TTI Forums

EVE Characters:
Account 1:Phersipnai, Dr EldonTyrell
Account 2:Yi Jing
Account 3:Osmodious, Spoon Bastage

Bear with me I can explain

Phersipnai is my original character. Created for the express purpose of everything (2 Million SP and 105 Skills) but mainly flying and defending friends and family. Specializing in Willpower and Perception skills.

Dr EldonTyrell is my Trade and Social alt. Created for the express purpose of trading. Named after the owner of the biggest corporation in the world... of Bladerunner. The ugliest meanest looking old man with a starting Charisma of 19

Yi Jing is my Industry, Mining and Production alt. Created specifically for those professions using the 21-day trial account from Steam. With 11 days left I hope to get all my learning skills to IV before the trial runs out and I can begin playing when I begin paying.

Osmodious and Spoon Bastage were given to me by a friend who had quit (unfortunately for WoW (fortunately with his wife)) so instead of logging in to train skills he has given the account to me. At one point he was a pirate so Spoon is the transport to get through Empire. I have no intentions of piracy however so it is safe to say Osmo has been enlightened and has a Sec Status of -.88 as of now. Hope to break even soon.

All of which should have an inEVE.net account by the end of the day. I will post here when they do. I also use EVE-HQ, EVEMon and EFT extensively so when I say those characters are specialized I mean hyper-specialized.

Preferred Nickname:Pher is fine, as is Osmo
TTI Division or Major Occupation:Pher is up for anything as long as there is time for training. Like the Minmatar she is versatile. Osmo has 30 million SP and I am still getting used to him but Mulligan Defense seems a good fit. The others are interested in putting their specialized talents and traits to use most efficiently. Yi aspires to join d'Anconia Mining or eventually Rearden Industrial even though production seems complicated and confusing right now. The doc is anxious to enter the trading floor but feels overwhelmed and intimidated at the moment by the immensity of the markets. Hopefully Danneskjöld Trading may one day serve as his trial by fire. Spoon is content to just be. If anyone needs some Industrial-sized items shipped, he's you're man... a little odd-looking but a man nonetheless.

Your Age: 25 <-Look a short answer!!
Time Zone: (GMT-5:00 Eastern Time)

1) What are your unique characteristics that set you apart from most people? (your views, achievements, etc)
Apart from very slight self-diagnosed OCD, I also have a "completionist" and/or "collectionist" habit and suffer from peer-diagnosed ADD or ADHD depending on my diet and the solar equinox. I've been told I have some very different views on many subjects, more than once that subject is death. I figure that if someone dies than this is generally good. For the most part people are usually in a bad place before they die and sometimes extreme pain, which means death brings peace. A funeral should be for rejoicing in these situations and any way I think about it, grieving over the loss of someone is selfish, since really people are grieving at their loss. I'm generally not very good at funerals as you can imagine.

I'm not religious as I have come to believe all religions are cults and off little more than a distraction from reality... much like drugs. We're not sure of the "after" but we are sure of "now" so why not focus on what we know instead gambling away that which is most important? While I don't belong to a cult I do believe in the spiritual. It's simply more fun and for the life of me I can't come up with any reasonable idea or explanation for what existed before a big bang. The best I can do is a galactic chicken-or-the-egg scenario in which I'm left continually asking "but what came before?"

I am a product of my environment. If I associate with lazy people I become lazy... extremely lazy. If I associative with productive people I become productive... extremely productive. The problem I have isn't associating with people (I think I can get along with almost anyone), it's remaining at their level. I'm always too fast or too slow. I guess I can be described as very polar.

2) Why are you playing EVE?
I won't lie. I used to play WoW 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.

I love space. If I won the lottery I'd buy experimental sub-orbit flight tickets from one of those companies that isn't NASA. I love RPGs. I'm not entirely sure but I'd bet ever since FFVII I've been addicted (still trying to master Knights of the Round btw). EVE is a great combination of the two and while it can be a love-hate relationship (it took me a few weeks to realize how slow the game is and how much patience you really need), overall I have enjoyed every minute of it. The marketplace and trading is fantastic. I've read articles that some university economics professors are actually doing experiments using EVE. I saw a forum post on eve-files about how BoB is evicting Triumvirate. Actual diplomacy, no matter how hostile, is something I never would of thought could exist in a game like this. The fact that you can actually lose something is incredible. You can own property. Actually own a system and people will have to take it by force or finesse if they want it. I could go on for even more pages. These and many more reasons are why I play EVE. Like any sexy, overly kinky, abusive lover I may need to stop seeing her for a few days but I'll always be back for more.

3) Why are you applying to Taggart?
I've always been interested in reading Atlas Shrugged. I have an audiobook copy of it and I keep swearing to myself I will get around to reading it or listening to it. I'm not sure why I haven't yet but I think it's because I'm worried I might be let down or that it may be too preachy. Honestly I'm not sure what I expect. So instead I read articles about the book, about Ayn Rand and about her philosophy.

A friend of mine was very recently accepted into Taggart and told me I should look into it. I had previously never heard of Taggart and could only imagine a WoW guild using an Objectivist theme to filter out the 12 year olds from the 18 year olds. I have recently run out of books to read so one night I thought I'd check out this Objectivist corporation. In the back of my mind all I could picture was the ginormous red letters spelling out HYPOCRITICAL OXYMORONS. Then I started reading. I read the Corporate Philosophy and thought, "at least they've done their homework but they still could be paraphrasing a foreword or review or something." However I was definitely intrigued. I read Corporate History and became excited. I read Corporate Structure and became jealous (those sig keys are beautiful). I read the forums and thought "I want in!"

Very impressive introduction, Phersipnai; I feel as if I've known you for years after only a few paragraphs. Most people generate a facade of what they expect people will want to see in them, which can't be sustained and either erodes over time or comes crashing down all at once. You come across as being 100% genuine and generally unconcerned with other people's expectations. Good luck with the rest of the application process, I hope to see you in corp chat very soon indeed.

Osmo...

The degree to which someone is honest in an application usually leads me to believe that they are directly as interested in said organization.
If you are as interested in TTi as you are 'frank' then it would be of great benefit to prosper alongside you.

Good luck,

Case/Rayme

Thanks for the reply Petyr. I really appreciate that that was what you interpreted from my expose. I thought about adding a blurb about how I'm honest and that because I don't care about other's expectations of me I can be totally honest but I thought that may seem like I'm trying to hard to be honest and actually make it look like I'm lying. There's a riddle that goes something like this:

You approach two talking doors. One door leads to the City of Truth, while the other door leads to the City of Liars. You do not know which door is which. You are able to ask only one question to determine which door is which. The door that leads to the City of Liars always speaks lies, while the door that leads to the City of Truth always speaks the truth. You want to go to the City of Truth. What question do you ask to determine which door leads to the City of Truth?

Honestly I forget where I was going with this. That's not the exact riddle I wanted but the closest I could find but now I forgot my point. Nevertheless I still like that riddle so it stays.

Basically I don't want people thinking ill of me or not trusting me but in the end there's nothing I can do and I find caring about things you can't control is pointless. So I am who I am and I do what I do regardless of others because I am me, this is all I can be and putting on a facade is pointless and too much effort. I am too laid back for such pointlessness (but not enough to be unproductive) and I find life is just easier this way. I avoid doing things I am embarrassed about and keep no secrets from anyone who really asks. Such openness and honesty means I don't have to put effort into sorting out multiple lives and lies and can focus on all the things that matter such as life, love, (insert the pursuit of happiness here to be extra corny),family, friends and being able to just watch the scenery. Life is short, live it while you can.

Hey Case,
I'm not interested in Frank at all, not my type - Sorry I had to, I couldn't resist.
Thanks for the vote of confidence and I really do appreciate the fact that everyone can see the honesty in my words. Probably means more to me out of game than in. Not that it doesn't mean a lot in-game as well. Hope to see you guys soon once the boost patch is done.

Osmodious wrote:You approach two talking doors. One door leads to the City of Truth, while the other door leads to the City of Liars. You do not know which door is which. You are able to ask only one question to determine which door is which. The door that leads to the City of Liars always speaks lies, while the door that leads to the City of Truth always speaks the truth. You want to go to the City of Truth. What question do you ask to determine which door leads to the City of Truth?

The Labyrinth anyone?

Answer: Ask - "What path would the other door tell me to take to the City of Truth?" and you take the opposite path.

The movie The Labyrinth? I forget what that was about but I remember watching it. The riddle I was trying to think of involved aboriginal tribes. One was a tribe of liars and the other tribe always told the truth. I googled "liars riddle" and found that one. Figured it was close enough.

Apart from very slight self-diagnosed OCD, I also have a "completionist" and/or "collectionist" habit and suffer from peer-diagnosed ADD or ADHD depending on my diet and the solar equinox. I've been told I have some very different views on many subjects, more than once that subject is death. I figure that if someone dies than this is generally good. For the most part people are usually in a bad place before they die and sometimes extreme pain, which means death brings peace. A funeral should be for rejoicing in these situations and any way I think about it, grieving over the loss of someone is selfish, since really people are grieving at their loss. I'm generally not very good at funerals as you can imagine.
.....
I am a product of my environment.

This seems strange. It seems like you completely lack willpower, and reject free will.

Dieing is sad. When one dies, they lose the greatest value in their life: their own life. Without their own life, they can value nothing else. Sure, death might bring relief from pain--but one cannot feel anything after death. Also, after a lifetime of valuing things, why would death be a good thing? The only reason I could see is if the said person gave up on living, THEN it would be a good thing, but thats it.

Also, grieving at a loss of someone IS selfish, and thats why it is a good thing. Grieving at a loss is just being true to ones values. If someone steals my laptop, it makes me a bit sad. I value my laptop. When a friend dies, it has the same effect, but to a much greater degree. Your statement about death seems more like a rationalization rather than a realization of reality. As does the "product of your environment" stuff.

Maybe I'm just completely missing what Petyr sees.

No, Tolthar, I agree with your assessment but I'd rather deal with someone whose core value is intellectual honesty than someone who sprouts all the things I believe in because it's easier than arguing about them or analyzing what they really believe. Everything stems from the statement "Existence exists". If you can get someone to agree with that then you should be able to convince them of the veracity of Objectivist philosophy. I don't think it's a requirement that someone must be a completely realized objectivist to join the corp, what matters is that they are not hostile to the philosophy or blatantly immoral in other ways. There's pleanty of time to convince someone to commit to objectivism more fully and teach them the joys of extrospection if they're very honest in introspection. I think many people have wrong premises they cling to or unanalyzed thoughts which with debate and rational analysis can be corrected. I'm guilty of this as well and I've revised several of my opinions after debating with you, (I hope the reverse applies on some issues as well) . Anyway, I'd like to see him in the corp, I'd think it would make for some interesting discussions in the very least.

Yes, I thought something was up. After I replied, I thought about it some more and realized that what you liked was the honesty more than anything. Its good to hear it explicitly stated like you did though. I believe we talked about this before, and I agree more now than I did then.

I'd rather deal with someone whose core value is intellectual honesty.

This is a good statement.

(Edited: I had to finish that last sentence. It was nagging me and it looked like I passed out)

Thanks for the quick responses from both of you.

It's true I rationalize things but I think I have to rationalize in an attempt to realize the true reality. 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.

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.

This seems strange. It seems like you completely lack willpower, and reject free will.

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.

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.

I think I'm beginning to understand the power of the individual within Objectivism but am curious about a couple things. Also please correct me if I'm not understanding the role correctly. I hate making assumptions based on misinformation.

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.

I hope this helps clarify a few things Tolthar. I have a few more things to say about certain subjects but am not as well versed in the principles of those things (I'm referring to AT's thread about absolute truths, of which I too have a very hard time believing in. I'm more of a 'anything can happen' kinda guy.) I still haven't slept yet so I may have missed something which I was supposed to respond to from your post. I'll check over it again later. Oh and inEVE is down but I will post those links ASAP.

Thanks very much for the conversations and allowing me a place to voice my opinions. Even if I'm not accepted I would like to continue (assuming I'm not too disheartened ) being active in these forums.

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.

This seems very weird. I believe you are equocating "personal context" with "reality." There is only one reality. People do have perception, and each perceives individually, but that doesn't mean he is making "reality."

Personal context means all knowledge an individual possess. This definitely differs from person to person. But perception is always true.

Thus, there is no such thing as multiple realities, one for each person, so long as you use "reality" to mean existence and don't mix it up with "context."

In fact, if you accept idea of multiple personal realities, then ethics go out of window, since how can you blame another person if his reality is different from yours? Who are you to even know what his reality is?

Osmodious wrote:I think I'm beginning to understand the power of the individual within Objectivism but am curious about a couple things. Also please correct me if I'm not understanding the role correctly. I hate making assumptions based on misinformation.

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 highly suggest reading up on Objectivism from its sources, such as http://aynrand.org and her fiction and non-fiction works. Meanwhile, you can quickly look up her stance on various issues and definition here:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/perception.html

Oleksandr wrote:I highly suggest reading up on Objectivism from its sources, such as http://aynrand.org and her fiction and non-fiction works. Meanwhile, you can quickly look up her stance on various issues and definition here:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/perception.html

Wow. My views on charity in words!

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
"Playboy's Interview with Ayn Rand," March 1964.

This is turning out to be a very interesting topic to keep an eye on.

*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

Thank you for the links Oleksandr. I've read the ones about Charity and Perception and have bookmarked the other for future reading.

Ayn Rand's statement about charity is exactly what I was hoping for. I think it was the first big issue for me and am glad it no longer is. Not that anyone should expect charity from me (you'll be waiting a long time), but I have problems being told I can't do something.

I'm less accepting of the statements made on the perception page however.

His senses cannot deceive him

I believe this to be false. I think that as long as the links between the brain and tools of the senses (hands, ears, eyes, etc.) remain intact as well as the brain itself, than this statement is true. When it is true I believe everything on that page is correct. Medical reasons, narcotics, crazy mad scientists all have the ability to mess with our senses either by pushing the proper buttons in the brain or possibly one day intercepting the signal from the organs of perception, maybe one day it'll be possible to alter one's signals by creating signal with tiny electrodes or something. If it's already possible I have no idea. I'm a computer science and IT major with no psychology or medical background whatsoever. All of my theories, ideas and rationalizations are my own to my knowledge. So I may be using improper terminology. If this is the case I apologize for the miscommunication. I am also open to the possibility that nothing is impossible which is why I have a problem with the above quote.

I can only blame another person if my reality tells me it's his fault. Yes it's not the mature approach but I rarely blame others. I may be wrong so let me rephrase that. I rarely notice myself blaming others. I can only act on the information my senses tell me. A good way to describe this is EVE. Everyone suffers from slight lag in the game so where your computer tells you are, where others perceive your location and where you really are according to the server are different locations. And your location is perceived differently by all the different users since their computer setups vary as do their location from the server. In this example the server is the true reality. EVE may be a poor example, I'm not sure how they deal with lag but I remember playing Quake on dialup and having to lead my shots depending on how badly I was lagging. I also cannot know what someone else's reality is.

While I'm not an Objectivist (yet), I am not closed to the idea. I say Ayn's views on charity are what I was hoping they were because I'm coming to you with an open mind but with my own beliefs as well and the more my beliefs mesh with her principles the easier it is to accept Objectivism. I just had to say this in case anyone misinterpreted that somehow.

--End Response to Oleksandr--
--Initiate Response to Petyr--
LOL I need to put you guys on pause. It feels I'm writing more here than I am for homework and everytime I try to post something someone else has already written something more.

I'll try to answer your questions one at a time and clearly, something I have problems with when I'm just thinking as I type.

RE Skeptics: I do not believe that the actual reality is meaningless nor do I believe that knowledge is futile. Knowledge is extremely powerful and a great purpose in life. I also believe that the actual reality is quite important as it is the only real truth and everything else is someone else's interpretation of the truth at best. I think my views stem from including the brain as an organ of perception, which would would depend on what your definition of self is. I believe (and I think you do too) that our brains contain our 'self' and our bodies are tools. I need to make this distinction to determine where the brain ends and where the tools of perception begin. And therefore I was incorrect by including the brain as a tool of perception and not a tool interpretation. I also agree everyone's analysis of reality is subjective. I think the discrepancies between our views are quite minor if they exist at all. I agree with everything you are saying and believe the point of confusion was my lack of understanding the proper nomenclature.

I do believe good and evil is subjective and that the morality of every action needs to be viewed in the context of the situation. If I murder someone threatening the lives of my family, I feel this is a moral action. The attacker threw away his human rights and all claims to live in a civilized society when he decided to reject the laws of that society and attack my family. However some might say I murdered the would-be murderer which makes me just as bad. Same with the child who steals bread for his starving family. These are immoral actions when taken out of context and made moral when combined with the situation.

I feel I have been to too many funerals in the past few years and that too often I hear of another friend's loved one has passed as well. At the funeral homes I had a lot of time to myself and I lot of time to think as I didn't know many people and many of them had never met me. Funerals being joyous was most likely my attempt at justifying something that I saw as creating immense pain for others as well as myself. I think I was trying to rationalize a reason for my mother to be more joyful instead extremely sad when that thought originally struck and it's been floating around in my head since then.

I am very aware of my contradictory views. When rationalizing things I try to imagine several different logical situations and their outcomes. My views are based off these and would love for someone to tell me which was right. That someone would have to be a god before their perceptions had any more substance than mine however. I believe the answer from that god would be the true reality. However, even if I was told which path to follow it doesn't mean I have to take that path. I would love an answer to life, to hear the earth's account of it's own history instead of the version dictated by the winner but overall I feel that would be a minor convenience. Sure we could all do better on a test if we cheated but then we may as well not have written the test in the first place since the answers we gave weren't ours to begin with. At one of the funerals I went to a long time ago someone essentially said that no matter what anyone thinks, it cannot be argued that the deceased lived his own life and did things his own way. This is something I would want said at my own funeral. We're only here for a short time and I feel that doing things the way you want to do them is one of the most important principles.

I don't think everyone is scared to die. I think the true believers in the religious community aren't afraid to die. I think it's the people who are unsure of what comes after or the people who know nothing comes after. Knowing death is inevitable and believing that there is something has made me less afraid to die. I would say I'm unafraid to die but there are some more things I wish to do here first. Also I'm in my room where death is a very remote possibility at the moment so my judgement is skewed. I love the saying, "there are no athiests in a foxhole." I am less afraid to die since I become more spiritual as I was a devout athiest before but I'm positive the fear will become stronger the closer death comes. Reading your paragraph on death brings out the logical side of me and now I'm pretty sure my previous statements were my attempt at rationalizing the emotional. I'm also not up for any more discussions concerning death at this point, maybe in the future we can pick it up again as well as maybe the meaning of life and such.

Oh and I never thought you or anyone has taken any of this personally or has said anything with an intention of harm. I've been enjoying the entire conversation even though my brain is beginning to feel burnt out trying to operate on an intellectual, emotional, philosophical and spiritual level.

RE Friends: I keep these friends because I grew up with them. It's not that I am afraid of my own judgement but simply that I enjoy their company and that I can trust them with anything. They are true friends independent of their personal philosophies. While they don't sit around all day watching tv, playing video games and generally watching life go by, they appear to have little interest in progressing much further. There are times when I can't be productive anymore or I'll simply run out of steam. At this point I hang out with them. I have several different groups of friends so that I always have people to do things with depending on my mood. At one point in my life I think being around them was detrimental to my life and fortunately I eventually began to realize this and began to distance myself from them. They also began to move on from that stage in their lives as well. I have no problem leaving behind "friends" who are detrimental to me. I find every aspect of myself very cyclical and I believe it's human nature.

I used to be an advocate of the "eye for an eye" mentality and thinking about it currently I still am. I would also support capital punishment if someone could prove beyond a doubt that the system works 100% of the time. I think that's why I can't just kill all of the people charged with murder. Really jail's (at least Canadian ones it seems) are just punishing the taxpayers. I think it actually costs more money to keep someone in jail than the average annual salary. I was also picturing the banishment more in a post-apocalyptic Fallout type environment which would just be cool. Like Mad Max or something. I think "transporting" them is my way of adding mercy to the "eye for an eye" system and at the time probably thought this mercy would morally balance the accidental persecution of innocent people. A few weeks ago my father and I had a discussion about a case here in Canada. I can't remember the case but I distinctly remember being for killing him.

I don't think anyone is trying to trick me and with Oleksandr's links dispelling my remaining major concern I am definitely open to learning more. The reason I kept responding was to help clarify some of my statements and because I was learning a lot about myself. I enjoyed the entire conversation immensely and learned quite a bit. I think I'll be able to answer the application form now... as in tomorrow, time for sleep

I would also like to emphasize (or re-emphasize if I've already written) that I am writing down my thoughts, ideas, rationales and feelings as I think of them. These topics are generally not part of my everyday thoughts. I have noticed in my life that my beliefs have changed and realize they continue to change as life is an ever evolving process. While many things may change I like to believe that my overall moral compass hasn't and I hope it will not. For any confusion or contradictions in any of my statements I apologize and only offer that I am learning about my reactions and thoughts on these topics as quickly as you are.

I started to quote paragraphs and rebutt individual statements you made, but after I thought about it a few minutes more I realize I just won't reach you the way you are now. Oh, I could definitely convince you that you are wrong and fill your head full of truth and Objectivist Epistomology, but you still wouldn't really get it. You'd absorb it and be able to talk about it and smile and nod, but eventually you'd change your circle of aquaintance once again and become a Christian or a Bhuddist, or whatever. The main problem I see is that you lack any sense of self. You are unselfconcious as I remarked upon in my original post, but this stems not from a lack of caring about what other people think about you, but from a genuine lack of any self-awareness. You have no immutable values, you are a moral relativist, and you think that reality exists within your own brain or eyes or ears, etc. I can't really help you at this stage. You confuse murder with self-defense, and think that someone stealing simply because they are hungry is doing good. To you, need is a virtue. I consider that very immoral. I'd like for you to read Atlas Shrugged eventually, maybe not right now since you seem so concerned about "other people's reality" and can't trust your own senses to tell you what is going on around you; but eventually. That book changed my life, gave me a renewed sense of purpose and affirmed what I already knew to be true. I don't know how I would have reacted to it, if it would have done me any good, if I had read it at a point where I still believed in the moral righteousness of altruist philosophies. Take care of yourself, at this point your life is the only thing you have.

Regards,
Petyr

How to respond... I won't. Want to see me smile and nod?

Fuck you. Yes yes I know I'm a vulgar incompetent fool for resorting to profanities but I don't care. As I'm never returning to this messed up cesspool of ignorant filth again, your inevitable responses can only serve to help you sleep at night in your bubble of egotistical self-serving bullshit. You obviously didn't read my response, didn't think about my response and couldn't possibly give a shit about proper rational discourse with anyone other than yourself. HOW FUCKING DARE YOU TELL ME WHAT I AM OR BELIEVE YOU ARE BETTER IN ANY WAY!

I have a perfectly good sense of self. I am human. I make mistakes (which is obviously many times more modest than you could ever admit, oh "perfect fucking goddess"). I am not an egotistical self-centered pile of shit who find redemption and revelation by verifying his pitiful existence on an internet forum. I posted what I posted because those were my thoughts and reactions at the time of posting, as that was the only time I really thought about those topics since I'm not pathetic enough to find fringe cults cool and tattoo the fucking doctrine onto the inside of my eyelids simply to regurgitate it all in an instant in order to win an internet debate. I had no idea we were even competing. I thought the conversation was simply a few people sharing some ideas (of which i was using a basis to judge this intriguing way of living and seeing if it could work for me and I for it). I don't care anymore. I don't give a shit about this corp, the crazy cultists in it or you and your ridiculously conceited views of yourself. More importantly I care even less to go near any book that could have made you the way you are today. I think you get my point.

Osmo has been banned for personal attacks.

Well, at least he called me a goddess.

That was hilarious :p

Glad this guy weeded himself out before he joined...

Kushan wrote:That was hilarious :p

Glad this guy weeded himself out before he joined...

Don't think he would have made it through the app even if no one had said anything to him, tbh. Unfortunate really, I genuinely did like the tone of his original intro, if not much of its substance.

Well, it means less reading of crappy apps for the HR