Karl

Or rational.

Not if they are looking for a man that shares their values. A valueless man will attract a valueless woman. Divorce courts, criminal courts and Jeremy Kyle shows are full of that sort of match making.

Couple of things. The universe is benevolent, not malevolent. However, reality is reality, like a road is a road. A road is not a vicious attempt to keep us from roaming the grass and forests, it's a useful means to travel from A to B quickly. Similarly, gravity isn't a force that is out to get you to stumble and fall, but a force which sustains life. There is no requirement to live the life of an acetic, or a spiritual monk. Life is not always hard, for some it is easy and abundant. All you need to take care of is your survival and happiness. Whatever you value and desire, if you apply moral laws, you can go ahead and find ways to gain those values-a word of warning, if you obtain values fraudulently you will never be happy. If you think happiness can be achieved by by unearned values, or that 'societies' appreciation is critical to that happiness, or that making the aim of your life the pursuit of emotional pleasures rather than values, then you will find no satisfaction. You cannot make your aim emotional happiness, you must make it productive, independent, honest and just. You must know you are worthy of life, not that life is worthy of you. Have pride/self esteem in holding to your virtues, to who you are as a man in every respect.

That's of course a version of Platos forms combined with new age mysticism.

In objectivist philosophy we begin with ones own life as the individuals chosen primary value. Therefore it isn't an arbitrary starting point. Then we need to learn to sustain that life, the values it requires and the virtues needed to obtain those values-all by choice. Morality is a code of values accepted by choice in order to survive. Moral laws, in objectivism, are the principles that define how to nourish and sustain human life. It is the science of human self preservation. So, moral principles are not luxuries reserved for nobler beings, they are a practical necessity. Man has to live long range-unlike an animal. Man therefore must excessive reason in order to survive. The standard then is not to stay alive by any means, because that would mean there is only one price to pay and that is reason itself. To be, for a man, is to be a man. As Rand observes "since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it". Countries over the centuries have tried some version of non-life as their standard with the resultant horror. " "To live, man must hold three things as supreme and ruling values of his life: reason-purpose-self esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-purpose, as his choice of happiness which the tool must proceed to achieve-self esteem, as the inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of mans virtues. Ethics draws the practical conclusion: if one chooses to live, one must hold reason as value. Rationality is to accept reason as an absolute, as a principle of human survival.

Without perception how could it have anything it could consciously process. The only thing we know that does that is a computer which has a consciousness that provided a program to carry out a predetermined task. Are you thinking of a creator and that the stars are some form of plasma CPU ?

For what purpose would a star need a consciousness ? If it can perceive nothing then it has nothing to be conscious of. Therefore it is not processing data because it cannot percieve data.

The whole of Scotland has 5 million people. Their contribution, though obviously important, won't mean much in the long run. It's the high urban concentrations London, Sheffied, Birningham, Manchester and Liverpool that make the biggest impact.

No, that isn't true from an objectivist perspective. We can know reality directly and we must. if you are talking about a young child then it is true that this is where the learning begins, but past a certain age (12-14) we must have completed that education. Our moral code is about our relationship with reality and the attainment and holding of values we pursue. Any attempt to evade will result in conflict and, at the least a feeling of unhappiness/guilt/mental problems, or at the worst our own injury/death. Our ethics cannot be pragmatic. We have to create principles that give us the best outcome, the attainment of earned values and our own happiness. Of course ethics and morals are for us to choose, they are not absolutes. To get them wrong and then continually manipulate them creates error. We need a philosophy to guide those ethics or we are groping in the dark. If that philosophy is intricisist then it will tell you to follow Gods ethical rules-which are really man made rules created by those who wish you to follow their ideology and not your own. If the philosophy is subjectivist it will tell you that ethics are unnecessary, that no rules are needed and that the state will set the laws and policies it wishes you to follow and enforce them with a big club. Again, this is one group of men wanting other men to follow their ideology.

Because reason and logic has been kicked out, the prevailing philosophy is subjectivist and therefore pragmatic. What you see as 'science' is the ousting of religious mysticism in the West, but it has been replaced with the muscle mysticism of Descartes, Kant, Hegel and Marx. One kind of mysticism has been replaced by another kind. God was replaced by state. This pragmatism is now endemic. It's not about learning as much as being able to learn to learn with discrimination. In another thread there is a discussion on ethics. It is assumed that absolutist ethics-the Christian kind of intrinsic morality as handed down in the Ten Commandments or by the priesthood-is the only alternative to relative ethics or ethical pragmatism. The same situation exist philosophically and hence politically and economically. Reason has given way to rank pragmatism of the kind that means that we just do whatever it is that seems right at the time and change it if it's unacceptable. The adoption of this philosophy means that reality is held to be completely malleable. There is no need to stick to reality because-according to Kant-reality cannot be known and therefore we must do whatever duty is given at whatever time it is given. This is what people are learning today as a way of living. I'm not implying that learning a skill in a subject is problematic, it's the philosophy of learning which has gone astray. So wether it's Keynesian economics, Global warming consensus scientism, or building a family, this pervasive philosophy blights everything.

I've been trying to get that across for quite some time with minimal effect. So, playing devils advocate :-) what is your supporting argument for that assertion ?

'still ongoing' is a big understatement, I think it's well and truly dead for the vast majority. The light of reason for humanity went out a long time ago. As long as reason and logic persisted then celebrity was a mildly interesting topic for discussion. Over centuries, as the enlightenment' was replaced by the dark ages, reason was sacrificed to whim. Once whim is the guide, then people like Jung who were the leading proponents of scientism and quackery were insinuated into the culture without logical defence. Employers choose who they employ on the basis of Jungian pseudo science. It's no more valid than consulting a gypsy with a crystal ball. So, whilst I agree we have always had celebrity, their effect has been largely ameliorated by reason. The times that it wasn't are the times of ignorance, mysticism, torture, slavery, fear and death. No good can come from ignorance.

I think you must mean 'deep thought' ? I'm certain the galaxy and its Sun were destroyed by a Vogon demolition crew.

You can choose whatever you want, but don't expect reality to play ball with your whims and wishes. Instead it will punch you repeatedly until you sober up and get busy living. I used to get paid to set goals for people and to create vision statements so I'm very aware of what happens. Whilst it's useful to plan, it is useless not to act. To look for something for nothing is to engage in fatuous wishfullness. It is to plan, but fail to work the plan. To sit in a chair wishing a cup of tea would arrive, is to ignore the reality that you will either need to get up and make one, or get someone to make one for you. Both require effort or the tea will remain absent. Life is hard, you won't make it easier by wishing it away. "Get busy living or get busy dying" shawshank redemption. No one can decide that for you.

You can only achieve what you believe you can achieve, but it is not sufficient to only hold a goal in mind. This is always an issue for those who believe in things like the law of attraction. The only way to run a four minute mile is to start the training to do it. Dreaming or wishing is next to useless. The first thing that you should ask is "what's stopping you". What must you overcome. If you believe having money is no good, then you won't have money.

Jung wasn't very good at reason or logic. He wasn't very good at anything. He is like a Russel Brand character who dines out on notoriety. The more I know about Jung, the more I see he was just an early form of celebrity in an era which was already losing Science and reason. P IS reasoning. He is using to stolen fallacy to attempt to discredit reason. I'm not sure why people struggle to see the basic fallacy. We only have reason and logic to comprehend anything. Those who do not want to comprehend are essentially casting away their minds. They are throwing away their only means of survival-but of course they never really do that, they just convince themselves they do whilst standing on reason to do it. There is no magic just clever illusions which have yet to be uncovered.

Unless we talking ethics, then absolutes are what they are. A speck of dust is an absolute, the universe is an absolute, that you performed some action is an absolute. So, if it's ethics, then there are no absolutes, as these are chosen human actions which are chosen against ones own set of values. Is it OK to lie ? As an objectivist, the answer is yes, but only if the lie did not benefit you in some way that might give an unearned value. So, to lie to get someone to like you or give you money would not be ethical. However, if you were baby sitting and an axe murderer rang the bell and asked where the children were sleeping, then you don't need to tell him the kids are along the hallway and second on the left. Anything that supports ones own primary value of his own life as a good, can work out what is ethical quite easily. This does not mean these ethics are absolutes, neither are they relative, they can be judged directly by the application of reason. This is an interesting subject as it goes straight to the heart of three philosophies. The intrincisist sees ethics as absolutes, as issued by God. The subjectivist sees ethics as relativistic and pragmatic. Objectivists can show that it is neither. Men can know, but they have the choice of deliberately evading or being ignorant of that knowledge.

We already know how to use it. It can be successfully mixed to create reactor fuel.

It's only the fissionable element that presents a danger. It's about the size of a grapefruit and is relatively stable. You could bury it deep without much concern. I don't think I'd go firing it into the atmosphere on our rudimentary rockets.

Sounds like throwing bangers at an atomic bomb.

Yes, I shall use a stamp.

He made such a fuss over the sinful tax avoiders, even coining the perjorative 'aggressive tax avoiders' to which he applied what he wants us all to believe are principles. That description was applied on a broad scale in order to fool the electorate that 'we were all in it together' and he was taking the 'hard decisions' which were 'right' and 'fair to other hard working tax payers. Of course Cameron has never done a days productive work in his life, he has manipulated and rewarded to achieve prestige. Yet, he managed to convince everyone that he was just a bit posh and bumbling, but now the cat is out of the bag. Of course he didn't do anything wrong, but his summation that 'others' were cheating and he was the sword of justice has just been revealed as a big old hoax. My guess is he is finished. I don't think it will be a rapid resignation, but he is damaged, half his party dislike him-particularly as he has lied over the way the Government will act over the EU. Then he has already announced he will stand down and the wolves are gathering. These things have an inertia and Cameron's position will become untenable. Over the last few years he has shrugged off attacks and Milliband/Corbyn were the kind of gifts that come along once in a millennia, but this time there are too many coincidental to let Mr Slippy slide away. I'm waiting for that leaflet to arrive and it shall be shoved in an envelope and sent back to number 10. I expect it will be one of many thousands.

Conundrum deep fried, battered with chips and mushy peas. Fresh out of the chip shop fryers sizzling void. Yum yum

Dutch vote No to EU/ Ukraine deal. 61% voted against the Government of Holland and by implication, against their EU masters. The vote is non binding and of course the EU politburo has brushed it aside as an irrelevance. Nigel Farage was very pleased with the result and had helped to campaign on behalf of the No faction. Europeans are beginning to wake up to the EU nightmare, it's unelected, undemocratic bureaucracy, corruption, arrogance and incompetence is now firmly in the spotlight. Cameron doesn't even mention the reforms he supposedly got anymore, he knows that's a busted flush and people see the reality. He asked for nothing, he got less than nothing and it is now obvious to anyone that the EU will never be reformed, that it is instead welded to a course of anti-freedom.

Kim Jong Cameron and his dodgy tax affairs. I nick named him Clare Cameron. His continually insistence that he is Clare, that his party is Clare, all his policies are Clare and that we should believe he is Clare. "Read my lips. I did not have sexual relations with that pig"