Reading & Writing Forum

Info

1,580 Friends

Filter by Topic

Books Community Space Emotive Writing [TW] Quotes! Writing Prompts Your Writing

Community calendar

Group chat

Ask questions, get support and make friends

Find a group chat

Quick links

About Us

Get Started

Online Therapy

Terms

My communities

Discover more

Considering Therapy?

Talk to an expert therapist

New subscribers

@MishmashMaru

Create a New Thread

Gif Photo Link

What are you currently reading?

by tommy

October 23rd

Reading & Writing Automated Taglist!

...See more *time to slaughter* Should we genetically modify a chicken? I think not. I would not want to be genetically modified. Fed... growth hormones? No. Why would anyone? To speed up the growth of the chicken, bypassing a natural and healthy life? [In saying that, should we eat meat every day? Every time I consume meat, I consider the heartbreak of the kill, and the worth of vegetarian/vegan foods. Meat can be nice, but I do not make it central to my diet out of respect, and in the interest of variety and contrast. If a dish cannot be good without a meat component, perhaps the rest of the dish is lacking.] I do not want to consume that which has been grown in haste, for the purpose of money. That applies to non-meat, too. Would you want to be bred selectively for the purpose of rapid growth? "Here, this is your diet. What does it mean? You will live a short life so that you can be consumed sooner." That, to me, is grotesque. When the weather is cold in Winter, should we genetically modify the sun so that it is warmer? I would say no. That would mess with the seasons. I am just a fan of nature. Specifically, natural nature. "Humans already modify nature in countless ways" That is Tradition Fallacy, and in this case, I think it to be an err. Also: a slow-growing animal is something I consider to have better quality of life. I would rather serve chickens than serve chicken. As in: "What can I do for the chickens to demonstrate love and care, as I would do for friend and family?" We are interested in living longer and healthier lives. Why are we not interested in chickens living longer and healthier lives? "Time to slaughter"... wow. I wonder what horrors occur when that variable is reduced to its minimum. Imagine if the chickens bred us selectively, in the interest of minimising time to slaughter.

consuming vagueness

by cyanessence

Thursday

...See more *consuming vagueness* Actual foods have flavour. Actual seasonings have flavour. I am becoming quite opposed to the consumption of artificial things. "Colour x" is added, and might very well communicate information... but I would very much like to see the honest colour of something. "Flavour" [quite literally listed as "flavour" on the label] is added, and now, I cannot experience the honest flavour of natural ingredients. Do you know how many things have flavour? "Flavour", listed as an ingredient, is vague to the point that I do think it requires proper investigation. If "flavour" is so good, be proud of it. Put it on the front of the label. If it were actual turmeric, for example, businesses could easily capitalise on that. If it were actual lemon juice, the same applies. What is "flavour"? It could literally vary from batch to batch, as it is just a place for something to act as a variable. One week, "flavour" could be cocaine. The next, it could be MDMA. Do not flavour that which has flavour with "flavour". That is common sense. The law needs to change. "Flavour" is not truth in packaging, at all. I'm a big boy: I am happy to read, on the label, what "flavour" is. Let me decide whether I want "flavour". For, dirt has flavour, and I will not eat dirt. "I ate "flavour" today!" Cool. What's that? "I don't know! No-one will tell me, as the law permits the sale of things that hide under vague descriptions!" The law permits the sale of "flavour". Should it? No. I want to buy "flavour" on its own if it is so good so that I may make my own foods and beverages. Imagine walking into a shop and asking for a bottle of Flavour™. The shopkeeper asks: "What kind?" You reply: "Flavour. I want to add it to my water, oats, vegetables, and coffee." "But what flavour?" "Your labels don't seem to think I need to know." Every detail of that which is consumed should be perfectly knowable if we care about health. Every detail. No vagueness. None.

gifts, unwrapped

by cyanessence

October 28th

...See more *gifts* I am not opposed to Christmas. I am not opposed to tradition, celebration, or remembering. Though I, personally, would appreciate a different kind of gift for Christmas. No, I do not want chocolate for Christmas. I do not want to damage my teeth, nor flood my body with sugar. No, I do not want a bike for Christmas. I do not want to store or maintain it. [I do not appreciate gifts that have ongoing costs]. I do not want the latest console/game. I do not want clothes, trinkets, baubles, or decorations. I do not want to fake a smile just to satisfy someone's imagined need that they are a giving person. If I want such things, I will employ my own critical thought process to make a truly considered choice. I do not want money for Christmas. I just... do not. What would I appreciate? How about an exchange: I will not buy you gifts if you do not buy me gifts. We both save time and money; we both contribute less to landfill; no-one has to fake a smile. How about a discussion: you tell me how to spend less and live better, and I will do the same for you. Gifts can be nice. But more often than not, I find such an activity performative, saccharine, and ritualistic without heart. You really want to gift me a sweater? Do so when it is not socially deemed necessary, and the gift carries considerably more weight. - *unwrapped* Consider this: I receive a gift for Christmas. It is wrapped. Already, I am disappointed. Heartbroken, even. Why? The wrapping must be either thrown away or recycled, both of which incur environmental costs. I would rather contribute to a healthier environment by rejecting all forms of disposable wrapping. And another point... It disappoints me that society is whipped into a money spending frenzy during such occasions. Why? Some might purchase inferior goods just to tick something off a list. Example: I have ten family members, and a small budget. So, for each member, I will buy them the cheapest thing which resembles a gift. Then, I can say I gave my family gifts. Such gifts are not good, especially when accompanied by false smiles. "Oh, thank you for this plastic flower. You are now socially acceptable." The giver assumes their gift is good, and so does something similar next year; the gifted is required to perform gratitude, when it could prompt them to harbour resentment ["this person never buys me things I want, but regardless, I will smile, as I do not want to cause a scene on Christmas"] When gift giving becomes a social obligation, we can forget the somewhat hidden costs of performing for social points. - Imagine this: The widespread tradition of wrapping gifts is entirely abandoned, for the sake of the environment. Giving gifts is still a tradition, but it is mutually agreed: by eliminating an environmental cost, we all, in effect, give ourselves the gift of a healthier environment. And I want to say... just because a particular ideal is widespread does not mean it is wise. If we all were expected to burn a tree so that we can say Christmas was performed, is that wise? In such a scenario, we would smile at those that burn trees while slowly diminishing an environment that is able to support smiles. - If unwrapping a gift is so prised, why not... something that allows there to be a reveal? A family decides: rather than purchasing wrapping that has environmental costs, gifts are placed inside a metal/wooden box. Such could even be personally decorated. In such a case, the reveal remains intact, but so does that which allows there to be a reveal [the containers could be passed onto the next generation, and even if empty, would always contain memories of Christmas].

...See more (Trigger warning, depressed character i think that's it for now might add more later) Back here again, always failing Back here again, eternal disappointment Back here again, voice horse from misuse Back here again, guilty broken shoulders Back here again, this place i always find Back here again, I swear it's the last time Back here again, please just let - “auHrghhh!” Londin mutters and throws her pen down. Her head falls back over the chair and she just stares at the ceiling. Her eyes wander to cobwebs all along the corners. “Great, another thing I have to get done. . ." Her voice is so quiet she can barely hear it herself. A dull vibration from the desk draws her attention, her phone. She doesn't have the will or desire to check it but it's a habit by now. A small notification bubble shows ‘Please come back your animals miss you :(‘ along with a cow icon. “Just another stupid game I still have.” She says with a sigh before clicking on a different icon. Music comes to life and colors flash across the screen. ‘I think my favorite scene was something I was adv-’ swipe ‘It looks lik-’ swipe ‘Which one of you wa-’ swipe ‘What if you jumped off a heli-’ swipe ‘I love it when a guy likes his food. It one of the best things coz then he'll always want to eat and cook with you, but not go crazy on the-’ swipe ‘People will really just say anything for-’ click She glances at the clock in the corner of her home screen, 1:58, and ignores the dull sensation in her stomach. “Fine whatever.” She says while standing up. “And I have work in the morning. . .” Her voice cracks from not drinking any water, and she wishes she could just want to cry like a normal person or at least fall asleep quickly tonight. Walking to her dress she throws her shirt and pants on the floor and grabs an oversized black T-shirt. It looks 3-5 sizes to big on her and has a robotic hand holding a rose. She falls onto her bed and turns her light off through her phone. Reaching around blindly her hand finally grasps a fluffy large object that she squeezes towards her chest. “Thanks Kyle” She murmurs, squishing the plush bat like it could squeak all her rushing thoughts away.

A whole new world - Cherry’s writing

I Read Ayn Rand So You Don’t Have To - My Rage Bait Essay

by azurePond

July 13th

...See more Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism presents a seductive vision of a rational individual who is a sovereign architect of their happiness. She framed altruism as a weakness and sacrifice as a moral crime. Engaging with her work is like being handed a knife that feels clean and dangerously sharp. Objectivism preaches radical self interest as the only rational path. It’s the ultimate “I’m the blueprint” mindset that suggests our highest purpose is to be a self made lion who does not concern with others. It’s intellectually bracing. It’s fiercely powerful. And it’s about as realistic as believing you coded the entire i0S because you have mastered your own homescreen layout while ignoring the millions of lines of inherited code forged by others and the very concept of a network that gives your device meaning. Ayn Rand’s individual is a single cell growing in a petri dish for a lab experiment. Her first error is anthropological. She imagines our prehistoric ancestors as proto industrialists who survived by sheer individual grit. The most savage rebuke to this view is a healed femur. Anthropologists point to this mended thigh bone as the first sign of civilisation. A broken leg in the wild meant death. A healed one meant someone chose to offer protection which is a massive investment in a vulnerable other. THis was the original survival strategy. Groups that cooperated outlived and out thrived packs of selfish individuals. To call altruism “irrational” is to call the very strategy that allowed our species to dominate the planet a mistake. It’s giving “failed experiment” while the evidence screams “core functionality.” Even our physiology confirms this. Our brains reward us with dopamine and oxytocin when we cooperate and give a neurochemical affirmation that helping others feels good because it is good for us. An Ayn Rand defender can dismiss this example as the ‘naturalistic fallacy’. One confusing biological wiring with moral virtue. But this misses a deeper point. For a being whose survival and flourishing are its central values, these signals are not irrelevant feelings to be overridden by a disembodied reason. They are biological indicators like pain or hunger that objectively sustains our life. To consistently ignore them is not rational independence but it is a profound irrationality. It is a denial of the biological reality that reason itself depends on. Another argument might be that this is not proof of selfless charity but of long term value calculation. The injured person must have been a skilled hunter or a wise elder. Keeping them alive was a rational investment. Fair point. But this defense only highlights the problem. It reduces human connection to a cold ledger of assets and liabilities. It asks us to believe that the comfort offered, the patience extended, the sheer care over months of helplessness was merely a calculated pre payment for future meat. This is a profound impoverishment of the human experience. It mistakes the form of the transaction for its content. The bone healed not just because of caloric math but because of a bond that made the math worthwhile in the first place. Our evolutionary edge was the ability to create value through bonds that transcend immediate exchange. To call this mere "trade" is to look at a cathedral and see only a pile of quarried stone. An Objectivist might concede this point but attempt another criticism. They might argue that the bonds and care that I described in this defense are indeed essential to human flourishing and they are among the highest values a rational individual can choose. But the error is in calling them altruistic. The man caring for his injured tribesman does so because he values that person. His action springs from his own hierarchy of values. To label it a sacrifice implies he acted against his own judgment and interest. The issue is not the action but the moral justification for it.’ This defense appears solid. It seems to reconcile human connection with the sovereign self by simply filing connection under "rational value pursuit." But this argument contains two fatal flaws. First, it commits a psychological error. The myth of the monadic valuer. It assumes our "values" are generated in a vacuum by a solitary self to which others are merely delightful items. This inverts reality. Our capacity to value anything…. companionship, love, the future itself is not prior to connection but it is forged through connection. We learn to value because we are first valued. The "companionship" the defender cites is not a pre existing preference the self brings to the relationship. To say "I help because I value you" is to start the story in the middle. The deeper truth is "I have come to value you because our well being has become intertwined." The self and its values are not the static starting point of relation but they are the dynamic products of it. Second, and more importantly, this defense destroys the very concept of morality by making it redundant. If every chosen action is, by definition, selfish (because it reflects one's subjective values) then the term "selfish" loses all power to distinguish, judge or guide. What indeed then is “selfish” then? Under this logic, a child sharing a cookie is being just as "selfish" as a child stealing a cookie. Both are doing what they want. If both are "selfish," then the word means nothing. Rand’s principle falls apart here. Another occasion where Rand’s trader principle falls apart is in a real either or situation. Picture a firefighter running into a burning museum. They can save one: a living person or Da Vinci’s painting.. the Monalisa. They save the person. The painting is lost forever. The Objectivist might immediately object (pun intended) : "This is a false dilemma because in Rand's ethics, human life is the ultimate standard of value. The Monalisa is an artwork and a product of life. A rational firefighter saves the person because a living human consciousness is the root of all value including the creation of future masterpieces. This is a trade where the firefighter trades the concrete artwork for the abstract value of affirming the principle of life, which is integral to their own moral identity. They act selfishly to preserve the world in which they , a valuer, wish to live." This defense appears sound but contains an important admission. It concedes that the highest "trade" is not for a concrete calculable return but for the affirmation of a metaphysical principle (the sanctity of human life). This is the crack in Rand's petri dish. If the "value" received is the psychological integrity of upholding a principle then any act of perceived principle including self sacrifice can be retrofitted into the "trade" model. Even an addict by this logic, is also "trading" effort for the principle of chemical euphoria. The term "trade" loses its essential meaning of mutual exchange and becomes a synonym for any motivated action. More crucially, this defense silently imports a non transactional premise where human life possesses inherent worth forming a "covenant" we are bound to honour. The firefighter isn't running a cost benefit analysis on the stranger's future productivity like “Artist? Engineer? Probably not a professional couch critic who writes essays criticising Ayn Rand.” But rather the fire fighter is responding to their being. If this inherent worth is granted then the foundational human connection is not trade but recognition. However, Rand’s philosophy does not create this recognition and it can only later attempt to rationalise it. The moment the Objectivist justifies saving the stranger by invoking "the principle of life," they have stepped outside a universe of pure transactional egoism and into one of shared inherent value and precisely upholds the moral reality their philosophy was designed to deny. Therefore the example holds. The firefighter's choice reveals that our deepest moral impulse operates on a plane prior to trade. To call it a "selfish trade" is not to explain it but to perform a verbal sleight-of-hand, stretching selfishness to cover its opposite and evaporating its meaning. So we see that Rand wants the word "selfishness" to carry the grit and radical independence of a conqueror. But she defines it so vaguely that it can encompass the even most profound act of love and sacrifice. She wants a morality that provides clear objective distinctions (the creator vs the looter) but she builds it on a circular definition that dissolves all distinction. In the end, this defense does not save the theory. It reveals its ultimate poverty. It offers a world where the language of ethics where words like generosity, loyalty, or cruelty is flattened into a single “reason”: " Because I wanted to." This is where Rand’s philosophy becomes a tautological shell game. Her definition of ‘rational’ does all the heavy lifting, secretly packed with the very social goods she claims to reject. If ‘rational’ means ‘life affirming for man qua man,’ and the nature of ‘man’ is inherently social then ‘selfishness’ simply becomes code for ‘acting according to human nature.’ The radical individualist bite of the word is hollowed out into a circular claim: be ‘selfish’ (that is, fulfill your nature (which is social)). It is a philosophical bait-and-switch. It becomes a circular logic that simply defines any human flourishing as "selfish," thereby making its own axiom true by default. So the real conflict isn't between selfishness and sacrifice. It's between two visions of the self. Rand’s is a closed lab experiment where interactions are carefully managed. The alternative, supported by our biology and psychology, is an open ecosystem. I understand that Rand allows for relationships and that all actions spring from values. But that's just the point. Her model of the self as a pre social 'sovereign' valuer is a fantasy. Therefore, her explanation for relationships “ as voluntary trades between such creatures” is inadequate. My critique isn't that Objectivists live alone. It's that their model of the self is isolated by definition… a sovereign entity that exists prior to and independent of social bonds where relationships are 'exports and imports' between these finished products. This ignores that our very capacity to value, reason and have a stable identity is forged through interdependence. We don't choose society from a position of completed individuality. We become individuals through socialization. The 'network' is not a marketplace we enter; it's the medium in which we are formed. Even the tool of reason, language, is a social inheritance. Our very consciousness is forged through recognition by others. A child raised in total isolation does not become a perfect Randian individual but a fractured non self. Therefore Rand mistakes a type of rationality for rationality itself. True rationality requires an accurate assessment of reality. And the reality is that we are nodes in a network. A truly rational actor understands that their well being is inextricably tied to the health of their human and environmental ecosystem. Game theory’s winning "*** for tat" strategy doesn't start with ruthless defection but it starts with cooperation. It builds trust… a social capital that is the absolute bedrock of civilization. Some may call this view utopian. It is not. It is, if anything, brutally realistic. To say we are wired for connection is not to say we are wired for perpetual peace. Our bonds are the very things that make betrayal, jealousy, anger and tribal hatred possible. The same capacity for empathy that allows for care also allows for cruelty… for understanding precisely how to hurt someone. The ‘cathedral’ of human society is built not only with quarried stone but with blood and compromise. This is the crucial distinction: I am not arguing that human nature is only kind. I am arguing that our intelligence and our sociality are the same complex faculty. Our knack for kindness, for building networks of trust and reciprocal care, is not a pretty add on to a brutish core. It is our fundamental survival technology and the primary tool we evolved to manage the terrifying chaos of nature and the terrifying complexity of each other. For better and for worse, this is the raw material of the human experience. Rand’s model discards half of it in the name of purity. But a philosophy that cannot account for the soldier sharing his rations, the rival offering a hand up, or the community forgiving a debt is not strong minded. It is blind to the very battlefield it claims to master. In the end, the "virtue of selfishness" is a sterile concept not because it's wrong about the importance of the individual but because it defines the individual too poorly. The healed femur is not just a receipt for a calculated trade. It is a fossilized testament to a more profound truth: we became human not when we learned to take but when we learned to care for. We are wired not just for transaction but for connection. Our intelligence is signified not by our capacity for cold logic alone but by our capacity for kindness because it is the ultimate rational choice of a species that thrives only together. Rand’s knife is sharp but it is designed to dissect a creature that was never meant to be taken apart. It operates on the fantasy of a pre social self, a philosophical ghost that can only haunt the pages of fiction but never survive in the world of healed bones, shared language, and intertwined fates that made us human in the first place.

Reading & Writing

Welcome to Reading & Writing! This supportive place for you to share everything and anything related to Reading & Writing.

What are the different forum topics for Reading & Writing?

Community Space : A place for icebreakers, introductions, discussions and community check-ins.

Writing Prompts : Need something to help inspire you? Find writing prompts here!

How can I help?

You can help us by simply responding to threads and sharing your story (if you're comfortable). Check-in with us, join a discussion, or start one! Alternatively, you can join us as a Forum Leader. Check out this thread for more information.

Helpful Threads

Taglist: Do you want to stay up to date with our community? Then join our tag list to be notified whenever there is a new discussion or update within the community!

Reading & Writing FAQ

Q: Are there any sub-community-specific guidelines that we need to adhere to?

A: You can find Sub-community-specific guidelines below, which you should follow in addition to the general forum guidelines.

Help! I still have a question! If you need help, feel free to contact a community leader or post here, and someone will contact you!

Community /

Reading & Writing Forum

Ask questions, get support and make friends

About Us

Get Started

Online Therapy

Terms

Considering Therapy?

@SERAVELLE

@hopefulPoetry515

@RainSapphire

@Balloonlistens

@7cupsBear

@Ev1e061211

@IsabelRose05

@ColaKobi

@Dalaa21

@ApplePie8587

@courageousSugar2740

@4var1KJ

@miraculousHeart6563

@kbf1996

@loyalCircle4117

@Aspenchanted

@cyanshade44

@Mowoods

@marwan999

@MishmashMaru

Community /

Reading & Writing Forum

Ask questions, get support and make friends

About Us

Get Started

Online Therapy

Terms

Considering Therapy?

@SERAVELLE

@hopefulPoetry515

@RainSapphire

@Balloonlistens

@7cupsBear

@Ev1e061211

@IsabelRose05

@ColaKobi

@Dalaa21

@ApplePie8587

@courageousSugar2740

@4var1KJ

@miraculousHeart6563

@kbf1996

@loyalCircle4117

@Aspenchanted

@cyanshade44

@Mowoods

@marwan999

@MishmashMaru

Filter by Topic

Personal Conversation Requests

General Conversation Requests

New Messages