Sadness, even extreme sadness, results from the loss of something of value.  It is an emotional response that occurs when something one held dear is no longer available as a value.  For example, when a family member or loved pet dies, one feels sadness.  Entrepreneurs who lose their businesses sometimes feel extreme sadness over the loss.  There are many causes, and in most cases it is proper to feel such sadness.  If one truly did value what was lost, then emotional pain is a proper response.

But what of depression?  Depression is in fact the result of trying to hold two conflicting premises, and live by them, at the same time.  It has nothing to do with losing values, but rather the inability to gain and keep values due to the conflict.  For example, if one tried to believe in a god and not believe in a god at the same time, holding both premises inconsistently, one would probably become depressed.  If one tried to live as a homosexual sometimes and a heterosexual at other times, one would most likely become depressed.

If you are even remotely honest, the conflict will stick in the back of your mind, like a bug nibbling away at your brain, until you are nearly completely  incapacitated to rational thought.

When you feel sad about a loss, reflect on your premises.  Go ahead and feel the pain, because if you don’t it could mean that the lost value was never really that valuable to you in the first place.  Don’t avoid things of value to avoid pain, either.  Life is about joy and happiness, and the only way to avoid pain is to avoid the happiness in the first place.  In order to gain anything of value, taking risk is required.

But if you are feeling down, check your premises, too.  Make sure that you are not missing something.  It’s very easy to be depressed about one thing and sad at another, and attribute the depression to what it is you feel sad about. When those emotions overlap, it becomes nearly impossible to separate them while introspecting.  Take your time and think about things thoroughly.  If you’ve identified sadness and it doesn’t go away after the right amount of time, then depression is a likely factor.  Look for the conflicting premises and correct them.

He’s dead wrong. We need more than a tweak here or adjustment there, we need an overhaul. We need to figure out what didn’t work and why, and fix that. It is the principles themselves that have failed, not the details of their application.

His foundation claims to be ‘non-idealogical’, but the idea of saving and not using debt leverage is an idealogy. The real problem isn’t the debt idealogy vs. the saving idealogy, though.

The real problem is much more fundamental: Americans believe they have a right to happiness, and they believe the government should give it to them.

On “Fiscal Responsibility,” Peterson’s foundation says that

America has become addicted to debt. Every American is now burdened, most of them unknowingly, with $184,000 in federal liabilities and unfunded government promises. Absent meaningful entitlement reforms and spending constraints, future tax burdens will have to more than double for the country to get by.

The foregone conclusion is that entitlements and government welfare programs are necessary and correct; we just need to tone it down a notch. But which notch gets toned down? The one that affects you, or the one that affects me? By what standard shall we ‘constrain’ benefits to some groups and not others? Once again, those decisions could only be idealogical in nature: this particular welfare program is good because …. and that one is bad because…. how do you that without an idealogy? You can’t.

The real solution to this is to eliminate the federal liabilities and promises. Any way you slice it, as long as there are government welfare programs of any kind with any beneficiaries, it boils down to someone having to pay for someone else’s happiness. It’s not right.

To that end, there should be a separation of economics and state, just as the founding fathers saw fit to establish a separation of church and state… and for exactly the same reason. Just as men should be free to follow whatever belief system they choose, free to exercise their volition about how to live to their lives, not as a group but as individuals, so should men be free to choose how to spend their money, and what it should be used for. The use of money is as much a decision and action about what is proper for man’s life as deciding what philosophic system to subscribe to, and it should be treated no differently; with the respect of inalienable right.

On “Entitlement,” Peterson’s foundation exclaims that

With the oldest of 78 million baby boomers starting to retire, the sum of America’s unfunded liabilities currently exceeds three times the size of the entire U.S. economy. Today, people are encouraged to spend more than one-third of their entire adult lives in retirement, reducing the share of benefits available to the truly old and needy. We need to reform our entitlement programs to reflect current economic realities and longer life spans.

The foregone conclusion is that the premise of having the government provide happiness in the form of retirement benefits is proper, we just need to revise it a tad. That will solve everything!

But, the very idea of an “Entitlement” flies in the face of the Declaration of Independence. The document says “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. It does not say “Life, liberty and happiness.” Happiness is not a right, and the forefathers knew this. It is up to each man to decide what in this life will bring him happiness, and it is his individual responsibility to obtain it for himself. When this country was founded, there were no “entitlements”, men were free to choose and pursue whatever goals they wished. They set up the country this way because they came from a land where their choices were taken from them, and they did not want to live with that kind of oppression. We have forgotten what that was like, because once again our choices are limited; limited by those who would have us sacrifice ourselves for their happiness by providing them with their ‘entitlements.’ This is entirely unfair. You have a right to your life and your liberty — but you do not have a right to happiness. You have to do that yourself. Save for your own retirement, if you wish to retire. Do not make everyone else sacrifice such a large percentage of their own ideas and efforts to your lack of foresight and demand that everyone else make life good for you.

Regarding “Health Care”, the Peterson foundation says

Health care costs are more than twice as high per capita in America as in the rest of the developed world. Our current health care system favors chronic care over cures, specialists over primary care physicians, and intensive over preventive care. It also leaves over 47 million Americans uninsured.

The foregone conclusion is that the health services themselves are to blame for the expense, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Health care in this country is not expensive for those reasons stated. It is expensive because of the overhead imposed by government controls and litigation. It is expensive because people have demanded that the government place an iron leash on the health care system and make it sit up like a dog, so that the people can make it roll over. Doctors and hospitals must undergo ruthless never-ending government reviews and audits, and must comply with so many laws and regulations that it boggles the mind how anyone could even consider going into the business. They not only pay for the compliance personnel, the engineering and administrative labor of coming into compliance, but also registration and maintenance fees to the government, and huge fines when they are out of compliance. And people love to sue their doctors, which is why they pay the highest malpractice insurance rates of any such providers in the world. And they incur even more costs recording and providing the documentation necessary to protect themselves from such litigation, as required by their policies (which are, ironically required by law). People are deathly afraid of doctors and hospitals, so they ask the government to keep them safe. You want to know why your health care system is so expensive America — its because you demanded it to be that way.

Imagine how expensive cabinetry would be if you could sue your carpenter for millions of dollars because he didn’t build the cabinets you wanted, and he had to document and comply with endless government regulations regarding how he built his products: what materials he used, how many fasteners he used, what size they were, and on and on. What person in their right mind would even go into carpentry in such a scenario?

There is a better way, and that is the historically tried and true system of contracts. If you make a contract with your doctor for services, and he provides what you contracted, then you pay him. If he doesn’t, then you don’t. And it should be up to you and the doctor what is in the contract, it is no one else’s business. It’s your life after all. Why should you want the government to decide what the doctors can and can’t promise? By asking the government to protect you from the big mean doctors, you’ve given up your ability to negotiate terms, and in a contract that can mean your very life. The only suit you should be able to bring against your doctor is a breach of contract, unless he has committed a crime.

Surrounding the issue of “Tax Reform”, the Peterson foundation claims

Our tax code must be overhauled to reflect current economic realities, reduce the system’s complexity, and enhance its efficiency. The tax system has become so complicated and riddled with special provisions that it violates basic fairness, encourages game-playing, sheltering, and other non-productive and even risky uses of money. Tax reform is necessary to provide a more transparent and effective way for the government to raise revenues.

Again, the foregone conclusion is that the status quo idealogy of taxation is correct, we just need to make them ‘fair’. But by what standard is a tax judged to be ‘fair’? Who or what decides?

With a separation of economics and state, there is no need for taxes. There would be no government programs for babysitting the population. You do not have a right to happiness, the government is not here to provide it. The government’s purpose is to ensure your rights are not violated — your right to life, your right to liberty, and your right to pursue happiness. To ensure those rights, it needs only a military, a police force, and a court system. There would be no Federal Reserve, no Social Security, no Medicare, no stimulus packages, no programs whatsoever that do anything but ensure your rights — your actual rights, not the rights you arbitrarily pull from thin air and demand. And that government is so much smaller and leaner, it doesn’t need much to be financed: a processing fee for registering contracts to be enforced in the court system, or donations from those who wish their rights protected and can afford to willingly pay for the cause, would probably be sufficient.

Around “Personal Responsibility”, Peterson’s foundation exclaims

Many Americans can become safer and more secure by saving more, being more mindful of their personal finances, and living within their means. The combination of small savings and large debts threatens the well-being of workers and homeowners, as we have seen during the current financial crisis. By increasing personal saving as well as public saving, Americans will gain greater control over their own destinies.

The underlying premise here is that we’ve already got the right system, we just need to make some adjustments as to how we use it. If we keep enough people out of trouble, then the system that saves people from themselves won’t be overburdened and will function properly.

But in reality, personal responsibility does not mean “make adjustments so that the system will work better.” It doesn’t mean “save more so your fellow man has to bail you out less.” Literally, personal responsibility means taking responsibility for your own actions. It has nothing to do with how much you save, being mindful, or living with your means. It means if you fail to do so, you own up to it and take the fall on your own. You do not blame others for your poor decisions. You do not whine and cry that someone has taken advantage of you, or that your rights have been violated. The only way your rights are violated in an established contract is if someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sign it. If you fail to read and understand it, and proceed to sign it of your own free will, then there’s nothing you should say or do except pay the consequences. Do not make everyone else pay for you.

America: stop being the spoiled brat of the world. You’ve had so much excess wealth for so long, you’ve forgotten that it takes effort to produce it, and you simply demand it from others, like a three year old demanding a cookie from the jar before supper. Give me my medicare and my social security and my pension, you say. I say, forget that: go get your own health care and retirement, and let me get mine.

Not only is it wrong for government to try to legislate happiness, it is impossible. You cannot give someone a handout and expect them to gain true happiness from it. That comes from someplace else, and a person can only get it from themselves.

Peterson said, “The idea of trying to make the money grow felt empty to me.” Growing money isn’t just about having more money, though. It’s about being productive and creating value. A better way to “spend” $1 billion dollars to help the economy: start up a whole bunch of businesses and create jobs. Those businesses should produce products and services that can be sold, giving the employees sustainable employment, not just until the $1 billion runs out. And hopefully, some profit can be realized so that even more businesses can employ even more people, or pay more benefits, or both.

The man who does that isn’t just taking credit for the profit he gains for himself. Spiritually, he can take credit for everything those companies produce, and all the lives that are directly and indirectly benefited - not just employees, but the consumers of his company’s products and services as well. It is men such as these that make the world go ’round, and without them we would not have razors and talcum powder and the Internet and gasoline and telephones and yes, even accounting services, and everything else we take for granted. These things should not be taken for granted, neither by those who consume them, or those who produce them. There is great effort and risk involved, and as such success means something. Productivity creates not only the wealth of the world, but wealth of the spirit as well. Take pride in your accomplishments, and allow others to take pride in theirs. And then let us see where happiness comes from, shall we?

So let’s do the cost-benefit analysis. What could I gain by racing him? This is not a race track and this is not a racing event; there is no purse to be won and no trophy to be earned. Such a trophy could identify one as an expert who has triumphed over other experts in competition. The guy in the Subaru is no one I know, so a psychological victory over a worthy opponent in competition is out. There is the lesser psychological victory of racing anyone and winning, the value of which is low relative to an official race event. There could also be emotional rewards for successfully standing up to a challenge by another man, but again I have no idea who this person is. How do I know the measure of the challenge? Will I have beaten an expert, or a nobody?

What are the possible costs of such a race? This is the freeway, not a racetrack. Thus, racing is highly illegal. It could cost me arrest, a fine, or jail time. It could cost me my driver’s license, which I need to get to work and to access products and services efficiently. Racing in a traffic situation is also very dangerous. There are no safety controls and the freeway isn’t designed for racing. There are drivers present who are not aware that a race is going on, nor are they trained for a racing environment. The possibility of an accident is very high, which could cost me serious injury or death, let alone prison if someone else died or was hurt.

The costs clearly outweigh the benefits by a wide margin. I elect not to race. After a few moments, the Subaru down shifts and guns his engine, speeding into the distance at over 90 mph.

In light of such an overwhelming lop-sided cost/benefit analysis, what could possibly have motivated the Subaru driver to initiate this encounter? This being an objective reality, the costs and benefits for me are exactly the same costs and benefits for him.

In this type of situation, what are the common arguments made by those who would advocate the opposite choice?

• It will be “cool” [to other people].
• You will gain respect [from other people].
• You can brag about it [to other people].
• It will be “fun”/”feel good”.

Three of these typical arguments are classic second-handed appeals. The last is an obvious appeal to hedonism. However, all such arguments have a deeper common denominator. They all point to a psychological benefit to the activity, which is actually in agreement with the cost/benefit analysis I have given already. The only ” benefit” I could come up with was psychological as well.

Theorizing about the Subaru driver’s motivation then, we can deduce a good likelihood that he seeks this psychological benefit because he lacks it in other areas of his life. In any form, whether properly measured by acknowledging one’s own power over nature, or improperly measured by what “other people think,” the value being sought can only be one thing: self-esteem. For myself, I get plenty of self-esteem from my work and my personal life. I don’t need to race a nameless stranger on the freeway to fill a void in my soul.

Why would he pick me, out of all the people on the freeway? The answer is another clue to his self-esteem motivation: I drive a Lotus Elise. This gives him something slightly more than “random stranger” to measure his success against. But even here, he made an error. What is he really measuring? Not his driving ability against mine, but his car against mine. How will the fact that his Subaru has better straight-line acceleration than my Elise benefit his psyche?

Three days later, the same thing happens with a Dodge Charger. This time, however, the police are there and the Charger is pulled over while I cruise happily on my way.

The concept “is” is defined through the axiom of existence. The law of existence states that “existence exists”, or that “what is, is”. Without this philosophic premise, science cannot begin to ask the question, “What is there in the universe?”

The physical sciences, such as physics, can and must use mathematics as the means of inducing new discoveries. But mathematics itself presupposes a littany of philosophic conclusions, such as the law of existence and the law of identity. The numeral “1″, for example, is an abstraction representing the law of existence — that a singular thing exists as apart from the rest of the universe. Thus counting, multiplying, and all math are derived from and based upon a philosophic conclusion — the conclusion that entities exist apart from other entities — and could not exist without it.

Science uses induction as its method, and renames it the “scientific method”. Beginning with already established knowledge, a scientist asks the question: what do these facts suggest? He then constructs experiments to test his theories and discover the answers. But induction is only valid as a means of knowledge if philosophy can confirm it. Induction must be valid in order for the scientific method to be valid. There is no way to validate induction through any means other than a philosophic one, because you cannot use induction to prove induction (i.e. the fallacy of self-reference). Thus, math cannot be used, nor can any other scientific (i.e. inductive) process be used to do so. Only philosophy can answer the question: is induction valid? And thus, philosophic identification and validation is presupposed by all science, since science is applied induction.

Indeed, the very purpose of science is a philosophic purpose! Man constructs the sciences in order to further man’s life. Physics, astronomy, psychology, sociology, and all sciences exist in order to make man’s life easier, more productive, and ultimately more pleasurable. If it were not for the philosophic premise that happiness is man’s goal, man would have no need for the sciences at all, and would never engage in their study.

As far as proof, science alone cannot prove anything. The concept of proof itself rests upon the foundation of an array of philosophic conclusions, such as consciousness and the fact that knowledge of the truth is possible. Without philosophy, there could be no such thing as “proof”, and science would have no purpose.

Philosophy tells us whether existence exists or not, it tells us what that existence means to man, it tells us what consciousness is, it tells us the proper means of knowledge, and it gives us a reason for seeking it. Without all of these prerequisites, science would never have come into existence. Without recognition of these facts, the short-sighted scientist is doomed to exclaim erroneously that “pure science” is necessary to prove or disprove the very philosophic premises which give rise to the existence of science in the first place. In reality, the best science can do is illustrate an already-established philosophic premise. It cannot suggest new ones or even prove any premises upon which the idea of science itself is based.

Philosophically, the “good” is that which furthers your life and makes you happy. For example, obtaining and eating food definitely furthers your life and makes you happy. Everytime you eat something, you are following a philosophic premise that you hold in your mind — the premise that you want to live, and you know that eating is a necessary requirement for achieving that goal. If you didn’t know that, you would never eat a single morsel. The physical sensation of hunger would hold no meaning for you. But your mind does tell you what you should do about your hunger, doesn’t it?

Creating and producing is something that gives you pleasure as well. Whether you enjoy doing arts & crafts, or you have an idea and build a huge software company which provides jobs and services the world over, you enjoy the process of setting and achieving goals. You know implicitly that achieving a creative goal is to provide for your own life and your own happiness, because you feel proud of what you have done. Who hasn’t done something creative and then felt proud of that achievement?

Enjoying the fruits of your labor is something else that virtually everyone in our culture knows — even those who explicitly proselytize the opposite. Even preachers (outside the Catholic church) have other jobs to provide for their worldly needs. They know that in order to have anything besides mere survival — if they want to watch television, eat higher quality meals, or have a decent place to live, they must work to earn it. No one gets everything they need to be happy from charity. They must provide for their own selfish, worldly pleasure, because ultimately it is up to them and no one else. You do these things too: whenever you go the grocery store and buy chocolate ice cream, whenever you purchase a music CD, whenever you go to a movie, whenever you go kayaking or mountain climbing — you are doing so for your own selfish pleasure, to enjoy your life on this earth. You do use your own paycheck to give yourself worldly pleasure, don’t you?

Seeking out the company of other people who share your values is another thing that everyone knows will further their life and happiness. Bicyclists seek out other bicyclists to ride with. Philosophers seek out other philosophers to discuss ideas with. Clubs, professional associations, even most USENET newsgroups and IRC channels are examples of people seeking the pleasure of sharing common values. If you did not implicitly know the premise that it is good to share common values with others, then you would not do so. You would never seek out companionship and would instead remain isolated. You would never know the joy of being understood. But you do know it, don’t you?

Since you know these are the things which make life happy and enjoyable, then why would you want to prevent yourself from doing them? The pain and suffering of most people comes from being inconsistent — from doing good things sometimes, and bad things at other times, and not knowing what the difference is. This is where philosophy comes in. Philosophy increases your happiness by being the guide for what is good and what is bad.

Considering the things previously itemized which you have already agreed are good and provide you with happiness, what things would prevent you from doing them? Think to yourself about what is good, introspect on it, and then you’ll easily be able to identify what is bad. You’ll then be able to achieve consistency rather than being inconsistent. You’ll develop explicit principles to live by — a set of rules you set for yourself to follow — rather than living haphazardly in the range of the moment, never quite knowing what you should do. You’ll spend less of your time in pain or conflict, and more of your life in a state of happiness!

The correct political structure is laissez-faire capitalism. This means, in essence, a system based on individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. This means that if one man wants something another man has, he must trade for it. This is normally done by the exchange of some sort of money currency in order to obtain the goods.

A simple example of this is everytime you go to the store. The store has goods, and you have money. You trade your money for their goods. However, the trader principle applies both to commerce and to personal relationships, where money is not involved.

For example, if you have a friend, it means you share some common interest with that person. Perhaps you like the same music and you go to concerts together and talk about them afterwards. In this trade, one person puts time and energy into the relationship to provide many different values to the other, and receives companionship as payment. Here, the first-handed understanding of the music at hand is the value, and the emotional reward of recognizing it in the other person is the currency. Perhaps one person has insights about the music the other hasn’t thought of, which can also be a value. Or, even just the knowledge that there is someone else who ‘gets it’ can be enough. In any event, the emotional fulfillment received is the payment for the effort put into the relationship.

The teacher and student relationship is also a trade. The student gains knowledge from the teacher, while the teacher gains the emotional fullfillment of passing on his knowledge and enabling others to create and produce, which he thereby can properly feel pride in himself.

Romantic relationships are also based on the trader principle. Each party pays the other with love — which is the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure gained from the virtues and qualities of character of one’s partner.

In short, there is no interpersonal relationship anywhere that is not properly based on the trader principle. Any such instance where a proper trade of value for value is not taking place is an example of altruism, sacrifice, and is thus morally deplorable. So the next time someone brings up the philosophic branch known as politics, don’t automatically assume they mean to talk about the government!

The word introspect means literally, “to examine oneself” or, “to examine one’s consciousness.” One should train oneself to associate the feeling of an emotion with a need to pause to ask oneself questions. Since one uses emotion as the call to introspect, and emotion is the product of one’s premises, the first question to ask is obvious: “What premise(s) have I held in the past that make me feel this way (in this specific situation)?”

Therein lies a question that demands that one be able to invert the processes of concept and premise formation. Concept and premise formation rely on observing concretes and subsuming them into wide abstractions. The process of introspection seeks to do the reverse, and identify what abstractions are associated to the concrete that triggered the emotion. The subconscious identifies those abstractions automatically as it has been programmed to do. The emotional mechanism’s purpose is efficiency, not validation. It is up to the introspector to determine which content of past programming has led to the emotion at hand.

Note that the question is not, “What ideas do I hold now?” but, “What ideas have I held in the past?” Emotions are the result of the automation of ideas by the subsconscious, and take many repetitions of imprinting the idea upon the subconscious to become what they are. If one changes one’s mind about a particular idea, one’s emotions will not automatically follow in 5 minutes, a day, or even a year. One must explicitly examine one’s prior programming and replace it in order to change one’s emotional content over time. If one has changed a particular premise, it must be internalized or programmed into the subconscious through repetitive, explicit introspection in order to change the emotional response.

Positive emotions are generally the result of goal accomplishment or premise reinforcement. For example, the happy feeling one gets when one creates something of value or observes someone else creating something of value. This emotion is fueled by the premise that creation is good, and checking that premise against the concretes of the particular situation are warranted in order to refine one’s emotional content.

Negative emotions are generally the result of internal contradiction. For example, if one loses a particular value such as a friend and becomes angry over it, then it is obvious that one thinks the loss of the friend was unjust in some way. In order to determine whether this is true, one should reduce this idea through recursive questioning all the way back to the perceptual level. For example, one would first ask, “Why is the loss of the friend unjust?” If one answers to oneself, “Because our friendship was rational,” then the next question to ask is, “Was our friendship based in rationality?” To answer this, one would examine the facts that led up to the friendship, and the facts of the friendship itself. This examination could potentially reveal some fundamental irrationality at the basis of the friendship which was previously overlooked or evaded. If that occurs, the the idea that the friendship was rational is proven false, and the emotion is unwarranted. One can then start to bring the emotional mechanism towards consistency with reality, but it will take repetition of this process many times on a given idea to retrain the subconscious. If, on the other hand, no irrationality can be found, then the emotion is justified and indicates that some further corrective action is necessary.

The important idea here is that one uses emotion as the indicator as the time to begin asking oneself questions, starting with, “What ideas have I held that make me feel this way?” and then turning each answer into its own question recursively with the goal of reaching the perceptual level. The final answer to the last question is “existence exists,” but with a proper philosophical foundation one need not always go that far explicitly. You can stop as soon as you are certain that you are standing on a firm, familiar philosophic premise — and then you will know whether your emotion is right or wrong with respect to reality.

When should a man use introspection? Ideally, every time he feels an emotion. Introspection is useful to correct or reinforce philosophic premises, and its only indicator for use is the emotional mechanism. Man has no other means of knowing when he should examine himself and his body of knowledge — and every instance of feeling gives him cause to check his premises, and either correct or reinforce his previous conclusions.

The only instance of emotion that does not necessitate introspection is the general background emotion one has as a wide integration of all of one’s accomplishments and failures. It should be introspected upon periodically, but not all the time, as it is an emotion that never leaves the person and is always present. This is the emotion that is almost always identified by others as being part of his identity, and is manifested in a judgement as to whether a person is generally mean or nice. All other instances of emotion, which consist of a definite immediate reaction to something perceived, should be examined.

In order to introspect, it is necessary for a man to first notice that he feels emotions. It requires some focus and presence of mind to be able to connect the feeling with a task one must perform, but it does not require tremendous effort. For example, positive emotions such as pride are an indicator for introspection. The man can then recall the events and processes which led him to choose the goal at hand, the work required to accomplish it, and go over it in his mind to ensure that he has in fact achieved a rational, moral goal. He should check his every step and every premise along the way — and if he reaches the same conclusions without contradiction, then his pride is justified and reinforced.

A negative emotion, such as anger, is a red flag that something has gone wrong — an incorrect action has been taken. The man must then retrace his own ideas and actions which led up to the emotion. Somewhere along the way, he will discover either an error in his premises, or something he overlooked which should have caused him to take a different action. If he finds an error in his premises, he must eliminate it. This normally does not happen instantly, but must be repeated many times in order to wipe out the bad premise. If instead he finds something he overlooked, he can avoid the negative emotion in the future by applying more focus and gathering more information prior to his actions.

Another less obvious emotion is one of desire, because it is neutral and not necessarily positive or negative. If a man feels a desire, it means that he feels a desire to achieve some goal. This is also a necessary time for introspection — he should examine himself to discover why he feels the desire and ensure that it is rational before proceeding to act towards accomplishing it. This is actually the most important time to introspect, because if he follows his desires without analysis and actually accomplishes an irrational goal, the negative payback later is always devasting. Reality always wins in the end.

It’s important to note the most common error that is made regarding emotions — the trap that a man’s emotions are caused by other people. For example, if John jaywalks and Bob gets angry, it is not John’s jaywalking which causes Bob to feel anger. John’s jaywalking may have no effect on Karen, or it may even make her happy. The cause of the emotion is that Bob held a certain idea — the idea that jaywalking would endanger Bob. If Bob is to decide whether his idea is right or wrong with respect to reality, he must first be able to identify the idea itself.

Thus it is emotion that is the primary indicator that a man should introspect, for it is a man’s own prior ideas which are the direct cause of his emotions. It is not the actions of other people which cause a man to feel, but his own subconscious content — and it is that content which must be examined for correctness. The subconscious, and thus the emotional mechanism, are only as infallable as the premises a man chooses. Introspection is necessary for a man to control his own emotions and increase his happiness.

The next and last part of this series will examine precisely how a man introspects — so check back soon!

Introspection is the primary psychological tool by which man improves his character, integrates his knowledge of the world around him, and increases his happiness.

The reason that men should introspect is that men have volition — we do not have instincts like other animals. We can choose our course of action, but that does not automatically mean that our actions are correct. We need to identify the facts of reality and act accordingly in order to live and be happy — but because we can choose a course of action, we can choose the wrong course of action.

Man has an emotional mechanism, similiar to the physical pleasure/pain mechanism which tells an organism whether its current course of action is life-seeking or potentially dangerous. The emotional mechanism tells man whether his choices are right or wrong, good or bad, moral or evil — with respect to his implicit premises. If a man thinks that chopping his perfectly healthy and mobile arm off will improve his quality of life and he does so, he will feel good for having done it. Note that the emotion does not follow reality, but it follows the conclusions, or premises the man has drawn.

This rather complicates things, and gives rise to the need for introspection. How can man tie his emotions to reality — such that he feels good only when he performs an action that is actually something that will improve the quality of his life, and not just something he erroneously thinks might do so? He must introspect, and discover the premises he holds which are the basis for his emotions. Only by changing his wrong premises into right ones can he hope to change his emotions and bring them into line with reality.

There is another aspect of the emotional mechanism, in that it is part of the subconscious. The subconscious mind becomes programmed over time to provide a man with a given emotional response automatically to a given thought. He cannot change his emotions instantly. Simply realizing an erroneous premise does not wipe out the previous subconscious programming in one instant. If he wishes to change his emotional response, he will be required to repeat the process of introspection for a given context many, many times — until such time as his subconscious automatically presents him with the new emotion in that given context.

This is the “why” of introspection — because you can be wrong, you must check yourself to be certain that you are not, and correct whatever mistakes you have made. Otherwise, your emotional mechanism may be leading you in the wrong direction, and you won’t know it until its too late.

First and foremost, men worry too much about what women want. Stop worrying about women and just be a man. If you know what it is to be a man, and you focus on that, you’ll have women throwing themselves at your feet. That’s what they want.

To be a man — the best a man can be — means to be heroic. That doesn’t mean he throws on a cape and pretends to be Superman — it means he sets real goals and uses the efforts of his mind and body to actually achieve them. He sets and seeks rational goals in all aspects of his life; from his character to his career to his home and hobbies.

A heroic man works only for himself, and does not worry about what a woman might want him to do. He does what he knows is right, and his woman admires him for it. I don’t mean that he should forge ahead with any hair-brained scheme — he still has to actually be right in what he is doing. In order to be right, he must ensure that his actions are consistent with reality; that he neither evades anything he knows nor fails to discover what he needs to know in order to choose and achieve his goals.

The most sought-after trait in men by women is confidence. Real confidence doesn’t come from pretending to be manly (”macho”) and it doesn’t come from past sexual conquest. It doesn’t come from pursuing whatever whims may befall his imagination, even if he is successful at attaining those whimsical desires. It comes from the knowledge that he himself is efficacious; that he can think and act to shape the natural world around him to suit his needs, and that his choice of goals and actions are rational and good.

The heroic man needs no other people to guide his life. He can stand tall without assistance, confident that he has what it takes to lead a happy life. Whatever adversity may lie ahead for him, he knows he can overcome it and achieve his goals anyway. The woman of his dreams will look up to him for it, and follow his lead.

Note: My participation in The Egosphere does not consist of a sanction of the ideas of the other pariticipants in the Egosphere.