anthony

Members
  • Content count

    5,821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About anthony

  • Rank
    tony garland

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

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

Recent Profile Visitors

16,975 profile views
  1. Ayn Rand And The End Of Love

    I should think so! How are you or I going to be honest, if not first having self-honesty? This is establishing your own relationship to truthfulness and reality -- before anyone else to whom to be honest, enters the frame. And the reason honesty is a self-serving, rationally-selfish virtue, first and second. "Layers" I'm not convinced of. My view is there is a sharply-defined trilogy: honesty, dishonesty and withdrawn honesty. Honesty, in the normal course of events in associations with presumably worthy people, is full disclosure - nothing relevant should be held back, for as we know, deceit and sophistry often take the form of omission (of facts one knows but withholds), not just of commission. The closest thing to immorality to others, little less immoral imo to using force over them, is to deliberately feed false information, misleading the innocents and their thinking and choices with dishonesty. Lastly, when others show themselves to not be deserving of one's honesty, as with the guile of predatory people, it's right to withdraw it from them and tell them nothing further which can be used against you. One's objective values supply the crucial context for one's normally honest dealings, and shouldn't be sacrificed to a 'universalized' morality, as with Kant's imperative (have I seen any Jews, Herr Gestapo officer? I cannot tell a lie, there are some hiding in my cellar.)
  2. Starbuckle: Not one commenter, but most, have counseled professional help to Nerian. It's known a general mark of depression is that one feels drained of the mental and physical energy, and has little remaining self-preservation, to make even the slightest step to help oneself. Medical intervention can halt this downward spiral, enough for the sufferer to begin to recognize that -maybe, could be- life and living do have more to offer. There's also a strong cognitive/evaluative component, since undeniably one has made a subjective and wholly skeptical value judgment about existence/one's existence. (Whatever the specifics about his situation which I gather is nothing as physical and extreme as your conjectures - alone, worth his considering - I think these are the common elements to everyone in Nerian's position ). Talking to someone must be beneficial to alleviate a sense of aloneness.
  3. religion, philosophy, science

    All true. You know that, but many apparently don't accept it. You emphasize my point about the reductive materialism which has spilled over from science into contemporary philosophy, affecting how man's "specific identity" has been widely treated. Biology, then chemistry and ultimately, our atoms, must be the extent of man's 'identity'. Those are causally determinist too, of course - there goes volition!
  4. religion, philosophy, science

    Of course, only human life makes feasible (and essential) - value; and human reason made science possible. 'Man's mind' is the prerequisite for scientists' minds (et al). The primacy of science types chose to invert the latter, and have finished up with a modern, collectivist Faith. This happens with their killing off of metaphysics, only to return to primacy of consciousness, a new mysticism, ironically. Science can't answer to value, I agree, necessitating all the more a philosophy and ethics which can.
  5. religion, philosophy, science

    You paint "philosophy" with a very broad brush. They are all the same to you? "Endless discussions" and arguments between differing philosophies - and more finely, within 'a' philosophy - tells you philosophy is "speculation" and "imagination"? That's the price one pays for listening to skeptical philosophies! Taking your continuum of rationality, you need to compare like with like. Religion was/is a crude philosophy, quite reasonable at its inception (going by what was then known) - at the other end of the scale is an objective philosophy of reality and reason. Science is not a philosophy. Science's overriding concern is: What do we know? Science is the established method of observation, hypothesis and experiment - of reason applied to reality, empirically, for generalized discovery of knowledge. I roughly suppose science to be a parallel thread to the "continuum", sometimes intersecting with and influencing the older philosophies. You have to go back a step, to what any good philosophy must answer: *How* does one know? and: How should one act? The two are presupposed by an initial question: Who are we? (What is man?). Science properly, has often built on the first question. But ignoring the roles of philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology, is actually a 'stolen concept fallacy'. Denying a foundational concept while employing it.(Clearly, Newton used his reasoning - his senses, perceptions and conceptions to derive his gravity theories, and Copernicus did the same for Flat Earth). The fact that naturalists and scientists were earlier opponents of faith and supernaturalism, does not deny an objective philosophy which came later. But without contradiction to "what" he learns from science, aligned with and integrated into his own identified, conceptual knowledge, it is the individual, alone, who must first and critically understand: How he knows - and - How he should act. Neither is scientific territory, and the attempt to make science substitute for religion/philosophy is a disservice to the specialized field of science - and a worse disservice to individual knowledge and morality. He, personally, seeks "certainty" which science alone is unable provide, or by second-hand, on others' 'authority'.
  6. Regular movements over 60, what's to worry? (And I thought it was the espressos).
  7. religion, philosophy, science

    But some philosophers can indeed establish that 'murder is immoral'. If you've not seen that one uniquely does so, where have you been? And doing so without laying down imperatives and moral laws, as did some moral philosophers. By Objectivism, fact has value, or correlates with value, and where does there exist a hierarchically greater "fact" than the metaphysical nature of man and his existence? There's the collapse of the is/ought dichotomy, contrived by at least one naturalist philosopher, who could barely see past the *biological* nature of humankind, which superficially is no different to other animals and organisms. From man and his nature derives the individual purpose plus volition of each person - a fact acknowledged by Objectivists, so of the moral wrong to interfere with or curtail the purpose/life of another. Anyway, science can and should have no direct influence on ethics since, by definition and purpose, it doesn't have a metaphysics. ("meta": higher, beyond). As you say, religion has (a form of) metaphysics and so a compatible morality. Science is a rational method of discovery not a philosophy, in spite of the proponents of "scientism". For this reason, science hasn't the potential to take religion's place, where a rational philosophy could. I disagree with your "continuum of rationality" and your placements in it (philosophy, etc..) Certainly not to say that an (ideally, objective) ethics can't or should not be *applied* to science - and taken up by individual scientists who have to have the moral freedom to work and make their own ethical choices, unaided and unregulated, and inevitably -owned- by the State, and statist doctrines and 'morality'.
  8. Heh, I have the feeling you'll have read of most of the words written (in O'ist circles) before I even suggest any to read... This gives me an idea, following too from your usage of "logic", and its present 'sterility'. The question I have is: how well do you know the meaning of the "words". How well do you know what is "logic"? Because I am unsure if you know that Objectivist logic is much more than the logic of syllogisms, always referred to by people. It is rather, *conceptual logic* with one law - of non-contradiction - for the purpose of formation of your concepts (from percepts, identified and integrated) and for the single sake of your "knowledge", in the total sense. The conceptual structure is the essential epistemological base of the "self" or "ego", I think. For this, I suggested you returning to simple perceptions and identifications again. Word-concepts are your tools of identity and they don't have meaning if not "grounded" constantly. Principles and concepts will be "ideals", of no use and probably self-sabotaging, if not implemented and applied regularly to your experience and reality. I venture that conceptual logic being cut adrift from application to experience could be cause - or the effect - of depression (cognitively) and a loss of "self", self-value, external values, and the types of misery and emotions you describe, and I have seen, which will automatically follow. In line, the psychological base, explained by Branden: "By "ego"...I mean the unifying center of awareness, the center of consciousness, the ultimate sense of "I", that which perceives reality, preserves the inner continuity of one's own existence, and generates a sense of personal identity". (p. 74, HTS). (I've read 6 Pillars long ago and think it's a more practical self-esteem book, than Honoring. Invaluable of course, in its way, and HTS remains a must-read).
  9. "Life offers options. Death is final and not to be sought as an "out"." "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away everything he's got, and everything he's ever gonna have". ('Unforgiven')
  10. I go along only partially with your metaphor, 'playing the cards we are dealt', insofar as there certain things which are 'given': metaphysically (absolutely) and individually (somewhat). We accept that at the end of The Game everyone in it will be a loser. But "the competition" is just not so, Wolf. Fundamentally you don't compare your hand to others' hands to take the pot, it just seems that way superficially and in the short run. Comparisons (with others) are odious and subjective. There are no common 'rules' (e.g. kings beating queens, etc.) except the ones you decide in reality, the only rule. Over and above that, you have some, often untapped, power to change the strength of your hand with a switch from old mindset, acts and habits. Further, how you play out your improved 'hand' has many, many more options in reality than are apparent at first look - even when we get older and life seems to narrow down, how one plays his/her game and still chooses, makes and finds his values is everything and - and, by god - each can be his own winner.
  11. Magnesium. Taken daily (inc. calcium) in a supplement. The deficiency of it is widespread, not well known is its essentiality to the brain and nervous system, a deficiency contributing to fatigue, anxiety and depression. I can't recommend it highly enough.
  12. The only sterile logic I know of is permitting the separation of one's logic from one's experience. That would be a sterile, impotent 'logic'. They are a unified state: mind and body, logic and experience, theory and practice -- when you make them to be so. How are you going to go about this, otherwise? (Re-iterating that you should be taking a multi-faceted approach, advised and helped by medical intervention). Your mind has to play a major part, a mind not separate from your being, nor from living, nor from your values, and therefore not separated from your emotions? I emphasize values and purpose again, with the desired end, you will agree, of slowly rekindling a passion for life. You've made no mention of recommendations made to you here of Branden, or what you've read of his. He is famed for his output on self-esteem, but that's not all I think he should be well-studied for. His works are comprehensively embracing in all respects. From a substantial philosophical base (you will recognize), he has a profound knowledge about consciousness wrt human existence. I know it will be of great help. You aren't alone in what you've been going through and from my past I am not unfamiliar with the general sense (if not your particulars) of one's loss of purpose and a cause or energy to live, mostly from someone who I was close to.
  13. Ayn Rand And The End Of Love

    You are not well. From the snake and anti-intellectual concretist, himself. "On course" - used to be a debate about emotions discovered through introspection, making clear their irrefutable causation in values. This is what you've purposefully cut short, and I can guess why. The truth hurts and introspection hurts too, for some. But once again, a personal, hectoring attack from the big cheat and liar himself. In all your output is plainly such disingenuous sophistry as has never been heard, but yet you impugn my honesty which I know, and anyone who knows me, is above reproach - whoever agrees or not with what I write. I am aware of your longtime background attempts to compromise my character and isolate me, covertly behind the scenes. Being the intellectual coward , without others' backing you could not have the guts to publicly make yourself this insulting. And yet such low integrity and deviousness is tolerated. Who knows what you believe your mission is here, except to chase Objectivists like myself, off this forum. It is a subjective world you live in, and your (what!) - generosity and patience, is your fantasy. Thanks, but no thanks - take your generosity far away from me. You get not another word from me.
  14. Think about it. If you haven't picked up on value (in yourself, in life) being central to "not finding life at all worth living", you need to think.
  15. Self-referencing, subjective (and an impossibly tall order) - One's life is *not* one's standard of value. AR: "Man's life is the standard of value..." Not the individual's life, you notice: "Man", the abstract. Free yourself from this extra load, of trying to be your/anyone's "standard" of value. Without 'man', nobody to value, create value or be of value; no life, no possible value. Rather, one's life is instead one's ~ultimate~ value. This is what you show is at stake, and more than enough to be concerned about. Finding value in oneself isn't automatic, it needs strong attention, thought, self-honesty and application. It's not work, as such, you could find it all a great pleasure. Taking life-value for granted, just going through the paces like you may believe many ~appear~ to do, feels the easier option - for a little while. But doing so will always catch up with one and expose one to one's buried fears, apathy and anxiety. I've been rereading parts of NB's Honoring the Self, and felt some is especially germane to what you have described. Maybe not so relevant, in the chapter Motivation by Fear, he writes about "defense values", the false forms of values which a lot of people (barely) live by.