Annalouise

OK, so it was a penultimate rather than a parting note. I appreciate your attempt at being accommodating but I think again, we must have very different ideas as to what this might constitue. I don't mean to judge or cast aspersions about Americans. I currently have a transatlantic working relationship with people in New York. It has made me realise that what may be seen as ordinary interaction across the pond, can often be perceived as abject rudeness by us Brits. By the same token we may seem over polite to Americans. No one is at fault. It is, as I said, a cultural difference. Nonetheless, I felt insulted by your posting and moreover feel that my philosophical ideas are so vastly different from all of yours, that participation in this forum will not to me nor any of you any good. Thanks though. It was interesting.

Thank you Stephen. Unfortunately the rude hostility (perhaps this is cultural? I sense you are all Americans?) has already put me off. "Perpetuating a self-delusion is the evasion of reality. Deliberately undercutting one's own consciousness, one's awareness of reality, destroys one's ability to deal with reality and consequently destroys one's self-esteem." So you don't like art then? Or imaination? It doesnt stop us from knowing what is real. On a parting note, I would like to say that I have studied objectivism in my university reading and know full well what it is. I just believe it does not answer everything. There is more to life than objectivism. There is also more to life than forums, which is why I was talking to a friend who came to talk to me.

“If you do, however, ceaselessy evade points that I make in an argument and continue to ask what become silly and downright absurd questions "just for the heck of it," do not expect a response from me.” Well well. I am quite affronted by this bullish display of male agression. Perhaps then, I was wrong, that you would enjoy being tested by someone with different views. I and many others would simply see this as the true essence of debate and discussion. Debating things with people who hold the same views as yourself is far less benificial and only serves to reinforce excuses for weaknesses in those views. “When you are driving your car down the highway, do you question whether or not the oncoming traffic exists?” Thank you for this little nugget too. I will resist the sarcasm of telling you that every day that I drive my car I have head on collisions and die. When I siad absolutes, I was referring to doctirns, to philosophies, to laws, to rules. I would like to refer you to Virginia Woolf but I am also going to reisist quoting at you like an evangelical. “I would like to see how you would answer the following question: when you say "in a way that is best," what do you mean? Best by what standard? Kant had a very disturbing answer to this question and I'm curious about what your standard is.” I am terribly sorry if this is the question that I so rudely ignored. I mean best for the individual. Pi's story - which is the story that we read in the book - was best for him. It helped him live his life and deal with his past after watching his own mother butchered by a canibal. Read it. “A so-called sensory illusion, such as a stick in water appearing bent, is not a perceptual error.” I would like to point out that this is not a true optical illusion, as the text goes on to explain. It is a perceptual aid. I am talking about powerful illsion were the mind sees one two dimentional line on page as being longer than the one next to it, due to the shapes that are around it, but on inspection, the line is exactly the same length. I was originally fining this interesting but I do not believe in aggressive, patronising debate. And by the way the movie is not the book. Thank you.

Hi, Thank you for your very interesting repsonse to my posting. I hope you don't mind an imposter on your site - i.e. someone who is constantly questioning all absolutes, whether they be objectivism or anything. I find it interesting for my theoryies to be tested and hopefully you will too. Firstly I must say I am no great follower of Kant, just as I am no great follower of Jesus, Marx, Mohammed or Bhudda, but I believe they all had something interesing to say. Secondly - I must get to the quote. I am not arguing for this at all. On the contrary. I am saying that yes, human beings do have the power to percieve that which exists in the universe, and yes, we also have the grasp of reason and intelligence which we need to see patterns, develop laws, and ultimately continue to further our undersanding of it ad infinitum. BUT - and here is the rub - I also believe that the way we interact with each other as human beings, the different lives we lead and the different angles of perception that each of us has on this planet, as it spins its merry way though the universe, should be brought into the equation when discussing reality. I am not agains sciene of objectivism, but I believe it is not all that there is. If you really think hard about what optical illusions are, you will realise that we are always perceiving things slightly differntly. And not just optically. This needs to be taken into account when discussing the world and understanding it. Ultimately, aren't human beings an the way we interact more important than rocks and gravity? I haven't explained this very well as I'm having a conversation with a friend whilst typing now. But any response welcome..

If anyone is still reading this forum, I would like to get back to The Life of Pi. I found this forum by doing a search on the book as I wanted to discuss the ending with people. I like the way one of you described the concept that, in the absence of all evidence, the belief that makes us happiest is the best. My interpretation of this novel reached further than just questioning whether one shoud believe in God or not. (The truth is I don't believe in God but I thought it was the best argument I'd heard *for* believing). Befoe Pi recounts the story which I assume we are to take a the 'true' story, he says a very interesting thing: "The world isn't just the what it is, it's how we understand it. And in understaning something we bring something to it. This is a Kantean idea, that all reality is framed by or own consciousness. Or that we add something to reality by our very perception of it. If this concept is explored to its depths, it throws up all sorts of problems with pure objectivism. Of course, science has told us that there are certain universal laws that seem to be born out anywhere in the universe, but doesn't the natue of our consciousness mean that to us, there is not one truth, but many. That there is not one reality, but many subjective realities? Isn't the belief in a pure, universal truth, undistorted by our perceptions, similar to a belief in God? If we can never see the universe without it being framed by our perception of it, how do we know it exists in one true, unchanging state? In this sense, I think the book helps us to realise this. Perhaps belief in God is not for everyone, but what about simply understanding your life and your experience of the world in a way that is best? It's more than just optimism. Peraps it is simply positive perception.