anthony

Members
  • Content count

    5,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About anthony

  • Rank
    tony garland
  • Birthday

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    A. GARLAND
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

15,318 profile views
  1. BBC. I caught about 5 seconds of Anderson Cooper last night on CNN, asking a man (Mexican?) "... how will she feel about going to the police to report the crime [...]"? I gather, and may be wrong, he was concerned or commiserating about an illegal immigrant not having recourse to the law. But that's not my point. As he spoke, the tagline at screen bottom reported ten straight days of DOW's increase. News priorities...?
  2. There's the $64K question, I reckon a good writer with an early book on the topic will earn himself a packet. It seldom means faking the facts, as no 'reputable' newscaster relishes being caught in out and out falsehoods - but there are many ways to sway gullible viewers/readers. Emphasise the appeal to emotions and authority, give 'em what they want to/expect to hear, and play down and restrict uncomfortable or opposing facts and opinions to the inside pages and off-peak viewership, if at all. So much for "objective" journalism, or the 'full story'. Reportage is a partial representation of reality limited by constraints of air time, space and deadlines, according to the level of a journalist's conscientuousness, and his Managing Editor's-Publisher's-Directors' ethical-political slant and metaphysical value-premises.(!).
  3. Michael, Yes, one can imagine Rand's disdain of the "New Left", now (is that the New-New Left?) - "I told you so!" Hypocrisy is too soft a word, and like "double standards" bounces of Lefties like rain off rhino hide. Not that the Right deserve a free ride, either. As you say, the talking heads of TV and News have long been granted worshipful fervor by the empty heads -"souls". Because news also brings us events and disasters, the empty-heads have taken anything pronounced by media, as a "metaphysical given" - except, the news is more often than not, man-made - selected, given prominence, etc. - and I know since I once helped "make" it. The corrupt power of much Western media is peaking I sense (not here, it is State run) and future historians will recount how it began to undermine itself with all its chicanery around this period of Donald Trump's election. You (and I somewhat) are protected by separation of Church and State; but does that exclude the religion of Progressivism and its High Priests I've often asked, not entirely facetiously? I have to add I dislike the cult of celebrity, and making personal disclosures on the grand stage. I want to tell them, if you have something to say, like Paglia did, write the book!
  4. I heard most of that, and it's about what I've found in some other Molyneux opinion pieces. He is a fine analyst, independent and honest and original in approach. When it comes to eliciting facts, and often in his evaluations. After which, his moral evaluations tend too much to the psycho-social for my mind. You simply take him for what he's good at. I think he did a mostly good read of Yiannopoulos, and didn't shy away from the deep and murky waters in all this. Milo is the staunchest of free speech advocates, a most unpopular position today, so he gets admiration for that. Trouble is, he confuses free speech with "let it all hang out man". There is only so much one wants or needs to know about someone's intimate past, the rest is gratuitous. He also confuses the specific with the general (or the individual and the society). His early experiences ~might not~ have been traumatic, even as he puts it, beneficial - for HIM - and he certainly nullifies any "victimhood" in his telling. However, he is too bright not to know the social-moral consequences of what he (a public figure) seems to be condoning - pretty much confering "sanction of the victim" upon predators, few of whose victims would have anything like his level of precociousness/maturity. Shock is part of his spiel, but he must stay with principles and shut up more on the personal stuff.
  5. "I declaim in support that an emotional intelligence quotient should also rise after such diligence". One of the plums that have come from this thread, imo. Quite right I'm sure, William, you see the causal connection: The more one perceives, the more one thinks, the more one knows, the more one values, the more one cares and feels. You might have seen that Rand said on some occasion that she only let her emotions go down so far (or similar). Strange, at first glance. However, let's consider that she had a conceptual reach, breadth and depth which few will come close to comprehending. ("The ideal as a thinker is to keep the universe with you at all times". Well, OK, yeah. Easier for you, AR.) With that context, of the extent of what she knew, could instantly grasp, and could accurately forsee the consequences of --the expanse and intensity of her actual/potential resultant emotions which would arise in her for her every thought, has to be truly mind-boggling. For one to allow that expanse of emotions full sway, must be overpowering, I can only surmise.
  6. It is interesting how superior thinkers could get something as relatively simple as emotions so wrong. To Hume they were quasi-mystical "original instances" in our minds, with Reason their servant. Kant didn't do much better: following a line of Sublimists, he also treated emotions as primary cause, except having it that reason should subsequently prevail over an emotion. They weren't identity-and identification-based philosophers. It stands to reason and common sense that one can't feel an emotion until one perceives and knows what 'some thing' - in reality - IS. I.e., has first identified and placed value (/disvalue) in an existent (or memory, thought) that arouses some emotion. Further and less self-evident, is that the type of emotion one experiences depends ultimately upon one's premises, which may be one's own (and rational, or not so much) or absorbed from other people. It's quite straightforward ... when the explanation has been articulated by an objective thinker. The errors of the other philosophers might be simply explained. It looks like they confused the metaphysically given and the man-made. They just didn't express it in those terms. For Rand emotionality - as with consciousness - is sure enough metaphysically given, as a *faculty*. However - for each and every person, the emotions themselves are individually 'man-made', variously dependent on, and the consequence of one's own thoughts and deliberated values. Which is observably true when we see the range of emotions a gathering of people can show to exactly the same existent.
  7. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others. Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand Playboy, March 1964
  8. Thanks for the Spock video, William. Does it seem to you that mankind has a desire to establish we are each "normal"? (yup, it's ... normal). More often when young, when 'fitting in' ('being better'?) matters. That's what I believe I see in the exaggerated importance attached to such "studies". If one is 'off the scale' on the matter of (e.g.)"social emotional intelligence" I'd tend to guess one knows it and would instinctively avoid being tested. For the large majority there'll be anxiety in the slightest of deviation from - um - the norm. So, all in all, those who'd benefit - maybe - won't go there; those who would go there, won't find anything but more cause for unnecessary worry. Who the hell is "normal" anyway? Vive les differences. I know your emphasis re: emotions is largely directed to one's recognition of emotion in others. I don't know your experiences but I must say that I've learned the hard way, it's only individuals I know very well whose feelings I can read - and anticipate - only fairly well. Because I have good knowledge of their values, as well as extended experience with them as individuals. In extremis, yes pain and anger show up truthfully. But most people are all over the place and unpredictable; many times a person who's devoid of expression is feeling deep emotions; some times there are faked, over the top displays of emotions for others' consumption; or else, when 'I think' one 'should' feel 'x' in a given situation, he proves (or at least appears) to be feeling 'y'. So there is much subjective guesswork. This validates even more that they are unreliable (some times, unfair and gratuitous) tools of cognition, for one's understanding and assessing of others - worse by far for employing one's own emotions to one's own cognition/evaluation. Could be my "death-knell" was over-blown. I can be extremist to make a point. I haven't played this out enough - still on the drawing board. To explain, I think the rationalist always holds on to his conceptual mind, even though in some/partial avoidance of reality. Because reality ain't going away and cannot be denied long, he will - if he's objectivist - find the way to reconnect his concepts (much more challenging -and fun- to do so, anyhow) with concrete facts. Obversely, I have my doubts that the empiricist to whom it is all "concrete facts" with no conceptual mind, can discover his mind again once relinquished. Objectivists will survive and come roaring back to objectivity from episodes of rationalism, but I believe it unlikely after losing their conceptual faculty and structure to empiricism (-skepticism).
  9. I am of a mind with this Greg. Apart from our obvious fundamental difference. What's missing from capitalists right now, and past, is *conviction* - in Capitalism. Put it another way, I can't see a rebirth of laissez-faire ~only~ by means of the intellectual arguments from secular intellectuals and Objectivists. Independence from governments insisted upon by individualists and small businessmen, who are convinced of its rightness will have to be the major driver to achieve that end. While I consider Capitalism, in the Rand mode, as the consequence of a rational morality and individual freedom (not a derivative morality in itself) it is going to need many numbers like yourself, who understand with the conviction from experience, that people do best and are at their best when trading values. From "our" side, supporters of LFC in theory ought to do more to tap into them and combine intellectual forces, 'on the ground' - so to say.
  10. Half-human - "bi-racial"- of course. I had forgotten that about "Spock". It made him a little more 'real' and authentic, but could more invite an admiration for his unemotionality I still can't share for the character. You raise good points, said well. The 'mastering' of emotions, only one. I don't like the image, I'm in the non-body/mind-split camp which precludes there existing two states - 'lofty reason' contra 'earthy emotion' - or mind contra biology - or the "spiritual vs. the temporal" - or psychology vs. philosophy -etc. - at constant war with each other for control. There is, no two ways about it, a single consciousness we each have, and the cognitive, conceptual, evaluative, emotional and subconscious components are only one entity, and together comprise the soul (the secular mortal 'soul', if you prefer) in full. My few cents worth - It's not many years that I have been consciously thinking to that end (integration and alignment), but since I have, I find and can report a smoother mutual flow between my emotions and mind. I am trusting my emotions far more than I used to as they more accurately have come to mirror what's in my mind. No doubt about it, I had a period of "rationalism" prevalent in intellectualism (sometimes signs of it in advanced Objectivists, oddly), that has a lot to do with the damping down of emotion. I think it's par for the course in the field of ideas and ideals, especially early on. There's only one way to oppose the rationalism, as Objectivists well know, and it's by regularly re-applying one's concepts to real concretes. And definitely ~not~ by sliding the opposite way into empiricism. Any compromise with Empiricism* is the death-knell for Objectivism I think. I'll add too, my sense that one should be very cautious about the studies and dubious findings on (e.g) EQ vs. IQ. and other clever-sounding contemporary 'type-casting', which seem almost designed to coax man/woman into boxes. I feel it leads to self-conflict, self-dissatisfaction and doubt, and false elitism, with the only apparent cure, more skepticism and "emotivism". *[Empiricism, the philosophy not the science methodology, of course]
  11. Wiiliam (earlier): "I like the Spock pretensions of Objectivism ..." I've been puzzled by that. Either you've misunderstood the purpose of emotions by Objectivist standards, or you could have read Objectivists lauding the good Doctor (may be both). We can agree on the central issue, the value of emotions (and as you've seen, you'll be glad that Rand agreed with you...) and then we go opposite ways. Mostly to do with causality and emotion as a means, or not, to identify/assess anything or anybody. As "tools of cognition". (I'd put it that emotions are that important that only the supreme importance of reason can be greater). Spock is a character depicting a fully emotionless man - and that makes for an amusing foil to other characters when he attempts to understand them, or they him. But his "un-emotionalism" implies a "logical robot" not owning man's consciousness, and indicates a being who lacks metaphysical values (to be emotional of), and may set the example of self-repression to some who aren't comfortable with their or others' emotions. None of which is real and rational, so while I don't know if Objectivists ever have admiration for Spock's state, and while enjoying his role, I for one cannot.
  12. "Our"? Bob you have to speak for yourself, not for all others or myself. But I concede you're partly right, Hume's "advocacy of emotivism" (as he called it) is clearly gaining ground, globally. I trust you're proud of your man.
  13. Riiight. Yes. For Hume the skeptic, one can't see and touch a consciousness, so it hasn't existence (nor identity). One can't point to a concept, so it's not an existent. Facts, and only perceived physical facts, all the same and with no way to assemble them or to weigh them, conceptually. No wonder then, Hume had to resort to subjective emotions as his means of moral judgment, that's all he had left. Primacy of emotion. "Reason is and ought only to be a slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them". [DHume] "Reason (or the intellect) plays no part in determining our goals. Our goals are set exclusively by what Hume calls the passions ... they are "original instances" in our minds and arise from unknown natural causes. We can not be criticized rationally for our desires. Hume remarks: "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger."" [Philosophy Stack Exchange] Original instances, unknown natural causes, desires - damn, an empiricist and skeptic who's also a mystic! And his "reason" has no contact with reality and value, so reason can easily permit world destruction. Geez.
  14. The (fortunate) existence of a ready-made cultural civilisation is how many can live so long without true thinking. Quite. My philosophical prejudice is firmly against Humean skepticism and emotionality. He negated man's consciousness, while employing a consciousness to do so. (Fallacy of the stolen concept?)
  15. "Subjectively perceived" emotions are one's means of perception? Not to say, of evaluation? C'mon! It's a causal reversal which makes for emotionalism. Positive-negative "feedback" as you explain it is just another way of saying "hit and miss", trial and error. One couldn't cross a road safely.