claire
-
Posts
155 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by claire
-
-
Sorry, but I can't understand any of the mumbling.
-
Not just photos - I could barely read the script. Everything needs to be larger.
-
"I find it hard to significantly value life, probably because I've never been able to justify life as being worthwhile."
I find that sort of a strange thing to say, because I don't think anyone gets up one morning and says, "Hey, life's worthwhile. How 'bout that!" Actually, life brings with it problems and obstacles. It's up to you to overcome them. You seem to look for "stimulation" from life. Ain't gonna happen, kid. You must provide that for yourself. Find something, ANYTHING, that's worth doing. Just keep doing it. Try to get better at it. It'll give you a sense of accomplishment that will drive you to go further.
Is is possible that after reading some of Rand's fiction (like AS), you've decided whatever you want isn't attainable and that people really aren't worth it? That's twisted thinking because you need to GO AFTER SOMETHING before attaining it. Life isn't going to provide you with it. As for people, have you decided that anyone who isn't John Galt isn't worth your time? You might want to rethink that. Many years ago, someone lamented that he couldn't find anyone "rational" enough to play golf with. Another person in the room asked. "What are you looking for in a golf partner? A discussion on Aristotle or the type of game that will challenge yours?" Think about it.
-
The fact is, people, even bosses, like to have their ego stroked. It might be part of human nature that we all like to hear nice things about ourselves - as you've already observed at your job. Some people are better at butt-kissing than others. While no one likes an overt sycophant, it's a fact that personality DOES matter at work. It's a part of life that Objectivism doesn't really deal with. You can try simply putting your best personality out there without total butt kissing. See what happens.
-
You are making one major mistake: namely, comparing your house to a government. Your house is not a democracy or a republic. It is, simply, a dictatorship with you at the helm. You set the rules. I suspect you haven't been all that diligent in doing that or else your daughter wouldn't be so sassy. Next time little miss sass acts up, ground her or deprive her of something (her usual Saturday afternoon at the mall or something). I think once your kids get the message, they'll shape up.
BTW, what do you mean "ship out." Of course you can't. You are responsible for them. Which is why YOU get to set the terms.
-
Dancing Bear, simply because there are philosophical abstractions doesn't mean that life doesn't offer a variety of choices. Those choices, for the most part, are neither right or wrong. Are you seriously thinking that there is only only logical occupation, one logical food to eat, only one logical music to listen to. Come on.
-
Let me take a slightly different spin on this. Your friend is accusing you of being insulting when you clearly had no such intension. The word luck is not an insult. This rude person appears to be playing word games. (Reminds me of a twit who, when I accidentally spilled some of her coffee, accused me of "destroying her property." By accepting his rules, you are playing his game. Don't do it. Don't accept an insult when there is none.
Is this person REALLy worth hanging with?
-
I agreed, you should look for a good psychiatrist, even if your past experience hasn't been so good. Try again.
Also, as you yourself have pointed out, you need a purpose. Even if you can't get another job right away and must continue working with your father, isn't there some exercise thing you can get involved in. First of all, exercise if great for depression. Also, it would force you out of the house. Find a gym. Best of all, is there a sport involving a partner you can play, like tennis. Or maybe some ball team. I think if you "had" to be around other people with some activity that would get you out of the house, it would do you a world of good and would get you in contact with other people. BTW, don't worry if those people are "rational" or objectivists. Find someone who can knock a ball around or a bowling team, or somehing. Just tryst it. MAke a call. Take it one step at a time. And good luck
-
Of course you are being treated differently because of your age. Here in America, underaged males are responsible for the majority of accidents. That is why they pay the highest insurance. I think the idea is for you to learn the rules of the road while you are young. Congrats. That's exactly what is happening.
-
Congratulations on caring about grammar! The books suggested above a fine. There's also Eat Shoot and Leaves. I have two other suggestions. If you can get your hands on Peikoff's Grammar Course, get it. I confess (and hope this doesn't get me another warning from the powers that be here) that I'm not a Peikoff fan, but grammar is my life, and his course is beyond good. There's just nothing like it. It's fantastic. I took it live in his apartment in NY, but I assume the tape will be almost as good. Also, try picking up a daily newspaper and start redlining. Today's reporters/journalists wouldn't know proper grammar if it slapped them in the face. It's good practice (please familiarize yourself with the difference between whom/who). Not only will you learn where people go wrong these days, you'll be up-to-date on the news. Win/win!
-
Thanks for the quotes, Grames. Fascinating. But I still have a real big problem. Those words are so bitter and so absolutely condemn mankind. Grames, think about it. Is every person (or even the majority) you know so horrendously bad and horrible and without purpose? How can one hold the view that mankind is capable of god-like things, yet at the same time believe that mankind is thoroughly rotten.
I don't get it. But I can't believe it's a good mindset. Quite the contrary, I find it disturbing.
-
"So Rand thinks that most people have worse sins than cutting up a little girl? How horrifying that she views society to be so loathsome."
I, too, find it extremely troublesome. Plenty of people seem to want to make excuses (her young age, her Nietsche phase, taken out of context, etc.), but that doesn't cover the belief that the average person is WORSE than a butchering killer. It's especially weird since she left Russia because everything in Russia was bad and America was the wonderful country of bright freedom. So she gets here, and now AMERICANS are totally despicable. As for her admiration that Hickman was unrepentent, the same can certainly be said for most of the prison population today.
I don't see how one can escape that this view of mankind if horrifying. And sad.
-
You messed up, now accept your dues. The punishment may or may not be excessive, but driving laws are meant to protect other drivers from careless drivers (such as you were). Man up and do better next time.
-
Oh - Skytrooper, you indicate the only place you discuss politics is in the bedroom. Just a humble suggestion here, but perhaps that ought to be the LAST place for a tea party debate. Put your mind to it and you'll think of other and better uses for the bedroom, ones which might facilitate the relationship on a more positive note. Personally, I find that keeping Obama and Pelosi out of my bedroom a very good thing.
-
Absolutely correct, Dante. If anyone wants proof, look at all the objectivists who totally agree on the initiation of force and taxation yet aren't speaking to each other. Treatment of loved ones is, to me, one of the most crucial aspects of a relationship.
-
Kelly, your examples of being attacked or being cheat on are indeed examples of problems - maybe (if someone's cheated on me before, it may behoove me to be careful and less trusting). But those feeling are real, even if they are paranoid. Within the context of who one is at the moment, they are justified. It is up to the individual to keep thinking and realize that there is no reason to be afraid, etc. Until one has done that, the feelings simply are. Right or wrong, they need to be dealt with. Maybe that is what your girlfriend has in mind.
-
I totally agree. I've had a couple of similar relationships and I've always found that opposing political views are usually the result of a different philosophy. What seems at first to be a problem that can be easily avoided turns out to be something that represents a much more fundamental difference. And after a couple months or a year, arguments and differences starts springing up all over.
I once met a democrat, Obama supporter - very left wing, but I couldn't believe that her philosophy was that bad because he sense of life was so good. Her sense of life was very pro-individual, very pro-justice as opposed to pity very positive on life and so on and so forth. (I can't explain how a sense of life like that can go with such a bad philosophy, but somehow these things can happen… ) After a couple discussions about philosophy it turned out she was totally mystical
And deliberately so! (She said things like "all emotions are justified", "feelings can never be wrong", "context doesn't matter" 
)Anyway…
I wouldn't say it was an impossible relationship, except that you being on these forums probably means that philosophic ideas/principals are important to you, and that you know yours explicitly. For me this makes it impossible, personally, to be with girls who have irrational philosophies because so much of what you say and do eventually comes back to these principles, and ultimately leads to fighting about a great many things.
Kelly, can you tell me what emotions are NOT justified? As far as I know, emotions simply are. We may respond differently emotionally to some event, but does that mean that one set of emotion is not justifie? Also, when are feelings "wrong?"
One need not act on feelings, but they are a fact, they exist, and they should be acknowledged. What is your example of a "wrong" emotion?
-
"God how I hate ©rap. I really hope I never have a child who likes rap."
For your sake, I hope so, too. I love Rachmaninoff, but I also have a peculiarly penchant for cowboy songs (I mean, who else knows all the words to the Bonanza theme?) It undoubtedly ihas a lot to do with spagetti westerns being one of the few good memories of childhood. That's what I mean by musical response being so personal.
-
Wouldn't it depend on the circumstances? If you have someone in custody who knows the whereabouts of a child who will die within hours if not found, I say, smack his head around but good, assuming you have good faith belief that he has info/involvement. If you have a suspect and just want a confession/information, I believe torture is inappropriate. BTW, I don't mean mideval kind of torture. Maybe a punch to the jaw?
-
Music calls for such an emotional personal response, I don't see how one can really say right or wrong. I think so much depends on one's personality and, more importantly, what one has been exposed to. I notice so many young people today have never been exposed to classical music and enjoy listening to whatever rap-crap seems to be popular. For a lot of them, it seems to be a lack of knowledge then an indictment of musical tastes. Personally, I think good art is so important to our well-being i'd like to see the classical music piece and classical plays taught regularly taught in school. The same deprived kids who don't know either Ramaninoff or Bach haven't heard of Ibsen either.
As to whether Rach or Bach is "superior" I really think it's a matter of taste. bach lived two decades before Rach, so he would have totally different influences and knowledge of music. It's probably not fair to say Rach was better. He just had a lot more musical knowledge to work with and lived in a different time.
-
This was just on CNN. The commentator made the comment that this was pure harassment, which IS a crime. nothing to do with freedome of speech. Anyone harassing someone on public property can and should be held responsible.
-
Why would gaining knowledge on any subject be a waste of time - even if only to learn what is wrong with the subject. If you want to speak out against a subject like sociology (personally, I had no problem with the subject), then at least know what you are talking about. Too many objectivists denounce something without knowing anything about the subject (like Kant). Just because Rand didn't have an interest in the subject is hardly a reason not to know more about it. So - study on. You might learn something.
-
Calling someone a conceptual savage does not prove the validity of any argument. It merely demonstrates which of the parties has class and manners.
-
"Yes, the bull usually gets killed, but that's part of the bullfight, NOT THE bullfight.
Killing an animal for achieving a value (food, art, ...) is correct acording to Objetivism."
Well, no wonder my butcher is such a snob. He must think he's Michelangelo.
Dad of slain boy says he'll kill son's murderer
in Current Events
Posted
It's sad, but sometimes, criminals get freed. This one served his time. Unfortunately, anything the poor father does now would be against the law. I guess I agree with that. There may be reasons why the killer only received a light sentence. Sometimes, a DA has a choice of plea bargaining if the evidence toward guilt is questionable or risk not getting any kind of conviction. The lesser of two evils, I guess. In this case, the fact that he was only 16 probably factored into the equation.
I don't see this situation coming under the heading of vigilantyism. In this case, the perp was caught and convicted. I've always thought of vigilantyism as a situation when the law is unable or refuses to do anything.