Search Ideas

In the US, California!

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.

All the areas in the US I have lived in have terrible water quality.

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.

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.

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 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.'

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.

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.

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.

I applaud your honesty.

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.

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. '

Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes and all of our knowledge is tentative in nature. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it claims to be. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes and all of our knowledge is tentative in nature. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it claims to be. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes and all of our knowledge is tentatively true. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it asserts itself to be so. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

Fallibilism is the view that there is no criterion to say with certainty what’s true and what’s false. As a result, we inevitably make mistakes and all of our knowledge is tentatively true. Nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it asserts itself to be so. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

I didn’t want to just write what you have suggested, parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing. test edit

I didn’t just want to write what you have suggested, as parroting isn’t understanding. Writing it in my own words helps the growth of both my understanding and writing.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true, and nothing is obvious but depends on what one understands about reality. It also means that no knowledge is beyond revision, even if it asserts itself to be so. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true, and nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of those ideas are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

Fallibilism is the idea that all of our knowledge is tentatively true, and that nothing is obviously true but depends on what one understands about reality. This means that we can't be certain about anything, because we don't have a criterion of truth. Knowledge grows by addressing problems in our knowledge. We solve problems by guessing solutions and testing them. This also means we should always be careful not to destroy or even slow down the things and ideas that correct errors and thereby create knowledge. Some of which are freedom, privacy, and free markets. We are also never the passive recipients of our knowledge; we are the creators.

This view is mainly influenced by Popper, and errors are my own.

If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew some part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.

If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew a certain part of your knowledge was true, but it turned out not to be after further inquiry.

If you're not certain which part of your knowledge is true, then there is no difference between what I said and what you said. Because you knew that "that" part of your knowledge was true, but it wasn't true as it turns out after further inquiry.