Are Objectivists happy?
http://experts.umich.edu/pubDetail.as...
R. David Hayward has developed a survey that attempts to define happiness and correlate it with many factors (nationality, religious affiliation or lack thereof, income, wealth, etc.). The goal is to predict future health and well-being.
From Hayward's abstract:
"Religious non-affiliates did not differ overall from affiliates in terms of physical health outcomes (although atheists and agnostics did have better health on some individual measures including BMI, number of chronic conditions, and physical limitations), but had worse positive psychological functioning characteristics, social support relationships, and health behaviors. On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."
My purpose in posting this is not to say anything derogatory about atheists or Objectivists, but it is part of my personal self-assessment of whether I would be happier if I did decide to become an Objectivist. At this point, I am not an Objectivist. One question that is an entirely logical counterargument to the possibility that Objectivists might not be happier than the general population would be, "Are people who are happier than the general population delusional about their reality"? I am sure that many Gulchers would presume that most Christians are happily delusional in their mysticism, for instance.
R. David Hayward has developed a survey that attempts to define happiness and correlate it with many factors (nationality, religious affiliation or lack thereof, income, wealth, etc.). The goal is to predict future health and well-being.
From Hayward's abstract:
"Religious non-affiliates did not differ overall from affiliates in terms of physical health outcomes (although atheists and agnostics did have better health on some individual measures including BMI, number of chronic conditions, and physical limitations), but had worse positive psychological functioning characteristics, social support relationships, and health behaviors. On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."
My purpose in posting this is not to say anything derogatory about atheists or Objectivists, but it is part of my personal self-assessment of whether I would be happier if I did decide to become an Objectivist. At this point, I am not an Objectivist. One question that is an entirely logical counterargument to the possibility that Objectivists might not be happier than the general population would be, "Are people who are happier than the general population delusional about their reality"? I am sure that many Gulchers would presume that most Christians are happily delusional in their mysticism, for instance.
Stuff I wrote you probably would not consider appropriate.
Hey, I'm suddenly thinking of one of my most favorite songs. Ta da~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x9o...
You just asserted that existence is eternal. And modern physics knows that mass/energy is indestructible and is not created. Do you agree?
I am delighted. In a response to anther of your comments, I tried, a minute ago, to propose also the polite disagreement. At least I think I did. Did you see it and agree? All the best.
"Yet there is much in this universe that is beyond our capacity to design, let alone create."
It seems to me pretty obvious that this sentence implies that everything needs to be designed or created. Which, to my mind, directly says nothing can be eternal. It also almost defines an intelligent designer or creator. That is what, more or less clearly, all religions say. I do not need to, but want to point out that such ideas are incompatible with the objectivist philosophy. Why not agree on that and part friends as before?
I started writing a bunch of other stuff to argue against the primitive (Newtonian) world view of physics, but it came out looking like an argument by intimidation via relativistic quantum mechanics. So I deleted it. Instead look at the next sunrise. Is what came up the sun or a mass to energy conversion system. We're normally pretty casual about the mass-energy transformations of everyday phenomena in macro and micro scales.
There is a problem, in my opinion, in how you use your terms. For instance, you seem to equate universe and existence. If you are allowing the possibility of multiple universes, then you must redefine the term universe. To my understanding, existence means EVERYTHING that exists. In your view of multiple universes, I see just more than one "system", each of which has some as yet unknown delimiting physical characteristic, analogous to a multiplicity of planetary systems within a galaxy.
I am not completely sure, because I did not take enough time to think about it. But my strong impression is that these kinds of "definitional shifts" in your expressions are consequences of your, seems to me, firm belief in the concepts of supernatural and extra-existential as valid concepts reflecting a reality. Needless to say, I disagree with you on this.
Please, I have no personal animosity here. From what little I know about your work, I think that I admire you for that.
Also, I sense an emotional reaction in you toward disagreeing statement. It reminds me of what I learned very long time ego. You cannot deny religion to religious people without causing anger. An illustration, tragically, might be in how the global warming deniers are treated in our culture and country these days. Or, try to disagree with Stalin about communism. Dogmas.
God.
This is when Mr. Mystic ducks missiles made of assorted vegetables and rotten fruit,.
that there is some sort of alternative to existence.
If nothing could come from nothing, then where did
God come from? Did He come from nothing? Andwhatever He came from, where did that come from? And so on back. You either accept
existence, or you don't.
I's not the party of Roosevelt, T. anymore but it is the party of anti civil rights and
that can't be right my family is staunchly pro liberal objectives.
I just stated one.
Huh?
Nor is it the party of FDR and especially not the party of JFK
You forgot LBJ
On purpose I'm not much of fascist supporter.
What about Carter?
he wasn't much of anything.
Clinton....uhhhhhhhh hmmmm maybe you have a point.
Not any better in the dumbo party
Things change.
I was very happy to contribute....
I can't cite erased for sanitized history.
Yesterday I replied to a PM that asked why did Suzanne leave the Gulch.
I stated that being called a zombie really stuck in her craw. In other words, she could not cope with that..
I'm suddenly reminded of what I used to hear about Alabama Department of Corrections incident reports: "If it is not written it did not happen."
I guess in the Gulch that also goes for things edited, erased and deleted,
Load more comments...