Nerian

The people of America are getting what they want and what they deserve.

I'm actually shocked there is anyone here who believes in god let alone considers his existence even remotely possible. Interesting.

Objectivism does not judge morality on social concern. Its ethics is not a social utilitarian theory. I think that would be a pretty stark perversion of it. I must most vehemently disagree. Our actions stem from our beliefs. And one cannot consistently act virtuously, morally, without the right beliefs. Indeed, to act for bad reasons in the 'right way' would be immoral in itself. And that person would have no consistent way of knowing what is the 'right way' to act. Also, to judge morality based on actions and not on principles is to abdicate one's mind from making any judgement at all. In addition, Objectivist ethics is rational egoism. Being irrational will prevent one from ever achieving one's own happiness which is the very moral purpose of our lives according to Objectivism! To believe in god is to engage in an act of faith. Faith is completely against the very root of Objectivism. You implicitly disprove the validity of faith in the very first axiom 'existence exists'. Being a Christian would require you to disagree with and be in direct conflict with Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. It also seems your ethics is in contradiction with Objectivism, but you merely like some of its conclusions in so far as you consider them socially good. So if you disagree with Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, how can you call yourself an Objectivist? That's basically the whole philosophy! I only have very minor issues with fringe details of Objectivism, and I still do not feel comfortable calling myself an Objectivist.

I absolutely love it! I'll have to see this movie now! Satan +1000 points!

In terms of the temporal aspect of it, I suspect it comes in brief bursts of intensity and then fizzles down to a low background hum as you continue the process of life. I suspect the background happiness would mount the higher and higher you climb in life. I certainly did not mean that once you feel it, you can stop living, you've achieved life, you've won at life, now you can stop. haha. I am sure it happens during the whole process as well as after particular moments of triumph.

I have recently realized something about Rand's definition of happiness: Non-contradictory state of joy. I had not considered the importance of the word 'non-contradictory'. I think it is crucial here. It implies that one can feel a contradictory state of joy. Such a joy, is the feeling of psychological pleasure generated by the brain for reasons that are counter to man's life. These quotes clarify further, In other words, a man can experience the pleasure of the state of joy which is a state generated by the brain, but it is not this state of joy at which one is aiming. A rational man is aiming for an integrated state of joy that reflects the extent of the achievement of his values that serve his life. It is a non-contradictory state of joy. Joy is merely the ultimate psychological pleasure. The next quote, Rand is acknowledging here what I was suspecting. We are to make our emotions work for us, and be rewards for the achievement of our rational values. In this way, they serve as an intrinsic reward for correct action further motivating us to pursue such action. I believe I had been misunderstanding 'the pursuit of happiness' and I feel as though I've come to an epiphany on this point. What I must strive for is clearer now. The following is a part of my current thought processes on this: I have attempted to define joy in the full context of my knowledge. Joy: the final feeling of great psychological pleasure. / The intrinsically positive emotional state produced by the brain [as a reward]. Clearly it is not merely pumping up one's brain to get it to release the correct chemicals or fire the right pathways to give the reward that is the good. If that were so, drugs would be the answer. However, that is a contradictory state of joy or pleasure. It destroys one's life. An other example of contradictory joy is the Buddhist or monk who sits in one spot and through various methods generates the feelings of intense joy, and at the same time continues to remain living in poverty and filth, becoming starved and frail, developing pressure sores from prolonged sitting, achieving nothing, pursuing nothing, losing the very ultimate value that is his life. Let alone to mention that he earns no money to gain access to medicine and such. He feels joy, but he is not happy, and cannot achieve happiness in this way. The Buddhists seek to gain happiness through short circuiting the brain. In this way, I submit to you, the Buddhist is akin to a drug addict. Pumping his emotional state by natural means rather than through chemical means is his only goal while the facts of his life and survival are left abandoned. A monk who would do this is engaging in hedonism where the only moral pleasure is the state of joy. The logical result is self destruction. It is death by failure to recognize one's life as one's ultimate value. The Buddhist or monk does not embrace life, but accepts death in exchange for pleasure.

She comes from a religious family but they don't go to Church. Her family is close knit, it means the world to her. She lives for her family, practically. I was in foster care. My parents are split up after she and I ran away from her husband. We met when we were 8 and 9 at primary school. We had some childhood puppy love back then. I had to move away from that school because I was in foster care and often had to move. I don't know I guess my new found view changes have caused me to reconsider the dynamics of this relationship. My intention was to question the obligations of a relationship. I'm sorry it turned into me whining. First of all, I did use whining. Second, I was pretty sure you had that foster care background, I just wanted to confirm that. I am not surprised she is from a religious tight knit family. In terms of what I perceived as your double standard on men and women and sexual drives, have you considered what I posted? A... Sorry, I was responding to another poster about the whining. I should have used a quote to make that clear.

She comes from a religious family but they don't go to Church. Her family is close knit, it means the world to her. She lives for her family, practically. I was in foster care. My parents are split up after she and I ran away from her husband. We met when we were 8 and 9 at primary school. We had some childhood puppy love back then. I had to move away from that school because I was in foster care and often had to move. I don't know I guess my new found view changes have caused me to reconsider the dynamics of this relationship. My intention was to question the obligations of a relationship. I'm sorry it turned into me whining.

Apparently "acting in accordance with one's nature" is moral according to the Atlas Society. One of the main beefs I have is with Objectivism's view of sex.: "Sex, "[t]o a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence" (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 2). And for this man (or woman, mutatis mutandis), sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love, "his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire"" - http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral In all my readings of objectivism not once have I ever found any proof or reasoning for this claim. It is simply asserted as self evidently so. I think it is rationalism. At best, you can assert that since sex is so pleasurable, sex can be used in this way, and to do so would contribute to happiness. It doesn't follow that this is then the only proper use of sex.

No, nor do I, and therein lay some of my confusion. I think our rational values are all chosen. The question is: are there any 'values' that are in-built that are self destructive? And if so, how can we fight our own natures? If a rational value is in conflict with our in-built values how can we overcome this, or should we even try? I think Rand was trying to tell us that it was up to us to figure out how to use ourselves to for rational ends. It's not an option that orgasms feel good, but it's an option whether or not we have one, or who we have it with. It's not an option that chocolate tastes amazing, but it is an option whether we eat a kilogram of it or not. It's not an option whether we find someone physically attractive, but it is an option whether we date them or not. Where there truly is no choice, there is no morality. So it is only in our choices that we can be moral. Only question is: can we make choices like that and not go crazy? And it suggests something ominous. If you are gay, you cannot choose your attraction, but you can choose not to be with men if you think it's irrational and self destructive to do so as Rand suggested. Let's say only food that tastes bland or gross to you in good for you. How long can you go without eating pleasurable food and feeling like life is worth it? Hell, even Peikoff likes wine and cake. He said he'd rather have that than live an extra hundred years. How does Peikoff justify eating cake? It must be for the pleasure of it. It has calories, and very little nutrition, with a self destructive sugar content. In this case, he's advocating 'rational pleasure seeking' for the sake of pleasure seeking. Rand said to say you did something because you 'felt like it' was an evil. I might be missing the context she was speaking in. So what is right here? :

Not one bit. It's my mistake if I led you to believe I cared about how hot my girlfriend would be to other people. I care how hot she is to me. My current girlfriend is too skinny for a lot of men, but to me she is a perfect size, and utterly gorgeous. It makes no difference to me if the entire world said she wasn't. On the other hand, a woman could have all the greatest characteristics and personality in the world, it won't make me attracted her physically. My statement on women being parasites was harsh, and I retract it. I don't consider women to be parasites. I don't mean to suggest they are doing anything deliberately. They can't help that men respond. It was a flippant analogy for how I feel. Men and women seem to be at war with one another unable to find a mutual win-win. Men want fun, freedom, sex and life. Women don't seem to want any of that. Most relationships seem miserable to me. Two people become dependent on one another. Each person can't pursue their values. They become tied together in mutual self destruction.

Love seems to me to be evolution's way of making men do really dumb things for the survival of their genes. Women are like parasites, their venom is their looks, charm and promise of sex. They latch onto a man's brain and inject their venom rendering him a powerless slave to his 'love. They proceed to drain his life force until he is a shell. Love seems to me to be not winnable for a man. It seems so irrational. I have often wished I was asexual. If there were a pill or a treatment that could entirely rid me of my attraction to women, I have often thought I'd take it. I feel there are some double standards, but I don't think she has a rational enough mind to process them. I have always in the wrong no matter what. She says it bothers her when I can't see her because I waste time and then I can't see her. I guess that is valid. She said to me that she deliberately makes herself see me as better than she knows I really am. She doesn't realize that is most profoundly not good to me. She genuinely thought that was a nice thing to say to me.

Has anyone else noticed how Satan comes off as the good guy when you look at it from our perspective? Satan was actually originally an angel. He eventually wouldn't take orders from God. He stood independently against god's dictatorship and was cast out by god. He wanted Adam and Eve to have knowledge rather than stay ignorant. Christians are worshiping the wrong guy! haha. LaVey Satanism was apparently partly inspired by Objectivism. Makes sense. Yes... I'm watching ancient aliens S6E5 ... lol.

OK. I want to clarify. I agree that pleasure itself is not the standard of good. I reject hedonism. I simply don't see how simple pleasures for the sake of pleasures in a context where they are of no harm to you long term are not good. I do *not* want to conflate hedonism with pleasure. They are different, and I'm not asking why hedonism is bad. I'm asking why it then follows that pleasure for pleasures sake, considered rationally, long term, is a bad thing. I'm talking in the context of a purposeful, meaningful life as well. As a supplement, not the ultimate goal of life, as a way of enhancing life. The pleasure mechanism is a physical fact of man's nature. I'm not talking about serving the pleasure mechanism, I'm talking about having the pleasure mechanism serve you. Set it up so that pleasures serve your rational ends and keep you in good spirits. Does that make any sense? And then there's this quote! So... umm... edited: I do not want to conflate hedonism with pleasure

Not long ago, Diana Hsieh did a podcast where she essentially said you need to listen to your emotions to find out what you need to do. (Disclaimer: that could merely be my misunderstanding) In that case, I asked 'isn't that valuing what you happen to already value and isn't that whim worship?' - Someone replied that it was a good question. I didn't get an answer. Here are the ideas that make me wonder, "then what the hell is a rational value and how can I know? And what if they don't give me any pleasure at all!? What if I have to constantly fight myself not to do things that I merely like, and that don't hurt me long term!" So you can't just do what gives you pleasure. Pleasure isn't a rational value in itself? So if I go through my whole life and only have a few fleeting pleasures that happen to come to me while pursuing my survival that's fine? Won't that make life feel not worth living? Isn't pleasure something necessary for a healthy psyche? lol. Isn't that in man's nature? Thus isn't pleasure a rational value since without a healthy psyche I'm not going to do well at survival and flourishing?

So an alcoholic values alcohol, but that is self destructive to his flourishing. So it's not values per se that are good, it's a value that serves your life. So which values actually do serve life? How do things like music or movies serve life in the survival sense? I have had trouble with the distinction life qua man. Apparently, Rand didn't mean survival, she meant flourishing totally as a man. But how is listening to music or watching a movie helping that? I can think of one way. It might serve to give life more pleasures and thus make it easier to get on with your work. If you never had any pleasures, you would probably not be very productive. You would be living a life of drudgery. I know when I don't feel like I'm getting any pleasure from life, I become defeated, even if I'm achieving in my studies. But then, isn't that just a rational form of hedonism? Do what feels good, that has few consequences, in moderation, that doesn't harm anyone else, as much as you can get away with it long term. Rational hedonism. Sounds fun.

I guess this question is too open ended. What can you do to determine if a value is actually a value?

What are some examples of concrete values? I'm trying to brainstorm some to tie the concept back to reality.

I would love David Harriman to do a book or course on everything after classical physics, starting with Einstein and moving on to quantum physics and showing what can actually be proved, the experiments, and where they went wrong in their theory. It would be illuminating! I study science at uni and it can be frustrating at times the rationalistic approach to teaching us. You are given information wholesale presented to you devoid of its tie to nature. It is given without any context. You don't know how the information is important, you don't know any of the concretes that led to the concept, you don't know how the concept was induced, you don't know which questions led to the discoveries, you don't know which questions are important. As a result, the information is a rationalistic system that seems to magically work in nature. The tie to reality is severed, and real understanding rendered impossible. You don't know how to think about it, because you have no context in which to think about it, terms are floating abstractions, and principles are religious commandments. But trust us, it's science. Even if the material is true, the student has no reason to believe it. The student cannot see why it's true. They have nothing but floating abstractions in their mind, rules to follow and memorized facts. Plus, they tell us that you can't prove anything. That's real inspiring.

Very relevant. It might be at the root of a lot of our problems. Actually, I think she's much more mystical minded than I originally thought, and that that is the reason for many of the tensions between us. I thought she was mostly rational with a few side beliefs that were mystical. But it seems mystical beliefs infect your whole life. Anyway, if she 'gives in', then that is very lame sex. She tells me often that she does want it very much. She told me that she has cried because she can't do it. I can't do it with her now anyway, because it will lock me into staying with her forever. She would probably only do it on the promise that I will never leave her. Since I can't lie, I can't say that. She needs me to constantly tell her I'll never leave her and that we will always be together. More and more, I'm wondering if I am being honest about that, or if I can ever know such a thing. She told me the other day that she deliberately makes herself see me as better than I really am in her mind for my sake. She doesn't realize it, but that statement was excruciating. She does this with many things, she forces herself to see things the way she wants to. She lies to herself. Her capacity for self delusion is impressive. More or less.

I suggested we go to a psychologist together. She was distraught. Eventually she said it was a good idea if I went. I went to one and they thought I seemed like a pretty healthy minded person and didn't think I needed to come back. They even sympathized with the difficulty I have not having sex. haha. And all I have felt in the past is like a bad boyfriend for wanting it. I've started to hate my sexuality. She told me she has to do it with me now because if not I'll leave her. I tell her she can do whatever she likes I'm not forcing her. And now I don't even want to because it grosses me out to think she'd be sacrificing to do it with me. Eeeesh. Gross.

Really? I don't know if it's abusive. I was talking to a long time friend about some stuff and he eventually said, "get out now." Damn

Peter, It's probably a good thing Peikoff doesn't think it's worth mentioning. That keeps him from stepping in it. Here is just a small tidbit of what's out there that makes this kind of attitude foolish. Have you ever heard of a guy named Richard Davidson? He's a world-renowned neuroscientist and pioneer of neuroplasticity studies. (Neuroplasticity is where the mind physically rewires the brain only by thinking.) He is a follower of the Dalai Lama. Rather than tell you what his ideas and findings are, I'll let him speak for himself. Here is his Google Talk from 2009. I know this video is a little over an hour, but if you are swimming in the mental waters I think you are, this will be one of the most fascinating hours you will spend in recent memory. btw - Davidson only starts talking about the Dalai Lama at around 10:45 or so. You asked about self-help material in another thread. Believe me, I have a crapload to say about self-help. But going one step at a time will save you a lot of time, effort and frustration. Getting familiar with Davidson is a very good start on building a solid foundation. As you approach the self-help literature from there, you will have science, reason and logic on your side as a filter so you don't go woo-woo, but you also don't fall into the wrongheaded traditional dismissals in O-Land like Peikoff did with Eastern philosophies. I'm not suggesting you replace Objectivism as a frame with this. Objectivism is a very good frame for thinking. I am suggesting you add mindfulness, contemplative neuroplasticity, etc., to that frame--and that you look at everything, including Eastern philosophies--to enrich your thinking and counteract some of the excesses of the bluster that pops up with Rand, Peikoff and others. But it's your mind. Look into this or not. Your choice. You are the custodian of you. Michael I would say I am very much in line with this kind of thinking. As I've stated before, I'm interested in good ideas only. I'll definitely be watching that video at some stage. Haven't heard of him, but I've heard of brain plasticity. I was once very intrigued by the brain, but I never looked much into plasticity. I'm not completely unfamiliar with other ideas, but as you say, I always take the good things, and reject the woo-woo.

Oh I'm sorry about that. I cut it short so that people would bother reading and answering to the main point. When I have time later I might expand on my current relationship. Thank you for your input and taking the time to read the longer version. It is invaluable to me. This is what I have thought. Her crying appears to me to be a way to get out of anything and stop the discussion. It feels more and more like emotional bullying or blackmail as you describe it. I feel like my life is at the whim of her emotions. Emotions come first, then actual content. Wow. Thank you for that. I have felt like a crazy person. I told her something along these lines. Initially when we started dating I would not feel sorry and I would not apologize for 'making her feel sad' if I did not think I did anything wrong by her. She told me that that is very immature, and that you should be sorry for hurting someone you love even if you don't think you did anything wrong. I resisted for a while but eventually gave in to keep the peace. Now I'm always tip toeing around trying not to hurt her feelings. What you said makes the most sense! That is a good line, I will use it. It's true too. I don't like seeing her upset, but I'm not sorry for her feelings. I have in the past apologized sincerely when I actually think I've done something wrong. Before dating her, I thought I was a good person, now I have been suspecting I'm horrible. Her parents have said she should be with someone who doesn't make her cry. I am starting to think that's true. She is however my childhood sweetie and so it will be incredibly hard to let go. She's also really hot. (which matters less and less to me but is still hard to give up) However, we don't have sex so it's not a loss of that level of intimacy. (No sex before marriage) "She is, presumably, a grown woman, or at the very least, a grown-woman-in-training." Yes, she's 25 with a full time career. "If you cannot, it's back on her to decide whether or not she still wants to be your girlfriend." I actually told her something like this once. I said I don't know how to change for her and I don't think I can or would want to. So it's up to her what she wants to do. And she was crazy upset that I was threatening to leave her and making her choose between being with me or not and that i mustn't want to be with her or love her if I could say that. "Look, if she's simply sad that the two of you don't have as much time together as you'd both like, then that's okay." Yes, I could work through that. She does let me have time off sometimes, but I have to grovel for it. But I cannot have permenant time off. I have to see her three times a week. I suggested once during the week and Saturday, but she was crying, etc. I tell her, ideally I'd see her if I had the time, but right now at this stage in my life I have to do my uni work, and I want to do well at it. She cannot accept that. She also made me say that I matter more than uni work. I felt uncomfortable saying that as my uni work is my productive work and what I'm doing for me. If I put her above that, then I'm putting her above my own life it seems. "On the other hand, if she's being manipulative and setting the expectation that you are responsible for her emotional well-being, then you ought not give in to tha" She has told me that her whole life has become about me now. This made me uncomfortable. She said that if we broke up she would likely not ever be happy and would probably not go to work and lose her job. She says that her family and me make her happy. That also made me uncomfortable. She should be making herself happy. She thinks a relationship is where you live for each other only, and that you just make each other happy. But as I have realized recently, you can't make someone happy, you have a relationship that is an enhancer to your life and happiness, not the root of it. That is dependency. And that is what this feels like. A dependency. And I have even let myself do that to some extent. And I hate it. I will have to turn things around, let her know kindly what it is I need, not back down on my own views, and see if she wants to stay. But the last time I did that we very nearly did break up because I would not back down on my principles, and she even said that when I start being "principled" things go wrong and she hates it lol. That shocked me a bit. I ended up at her place where she lives with her parents, and I felt too uncomfortable to continue the conversation with her parents there so I couldn't resolve it properly. In the end I get exhausted and just give in. That leaves me feeling defeated. Naturally I'm scared of leaving her now. I feel like I'd be ruining her life, and I don't want to deal with her dropping to the floor and crying in public. I'd worry for her safety and not know what to do in that situation. The one time we have come close to breaking up, she literally cried all day. I don't want to make her do that. But I guess as you said I need to realize (as I once did) that's not my responsibility and not my fault. Writing this out explicitly makes me realize how ridiculous this is. Wow. But she always makes me think I'm in the wrong and I'm just a bad person. She's actually highly intelligent and good at arguing such that I don't know how to respond. Also, she goes into such long speeches I get exhausted and give up. One time I started crying on the phone as I asked her if I was allowed to leave because I felt so defeated and so sleepy and like she would not let me go to sleep lol.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/language.html As a long time language enthusiast, this is a really fantastic quote to stumble upon. I have even felt guilty at times for wanting to learn other languages, and have wondered why I would even bother. I have always said that my English became stronger after I learned French. I knew Ayn spoke three languages which was cool enough to find out. I didn't know she thought anything of it though. In addition, I'm extremely impressed with her complete mastery of English. She did not not make any mistakes, I mean any. She retains an accent, but structurally, grammatically, lexically, she mastered English. A grand feat all in its own right! I have listened to a lot of her speeches and interviews, and have never heard anything 'foreign' about her English other than her accent. The fact she wrote Atlas Shrugged in a language that is foreign to her - learned after the age of 20! - is actually quite an incredible achievement in itself! It would have been great if she'd given some information about how she learned English so well. I must chortle at 'Western language'. It seems Eastern languages are considered inferior. I would suggest that Japanese has a beautifully logical structure. (I suspect other languages which are similar do too like Korean.)