psychoanaleesis

Christopher: The labels that one conceives of (relative to one's vocabulary/knowledge; but not limited to) is one's closest approximation of that process. Since we can always analyze and identify the characteristics of that process, if no particular existing term will suffice then you can coin it. As for that disordered argument, why should one repress or strike out things which one considers as valuable? If one gives up say, marriage when in fact that is where his happiness lies, then that is sacrifice. I have posted this somewhere else in OL is that one can only think that something is something else because he has accepted a value which is not alike, is not and will never be his own. It is not a requisite to just be aware or know yourself but you have to live it. The operant word there being Live. A theory is only as good as its application. Take for example, Peter Keating. He has gained Prestige, Fame and whatnot but where did it lead him? Misery. Exactly because he forsook his Values and has indeed Sacrificed. Not traded. Sacrificed. Whereas Howard Roark, lived by his own and no matter what hardships - natural and artificial- came along, he endured and overcame them. Again, who's to say what to say. You and only you could and should answer. However, also do at least recognize facts that you may not be 'all-seeing' and other men may have developed competencies better able to assess the situation than you e.g. the boss, doctor, lawyers, etc. Yet even then, you are free to choose to accept their advice but more importantly,let the facts be the final arbiter of who should stand corrected. Stand on your own and you stand a chance.

I just noticed I misspelled a word there and it turned out very wrong. GS, I disagree. Please keep in mind that we can only deal with things that are within the reach of our senses (or extensions thereof). If you mean to say that "concrete" is just concrete on the outside but sub-atomically loose, by all means demonstrate it by hitting a solid brick wall and see if it gives way to your knuckles and I'd bet my bottom dollar that your fist will be the one that gives way. The point there being is that these are what we call facts and no amount of wishing or "knowing so" will make it any different. What one can do, instead, is discover the way how to... let's say, command these sub-atomic particles by knowing their process. Reality is what you can sense - perceive and consequently reason with. Language-wise, the antonym of reality are the words "fantasy" and "unreality". Which means to veer away from reality ergo (bit by bit), you annihilate yourself. I'd like to point out that I do not dare equate these with "imagination" since imagination is a product of an attempt to re-integrate (permutation or combination) of metaphysically given facts. Reason, through logic is our only tool of perceiving reality

Peter, the medics took a shortcut because the drugs forcibly suppressed the shock they should be processing right now. In the meantime, that was the best option available which I support since what they did is to the best of their knowledge and competency as far as their training goes. The soldiers with PTSD however may need help but have to seek using their own free will as no amount of medicine can cure a man who is unwilling to recover. If they do decide to be helped, one psychotherapy that is widely accepted and thoroughly researched is the Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing or EMDR Website I think, this is the best, long-term option they have.

To all of you: Can't you see there can be no such thing as "too much choice" the choices one sees is only relative to one's mental capacity and if a person somehow finds himself in the midst of this "too much" and is confounded, he should look back and see who introduced him to irrelevant notions. In most cases, he took advice from other people without processing the validity or relevance of their statements first. Without reasoning and discrimination as to his needs and goals. One man's values cannot be shared with another, only that they could be similar. That is most of it, he took advice unwittingly.

Christopher, that is close to the point I'm trying to make. Freud's theory is essentially valid in the sense that there are underlying forces in the human psyche which I think are not necessarily causes but rather impetus for the motive(s). If there should be a rift between these in cases of neuroses (anxiety disorders) or psychoses in people, what were the prerequisites that allowed it and in consequence, overthrown the Ego from being fully in control. I strongly oppose Freud when he said and I quote, "Anatomy is destiny." I believe that the dichotomy he saw in most people (patients) were a result of their illogical thinking. He was only over-exposed to this idea (or people) which made him lose sight of the foundation of psychoanalysis and its goal of being a principle of human psychology. I think, we are not predetermined creatures as Freud proposed and Ms. Rand corrected but I do see the benefits of - as Ms. Rand summed up and reason dictates - identifying (identification) of the causes of our behavior and of the reality around us which is one of the main ways of maintaining our general and mental well-being as a person.

First off, I'm a graduate of psychology and I have come to like and play around the ideas of Dr. Freud, in the goal of improving them and discover its principles since it also applies to psychopathology. I also have come to know and love Ayn Rand's philosophy, which, I have practiced but never had the words for until of late. I am very grateful to these two person although I found that Rand is directly opposed to School of Psychoanalysis. Although not saddened nor deterred, in fact, happy that Rand has criticized Freud which in turn gave me tips, tools and corrections for my own selfish need. To sum up this paragraph, I would like my own school of thought someday. Case: I do not like to think that we have an unconscious mind rather a subconscious one as Rand/Objectivism proposed. I agree on certain Freudian concepts but I disagree on how he applied them. His works are mainly on psychopathology and has been proven medically e.g. reptilian brain as the concrete representation of the Id. Nonetheless, the theory is incomplete and thus could not be and should not applied to the general population although I do see the need to bring those 'unconscious' conflicts to the center-stage (ego) to be processed through analysis. I believe Freud was essentially correct but he made a mistake in some of his premises. Thoughts? P.S. In the United States (at least) Freud's theory is supposedly debunked by the scientific community but I cannot yet find a reliable source of information that definitively states why. Any suggestions?

Ah-hya! you people! Values are Abstracts. We only assign values, it does not metaphysically exist in concrete objects i.e. rock is a rock until you assign it a certain meaning e.g. keepsakes. If you only state things as they are you are in the realm of naturalism and this is infinitely dull and thus, remembering each action/thought will be a pain. However, think of a concretes in the terms: As they can be, and ought to be. And there it will be easier to process because of reason which integrates massive amounts of data.

This is quite wrong here Christopher, reality is independent of one's perception and what is happening to you (as far as actions and motives go) can only be and should only be up to you. Who's to say what to say of an event/situation? The answer is YOU but you cannot and should not shun factual evidence that compels you to think precisely because these are real and therefore it is independent of you or anyone else for that matter. Ass for the language (words) what are words? These are visio-auditory representations of concepts to make it concrete in one's mind. And what are concepts? As far I understand, these are abstractions (mental representations) of concrete things. If then, one says he is 'sacrificing' that would define a person who has lost something of value in exchange for another. However, this is abnormal since that you 'lose' which would not equate to your overall well-being. In order to achieve this, there should only be a 'trade' and not sacrifice since you exchange GOODS for GOODS and the value is retained because you are in fact, selling excesses. If what you are implying here is the 'passion of the Christ', then look back at the facts and see whether he sacrificed or traded in a selfish manner.

Thanks Peter. I see here too that moths are indeed attracted to light.

First of all, what "deep imprinting" are you talking about? The knowledge left to you by your parents? HA! I did say, also as AR through Galt eloquently stated that you should question EVERYTHING and seldom should you take an idea from another person granted. Weigh and discriminate as carefully relative to the stakes you are taking although ideally, a sin is still a sin, an error is an error and if you accept a false premise, you fall into a trap and should it prove beneficial to you, then you may place a 'little faith' in that person for those sort of situation. As for intuition, yes, by all means although you should re-evaluate afterward. Learn. I also read (I'm not sure if you wrote or quoted it) in cases of gambling. Notice that you stated 'almost half of the time...'. Your scenario has provided the answer that should suffice.

You shouldn't believe everything Galt says. It is in fact the beauty of intuition that it often opposes our conscious reasoning. Sure, there must then be a mistake somewhere, but the odds are that the mistake is in the conscious reasoning, as that must often be based on insufficient data. Therefore intuition is an excellent complement to logical reasoning. PS. please don't quote whole posts, especially those that are already far too long anyway. Okay, I apologize for quoting the whole post earlier. I'm new in this forum. Thanks for the advice. Regarding you main statement, I did not say that I merely believed in what Galt said but I have indeed proven it. Again, intuition is the product of reasoning i.e. It only produces what it has been fed. It cannot actually oppose but only follow through. If you have applied sound reasoning to new experiences then you can be assured that your intuition will not fail you the next time around. I think what you are proposing here are cases of "dangerous situations" i.e. feeling that harm may come in one form or another. In cases such as these, if you find that your intuition/emotion opposes your conscious thoughts then it must have been because before you have experienced/known about/witnessed a similar situation before and are currently contradicting it consciously because 'new' or extraneous data/evidence has come to light. The possible outcomes I see are as follows: A. You follow your intuition and succeed, you live and learn. B. You follow your intuition and fail, you get embarrassed and you learn. C. You don't follow your intuition and succeed, you live and learn or D. You don't follow your intuition and pay dearly because of this (worst scenario: you die). Perhaps after the ordeal you'd process it consciously and hone your intuition further. Haven't you heard of the proverb: Fool me once, shame on you...? Only reasoning and consequently intuition does not necessitate that you should be even fooled. Sharpen your mind enough and it will cut through everything like a hot knife through butter.

To all of you. I did not have time to sift through all your replies but there is an obvious flaw to the person who proposed the question. It cannot be that intuition is superior to reason because reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates sensory percepts and intuition is only an automatic product of one's reasoning mind. How can one rely on intuition without having the processor that integrates concepts? Intuition will only produce garbled answers when a person has chosen to abdicate the use of his reason. Besides, reason and emotion and/or intuition must never oppose one another. If there is a split between these, then surely there has been a mistake somewhere. As Galt mentioned, (although I cannot quote at present, since I do not have the book with me)not to simply accept statements as truths. Question everything and prove or disprove that statement and find the answer out for yourself. If you are mistaken at the end, look back at your premises, you will find that one of them is wrong. To surmise, use Logic i.e. an 'IF' - 'THEN' statement.

First off, I'm so glad that I found this objectivist forum/site besides the ARI. I'm a graduate of psychology here in the Philippines but primarily I am. Ha ha. I wish to contribute to some of the topics/boards here and looking forward to an enlightening discussion with you fellows.