Ifat Glassman

A problem dealing with people who act nice

80 posts in this topic

I wonder if they have fake meanness in some countries. Like a fake frown. I mean, in North Korea is meanness such a part of life that some people fake it to fit in? We haven't addressed that issue. Does anyone have any jpeg image examples?

Let's throw this open for discussion. :wacko:

I don't know. Do you think this looks like a fake meanness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think disintegration is the right way to go, one should rather integrate the new ideas. This can be very difficult to do with abstract concepts because to do so one cannot just do so by accepting the logic behind them, to fully integrate the idea one needs to fully understand how it relates to reality in a both abstract and concrete way. That "BAM!" can only come when you find the last pieces to the "puzzle", the other pieces being what you have gathered so far through your experience, and suddenly the whole picture becomes clear. Many times though we can see the validity of the idea but there are many pieces missing to get the full picture. That's why it's sometimes so difficult and takes such a long time to correct ones thinking and integrating it to ones life.
I think it is both. You have to let the old ideas die off. As Peikoff said, when he started to get into the Pragmatist mindset, he would have to tell himself something like, "No! Existence Exist!" Then he would force his focus elsewhere, perhaps on Objectivism, but would not even think about Pragmatism for a while.

I used to have this problem with freewill (just like Peikoff gives an example of). I'd say, "Yes, I choose to do such-n-such, but WHY did I choose it? What made me think of the reasons!" I could carry that argument on forever. It is only by cutting those line of questions off, ignoring the horrible feeling of, "but I want the answer!", and thinking about something else. After awhile, as long as you understand what is correct, the feeling of, "but I just need to be certain!" will turn in to, "wow, that was silly of me to think that!"

But note that this only ONLY AFTER knowing what is right intellectually. First one has to go through what Betsy said about subconscious premises earlier.

I must admit that i'm unfamiliar with Peikoff's lecture but i'm not entierly convinced of this approach.

When i've tried that i've found that the reason for those reocurring thoughts is that I don't yet fully understand the right ideas. What I would do instead is to tell myself "No! That's bad thinking because..." and then i'll examine all the arguments, also trying to make everything as concrete as possible.

Now I guess disintegrating bad ideas can work to some extent if you do know the right answer, however without a full understanding I think what you would accomplish at most is to get rid of bad thinking habits and replacing that with an unfinished understanding of the right answer.

I wonder if they have fake meanness in some countries. Like a fake frown. I mean, in North Korea is meanness such a part of life that some people fake it to fit in? We haven't addressed that issue. Does anyone have any jpeg image examples?

Let's throw this open for discussion.

Is this like the game I sometimes play with my friends, where you look at each other and frown, and the first one to look away and start laughing looses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must admit that i'm unfamiliar with Peikoff's lecture but i'm not entierly convinced of this approach.

When i've tried that i've found that the reason for those reocurring thoughts is that I don't yet fully understand the right ideas. What I would do instead is to tell myself "No! That's bad thinking because..." and then i'll examine all the arguments, also trying to make everything as concrete as possible.

Now I guess disintegrating bad ideas can work to some extent if you do know the right answer, however without a full understanding I think what you would accomplish at most is to get rid of bad thinking habits and replacing that with an unfinished understanding of the right answer.

After thinking about what Betsy said, I'm probably going to go back and listen to the lecture again myself.
Is this like the game I sometimes play with my friends, where you look at each other and frown, and the first one to look away and start laughing looses?
Considering that I laughed just thinking about this game, I think I'd lose... :wacko: I wonder if a forum version of the game could be devised...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you should understand that emotions are not irrational. Just as reason is volitional, so is irrationality. Emotions are not volitional. They are automatic responses. The premises supporting the emotion may be judged as irrational or not.
Did I say something that made you think that I think emotions are irrational?

In Post 65, you stated "I understand the premise behind the irrational emotion..." In my understanding of English, adjectives usually modify the nouns they preceed. If you have some other usage in mind, you need to present your grammar theory with your sentences.

Heh, if I thought that, then I'd think all things I love were irrational. :wacko: Almost everyone (except maybe Freud and some psychology professors) have at least some amount of rational emotions.
No, it depends upon what you consider being pleasant means.
Now I'm confused. Its subjective? Or contextual according to how I am somehow?

You say pleasant depends upon me, and I say it depends upon you. And you jump to the conclusion that it is subjective? If I like ice cream and you don't, is that subjective? If you don't know what it means to be pleasant in a social situation, then I'd suggest some intense introspection is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Post 65, you stated "I understand the premise behind the irrational emotion..." In my understanding of English, adjectives usually modify the nouns they preceed. If you have some other usage in mind, you need to present your grammar theory with your sentences.
'the' is a denotative adjective which means I'm refering to a specific emotion which I refered to before. If I had not denoted the noun 'emotion' at all I could see how you could come to that meaning. The point is, I wasn't refering to emotions as such, but one specific emotion that I have it a certain context.
You say pleasant depends upon me, and I say it depends upon you. And you jump to the conclusion that it is subjective? If I like ice cream and you don't, is that subjective? If you don't know what it means to be pleasant in a social situation, then I'd suggest some intense introspection is needed.
This is why I said,
Or contextual according to how I am somehow?
I don't think pleasantness is intrinsic or anything like that. If to you, being pleasant to others (not based on any individual thing about them) is giving big smiles to everyone, I would disagree with your statement before. That is why I said it depends on what you mean by it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites