georgedonnelly

nonstop baiting?! If you think all of my posts in this thread are baits then you are the one with the thin skin and chip, nay, boulder on your shoulder. I don't know how Michael will take it but that last line in your last post reads like a very sly personal attack. Michael, you insult, you misrepresent and you use underhanded tactics. It's disgusting. I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know that your actions have convinced me to unsubscribe from your RSS feed, turn off all email notifications and take a long, if not permanent, break from this website.

You have demonstrated the "put-downs and mockery" very well in this thread. I couldn't ask for a better demonstration. In your world, that's all you are able to see. You criticize others for the same actions you yourself take. I guess I was unable to see your points and your quality and substance and your posts and so that's why i made so many arguably substantive posts attempting to address yours. You ridiculed me for my supposed lack of quality and/or substance. You claimed I wanted you to do my thinking. You claimed I was imagining words that you didn't say, when you actually did say them. Now you claim Brant's impression of you being patronizing was in his head, which it was not. If those don't constitute "put-downs and mockery" then you have corrupted the concept.

You have demonstrated the "put-downs and mockery" very well in this thread.

You make an unsupported assertion and expect Michael to accept it on faith. That doesn't look like an exercise of reason to me. You want substance and quality? Lead by example and show us proof that the exercise of benevolence causes serotonin levels in the brain to rise.

You'll have to demonstrate its reality before anyone in their right mind will believe it.

What about the cost of sacrificing yourself? Is that too high? You could not care less about their baseball game, but what if they DID care, and they performed this act under duress? In other words, where is your empathy for the baseball players? (only half kidding) I found a copy of the book "The Power of Intention" by Dyer. There are no footnotes and there is no bibliography. Health news is big. For example, the latest news about red wine being considered "anti-aging" got an enormous amount of play around the Internet. Just as one example, I quickly found the below article on serotonin, which is decidedly not as interesting or noteworthy as Dyer's studies would be. So why is there no news of Dyer's studies? Serotonin lower in shift workers And I easily found this, which is similar, but is about oxycontin. Empathy and Oxytocin Lead to Greater Generosity Here's what Wayne Dyer thinks of truth: Does this make sense to the same people who tear up when they read the Shaya story? If your serotonin level is rising, it's more likely because you spent that dollar on yourself than because you gave it to a homeless man. ;) btw Michael I also found those links you mention in post #72 in the original search I did (which you ridiculed), but none of them are relevant to the question of whether kindness actually causes serotonin levels in the brain to rise.

*speechless with laughter* I crown you resident comedian at OL. Seriously, nicely played.

The part about "religious rights" reminds me of the multicultaralism that was being advocated in the 80's. My reaction to your post is that it's: - alarmist and therefore to be taken with a lot of salt. - not well-substantiated or reasoned. There's nothing wrong with asking for halal food. Obviously initiation of force is not to be tolerated and we need a strong police force to do that. Unfortunately so much money is wasted on nonsense that funding for police is scarce.

Hold on. Let's separate the religion from its practitioners. This is similar to the line of reasoning that damns Objectivism for Ayn Rand's personality foibles.

Perhaps those boys wanted to continue playing their best until the end of the game. Perhaps they wanted to contest the game till the last strike of the last inning. But when the boy and his father walked up, maybe they felt obligated to cooperate. Or perhaps they felt guilty about not suffering from a learning disablity. If this is the case, then yes, they did sacrifice. A person has the potential to become more productive as his network of acquaintances grows. These aquaintances with whom one maintains relationships characterized by benevolence are potential business partners, customers, mentors and friends. Thought of this way, benevolence can be a value that follows inevitably once one accepts the idea of valuing oneself over others. Are you referring to the concept of reducing things to their essentials? That's an important thinking tool. Isn't your below statement a "central rule" that "defines life"? So you are insinuating that Objectivism is a religion? Is that your point? Do you mean monoideism ("a state of prolonged absorption in a single idea, as in mental depression, trance, hypnosis")? You see this in Atlas Shrugged, especially in negotiations between Dagny and Hank. In an altruistic environment it can be necessary to explain that your motivation is not altruistic, so people don't get the wrong idea. The only fear it is related to is a fear of being misunderstood.

... for damning her whole post/argument by damning one part of it. That is a tactic that suggests ill intentions, yes. And it certainly is not a tactic one uses when one is interested in examining ideas. By the way, I wrote about what I value and so did others. So stop pretending everyone but you is bickering or just taking up space on the page.

I'm not holding you to a standard. I simply asked a question. By reacting to people who are not participating in the discussion, you diminish the quality of said discussion. I have no idea of this "interforum" whatever, but if true, why do you keep interjecting it into the conversation? For the record, this is the only Objectivist forum I participated in until today. (May change soon!) False. I answered your questions. If you have no interest in replying, that's your right, but to pretend you're talking to yourself is incorrect. That's obviously your right, but it strikes me as a low threshold for excommunication. I have taken your subtle insults about not being able to do my own thinking and imagining things in stride.

I'm not sure Michael labeled anyone as evil that didn't tear up, and I'm not sure about him being smarmy, but Laure is dead on on all the other counts. Also Michael I notice you used her one questionable accusation to damn the whole lot. That strikes me as very questionable, if not ill-intentioned.

Those "nameless people" and shadows are in your head, not in my words. I suppose the following 5 quotes are "in my head"? These aren't your words? 1. Pity? Religions have many people convinced they should perform acts of disinterested charity and mercy for the less fortunate. Maybe it's the fact that it involves a child, a child who will never realize the potential others take for granted. A child is by definition innocent and this one is paying for "sins" he did not commit. Perhaps people sympathize with the boy's feeling of being 'less' than others and getting left out as a result. Maybe they feel the greatest gift is that which is unearned. I really don't know why but I am not too concerned about it. I class pity right up there with guilt, negative attitudes and apathy - I try to spend as little time on them as possible. Ignoring certain aspects of nature or society is not evading reality. It is taking goal-oriented action. Just because a bear moves his bowels in the woods and I don't go and watch it, does not constitute an evasion of reality. 2. A quick search turns up assertions of this serotonin-kindness relationship, but they all appear to cite Dyer as their evidence for it. Without any kind of evidence, how can anyone reach a judgment on the matter? I can't. Regardless, I consider kindness - defined as benevolence - an important value. In fact, I think benevolence is an unstoppable consequence of the optimism that is the natural condition of human beings, and would seem to be the inescapable consequence of valuing your own life above all else.

Huh? I altered a quote? Did I even quote post #37? I hate it when people make substantive edits after posting.

But that's fiction. Fiction, being romanticized and based on optimized bits of reality, doesn't directly apply to reality. It's not necessarily relevant to reality. In order to act like that, one must spend a good amount of time thinking, especially when you have been raised and live in an altruistic society. But the thinking part is boring, so it won't ever make into a good novel. Isn't virtue the path to happiness, in Objectivism? I think so. Isn't the means - defined as how you take action - indeed the goal? That reminds me of the old riddle of sorts: "which is more important: the means or the end?" The easy, and wrong, answer is the end. That leads to people doing anything to achieve their goals. The right answer is that the means is more important. Your end could be full of great intentions but if you murder, steal and lie to reach it, what use is it? While I find guilt to be useless, self-examination is critical. I wonder if the real problem in this scenario is not the latter, but the former (i.e., the guilt)? Or a lack of clear understanding of Objectivism, or clear thinking? Too many! Had I accepted my programming, err upbringing, I would be one. For some reason I rejected all the religion classes and the guilt/sin talk. I think in some sense the experience partially inoculated me against guilt. Bummer. That doesn't sound like much fun.

No and no. You have some unstated premises and frozen abstractions packed into those questions! Do you know what "the fallacy of the frozen abstraction" is? I might be referring to something you haven't encountered in Rand's writing yet. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/101...cies.htm#frozen ? I am referring primarily to the Objectivist sense of living for your own happiness. How can you live for your own happiness, within Objectivism, and not be moral at the same time? In other words, if your goal is to be happy, but you do not act morally, then you are working against your own goal (and, in reality, it's NOT your goal). If your goal is to be happy, but you fake reality, steal, murder and do not think, well, what kind of happiness will that produce? Not much I suspect. And how can you be a moral person, within Objectivism, and not live for your own happiness? In other words, if you are a moral person and an Objectivist, then you place your own life and values above those of others. Given this, how can your own happiness not be one of your top - if not primary - values? If your top values do not include your own happiness, then perhaps they include either happiness for others, or things that lead to happiness for others, in which case you are placing others' above yourself, which means you are not being a moral person, within Objectivism. I admit I haven't given it a lot of thought but offhand I think these two concepts are very much tied together in Objectivism. Zero. I have some good friends who introduced me to Rand (her fiction), but they are by no means Objectivists. They just thought I would like it.

I thought this would end with her bringing you a snack or something to drink. Kindness often goes unrewarded but it is definitely to be valued anyway.

It's interesting that such an institution exists in Guatemala - but not the US of Europe.

Galt: Most likely most everyone here agrees with your estimation of the situation. I supported RP at first, including with donations, but at this point I am getting quite irritated with him and here is why: - he lost and has no chance to win, but he stays in the race egging on his supporters who are effectively falling on their swords. - he could have had the nomination of the LP but he has this misguided goal of taking over the GOP. Never. gonna. happen. - his supporters are irrational in thinking he can still win and self-destructive in thinking that casting a write-in vote for him will make any difference whatsoever. - Lots of people changed their registration from LP to GOP in order to vote for him in the primaries. This wreaks havoc with the LP, as LP voters on the rolls goes down - which affects other important things like ballot access - and in some states those who voted in the primary are now not allowed or face higher burdens to run in the general election with a third party. Time is short. The most liberty-oriented candidate in the race now is Bob Barr. RP fans need to get behind him lest we trash all the great - yet meager - accomplishments we have produced so far.

Isn't being moral the same thing as living for your own happiness? Isn't living for your own happiness, the same thing as being moral, or at least requires being moral?

Rearden is asking him to fake reality. I just reread this section and a bit around it. Rearden did not fake reality - or ask it to be faked - even once for the wet nurse. Ok I see you now say: The sentence immediately following your quote is: And this is extremely important because it reveals that Rearden wants him to continue living so they can work together. The sentences that follow only reinforce this. So, according to your logic, if I invite someone to join me in a business or other worthy venture, I am asking them to live for my sake? I can only surmise that you are trying to bait conversation because that is utterly ridiculous. I'm reading AS right now (5th time), just started Section 3. I had forgotten about this part. It is very touching - because the wet nurse transforms himself from looter to defender-of-the-right, and because Rearden loves him like a son. Rearden being a real tough guy, that was unexpected. Perhaps the most powerful part is that the wet nurse decides to stick his neck out, and is killed for doing what's right. That is powerful. But then again, that was Rand. She knew when faking reality was needed for a greater value at an exceptional moment and she did it without apology. "Love is exception-making" she wrote in The Fountainhead. That is one of the reasons why she wrote Atlas Shrugged and those who came after have not done anything near the magnitude of that achievement. You throw this out in the tone of an insult or an unwinnable challenge. But I missed the challenge, what is it? And your argument is a bit confusing. "She knew faking reality ..." Care to elaborate/substantiate that? Michael why does it seem like half of your comments are against nameless people who aren't participating in this discussion? This throws a bit of a shadow over things.

Joel demanded empathy. I don't think kindness is evil. That would be oxymoronic. But I say that faking reality is not kindness. All the players in the Shaya story despised the boy enough to fake reality for him - including (led by) his own father.

It is a morality tale, but the morality demonstrated is altruistic. I don't see any convincing arguments to the contrary but I'm open to discussing any. If kindness is benevolence, isn't honesty more benevolent than dishonesty? That seems irrefutable. P.S. Joel - and what was your point? If you don't make it clearly you don't get to huff and puff when you leave.

I think it's a similar reaction, yes. I lied without a second thought when I was a kid as a mechanism to avoid what I considered wrong but wasn't strong enough to combat openly, and no one could ever explain to me why it is one should not lie. AR's explanation is compelling though. I have a 2 yo boy and I take all efforts not to fake reality for him. He has a favorite aunt who visits us once a week. He cries when she leaves so she tried to leave when he wasn't looking in order that he wouldn't cry. I would not let her and instead called my son so he would know. He cried but I think that is better than him crying after the fact - when he finds out - and not only because his aunt left but also because he was tricked by his own parents! I remember being lied to and tricked as a child in order to get my cooperation or just to shut me up. I hated it. It's an ugly kind of laziness that prompts people to fake reality, instead of just being upfront about things. btw Michael I know little or nothing about ARI or Peikoff or the scandals, schisms and factions. I'm quite blissful in my ignorance at the moment. I've read all of AR's fiction and philosophy (or 98% of it) but I stay away from the BS around it because I don't currently consider it a productive use of my time.