Megan Robinson

You can't always know that its going to work out; you can't always know that it won't. The issue here is rationality. It is rational for a person to make a judgement on the outcome of his life. If he, by his own judgement, cannot see that life will get better, that he will have value and its pursuit restored to him, then it is rational for him to take his life. This is my position and my only claim. I would have long ago dropped this topic, as I can see that you refuse see the rationality in such an action, but it is the debater (be damned) instilled in me that draws me back to this blasted topic. I think with a rational understanding of value you can see my point. Its futile to argue this anymore, I've made any point that is significant to my argument already. If you cannot see the nature of value and its place in achieving life, I can not show you that the abscence of it warrents a rational abdication of that which cannot be. Everything has context, you think I'm talking about anguished teenagers here, no. Reread the thread and find the context of my argument. You can cite examples of Jews who escaped Nazi Germany and how their lives got better. But what about the 6 million that died? I would have much rather taken my own life than have been torchured and murdered by some disguisting second-hander. Its a person's discretion to decide if he has a chance of escaping or not. Some did, many didn't. Yes, its easy for me to say I'd take my own life in such a situation in my climate conditioned home (dorm room). It would be even easier to say so, however, in a concentration camp.

Forgive me if the topic is redundant, but I pose the question in modest inquiry. I am a history student at a university. Yes, a student of history. I call myself this because, although I love history and have devoted my life (though I am young) to the study of it, I do not qualify as an historian. In order to call onself "an historian" one must have either attained a Ph.D in history or produced a scholarly work, such as a book. Likewise, an undergrad philosophy student is not a philosopher until she has made some kind of contribution, or achieved some kind of recognition in the field of philosophy. But does this rule apply to Objectivism? I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to answer no. Because it is a philosophy for living and a complete system that must be integrated and applied, the context changes. If one integrates the system, therby making all decisions based on a set of rational and objective values and principles is she an Objectivist? Or does she have to DO something in the world of philosophy, economics, politics, art, or science to become one? I am only 18 and I really do evaluate everything with rational principles. I integrate the world rationally as I experience it and anticipate many more experiences and thus, much more integration. But the System has been integrated and set in order to do so. Can I call myself an Objectivist yet, or am I still a student of Objectivism? [i appreciate responses from all, but the question is especially directed to those of the likes of Stephen or Burgess, as they are older and more experienced Objectivists]

Yes: This is incredibly off topic, but have you ever seen the move Pi? Your next post will be #216!!! Its the magical and omnipresent number! Its still a good movie, despite its silly premise.

Sherlock, We're experiencing a disparity in terms. When you say depressed you mean clinically depressed. I do not mention depression, I mention a sadness produces as a reaction in a rational person. Emotions in rational people arise from a correct system of value. Happiness or a happy life is at the top of this heirarchy. A person's goal is to achieve and sustain this happiness, and in a situation where this is impossible, a person's decision to take her life is rational. You are correct in asserting that we are not omniscient, we must, however, be capable of making causal, rational judgements. This is the sole judgement of the person in question. If his strive toward value has been made impossible he may take one of the following actions: 1) a risk to restore his happiness, with little expectation of sucess, a kind of indirectly contrued suicide. 2) suicide In either case, only if his rational judgement sees that his hierarchy is out of reach are these actions rational. Its a fallacy to say that everyone who commits suicide has a mental disorder. Does every person that kills himself have mental problems, or does every person with mental problems kill himself? In other words, which causes which? I would admit that many suicide victims (are they really victims?) do commit such actions because of depression, but then if a medical condition (cancer) which makes the achievement of value impossible (physically) warrents euthenasia, then what about a mental condition which has the same (ultimate) effect.? This aside, a rational decsion to end ones life is not a contradiction on terms. We see it in Atlas Shrugged for a reason. Life (or achieving value) is precious. I would not choose to live if value (the very purpose os ANY life, volitional consciouness aside). To live, just to survive would deprive me of any purpose. Yes, I would commit suicide. By the way: I dropped the point about Socrates because you obviously missed my point. If you can bring yourself to read some Plato, I suggest you read Crito. Maybe then you will understand what I meant. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html

By the way Dagny, Its funny that the Rand quote in your signiture refutes the position you maintain: that life (surviving) is valuable in itself.

No, but if they fought and could not attain freedom, suicide would have been proper. And, in a way they did. The founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, because if the colonies lost the war that is what they would have lost. The decision to send King George the Declaration was suicide to anyone who knew the strength of the British army compared to colonial militia. Instead of living with their misery, they fought, yes. But they fought knowing full well the strong possibility that it would mean death. If THERE IS NO CHANCE that you will achieve your values; if you are put in a situation where you the achievement of value and thus happiness is impossible, suicide is a proper action. Life (as in surviving) is not valuable in itself, it is only valuable if there is something to achieve. This achievement causes happiness. If this is being denied to you (for instance if the world is conquered by a facist/socialist party whose goal it is to make everyone slaves..you are out numbered, fighting is not an option) then suicide is life affirming. In order to not live miserably one has two options: 1) change a situation in order to live happily or 2) not to live at all. Of course, try and do #1 first, but if this is impossible #2 is a rational option. Someone also mentioned teenagers being sad. I was a depressed teenager once, but I knew that once I left home and went to college life would change. Although I was depressed and on the brink of suicide, the obvious potential of the rest of my life prevented me from taking my own life. A situation that warrants suicide is a permanent one, it is one the denies value to you for the rest of your life...yes...like Socrates. Although he was sentenced to death, he could have easily escaped with Crito, but he decided to die because his pursuit, the central purpose of his life, was denied him. Its wrong to classify suicide as a cowardly action. Its much easer to accept whatever misery that comes along because you fear actually dying. It is a brave transition in the proper and life affriming context. For a person who DOES (when he is allowed to achieve value) value his life it is a very brave decision to make to take take ones own life, to affirm that only he has the power to control or to extinguish his being. The idea that suicide is inherently cowardly is just a trite tagline taken from public sevice announcements. The kind that the government sponsers to keep people alive and paying taxes. To those who commit suicide due to a depression caused by bad philosophy, yes the death was unnecessary and no it was not cowardly. Rather, a very serious and difficult decision. To those who commit suicide because happiness (their sole purpose) is being denied to them, the act is life affirming.

Yes Ambrose, when you're wrong, you're wrong. Why reason and then say [to be preformed in a silly voice] " OK, now lets free ourselves from our earthly ties by jumping off the cliff of faith" You won't catch anyone here pondering the nature of her immortal soul. Why bother?

The difference is in the nature of the two. We won't agree on this because I know we weren't created, but rather that we evolved. Man is inherently rational , thats how he evolved, that is his nature. The nature of the machine, however, is to be programed. It does not have the inherent capacity for reason and logic that man does. if it does reason, its only because some one programmed it to do that. For these reasons machies cannot have a *soul*. That, according to Aristotle, which makes a man a man is his natural abiltiy to reason...machines cannot do this (not to be redundant, but for the sake of understanding) they only do what they're programmed to do.

This is rough, please correct me, but i'll give it a shot. Computers become more like men, because men are programming them. We continue to attempt to create an autonomous intelligence. When you ask if computers will ever be able to reason on their own, the wuestion is yes, and no. They will be autonomous in the sense that we will set them on auto-pilot. Given a set of premises and rules the machines will have the ability to form their own conlusions. The answer is no in the sense that WE programmed them, they didn't evolve. The nature of a human is to be rational, wheras the nature of a computer is to be programmed. As mention above, this is a very rough conclusion, I'll leave the qualifying and correcting to the science buffs.

Thank you! You are my new best friend!

Big Daddy Sex Machine: You are an irrational moron. I'm sorry if my objective, proper, and moral view of life is too puritain for you. The fact is, you're just another sorry libertarian who adheres to the "good" part of objectivism. Intead of actually intergrating the system, you pick out the parts you like (out of context)and flaunt them egregiously. By the way...how dare you attack Stephen. He is one of the most rational people I have ever met on the internet or otherwise....anyone who attacks him better do a serious amount of thought and intergration before hand. Yes, I am overthinking the issue...I always do...and always will...that is the nature of being a rational person.

how do you know that he does (any response that involves faith is discounted on basis of absurdity)

you're right...i should have made this distinction. good call.

Burgess, I would like you to know......You da man!

its funny that you say the greeks were worng...ever read plato? You sound just like him. "The things of this world will pass away"...Plato says the unchangible (a things intrinsic form) is the only good in the world. Not much difference. I think perhaps talking to any of us would be vain w/o accepting a few basic premises. We think: Existance is primary over consciousness..including that of God's. Hence 'faith" is nothing. You cannot move mountains with your mind or heart. Thus Everything is causal...if you jump into a lake you will sink..its a law of reality...you will not walk on water because you believe. Also, you keep refering to the supernatural...big no-no. nothing supernatural has EVER been proven...sensory perception is the basis for all objectivist epistemology. Atoms and metaphysical things unseen that DO exist have been proven by a means of speculation, induction, and validation. God is still a mystery. i don't mean to be a jerk, but there is no point in talking if you don't first accept these as just a few of the premises of the people with whom you will be discussing.

As long as no coersion is involved, and a person voluntarily becomes a servant..of course its alright. Indentured servents don't stay indentured forever; usaully for about seven years. As long as there is no breach of contract on either the servant or master's end (i.e, no physical punishment, and all terms are understood) then it is competely acceptable.

The very fact that you admit this statement is hedonistic means it inherently cannot be rational..hedonism and reason do not go together. Granted, sex is good in a proper context. It is a culmination of value between two people with shared values. Ayn Rand call sex outside of this context a mere "wriggiling of meat". Having careless sex with people to "sow your oats" or "feel good" is immoral. Sex metaphyisical in that it brings into reality a higher level abstraction: love. Once again...but this time in Peikoff's words..no love without sex, no sex without love. On to drugs...I don't care where they come from, metaphysically given or not, drugs are bad. They hinder sensory perception which is the basis for all proper epistemology. To impair your senses is to impair the very base of objectivity. how can you make proper desicions in an impaired reality? You can't. This is why people on LSD think they can fly.They can't, but an impaired sense of reality tells them they can. About drugs being metaphysical...the world is full of natural poisons, would you like to try those out too? just because something is metaphysical doesn't mean its good to do. Someone mentioned elephants eating rotten friut for a high...you're a human, they're animals, we are the most advanced species on the planet and you wish to imitate elephants? Animals lack volition and thus cannot make moral choices. We can. Drugs are bad. Pleasure is good in the proper context, but to seek pleasure and deny reason is immoral.

i'm not sure if this was a joke or not...if it isn't, then its probably the most hedonistic and irrational thing i've heard a person say on this forum.

Your infences were correct, Burgess. I did indeed mean writing as in the entire process (thinking most importantly) as opposed to simply the physical action of writing. And you are right again with the above quote. And all I can say top you, sir, is WOW. I didn't even realize this, and its almost percisely how I feel. Thats amazing...it really is! The promise of a solution simply by a basic, albeit rough, identification of the problem has sent a surge of excitement through me! Thank you! I have to go. I have a lot of thinking to do.

i don't agree with this. Life as Ayn Rand means it does not mean simply to survive. This is something that stumped me for a while. To live it not a value, but to live happily is. If a person is being denied happiness, or is in a position where they CANNOT seek values, suicide is justifiable. For example, if a person is in a postion where they are denied freedom of thought and choice and are SIMPLY surviving by breathing, suicide would be viable option. I suppose in such a contect, then, suicide is life affirming. Its reminiscent of good 'ole Pat Henry. Its like saying: "As sole executor of my being, I choose to live freely (and happily) or not at all." Its not cowardice. It takes a lot of guts to make a decision like that.

Burgess, My problem is not the lack of a central purpose. Though I am young, I have found my purpose and I exert all of my energy toward the study of history and philosophy. I've written before about the system for analyzing history that I am building, this is my life's work. The problem is a step ahead of this. The depression I experience in the winter impairs my ability to think clearly enough to pursue my goals. Thats what makes me sad. You're right about achieving values, of course this brings happiness. The trouble is the sadness that overcomes me in the winter months inhibits my pursuit of value and thus makes me sad and frustrated. Its simply: work makes me happy, November makes me idle, I can't work when I'm idle, November makes me sad. If I could just pick up my pen and start writing as brilliantly as ever, believe me I would. But its more complicated. Its as if I'm struck temporarily with inability. As soon as March comes and the grass turns green again, I'll start making sense. But the period in between is torchure.

Thanks for the advice, I'll definately give that a try. I've considered Seasonal Affective Disorder before as a cause for this kind of degredation, but never seriously. The only problem is I live in Philadelphia, and soon it will be a billion degrees below zero . So though walking may be a good idea now, it may get a little too nippy in a month or so. Thanks for the advice!

Hello, Every winter I start what I call a brain hibernation. Its almost as if all the intellectual energy and vibrance of thought escapes me from about November to Febuary. Its causes me much frustration, and at times, will cast me into a deep depression. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to stimulate brain activity? Or maybe any suggestions for books? Anything would help. (please, no caustic remarks...this is very serious for me)

A few people have mentioned kant's comparative worth as a philosopher previously in this thread, and i think this is an important distinction to make. Kant is not the worst philosopher of all time. His ideas are convoluted, and because he causes an a priori/postori dualism he ends up with ideas that are metaphysically unfounded. We know he was wrong. But as its been stated previously many philosophers were more wrong, Marx for example. And some are so incorrect they become obscure (who is Hugo Grotius?) But Kant's worthlessness is not in his ability to philosophize, it lies in his ability to decieve. Kant has influenced a subjectivist movement that so permeates our society it makes you sick. People actually believe that truth is in themselves; that it is a priori and although these may not be ideas directly from the mouth of Kant, they are dripping with his influence. Lies are only dnagerous if someone is foolish enough to take them for truth, and this is what has happened in the case of Kant.

The reason I say that it won't happen again is mainly because its much easier to create governement controls and a welfare state than it is to destroy one. I may sound crazy, but the situation in The United States is one that, if to be corrected, would require near revolution. To hope that men will become rational soon and turn to the free market is a bit wishful. I doubt it will happen in my life time, if it happens at all. As Peikoff points out, the danger in a mixed economy is that its not even a comprimise. The American economy has become more socialist and less free with time, and nothing promises a significant change. If there is someone out there who can prove me wrong w/reliable sources, please do. I would like nothing more than to believe this is false.