Believing vs thinking. Why greatness has been ignored. *UPDATED*

[MrBenjamatic]

For what? If you think what I've just said is illogical, which particular premises of mine contradict? Truth never contradicts truth. "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" (Rand). Since I have not found my premises to contradict I can say that I hold the law of causality to be held as an absolute by each of my premises. A contradiction requires, in order to be held as truth, that a thing sot be itself. For example: 1+1=5 is a contradiction. In order for that to work 1 would have to be 4 and not 1 or 5 would have to be 2 and not 5. So long as ones premises don't contradict, one can say that one has held the law of causality to be an absolute. The law of causality being, of course, that a thing is itself. Does this make sense?

[PDS]

The good is that which sustains your existence and gains and keeps your values: virtue. Cigarettes are unhealthy and may cause cancer. I agree that, thereby, smoking cigarettes does not sustain one's existence. The purpose of my Benjamatic pursuit (my life purpose) is to create the means to please my senses. Producing lavender and peach, bergamot and other flavors of cigarettes pleases my senses. The only reason my pursuit of creating cigarettes Benjamatic is not virtuous is the fact that cigarettes are harmful to my health. There are degrees of evil; I now hold that smoking cigarettes is evil, but only to a small degree. Yes, it is, to a very small degree, evil for me to smoke cigarettes with full knowledge that I might get cancer from smoking. Yes, it is, to an utterly small degree, evil for me to eat a lot of sugar and sweets with full knowledge that doing so is harmful to my health. My virtue far outweighs my vice and those are my two vices that I permit myself; they are so trivial that my happiness (which comes from my virtue) is polluted to such a small degree that I don't notice the emotional consequences. I will admit that I have changed my premise that cigarette smoking is not evil to the premise that cigarette smoking is evil to a very small degree.

PDS: I will tell you what I told my parents when they said I'd have no choice but to be on welfare were it not for them: I'd rather die than rob others and violate their rights. Just as I'd chose death over welfare so I'd chose cancer and death over using a government gun to force others to pay for my surgery.

I thought I'd ask what causes your slight animosity towards the concept of lavender, peach and bergamot cigarettes? It seems you disprove and I'm curious as to why.

Reidy: I know I'm logical. I hold that a every thing is itself, that contradictions don't exist (which is a corollary of the either-or law of logic which I also hold as an absolute). Whenever I reach a contradiction, I identify my mistake to correct it then all the hierarchical thinking polluted by the false premise(s). Knowledge is hierarchical. This discussion is a perfect example of that (believing versus thinking). I discussed reason in my case and it was you who corrected my that reason is the ABILITY to identify and integrate sensory evidence; I used to hold that thinking and reason were the same as I must have misread the Ayn Rand Lexicon a long while back. I corrected my case and I thought about it all day and corrected my premises as I know I have to be right in order to survive and achieve My Benjamin.

Those who know me have long understood that I have an animus toward peach and lavender cigarretres, albeit less so for bergamot. Don't take it personal.

[Brant Gaede]

Smoking also causes emphysema and heart disase.

--Brant

[Xray]

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health."

[MrBenjamatic]

The good is that which sustains your existence and gains and keeps your values: virtue. Cigarettes are unhealthy and may cause cancer. I agree that, thereby, smoking cigarettes does not sustain one's existence. The purpose of my Benjamatic pursuit (my life purpose) is to create the means to please my senses. Producing lavender and peach, bergamot and other flavors of cigarettes pleases my senses. The only reason my pursuit of creating cigarettes Benjamatic is not virtuous is the fact that cigarettes are harmful to my health. There are degrees of evil; I now hold that smoking cigarettes is evil, but only to a small degree. Yes, it is, to a very small degree, evil for me to smoke cigarettes with full knowledge that I might get cancer from smoking. Yes, it is, to an utterly small degree, evil for me to eat a lot of sugar and sweets with full knowledge that doing so is harmful to my health. My virtue far outweighs my vice and those are my two vices that I permit myself; they are so trivial that my happiness (which comes from my virtue) is polluted to such a small degree that I don't notice the emotional consequences. I will admit that I have changed my premise that cigarette smoking is not evil to the premise that cigarette smoking is evil to a very small degree.

PDS: I will tell you what I told my parents when they said I'd have no choice but to be on welfare were it not for them: I'd rather die than rob others and violate their rights. Just as I'd chose death over welfare so I'd chose cancer and death over using a government gun to force others to pay for my surgery.

I thought I'd ask what causes your slight animosity towards the concept of lavender, peach and bergamot cigarettes? It seems you disprove and I'm curious as to why.

Reidy: I know I'm logical. I hold that a every thing is itself, that contradictions don't exist (which is a corollary of the either-or law of logic which I also hold as an absolute). Whenever I reach a contradiction, I identify my mistake to correct it then all the hierarchical thinking polluted by the false premise(s). Knowledge is hierarchical. This discussion is a perfect example of that (believing versus thinking). I discussed reason in my case and it was you who corrected my that reason is the ABILITY to identify and integrate sensory evidence; I used to hold that thinking and reason were the same as I must have misread the Ayn Rand Lexicon a long while back. I corrected my case and I thought about it all day and corrected my premises as I know I have to be right in order to survive and achieve My Benjamin.

Those who know me have long understood that I have an animus toward peach and lavender cigarretres, albeit less so for bergamot. Don't take it personal.

Do you know who makes them? I've been looking for them and couldn't find them which is why I wanted to make them myself. If you know who made the lavender and peach cigarrettes, please let me know!

[MrBenjamatic]

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health."

They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

[caroljane]

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health."

They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter?

As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes.

[MrBenjamatic]

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health."

They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter?

As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes.

Being logical merely consists of accepting the law of causality (a thing is itself) as an absolute; and the law of causality is a corollary of the laws of logic: a thing is itself, contradictions cannot exist, either-or. See my earlier post to see how all contradictions, in order to be contradictions, always require that a thing not be itself (which IS the contradiction). I am logical as I accept the law of causality and the laws of logic as absolutes. I do not evade that a cigarrette is itself, that its contents are harmful to my health and that the consequences of smoking (cancer, heart problems, etc) are what they are. I am logical in chosing death when my only alternative is welfare, not because of my choice, but because I recognize that death is death (and all that it presupposes) and welfare is welfare (and all that it presupposes: violating others rights by robbery with a government gun). Does this make sense? Someone please correct me if logic consists of being moral (chosing that which respects others rights and sustains my life and gains and keeps my values). Please tell me who said it and their explanation of why, and how that why is a continuation of the definition of logic: the art of non-contradictory identification.

[caroljane]

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health."

They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter?

As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes.

Being logical merely consists of accepting the law of causality (a thing is itself) as an absolute; and the law of causality is a corollary of the laws of logic: a thing is itself, contradictions cannot exist, either-or. See my earlier post to see how all contradictions, in order to be contradictions, always require that a thing not be itself (which IS the contradiction). I am logical as I accept the law of causality and the laws of logic as absolutes. I do not evade that a cigarrette is itself, that its contents are harmful to my health and that the consequences of smoking (cancer, heart problems, etc) are what they are. I am logical in chosing death when my only alternative is welfare, not because of my choice, but because I recognize that death is death (and all that it presupposes) and welfare is welfare (and all that it presupposes: violating others rights by robbery with a government gun). Does this make sense? S

No.

[MrBenjamatic]

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health."

They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter?

As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes.

Being logical merely consists of accepting the law of causality (a thing is itself) as an absolute; and the law of causality is a corollary of the laws of logic: a thing is itself, contradictions cannot exist, either-or. See my earlier post to see how all contradictions, in order to be contradictions, always require that a thing not be itself (which IS the contradiction). I am logical as I accept the law of causality and the laws of logic as absolutes. I do not evade that a cigarrette is itself, that its contents are harmful to my health and that the consequences of smoking (cancer, heart problems, etc) are what they are. I am logical in chosing death when my only alternative is welfare, not because of my choice, but because I recognize that death is death (and all that it presupposes) and welfare is welfare (and all that it presupposes: violating others rights by robbery with a government gun). Does this make sense? S

No.

Which particular section of my post confuses you?

The point I was trying to make was that I don't evade that every thing is itself. I do not deny the immorality, the small sliver of immorality that is smoking; immoral as it is harmful to my health, but, I do not deny that I know exactly what I'm doing.

[caroljane]

I believe that you know what you are doing.

[Xray]

What would you define as objective

Definition of objective: http://www.thefreedi...y.com/objective

ob·jec·tive adj.

1. Of or having to do with a material object.

2. Having actual existence or reality.

3.

a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.

b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical?

It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

Objective pertains ot the realm of facts, to the empirical. Whereas one can draw 'logical' conclusions based premises that are (objectively) false.

For example, if you happened to go by the premise that the earth is flat and immovable, it would be 'logical' for you to infer that the sun moves in a half-circle above the earth's flat surface. But this 'logical' inference would not be grounded in objective fact.

So it is the premises that are the key ("Check your premises"). If a premise turns out to be false, it cannot provide the basis for a valid and sound argument.

[basimpson22]

This is short lecture from Daniel Pink on the Science of Motivation. Although Pink doesn't directly credit Ayn Rand, her philosophy is very apparent in his presentation. For a quick proof go to 12:38.

Also, I can't get over how much he looks like, Andy, from the t.v. series, Weeds.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Aristocrates,

 

You might enjoy this as an addition to your post:

 

 

Daniel Pink is cool.

 

I like to wed his trifecta (autonomy, mastery and purpose) to other things in modern neuroscience and psychology.

 

Pink's stuff works really well with David Rock's stuff, although I'm not sure if they have ever done anything together. Rock, after interviewing a boat-load of neuroscientists and psychologists (of the Dan Ariely kind and better), came up with a model he calls SCARF (standing, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness). These are five areas that the unconscious part of the brain automatically scans for, keeps an eye on and judges in any action and/or interaction a person does. According to Rock's findings, this scanning and judging is constant.

 

There is one point that sounds a bit off to me with Pink. He hammers home so hard the point that money for employees is not the best incentive, it's pretty easy to see how he became popular with business and government leaders. Now they have a "scientific" reason to pay less to people.

 

I sometimes get the impression that Pink does this on purpose to keep his own bread buttered by the people in charge of things. And that makes me uncomfortable.

 

But, like you noticed, on an idea-level, Pink promotes a crossover with Rand, especially when he starts talking about competence. I get the impression his audience generally leans left (but I might be mistaken). At any rate, spreading the ideas he is spreading--to left, right and center--is a very good thing.

 

Now, if only he would get off that pay 'em less money thing...

 

Michael