Achieving Happiness: Living Life with Purpose, with Rajshree Agarwal and Tal Tsfany

[@abanger]

1. Observe Values 2. Identify Core Values 3. Define Central Purpose 4. Productize Yourself

[@sandrograu1353]

How do you identify your core values before defining your central purpose?

[@BahjatHammad]

There are two types of happiness ; material and spiritual. You can achieve spiritual happiness, which is more important, without money. I am Muslim , Muslims enjoy spiritual happiness through remembering Allah ( God) , prayer and other good deeds.

[@BJoinedBReality]

"Who is John Galt?"

[@BJoinedBReality]

"We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist. We strive to be like all our brother men, for all men must be alike." ~ Anthem, pages 18-19

[@throughhumaneyes7648]

So you have no power to stop yourself from punching someone when they piss you off?

[@throughhumaneyes7648]

If Rand is where you landed after introspection, youve done 0 introspection.

[@georgestacey9558]

They consider that this existence is of importance and that it doesn't last long. In short they appraise their lives and think they need to be involved in it as a valuable or put it in danger (mentally as well as bodily danger), which given a fair amount of evidence seems reasonalbe. Even if this falls short of ultimate enlightenment how can a human fault them entirely in regards these matters of their lives, for which they ponder and start much of their pondering? I personally house some different conclusions on the nature of existence and how to best live so as to be satisfied, but they (objectivist) have some good points and make legitimate arguments, besides they believe in the rights of people to care about their condition, something noble in that, even if erroneous in some regards of our nature and potential as beings.

[@georgestacey9558]

I'd say if Rand is where one lands after introspection they have done some consideration on what it means to be here in existence. Sorry I don't wish to dismiss the reflection that there maybe more to consider and who knows what you current thought on all this but that is my two cent worth.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@georgestacey9558 Are you agreeing or disagreeing w/Rand? Your grammar is confusing. Edit!

[@CuriousCattery]

Translating George Stacey (courtesy of chatGPT): The person is discussing the perspective of an Objectivist, who believes that human existence is important but short-lived. Objectivists value their lives and believe that they should be actively involved in living them, even if that involves taking risks or putting themselves in danger. The writer acknowledges that while they may have a different perspective on the nature of existence and how to live a satisfying life, Objectivists make valid arguments and have the right to care about their condition. The writer also notes that while Objectivists may be incorrect about some aspects of human nature and potential, their belief in the importance of individual rights is admirable. This person is saying that if someone arrives at the philosophy of Ayn Rand (often referred to as Randism or Objectivism) after introspection, then they have likely thought deeply about what it means to exist in this world. The writer acknowledges that there may be other perspectives to consider and doesn't want to dismiss them, but they believe that if someone has arrived at Rand's philosophy, it shows that they have engaged in a thoughtful and reflective process. Essentially, the person is expressing that they believe that coming to the philosophy of Ayn Rand is a valid and legitimate outcome of introspection and philosophical contemplation.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@CuriousCattery Objectivism is basically an induction from concretes. Introspection is derivative. Understanding Objectivism-Leonard Peikoff'; the focused mind vs the unfocused mind of empiricism and rarionalism. Obj is vastly more fundamental and radical than you discuss. Its neo-Aristotle and a fundamental rejection of virtually the entire history of philosophy.