Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

bert

Regulars
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by bert

  1. I saw and liked the movie also. I liked how they showed the presidents' personal relationship with a black person (the butler) influenced how they felt towards different laws. However, I didn't like the end making a big deal of Obama's election as if it was good he got elected because he was black regardless of his policies. The goal should be to not see colors at all and never let a person's race be a relevant factor in such issues.

  2. And how do such acts squander the value of romantic sex any more than casual eating squander the value of romantic eating?

    I don't see a connection between sex between two people and one person eating food. One deals with relationships, judgments of others, and giving and receiving pleasure while the other is purely a physical pleasure.

    Having sex with another is a massive indication of approval - you WANT them. This is why I think its obvious (and Ayn Rand hits on this in Atlas Shrugged) that a lot of casual sex is driven by the need for approval coming from a lack of self-esteem. Its not that "players" find lots of girls they truly, personally want - they just need approval and seek it from this particular form.

    If I don't like someone, I don't want to be near them let alone have sex with them. The only way this would happen would be to withhold any judgement of them while pretending to like them to escalate towards sex. Why put on an act to fake your judgements to be very close and intimate with someone you don't like? I would say the minimum requirements for a beneficial sexual relationships would be for both to know who the other person truly is and for both to truly admire, in some personally important way, the other person. Sex is the physical act that expresses this mutual admiration (or in the best case, love). I'm pretty sure this is in line with the Objectivist view.

  3. I (tacitly) called you a Randroid because you show the defining characteristic: the ability to find bad news everywhere.  It's as good an argument as circumstances merit.

    I've always thought of "Randroids" as the more cultish type who don't think for themselves but rather try to follow Objectivism unquestionably. Characteristically pointing out the negatives shouldn't be equated with such a criticism.
  4. Did you feel this way prior to your introduction to Ayn Rand? If you've recently read her books, would you say some of the things you wrote about, especially your "view" has been influenced by them? Rand's fiction is extremely stylized showing the very bad and the very good. This can be helpful as one can grasp ideas more clearly. However, look closely at the things you are criticizing making sure you are not just seeing the world through a falsely stylized lens. Your view is a negative over generalization ignoring the various counter examples which show this is not a malevolent universe as you seem to believe. It seems like you have some interests of sorts - focus on those and whatever else is the good in your life.

  5. I'd say productivity in an Objectivist context has to have a physical element. The idea that productivity is a virtue comes from the fact that, in a general sense, human survival depends on physical results. Knowledge by itself is pointless. Now, in a division of labor society, some can do the less physical aspects and let others take it from there - for instance, discovering knowledge, publishing it (the physical aspect), then letting others find ways to use it. I'd say one criteria for a productive purpose is: can this activity support my life in the environment I live in. This is my understanding of how Ayn Rand became a writer: Imagining fictional stories was a great pleasure to her. She decided to become a writer when she found out that is basically what a writer does. So she found an activity she enjoyed then a way to support her life that integrated this activity. So in your case, if you really enjoy learning languages, you just have to find an activity that both integrates learning languages and provides some product or service.

     

    Do I have to physically create something in order to achieve pride and self-esteem? 

    I'd say you have to be capable of achieving values that are both personally meaningful and supportive of your life.

  6. Yeah well, I think what I said and what you replied with are two entirely unrelated statements. Care to explain the connection between being able to win and argument such as the one the OP describes, on the spot, and being able to explain your beliefs?

     

    I was originally trying to comment on this part of your response:  

    But all this is from the comfort of my house, where I have all the time I need to think of an answer. Not being able to think of one on the spot is of absolutely no consequence. It's the absolute last thing you should worry about. It doesn't matter at all. Unless you happen to be a politician, or TV/radio personality, having a razor sharp wit and the ability to win any argument on the spot would in fact earn you nothing in life. 

    All I meant to say was even though I agree that being excellent at arguing your beliefs in a social situation where one is "on the spot" is not crucial outside some professions such as you mentioned, there are benefits in having a moderate skill at it. 

  7. Am I the only one who can't figure out how to use this new quote system? It's ridiculously annoying to me.

    So every time I hit the "Quote" button, a quote bubble is pasted in the "Reply to this topic" box at the bottom of the page. Then I just carefully edit the bubble to get what portion I'm addressing.

     

     

     

    To Bert: What makes you think that OP is unable to articulate his beliefs in a social setting?

    The OP asked for advice for explaining and defending Objectivism. He obviously had troubles in this situation and I was defending him seeking advice by adding to your point - "Unless you happen to be a politician, or TV/radio personality, having a razor sharp wit and the ability to win any argument on the spot would in fact earn you nothing in life" - that there is something to be earned from being moderately good at explaining and defending your beliefs outside of these professions. 

     

     

    Also, do you believe that, in the actual situation he's describing, him simply articulating his beliefs would've been appropriate? Did you get the impression that the other person was interested in his beliefs?

    Well I wouldn't call it inappropriate - perhaps futile given the other person seems sort of close minded towards Objectivism. Still, as mdegges mentioned, engaging with others is a good tool for learning - in this case the OP is likely thinking more about the points he could not address. 

     
     
    To the OP -  I don't think people who truly understand Objectivism could really think it is evil. With this is mind, the best tool discussing Objectivism people who think it is evil (yet are still open for discussion) is the truth. I like the approach of asking "why is Objectivism evil" as one poster suggested and then trying to address their misconceptions. The issue with having talking points to give them is it doesn't adjust to their misconceptions which are really what is driving their belief it is evil.
     

     

  8. Not being able to think of one on the spot is of absolutely no consequence. It's the absolute last thing you should worry about. It doesn't matter at all. Unless you happen to be a politician, or TV/radio personality, having a razor sharp wit and the ability to win any argument on the spot would in fact earn you nothing in life. 

    Though I don't think being amazing at polemics is a necessity, I do think that being able to articulate your beliefs in a social setting is an effective way to attract like minded people and repel others. For instance, if the person who started grilling the OP had been a more open minded individual and the OP could have articulated his beliefs well, he could have potentially began a relationship based on ideas and Objectivism. On the other hand, if you can't articulate well, you will not want to discuss your beliefs with others making it harder to find like minded people. 

  9. For those unfamiliar with the distinction between horizontal integration and vertical integration:

     Not trying to sidetrack the thread but I'm not completely clear on the distinction. Would an example of horizontal integration be relating "all men are mortal" to the mortality of other organisms? I think I remember hearing this somewhere.

     

     

    spiral learning — integration of new knowledge with familiar context (i.e. new knowledge about previously known something)

    When one deduces Socrates is mortal, isn't that an example of this? Isn't it integrating new knowledge (Socrates is a man) with a familiar context (All men are mortal)? 

  10. @bert: No- that makes them human. The important thing is what you do once you find out you've made a mistake. Do you admit the error and find a way to correct it? Forget about your new knowledge? Lie to yourself and act as if you're right?

    Right - this was more of a rhetorical question geared towards moralist who seemed to imply one couldn't make mistakes without being immoral.  

  11. Every livng human pursues. It's essential to life just as is breathing.

    It is a choice to pursue what you think is right. I can think going to work today is right yet not do it. If morality deals with defining the correct actions to choose to further one's life, surely choosing to pursue what you've concluded as right is a moral issue. 

     

    Yes, what one believes is right could in fact be hurtful to their life. However, choosing to disconnect one's mind from their actions by choosing not to pursue what they think is right is equivalent to choosing to not use your tool of survival - seems like a moral issue.

     

    No. Morality depends on whether pursuing what you evaluate as right... actually is right.

    So if one makes a mistake in their evaluation, they are immoral? 

  12. What you pursue makes it moral or immoral. 

    Only what you pursue matters? Not that you pursue it?

     

     

    Pursuing what you love in itself is amoral.

    What you love comes from what you evaluate as right. Isn't pursuing what you evaluate as right called integrity regardless of whether it is in your rational self interest - do you mean to say this is amoral? 

  13. From FB said:
    I think one of the ugliest things about the generally accepted altruist morality is that it teaches you to devalue and dismiss all the wonderful little things in life, like cooking a tasty meal, or playing a new video game, watching TV, or even just cleaning the house a bit, as if they were worthless, meaningless. If you can't look back and talk about your Nobel Prize or your cure for cancer, your life was unimportant and of no value. That's just wrong.

    What's uglier still is when people who supposedly reject the altruist morality still go around criticizing people who like to play video games, cook tasty meals, watch TV, and clean the house as if their happiness somehow wasn't big or important enough to qualify for . . . something. They have this idea that the only "real" passions are these big showy public spectacle things.

     

     

    We have to discover what makes us happy, and have to evaluate whether there is any downside, whether the happiness is fleeting or long-term, etc. So, we have to discover what foods work, what exercise can do, what types of friendships are satisfying, and so on. We also have to discover what we like doing. Some people seem to fall in love with some type of work when they're young. Others -- I think the vast majority -- aren't quite sure what they want to do with their lives. One must not look a life-purpose as an edict, or think that a lack of enthusiasm for any one purpose is a moral fault. A purpose -- and the personal ambition that comes with it -- helps integrate the things one does, and the values one seeks. One simply has to look for things that are interesting and fun, and can also be a career, ideally a productive career that also helps one earn all the other values one wants in life.

     

    This. Joy is an end in itself. But living a truly enjoyable life is impossible on a hedonistic mindset and takes the sort of evaluation of one's self and life softwareNerd talks about along with knowledge of what, in general, will work by the nature of life (i.e., the Objectivist code of ethics). 

  14. Using your time thinking and planning about deluding people, hoping to find people stupid enough to fall for your lie seems like such a waste when you could be, say, spending your time dreaming up something you think would be amazing to create, producing it, and trading it making honest money with people who are like-minded allowing you to gain a reputation for quality work attracting people of similar values. 

     

    When you think about doing what is selfishness, think about doing what would truly maximize your enjoyment of life over the course of your lifespan. Its important to look at all the different connections and consequences of your actions and think long term, not just short term. Also, don't get caught up in solely material values. Being aware of spiritual values such as self-respect, no internal conflicts, motivation, and enjoyment can make situations like the one you proposed easier to analyze.  

  15. Romney had the clear advantage - the state of the economy throughout Obama's run has left Obama with no credit of being able to get any sort of practical result. Obama looked as if he knew any plans or ideas he talked of were going to be tainted with his past failure. As for how Romney did, from what I saw, he had lots of easy attacks on Obama's horrible track record but was not that confidence inspiring when it came to his own ideas and plans.

  16. I wonder, is there a website that makes personalized website suggestions? I thought of this because I like the GoodReads site now but don't think I would have ever found it without reading this thread. There is StumbleUpon but that is somewhat random and more like Pandora. What I'm thinking is just like GoodReads or Netflix where you would rate the website then it would give you recommendations based on that.

×
×
  • Create New...