• A true measure of intelligence is money
    ↪Occidendum


    Just out of curiosity, if acquiring money is your goal in life how exactly are you training yourself to achieve it? Philosophizing doesn’t seem like a good activity to train for this goal.
  • Is Objectivism a good or bad philosophy? Why?
    ↪AppLeo
    It might be interesting to hear your explanation.
  • Is Objectivism a good or bad philosophy? Why?
    ↪AppLeo
    Oh that's right, Randian's don't believe in intuition.
  • Is Objectivism a good or bad philosophy? Why?
    It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not a product is harming the buyer. — AppLeo

    Rather, it's a matter of moral intuition first and then may be a matter of opinion or rationalization. For example, it would be a typical human intuition that selling organic vegetables is more morally 'good' than selling cigarets. Provided that we know about the unhealthy effects of smoking, we should have an intuitive sense that selling them generally does harm to some degree. We might reason that in this case personal liberty or the liberty to buy and sell cigarets is more important than the harmful effects, but the intuition is still experienced regardless of whatever moral reasoning is employed.

    The buyer determines the values in his life.

    Perhaps to some extent but not completely. Our values are strongly shaped by our upbringing and the culture we live in.

    Nobody else does and nobody should. To say otherwise would mean that a the man isn’t free to make his own choices.

    In the case of cigarets, we may be heavily influenced by our peers to smoke and also by advertising. Cigarets are addicting and by inhaling second hand smoke we might be more inclined to be influenced by a physical compulsion.

    Point is that we don't make choices by pure reason.

    That he must answer to another man to make his own choices. This is immoral because the man is not free to live life as he wants.

    No one is free to live anyway that they want, at least not if they want to live in society. Morals are for living in society.

    She considers traders to be the most moral because they recognize and respect one another as responsible, independent individuals with their own personal values.

    To the extent that a trader may recognize, respect, and be responsible towards other traders they must have shared values.

    Since traders understand this concept, they trade values with one another and thus increase the quality of everybody’s life as a whole. Consider the opposite, where people don’t deal with one another as traders, but as masters and slaves.

    You're skipping over other possible ways to organize a cooperative society. It's possible to give freely without a return on investment. Indeed that would be an expression of true freedom.

    As an Objectivist, I would say that one must hold rationality as his absolute while pursuing his self-interest. You should not buy things on your whims or desires, only if it’s rational. But we cannot force people to be rational. They have to decide to be rational on their own. Those that are most rational in their choices will be the most prosperous.

    You said yourself in a different topic that people are not rational. In any case, is being materially prosperous the best way to live? The evidence suggests that materialism leads to a shallow, meaningless, and not particularly happy life.

    Libertarians contain a very large range of people, so labeling Ayn Rand as libertarian hardly gives clarity to her position. Ayn Rand is a libertarian...

    What? of course it does. If we know someones moral values we can reasonably predict the position they'll take on policy decisions, etc.

    ... but she only agrees with libertarians on one thing and that is liberty should trump authority.

    No, as a libertarian she would also value individual liberty over care (unconcerned with selling cigarets, drugs, etc., as we discussed), and other less 'rational' aspects of morality like loyalty and sanctity.

    There are plenty of libertarian conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, socialists, capitalists, etc…

    I don't know what you're trying to say here. It's as though you don't understand what distinguishes these positions.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    It'll be interesting to see what kind of spin conservative pundits will put on Trump caving in the shutdown today.
  • Is Objectivism a good or bad philosophy? Why?
    Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products?
    — praxis

    She would say that it is perfectly moral and good for creating a product and selling it. The creator of the product is rewarded for his efforts, and the buyers are happy because they payed for something that they wanted.     — AppLeo

    Not sure that I get the difference here between a salesperson who sells products that harm buyers and a salesperson who cheats buyers. In both cases the buyer is being taken advantage of and harmed in some way, though in the case of cheating the buyer is only taking a financial hit.

    The moral model appears to be libertarian, valuing personal liberty above all other moral dimensions (including harm/care). I assume Rand was libertarian?
  • Is Objectivism a good or bad philosophy? Why?
    A salesman that rips people off isn't really a trader. Certainly not the trader that Ayn Rand held as moral. Salesman in general are good people though. They are selling people stuff that they want. That is a good thing. — AppLeo

    Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products?
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    But take the crows that figure things out that are of interest to crows--like fishing a grub floating on water in a tube, but below the level the crow can reach with it's beak... The crow, in this situation, picked up pebbles and dropped them into the tube--raising the water level until the grub was close enough to grab. — Bitter Crank

    It would be easy to train them to do that. We have a few parrots and I could probably train them to do that. Do we know for sure that they were not trained?
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    As for animals reasoning, we have observed birds and mammals both doing problem solving. Crows are not reading Aristotle, but they have problems and they solve them--sometimes. We don't always solve our problems either, and we are reading Aristotle. — Bitter Crank

    I haven't explored the concept of 'reasoning' much and what that might be exactly, but it must have to do with the ability to form high level concepts and mentally manipulate (simulation?) them. This would seem to require language or language level symbolism of some kind. Not sure if other species of mammals have this capacity.

    Of course other mammals can learn and solve problems, and they do it in essentially the same way that we do.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    1548263435077-GettyImages-1096688500.jpeg?crop=0.9997037037037038xw%3A1xh%3Bcenter%2Ccenter&resize=2000%3A*

    Tell a lie & I will sigh
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    ↪S
    I dare say that AppLeo's penchant for oversimplification is rubbing-off on you, and it ain't a good look.

    I read a statistic the other day that one in six people living today are starving to death. That's messed-up, right? I doubt those one in six could give a fuck about reason or mysticism. A ham sandwich would make them happy. But once their basic needs are met, other needs could rise to the surface, such as the need for meaning. Not just any meaning but big all caps MEANING. Picture in your mind the iconic vision of that sissy guy rolling a rock up a hill, if you will.

    Now at this point I could start dropping Vicktor Frankl quotes, but I'm not gonna do that. I have too much respect for your intellect.

    What I will do is simply point out that religion has developed to help bind groups via shared values, goals, etc, and that this is theoretically a successful survival strategy in terms of evolutionary psychology. Cooperative groups are positioned to be more successful or functional than uncooperative groups. There is ample historical evidence to agree with TheMadFool when he suggest (I'm assuming, I didn't read the OP) that this can turn poisonous. Systems of meaning that are based in ultimate authorities are prone to corruption. Power corrupts.

    My position is that systems of meaning, or rather, the components of meaning can be developed outside of a religious framework. AppLeo would toss the baby with the bathwater and be left with a God shaped hole in his heart. :razz: I suggest that we keep the baby. Babies make people happy. Well, they do for most people anyway. I don't want one.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    You don't have to see eye to on this, you know? — S

    I'm now sure that we can't, assuming that AppLeo is being sincere, and that's okay. :blush:

    Now where did I put that copy of The Virtue of Selfishness...
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    ↪AppLeo


    I explicitly said that I wasn’t talking about religious faith necessary.

    It is pointless to continue. I suggest, if it interests you, to study what religion is: how and why it may have developed and the role it plays in society. Then perhaps you’ll be able to untangle concepts like faith and mysticism from religion.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    ↪AppLeo


    Personally, I would consider that a delusion and put no more thought into it.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    I think it's intellectually lazy and destructive to claim a truth that you have no evidence for. — AppLeo

    You’ve just claimed that mysticism can’t be experiential. Do you have evidence of this or are you being intellectually lazy?

    There are countless examples of people reporting mystical experiences. I doubt any of these will be convincing for you. I also doubt any authority on the subject would convince you. You think it might help if I tried to explain it neurologically? Deactivation of the default mode network apparently coincides with mystical experiences. There are numerous scientific studies on this, if you care to look up more information about it (and not be intellectually lazy).
  • With luck, the last thread on abortion.
    ↪tim wood


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Faith in terms of accepting truths without evidence is bad. — AppLeo

    Oh please, you know what a ridiculous thing this is to say. We can't verify every truth claim we encounter everyday.

    They [mysticism and faith] are the same in the sense that they both accept truth without evidence. — AppLeo

    Mysticism can be experiential. Apparently you don't believe me when I make this claim. Being a person who claims to believe that accepting a truth without evidence is bad, I assume you will try to verify my claim before deciding which of us is right.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    People shouldn't place their happiness on something outside of themselves in the first place. — AppLeo

    Mysticism isn't effective in relieving existential anxiety unless it's experienced to some degree.

    To be faithful is to undermine the value and judgment of your own mind. — AppLeo

    So being faithful to your spouse, for instance, which may have nothing to do with religion, is undermining your minds value and judgment? Faith has an aspect of loyalty.

    How does faith, accepting something as truth without evidence lead to happiness or relieve anxiety? — AppLeo

    Mysticism and faith are not synonymous, you're conflating the two. Also, mysticism is experiential and may not need to be taken on faith. As for faith, I've alluded to its social qualities, without which it's difficult to imagine happiness or fulfillment, for me anyway. And I'm not talking about religious faith necessarily.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    ↪AppLeo


    To try and clarify things a bit, animals are generally thought to be pre-rational. As you've mentioned humans are generally thought to be rational. Crazy folk are irrational. And mysticism is trans-rational.

    Again, the value of mysticism is that it can relieve existential anxiety. This is important to a happy and fulfilled life, although most don't realize it, I believe.

    Can you not also see the value of faith (not necessarily religious)? Are you faithful to nothing or no one? It's difficult to imagine anyone living a happy or fulfilling life without faith in anyone or anything. It would be very isolated, purposeless, and empty.
  • Wisdom
    I have all of the right answers. What could be wiser than that? Well, besides not just having all of the right answers, but acting on them wisely. — S

    If you had all the right answers then you'd know what to do in every situation, necessarily appearing to be wise. Perhaps your narcissism prevents you from doing what you know to be right? But you must know that you're a narcissist, and you know how to overcome your narcissism, because you know all the right answers. Oh, I get it. It's wise to be a narcissist.
  • With luck, the last thread on abortion.
    What about evidence of the negative effects on society (increased crime) of making abortion illegal?
    — praxis
    Legal argument, ethical argument, pragmatic argument. Not altogether dismissible, or is it? Driving too fast, speeding, is a crime of sorts: from that would you argue that speed limits should be abolished?     — tim wood

    If doing so significantly lowered the crime rate in about 15 years?

    Is this a trick question? :grimace:
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    You're wrong on both counts, all mammals navigate through life with the same fundamental framework. 'Knowing' something essentially means being able to make predictions about that something and all mammals have this basic capacity. Humans can make more predictions about the world and more sophisticated predictions than other species.
    — praxis

    Humans can think way bigger and deeper than any animal.     — AppLeo

    Which is another way of saying that we can make more predictions and more sophisticated predictions about the world or 'reality'. Nevertheless, other mammals can learn and make predictions about the world or reality, and they fundamentally do it in the same way that we do.

    This line of discussion started with your claim that "reason is our only means to knowing reality." I suggest that a better way of saying this is that with language people have the ability to share information or mental representations and in this way we may 'know reality' in a way that other mammals cannot, in addition to our own experience.

    We're apparently able to form more complex concepts and mental simulations than other mammals, and this relates to 'knowing reality' in terms of making predictions and 'navigating through life', but all concepts are formed from experience.

    Mysticism is based in experience. Though with the capacity of human reason people can fool other people into believing things that are not based in their personal experience in order to manipulate others.

    The essential value of mystical experience is that it may relieve existential anxiety. An anxiety unique to human beings and their capacity for form concepts like death, self, etc.

    Yeah, people are irrational. — AppLeo

    Earlier you claimed that "Humans navigate with reason." How can humans navigate with reason if they are irrational?

    why do think I keep advocating for reason over faith and mysticism? — AppLeo

    Because you have a simplistic understanding of faith and mysticism, quite frankly, and you overvalue reason.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Animals can only know reality through observation. They navigate through life with their instinct.

    Humans navigate with reason.     — AppLeo

    You're wrong on both counts, all mammals navigate through life with the same fundamental framework. 'Knowing' something essentially means being able to make predictions about that something and all mammals have this basic capacity. Humans can make more predictions about the world and more sophisticated predictions than other species.

    Maybe you mean to say that other species don't have language and can't pass on things they've learned to their fellows, when you say that "Animals can only know reality through observation."

    As for humans navigating the world with reason, do I really need to point out how irrational people are???
  • With luck, the last thread on abortion.
    What if any are grounds for controlling as to whether or when or under what circumstances she may proceed? The grounds may be law or ethics. — tim wood

    What about evidence of the negative effects on society (increased crime) of making abortion illegal?
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Mysticism is the antithesis to reason. — AppLeo

    That I can agree with.

    Reason is our only means to knowing reality. — AppLeo

    So all other species (lacking our capacity to reason) that we know of do not know reality?

    If this is what you actually believe, can you explain this belief? Other species appear to know reality.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    I'm saying that to value life and to use reason is to be objective. — AppLeo

    :brow:

    That is what mysticism is. — AppLeo

    Mysticism: belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Because life is good if you want to live. That's just a fact. How do you live life if you don't your life? And why would anyone not want to value their life? Makes no sense. — AppLeo

    It's also a fact that people value things that are not normally considered "good." For example, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, so they must be valued in some way, but few people would say they are good things. Less dramatically, people who smoke, drink, and have a poor diet typically value their lives, yet they continue to consume these things regardless of how they negatively impact their health.

    Also, it makes perfect sense that someone might strive to lessen the value they put on their life because it might reduce existential anxiety.

    Mysticism is objectively bad because it's the acceptance of something as truth without evidence or proof. — AppLeo

    That's not what mysticism is. Please consult a dictionary.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Mysticism and death is bad. I don't understand how they are good things. They are objectively bad. — AppLeo

    Can you explain how they are objectively bad? Of course I generally know what you mean by saying that "death is bad" and I agree on an emotional level, but I don't know how you can claim this is true on an objective level.

    Mysticism is good, btw, because it may help us to see beyond the duality of good/bad or life/death and in so doing relieve the anxieties these dualities may produce in us.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Historically speaking, religion can be seen to be the most effective cause of human unity. — Reverie of Renaissance

    It may be accurate to say, for instance, that Christianity is the most effective cause of Christian unity. It would be quite inaccurate to say that Christianity, or any other form of religion, is the most effective cause of human unity. Religion may successfully unify those within a group, but this unity does not extend beyond the in-group. This is a very important aspect to realize.

    Religions soak up the moral fiber of a culture, and is the medium through which people choose to subscribe to said religion. — Reverie of Renaissance

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but this is clearly false. If religions absorbed the moral fiber of a culture then religions would only express that [good?] moral fiber. And people subscribe to religions for a variety of reasons.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    We can reasonably argue the universe is ordered and therefore there must be a god. — Athena

    I strongly doubt you can make even a halfway reasonable argument for this.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪DiegoT


    Lol. The true purpose of your post is trolling. Are you honest enough to admit it?
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    A debate is about gaining information and that is important to have a good plan. — Athena

    A debate or argument is also about attempting to persuade others... perhaps so that they may adopt your plan.

    feeding people results in breeding people and that makes the problem worse — Athena

    It’s an odd world we live in. In many parts of the world starvation is common and in other parts obesity is a sign of poverty. Both science and religion have failed to promote balance. I think we have to find it for ourselves.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    What would make a president of the US a better leader if liberty and democracy are bad ideas? — Athena

    If liberty and democracy are bad ideas then we currently have the best possible leader.

    If you want to start a thread to debate if we can feed the world or not, and if that is a good idea or not, pm me... — Athena

    You would debate whether relieving human suffering is a good idea or not? Granted that merely feeding the hungry (1 out of 6 people currently alive, approximately), isn’t a fix to universal human flourishing, but the effort would be in the right direction, I believe.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Evangelical support for Trump was [April, 2018] at an all-time high: 75%. Disturbingly, as he left the White House, President Barack Obama enjoyed the favorable view of only 24% of white evangelicals.
    Obama, a man who had no sex scandals, was never accused of sexual harassment, had two children with the same woman, couldn't crack 25% white evangelicals.     — “CNN”
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Most glaringly, an absolute authority figure (more than an idealized personality), and an aspect of transcendence.
    — praxis

    That appears to be the Christian hang up I hope we get past.     — Athena

    Rather, it's what I believe are two essential qualities of what may be regarded as 'religion', which I point out in response to DiegoT's query.

    The Christian God authority is counterproductive. — Athena

    Counterproductive to what purpose? If God's not the ultimate authority then who does God answer to?

    I promise you there is no God that wanted animal sacrifices. — Athena

    This is a non sequitur that you cannot promise me, unless you're a God or something. Maybe there is a God and he gets a kick out of critter sacrifices."

    Do you see the difference between believing there is a supernatural authority and believing science is important to staying out of trouble? — Athena

    "Trouble" is a little ambiguous so I can't quite agree that science is important to staying out of it, or even that staying out of it is a desirable objective.

    Going from town to town flogging yourself or burning witches will not stop plagues, but science can. — Athena

    The science exists to end world hunger, as well as many other human challenges, yet millions starve to death each year. Fuck religion and science, people need to wake up.
  • Black Mirror's Bandersnatch
    The worst Black Mirror episode, by far.

    I think they were trying to give the feeling that the viewer was controlling the narrative but once they make you loop back from a dead end, which happened in the beginning for me, the illusion breaks.
  • Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
    Communism is teleological, it has a symbolic metanarrative, all kind of symbols and rituals and texts that are more than texts, and idealized personalities. It doesn´t just organize economic life, but also culture and the very way people think and feel and behave about themselves and family and friends. What more is needed to call it a religion? — DiegoT

    Most glaringly, an absolute authority figure (more than an idealized personality), and an aspect of transcendence.
  • Elon Musk on the Simulation Hypothesis
    The metaphysics supposedly help to account for some quantum weirdness, like entanglement and how information appears to travel faster than light, on the positive side. :razz:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪DiegoT


    Well, if the unprecedented 2018 midterm voter turnout is any indication, he's an effective trickster.
  • On depression, again.
    ↪Posty McPostface


    I’ve never had depression but have had anxiety disorder in the past, with inexplicable panic attacks and the rest.

    Depression can be managed or cured, I believe, but it takes some discipline. Emotions help regulate energy as circumstances require, so the first place to start would be to work on rebalancing the body’s energy and endocrine system. This would entail adopting a healthy diet and getting enough physical exercise. On top of that, mindfulness discipline and meditation can help to quiet the ruminating mind. Any task-positive activity can help with this as well, ideally an absorbing activity where a so called ‘flow’ state can be achieved. Being idle and ruminating is probably the worst thing to be doing.

    Also, I learned recently that psychedelics can effectively treat depression. Unfortunately they’re illegal though. It’s believe that they can help to breakup mental patterns (including depressive patterns, apparently).
Home » praxis