Ifat Glassman's Thoughts

My summer project - update

2011-07-05T11:32:00.000-07:00

The update is that nothing is moving much. I am pretty much stuck as to where to get the background image from, how to get a good model reference picture from, since it's nude and requires sunlight and other small things (such as where to get the fabric from, what wood panel side to get etc' but that is really a small issue).

I think once I have the background decided on I will be on the horse and ready to move forward. This lead me to the thought today of "just pick one and go with it even if it's not perfect". Not an easy thing to do for me. When it comes to art I am very picky. The Atelier beat it out of me a little bit. I get there early in the morning and draw what is there, like it or not and eventually I like the result even if partially. However, it doesn't work well when I see something in the subject I really like and this is a case when I like the subject.

Maybe I can do the figure alone and linger with the background so that I can start working. Yes... yes... It may end up making the composition slight less than perfect but this is a summer project and the summer only lasts so long. This is indeed what I should do!

So the plan is to look through more backgrounds today, to test the appearance of pure sunlight on the body (it may be too much and I'd have to change it to something more subtle somehow, like indirect sunlight).

OK, let's get moving!

The process of creating my summer painting

2011-06-30T21:35:00.000-07:00

You can follow me in my steps to create my first imagination-reference painting from the first concept/sketch to its final stages which will hopefully be at the end of the summer.

In the past I have been painting from my head and didn't use references with an unsatisfying result. This is my first time trying to work with references to achieve what I have in mind.

It all started one night as I was sitting at my desk, doing whatever - I don't remember what, when I had this image in my head and I had to put it down. I grabbed a pen and a sticky note and scribbled the following:

Then, I stored the little note in a drawer and didn't think about it much for several months and meanwhile got ideas for several other paintings.

Then, as my year at the Atelier (a form of a private, small art school) came close to an end I started thinking of my summer project and had a hard time choosing one idea out of the 5 I had. I decided to just go with the first one, which is this one.

A while ago, after I created the sketch, I started thinking and trying to develop the concept for the painting - the background and the story behind it. I didn't want just the figure in an empty space. The idea of a naked woman carelessly adjusting her high heel shoes was appealing to me as part of some context from real life, and I wanted to find the right setting to place her in. The first thing that came to my mind was a shopping area. She is going shopping, naked, but without much attention to the fact of being naked, but as if she were dressed.

Now, the thing is, I don't know WHY I was to paint that or why it has such a positive emotion for me, but it does. I feel that it communicates something good about the world. How else can someone go shopping naked and worry about nothing more than adjusting their shoe? It must mean that they like their body, they like life, they like the sense of moving and the sun and wind on their skin and can care for nothing except for that fun. In real life, this feeling would only be possible as part of a dream, because.. you'd get arrested, you'd get pointed at and so on and that's not fun at all. But the scene is not going to have people in her immediate environment. There will be people, but they will be further away in the shopping center. Not enough for any sort of interaction, just enough to make the shopping center look natural.

Now I had 2 problems to solve: References for the background and for the model. I have the pose in mind fairly well, but not the background.
so I started Googling for shopping plaza images to get some ideas of what I'd like to have, what would work.
I looked at several, each with its own pros and cons. Here are a few of those images:

Then I realized I am getting too overwhelmed by the list that started forming of what I like and didn't like about each one and so I made a document with a list of requirements from the background.
I like the first image the most for its distance, high brightness, clarity of it being a shopping center without too many details. I didn't like the street separating the viewer from the mall, I prefer something more accessible and inviting to the viewer like a parking lot.
I want the background to show blue sky so that it is clear it is daytime - morning probably.

Now my problems are getting a model, finding a place where a model can be photographed in broad daylight without anyone seeing, finding the precise shopping place I'd use as a reference (I can't use the painting above because it belongs to someone else).
The model will likely be me, though not accurately me, but some idealized/ approximated version. (I better not receive any cheesy remarks about this).

More on the list: deciding the canvas size, getting a canvas, paints, workable lightning conditions, blah blah, it's trivial.

I'm going to make myself an organized schedule so I don't end up drifting away and put in the required time. It's easy to go do other things while running into difficulties and I want to avoid that.

I am going to use all the knowledge and experience I've gathered in my year at Georgetown Atelier. I've done nothing but draw the whole year; no color, no painting. I don't have a lot of experience doing that, but I feel fairy ripe for the task anyway.

Stay tuned for part 2 as my painting and preparation process progresses.

There must be an angel

2010-12-15T16:55:00.000-08:00

"No one on earth could feel like this. I'm thrown and overblown with bliss" - probably my favorite line ever.

Insecurity masked as self-involvement

2010-10-09T13:50:00.000-07:00

Today I heard perhaps the best example to illustrate this "thing", which some, or even many people do.

A father and son started a project, sending an HD camera to outer space and back. They achieved this (how incredibly cool!) and when they got the camera back they put the video up on youTube.
[No link or details for this from me this time, feel free to search it on youTube].

So, to the point I was making: In the comment section, some people replied "this is not HD! The quality is OK but not HD like they say it is."

Now, how on earth can someone have that to say as their one, only comment? Is this really the most important thing you could think of to comment on this magnificent and exciting adventure/ achievement? How about the fact that a normal regular family sent an object to outer space?

One has to wonder, what goes on in the minds of people who make comments of this type.

The problem is not the criticism, but the fact that the comment does not focus on the achievement, but on the knowledge of the commenter. It's as if, a scientist creates a device for instant transmission, something amazingly out of this world, and in the article he mentions he used a PC computer, and the reply people would have is: "Oh, I have a mac, it would have been so much better... In my opinion macs have superior processing power".
It's as if the only thing they are after is to pour down their knowledge in front of others - that is THE thing on their mind regardless of what they see or hear.

The softer version of this would be unrelated to knowledge yet still self involved.
Like if an artist would display a masterpiece of figure drawing and an observer would reply: "I'm almost as well built as this figure, I go to the gym 3 times a week you know".

What is it with these people? They seem pathologically self-involved.

What they have in common is a constant internal focus on their self-esteem, instead of focus on the world, on facts and specifically on other people's achievements when they cross their path. The world is viewed through a filter of "How does this relate to my self-esteem" rather than "what is the meaning of this to my life?/ what is the meaning of this?".

The same problem presents itself when these people are involved in some intellectual discussion. Their replies seems to revolve around what they know (whether or not it's the essence of the discussion or a very minor, unrelated point). It's never around facts and knowledge.
It's the sort that likes to "insert their opinion" even when they have no clue on the subject and no interest in inspecting the facts on which their opinion is suppose to rest.

I know from myself that if I ever go into a thinking mode of "how does this subject relate to my knowledge" vs. "what are the facts of this subject and how do they relate to my goals" that I am pursuing the subject for the wrong reason and that my vanity is involved rather than selfish, healthy pursuit of my goals.

Those other people are chronically insecure and they build their whole thinking as a wall to defend against their insecurity. Instead of a mind that performs its function of gaining knowledge and pursuing goals, the mind turns into a self-defense machine that sees the world not for what it is but for opportunities to prove self-worth and to defend from recognition of ignorance.

This is why, in seeing the video of the camera launched to outer space, the one thing they find appropriate to say is: "According to my expert knowledge on the subject, this is not HD".

Does Vacuum exert force on masses?

2010-07-25T17:09:00.000-07:00

Vacuum appears to exert force on objects and molecules, since they immediately and powerfully move toward the vacuum once allowed. For example, a jar sealed with vacuum seems to pull the lid toward it, or pull air into it once the vacuum is released.

However, all that happens is molecules moving where they can move, where they have space to move into. In gas particles barely have any effect on one another (besides collisions, gravity or electric forces are negligible). All that happens when molecules move into a vacuum quickly is that the movement is in a single direction. Normally, in an average density space, particles move in all direction, creating an even pressure in all directions and a net 0 movement of the particles (more or less). However, with vacuum, every particle enters into it - nothing moves out of it, creating a very distinct sense of movement. In fact the empty space does not exert any force on the molecules - it is just normal movement except there is nothing to balance it.

What about the jar? How could I explain the fact that the lid sticks to the jar so powerfully if the vacuum exerts no actual physical force?
Like so: The lid is actually pushed by the particles outside the jar. The inside of the jar can simply offer nothing to balance it, which is why the lid is pushed onto the jar so powerfully.

Graphic design - elegant backgrounds

2010-04-08T16:33:00.000-07:00

The idea is to have a menu or a side - tab appear as having a slightly distinct background from the main area (which is black, in this case).
On a large scale this is probably too distracting, but could work nicely to create background for menus or small divs with a side-tab.

I've tried different color gradients just to get a feel of how they stand out against this background.

So, this is how to do it:

1. Start a new file, bucket-fill it with black (or a color of your choosing).
2. Apply a noise filter: In Gimp: Filter > Noise> HSV noise

Play around with the variables until you get speckles that are refined enough and appear as adding a subtle texture.

3. Add the gloss effect. Select the gradient tool (white to transparent) with transparency of 40% or so (you can play around with that), apply it to the top part of your square and then to the bottom, so that the lighter area is close to the edge and the transparency is toward the center.

4. Add a color gradient to a selected portion of the background. Use very high transparency - 10% opacity or less. The stronger the colors, the less opacity required.

Walla.

Using guilt as a weapon and emotionalism

2010-04-05T07:13:00.000-07:00

I saw this incident involving an online game (Farmville) and saw a few interesting components about it.

First I'll tell you what the incident was. The game involves operations where a few people set a goal and need to do their part to be able to achieve the goal in due time.
It takes effort on the part of each participant and if the goal is achieved, there is a reward at the end for all participants.

It is possible, under the way the co-op is built to join an operation, not do a thing and get a reward at the end if other people manage to complete the task on time.

OK, so now that we're done with the boring details, here is what happened:

Apparently, some people join those operations but do nothing to contribute to their success. They wait and see if others do enough to get the task done and then do other things.

In this specific incident, one player wrote a note to one of those exploiters asking them to quit the operation so that someone who IS going to get some work done can join.

Guess what the reply was? The "exploiter" posted a note on the Facebook wall (publicly visible) of the one who sent the note saying: "You asked me to quit so I did!".

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it? But it is actually complex and contains many interesting small elements.

For starters - this reply is unjust and dishonest. It is meant to punish the one who sent the note - to make them feel guilty - as if, if they felt guilty, it means the exploiter is off the hook for what they have done. The interesting component is that this is a good example of a second hander, but stunning, to me, in its depth.

Think about what it means - if the other person is made to feel guilt, then the other person is convinced that they were wrong about the case, therefore the exploiter can rest assured that they did nothing wrong because they rely entirely on the judgment of the other person's mind.
Notice that there is no reference to facts, no independent judgment - just an attempt to change the mind of someone else so that, in turn, one's mind can become convinced of the same thing. Insane, isn't it?

Secondly, I find it interesting that the exploiter's state of mind is entirely emotional, bearing very little rational structure. They received a note blaming them for something - the facts of what they are being blamed for do not register in their mind and do not matter. What they do register is that they are being blamed and that makes them feel bad. They then decide to shift the burden of that negative feelings to someone else, as if feelings can be poured from one soul to another. Using ideas is just a tool. In this case, the idea is that the person who sent the note has taken an action against someone and that this, by itself, is suppose to be bad.
Does the exploiter actually believe in such an idea? No - they obviously take actions against other people without any shame or inhibition. The idea here is used carelessly, without any thought, without any understanding that ideas matter. The exploiter felt something bad, and took whatever random action their subconscious could gather up to shift the emotion to someone else.

This guilt trick is very common: Someone judges you badly? Make them feel guilty for it, and, like magic, the blame is gone. Facts of the case? Who cares! Just work to change the content of the mind of the accuser and that would be enough.

It is a good indication of a mind of a second hander - a mind who relies on the judgment of others for its own certainty and ideas.

Another common thing people do is to be emotionalists. Now what does that mean? Obviously, ?I am not going out against emotions as such, nor against the pursuit of pleasurable emotions. The question here is not the goal but the means.

Pursuing pleasure by following every urge and every feeling one happens to have is not going to make one happy. Nor does this means that life consists of a constant struggle to suppress one's emotions that stand in the way of reason.
Without going into the details of what is ideal - here is one thing which is not ideal - what many people are doing, of which this exploiter lady is a good example.

Her emotions mean everything to her. She follows them blindly, with complete servitude. In her mind there is no room for facts or ideas, only for satisfaction of her emotions. Ideas in her mind have no relation to facts and should have no relation to facts - they are mere tools to achieve satisfaction of emotions.
So if insulting someone else (justly or unjustly, hypocritically or not) works to shift her emotions - there is no hesitation - she will do it.
This is an incredible mentality. I am very curious to know how this sort of mentality can develop. I have seen, at times, elements of something like that in myself, as a child - so I can understand it to some extent. But a mind devoted entirely to satisfaction of emotions bypassing rational judgment? That is fantastically bizarre.
One day I will discover how this sort of mentality comes to dominate a person's psychology. I'm guessing it involves some laziness as a child and after enough time it become automatized enough that the person does not even recognize anymore what is motivating them nor their departure from reality. All they know is their emotions.
There is more to understand about this.

The last interesting element is the use of emotions as a replacement of ideas. This is the least visible elements of the three elements involved in this case.

One element is the emotionalism of this woman (what motivated her action).
The second element is the second hand judgment (relying on someone else's judgment to substitute it for one's own) - however, there is yet another thing hidden here, which is: She was not going directly after this guy's judgment. Instead, she was going after his emotion. If she could get him to feel guilty, it would be as if he had judged her to be good.
People are not generally aware that there is a tie between emotion and ideas, but here is a case that shows it well. This guy feeling guilty in general could not be of any interest to her. She wanted him to feel guilt about THIS CASE. Now why? The reason is that the feeling of guilt indicates a judgment. What she was really after was his judgment, not his feeling - the feeling is simply an indication of a subconscious judgment.

OK, that concludes my thoughts about this.

Feel free to leave your comments below and let me know what you think.

Worshiping of negative emotions

2010-03-23T04:20:00.000-07:00

You know you're a philosopher when... you analyze a commercial for its philosophical elements.

For example, this commercial for Vlasic pickles:

I like this commercial, because it shows negative emotions as a source of amusement.

The opposite approach magnifies negative emotions into a scary giant which must not be mentioned at all in any form - it's the approach people showed when they called the Glenn Beck show complaining about frog abuse or the approach I'm sure some people show when they called "animal cruelty!" about the making of this commercial which involved... scaring a cat.
It's a very common approach these days - that negative emotions are important and should take a major role in human interactions (be avoided at all cost).
This social climate makes this commercial a little gem - a reminder of good old fashioned American spirit, under which a little pain is nothing to worry about or pay attention to. Nowadays, a little pain is what we're told we should pay all our attention to, feel guilty about and avoid at all cost. Don't startle, don't insult, don't upset anyone, don't judge.

The philosophical foundation of the commercial is the benevolent universe premise. The opposite - the worship of negative emotions is based on a malevolent universe premise (a term coined by Ayn Rand).

It is based on a view that human beings are not strong, but fragile - that they are not naturally happy, rather they are victims - and that by making the slightest joke, as friendly as it is at their expense, one is committing a terrible crime of attempting to break their spirit.
We are expected to treat each other as if we were all weak victims and made to feel guilty of being a monster if we treat people as strong and happy - as capable of enjoying a friendly joke at their expense (I emphasize friendly).

So, no, this commercial did not say all of this, but it represents this approach, or rather, can be classified under the good approach.

Here are a few cases to illustrate my point:

In college, I decided, one day, to share my sense of humor with my roommate. We were in the kitchen between classes when she started telling me about a certain vegetable and where it grows or something of the sort. It was so boring that I zoned out. I decided that she would find it funny too that I zoned out since the topic was a vegetable, so I told her with a smile that I dozed off. She was so offended she nearly stated crying - she locked herself in the room and would not talk to me for at least a week.
What the hell makes a person fragile to the degree of taking offense on account of a vegetable story? I find it hard to understand. But it is cases like these that make it hard to treat people as strong and independent, that drive people to consider every word they say and honesty on the large out of fear of upsetting someone.

I met my best friend in college in a story entirely opposite to this incident.
We were both undergoing a check by a security guard while we were entering a train station. We had to show our IDs. The guard took specially long time looking at my friend's before letting him in. I made a joke to him that it must be a pretty ugly picture to require so long to decide whether or not he's a security threat.
He laughed and continued talking to me.
I can't imagine how my college roommate would have reacted to such a joke.

Education today seems to be the same. Teachers try to build self esteem in kids by saving them the need to face making errors.
This approach is the same because it views kids as fragile, as unable to deal with failure - since failure is seen as big, as huge and threatening, and kids must be shielded from it.
This, of course, achieves the opposite result - it teaches kids that the proper way to view mistakes is not as something small to correct, but as something big to avoid and fear. Since making mistakes is a normal part of life and of learning - this turns these kids into fragile, unconfident people - the exact opposite of what this approach was suppose to achieve.

A word of clarification before I finish: I do not mean to imply that negative emotions are insignificant or should be ignored or viewed as insignificant. It is important for psychological health to know why one feels what one feels - be it a pleasurable or a painful emotion.
But to view negative emotions as powerful metaphysically (by their very nature) is to view people as fragile by their very nature, and that is what I am against.

Who is the hero - Lois Lane or Superman?

2010-03-19T16:08:00.000-07:00

Lois Lane is a determined reporter, acting daily to be the best reporter she can be.
She exposes crime and corruption, sometimes risking her life to do so.
Her work helps some people, but she is primarily working for herself. She takes great pride in doing her job well which is what keeps her going.

Superman does what he does for free. He considers it a bad taste to request money for helping people. What he does saves many lives.
Superman refuses to take any pride in what he does. "This is what every decent person would have done, it's nothing". However, when the streets are clean of crime (this happens in one episode of the second season of Lois and Clark), superman looses his sense of self-esteem, hanging around high school kids to help them with their baseball game just to feel that someone needs him.

Lois Lane's happiness and self-esteem come from her job. Superman's happiness and self-esteem come from being able to help someone in trouble.

A business offering service to aid in disasters has the same focus as Lois Lane has - how to improve their business, how to offer a faster, better service - how to offer such a great service that they get more costumers and make more money.
Like Lois, they derive pleasure from being a good business and their focus in on their own product - not primarily on the trouble of other people.

Superman is suppose to be an ideal - a hero we would all admire and aspire to be. But I think Lois Lane and the insurance company I described are the real heroes.

Superman is a product of an altruistic morality, a morality that teaches people that their only source of self esteem (unadmittedly) depends on the misery of others, on helping the sick and needy. It creates a disgusting, modest kind of empty character.

This is the character that's suppose to stand for "Truth, Justice and the American way". Well, truth and justice - that's fine, but the American way is not to give stuff for free. The American way IS about making a fortune, succeeding in the world - not being a sucker for hire, apologizing for the option of taking pride in what one does for a living. No sir, that is not the American spirit, though it may have become so over the years under the influence of Christianity.

I think Lois Lane is the real star of the show - a person of character and determination - superman is a modest bore in a suit.

I think the creation of Superman is evidence for the idea that there is no glory in the life of ordinary people. That being a man holds no potential for greatness. But take something that can fly and lift up buildings and we have something to talk about.

Nah, I'd look at those who can erect buildings the old fashion way any time over the one who can do it as easily as he can breath. That's where the real glory is.

The meaning of "Percent"

2010-03-15T16:19:00.000-07:00

We need the concept of percent because we need a convenient way to measure the size (or amount) or one thing compared to another basic amount. For example, if you are selling apples and you want to know how well you did in a particular year, you need to measure your success compared to how much demand there was for apples in that year.
If the market had 100 people looking to buy apples and 30 of them picked your apples, your success was 30% of the market. If, however, there were 10,000 people looking to buy apples and only 30 of them bought yours, your success was only 0.3% - much lower, which means that there could be a problem with your apples or with the way you are selling them.
This shows that the number 30 (30 apples sold) is not significant by itself to measure performance. Performance is measured by percent - by how one amount is compared to another one (in this case, the amount of apples sold vs. the amount of people looking to buy apples).

Another example is if you are opening a business with a few partners and you want to divide the profits. Suppose you decide that the right way to divide the profits is 50%-25%-25%. Suppose one month you got paid $1000 - is this your fair share or not? The only way to know is to measure this compared to the overall profits in that month. If the profit was $2000 you got 50% which is your share, but if the profit was $10,000 then you deserve more. Again the significant number here is a numerical relation between one amount to the other.

Percent, mathematically, is a conversion of units of measurements. Knowing that you got 16/123 of the profit contains the exact same information as knowing that you got 13% of the profit, yet 16/123 is not an amount we can easily concretize in our head - not a number we can easily relate to. To make sense of it, we would need to see how it stands in relation to something more familiar, like one half, one third, a decimal number or a percent.
Is there something inherit about the base of 123 that makes it hard to measure things like 16/123? Not really. Had we measured percent with a base of 123, the number 16 would have been far easier to concretize (connect to an actual amount of objects in reality) than the corresponding amount (13, in this case) had the base been a 100.
The amount of 100 is easier to handle since we count in tens, but the main reason it is easier to grasp the meaning of 13/100 than 16/123 is because using 100 units as the whole is far more concretized for us - due to extensive use in daily life.

One can see this phenomenon by the need of Americans to convert kilometers to miles to get a sense of the distance and of Europeans to convert miles to kilometers for the same purpose.
There is nothing special about the length of one kilometer or one mile except that one gets a sense of their length by repeatedly using those units and getting a sense of their physical meaning in reality.

When calculating what is the percent of something, what we do is to ask the following question: Given that we have X units from type Y - how many units would we have had we converted the measurement unit into one of a hundred?

For example, suppose we have 15 seconds out of a minute - the basic measurement unit is 1/60. Asking what percent 15 seconds are from one minute is the same as asking - if a minute were composed of 100 units of time, how many units would we have to take to equal the time duration of 15 seconds?

15           ?
__     =     __
60         100

The question mark is the percent (the percent 15 seconds are out of a whole minute).

So, in conclusion, percentage is a measurement of the size relation of one amount to another, represented in a unit base of 1/100 (in which the whole is 100 units).

"Civil discussion" rules on online forums are counter-productive

2010-03-12T08:05:00.000-08:00

This common rule restricts users from engaging in "personal attacks" or "personal insults".

Seeing how some people turn intellectual discussions into a king of the jungle war - one might think this rule is a good solution.
I think it's not and here is why:

If a law came to pass forbidding the use of weapons - what do you suppose would happen? Criminals would still get weapons, illegally (since they, by definition, do not care about the law, but about getting away with disobeying it) and the police would not be able to use weapons to combat crime, since they DO hold themselves up to the law.

Crime would be unstoppable.

This applies equally to discussions. Words carry power with them - the power of ideas, knowledge - which result in behavior. Words, when the situation calls for it, ARE weapons - intellectual weapon against intellectual criminals.
When one is not allowed to use them against those criminals, the result is the same as in the case of physical weapons.

To illustrate my point, consider the following examples:

Someone posts the following: "Hi guys! I am really upset. X told me that I am cheating by doing Y! I am so angry. I only do Y occasionally, so how dare he accuse me of doing it?! To fight this injustice I have asked all my friends to stop associating themselves with him to teach him a lesson!"

The appropriate response to this person is by saying explicitly that they are dishonest and unjust. However, the "no personal insults" rule kicks in to achieve its goal of a "civilized discussion". No one is allowed to tell this person that they are dishonest. At best, people can say something like: "I don't think what you did is right"/ "I don't think this guy deserved what you did".
This gives the original poster appearance of rationality and honesty since such replies make it seem like the original poster made a mistake of judgment. The replies focus on whether or not such "judgment" was mistaken. The truth is, the original poster used no judgment at all - they used evasion and were thoroughly dishonest both in the actions they reported and in their reason for posting.

This "civil discussion" rule gives them the safety of posting any kind of dishonest act without being called on the immorality of their mental process.

How about this example: Two people are discussing a topic. One of them brings facts, arguments and logical analysis of the topic at hand and of the other side's viewpoint. The other side, however, replies without any attempt to digest what is being said to them - they barely even read what is said - all they are looking for is how to prove they are right, but without relation to the facts or arguments presented to them.
This type of debate is very common, yet the "no personal insults" rule forbids anyone from calling someone else on doing this.
Instead the rational side has to either quit the discussion quietly, or continue it AS IF they were talking to a thinking person (in the context of the discussion).

Having to absorb the intellectual corruption of someone else to try to translate it, in replies, into an appearance of an honest intellectual process is damaging to the honest person's psychology because it instills a habit of self-imposed deceit about the nature of corruption (e.g. "X is not dishonest, they are just misjudging", "X is not trying to secretly insult me, they are simply judging me wrongly", "X is not a non-thinking, self-made idiot, they just don't know enough about this subject" and so on).

Again, the corrupt intellectual behavior goes uncalled and unchallenged - and therefore, safe and secure, while the rational side is left to quietly carry the burden of the intellectual corruption of the other side. This tends to chase good people away from those forums or discourage them from engaging in an intellectual discussion.

The result is that it is very difficult to find people willing to think and discuss topics in online forums devoted to intellectual discussions. The good guys give up after a short while and the bad guys stay and enjoy the freedom to do whatever they want. If someone insults them in any way by calling on what they are doing, all they have to do is call a moderator to protect them.

It is important to make the distinction between those whose main goal in a discussion is to "appear right" and insult the other participants as a tactic of achieving this end, vs. those who pronounce honest criticism of the one they are having a discussion with.
The "no personal insults" rule fails to make this distinction; before this rule, policemen and criminals are nothing more than men with guns, which need to be equally penalized for it.

Ad-hominem is a symptom of irrationality, not an essential, just as the problem with promiscuity is lack of spiritual values - not the amount of sex, or the problem with hateful people is their irrationality, not the emotion of hate.

To come up with a good set of rules one must go through a process of induction to identify the essential characteristics of rational vs. irrational behavior. Only rules based on identifying the essentials of proper intellectual discussion will do to create a good environment for rational, prosperous, discussions.

What is luck? Is it a valid concept?

2010-01-19T07:37:00.000-08:00

Luck is the relation between random occurrences and one's values.

Random occurrences in favor of one's values are "good luck" and random occurrences against one's values are "bad luck". The less probable the event the higher the "luck" is. When the event is fully predictable in under one's control the term "luck" no longer applies to the situation.

For example: If you walk in the street and an envelope full of money lands on your head - that is good luck. It is a random occurrence that you happened to be at that place at that specific time and the relation to your values is positive since money is a value.

If you win every single game you play in a gambling place that is an extremely good luck - but again, it is all random (putting aside whatever brain was required to win the games). What makes it "extremely good luck" is the relative rarity of the events (the length of the winning streak).

I think that people see "luck" as an actual spiritual entity, as some form of liquid running in one man's body at some time. Evaluations like "This man is lucky" tend to mean that the man himself actually has some quality about him that affects events around him. In fact, no man can be lucky in that sense. Such a concept is mystical.

The reality is that some people have more random occurrences in their favor than their disfavor and this changes nothing of the fact that random occurrences are random occurrences.

Wishing someone "good luck" is no more than letting them know that you wish them success, that you wish the conditions they would encounter outside their control would be in their favor.

So if you are feeling lucky, punk, better check your premises. A feeling of "luck" is not reality based, one cannot "feel" future occurrences outside one's control. :)

In the Dawn’s Early Light: Patrick Henry—Beacon for America

2010-01-18T07:52:00.000-08:00

Link to watch the lecture

A fascinating and, to me, a very inspiring and emotional video lecture - by John Ridpath from the Ayn Rand Institute.

The lecture describes how one brave man passionate about the human spirit and the freedom it requires - inspired the creation of the United States of America.

Is there such a thing as too much money? Not for me.

2010-01-14T17:19:00.000-08:00

If had earned a lot of money, practically unlimited amount to spend, here is what I would buy:

An ice skating rink, all to myself.
A beautiful house with a huge garden which I would design myself, with a lake, small river, lots of flowers, statues and hidden gardens where I could just sit by myself and think, read a book or have an interesting conversation. The house would have huge windows compromising no privacy since the house would be relatively secluded.
Then, I would have an airplane. Why? Because it's darn nice to be able to fly to anywhere in the world, to visit a great restaurant, or shop for clothes at a great designer store abroad. Which brings me to number 4:
Lots of clothes. I love shopping, I love clothes that emphasize the figure, can't get enough till I get enough. So shopping would be a great side activity, whenever the mood strikes.
A good studio for my art.
An art gallery where I would put up all my favorite works of art which I would collect.
Restaurants and food. I can admire a good meal, and would gladly admire more of them.
Some cool personal flying machine, whatever exists.
A very powerful computer or two.
It's hard to believe but I am running out of things. I would contribute to research that I think would come up with cool new technologies or medical products. I would also contribute to the Ayn Rand institute.
Buy great presents for my family and friends. I would get my little brother a decent private tutor who would educate him correctly, unlike the crap he has to go through at school.
All the music I want, and my private dance studio.
A huge room full of small lamps and elegant decorations for ball dancing parties which I would throw sometimes.
OK, I guess I would also require a car, with a driver. I don't think I will have a servant though, I like getting my own stuff and not having a stranger in my house.

OK, I can't think of more things, but given more time I'm sure I'd come up with them. Point is, money can provide a lot of pleasure, a lot of ways to enjoy yourself and express yourself.

Money also has to be earned to be enjoyed - earned by productive work (unlike just a boring job or just getting the money without doing anything to earn it).

Thinking in principles

2010-01-07T11:33:00.000-08:00

Some people only look at short term actions without relation to the ideas behind them to decide if they should trust somebody or not and if such action is good or not - and they get screwed.

One example is government financing. People think that because the government offers them free money - to finance their house, mortgage, education, healthcare (coming up - let's hope not) that the government is good and trustworthy. However, this is what the pig thinks too about the farmer that feeds it - and will continue to think it until the day it gets slaughtered. "I wake up today, he brings me food. I wake up tomorrow he brings me food - what could be wrong?".

Without long term vision, without thinking in principle and seeing what such actions mean in principle (in case of government financing: loss of freedom and individual rights) we are all like a pig led to the slaughter, led by the blindness of pigs who can see nothing beyond the immediate free cash they are getting at somebody else's expense.

My thoughts about organic food

2010-01-02T17:33:00.001-08:00

Well, I've been thinking about it a little bit since I started shopping at an organic food store conveniently located nearby.

For centuries, farmers have struggled to find ways to improve their product and production. From new irrigation systems to new manures, chemicals that protect the plants to chemicals that make them grow bigger and tastier - one generation building on top of the knowledge of the previous generation. Genetic engineers, chemical engineers, all joined the task of making produce better; And here comes the organic food farmer with one thing to say to these people: "You guys screwed it up. It's better without any of the improvements you guys have been adding".

Huh? This sounds bit bizarre to me. After thinking about it for a while, I see two options: One is that organic food provides better tasting products but in lower volumes.
In this option, it is filling the hole of a needed, yet otherwise unavailable product since by this hypothesis it cannot be found in traditional farming.
According to this idea, traditional farmers focus on volume at the expense of quality, and the many improvements over the years add little to the taste but more to the longevity, size and volume of the produce.

The second option is that organic food is a result of philosophical ideas, the philosophy that views man as a parasite on earth, as an animal with one too many ambitions, an animals that thinks it knows better than nature what is good for it. According to this view, modern medicine does not heal, it destroys, technology does not improve man's life but makes man miserable and destroys the earth. Science, especially genetic engineering is a sin because it attempts to change the way nature is.
Organic food by this option is just another instance of this view: "Respect nature and be humble", "man can never and should never improve upon nature", which means to live like our ancestors did, in a cave, and never try to rise above that level.

Which one is it? If you have an opinion with some facts to back it up, please leave it in a comment.

Wishing you a happy holiday...

2009-12-22T16:37:00.000-08:00

Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails - Part C

2009-11-06T00:34:00.000-08:00

This is part of a great article by Ayn Rand: “Conservatism: An Obituary,” from the book: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits . . . .

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old . . . .

The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.

(Taken from The Ayn Rand Lexicon)

Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails - Addition

2009-11-05T17:54:00.000-08:00

This is a video by Yaron Brook, answering the question: "If Altruism and Christian ethics of altruism undercut the defense of Capitalism, how is it possible that the founding fathers, which were responsible for the birth of Capitalism, came up with the declaration of independence?"

To hear the rest of the questions following this lecture, start from Question 1 and follow the links to the follow-up videos.

So called: "Pro-life"

2009-11-03T15:02:00.000-08:00

I don't know when I heard a bigger piece of crap wrapped in such a nice envelope.

There is nothing "pro-life" about those who seek to prohibit abortion. There is nothing pro-life about destroying the life and liberty of women for the sake of a collection of some cells.

"Destroying life? what is life-destroying about being forced to have a baby?"

Being forced into anything is life-destroying in varying degrees. But having a baby is a life changing decision. It has implications for the parent's entire life. A baby takes resources to raise: time-wise, emotional and financial. It DOES change the whole course of life for a woman or a couple. The so called "pro-life" do not seem to care about that. To them life means; the metabolism of a few cells, not something insignificant like an individual's actual life, happiness and goals.

Life is holy, and what does that mean? That women be treated as breeding cows. The sanctity of life is wonderful... which is why we need to load women on wagons, chain them to a metal bar at a factory and bring males to impregnate them. Done with one? Off to the second one!
Why not? "Pro-life" people think they have a right to dictate to a woman what she should do with her body and life. Why not take the sanctity of life to the next stage?

I have no words to describe how disgusted I am with the use of the words "pro-life" for such deep a disrespect for human beings.

Anti-abortionists often use the image of an embryo put into a blender. "What a horrible thing to do to an innocent baby" they say. "You're a murderer!".
How do you like the image of women brought in the herds to breed new humans?

One who does not value and respect the life of an adult cannot claim to value the life of a potential human being.

Call your irrational, conformity-minded, religious-dogma, feeling-driven ideas of yours by what they are. Don't call it "pro-life".

Some useful tiny tips

2009-10-23T12:14:00.000-07:00

These are some tricks I've discovered to get some things to work better:

When you want to get the content of a bottle (like a Ketchup bottle), don't shake it up and down. First, place it horizontally and shake it up and down: this will make the sauce fall on one side of the bottle, and then place it vertically and shake it up and down. The sauce will slide down better and you will get out more of it and faster.
Don't you hate it when the end part of the belt sticks out in the air, with nothing to pin it down to the pants (or the belt)? Many times those loops in the belt or pants are not located in the right place to catch that end of the belt. It is even worse with a dress which has no belt-loops at all.
So here is my solution: Take a rubber band women use to tie their hair (a small thin one, in the same color as the belt; not red and bulky). Make a double loop of it if necessary to make it wrap tightly around the belt, and slide it onto the belt. You can easily move it anywhere on the belt and use it to pin down the edge of the belt. Flawless finish. :D
Vacuum cleaner? Forget it. Get an iRobot vacuum cleaner. They perform better than a normal vacuum cleaner and vacuum on their own.
This one is probably well known, but it is useful so I'll write it just in case.
Opening a jar: The problem with those jars is that they are closed with vacuum. This creates a force that pulls the top onto the jar. It gets worse when the jar is cooled down since the air pressure inside the bottle drops even more, making the vacuum effect stronger.
Solution: Create an opening for air to go into the jar. Slide a thin yet strong knife (or metal object) under the side of the lid, and slightly push the knife into the jar (or push the edge of the top to the side, away from the jar) to create an opening. This will let air in, cancel the vacuum and allow you to open the jar without any effort.

That is all. I'd be happy to get a feedback from you if you've tried it, or if you have similar useful tips.

Atheism and skepticism - Are the two connected?

2009-10-11T09:13:00.000-07:00

No. Not for one who uses a correct thinking method.

Skepticism is the approach of doubting every single thing available to one's mind and senses.

Using it leads not to knowledge but to the destruction of knowledge. It leads one to become helpless in having certainty even in the existence of something as concrete a wall.

If a full skeptic does not believe in god, it is not the grace of any rational thought, but simply one more instance of doubting. A full skeptic equally doubts the existence of god and the existence of planet earth.

Knowledge is gained by collecting evidence based on observations of reality, forming generalizations, concepts and conclusions based on what one observes. It is a positive process of building one's knowledge, not a negative destruction of it.

You might ask: Isn't it important to be critical in one's thinking? Yes, but using critical thinking and being skeptic are not the same.

Critical thinking is merely a cautious, careful thinking on a topic - to make sure one's conclusions and knowledge are non-contradictory.

It is not the same as skepticism, which means to doubt all the knowledge one has.

If one uses logic and a positive process of collecting evidence, Atheism follows simply because there is no evidence pointing at the existence of god. There is nothing to doubt or reject since one does not form such a conclusion to begin with.

So in conclusion skepticism is not the proper method on which Atheism is reached. Logic is.

How does statism grow?

2009-10-04T02:47:00.000-07:00

"The crucial and basic political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of "conservatism" and "liberalism" which have lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.

The goal of the "liberals" - as it emerges from the record of the past decades - was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot - a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli".

(fait accompli: an irreversible accomplishment)

-- Ayn Rand, Capitalism, the unknown ideal (article: Extremism: The art of smearing).

My (angry) letter to Glenn Beck

2009-10-02T12:47:00.000-07:00

Recently, Glenn Beck has been blaming gang violence and what is "wrong with this nation" on Atheism, or lack of belief in god and religious ethics.

As an Atheist who is civilized, pro human life and would never do anything remotely similar to what those brutal kids did in the video he was talking about, I was enraged by his accusation that that kind of behavior is to be blamed on Atheism.

Granted, Glenn Beck is a good man, and I believe he sincerely thinks that ethics and rights are impossible unless they come from god (as seen in this video).

However, I will not sit here quietly while he is destroying what I care for, knowingly or unknowingly (in his case it is the second).

I hope you do the same by following my example and send Glenn Beck a letter letting him know what you think.

My letter is below.

____________________________________________________

Hello Glenn,

I am a regular viewer of your show and greatly admire the work you are doing. But today you said something very disturbing and deeply offensive to me and to all other atheists.

Does being an atheist mean being like the savage brutes in that video who do not value human life?

Is it the case that because I take reason and logic as absolutes that I am incapable of acting civilized?

I find the equation of morality with faith in god highly offensive.

You have had Yaron Brook appear on your show several times - as you know he is an atheist and at the same time he is also a passionate advocate of individual rights and the value of human life.
How would you explain his civility given that he does not believe in god?
Why is it that you blame brutality on atheism but do not grant Yaron Brook's morality to atheism?

The result of what you said is that from now on, everyone who will look at me and know I do not believe in god will be able to tell me that I am no good, immoral, and not worth listening to, because I "represent everything that is wrong in this country".

I am offended and angry, and I hope you would take what you said back and acknowledge that morality does not necessarily have to be based on a belief in god.

That said, I am still grateful to you for the wonderful work you are doing and your honesty.

Sincerely,

Ifat Glassman

Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails (and how to actually justify it)

2009-09-29T03:35:00.000-07:00

Capitalism is based on the recognition of man's right to live for his own sake - to be the beneficiary of his own actions.

Jesus was the most extreme example of altruism you would ever see, the exact opposite of self-interest: He sacrificed his life so that sinners may live. The message it sends is "The moral is to live for others".

Every political system is based on ethics. Capitalism is based on rational-self interest. Socialism, communism and fascism are based on altruism, which is the message of Christianity.
Socialism is justified on the grounds of the moral duty of one man to care for another. Capitalism is based on the idea that a man lives primarily for himself, and that he is moral in pursuing HIS life and HIS happiness.

Let us not forget what was going on during the dark ages and what kind of actions were justified by the church.
This is because the message of the bible is inconclusive. One can mold it to whatever fits one's goals.
It is not a coincidence that 5 Rabies reading the bible cannot agree on the interpretation of a single paragraph. It's not that some of them are wrong and one is right - it is that the bible is inherently unclear in meaning and can be interpreted one way or another.

The real defense of Capitalism is reality-based. Facts-based.

We start by looking at the requirements of life for an individual man, the principles and values required for him to live and be happy (which is a successful state of living).
We recognize that man must act to bring and create the things he requires to survive and enjoy his life.

Capitalism is the system that allows a man, every individual, to be free to pursue his life and happiness as would be on a desert island: productivity uninterrupted by other men.
It is only by allowing every individual man this basic requirement for life that a political system actually serves man's life.

One cannot start by asking what is good for a group of people. Such question only makes sense if the intent is to talk about what is good for every individual man in the group. But then that reduces the question back to what is good for a single man.

One cannot claim, that by stealing from one man and giving it to another in the group that one is serving the "good of the group". Why is the good of the group the good of one man, but not of the other?
Yet the good of the "group" is the standard most use to judge political systems.

The only defense of Capitalism that "works" - because it is the real basis for Capitalism, is reality; rational ethics recognizing the requirements of life of a single human being.

Look at reality, not at the "word of god".

"Does he really deserve that salary?" - Faulty concept of "deserving"

2009-09-26T04:45:00.000-07:00

"Do you really deserve to live?"

-- How is it my business to decide, right?
Anyone who would ponder about this question seriously, as if what they had to say on the subject was to justly be executed in reality would be considered a despicable freak in our society.
Yet we don't seem to have the same approach to money. "Do you really deserve the money that you have?" "Do you really deserve such a nice apartment?"

Now if I were Santa Claus considering how many gifts to bring you this year, this question might have made sense. But as a human being that has no involvement in your life - it does not.

So what is the error in these sort of questions? why do they seem plausible on one hand, yet non-sensible on the other?

The answer is a mis-generalization of the concept of "deserving".

Let's get down to the root of what it means to "deserve".

Let us observe the following: to "deserve" means an interaction between at least 2 people. If one man deserves something, he always deserves it from someone else. Mother nature cannot consider if someone "deserves" something, it does not decide to give you things. You cannot "deserve" an apple from an apple tree. So "deserve" only makes sense as an interaction between two or more people.

One cannot "deserve" something from no other man, but simply to "deserve" it. I cannot "deserve" a new computer, healthcare or a car from no entity, but just to "deserve" it. What would such thing even mean?
When you tell your boss you deserve a raise, it has the practical use of having more money in your bank account.
When you say that you "deserve" a car to thin air, it has no practical meaning or consequence.
One might say, as a joke, "Damn it, I deserve to have this machine working" after hours of time and effort trying to fix it - but all it is, is a joke. The machine, the air, cannot grant you anything. An apple tree is not just or generous by growing apples for you to eat - it is simply an apple tree doing what apple trees do.

Next observe that the two (or more) people must indeed interact for 'deserving' to make sense. I cannot possibly deserve the meal an Eskimo from Antarctica is cooking at the moment, half way across the world. I might deserve it if I were the one catching the fish he is cooking.

Sometimes a man deserves to serve time in prison - it appears to be a one man situation, but in fact it is not. What is hidden behind the scenes is the society in which this man lives. This man deserves the retribution he is given from other people in his society for whatever it is he has done. They may not be the ones to physically give it to him, but the ones they have delegated to do it do so in their name.

To summarize: "deserve" implies deserving from someone, and someone with which you interact over the product in question.

"Deserve" also implies that you did something to earn whatever you "deserve", and that whatever you did benefited someone else from whom you deserve something.
(Unless you deserve to be punished by them, in which case you still acted to earn a negative payback).

But in any case You either "do the crime and pay the time", or "pay the bill and get to chill".

When you hear someone saying that they deserve healthcare, or deserve a house, simply by being born, they are using a wrong concept of what it means to "deserve".
they want to deserve from no one in particular, deserve without being involved with anyone else, and deserve without "paying the bill".

What makes the difference between deserving healthcare from your insurance company, vs. "deserving" it from society (AKA "the government"):
In the insurance company, you do something to earn it from them, benefiting them by paying for your policy. You deserve medical treatment to the extent that you paid for what was agreed in your contract. "Deserving" is a trade.

"Deserving" medical treatment "from society", however, involves no trade. One is paying no price, there is no need to earn and no benefit in exchange for the service. It involves no agreement. In fact it involves only a single person, which was born into reality butt naked, "deserving" something from "the world" ("a god given right").

Notice in how many ways this concept of "deserve" is breaking the actual meaning of what it is to "deserve".

What about people who question whether some people deserve their high salaries?
Those people mis-use the concept "deserve" as well. How do they go about judging what salary those people deserve?
To the company owner, the standard is clear: The contribution the worker has for the success of the company (leaving aside other factors like the budget). But how can someone outside the company decide if an employee deserves his money?

One might, as a hypothetical, put oneself in the shoes of the company owner and consider the contribution of the worker vs. his salary - but realizing that this is only possible as an opinion on what should the worker deserve from the company owner (not from them, because it's not their money to give).

What they actually try to judge, however, is what the worker deserves from them, or from society, or from reality. "How much does a human being deserve to have?".
As you can see, they are using an empty concept. Its only appearance of a meaning is stolen from the legitimate concept of "deserving".
But they try to judge what a man deserves without specifying anyone in particular, without taking under account any interaction between that man and anyone else, without asking who is earning from his work.

They take the company owner out of the equation and then try to decide how his money should be spent.

THAT, is the fallacy in their thinking. That they think of "deserve" in fuzzy terms. It is a relationship between god and the worker when it comes to taking his salary away, but becomes a relationship between that man and society when they decide society deserves it better.

So next time you hear someone using a fuzzy concept of "deserve", make sure they stand corrected.
The future of our society leans on whether or not people are left free to live their life, and is destroyed by people who try to decide with their fuzzy concept who "deserves" to make money, own property, or live.

The significance of work

2009-09-24T23:07:00.000-07:00

A job is very important in life. It gives your life meaning and purpose, it gives you self esteem and happiness.

I'm a painter (ifatart.com), and I can't tell you how painting is central and important to me and how much it gives me. Not that it is easy - I have to work hard to improve my skills and many times it is frustrating and hard work - but it is worth it, it allows me to be happy and proud of myself.
A feeling of moving toward something, of increasing satisfaction and achievement.
Nothing can give you this kind of feeling except a job you devote yourself to.

I'm not talking about a 9-to-5 job at McDonalds - I'm talking about a goal in life - a productive goal in life of something you want to do and can do well.

"You can't do it"

2009-09-22T01:46:00.000-07:00

"At some point in your life everybody will tell you "you can't do it". Many people are gonna tell you "you can't do it". The trick is not to listen to them. I always tell people; whatever it is you want to do, talk to people who succeeded at it, don't talk to the failures because they're bitter about it, they're gonna tell you that you can't make it either because they don't really want you to make it. But everybody is told they can't do it. The difference is that there are a lot of people that just don't listen to that. And go out and do what they do as well as they can because they love it. And that's all that matters". -- Rush Limbaugh

A reply to the accusation: "you are selfish!"

2009-09-10T01:21:00.000-07:00

Don't let people make you apologize for wanting to keep your property. People who preach altruism are only interested in being on the recipient side.

They push a blaming finger: "How dare you not care for other people's well being?" All they care about is that you shut up, give up your property and pay their bills.

So don't give in to the extortion! Be proud of being self-interested. Selfishness (rational self-interest) is a virtue, not a vice.

Why is it hard to form a correct concept of "human nature"?

2009-09-04T18:34:00.000-07:00

The general problem here is the relation between an abstraction to concretes. In case of oranges, there is no problem. All oranges need water, all of them are orange when ripe, etc'. But humans beings have free will - that is their basic nature, so some are "orange" and some are "green" and even within a single human being there is a mixture of good and evil. This makes the abstraction by essentials much more difficult than abstracting the concept "orange".

Are human beings good by nature or evil? If one observes 500 oranges, the conclusion of what an orange is, is easy. Not so with human beings. One can observe 500 or 500 million and still find some good some bad and a lot mixed.

Inability to separate human beings - the concept from any individual human being (good or bad) is a potential reason for "tolerance" in honest people - it is a result of a benevolent spirit with appreciation of human life failing to make the distinction between the proper approach to human beings as a concept (the potential of a human being, and all the good that they can be, if they decide to be that) and an actual one, which may be good or bad.

So even when they meet a bad person they apply the "human being" label to him which grants him the status (or belief) in his good nature, leading to a benevolent pacifistic approach, disarming the honest person from fighting against whatever bad thing the person may do.

This can also work the other way around - by thinking that all people are bad. One meets many people who evade, only look at what is comfortable for them to see (which is not rare to find) and even lie, and one concludes that this is human nature. The result is that when someone confesses to them about a good motive they immediately suspect self-deception or corruption.

Both points of view come from a wrong generalization about the human nature by failing to see human beings' ability to choose as central to human nature.

When one attempts to look at human beings as in the same category of oranges, it is inevitable to make a generalization one way or another - usually, the generalization is that all men are mixed, and so all can be good, but are deemed to be bad by their nature.

Motivation for glorification of death?

2009-08-29T00:34:00.000-07:00

Some people try to make death a requirement for glorification of a man. As if the mere fact that a man died makes his life, personality and goals sacred.

A recent example of this is how the media acts like a vulture waiting to attack anyone who would pronounce negative judgement of late Senator Kennedy (on which I know nothing about and am just using as an example), and pass false praise of the man, thinking that no one would dare to challenge it because of the fear of being regarded as an evil, discompashionate person.

This intimidation to treat death as sacred is nothing more than a scheme aiming at getting free moral approval for all humans. Specifically the advocates' motivation is to get it for themselves.

Such is the motivation behind those who wish to silence any negative criticism, right or wrong.

How is the glorification of death help achieve free moral approval?

The issue involved in a eulogy is a man's entire personality and life - the highest most crucial judgement of a man.

A Eulogy, or in general what one is "morally approved" to say about a man that has died, is not a small matter of etiquette, as some people may claim.
The real issue is how is a man, any man, to be evaluated; is it proper to judge a man negatively as a whole and to pronounce it?
The just (from the word "justice") answer is YES. An evil man does not deserve a pretty eulogy.

A man who has done some good things and some bad things deserves both to be mentioned - with a positive overall emphasis to the extent that he renounced his bad deeds and became a better man. If he has done so successfully, his bad deeds become nothing more than an example of his dedication to the good.

Man's life is sacred - as a concept of what a man is and what is possible to us humans. But this does not make every individual man or woman automatically good, nor their life sacred. The life of a serial killer is not sacred.

Good will and generosity are not a replacement for justice - they are and can only be an extention of it.

The argument from intimidation is the weapon they are using to secure free moral approval. "What?! You speak ill of the dead? How dare you!"

The truth is always the most powerful weapon in the battle of ideas. Stand by it, don't be afraid to pronounce it.