hokken

Objectivists don't seem to be very concerned with wisdom and as I said they seem to me to be more obsessed with the tool than with the job. I was looking for something that is not there. I am a pragmatic indeed and I have passed the age of intellectual masturbation this being said best wishes in your quest.

Thanks Jake.

Please can you elaborate with arguments that romance is driven by reason, Mr "imsogoodateverything", I understand that avoiding to look at potential flaws of objectivism can be a bit upsetting for you but that doesn't mean you need to kick around immediately.

I am wondering how objectivism can be compatible with romance. Romance is a construct of the psyche, a surge of energy entirely driven by irrational feelings. Since romantic love implies the desire to be loved it also open the door to potential jealousy, possessive attitudes, all affecting the capacity of the mind to focus and to follow logical consistency. Unconditional love seem to me like a much more reliable way to stay focused and intact between pair of opposites. When you have no expectations nothing can really impact on you. I am not saying I love everyone because it would be a lie. I am just saying that expectations induces a dangerous potential chain reaction and that does not only applies to romance.

Deciding that somebody cannot be brought back to reason over time does not seem to me like a rational choice, therefore it seems to me we are in the same case than the one mentioned above "The presumption is that the person's rational skills are not sufficiently developed that they can be presumed to be following reason. Therefore, the custodial must make a rational choice on behalf of the custodee ..."

£4.35 on amazon, quite cheat, is that a sign ? I will read it, take some notes and come back with a potential list of flaws...or not, I am open to anything as long at it improves my capacity to reconcile apparent dualities in...how do you call it ? yes logical consistency.

I am not buddhist but even buddhism admit the existence of a divine selfishness with what they call the pratyekha buddhas (selfish buddhas) in opposition to the boddhitsatvas, the buddhas of compassion like Gautama --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratyekabuddha softwareNerd, you attitude is very judgemental, I don't judge you so try to avoid to do the same about somebody you don't know, I am not as illiterate as you might think. I just tend not to spread my knowledge like jam on a toast that's all. Forgive my spelling mistakes here and there, I am french, nobody's perfect I am doing my best. I will definitely have a look at that book, thanks for mentioning it. Prathyekha buddhas are said to be "more concerned" about self salvation and are not really looking to elevate anyone else by teaching, that is why they have been called "selfish buddhas" by the buddhist tradition.

I am here because I was interested to know more about objectivism, and I do now. I respect its consistent approach but it is not my way. I'll read more about it tho because I consider that any approach, good or bad is an experience and that we always get something out of it.

Does it really matters if you think my tomatoes are not tasty, it is my experience that counts, shame you think you reached your final destination, best wishes.

Dave let's go back on the track, where did I say that enjoyment was my central purpose, please quote. I am totally happy to clarify my point of view but it is important to try to listen to each other.

Dave, you are basically asking me why I like to sleep on a comfy bed, something doesn't sound right in that question does it? I am obviously talking using metaphors. Why would I prefer love over hate? Why would I prefer harmony over chaos? that is not a reasonable choice it is a natural inclination. No creature is naturally enjoying suffering unless you can in a very simple way demonstrates me the opposite. I am 100% in favor of logical consistency, no peace can be achieved without adhering to it. The perception of the unity of substance, energy and consciousness implies logical consistency since duality does not stand anymore.

As I said I am a very simple minded individual maybe a bit too rational, if you tell me that your tomatoes are better that mine I will wait until I taste it, if they really taste better than mine I will ask you some questions about your gardening methods. I am only interested in results and fruits, I know what is good for me and what is bad for me and I decide with reason which way I move, I never involve emotions in my choices, all very rational choices. The taste of a tomato can be subjective but I am just interested in my perception, I don't like to be told what to think and never did.

David I am serious and I am sure that you know what I meant by that, does it need more clarifications ? As I said sleeping on a bed of nails is not wrong per se, it would just not be the favourite choice of the majority.

Sure, I would called objective intuition the capacity to generate a new concept but by extending already known concepts. In term of programming this is called subclassing. Subjective intuition is the ability to generate a superclass, an archetypal concept and probably something that could come close from an axiom. Let put it another way, a computer is able to produce a vast amount of calculations but whatever it does it only operates in binary mode because this is the way it is designed. I strongly believe that consciousness until a certain stage is designed in a way that limits its capacity to comprehend a higher type of abstractions. We are designed with limits, how could we comprehend the concept of infinity if we work in binary mode, but since I believe that conciousness like reason is a variable there is stages where new abstractions can be perceived, my main personal direct experience is the perception of the unity of substance, energy and consciousness. This is just the story of my peace nothing else...and nothing new.

I fundamentally don't disagree with you that the tool is reason, I just plainly disagree with the fact that objectivism makes it a constant and not a variable. Objectivism does not leave any room for subjective intuition (yet incomprehensible abstractions). Intuition cannot be quantified or measured but without it I suspect many scientists and inventors would not have discovered what they did. Also many apparently irrational processes are involved in many creative arts and often for the best. What might appear irrational today might become very rational tomorrow as consciousness expands, I never thought I would reach a final destination and never will.

So I understand that the tool is more important than the job is it ?

If you prefer to sleep on a bed of nails it is up to you personally I like comfort.

Is an irrational feeling or concept that bring inner peace and a general sense of harmony wrong per se ? Shall I say is the tool worth focusing on as long as it does the job?

Will becoming an objectivist be of any assistance to improve my daily existence and bring more peace and harmony to my life? It is a genuine question, I would really appreciate some genuine answers.

I haven't been very far in objectivism and I am no way an expert in that particular approach, I just bumped in the 3 fundamental axioms really. On a more general tone I have always wondered how can parts of the existence (conscious beings) were actually really able to conceive and and envisage existence. To put that in other words I am a bit unsure that something which exists in existence can actually give a proper definition of what existence is, in programming language it sounds a bit like a recursive function stucked in an infinite loop with no possibility to ever understand the superclass.

Contrary to what many objectivists might think (unless they studied many other philosophical and metaphysical approaches of the universe), Ayn Rand hasn't invented the wheel with her 3 axioms of existence, conciousness and identity. The realisation of existence, consciousness and identity serve as the basis of many metaphysical system, now it all depends what do you want to cook with those ingredients and then fair enough objectivism has its own recipe, I personally don't find it very tasty but that is another debate.