*Edit: It was a long post and on a second/third read I noticed some typographical errors, grammatical errors, and omissions that I have rectified. Yes, there are probably still more errors that I haven't noticed yet. :p
Osmodious wrote:It's true I rationalize things but I think I have to rationalize in an attempt to realize the true reality.
If you had stopped right there I would have said, "Great!" and calmly waited for you to finish the application process, confident I would see you in corp channel very soon. But you didn't stop there, you said this, (emphasis added where I deem needed to illustrate your contradictory and irrational statements)...
Osmodious wrote:Everyone's reality is different because everyone's perception and point of view is different but because we all share the same physical world there has to be a true reality from which all others are derived. My rationalizing is a futile but necessary attempt for me to realize the true reality. I say it's futile because I can only rationalize my own perceptions and I say it's necessary because we are merely human and not gods. We're not perfect and we make mistakes and I believe that when something happens it occurs in two realities. The true reality, where it really happened, and you're reality where you perceived it happening. This situation only makes more sense to me when I think about how every interaction we have with the true reality is merely how we interpret the electrical pulses in our body.
Well at least you know we're all in the same world. Oleks has delt with this and his answer is complete if you're already an Objectivist. However, you're not an Objectivist so a little more depth may be required. I believe you may be trying to reconcile what you may know about Objectivism with your previous philosophy of Skepticism. Skeptics believe that everyone's perception of reality is different so therefore actual reality is unknowable and meaningless. They (like you, apparently) believe that knowledge is futile. (If that doesn't sound right to you, good! It's not; but take a good look at what you just wrote.) Skepticism is closely linked to the Cartesian school of conciousness-created-reality, ("I think, therefore I am"). These premesis are false. Reality is objective, it does not change because of any wrong notions or personal views by its observers. Reality is real for all observers and everyone perceives reality the same way, through their senses. Everyone sees the same things, hears the same things, smells the same things, and feels the same things; they only
process them differently! The most fundamental choice you have in life is wheather or not to think. You even choose how to think. In that sense, everyone's
analysis of reality is subjective, but that doesn't change reality itself.
Let me give you an example of this: I'm colorblind. I, (like 10% of the male population) have a deficiency of cones in my retina which makes it difficult for me to perceive subtle differences in colors, specifically brown/green and blue/purple. I can look at something that's hunter green and think that it's brown. My thinking that the object is brown, however, does not make it so. That would be rediculous. So too, the fact that everyone else thinks that the object green does not make it so! It is green because the chemical composition of its outer layers is such that certain wavelengths of light striking its surface are absorbed while others are reflected. The object is objectively green irrespective of anyone's analysis of what they perceive. Everyone's perception is the same, that is, the same wavelength of light is available to be perceived by anyone observing the object. That is the difference we are aiming at here when we speak about the objectivity of reality. This is also a very brief synopsis; Ayn Rand and her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff go into much greater detail in their philosophical works. A really great one to pick up would be "Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology" by Leonard Peikoff. It deals with the most basic aspects of Objectivist philosophy, namely the nature and interpretation of knowledge.
Osmodious wrote:Honestly I've never really thought much past "grieving is selfish". No one has ever wanted to discuss it any further and I've just never asked the next question, being what's wrong with it being selfish? Apparently I've just had the opinion that being selfish in this situation is wrong. I think mainly with the levels of emotions at funerals and the whole reason for having the funeral being the death of a loved one, it's just a confusing event. I've been to too many funerals in the last couple years and most likely have simply had too much time to dwell on the topic of death. Don't get me wrong, I encourage grieving and closure and everything that is associated with salving the wound. Maybe I should add a couple more things to my little self-diagnosis. It's possible that my issues with funerals were directed at myself as I've never had problems with other people's actions.
Understood. However, how can being selfish be bad in one situation and good in another? Are good and evil subjective too? Is all morality relative; that is to say, are there no absolute values but only situational ones? You state that you've been to "too many funerals" in this post, but in the last one you state that you view death as a positive thing. So why "too many"? If death is a good thing then wouldn't funerals be joyous occasions? It sounds as if you're aware of your contradictory views and want someone to point them out and tell you which one is right.
Death is inevitable. Everyone is going to die, no one knows exactly when, and this scares the crap out of absolutely everyone. Everyone knows fundamentally that death is the end to life. Wheather or not you accept this reality is a separate issue. As such, death is amoral. It is neither good nor bad in and of itself, it simply is. Death gives profound meaning to life by defining its scope and span. The fact that you know you are going to die makes life meaningful by giving you a finite ammount of time in order to accomplish the ultimate goal of life: happiness. When someone dies this is tragic! Their life is over and it really doesn't matter if they were 9 or 99, they can no longer perceive reality. All of their thoughts, their joys, their triumphs, their values are finished, and their potential hapiness becomes 0. Also, everyone else who was party to their life is deprived of their continued presence. If they were a good person and added value to the lives of those around them this becomes tragic for those people as well. You are completely justified in feeling anger, frustration, sadness and futility when someone close to you dies. Yes, of course it is selfish, all good things are! Being selfish means holding tight to your values and sacrificing them for nothing! If you cared about someone very deeply and invested teleological (absolute, or objective) value in the fact of their existence and the affect of that existence on your own life, and they die, this is a horrible thing! All of that value, that potential to enhance your own life through the achievement of hapiness is now gone! This is not a happy occasion for you no matter what hollywood movie cancer-patient rubbish you've absorbed. The other person may have been in a great deal of pain and death may end that pain, but at the expense of everything else as well. Think about that!
Everything else! People dying of long, drawn-out illnesses or otherwise afflicted with so much pain that they are unable to experience any hapiness may indeed say they wish to die. What they really mean is that they wish for the pain to stop. Offer any one of them a cure for their disease/affliction and they will certainly take that over death.
Please don't think I say this in order to make you feel badly about yourself. I think you're already doing that; you've set up a cognitive dissonance between your knowledge of death as a bad, life-negating thing and your false premise that it should be something to celebrate. I wish merely to expose that to you so that you can end the source of your unhappiness.
Osmodious wrote:
I'm assuming you're referring to the "product of my environment" line. I can understand how you reached your conclusion but I assure you that only the opposite is true. I say I do some things and act certain ways and am a product of my environment. I only mean that I observe my environment. It's not that I am forced into laziness when I hang around lazy people. I choose to be lazy in order to hang around with those people. They are my friends and I love them. I am perfectly capable of being productive when around lazy people, but then personalities tend to clash and I'm forced to either join them as a sloth or find a different group of people. Needless to say I had many different groups of friends in high school.
Why? This makes no sense to me. Are you that afraid of your own judgement that you are willing to ignore stated and perceived faults in others? Why call people you believe to be immoral friends and loved ones? I'm using your words here. You think they are lazy, (value judgement, laziness is refusal to be productive in ones own life and therefore bad. Productive behavior is life-afirming and therefore good. A lazy person will starve on their own, and can only survive because of the sacrifices of productive people) the fact that you can say this means that you are capable of judging value in others and yourself. You do not believe yourself to be lazy, you would resent that implication if another made it, yet you tolerate the trait in others. Why? Don't be afraid of your own reason. It is good to be productive and bad to be lazy and you should not be afraid of being better than bad people. If they have other qualities you admire and that is the source of your friendship and love, (as I perceive to be the case) then you should confront them with your judgement in the hopes that this will allow them to change and become a better friend to you. Does the fact that I am confronting you and being critical of your statements inspire you to cease all contact? Do you think I'm doing it in order to put you down and make you feel badly about yourself? Your friends won't either if they have other qualities which are virtuous. If not, then they are not capable of being anyone's friend.
I have friends who I think are immoral in some aspects of their life. I have friends who subscribe to altruist, specifically Christian, philosophies I believe are morally bankrupt and false. In each case they have other qualities I find to be virtuous and right, and that is why I continue to be their friend. I do this because it enhances my life and brings me happiness. I have converted many people simply by living my life within view of theirs. I am not ashamed of any of my values and everyone who knows me knows where I stand with them and the world around me. True altruists do not exist because the logical conclusion to their philosophy is death. Every self-professed altruist is at core a liar and knows it. This is why their philosophies concentrate so much on forgiveness and grace. They must violate their own philosophy every minute they continue to live simply to remain alive. It's easy to convert people to truth because they must accept it in order to live, there is no other choice. Think or die.
I do not shun people who have different, opposing views to my own unless those views manifest themselves in ways which are detrimental to my life or the lives of those I care about, (which is still really only affecting my life). Neither do I associate myself with people in whom I do not see any potential for change, or who do not add anything to my life. I enjoy showing others how an Objectivist lives his life and disabusing them of wrong and potentially subversive premises they may have. This allows them to live a happier life and thereby make my life happier by association with them. Parties are only fun if everyone around you is having fun as well. Same principle.
Osmodious wrote:I'm not entirely sure about free will with respect to destiny, fate and time but with respect to an individual's right to free will I'm absolutely sure about where I stand. Anyone should have the right to do anything they want, even if it's to waive this right. More importantly however, everyone has the right to defend themselves and anyone else they wish to defend, but should take care not to cross the line from defender to attacker. I also believe that people who use their right to do anything for illegal purposes(lack of sleep creates lack of better words) such as piracy in game, or murder in life, waive their human rights and privilege to enjoy the fruits of society and should be cast out somehow. I realize this would be jail but I think there is something immensely wrong with the Canadian judiciary system. I would prefer shipping them to Antarctica or the Mojave desert... or podded.
You contradict yourself several times in this paragraph but it looks like you know you're doing it and maybe it's out of exhaustion? I think if you examined your value system a bit more you'd realize that half-measures like "transportation" (using the 18th century definition here, think shipping people off to penal colonies) are simply cowardly and come from a fear of arbitrary judgement. People who advocate half-measures with regards to wilful murderers are saying that life isn't really of value. They're the same people who will try to convince you of things like "original sin". They acknowledge fundamentally that murder, (and other crimes) are wrong, and that something must be done about them, (they don't want to be murdered, after all) but they've also been convinced that morality is unobtainable and that everyone is fundamentally equally bad. Well I say bullshit. You wilfully murder someone, you forfeit your own life. The problem with this is when you give a government or burocratic body the ability to kill one of its constituents; how do you define the scope of that power to prevent its abuse?
Osmodious wrote:I think that within Objectivism the individual is completely responsible for their own actions and well being. One cannot expect help from others and is not expected to help others but is also not forced to refrain from helping. I did skim the application form last night but wanted to get some decent sleep in order to give you guys some decent answers before I responded. I believe that on it there is a question about donating isk... or maybe it was just helping a corpmate with lower prices (if so I'll answer that on the form). My question is about donating. If I were to donate millions of isk to the corp or a corpmate would this violate the principles of Objectivism? I can understand how this may potentially hurt the donatee in the long run for many reasons (as I had major funds donated to myself) but they aren't forced to accept the donation and I have no control over what they do with the donation. If it is a violation, who is the violator? The point I'm trying to explore is that I understand how it is up to the individual to earn their own profit and be responsible for their own situation but I believe that if I wanted to donate to someone, defend their property or generally do something for someone for no reason at all, that I should be able to do this.
Examine your premises before you answer those questions. No one is trying to trick you into doing something you think is wrong, and being selfish means valuing yourself and your values objectively and not subjecting them to another's whims. It doesn't mean you have to be a tightwad or you're behaving immorally. Giving someone a gift is not a sacrifice if you value that person and wish to express it. A mother does not sacrifice when she spends her money to feed her children rather than using it to buy herself a diamond necklace. She's making a value judgement. A man does not sacrifice when he buys a round of drinks for his friends whom he admires. To sacrifice is to help others at your own expense. To sacrifice is to do something that only hurts you and from which you receive no benefit. See the difference? Objectivists aren't jerks
.
I hope this helps clarify a few things for you, and I'm very interested to hear your response. Please don't finish the questionaire until you've sat down and analyzed your system of values and personal philosophy. Ultimately, don't compromise your values because of anyone else, if you feel you're wrong, then work to change those things about yourself for your own sake.
Regards,
Petyr
After several months I have a 70 Hunter named Psycowtic on Azshara as well a mid-level Warlock and Rogue. I also took over maintenance of a UI mod called Titan Panel Honorgrind 2.0. I left because of the endgame. I still love the stories and atmosphere of the Warcraft universe but the endgame politics and guild dynamic was so tiresome it began to feel more like work than any job I'd ever had. So I quit. And I actually felt relieved. I had so much more free time. But before I had quit a friend (the one who started Osmo) had been as addicted to EVE as I had been to WoW. So when another friend told me about it I started thinking about actually starting up. After a few more friends said they were starting too, I knew I had to. Oddly enough, around the time I quit Wow Osmo quit EvE and now here we are.
) being active in these forums.
