Smith's bibliography in EWP seems an amazingly large number of pro-life ethics, psychology and self-help books. It validates Binswanger's claim of a renewed interest in Aristotle, directly or not.
@@TroubadourChannel When I studied philosophy, the teacher of the Aristotle course was a braindead Pragmatist who regarded logic as "poison." But now the same dept uses Aristotles Metaphysics. I could barely believe it. But it will take time for this renewed rationality to spread thru culture.
Christianityy and religion in principle are so destructive that short-range, mindless, materialist pleasure is a big relief. Rand says that the happiness of rational and irrational people have radically different qualities. Irrational people dont care, Rational happiness is literally meaningless to them. Eg, Vance claiming that Dagny is arrogant is his confession that independence is alien to his psychology.
@@TeaParty1776you asked if we would give a gift of mother Theresa’s biography. I didn’t understand where that was coming from? Did we mention mother Theresa?
It seems to me that there should be two key concepts: one that encapsulates what a conscious being acts to gain or keep (value) and another that represents what a rational being wants to gain or keep (goal). If "good" means that which is proper for a life as a rational being, then we ought to set good goals so that they become our values. However, values are things we already act to gain or keep, and they can be bad, like maladaptive daydreaming. It’s honest to acknowledge that, right now, this may be a value for you, but you want it to become a disvalue because it is clearly detrimental. Therefore, you set the goal to achieve active reasoning at all times. Over time, if you are successful, the goal of maintaining active reasoning at all times will become one of your values and maladaptive daydreaming a disvalue.
Thanks for the comments! I’m curious what you mean by “maladaptive daydreaming.” As a channel focused on literature, great books and great ideas I’m a big fan of daydreaming :)
@@TroubadourChannel Maladaptive daydreaming is a cognitive disconnection from reality, characterized by the use of daydreaming as an irrational way of existing. For example, you notice a problem. Instead of subvocalizing (and deciding) how to define the problem (thinking) and subvocalizing questions related to solving it, a person with excessive daydreaming would start dreaming that they solve the problem. Maybe they would start dreaming that it’s Saturday, and they are with their family, imagining themselves as the protagonist and intelligent (which they are not at the moment; one must work in reality to achieve these traits and also value others as the actual ultimate value). In this dream, they talk about the problem and give their perspective (none of this is being subvocalized). In reality, they are just sitting and staring out the window. It is an irrational way of existing. Returning to my point: Regardless of the causes, this excessive daydreaming is a value by the person because they act to gain or preserve it. However, through goal setting and a clear understanding of what is good, one should realize that it is actually a disvalue. Excessive daydreaming should transition from being a value to being a disvalue. Value is that which a conscious being acts to gain or keep (a definition for all conscious beings), and for humans, it is that which a human has acted to gain or keep. A goal is that which a human wants (or plans) to gain or keep. Good is that which is proper for a life as an egoistic rational human. So, with this standard, it's clear that maladaptive daydreaming is bad. A good goal would be to achieve focus, which I define as the state in which reason is active. This good goal must be pursued constantly. And another good goal would be to achieve a a rational selfish way of existing. Ty for the video. Cheers
@@periteu Life exists. Life includes conscious and non-conscious life. Life is conditional. Life requires values. The specific values are a derivative issue, as Rand makes clearly explicit. Further, only rational values are consistently values. Irrational values contradict life, the source of values. Irrational "values" are not values. Wanting is not necessarily valuing. Valuing is relative to life, not mere wants. Values are prior to goals, how a value is applied. Rands ethics is brief, fundamental and very clear.
Sorry to be sounding harsh. Ayn Rand's philosophical foundation is objectivism. Why she pushed that perspective when quantum mechanics had already been well accepted in physics and mathematically proven in great detail. It's been pointed out in great detail that QM invalidates philosophy. "ON PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY" by Bernard d’Espagnat is the best source for understanding why a philosophy such as Rand's is actually based on the myth that humans even understand reality. QM is nearly impossible for a human mind to comprehend, yet it describes what underlines the Visual Reality we perceive as reality. QM is over hundred years old at this point, and people giving credence to Rand's views really need to pick up a few books on basic quantum physics. There are many out there. Some authors have excelled at writing on this subject in ways that are accessible by the average person.
Nearly impossible for the human mind to comprehend, but somehow you want us to pick up a book on the subject? Who is your intended audience exactly if not humans?
It can only be "understood" by working through the math. The results of doing experiments based on the math are counter intuitive to the human mind. The objective results are also completely determined by the way an experiment is performed. Want to see light as waves? Set up the experiment "this" way. Want to light as particles? Set up the experiment "that" way. Both are valid results at the same time. Both are objective reality. This has caused enormous amounts of consternation throughout the history of QM. The reply has always been "just do the math". Even Einstein didn't believe in "spooky action at a distance". A founding father of QM, Einstein couldn't wrap his incredible mind around it. He has been proven wrong many times since. Rand was simply not able to understand. No aspersions on her, until she proposed a philosophy as worthless as objectivism.
@@icareaboutthefuture None of what you said here is in conflict with Objectivism. The Law of identity doesn't state what kind of identity something has to have, only that whatever it is, it is something in particular. It the case of light, it shows both behaviors as a particle and as a wave. This isn't of a instance of something being A and non-A, i.e. a particle and not a particle at the same time. It's an instance of something being A and B, being a particle - wave. Of one thing have two properties to it.
Many Objectivist philosophers have answered this question. I recommend you read the work of Dr. Leonard Peikoff. Your premises are incorrect. But I'm not a philosopher so this is not something I can answer well.
Wonderful! Much thx to you both for sharing these powerful thoughts! ❤😊
Smith's bibliography in EWP seems an amazingly large number of pro-life ethics, psychology and self-help books. It validates Binswanger's claim of a renewed interest in Aristotle, directly or not.
I’m quite certain Dr. Smith would agree with a renewal of interest in Aristotle.
@@TroubadourChannel When I studied philosophy, the teacher of the Aristotle course was a braindead Pragmatist who regarded logic as "poison." But now the same dept uses Aristotles Metaphysics. I could barely believe it. But it will take time for this renewed rationality to spread thru culture.
What is the meaning of the book's cover picture?
I believe the publisher chose that. I’m uncertain though. I think it’s meant to appeal to an academic audience.
@@TroubadourChannel Begs the question
Christianityy and religion in principle are so destructive that short-range, mindless, materialist pleasure is a big relief. Rand says that the happiness of rational and irrational people have radically different qualities. Irrational people dont care, Rational happiness is literally meaningless to them. Eg, Vance claiming that Dagny is arrogant is his confession that independence is alien to his psychology.
Would you give a biography of Mother Theresa as a wedding present?!
???
@@TroubadourChannel Icant find my prior post. What did I say?
@@TeaParty1776you asked if we would give a gift of mother Theresa’s biography. I didn’t understand where that was coming from? Did we mention mother Theresa?
@@TroubadourChannel To what was I replying? I cant find it.
@@TeaParty1776 from you: "Would you give a biography of Mother Theresa as a wedding present?!"
Judging a want 21:29, 30:19
Being egoist 37:00
42:31 😂😂😂😂
It seems to me that there should be two key concepts: one that encapsulates what a conscious being acts to gain or keep (value) and another that represents what a rational being wants to gain or keep (goal).
If "good" means that which is proper for a life as a rational being, then we ought to set good goals so that they become our values. However, values are things we already act to gain or keep, and they can be bad, like maladaptive daydreaming. It’s honest to acknowledge that, right now, this may be a value for you, but you want it to become a disvalue because it is clearly detrimental. Therefore, you set the goal to achieve active reasoning at all times. Over time, if you are successful, the goal of maintaining active reasoning at all times will become one of your values and maladaptive daydreaming a disvalue.
In what time should i judge a desire before acting?
why didnt Ayn Rand define "the good" as All that which is proper to the life of a egoist being?
Thanks for the comments!
I’m curious what you mean by “maladaptive daydreaming.” As a channel focused on literature, great books and great ideas I’m a big fan of daydreaming :)
@@TroubadourChannel Maladaptive daydreaming is a cognitive disconnection from reality, characterized by the use of daydreaming as an irrational way of existing.
For example, you notice a problem. Instead of subvocalizing (and deciding) how to define the problem (thinking) and subvocalizing questions related to solving it, a person with excessive daydreaming would start dreaming that they solve the problem.
Maybe they would start dreaming that it’s Saturday, and they are with their family, imagining themselves as the protagonist and intelligent (which they are not at the moment; one must work in reality to achieve these traits and also value others as the actual ultimate value). In this dream, they talk about the problem and give their perspective (none of this is being subvocalized). In reality, they are just sitting and staring out the window. It is an irrational way of existing.
Returning to my point:
Regardless of the causes, this excessive daydreaming is a value by the person because they act to gain or preserve it. However, through goal setting and a clear understanding of what is good, one should realize that it is actually a disvalue. Excessive daydreaming should transition from being a value to being a disvalue.
Value is that which a conscious being acts to gain or keep (a definition for all conscious beings), and for humans, it is that which a human has acted to gain or keep.
A goal is that which a human wants (or plans) to gain or keep.
Good is that which is proper for a life as an egoistic rational human.
So, with this standard, it's clear that maladaptive daydreaming is bad.
A good goal would be to achieve focus, which I define as the state in which reason is active. This good goal must be pursued constantly. And another good goal would be to achieve a a rational selfish way of existing.
Ty for the video. Cheers
@@periteu Life exists. Life includes conscious and non-conscious life. Life is conditional. Life requires values. The specific values are a derivative issue, as Rand makes clearly explicit. Further, only rational values are consistently values. Irrational values contradict life, the source of values. Irrational "values" are not values. Wanting is not necessarily valuing. Valuing is relative to life, not mere wants. Values are prior to goals, how a value is applied. Rands ethics is brief, fundamental and very clear.
Sorry to be sounding harsh. Ayn Rand's philosophical foundation is objectivism. Why she pushed that perspective when quantum mechanics had already been well accepted in physics and mathematically proven in great detail. It's been pointed out in great detail that QM invalidates philosophy. "ON PHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY" by Bernard d’Espagnat is the best source for understanding why a philosophy such as Rand's is actually based on the myth that humans even understand reality. QM is nearly impossible for a human mind to comprehend, yet it describes what underlines the Visual Reality we perceive as reality. QM is over hundred years old at this point, and people giving credence to Rand's views really need to pick up a few books on basic quantum physics. There are many out there. Some authors have excelled at writing on this subject in ways that are accessible by the average person.
Nearly impossible for the human mind to comprehend, but somehow you want us to pick up a book on the subject? Who is your intended audience exactly if not humans?
It can only be "understood" by working through the math. The results of doing experiments based on the math are counter intuitive to the human mind. The objective results are also completely determined by the way an experiment is performed. Want to see light as waves? Set up the experiment "this" way. Want to light as particles? Set up the experiment "that" way. Both are valid results at the same time. Both are objective reality. This has caused enormous amounts of consternation throughout the history of QM. The reply has always been "just do the math". Even Einstein didn't believe in "spooky action at a distance". A founding father of QM, Einstein couldn't wrap his incredible mind around it. He has been proven wrong many times since. Rand was simply not able to understand. No aspersions on her, until she proposed a philosophy as worthless as objectivism.
@@icareaboutthefuture None of what you said here is in conflict with Objectivism. The Law of identity doesn't state what kind of identity something has to have, only that whatever it is, it is something in particular. It the case of light, it shows both behaviors as a particle and as a wave. This isn't of a instance of something being A and non-A, i.e. a particle and not a particle at the same time. It's an instance of something being A and B, being a particle - wave. Of one thing have two properties to it.
Many Objectivist philosophers have answered this question. I recommend you read the work of Dr. Leonard Peikoff. Your premises are incorrect. But I'm not a philosopher so this is not something I can answer well.
Try this course. Though he talks about it elsewhere as well. th-cam.com/play/PLqsoWxJ-qmMvgyTXdOjsdszOZ3ppFJAnp.html