shifty

Anyway, welcome to the human race. You're human just like other humans and that's OK.

Maybe that's belated given your experience, but you matter.

Michael

Lol, thats a good way to put it. I appreciate it very much.

Alex

I didn't read the entire thread but I like to add that I was very much attracted to objectivism AND was heavily depressed. The thing is that when I first read Atlas Shrugged I was superficially shielded from my depression by a sense of superiority that I drew from the "truth" that was in AS. I also thought that for a while I was cured just by reading AS. However it turned out that I wasn't cured at all but just propped up by a false sense of self-esteem. Later on I started trying to live in the real world and slowly realized that I was far from capable of ANYTHING, and so my inflated self esteem collapsed over time.

I now, for the most part, managed to get it under control. It only took me YEARS of introspection to find and correct all the metal gymnastics my brain was doing to keep me in such shitty depressed state. It also seems that chugging tons of coffee and working manically didn't help my mental state (according to a clinic doctor I saw today).

So, philosophy is indeed separate from mental well being. It guides you on how to be happy, but it doesn't think for you, and so it won't help jack if you are depressed.

Just my two cents.

Edit: forgot to add the word "read" and formating

Colonel Landa from Inglorious Bastards is my favorite villain.

I like him because he is terrifying. Although, he isn't frightful because of any appearance or sadistic evil doing. He is frightening because of the mind games and his intelligence.

I really hope I don't encounter someone like him.

Haha, that's how he might get elected again too. lol

OK, I see the distinctions - but still:

If we begin with capitalism as the most moral system men have known, we have to ascertain

what makes it (and keeps it) moral, and essentially it reduces to each person being

the standard of his own existence. Bringing in the emphasis on comparative-predatory capitalist business practice carries the premise that other people are the standard of one's life and business. This is my understanding of altruism (at its broadest): living by the standards of other people. iow, a second-hander.

Practically, one who evaluates himself - largely - according to others' performance;

he feels he must take what they have, to flourish;

he gains fake pride in defeating them, rather than self-esteem in his achievement;

above all, it is the view that we can only succeed at others' cost - as they succeed at our cost.

I think Brant's post addressed the difference of predatory business and competitive spirit I describe ("There is competition with grace and competition without grace" -Brant). I'm more for grace.

What I describe doesn't concern itself with what value a competitor has. I don't care about the other guy personally, but hes there trying to take a sale or job from me or my company. So, I then have to crush him (business wise). Ofcourse, it doesn't apply for people not in the same market. In essence, I don't feel like defeating others because they are good people. I have to do it for myself, and it feels good to win. And if I literally took from the guy then that's stealing (and if socially accepted it would be anarchy)

The last is the childish fallacy of the zero-sum game, which (incredibly) still holds sway in the vast majority of people.

Let's face it, we have never in our lives experienced total laissez-faire.

We can only conjecture at what it'd be like without cronyism, regulation, fear and favor.

I'd guess this breeds a culture of predation - since one thinks and acts short-term in it: uncertainty of Statist interventions and 'special treatment', mean we tend to grab what we can, when we can -

ironically confirming the liberal-progressive's accusations of the evil of capitalism.

I'll guess further, that the comparative-predatory capitalists would slowly but surely die

out in a completely free market, where rational self-interest would receive its just rewards in reality.

I don't really care how tough it is in real laissez-faire. I just want to jump into the fray and succeed if I got what it takes, and potentially fail if it has to happen. It's all part of the game.

Those predators would always be there (I don't think they will die out), but they just wont get a pass so easily anymore.

Shifty, that's a shift (sorry) from "It's about beating the competition" - to "I just want to survive."

I might be wrong. The latter I agree with, naturally.

However, don't you see the distinction between the rational selfishness of placing

prime emphasis on your own values and action and profit; and that of focusing upon,

and defeating, others' values, actions, profit? I think there's an egoist/altruist

divide here. Altruism is not only 'the giving' to others, but also includes the predominant over-

emphasis upon 'others', too - in my opinion - but many may not agree.

Competition helps keep us lean and mean, but it should never be the whole point - as that

Rand quote makes clear. In a free economy, there's plenty of room for all.

You are right and there is a shift, but not because I changed my stance. I just changed its focus. You want to win, but you don't want to loose too (greed vs fear). In essence, it's other side of the same coin.

Defeating others serves both purposes. It's a focus on others, but there is so much value for me though. You can't just work at ur own pace and not fear or envy the competition. My value goes up when I know my work is either among the best or good enough to hang on.

IMO, for me, the point is still myself, but beating others is the core of "the competitive spirit". And it's not elevating others over myself so it's not altruism.

Is that in keeping with Austrian economics, you list as an interest?

I've no expertise, but I wouldn't think so.

I don't think Austrian economics addresses the competitive spirit, but I'm no expert either.

And how! we differ.

I suspect you are assuming that you'd win every encounter with the "enemy"...

It's a war you're describing, and your first lost battle would likely be your last.

In L-F capitalism, one may come second, and 1002nd, and survive happily.

You suspect wrong. The threat of loosing is a reality, and it can happen to me and anyone else. And, depending on what you play, if you make a first move and loose you can have long lasting consequences. Moreover, not surviving is a literally reality for a business.

(I am trying to imagine 100 million people 'competing' for every square meter, and every dollar, and every resource, until a few power gangs emerge as 'winners' - and my mind boggles; this isn't capitalism, and not individualism.

"Survival of the fittest"/ Social Darwinism is an altruist-tribalist notion, as well as a malignant world view, imo. Isn't

this how men handed capitalism over to Statism?)

But we do compete for every dollar. I'm sure earning money is not like a picnic. Also, what you describe seems like anarchy, and I'm not an anarchist.

I'm really lost on how you came up with Social Darwinism to be an altruist-tribalist notion. Not like it matters because I'm not enamored with the idea of survival of the fittest anyways. It doesn't matter to me that others are "fitter". I just want to survive.

I think the competive spirit you describe is different from mine. The difference is that it's not about being "better" than the competition. It's about "beating" the competition.

To me, the competitive spirit consist of the drive to out do your competition with ur fellows in arms. To make a better product and leave the enemy with nothing, and take all the glory away with ur allies.

Being "better" is not the same. It could be that when u beat the other guy u are better, and so pride follows, but beating him comes first. That is why competitors do it imo. Its about being first and wining it all.

hah i think its tight.. since everything is objective one of us has to be morally wrong though right? hah

i think i should turn that off and play this instead if i do not wish to destroy my moral virtue

ah you must skip to about 150 for the true moral beauty to begin

I think It's irrelevant to your moral virtue (and that's bad piano, but she's 105). It does potentially say something about your values, which I have just reasonably deduced. (OMG! I just judged you based on ur subjective pref, I must be a dogmatic cultist). No hard feelings?

http://hettingern.pe...cal_Culture.htm

This seems a rough outline for a paper using Scruton as his main source. If true, can u point me to the completed paper?

no i cant but the paper outline contains all teh ideas i am talking about which i see relevant to my argument

I'll just look up Scruton instead some other time.

first pieces of electronic music sounded like this

to me this is art

why? because I subjectively say it is and understand its concepts

For the record, Grunge and this here sound awfully excruciating to me.

morally superior to beethoven

why do i say so? because it more directly accesses my emotions.. i dont have to think about it or analyze it from a rational perspective of beauty.. it just hits me..

old peopel call this the moral decrepitation of todays youth.. lmfao

well actually this is more like the early 90s.. but still

And this is amusingly bad to me. By the way, I'm 25.

Edit: The beat is ok, but just look at his ridiculous hair, swagger, and lirycs. It makes me smile .

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Aesthetics_Fall_2010/Scruton_Decline_in_Musical_Culture.htm

This seems a rough outline for a paper using Scruton as his main source. If true, can u point me to the completed paper?

I think what I have is not any raw logical errors in my premisis.. but errors in my premisis according to the objectivist framework.. which I do not inherently agree with to begin with..

The problem that I see is one cannot argue against objectivism framework while arguing within the objectivist framework

Clearly I think the majority of the worlds philosophical establishment agrees with me due to massive teachings of Nietzches philosophy, and none of Rands, who is considered by many professional philosophers to be merely a pontificator.. Even Kant is more widely taught than Rand

So i think what we can do is agree to disagree on this one and call it a day

I think if any of you ever composed music on a musical instrument, you would understand exactly where I am coming from.. I know it seems liek a rather silly assertion but it is true.. as one cannot argue with direct evidence of experience.. unless one believes in primacy of logic over primacy of evidnece.. in which case.. I guess I cant argue with you as it is as pointless as arguing with somebody who believes in primacy of faith.. no matter what I say if it does not make sense within the "rational objectivist framework" it might as well not exist

According to Rand.. every philosopher ever is wrong.. except for Rand.. or those other two she likes, Aristotle, and that other one.. basically if Rand does not agree with you.. you are objectively wrong.. which to me is a joke

Rand has effectively attempted to create a philosophy in which she can never be questioned, and never be wrong.. and anybody who disagrees with her is a "stupid irrationalist who hates reason"... since everything she believes is objectively right.. thats why she is not really even considered to be a real philosopher by many .. and its evident why many think objectivism is a cult.. and it is not taught in university courses on philosophy.. since if it was taught.. that would mean that any ideas which dont agree with her would be "objectively wrong"

(^^ not objectivist art)

Im sorry for attempting to emphazise a point using emotions as tools of cognition.. gee golly im so immoral

It seems to me that your opponents here are not trying to argue within the objectivist framework, but are just trying to point out that u do not yet understand the Epistemological foundation in its entirety.

From quickly looking over ur posts I think u addresses something about existence exists. So they may be wrong on that pointification, but u do seem very quick to condemn here.

Focus more on making exact replies instead of quickly digressing to lengthy rants, it will make u look more amicable.

Of course, it's just advise that I'm selfishly giving to get this discussion going on a deeper level (it's starting to bore me). I hope u'll consider it.

Good for you.

--Brant

way to go!

Hey thanks

My 19 yo self read AS and for a while kicked herself around for not ever being able to be joyously productive, proudly self-sufficient, and for not wanting to live in Galts Gulch, and for being generally a non-human being.

We all grew up -- and here we all are.

I'm just getting out of that stage in life. It seems to me that kicking yourself over any of that is like crying over spilled milk.

One think I'm concerned of though is whether you imply that there is no such thing as joyous productivity? I hope not , because I hope to one day be happy at work.

No, of course I don't imply that. At that time I believed that whatever I decided to do, I should persevere, succeed and glory in, whether I was suited or qualified or ready to do it at all. I was wrong Later I was joyously productive and happy at work, and I still am today. So will you be too.

Yeah, I pretty much thought I should persevere while totally unready for what I was doing. Didn't really work out I guess. However, thanks for the encouragement .

My 19 yo self read AS and for a while kicked herself around for not ever being able to be joyously productive, proudly self-sufficient, and for not wanting to live in Galts Gulch, and for being generally a non-human being.

We all grew up -- and here we all are.

I'm just getting out of that stage in life. It seems to me that kicking yourself over any of that is like crying over spilled milk.

One think I'm concerned of though is whether you imply that there is no such thing as joyous productivity? I hope not , because I hope to one day be happy at work.

If attack ads had existed in the 30s and 40s the way they do now, the voters would just not have believed them.

ReasonTv seems to suggest that negative attack adds existed much before television:

Almost makes me want to move to Australia .

Hell, I've had daydreams of having a posse of escaped lunatics and we just go and break people out periodically like gangsters getting protection money from psych wards, but patients who want to leave. It's a fucked up system, I rarely see it helping anyone. Quite frankly its like an awful long scene from Half-Life 2 but its real, right in front of me, and more a result of a spendthrift lunatic altruist in Governement for too fucking long than my mental illness. I emailed to the Prime Minister on National Suicide Week when she pledged more Federal money and programs, "How many more people have to kill themselves before you push them over the edge?"

Terrible system, but keep searching for happiness, even if you don't see it anywhere, because it's better than not searching. And don't loose sight of a future that's possible.

Also, Half-Life 2 is a great game . I think you are referring to the scene at the beginning right? . Have you played the episodes?

P.S. On a side note, some parts were not as discernible from grammar errors, I guess from writing on the spur.

Shifty

I'm glad I no longer get help from Government mental health services. They seem to have become full of Robert Stradler like doctors. I had this strange psychologist who I originally wanted CBT from. Yet all she wanted to do is show me these relaxation techniques she had invented. She didn't care about what I wanted, and that is because she didn't care about money. She doesn't have too. It is strange, because its twice something like that has happened in my life. Once while I was in a psychiatric hospital for mania a doctor did the same thing. I really don't feel I have many places to turn with my mental health. It has become very prudent to just avoid them, and so I learned to deal with my symptoms without medication. There are private psychologists, and I think I'll just keep looking for work so I can afford one in the private sector. I've realized nobody who is mentally aware could tolerate working directly for the State Government considering the strange regulations. As far as support for my mental health problems is, I'd be a healthier cave hermit rather than a client of the Government services. My ataxia and antipsychotics never mixes well anyway, I get akathisia and involuntary muscle movements when I am on those. They don't care about the agonizing akathisia, and so I got them to discharge me. They didn't even believe I had the symptom, and they never do. I hate most psychiatrists, they seem to have gone so far on a liars hunt for the welfare of irresponsible junkies that it just no longer makes any sense what they do. They clearly don't care about my welfare.

This reminds of an experience I had with a psychologist ( or psychotherapist if I remember) from Mexico who really wanted me to feel better by showing a horoscope book type thing that predicted your attributes based on your birth day. I was skeptical but interested on how accurate the description was. Then I realized that she was reading the wrong section for my date. Any confidence I had with her collapsed into a deep contemptuous distrust bordering on hatred. I informed her of the error with a derisive smile, and never came back again. I also got of the med she had given me and went through a week of withdrawal, which of each day felt like I had a hangover.

My life was far from better at the time, but it did leave me with a sour taste for psychologists.

Courage is something I've been doing everything to work on. I've been working out so I feel strong and can face... even the worst of the irrational.

That's good, I'm glad. You also need courage just to do what's right even when no one is attacking you in any way. That's more of the way I meant it; Courage to face the fear inside you.

Edit: I just realized you might have meant it the way I did .

I'm 23 basically.

I'm 23 too .

It does take a long time to find your way, and I believe the key lies in the first post I made. Just because I say it doesn't mean much though. You will have too prove it to yourself first for you to truly believe it.

There is the one requirement that I've found difficult to overcome; You need the courage to never give up. It's possible.

-Shifty

Shifty that is a wonderful sentiment I find it difficult as well but if you think of it as a battle that seems to help

Thank you

Your welcome

The biggest problem is it seems to be a fact that I have no future in this country. My father, he seems ashamed of me... yet enlightened as well.

I feel doomed by facts, and sometimes I just want to flea to America.

You have a future no matter what happens. Work from what is to make it better, and if you are serious about fleeing to America make sure to analyze your situation carefully and that the benefits will out weigh the cost.

Hello there,

I can relate to some of the issues you mentioned since I'm a bit ostracized at the moment too.

In dealing with these issues I would advise too keep in mind what is your purpose in life (what is most important to you). Then work on conceptualizing a very well thought out plan and begin working on a few stepping stones towards that goal.

Having the certainty of knowing that your life is moving forward towards what you want most can go a long ways in calming the fear you have; And it isn't a problem that your plan isn't perfect, you can always improve it and it is certainly better than doing nothing.

There is the one requirement that I've found difficult to overcome; You need the courage to never give up. It's possible.

One good measure to know if you are doing it right is to be working on a stepping stone. If you are not doing that then it means you need start immediately. It isn't always easy but always worth it.

Hope I didn't repeat what you already know.

On a side note, I also have a brother who thought I was kinda crazy for my interest in Objectivism. He's in the Army now so he cant bother me about it anymore, or me bother him, but just remember that definitions are often a source of some of the problems. They could even be opposite of yours.

-Shifty

Since loyalty to one's ideology create suffering for the innocent, the real question is whether the ideology is sound or not. A sound ideology may breed pride. However, an ideology may be unsound, yet one may be proud of their ideology, as they are unaware of the flaws.

What I mean by 'sound' is with respect to its internal and external consistency. A sound philosophy is one that is consistent and irrefutable by any logical argument. That is, it has no logical fallacies. An ideology may be quite convincing (apparently sound), but may suffer from a logical fallacy that ultimately reveals it to be either limited or incorrect. I'm simply saying that people may believe in ideologies that are extremely convincing, but not entirely correct; believing it to be infallible, they become proud. A true ideology does not rest on pride, but on the strength (soundness) of its internal and external consistency. It is mathematically true, and provably so. Me being proud of 2 + 2 = 4 does not make it any less or more equal to 4. It is simply so, irrespective of my beliefs (or disbelief) in it. That said, many ideologies are not provable, limiting their soundness - that does not however mean that people will stop believing in them.

All that said, the very definition of ideology, is not entirely clear. In the strictest sense an ideology is the science of ideas. But in the general use, it is a world-view, or a belief structure that shapes (one might say, biases) one's perspective.

What do you think? Is ideology sound or unsound? What is the definition of an ideology?

This may be obtuse, but I like to point out that if you had made your points in a reverse order the flow of the comment would have been from general to specific instead of specific to general, making it more coherent.

I whole heartedly meant this as a constructive insight.

Subject: Explaining what Bragging is and Isn't

To put it in one phrase -- Bragging is when it seems gratuitous...and/or if there is too much, too many self pats on the back.

It seems to me that Michael Marotta posted his credentials not to brag or to augment his authority on the subject of AS's quality, but to asserts its value by directly crediting it with his success. I'm sure that that was the point of his post.

-Alex

Be happy folks. The days get longer for the next six months.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I <like> that fact.

What happened to the word "like"? Should have drank the coffee first .