Eiuol

To be clear, I'm not blaming guns per se, I'm saying regulation of guns may be justified on the premise that guns are intended to kill another person. The beneficial purpose of killing is only in self-defense, but another reasonably possible way to use a gun is to initiate force. The bottom line is that guns are tools of force, and force is actually the only type of thing that may be regulated in an Objectivist society. Government would essentially be in charge of how force may be used, and self-defense is a proper way to use force. Regulation to the extent of certification after a psychological evaluation may be proper, or whatever system is decided upon. Other weapons would be outright banned, like nuclear weapons.

One other comment...

This comparison is bad. Spoons are made in order to eat, which by nature isn't an initiation of force. Guns are made in order to kill, which is either self-defense or initiation of force. Someone buying a gun in order to initiate force is a realistic possibility, as is the possibility of buying a gun for self-defense. Buying a spoon in order to initiate force is totally implausible. Guns make violence possible, and without a gun, a person is severely constrained. My idea here is that guns should be regulated, and semi-automatics probably should be banned except for rare circumstances. By regulation, I mean oversight of who can and cannot purchase guns to assure that person's purpose for the gun is explicitly self-defense. Guns are tools for *killing* people.

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.

Figuring out how to make this post is kind of tricky. Disagreement and misunderstanding here I think has to do with the Objectivist position on force.

Earlier, I was explaining two perspectives on force, neither of which is the Objectivist position. One is that any impediment against action is force, because you are "forced" to make a decision based on a new context. If a tree falls in the road, I no longer have the choice to drive straight on the road. Another viewpoint is that only the most extreme instances probably best left to the realm of science-fiction (mind control devices) would qualify as force, because your capacity to choose remains intact otherwise. If you point a gun at me, I can do some fancy martial arts to steal the gun from you to protect myself. Now, the issue with both is how choices are described in the first place, that is, with regards to the metaphysical and the man-made. You questioned the importance of this distinction earlier. Perhaps I'll provide a different angle for you to consider.

With the first one, a tree falling in the road would fall under the metaphysical side. That was something that just happens in a natural circumstance. To avoid complications, let's say a bolt of lightning hit the tree, then it fell. Suggesting a choice is forced here is like saying you're "forced" to ride a plane if you want to fly - you can't flap your arms and then start flying. Mainly, I find this viewpoint to be frustration directed at reality because one's mind doesn't decide how reality works. The world works with limitations due to identity of various entities in the world. Any choice to be made depends on limitations in the first place. Choosing to drive on the road is done by at least some comparison with what is possible and defined by the nature reality. Teleportation isn't going to happen, walking is dangerous during a thunderstorm. While these are all possible in any way in your imagination, a choice is made precisely because there are limitations.

From here, you'd probably say that is support for your ideas about force. "Why, yes, there are limitations, so why is pointing a gun force?" In other words, I'm arguing against the second viewpoint. Considering that people are able to make choices about the world in a manner that trees, ants, or rocks cannot, the man-made distinction becomes relevant. Events caused by person aren't caused by entities outside of them. Rocks can only act when force is applied, in a literal sense. Instead, they're caused from within, by whatever mechanisms the mind uses to operate. Shoving you can't cause you to suddenly believe that 2+2=5. Such an action cannot have the power to force a change. To that degree, Objectivism would say force is fruitless to change someone's mind (I'll return to this later - you probably see this as evidence of Objectivism being inherently disposed towards persuasion as a means to achieve an ideal world.) The mind, again, has to operate internally, by its own mechanisms. Still, it's stopping too short to then conclude with viewpoint two, ending the inquiry into force at that stage. The man-made distinction also suggests that since a choice is made internally, there are many things that people consider when making choices. As I was pointing out in the paragraph before, imagination is not infinite, and choices are made when considering the nature of reality.

Let's go back to the tree scenario again, except this time, I chopped down the tree, which according to my plan and intention, hit your car as you were driving to a friend's house for Thanksgiving. I'm changing the situation to the man-made side. By my own doing, and my internal choices, I caused that tree to fall on your car. Perhaps you'd see me as equivalent to a lightning strike, but how the tree fell is clearly different. Before the tree hit the car, you had long-range plans, perhaps even a business deal was planned, or any number of plans. Planning is a crucial element of choice, so how that is impacted can't be ignored. With nature, there is no use complaining - it is not anyone's fault. In this case, it is my fault. I am willfully preventing action in a way to interfere with your planning. To some extent, I am by personal power removing an option of your consideration, telling you that you can't drive on the road. I am a different type of entity than a lightning bolt, so it be said I am actually paralyzing your mind from making a certain choice *that is otherwise possible to make* with different consequences than is dictated by nature for other choices. Keep in mind the physical action on my part - I can't remove options for you unless I forcefully interact on your environment.

Certainly, I am not suggesting all possible choices have been eliminated. I've just constrained your decisions. But the constraint is in terms of how you are able to think rationally, not just constraint in general. The impact goes wide enough if pursued on a national scale that individuals aren't able to think rationally to their fullest, which is why socialism is seen as bad. For the most part, potential for blame is the difference between metaphysical in man-made for a discussion about the moral implications of force.

With that lengthy post on force in attempts to integrate many ideas discussed earlier, it will be easier to explain philosophical ideas of what one can do. This post is long already, so I'll stop here for now to see if there are any really big objections before I proceed.

Establishing context, in other words? If so, I would put game theory in there, because its level of specificity may be too much for philosophical inquiry. The topic is specialized enough that while it pertains to social dynamics, you'd be seeking just consistency with Objectivism, rather than principles to devise from Objectivism. I'd leave that out entirely. Instead, adding history would be more appropriate, namely, the American Revolution and/or the Communists of Russia, and other examples of revolt throughout history. Most of the time, concretes are the means to abstract, how to find any principles to be developed. Unfortunately, I don't know much about that history. By principles, I mean a way to figure out what a proper course of action is, not a rule.

I noticed some underlying premises that you have, I'll try to address them in a day or so. I think you may overestimate importance placed on persuasion per se. That's not exactly something discussed much in any Objectivist literature I've seen, except one article Rand wrote about "What Can One Do?" with regard to spreading some Objectivist ideas. Even then, it was written as some ideas (as I recall, I read it a while ago), not as a philosophical statement on the level of what she wrote in "Virtue of Selfishness". Also, spreading ideas is different than resistance anyway, since spreading ideas is about people who can be persuaded. Not all people are willing to be persuaded.

Establishing context, in other words? If so, I would put game theory in there, because its level of specificity may be too much for philosophical inquiry. The topic is specialized enough that while it pertains to social dynamics, you'd be seeking just consistency with Objectivism, rather than principles to devise from Objectivism. I'd leave that out entirely. Instead, adding history would be more appropriate, namely, the American Revolution and/or the Communists of Russia, and other examples of revolt throughout history. Most of the time, concretes are the means to abstract, how to find any principles to be developed. Unfortunately, I don't know much about that history. By principles, I mean a way to figure out what a proper course of action is, not a rule.

I noticed some underlying premises that you have, I'll try to address them in a day or so. I think you may overestimate importance placed on persuasion per se. That's not exactly something discussed much in any Objectivist literature I've seen, except one article Rand wrote about "What Can One Do?" with regard to spreading some Objectivist ideas. Even then, it was written as some ideas (as I recall, I read it a while ago), not as a philosophical statement on the level of what she wrote in "Virtue of Selfishness". Also, spreading ideas is different than resistance anyway, since spreading ideas is about people who can be persuaded. Not all people are willing to be persuaded.

Hernan, at first, I was really confused about the title of your thread. Usually people who speak badly of capitalism consider it to be unfair, which Spiral spoke of earlier. After reading the thread up to this point, I think I understand what you mean, so tell me if my understanding is flawed. I may approach further responses of mine in this thread as a devil's advocate, I'll say so if I do that, but this is how I understand you right now:

You say "sissies" in a sense of being weak and unsustainable. Capitalism may sound great, but the reality is, in the form of totally free markets as meant by Objectivism, it's simply not possible. Someone will overtake free markets, because its supporters believe in such a high degree of freedom that there is no barrier stopping collectivism - people are free to be collectivists! That is going to far, and not stopping with force some irrationalities (or even many) is simply weakness. Stand up for what you know to be rational, force if needed. Arrest communists like during the red scare. Take a hard-line attitude, that's the only way to make permanent any positive changes. Even if you don't suggest something like arrest communists, presumably you still mean something aggressive. Supporters of free markets may be too tolerant, by allowing blatant irrationalities. Ultimately, it's allowing others to grant you freedoms while being nice enough to respect that. Progressives, communists, fascists, etc, would easily overtake free markets the moment they decide to stop being nice. Communists took over Russia practically overnight - Russia wasn't a free market to be sure, but the communists were willing to take such a hard-line that they incited revolution.

Furthermore, even with some force, people still have the ability to think. A slave can contemplate escape, secretly learn to read, or any number of activities. Running away is an option. Sure the slave gets shot and killed while running, but that option to run was free to make. Objectivists seem (to you) to be essentially saying "I don't like getting shot, therefore that's not freedom!" To which I could respond: Tough cookies. I don't like losing my bishop, but sometimes I must lose a bishop in order to capture the king. I wasn't 'forced' to lose the bishop, that's simply the best option in terms of cost/benefit. Life is like that, too. Don't be scared to play the game!

Now, the problem with the sissies bit is that I think it's applicable only to anarchists. There is no official rule of law in anarchy. They wouldn't want to get "mean" because that'd infringe upon a person's right to do whatever the other person wants. Murder is bad... but there should be no ultimate arbiter to decide. But Objectivism is different, and involves force as retaliation, including by government. Murder is bad, and there is a law of the land to decide that. If you don't like that, boo hoo, you're going to jail anyway if you murder someone. That's a more obvious example. Then we can go towards military scale. If Iran is hellbent on nuking a government's jurisdiction, then a response you may expect from me is stop them with the necessary force, regardless of a 'right' of Iran to make nukes. Now, we can discuss what "necessary" is (war, bombs, espionage? etc), but it's certainly not a response of "well, maybe if we hold hands and talk about rational behavior, the threat will go away". My reasoning mostly involves a principle of how to respond to force because it stops freedom of thinking, a fundamental means of survival. Force can't be met with reason, so I'd retaliate with force. As an analogy, I can think of times a person (or me!) may seem to be a "lightweight" and seem even very tolerant, but if anyone keeps going far enough to cross the line, it's like a nuclear explosion went off.

What you seem to imply on force is problematic. One position on freedom is that *anything* in the way is the opposite of freedom. Tree fell on the road? I'm forced to drive around it. Another position is that unless you *completely* lose your ability to think, you are free. Except for being dead, you'll always be free. Held in a jail cell? You're free to think whatever you like. You seem to take this latter position. Objectivism isn't really either - I'm are free unless force is being used. If someone grabs my arm and twists it, they can force me arm to move regardless of what I think. The point is ultimately that it is impossible to plan long-range under such conditions, and is thus force. There are also arguments about how force in this way actually paralyzes a mind to some degree, but I'm not the person for that argument. "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith discusses both points; it's a good read anyway.

The permanency of capitalism doesn't matter so much as a principle, there probably will always be historical movements, defeats, and so on. But trying to get things to last as long as possible is plenty fine. Anything else on that point has already been said.

"Instead, what I see and hear is a lot of wishful thinking and some small measure of activism. "
Personally, I see activism as a temporary measure at best. That is an interesting side-discussion.

For the record, at least around here, CrowEpistemologist argued similar points you're pointing out, and I agreed with much of it even, personally. For me, the difference is marginal, but in general, I vote according to a position on abortion, that is, opposing anyone who would make abortion illegal if given the chance.

In the long-run, I'd bet most people around here would say both Romney and Obama are more harm than good. Do you want to drive off a cliff or collide head on with a train? You're gonna crash either way.

Given that Swerve (as stated in his profile) has only read Atlas Shrugged, there is actually a lot that can be construed as suggesting all sorts of interpretations.

Lacking sources/citations/mentions of real events suggests low credibility. This applies to any and all articles and op-eds. I have no idea, after reading it, how Obama is "anti-entity" any more than Romney. The whole article I did not find useful, nor would I link it to anyone else who is looking for varied thoughts on the election. No, I wasn't forced to read the article, I chose to read it to see what Peikoff is saying. And he didn't seem to be saying much at all.

No clear winner but Obama destroyed Romney with the "army has fewer horses" segment.

I really don't get why anybody cares about height still myself. I think it is ridiculous.

What about the guy who implemented Obamacare in his state before there was Obamacare, Mitt Romney?

Ah, I didn't mean that intellectual stimulation should be constant, only that other non-job related activities aren't simply unproductive, crosswords were just an example because I use that as a form of leisure. Hanging out at the beach and enjoying your feet in the sand is plenty fine, and even has psychological health benefits by being mindful of your environment as it is. Time is not being wasted. Or you could chat with a friend about a movie you saw last week, but even that too can help to jog your mind in a relaxed setting. What would be unproductive is consistently taking actions that really go no where, which depends a lot on context.

That is not what I meant.

First let us unpack the idea of a type of consciousness that is not limited by a single perspective. What exists to which this concept could refer? What does not exist is a consciousness having all possible perspectives, omniscience. Setting aside the case of infinite perspectives, what exists that has even two perspectives?

Most people and many animals have a left and a right eye, each functioning separately to produce its own visual perspective. For that matter there is also a left and right ear, and left and right hand, and several square feet of skin.

But perhaps the level of the sense-perspective is not what we are after, which is "the subjective experience of consciousness". Consciousness is nothing without content, something to be conscious of. The primacy of existence is axiomatic. The remainder of consciousness after subtracting all content, what would be an intrinsic phenomenon of consciousness in itself, does not exist. Consciousness is a relationship not an entity. If we further distinguish consciousness from the sense-perspective level then all that remains that can be consciousness is the integration of several sense perspectives together. The integration of consciousness-as-integration is an integration across space (left and right hands, ears and eyes, the several square feet of skin), integration across sense modalities (hear the phone ring, turn to see it, reach out to grab it), and integration across time (through memory).

The idea then of a consciousness that is not limited by a single perspective is a consciousness of multiple integrations, integrations which remain apart and are not integrated with each other. There is a contradiction involved in settling upon a definition of consciousness as an awareness through integration and then to attempt to refer to what is not integrated as also consciousness. The only examples similar to this I can think of are a person with multiple personality disorder or demonic possession (same thing), but these are failures of consciousness not exceptions to a rule.

For the privacy issue, what would it mean to be a type of consciousness that is not inherently private? Continuing to rely upon the definition of consciousness as awareness through integration, non-privacy implies that what is being integrated is indefinite and not limited to one body linked together by the normal causal links (i.e. what is referred to is ESP or telepathy). Partial violations of the privacy of consciousness are possible by normal causal links that are gestures, speaking and writing too long messages on the internet. These kinds of breaches of privacy are limited to the conceptual level and are not a sharing of sensation or perception. So long as one consciousness is aware of another consciousness only through its own sensation and perception mechanisms there is no problem distinguishing one consciousness from another. For one consciousness to integrate with another consciousness and have direct access to its senses and percepts would mean there are no longer two distinct consciousnesses but one while they remain linked, one consciousness which remains private with respect to other consciousnesses. Privacy is the boundary between what is conscious and what exists to be conscious of, it is the border and finiteness required by the law of identity that everything exists in a particular and definite way.

Both the multiple perspectives and privacy issues turn on the principle of identity. Multiple perspectives implies a contradiction with the identity of consciousness, and loss of privacy implies a loss of identity as a distinct consciousness and is a transformation into something else.

The point is, I think, that Democrats are more reasonable, and smarter because they actually have premises to reason from, as opposed to populist emotionalism. There is some meat to their ideas, at least to the extent there is some caring about ideas, as opposed to many Republicans. Is populism of Republicans worse than elitism of Democrats? I think so.

Populism by nature can't be intelligent in a political system of voting, because no one is even in charge to think, since action is whatever the collective feels is right. That Obama needs to show his birth certificate feels right. Lower taxes, Obama simply hates America and will destroy it at all costs, abortion is bad, these all feel right. Truthiness is the prevailing Republican trend. Now, they may not say that explicitly, but I can't say there is much thinking going on, and Fox News is probably good evidence. There is minimal to no intellectual foundation for the vast majority of Republicans that I have seen. Before anyone says Paul Ryan, he's out, because he rejects the best part about Objectivism - the epistemology - and who knows if he actually knows anything about Aquinas.

I take the "we don't matter in the grand scheme of things" to mean looking at something wonderful that happens to be natural, like the cosmos, and not feeling capable of producing something here and now that's even equally as grand. One action you take isn't really going to cause galaxies to shift and mountains to move. The issue I see isn't one of not seeing a purpose, but rather, believing that any personal achievement, even on the level of building a rocket to Mars, is by nature inferior or less meaningful than what goes on in the cosmos. So, why bother if your actions won't amount to much? As far as I know, a nihilist could still argue that self-invented purpose is fine (with twisted logic), yet still say it still doesn't matter much in the end.



DA, I don't think your answer gets at answering why anyone should care about what they do. Acknowledging you have a right to live doesn't mean you care that you live, or even find much meaning in some career goal of building robots. Choosing to live in itself doesn't imply even enjoying life. People can and do go through the motions of daily life out of habit, without ever finding enjoyment or "mattering" in their own actions. Have you ever seen Office Space? Would saying "having the freedom to choose to continue living" lead people in that movie to start caring about life? I doubt it.

Objectivism gives a better answer I find. Your meaning can only be yours, but it also requires understanding how pursuing grand goals *does* give meaning. Identifying that reason, self-esteem, and productivity are core values helps to point out that pursuing those values results in happiness/meaning/joy/"mattering". Still, those concepts are empty without action; understanding that those values leads towards something meaningful like happiness takes some first-hand experience. The ability to choose to live is only the beginning.

Some additional perspective from Rand when Rand was interviewed by Playboy:

PLAYBOY: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn't he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons?

RAND: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man's life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find.

The way "personal" was used suggests to me what OT was saying is that just because people don't have a way to make objective judgments (rendering the judgements in effect subjective) doesn't mean there is no objective judgment method to be discovered. No one in this thread has ever claimed otherwise, and I don't even think Hsieh did either, other than try to get started on identifying a standard to use. I see no reason, though, to accept your claim that "someday we'll discover a standard is [not allowed]". Reality and everything in it can be defined and understood objectively. Everything has an identity, any valid concept anyway. You seem to be saying "we don't know if there is even an objective standard", but that's equivalent to say "we don't know if everything that exists has an identity". If you're only saying beauty is an emotion like anger or joy, then what you say makes sense - you can't say there is "objectively true" anger. You can explain the cause, but that's a question about psychology.

I take beauty as a measurement right now, so I don't think it's an emotion. As such, it can be objectively defined. Beauty, being a positive judgment, indicates a positive value judgment. If you're judging a Kandinsky painting, a person's body, or a sunset as beautiful, it is a value judgment. I'd call this judgment of meaning. This is different than judging if a painting is good art in the sense good or bad there is just about fulfilling successfully a definition of art (in Rand's case, epistemological need of concretizing abstractions). I call this a judgment of technique and craftsmanship. For a positive value judgment, though, that's inextricably tied to your life in some capacity, in a similar same way you judge a coffee ice cream with chocolate chips is great. Meaning in art is deeper than that though, because it has a lot more to do with how a certain art piece presents to you a view or sense of life about existence. Certain viewpoints are more beneficial to life than others, more obvious examples being the Bible versus The Illiad. I'm not going to claim that I know the proper standards in all of art. I'd have to study more than I have. (aside: I was reading Understanding Objectivism yesterday, and that distinction was used to clarify why Rand said that right now, she sees no way to objectively judge the *meaning* of music as could be done with literature).

At the least, beauty involves judging the essential aesthetic fundamentals of what you're judging, and its relationship with your life (i.e. the positive value judgment). When judging human beauty, I'd say health is a consideration, because that produces an appearance, but to be clear, I'm only saying it is a necessary yet insufficient criterion for beauty judgment. For me, use of reason is even bigger to consider, which is what you'd use for clothing, hair style, body modification, etc. I wrote about this in another thread I wrote up a while ago. Again, if beauty is just an emotional reaction, my above reasoning is void.

I do not think it was supposed to be an end-all "Answer". I think it is relevant when judging the appearance of animate creatures to consider the essential features of that creature, with health being a *consideration* where applicable. What makes a human, human? This is how philosophy is done with Objectivism *anyway*, by considering some concretes, and breaking up a concept into constituent parts. Part of an aesthetic judgment involves health - health has an appearance. No, it's not the whole picture, but it's a piece of the picture. In the same way, we'd consider health as part of morality - health allows you to exist. But morality is not judged on health alone!

Also, the ITOE quote is pretty good, because it talks about teleological measurement, a fundamental part of judging values. Aesthetic judgment is related to value, so also involves teleological measurement. Tone it down a bit - I think OT does have standards in mind (and I respect his insights quite a bit), just opted to mention some quotes first. That quote is a good starting point of discussion.

I found that in terms of concretes, the movie was pretty good about substance of beliefs, leaving aside all the flaws I saw in pacing, maintaining a theme, and plot flow. No elaborate speeches were needed, especially given how Batman is such an introverted person anyway. Bane was essentially a nihilist through-and-through, so he didn't have much to say other than for purposes of manipulation, or admiring the destruction he caused in any form. He was really all about denying that anyone deserved justice, in reaction to how he and Natalia were treated in the Pit. One great line was "Which do you think came first?" when blowing up the roof of the sewer to get to the equipment above ground. This might not be the exact words, but it implied hating any notion of value creation because life depends on the grotesque like the trash left in a sewer. Batman had nothing to respond to anyway - what could he have said to a person like Bane?

A fellow Dagny fan! When I hear of favorite characters, usually it's Francisco, Hank, or John at top.

When a person is acting irrationally, they are abandoning reason in favor of animal-like consciousness of operating on the perceptual level. The words involved in throwing around baseless insults are arbitrary and automatic, and often go with the intent of physical aggression if you give into their provocations. While a person has the power to come out of such an animal-like frame of mind or not enter such a frame of mind in the first place, if one is in such a state, that's blind emotionalism as much as a dog.

I like Dante's thinking going on, and I agree with some of it. Depending on the words stated and context of where they are stated, it's possible to "ask for it" in the sense your abuser has stated they're looking for a fight, and gave you permission. But the moral course of action is to not engage if at all possible.

This is misconstruing the presentation here. Reverence for gods is irrational. Reverence for oneself and reality is rational. Reverence for something is necessary for existence, while the something may or may not be rational. Some people take the mystical route and use god(s) to create meaning for everything. This mystical route is bad by degree: you could be a self-flagelating monk in a monastery, or one of the ancient Greeks who looked up to gods but still saw a need for science and philosophy. Others may take a more reality-based approach because in fact a reverence for something that doesn't exist is arbitrary. Of course, becoming a robot and denying any emotion in decision-making and operating on utilitarianism is not beneficial. It is empty and meaningless - bland. Denying reverence entirely is bad. Even if totally wrong and even irrational on some points, there is something to be said of mysticism. I do not mean the *irrational* aspects, but at least some of the rational aspects found within. Buddhism for example does emphasize having correct knowledge, living the right kind of life, and other ideas that are quite good. However, the underlying "why" with its mysticisim is irrational, but at least a cause to the good life is identified, even if primitively. Reverence as spoken of above is like that because it appears that reverence is important for leading a good life. The basis of the reverence may be wrong, but fulfilling some of a need is better than nothing at all.

My preference is to use the word passion, passion for something deep, big, and "godlike". All I mean by godlike is a complex way of saying big and highest, just as the Rand quote implies. Knowing the reverence due a god means having a deep connection with something. Having the capability is important, but note that I haven't said a deep connection with what. Unfortunately, gods are the easiest way to find reverence and passions, so many people still accept some mysticism even if they don't quite "believe". In any case, to really feel driven, a sense of reverence in something is important, in the same way the We The Living quote from dream_weaver talks about the "highest possible". The "highest possible" is godlike in the sense of passion it is due. A reverence for the oneself fulfills an emotional need to be driven. Certainly reason allows one to identify what is good and bad, but an emotion to go with it is important, unless you'd prefer to measure everything by purely consequentialist and utilitarian means.

Being an emotion, passion stems from premises. What you see as the highest possible reflects what you identify as worth your attention and passion. If you have passion for nothing, you'll feel nothing. You wouldn't feel driven. You'd go through life in a malaise, totally lost and drained. Perhaps you'd know what productivity entails and how to be rich, but why bother? Every day is exactly the same. What could you do, then, to start caring? Some people may choose religion - but I don't think it's lasting, on top of the fact that mystical beliefs prevent the highest possible. The emotion cannot be willed into existence - underlying values must be chosen. With Objectivism, it's choosing your own life, and building from there to figure out what it means to choose life. Reason, productivity, self-esteem, ought to be viewed as values to feel passionate about, and must be chosen as such. I cannot give explanations of what the emotional sensation of passion and reverence is like, but a driving emotion is needed to maintain motivation to go after the highest possible. I think of how Dagny in Atlas Shrugged had to keep herself motivated, but struggled before discovering ideas in the Gulch. She basically knew about core values, yet that was insufficient to lead her to seek the highest possible. That's why she stubbornly stuck at the railroad without fail. Not until she started really hold her own life as an explicit primary in an emotional way did she start to work towards the best in herself, and hold passion/reverence for herself. There are real life examples I sense of some famous people, but I don't know enough about them to illustrate my point.

I might seem to be going offtopic, but I want to indicate the importance of emotional passion. (And please, no line-by-line critique; I didn't write this to be an essay where every single word is the utterly perfect choice).

Induction occurs all the time in many contexts, not just when coming to philosophical principles or scientific conclusions. So, I'm fascinated to hear how people apply ideas of induction to daily life, perhaps even when they don't realize they're even doing induction. I can think of anything from learning a new recipe, to playing a video game, to figuring out who is the killer in a movie. What are some playful examples of induction that you can think of in your daily life?

*

Playing RPGs makes me think of induction quite easily and readily. It's important to quickly develop strategies to defeat enemies at the time, sometimes having to make decisions before I have all the information I want. If I want to win battles, I need to figure out how to efficiently figure questions out I may have about an enemy. Induction here involves what abilities work, and which aren't nearly as efficient.

When I played Final Fantasy 6 a few months ago, I had to figure out strategies for bosses. Usually I'd go through possible weaknesses to the different types of magic. I'd try ice, fire, or lightning first, see if the boss is weak to any of those elements. I'd even have my non-casters use spells as well, as if a boss does have a weakness, the battle is much quicker. Still, I might find no weakness, so I let my main caster go on as normal by using high rank spells. As I learned throughout playing, I need at least one healer on bosses so I can last safely enough while I look for a weakness. But through that need, I saw how a healer can also buff up my party early on when my party doesn't have a lot of damage taken. This is, for the most part, applied to all bosses. Then again, I've learned that from years of playing video games, so I have a basis already for building up ideas applicable specifically to Final Fantasy 6. Dedicated healers are nice, but since healing spells are quick for party members to learn, I really noticed how a specific healer isn't always needed. Healing with my party members that did less damage overall were my best bet rather than those with only high magic damage stats, especially since if there are no boss weaknesses, most party members do similar damage. The ones that do notable damage I keep as my preferred damage dealers.

The only thing additional I need to figure out what a boss does and how to defend myself – attack strategy isn't my only tool. One boss was such a pain because I thought I was doing so well. There was a head and body, and both were separate from each other. A few other bosses are like this and both usually need to die, so I attack the body first. I progress fine, although it's annoying that the head keeps healing the body. It's nothing too difficult to handle, so I keep going. My mana started depleting – if it hit zero, I wouldn't be able to heal anymore. I pulled through, killed the body... but then the head revived the body. Needless to say, my whole party died soon after. Judging from my difficulty, I figured the next time, I needed to do a lot of damage to the head quickly. Sometimes in games, a healing body part of a boss is the weakest part of all, so that should be killed first. Only in newer games is this really violated as a rule, so I should have remembered that since Final Fantasy 6 is at least eighteen years old, “healing parts die first”. When I tried the boss again, I killed the head first, without a great deal of trouble, then the rest of the boss.

The whole process there is something I've take for granted in the past. I don't really think about my “weakness test” method, or even realize that I'm taking principles from other games (e.j. how to arrange healing for parties in RPGs). But when I analyze what I'm doing, I'm acting pretty inductively – developing principles to use that will be automatized later in the game.