Nerian

I 'need' to choose one in the same way that I 'need' to eat. It's not an imposed burden.

I know there are other threads on this, but I wanted to create my own. I just listened to Tara Smith's lecture on the value of purpose, and I was convinced that I really need to choose one. I think it's something deep I am missing and a part of the reason for a lot of my discontent. But I'm having trouble. She didn't give any real practical advice on how to find them. Ayn Rand apparently said to think of the 'most important thing' to you and then it will naturally present itself. This confused me though. I don't have any idea what I think is the most important thing. Even things I do like, I can't justify why I like them. Does anyone have any practical advice on what to consider and what to relfect on, what to ask myself, and what to look into in order to choose a central purpose. Can anyone give me examples of 'proper' central purposes. They are suppose to be a doing thing. In other threads, people have misunderstood the meaning. It's central productive purpose that I'm inquiring about, the specifics of what you want to do productively. Not moral purpose. Many things are not 'productive', like learning, reading, watching videos, partying, sex, etc. Even though these are still valuable in life, they are not 'creating' value in the productive sense. At least, this is what Tara Smith explains, and it makes sense to me.

I thought everyone knew that you can just get cancer by bad luck, and that you can only minimize your risks, not eliminate them. A number of 65% doesn't surprise me too much. If you study the cell cycle, it's amazing it doesn't happen more often.

Article: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568 I probably shouldn't be shocked by this article, but it's hard for me to place myself in the mind's of those who cling to the supernatural. Maybe Peikoff is right. Maybe the rise of religion is the real threat of the 21st century.

I don't really understand why people hate these movies so much. I find them fun. Yeah, they aren't perfect, but I can enjoy them for what they are.

Philosophy is without parallel in historical and practical importance in the world. Philosophy is an extremely practical field of study, and it is the prime mover of society.

Peter, When I was at the stage where I did a lot of mulling about this, I suddenly asked myself if my approach was wrong. To put it as a graphic metaphor, I was thinking about the universe and causality as a straight line. 'This causes that which causes that which causes that' and so on. What happens if I think in a circle? I still have 'this causes that which causes that' and so on moving in a line, but I also have another aspect--that any point I choose on the circle will be the start point and end point at the same time. This means if I establish that clockwise means moving from determinism to free will and counterclockwise means the contrary, I can move in either direction (using this as a metaphor for an approach to thinking) without nullifying anything. When I move around the circle and get to the end point of 100% free will, I am also at the starting point of 100% determinism. That's a mindfuck when you start going into it, but I see it as how the universe works. It is literally a holistic approach where the universe is one thing, not a movement from one state to another. You can use this metaphor for form and content, for whole and part, for holon autonomy and for other metaphysical things like that. Granted, we experience time in only one direction and linearly, but only in the non-mental realm. In the mix of the two, memories of the past and projections of the future all happen as the body and mind are happening in time. When you get to the purely mental realm, anything goes as far as time is concerned. Do my or your thoughts not exist? They do exist. They may not represent other existents accurately at times, but even the most outlandish thought itself exists when it happens. Thoughts are things. And if a particular thought is so caught up in the past in its substance that it cannot be disconnected from the past without going out of existence as a thought, does it make any sense to call that a delusion? How about calling that its nature? So keep on thinking. It's good to realize there is more to learn. Michael I don't really understand what you mean by your circle thinking analogy. I don't see how that solves anything. Thoughts exist in the same way motions exists. They aren't things any more than the motion of my hand is a thing. I don't really understand how or why people get caught up in that idea. Thoughts are not something special in a class of their own. There's nothing mystical here. I assure you, I will never stop thinking. And I assure you, I will always be aware that there's more to learn. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll change my view. You seem to imply it will. More thinking or learning more might just strengthen my views. And if they accurate right now, that's what will happen.

I like him. I've watched many of his videos and found many of them very interesting. He's like Peikoff in that he's actually an Objectivist. lol

Out of curiosity, do you have any family, friends, etc. who are Veterans? A... No.

What exactly do you think depression is, Peter, if not this? I assumed you had to be sad. It may be the beginnings of depresison. I've had brain fog issues for a year, and some have suggested it's actually a kind of depression without the sadness. I don't understand "brain fog." You might need to be evaluated by a neurologist. --Brant I can't speak for Peter, but that's what I would call a general feeling of disconnectedness, inability to focus and concentrate, forgetfulness, difficulty with finding words for common objects. You're right that it could have a neurological source which is why Peter should consider seeing a medical doctor first. That pretty much sums it up. It's a cloudy consciousness. I can 'feel' it in a sense. It's a bit like being sleep deprived, like mental fatigue, but all day every day. I used to be somewhat clever, but now I'm fairly dumb. Some days I describe myself as a zombie.

What exactly do you think depression is, Peter, if not this? I assumed you had to be sad. It may be the beginnings of depresison. I've had brain fog issues for a year, and some have suggested it's actually a kind of depression without the sadness.

I guess I'm a physicialist of sorts. There's no evidence for anything other than physical reality. Anything non-physical is actually reducible to a configuration or motion of the physical. They are relationships, arrangments, motions, system, movements, dynamicsm, states and so on of the physical universe. When people speak of the mind, I think of the state and operations of the brain. It strikes me as overtly mystical to posit some non-physical existing entity called the mind. In my view, the mind is not a thing, but a process. I would have to disagree in a sense to the message of the video. But firstly I want to state that I think language breaks down a bit when talking about this. I can agree partially that you are not your brain per se. In a sense you are your brain's state, rather than your brain itself. There's nothing in sense data to suggest that the brain is just a receptor for the mind which is - unlike everything else in the universe - a process without a substrate in which to process, and it also goes against all other known philosophical and scientific knowledge. Rather than the mind being something completely disconnected and seperate from the physical universe, it makes more sense to assume it's a process just like any other process in the physical universe. No need to invent a new category of existence. I am certain that cause and effect exists, and that all entities, including a brain, operate in this manner. Entities act in accordance with their nature. This leaves me seemingly with no choice but to concede that free will does not exist, but in actual fact I think this is the fallacy. It is clear that the nature of a mind is that it can make choices. It is also clear that the universe is deterministic. So I am left being a dumbfounded compatibilist. And I form no hypothesis to try to explain it. I think it's more of a question for neuroscientists than for philosophers. It strikes me as odd that one would try to 'figure it out' from one's armchair. It strikes me as like Aristotle's physics, completely unfounded. We may not even have the requisite knowledge about the brain and mind yet to begin to explain it. I think a proper definition of 'free' will and 'choice' is required to make sense of it too. Hypotheses non fingo

No, I don't accept that at all.. I said I'd consider another martial art, so what's the difference? In my view, Karate is rather useless and rigid. That's why I don't like karate. The idea that I don't like karate due to some psychological issues is way off. Karate is a very specific Japanese martial art. I don't like golf or soccer, but that's not a psychological issue. I'm not affraid of doing something different, but it'd have to be something I think warrants effort. I see no point in exerting effort for the sake of effort. My problem is that I don't even feel much like exerting much effort on things that I think are rationally worth doing. And telling someone, 'well if you don't get much pleasure from doing things, then just do things,' isn't much help. If I said, I don't like sport and I don't like karate, and I won't do anything physical or take up any hobby or take up any practice to help me, then you'd have reason to think I'm trying to get away with not having to do anything. I've been thinking about tennis, dancing or basketball. I'm very open to the idea I don't get enough physical activity. It is however true that I don't much like the way I am, and I'm aware now that I really do have quite low self esteem in some ways, and I've been thinking about it a lot lately. I will have a go at the sentence completion method.

Absolutely not. Absolutely not, and I hope I didn't sound that way. I hope everyone is clear I'm not out to prove the Brandens evil. I don't however consider it impossible that Barbara Branden felt some desire - perhaps unconcious - to get back at Rand. I wouldn't brand her immoral for that. I'm out to find if there's any other evidence, so that I can determine a modicum of truth about Ayn Rand. This is not about Barbara Branden. I realize now that given the history and context I was unaware of, that by bursting onto the scene and asserting roughly "I'm suspicious as hell" I was interpreted to have said "Barbara Branden was pure evil and I'm on a witch hunt" which is not what I meant at all. I found Diana Hsieh's treatment interesting but not condeming. So N. Branden believes in a few weird borderline mystical things, I don't think that's evil. And she failed to cite evidence for a different series of events.

Thank you, Michael, for sharing all this with me. I see many Objectivists and libertarians are interested in saving the world. I look at them stupified. I've never had any interest in it whatsoever. Before I found Objectivism, I was already for freemarket capitalism, but I still had no interest in going out and saving the world. I was just interested in understanding how the world worked. And I never thought it practical to convince everyone. I look at it very much from a third person view. I can't change the system and don't want to. I'll have to think about your post. I wonder often what I am doing with my life, where I want to go, who I want to be. I've never really held tightly onto any belief though. Maybe I have been without realizing it. Thanks for this insight I will keep you posted. Thank you for the care

How old are you? I'm 24 years old. What a coincedence. I have been listening to a three-hour audio version and so far I find it very insightful! I plan to borrow the book. I don't think I'm depressed, but unmotivated with little interest in exerting effort. I can't find much worth doing or achieving. I'd say I'm numb. I'll have a look! I used to do a martial art called Zendokai. I don't like Karate, but I would consider doing a martial art again. I'd probably go with Wing Chun because I know of a place in the city. I've also looked into Krav Maga which is not a martial art but Israeli military combat training. Do something physical and challenging. Complete a ten mile hike, or do some rock climbing. Ba'al Chatzaf If I can get the motivation... but yes I do think I need more exercise. I think it needs to be somtehing funner than runnign though. Every time I start running I get terribly bored with it. I have been brainstorming sports to try. I'm also thinking of things I always wanted to do as a child but was never able to do. No, I don't have a dog. Dogs do excude fun! That's a cool idea, but I don't think it'd fix my lack of motivation. And I made up my mind that I'll never own a pet. I don't want the work. I'll keep that as a last resort.

That's the way the ending of the book portrayed Ayn Rand. People have brought up the book's portrayal of an insensitive personality and unwaranted outbursts, but those are not the portrayals that made me suspicious or think she was irrational. I will have to make an explicit list of specific hyper-irrational things Ayn Rand was portrayed to do and say. "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand. I didn't say that's all the philosophy was. I am digging.

The book doesn't merely portray an offensive personality though. Several quotes and several reactions were so irrational, it is eery and strange. People keep telling me she was human, I know that. I never expected infalibility. And of course, whatever her personality and application of the philosophy, I know it takes nothing away from the philosophy itself. It is however demotivating if the creator of a philosophy of happiness on earth died miserable and irrational.

If she had a bit of a gratting personality, that'd be one thing, but she seemed to have given up on reality and happiness in the end. The Rand in the latter half of the book almost makes you wanna grab her and say 'here, read this book by Ayn Rand and get your act together.' Unless I completely misunderstand Objectivism, but as I said, I learned 70% straight from Peikoff and Rand. (But I never took sides bewteen ARI and AS). I'm certaintly not that rustled by depictions of a less than flattering personality. Failings of that kind don't bother me. Maybe I'm just thick skinned. Maybe once again, it's because I'm Australian, and some people will call you a c**t as a term of endearement. You are just making me like her more. This is now an Australian culture thread... lol.

You must have high standards for anger. I'd be delighted if that's all most people were like when they were angry. Though, maybe my childhood has set the bar high, I don't know.

Ah, my library has both Thanks for the recommendations. 'Goddess of the Market'. I like the sound of that.

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding. I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts. I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things. I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated. I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary. I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested. Call her "Ayn" if you want to. No big deal. If she were alive and you were to meet her, naturally you'd address her as "Miss Rand." In more formal writing than, say, here, "Rand" is the way to go. I use "Ayn" occasionally (I just did it!), "Ayn Rand" most often but now "Rand" more and more. --Brant I once called Nathaniel Branden "Nathan" to his face. It made me uncomfortable so it's been "Nathaniel" ever since. "Nathan" is for people who knew him when that was his name, generally speaking, with Jack Wheeler as the one exception I know of--I'm sure there are a few others; not me Maybe I'm an uncultured, backwards Australian, but I think I would have called her Ayn, since that's her name. 'G'day Ayn, please sign my bicep.' I think she might have gone for it. Maybe I'm a bit rough around the edges. How awkward, I may have been offending people my whole life. Now that I know it's going to stand out and rub people the wrong way, I'm going to probably just use 'Rand'. Caving to peer pressure Ha. You picked up on that. I suggested I was an uncultured Australian before I even read this. Even in some schools, we are told to call teachers by their first name. And yeah, I won't go slamming Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden. Anyway, I have really been enjoying Nathaniel's book.... (I wrote that and thought, oh man I did it again)... Nathaniel Branden's book 'Psychology of Self Esteem'. Thank you all for giving your views and directing me to reading material.

I honestly don't know how she could have been any calmer. The only time she showed a tinge of anger is when she said "I didn't come here to be judged."

I read that bewildered. What a misunderstanding. I'd like to know if it's true. That's all. I googled and found out there's this huge rift, and now I want to know the other accounts. I don't feel by calling someone by their first name that I am indicating I knew them personally. Maybe that's a strong convention that I'm unaware of. I haven't been given any good reason to not call someone I didn't know by their first name, but I suppose I will use the last name to avoid people getting the wrong impression. I just didn't want to type the full name and chose Ayn over Rand. Maybe that's because I think it's a pretty name. (Finnish is so pretty. Aina. Ayn.) However, I do tend to like reasons for not doing things. I'm confused. I think there was a misunderstanding. Please indicate where I took offense for Rand, and I'll retract it. I never felt offense, and how could I? Please indicate where I took anything personally. I don't see it. I ask meaning it sincerely. I must have miscommunicated. I'm a curious investigator. I see this goes way back, and now I really see the can of worms I'm unleashing on myself. If I seem passionate about it, I take it as a compliment. It wouldn't change my estimation of the philosophy. I don't feel threatened in the slightest either way. I just realize that I have no idea if what is in Passion of Ayn Rand is accurate or not so I want to see if there's any evidence for the contrary. I don't mean to step on any toes. I'm just interested.

Of course, whether she lost her mind towards the end of her life or not, her main ideas and novels stand untouched. I was aware Newton wasted the latter half of his life on chasing the mysticism of alchemy. No. I see nothing wrong with it. If you give me a rational reason why I shouldn't, then I won't. But I won't accept convention or a command. By convention, many people would refer to Albert Einstein as Einstein but not Albert, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Interesting. I guess I'll have to find more on the other side. I guess I will never know because I don't have access to any original documents, and I don't know who can be trusted.