point, but clothing can only further that feeling of self-worth and probably make the feeling last longer.
  24. Of course, there are plenty of other books to add to your list here, but I would also include "Viable Values" by Tara Smith.
  25. I would be curious, then, if you see yourself as feminine because you only desire men? And because the way you view masculinity and femininity, you may possibly think femininity would require desiring only heterosexual men? Or maybe you don't see yourself feminine at all, so you feel conflicted in your identity when you know you are attracted to men? I am not trying to psychologize here, I am just posing questions that may help you. Maybe it would make masculinity arbitrary. It is certainly possible you could also have mistaken premises, too. Since you said you have only automatized the two concepts rather than formed them explicitly, there is good reason to question if the way you formed those concepts are even valid.
×
×
  • Create New...