caroljane

What do Women Want

Recommended Posts

2. The overall lack of women in Objectivism and philosophy in general. I believe this reason is valid. I have no statisticss, no empirical evidence at all, but my impression is that philosophy, as an avocation, is like chess --preponderantly a male recreation.

Carol,

To steal and rephrase someone's* line, "For a woman, philosophy is a thing apart, while to a man, it is his entire life."

(Or something like that.)

Do you agree?

*Who was that again? E.B.B. ?

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The overall lack of women in Objectivism and philosophy in general. I believe this reason is valid. I have no statisticss, no empirical evidence at all, but my impression is that philosophy, as an avocation, is like chess --preponderantly a male recreation.

Carol,

To steal and rephrase someone's* line, "For a woman, philosophy is a thing apart, while to a man, it is his entire life."

(Or something like that.)

Do you agree?

*Who was that again? E.B.B. ?

Tony

"Man's love is of man's life a thing apart, it is a woman's whole existence."

It was Byron - a fine one to talk.

I don't agree, except of course it reflects that in his time love, or at least marriage, was nearly the only occupation available to the women in Byron's milieu. Men and women equally need love as an affirmation of their existence - to what extent, depends on the individual.They need to be loved, and to give love--without that, working out life's neater equations will never really satisfy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The overall lack of women in Objectivism and philosophy in general. I believe this reason is valid. I have no statisticss, no empirical evidence at all, but my impression is that philosophy, as an avocation, is like chess --preponderantly a male recreation.

Carol,

To steal and rephrase someone's* line, "For a woman, philosophy is a thing apart, while to a man, it is his entire life."

(Or something like that.)

Do you agree?

*Who was that again? E.B.B. ?

Tony

"Man's love is of man's life a thing apart, it is a woman's whole existence."

It was Byron - a fine one to talk.

I don't agree, except of course it reflects that in his time love, or at least marriage, was nearly the only occupation available to the women in Byron's milieu. Men and women equally need love as an affirmation of their existence - to what extent, depends on the individual.They need to be loved, and to give love--without that, working out life's neater equations will never really satisfy.

Thanks, except you missed my intentional substitution of "philosophy" for love in that mangled version of mine. :blink::D

Byron hey, I am surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. The overall lack of women in Objectivism and philosophy in general. I believe this reason is valid. I have no statisticss, no empirical evidence at all, but my impression is that philosophy, as an avocation, is like chess --preponderantly a male recreation.

Carol,

To steal and rephrase someone's* line, "For a woman, philosophy is a thing apart, while to a man, it is his entire life."

(Or something like that.)

Do you agree?

*Who was that again? E.B.B. ?

Tony

"Man's love is of man's life a thing apart, it is a woman's whole existence."

It was Byron - a fine one to talk.

I don't agree, except of course it reflects that in his time love, or at least marriage, was nearly the only occupation available to the women in Byron's milieu. Men and women equally need love as an affirmation of their existence - to what extent, depends on the individual.They need to be loved, and to give love--without that, working out life's neater equations will never really satisfy.

Thanks, except you missed my intentional substitution of "philosophy" for love in that mangled version of mine. :blink::D

Byron hey, I am surprised.

So I did. Seeing the word love I responded only to that. Just like a woman!

Your version, I do agree with. Especially in Objectivism, I think, with its emphasis on productive activity as a main source of satisfaction, and the perception that "lovability" is a byproduct of living one's philosophy. Anecdotally we know of many young Objectivist men who analyze their feelings to death trying to judge their girlfriends' moral worthiness as love objects. They get older, and stay single a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why it's Dr Mrs Dr Hsieh of course - don't you see her credentials? Too bad she doesn't have an outlet for her seminal works.

I know very little about D. Hsieh and am always a bit confused each time I happen to land on that Noodlefood site of hers.

Looks like Hsieh is a pretty 'bossy' type of person.

What I don't get is: why steak?

And what if the man is a vegetarian? :)

A stalk of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Why it's Dr Mrs Dr Hsieh of course

When I was debating her on SoloP, I used to call her Diana Mertz Brickel Hsieh and then shorten it to an acronym in the heat of battle :-)

Diana Mertz? Is she related to Fred and Ethel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if the man is a vegetarian? :)

A stalk of course.

But isn't celery's 'reputation' in that field somewhat overrated and its effect is merely diuretic? ;)

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Love Lucy episide 313

Lucy and Ricky are enlisted to help entertain Fred' spunky niece Diana on her first visit to New York. They take her to Ricky's club, where she spots Frank O'Connor getting plastered with a group of artists and models. To Lucy's consternation, the crazed coed mounts the bandstand where she brings down the house with her rendition of "Ayn Be Seeing You".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why it's Dr Mrs Dr Hsieh of course - don't you see her credentials? Too bad she doesn't have an outlet for her seminal works.

I know very little about D. Hsieh and am always a bit confused each time I happen to land on that Noodlefood site of hers.

Looks like Hsieh is a pretty 'bossy' type of person.

What I don't get is: why steak?

And what if the man is a vegetarian? :)

A stalk of course.

Dedicated to Senator Lindsay Grahmnesty of South Carolina:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MAtltZAlN4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why it's Dr Mrs Dr Hsieh of course - don't you see her credentials? Too bad she doesn't have an outlet for her seminal works.

I know very little about D. Hsieh and am always a bit confused each time I happen to land on that Noodlefood site of hers.

Looks like Hsieh is a pretty 'bossy' type of person.

What I don't get is: why steak?

And what if the man is a vegetarian? :)

A stalk of course.

LOL. Be tactful though. Don't offer rhubarb to your celery guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why it's Dr Mrs Dr Hsieh of course - don't you see her credentials? Too bad she doesn't have an outlet for her seminal works.

I know very little about D. Hsieh and am always a bit confused each time I happen to land on that Noodlefood site of hers.

Looks like Hsieh is a pretty 'bossy' type of person.

What I don't get is: why steak?

And what if the man is a vegetarian? :)

A stalk of course.

LOL. Be tactful though. Don't offer rhubarb to your celery guy.

Just what do vegetarians eat when they "go all out". Extra olive oil on top of the hummus? Spicy mustard on the tofurky?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just what do vegetarians eat when they "go all out". Extra olive oil on top of the hummus? Spicy mustard on the tofurky?

Sounds good! I'm not a very inventive cook though, but luckily my husband (also a vegetarian) is the type who is happy with a steaming bowl of pasta con aglio è olio.

We often eat falafel which, like hummus, also has chick peas as a basis, and both like Indian food.

I don't believe in certain foods as such being aphrodisiatic. But maybe certain spices whith which the food is seasoned do have this effect.

As of feeling "in the mood" after a meal, if there's no chemistry between two people, the most refined meal won't help create it.

No female affinity for Dagny? No desire to emulate her?

I was shocked when Dagny cold-bloodedly killed the guard.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked when Dagny cold-bloodedly killed the guard.

...I know, I know, you mention it often - god forbid an author should ever shock a reader! There must be a law against it.

Hummus (and tahina) is a regular in my diet. My mother made it all her life (naturally, the best!), and now my supplier is an excellent Middle Eastern restaurant nearby.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked when Dagny cold-bloodedly killed the guard.

...I know, I know, you mention it often - god forbid an author should ever shock a reader! There must be a law against it.

But don't forget that Dagny is supposed to be a role model for the reader.

Hummus (and tahina) is a regular in my diet. My mother made it all her life (naturally, the best!), and now my supplier is an excellent Middle Eastern restaurant nearby.

Although im no big eater, my appetite is whetted alone from reading this! :)

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No female affinity for Dagny? No desire to emulate her?

I was shocked when Dagny cold-bloodedly killed the guard.

Well, that's what makes horse races. I had to put down the book and excuse myself so I could be alone. Much like a scene from Henry Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No female affinity for Dagny? No desire to emulate her?

I was shocked when Dagny cold-bloodedly killed the guard.

Well, that's what makes horse races. I had to put down the book and excuse myself so I could be alone. Much like a scene from Henry Miller.

But as opposed to the characters in Miller's novels (mostly "broken hero" types), Dagny was conceived by the author as a positive role model, and this is what makes the scene so disturbing.

For example, the many acts of cruelty described in Dostoyevski's books are tough to read as well, but it is usually villainous characters who commit them, which makes it easier for the reader.

But when a role model of a story kills, unless the narrator gives clear signals to the contrary, the reader must draw the inference that the author condones the act.

It is true that the shooting of the guard occurred in an emergency situation because they wanted to free Galt, but still, the reader gets the impression that it was not necessary to kill the guard. Binding and gagging him would have sufficed. Dagny even took the time to ask him for his premises (a highly artificial scenario when you think about it).

Yes, it is "only" novel, but it is a novel which contains an unequivocal philosophical message.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> the reader gets the impression that it was not necessary to kill the guard. Binding and gagging him

Xray, if I recall correctly there was no time plus no mention was made of ropes or gags or a chair all being handy.

I think when you read a work of fiction you have to presume the author's intent based on the rest of the book and its characters. And here you can assume Rand wanted you to assume there was no other certain, clear alternative.

Edited by Philip Coates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks:

This was a penetrate and rescue mission.

There should have been no conversation at all. The guard had to be neutralized. If that meant shooting him, so be it.

I fail to see the necessity for an elaborate conversation.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> the reader gets the impression that it was not necessary to kill the guard. Binding and gagging him

Xray, if I recall correctly there was no time plus no mention was made of ropes or gags or a chair all being handy.

It's odd that you don't remember any of the several discussions that people have had with you in the past about the scene in which Dagny kills the guard. If you recall correctly there was no time for Dagny to do anything other than kill the guard? Heh. It has been pointed out to you multiple times over the years (for example, here and here, and elsewhere on those same threads, as well as others) that Dagny took the time to give the guard a philosophy lesson, and to torment him by pointing a gun at him and to irrationally demand that he make up his own mind while not allowing him to make up his own mind.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> the reader gets the impression that it was not necessary to kill the guard. Binding and gagging him

Xray, if I recall correctly there was no time plus no mention was made of ropes or gags or a chair all being handy.

It's odd that you don't remember any of the several discussions that people have had with you in the past about the scene in which Dagny kills the guard. If you recall correctly there was no time for Dagny to do anything other than kill the guard? Heh. It has been pointed out to you multiple times over the years (for example, here and here, and elsewhere on those same threads, as well as others) that Dagny took the time to give the guard a philosophy lesson, and to torment him by pointing a gun at him and to irrationally demand that he make up his own mind while not allowing him to make up his own mind.

J

Yep. Jonathan is quite correct.

Rand wrote the scene in a completely unrealistic manner.

And yes Phil, this has been discussed endlessly.

Also, to bind and gag someone in this situation does not require a freaking chair!

Jeez.

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan and Adam are correct that this has been discussed many times.

And why they are wrong has been pointed out before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve noticed that hundreds of armed guards get shot dead by the good guys on missions with good ends in movies and television shows. It always gives me a little pause over the design and execution of the drama. Were the makers really thinking this through?

Sometimes in her fiction Rand blurs the distinction between poetic justice and actual moral justice. An example would be the narrator’s interesting remarks on some of the passengers who are killed in the accident in the Taggart Tunnel.

I suppose that sort of blurring is part of the bargain of executing a theme in a plot. At any rate, I’ve always liked the scene between Dagny and the guard. That the guard is armed and is wrongly holding one’s lover (or child) would pass for enough moral reason to pull the trigger for me, and for most readers of fiction I imagine. Rand decorates the scene further so as to make it dramatize a general philosophic point.

Dagny first tries to deceive the guard—without desired effect. “Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to exist without the responsibility of consciousness.” Rand has a preceding verbal exchange between Dagny and the guard set out that he is a man who wants to exist without that responsibility. However, that overlay is not required for justification to pull the trigger. Were the guard the sort who sees Dagny’s gun and reaches for his own, she would still be justified in pulling the trigger.

As you would expect, I’m delighted Rand wrote the scene as she did. Readers of Atlas know the connection of individual consciousness and human life in the philosophy being presented in that novel. For readers interested in Rand’s development of her philosophy, I should mention that the phrase “responsibility of consciousness” had also been used in Fountainhead. No sooner had Peter committed to marrying his true love Catherine than he gets an offer of marriage from Dominique. He does not love Dominique nor she him. Having Dominique as wife can bring him the envy of other men and can bring him commercial advantages. When Dominique asks him to marry her, “he knew that he was violently alive, that he was forcing the stupor into his muscles and into his mind, because he wished to escape the responsibility of consciousness” (ET XIV, 393).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that sort of blurring is part of the bargain of executing a theme in a plot. At any rate, I've always liked the scene between Dagny and the guard. That the guard is armed and is wrongly holding one's lover (or child) would pass for enough moral reason to pull the trigger for me, and for most readers of fiction I imagine. Rand decorates the scene further so as to make it dramatize a general philosophic point.

And what point is that? People who will not commit to a definite view or stand deserve to be killed? People who want to slip through the cracks (so to speak) ought to be eliminated?

Here is the realistic approach. Dagny is on a commando operation. On a commando op one takes out the guards silently (if possible) regardless of how good or bad or focused or committed they are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...