Zelalem Mekonnen
@zelalem-mekonnen·Member since March 2025
Badges
Activity
Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.
Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.
Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.
#3935·Dennis HackethalOP revised 5 days agoSummary
People are losing their ability to think and act on principles. But they need principles to set long-range goals and make decisions. Without them, people become their own destroyers. Modern philosophy is to blame because it attacks reason.
To stop this suicidal trend, we need to understand the following rules about principles and the relationship between principles and goals:
First, when two men or groups are in conflict while having the same basic principles, the more consistent one will win.
Since they are in conflict, at least one of them must be inconsistent. So the one with the clearer vision of his goal, who more consistently works toward it, will win. The less consistent one just hastens his adversary’s victory and becomes weaker in the process.
This dynamic applies regardless of the merits of their shared principles.
Example: republicans vs democrats. Both agree that the government should interfere with the economy. They just disagree on implementation details. Democrats are more consistently committed to growing government power; the republicans just end up “me-too’ing” them. Recent example.
As a result, government control has been growing over the decades. It will continue to grow until the communists replace socialists and ‘achieve’ “universal immolation”.
This trend can seem inevitable. Some people mistake it for historicism, but it can be reversed by a change of basic principles.
Second, when two men or groups collaborate while having different basic principles, the more evil or irrational one will win.
Mixing opposing basic principles favors bad ones and drives out the good ones. “What is the moral status of an honest man who steals once in a while?”
When good and evil collaborate, it hurts good and helps evil. The good has nothing to gain from evil, while evil stands to gain everything from the good.
Example: collaboration between an honest businessman and a swindler. The swindler does not contribute to the success of the business; the honest one’s reputation ends up luring in more victims than the swindler could have fooled on his own.
Another example: membership of the Soviet Union in the UN. The resulting collaboration between the West and the Soviet Union gave the latter unearned respect, moral sanction, and access to resources. In exchange, the Western world has been swallowed by “cynicism, bitterness, hopelessness, fear and nameless guilt…”
Third, defining opposite basic principles clearly and openly helps rationality; hiding or evading them helps irrationality.
The rational side of a conflict wants to be understood. It’s in harmony with reality, so it has nothing to hide. But the irrational side “has to deceive, to confuse, to evade, to hide its goals.”
The good, the rational must be actively upheld; the bad, the irrational is achieved only by default, by not acting. Construction is hard; destruction is easy.
Lessons
Adhere to your principles with consistency.
Never mix opposing basic principles! Leave irrational/evil people to the consequences of their errors.
Be open and transparent; don’t hide things.
A criticism that I often hear when people try to live by their principles is something along the lines of "you think you're better than us?" This kind of criticism has often stopped people from defending and living by their principles, especially if they have been seen violating their own principles.
A defense against this is that if someone continually brings up past mistakes in order to hang them over another person, then it might be in that person's best interest to end the relationship. Give warnings, and be clear, but if no change is observed, one has the right and the obligation to end the relationship. And as for being better than others, I view it as another form of wealth. Some people are better than others financially. But that isn't because "that's who they are" or "born that way" or "got lucky." It was because they had the skills to make money. Being in a better place morally is both possible and desirable.
#1210·Dennis HackethalOP revised 12 months agoThere is a similar (identical?) theory put forward by Marc Lewis in The Biology of Desire. He explains addiction as the process of "reciprocal narrowing". The process of reciprocal narrowing does not remove conflicting desires, but instead reinforces a pattern of dealing with conflict through a progressively narrower, habitual response (substance, action, mental dissociation). Addiction, therefore, as you suggested, is a process of managing the "conflict between two or more preferences within the mind."
There is also a definition by Gabor Mate that is similar to this. I will add a link when I find it.
#749·Dennis HackethalOP, over 1 year agoPrevailing explanations are immoral (#739) and false (#742). My theory does not have those flaws from the linked criticisms.
Prevailing explanations tend to put emphasis on the object instead of problem situations, like thinking addiction comes from the cigarette. This theory doesn't.
Have you thought about quite quitting?
Could you also come up with the reasons you dislike your job? Is it because of co-workers, managers or the work you actually do? In either case, the calculation in the calculated risk of quitting your job might be mentally checking out from it, but reaping the good thing about it, which is the financial stability.
Have you thought about quiet quitting?
Could you also come up with the reasons you dislike your job? Is it because of co-workers, managers or the work you actually do? In either case, the calculation in the calculated risk of quitting your job might be mentally checking out from it, but reaping the good thing about it, which is the financial stability.
#3638·Tyler MillsOP, 15 days agoOption 1: Continue working the day job and balancing the other pursuits on the side.
Have you thought about quite quitting?
Could you also come up with the reasons you dislike your job? Is it because of co-workers, managers or the work you actually do? In either case, the calculation in the calculated risk of quitting your job might be mentally checking out from it, but reaping the good thing about it, which is the financial stability.
#3358·Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoOrganic food is a scam. Participants in double-blind experiments can’t tell what’s organic and what isn’t. Organic food hasn’t been found to be healthier than non-organic food. The ‘organic’ label was never even meant as a health endorsement. It’s just a way for stores to charge you more. Don’t be a sucker.
https://news.immunologic.org/p/organic-foods-are-not-healthieror
In the US, correct. Not in other countries.
#3351·Benjamin DaviesOP, about 2 months agoThe current industrialisation of food is problematic, but these are parochial problems. There is nothing about industrialised food production that is fundamentally and irredeemably flawed. Problems are soluble!
I disagree. In case of mass starvation, GMOs and the like make sense. But besides that, I am for eating food that grows without human intervention.
Do you care to be around people that speak your native tongue?
#2342·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoIf America is an option (you mention Austin), the non-coastal Western US could work.
A lot of those states get good water from the Sierra Nevada or the Rocky Mountains.
Those states have either no or low state income tax and largely leave residents alone. (For example, the difference between CA and NV during Covid was night and day.)
Southern NV gets a lot of sun throughout the year. NV has no state income tax.
I’ve heard good things about the area surrounding Las Vegas, though I haven’t been myself.
New Mexico could be good for high altitude (I think).
I second that about Las Vegas. If you don't mind the provocative posters, southern Nevada, southern Utah, Northern Arizona is a great place to be.
#2298·Benjamin DaviesOP revised 3 months agoI want to live in places that are mostly sunny, most of the time. This is for health reasons.
In the US, California!
#2291·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 months agoI want access to good quality food, particularly good quality meat, dairy, and fruit. Ideally the place I live has a growing culture of eating well (for example, in Austin, many restaurants are now making it a point not to use any seed oils in their cooking.)
Avoid the US for this. Food quality is worse than third world countries. The food is no where near as organic. Unpopular opinion, but I don't think food should be industrialized.
#2288·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 months agoI want superior water quality for drinking, bathing, etc.
This means I need to live somewhere sufficiently advanced to be able to provide and service high quality reverse-osmosis water filters. Otherwise I would need to be somewhere that I can directly access spring water, which I think is much more difficult.
All the areas in the US I have lived in have terrible water quality.
#3336·Zelalem Mekonnen, about 2 months agoRand defines duty as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority." Can one completely remove duty from their worldview? In other words, can one completely remove oneself from doing things as an obedience to a higher authority, imagined or real?
If the authority is real, one might still decide to do the thing by rationally deciding not doing it has consequences.
Yes, unless one find the action fun (like I find jury duty fun). If I didn't find it fun, I'd argue I am in the right for doing things to get out of jury duty.
One has the right to do things he find interesting, no matter how trivial.
#3298·Dennis HackethalOP, about 2 months agoA duty is an unchosen obligation. It’s an expression of mysticism. Immanuel Kant is responsible for spreading this anti-concept.
Rand defines duty as "the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority." Can one completely remove duty from their worldview? In other words, can one completely remove oneself from doing things as an obedience to a higher authority, imagined or real?
If the authority is real, one might still decide to do the thing by rationally deciding not doing it has consequences.
#3308·Dennis HackethalOP revised about 2 months agoForce means you get a bunch of people on a jury who don’t want to be there. This either introduces friction because they will drag their feet, or they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest, which isn’t necessarily justice. For example (emphasis added):
[A] guy said to use the opportunity to fight back against laws you don't agree with. I thought about doing that even though we were asked if we could put personal feelings aside and enforce the law and I didn't want to be the one to say I couldn't so I stayed quiet. Then I thought, “What if I'm the only juror who thinks the law is unjust”? “Do I really want to drag this out just to fight the system”? I decided to make my decision based solely on whatever would get this over with the quickest. In this particular case a guy was charged with crimes that I don't think should be crimes anyway. Since I know the majority of people in my community feel the opposite, I chose to keep my opinion to myself for fear of ridicule of people knowing my feelings.
they will just vote for whatever outcome will get them out of there the fastest
Making it voluntary and with pay could fix this problem, but not necessarily. I can imagine a scenario where a juror is looking to get as many duties as possible.
What happens when you fail to commit to these values?
I think forgiveness could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'
What happens when you fail to commit to these values?
I think forgiving yourself could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'
#3263·Dennis Hackethal, about 2 months agoI think forgiveness could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going.'
This sound like it’s meant to be an example of forgiveness, but I’m not sure it is. It sounds more like an example of resilience.
What do you think forgiveness means, @zelalem-mekonnen?
One of the definitions from Merriam-Webster is 'to cease to feel resentment against (an offender).' Resilience is defined as 'an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change.' When you fail against your own value, you are offending yourself.
#2528·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoIt’s an understandable concern. I subscribe more to the insight from BoI chapter 10. Open societies inadvertently give their enemies more access than closed ones, but they also gain so much more knowledge and strength because of their openness that they can deal with their enemies better than if they were closed.
(I went back and forth on whether to label this as a criticism. I decided to do so but I want to be clear that it doesn’t mean I’m trying to tell you how to live your life.)
Also, if an individual keeps progressing, hopefully he can get into a point in life where people's opinion only 'hurt' his feelings and not his livelihood.
#2453·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoOne feature I have planned is private discussions that only you and people you invite can see.
One reason I like the private chat is also because of that. I like the rigorous nature of Veritula and I want that kind of criticisms into my private life.
#2832·Benjamin DaviesOP, 3 months agoI’ve noticed that I have no problem keeping shared spaces tidy, which I suspect is driven by inexplicit ideas related to maintaining relationships, rather than understanding the underlying value in maintaining a tidy space.
I applaud your honesty.
#3169·Benjamin DaviesOP revised about 2 months agoFor something to be a core virtue, it needs to be a virtue that should always be applied in any situation where it can be applied. Forgiveness is not something that should be applied in relevant all situations, so I don’t believe it is a core virtue.
At best it would be an applied virtue, as an expression of Justice.
I actually think people are too forgiving in some ways.
I’ll think about adding it to the applied virtues list.
No need to. That was a good refutation. I agree that people do forgive too much and forget to ask how that forgiveness is contributing to the problems they have. But, I think there is a kind of forgiveness, really justice, an honest version of it. Because you are fallible. Something like 'I messed up there, here is why I messed up, and here is what I am going to do so it won't happen again.' After that, you forgive yourself.
#3153·Dennis Hackethal revised about 2 months agoCore Moral Virtues (influenced by Ayn Rand and CR)
Rationality: The commitment to the ongoing deliberate use of conjecture and criticism, and to only adopting ideas that have no pending criticisms.
Honesty: A refusal to evade one's thoughts, a commitment to searching for one's own errors, and a refusal to fake reality to others.
Integrity: The refusal to permit a breach between one's convictions and one's actions.
Independence: The acceptance of one's own mind as the first and final executor of rationality within their own lives.
Justice: The application of rationality in judging ideas, people, and actions, and acting on those evaluations proportionately.
Productiveness: The application of rationality to sustaining and improving one's life and circumstances.
Pride: An insatiable drive to find and fix errors in one's character, knowledge, and creations. “[M]oral ambitiousness”, as Ayn Rand puts it.
What happens if and when you fails at the commitment to these values?
I think forgiveness could be another core value. Something like 'when I make mistakes, I will pick myself up at the earliest possible time and keep going. '