Search the Community

I am a 28 year old female with questionable self worth. As a younger woman I had greater value with the promise of an advantageous intelligence and an acutely symmetrical face. My face is still sitting on a relatively straight line but in allot of ways the promise of my intelligence and success is less likely than it was a few years ago when I 'had more time'. There has been this reoccurring theme in my life that I hadn't reflected on for a great deal of time until the recent media exposure of hedonistic worship in Hollywood. I was raised to believe that a woman is more valuable if she has more to offer a man than beauty and fertility. This meant that I needed to outcompete my vagina to win a good father for my children. Being a seeker of intensity I was excited by the challenge of greatness. I always wanted to be 'number one' because I believed if I was the ultimate human, I might then, potentially, be worthy of love, so long as, I didn't let 'myself' go and get fat after having kids because then, it would be my fault for making my husband leave me to raise our children alone. yeah, issues. So, this theme that has haunted my frail and costly existence is that every time I was number one at something, other than being an attractive young woman, there was always a specific ultimatum that eventually would stand between success and my efforts. The ultimatum went something like: 'you are really good at preforming in your area of interest and that makes you more sexually desirable. Are you willing to trade sexuality in exchange for equal consideration for investment opportunities? Are you willing to renounce the value you place in the knowledge you've acquired in order to utilize it? 'Equal consideration' meaning: To be judged based on the merit of my success and not sexually. Though, in reflecting retrospectively, maybe everyone is judged by their degree of attractiveness and some of us get ignored and some suffice to entice predation. Every time I attempted to live a 'moral lifestyle' (one that opposes hedonism and moral relativism) and contribute tangible value to society, I'd encounter an older male authority that would compare my potential for success to my willingness to consent to being the object of their sexual gratification. When I tried to pursue some of these people legally, I was essentially made to feel that I needed to conform to a deranged reality where I have nothing to offer but sex and if I resisted conformity the consequence would be estrangement from any related opportunity for economic growth. Eventually, I became discouraged and slipped into a further depression that was initiated by competing with Hollywoods standard of beauty. During adolescence and young adulthood men in my age demographic would viciously and remorselessly ostracize women who did not emulate supermodels and divas like Brittany Spears. I realize they had also experienced pressure from being bombarded by propagandized media promoting the worship of Hollywoods decadent and satanic culture. My point is, for a while I've been trying to see the world in a different light-calling myself a foolish 'feminist' for fearing the potential risk of being in those situations again and reasoning with myself to refrain from the generalization of the moral integrity of all men by the actions of the ones I've met in my life and I'm grateful for that. But, I see now, how being disappointed over and over by working hard to achieve greatness only to have my efforts be diminished by the desirability of my sexuality has created an incentive for me to avoid 'success'. In a way that result was to my benefit because now I'm focused on entrepreneurial pursuits rather than apprenticeship and collaboration with institutions that are already in place. In another way it's unfortunate that even when I was absolutely the most valuable and productive within a group of people focused on a universal task, acheiving the greatest understanding and command of the relative skill set wasn't enough, I still needed to be willing to do 'something' that was obviously irrelevant, empty and meaningless to me. Fortunately, I didn't sell out, the majority of the time, though, once I tried it to see what was one the other side. You guessed it, absolutely nothing was on the other side of that door, not even another door, just nothingness. I realize that men deal with this sort of thing too and it's really more about the relationship of culture between generations rather than gender. Like, baby boomers vs millennials for example. I'm not sure that the generation preceding Baby Boomers objectified them the way us 'useless' millennials are. I'm optimistic that there is an honest discussion happening about the treatment of young people in regards to respecting the sacredness of an individuals sexuality. Disregarding the impact that sexual experiences have on an individuals life, to the degree that it is formally claimed to have no affect at all, creates a culture that considers a spectacular actor to only be worthy of opportunity in exchange for ownership of their body or sexuality. In a way it appears to be some form of weirdo ritualism, like, 'are you willing to erase yourself in exchange for economic success?'. Living in our current corrupt society, where we are coerced into paying tax on dollars that have inflated beyond any tangible value, it's understandable that many would tend to conform to evil in an attempt to be 'realistic' rather than sacrificing themselves like Socrates, for moral virtues. Now, after all this time, I'm sure that ones soul is more valuable than anything material. Unless you have children? :/ Life is a tough nut to crack. I suppose, the only way to out-compete your genitals is to refrain from games of that nature: Competitions measuring a persons self worth based merely on their sexually desirable characteristics. Humility and honesty about reality is the only way we can create the world we hoped we would enter from our youth into adulthood.

You've probably heard our hero "big chatty forehead" say that the government doesn't exist because it's just an intellectual concept and has no basis in physical reality. Alternatively, he claims that "cars" and "clouds" exist. People might form a group that is collectively identified as the concept of "government." Hmmmm.... Isn't a car also just a concept? Some molecules might come together in any number of configurations to be collectively identified by the concept of "car." Similarly a bunch of water molecules (with some other molecule types to act as condensation anchors) might come together to be collectively identified as a "cloud." But aren't they also just concepts? How about "person?" A colony of biological cells which have come together to form what we conceptually call "human being?" Those cells don't even all share the same DNA. *Kilograms* of you are symbiotes in your gut, and their DNA isn't even in the same genetic ballpark with your homo sapien DNA. And the symbiote portion of the "person" colony can vary drastically from one person to the next. So how does a "person" become something that exists in reality, and not just a concept? Would it be a collection of molecules that have a crisply defined configuration? "Person" and "car" are pretty difficult to get a hard definition. "Cloud" might be extremely hard. I was then tempted to say, "OK, only atoms, molecules and photons exist in reality." But then ugh, quantum physics says, "not so fast genius boy!" OK, Fine! Only wave functions exist in reality, then! The wave functions sometimes collapse into photons, electrons, muons, quarks, etc. But what about string theory?? Dark matter? Dark energy. AAARRRGH! Forget it! I give up. Nothing exists in reality!! I've become a radical relativist. Maybe I should be kicked off the board. OK, maybe I'll hold off going completely crazy. Maybe my FDR family will save me from the abyss! Save me all you rationalists!! Just kidding about the relativist thing. A little humorous drama is what every dry philosophical question needs, right?

Logic begins when it is discovered that A is A, however, how does one discern what is discoverable without first knowing that A is A? Empiricism is a precept to our nature. After all, we are born as little scientists. Empiricism is a given. One cannot argue against it or for it without presupposing it. But if empiricism requires an understanding of logic, then is logic also a precept? (By precepts I mean involuntary knowledge about the world that is not conceptual, no different to how animals know things. It is regulated by our neurobiology.) If logic is a precept, then is it the case that logic is not a concept. But if logic is not a concept, then does logic exist in reality after all? Embedded in the neurons of our brain, so to speak?

I am asking this because recently i had an apphipheny (spelling?) about my anger and reason why i have been so struggling with motivation, is because as kid and always i did good rational things for other sake. IN THE PAST, (especially childhood and teens): Why be good? Because others. Why be good? Rules. Why be rational? Because unhappiness otherwise and because its hurts OTHERS. So i find myself in almost ego-death'esque situation with my own beliefs about myself. Why should i do or be anything or anyone? Why simply not lie, be crazy, insane, and contradictionary? WHY does it really matter what i want? What’s the difference between my preferences and anyone else? Why shouldn’t i just take other peoples desire as my own? Yes, this is also about setting or not setting Rules for yourself. And also about the value of myself value if any of my preferences? Why should i prefer anything at all? And is this question itself contradiction on some level? Do i "prefer" truth over falsehood? I do or maybe i say i don’t. Maybe i say gibberish. Then what? Does it all come down to preference? And if so... why do i feel like that’s an arbitrary/subjective standard and thus meaningless or exactly the same as anyone else’s opinion or preference? I feel like my preferences do not have any value objectively. I prefer health? I prefer truth? I prefer to be moral and kind and good? Who cares about that? PS. Yeah... one could say that i sound and come off as bit of nihilistic... but that’s empty one feels when finally your shrugs off your FALSE reason to be X Y or Z. When false-self goes, when "respect" for parents complete evaporates. When values placed and forced in me by abusers vanish.

I am taking a class in my 3rd year of university called research methodology. the first lecture discussed nursing research, the role it has within the profession and in healthcare. A large part of the research was about types of research and the main paradigms that researchers subscribe to. There is the positivist paradigm and the naturalist paradigm. Each camp has its own views about reality. Positivists are empirical and objective, believing " . . . that there is reality out there that can be studied and known . . . objective reality exists independent of human observation." (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). They are called determinists as they believe that phenomena not random but have antecedent causes and they use an approach that involves realiance on orderly, rigorous procedures with tight control over situations to test predictions about the nature of phenomena and they relationships among them. (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). Positivisists use quantitative research methods, meaning they find ways to measure phenomena so that they can use statistics to analyze data. Naturalists are presented as a countermovement to positivism. The naturalistic researchers, reality is not a "fixed entity" but rather a construction of the individuals participating in the research ( (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). They are relativist thinkers who posit "if there are always multiple interpretations of the reality that exists in people's minds, then there is no process by which the ultimate truth or falsity of the contractions can be determined." They believe that knowledge is maximized when the researchers and the participants are close to one another. They listen to voices and interpretations of those under study because they think that subjective interactions are key to understanding phenomena (Loiselle & Profetto-McGrath, 2011). These researchers use QUALITATIVE methods. My professor revealed her bias toward Qualitative research methods throughout the lecture. Her tone and word choice are what lead me to believe she had a bias. When speaking about QUALitative research methods she words like: we, us, our patients. When she spoke about QUANTitative research she used words like they and them. She said something like, "they think all people are the same, they treat people like numbers and not unique individuals". Two other professors, with whom I have discussed the possibility of performing and publishing research as an undergraduate, have leaned heavily toward the naturalist worldview. They seem to discourage quantitative methods. My analysis of the situation: Qualitative research has a place in any social research area. It is often used to simply explore groups and populations of people gain insight as to what phenomena may exist. Which sets the stage for people who do actual science to produce credible information about our world. For some reason qualitative research is presented as an equal methodology. If we are seek to be intellectually honest we should simply describe it as what it is. A method in which a researcher gathers subjective information from a very small group people or even a single person, then presents a subjective interpretation of that information. I think the undue respect given to qualitative research is largely the fact that it is an easy way for a Professor to appear productive. Math takes to much effort. Why would a person (a person as Hobbes sees people) put in the effort and time to publish quantitative research when they can produce qualitative papers 4 times as fast? Publishing Quantitative research requires the use of math/statistics while qualitative research can be as easy as writing a glorified blog post. The pay is the same for either way. Nursing is also dominated by women who constantly seek to validate their profession. They want to be seen as professionally equal to physicians and even express feelings of moral superiority claiming they love and truly care for their patients. Yes, it is important that patients feel like their healthcare providers actually care about them because it fosters a belief in ones ability to overcome disease. It is also simply nice for patients to be around kind people, but flattery, warm feelings, and bad acting don't cut the cancer from their bellies or prevent micro-organisms from overwhelming their systems. To do that you need to draw from 100's of years of truth (that which is rational consistent and empirically verifiable). So now that I have had my rant. Do you think the naturalist paradigm (qualitative research) should be considered truth?

I have recently had the great joy of watching, and pondering, a lecture by Swami Sarvapriyananda about an understanding of the "self", according to the Vedanta - a philosophical stream in the Hinduist religious tradition, based on philosophical teachings and texts. I am not, myself, a Hindu, Vedanti, or religious person. A [ridiculously short] summary of his arguments, from my understanding, is: 1) The knower and the known are separate. I am aware of my experiences, but I am not them [strictly], because I observe them. 2) The knower, in this case - my consciousness (self), is unknown. We have no means of observing it, separately, neither practically nor logically. I am the knower, so I can only experience myself, but not observe myself as an object. 3) The knower, this witness to experiences, is the same thing in all living beings and existence. Instead of turning us into metaphysical abstracts, this conclusion actually infers that we are all the projections of the same core thing, like many dreams inside one mind, and thus everything is undivided in nature. 4) Realizing this knowledge, both intellectually and experientially, means we can act out of wisdom, rather than out of ignorance. We don't mistake experiences to be our entire identity; I am not [only] my feelings. What do you guys and gals think about this? Disclaimer: I actually watched his much longer double lecture (Part 1, Part 2) about this, before this short video. There he goers into much detail, with examples on the board (written), so I highly recommend it, if you find these notions worth thinking about.

I'd like to start a new topic even though I found one with the wrong order of the three words that I think matters because of the meaning of the equal sign here. http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/33098-reason-happiness-virtue/?hl=%2Breason+%2Bvirtue+%2Bhappiness I think I heard in one podcast Stef saying a different version "Reason + Virtue = Happiness", but I can't find it. How do you understand this? Reason leads to virtue which leads to happiness. Is this a more accurate version? Is it possible to use reason for vice? What are the definitions of reason, virtue or happiness? Is it possible to prove any part of this statement? Here are my thoughts on why reason (or truth) is at least necessary (may be not sufficient) for happiness. A person who has a valid theory describing the surrounding physical reality is happier than the person who doesn't have such theory or has an invalid theory. The reason for this is that if your theory is invalid (or you don't have one) then your expectations on how the reality behaves are inaccurate. You don't know what to expect or the reality regularly produces not what you expect. Uncertainty could be dangerous and also leads to frustration making you less happy. For example, people not knowing the theory of weather may pray and offer sacrifices and still have gods sending them bad weather. People having an invalid theory of government may often get upset about the political process and poor economic outcomes.

I'm concerned that some 'arguments from science' are often unscientific and dangerous and misguide people's behaviour. Such claims are often made to either prove a conclusion or gain some social, or financial interest. I hope to be true to reality ie an objectivist, but suspect people's argument from science is often false, specifically: 1. The "anecdotes are not evidence" argument. Say someone conducts a cruel/unethical experiment and brings an unknown liquid (acid) into a room of participants to test. The first person puts his finger into the liquid experiences pain and burning. Would the other (rational) participants do the same because the evidence is only anecdotal; a small sample, and inconclusive? 2. The "no evidence exists for" argument. For example, some people claim that fracking is dangerous, while others claim it is safe. Proponents argue that there is "no evidence for" fracking being dangerous, but:- Scientific studies are often carried out by vested interests (and are consequently biased), while opponents and sceptics often lack the funding to test the evidence or their theories. Even mainstream science is funded by the government whose interest is political not scientific truth, eg the anti-global warming scientists are dismissed from their posts, and notably the UK science advisor was dismissed for his anti-global warming message. Anecdotal evidence is often dismissed as unscientific yet the potential for harm from new technology or methods is often ignored or summarily dismissed risking costly and life-threatening consequences. Known benefits are stressed and unknown costs ignored. Real world testing over extended periods of time is the ultimate test, yet scientific knowledge progresses incrementally and partial knowledge can be worse than no knowledge if it leads us to take potentially costly or lethal risks. I'm not anti-scientific only sceptical of scientific claims especially when used for short term self interested goals, and not in the exploration and determining of truth from falsehood. Thanks for your thoughts, arguments and corrections!

I had a psychotic break from reality about three weeks ago. I remember very little about what happened and who it affected. It's like I've lost 99% of my memory as to what happened and what I've said to the people around me. Now it just feels like I'm in a pitch black room and the candle went out. Has anyone gone through this? What did you do? How did it affect you?

Why is it that we have been able to break out of our mental conditioning, while others flounder? Wa sit our upbrining? Dissillusionment? It seems like man can not be reduced to a theory as far as enslavement goes. But it really interests me. It seems we arecapable of such high reason as the Reformation and the Enlightenment, yet many time we waste it.Why is this? And why can't we as a so called society overcome this?

Hi All, I'm new here so Hello! Now I'm not sure if this has addressed before but here goes... I'm interested (like everyone here I presume) in the power and use of language and its ability to shape our world. It appears to me that language is a bit of a slippery eal almost impossible to grasp firmly. Now if language is a useful tool which helps us to do stuff, it also has the potential to do harm, to fashion illusions which appear to be real but which are odds to reality and an individuals self interest. Language is a map but not necessarily accurate, nor necessarily reflect anything in reality. From the absurd: My cat and I had dinner with Elvis on the moon last night. [Assuming the cat/owner do not have access to space travel and Elvis is alive!] To the manipulative If you loved me you'd buy me the car/watch/ring. To the simply false (but carrying apparent substance) The result of climate change is that 1/4 of the earths population will be displaced. [i'm not arguing facts here just principles] So while language can enable us to build ipads and a decent meal, we can also use it to describe the nature of heaven, judge other peoples intentions, and promote a government that destroys the people who vote for it. I recognise that one should simply look at what is observable and to correlate words and events/behaviour/phenomenon/objects in the world to determin the true from the false, but I am curious as to your thoughts on why people get lost through language (that is ideas and concepts), and why people are so easily misled. How come we as a people are so out of touch with reality, and are dominated by false ideas. Also, what are your simple rules for testing the validity of what people say, and whether they are lying to themselves or (attempting) to manipulate you. Well that's my first post, replies welcome. Cheers!