anthony Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 "Women and men are far less different than it appears on the surface", you write, XRay, and there I agree.(I don't agree that the motivation should be the desire to be loved and appreciated.)But what started this line of thought was observing that a man and a woman could sometimes or often be more alike than one man and another -- if they allowed themselves to be ; ie when they behave and act as beings of deep thought and emotion.IMO, it is the expectation of others, adults when one is a child, one's peers when one is an adult, that has a lot to do with the 'compartmentalizing', role-playing, and 'de-individualizing' of both a man and a woman.It has always struck me that, eventually, one becomes what one thinks and feels.So, the truly fine individuals are those who are less to do with their biology and gender, than to do with following their thoughts and convictions.As a champion of individualism, I would have expected Ayn Rand to have stressed this factor much further.Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 (edited) Rand actually said, "If it was rape, it was by engraved invitation." Meaning it wasn't rape. She also said rape wasn't possible for one of her heroes. So if you see rape where she didn't your "rape" is only your subjective value evaluative preference. You keep trying to inject your subjective preferences under the smokescreen of attacking the objective, Xray, alleviating the necessity to rationally demonstrate WTH(ell) you are objectively talking about. If there is no objective foundation under various subjectivities there is zilch. If the central idea of Objectivism--there is an objectively knowable reality--is garbage, you have nothing to stand on. Every claim you have made on OL for nearly a year now is a claim for an objective truth. But the objective truth for all and any valid subjectivity is just that. With subjectivity only, you cannot get anywhere from there. So, are you a real objectivist ("a truth seeker") or not--that is, stuck there in subjective-anything-goes-multi-culturalism-EU land?--Brant Edited March 8, 2010 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If there is no objective foundation under various subjectivities there is zilch. If the central idea of Objectivism--there is an objectively knowable reality--is garbage, you have nothing to stand on. Every claim you have made on OL for nearly a year now is a claim for an objective truth.I think Xray's main thrust has been that there are no objective values, not that there is no knowable reality. I might add that while values may be considered objective in the sense that they exist, ie. food value, they are subjective in the sense that one is free to value whatever they wish, depending on their goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Rand actually said, "If it was rape, it was by engraved invitation." Meaning it wasn't rape. She also said rape wasn't possible for one of her heroes. So if you see rape where she didn't your "rape" is only your subjective value evaluative preference. You keep trying to inject your subjective preferences under the smokescreen of attacking the objective, Xray, alleviating the necessity to rationally demonstrate WTH(ell) you are objectively talking about. If there is no objective foundation under various subjectivities there is zilch. If the central idea of Objectivism--there is an objectively knowable reality--is garbage, you have nothing to stand on. Every claim you have made on OL for nearly a year now is a claim for an objective truth. But the objective truth for all and any valid subjectivity is just that. With subjectivity only, you cannot get anywhere from there. So, are you a real objectivist ("a truth seeker") or not--that is, stuck there in subjective-anything-goes-multi-culturalism-EU land?--BrantRand did say that about the scene, but didn't Dominique, in the novel, say she lost her virginity by being raped by Roark -- or something along those lines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Dan Ust: Even with that distinction in mind, I still believe Rand's views here are problematic. She seems to be all for the first type of feminism you mention, but then why her stand against a female president (to be sure, I'm against all presidents, male, female, or otherwise) and her view on the essence of femininity as man-worship. (On the latter: Why is not the essence of masculinity woman-worship? And where do this whole thing come from? What about gays, bis, and asexual types? What do they fall under? All these seems to me like Rand attempting to universalize her particular tastes in gender roles and not like something derived from or compatible with Objectivist core principles.) These seem to conflict with your first type of feminism, no?"Univeralizing her particular tastes in gender roles" is right on target. Imo Rand was unable to identify her personal preferences as subjective, but instead elevated them to something others "ought to" (objectively) prefer as well. Hence her presenting Howard Roark as the ideal man (instead of "her" ideal man), and "as man should be", i. e. as a role model for others. As for "gays, bis and asexual types" (do the latter really exist?), imo accepting them was far removed from Rand's thinking. She found homosexuality "disgusting", but then this was at a time when practicing homosexuality was still considered as a criminal offense in several countries. While I said Rand was universalizing her personal tastes -- and still stand by that -- I would separate between what appears to be the implication that "the ideal man" is a priori an impossible thing. I don't know if you meant that. Yes, Roark (or Galt) is her ideal man and maybe too clogged with her personal tastes to be the ideal man, but this would invalidate the concept. (That said, I don't think there is one ideal man or woman, but probably not for the reasons you might think.)On asexuals, I just take them at their word (until it's proven otherwise, of course) -- though, no doubt, some of self-identified asexuals might be mistaken or lying. (Of course, the same might apply to straights and gays -- as in any straight or gay person is likely to not be, respectively, 100% straight or gay -- in the normal sense of being sexually attracted to people of, respectively, the opposite or same sex.)Regarding Rand's revulsion toward gays (as far as I know she was silent on other types of sexuality), I doubt it was based on legal status. I don't know where it came from, though my guess is it was partly zeitgeist -- though I'm not a reductivist in this area. (And, no doubt, despite the current legal status and current widespread tolerance of gays, bis, etc. in many nations, I bet even some people who pretend to not being repulsed still are and just hide it well. My guess is feelings of disgust and revulsion -- assuming Rand was sincere in her self-reporting -- run deeper than merely following the politically correct view of a particular time and have more to do with childhood experiences, especially with regard to sexuality.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If there is no objective foundation under various subjectivities there is zilch. If the central idea of Objectivism--there is an objectively knowable reality--is garbage, you have nothing to stand on. Every claim you have made on OL for nearly a year now is a claim for an objective truth.I think Xray's main thrust has been that there are no objective values, not that there is no knowable reality. I might add that while values may be considered objective in the sense that they exist, ie. food value, they are subjective in the sense that one is free to value whatever they wish, depending on their goal.Regardless of what Xray meant, what do you think values are in the first place and what would be necessary for any particular value to be objective? (This is more a foundations of ethics question than a metaphysics one, I think.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Rand did say that about the scene, but didn't Dominique, in the novel, say she lost her virginity by being raped by Roark -- or something along those lines?Indeed, Dominique thoughts in the Fountainhead: She thought, if they knew...those people...that old life and that awed reverence before her person...I’ve been raped...I’ve been raped by some redheaded hoodlum from a stone quarry....I, Dominique Francon....Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms.Rape by a hoodlum and pleasure... kinky Rand!Dominique to Gail Wynand:"Do you wish to know everything? I want to tell you. I met him when he was working in a granite quarry. Why not? You’ll put him in a chain gang or a jutemill. He was working in a quarry. He didn’t ask my consent. He raped me. That’s how it began."Seems clear enough to me. Is it then so strange that people take her at her word and also call it a rape? Sometimes I wonder whether some Objectivists have themselves ever read the Fountainhead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Rand did say that about the scene, but didn't Dominique, in the novel, say she lost her virginity by being raped by Roark -- or something along those lines?Indeed, Dominique thoughts in the Fountainhead: She thought, if they knew...those people...that old life and that awed reverence before her person...I've been raped...I've been raped by some redheaded hoodlum from a stone quarry....I, Dominique Francon....Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms.Rape by a hoodlum and pleasure... kinky Rand!Dominique to Gail Wynand:"Do you wish to know everything? I want to tell you. I met him when he was working in a granite quarry. Why not? You'll put him in a chain gang or a jutemill. He was working in a quarry. He didn't ask my consent. He raped me. That's how it began."Seems clear enough to me. Is it then so strange that people take her at her word and also call it a rape? Sometimes I wonder whether some Objectivists have themselves ever read the Fountainhead.Thanks for the exact quote. I'm in the middle of moving and didn't have my copy of The Fountainhead handy. (I also do not have a copy on my Kindle and didn't want to buy one.)Of course, someone might say that this is what Dominique states and that Rand didn't think that it was truly rape -- just that her character believed or said it was.On another note, I recall too that the opening scene of this novel finds Howard Roark naked in the middle of the woods. I wonder how many Objectivists who have read the novel remember that and see it as significant. I certainly did, though I don't believe I've fully processed that yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Regardless of what Xray meant, what do you think values are in the first place and what would be necessary for any particular value to be objective?Well 'value', as a noun, I think of something you want or need. As a verb, it means the feeling of wanting or needing something. The object of this feeling may be objective, like food, but the feeling itself is entirely personal and cannot be shared with others at this point in time. So you can't feel my hunger - I can only tell you about it. So the valuing is subjective but the thing valued may be objective. This is not always true like in the case of 'love'. People may value love and in that case the thing valued isn't objective either. Does this answer your question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Rand did say that about the scene, but didn't Dominique, in the novel, say she lost her virginity by being raped by Roark -- or something along those lines?Indeed, Dominique thoughts in the Fountainhead: She thought, if they knew...those people...that old life and that awed reverence before her person...I’ve been raped...I’ve been raped by some redheaded hoodlum from a stone quarry....I, Dominique Francon....Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms.Rape by a hoodlum and pleasure... kinky Rand!Dominique to Gail Wynand:"Do you wish to know everything? I want to tell you. I met him when he was working in a granite quarry. Why not? You’ll put him in a chain gang or a jutemill. He was working in a quarry. He didn’t ask my consent. He raped me. That’s how it began."Seems clear enough to me. Is it then so strange that people take her at her word and also call it a rape? Sometimes I wonder whether some Objectivists have themselves ever read the Fountainhead.DF:It still amazes me the self deception that survives in "O"bjectivist Selective distortion and selective retention is always in operation for the human mind.What did that wonderful "intellectual" Whoopi Goldberg say about one of their darlings, "Well, it wasn't rape rape!" However, I do not recall anything about virginity being a piece of the puzzle. Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 DF:It still amazes me the self deception that survives in "O"bjectivist Selective distortion and selective retention is always in operation for the human mind.What did that wonderful "intellectual" Whoopi Goldberg say about one of their darlings, "Well, it wasn't rape rape!" However, I do not recall anything about virginity being a piece of the puzzle. AdamOn "virginity," that might be my misrecollecting a passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I think Xray's main thrust has been that there are no objective values, not that there is no knowable reality. I might add that while values may be considered objective in the sense that they exist, ie. food value, they are subjective in the sense that one is free to value whatever they wish, depending on their goal.In Xray-speak Xray preaches against "objective values." However, a little analysis shows that her preaching is really against "universal values", i.e. values all subjects would choose independent of time, place, and circumstances. For example, see here. Moreover, using "objective values" affords her the opportunity to attack Ayn Rand's moral philosophy, whereas "universal values" does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Whereas men have a "fight or flight" response to stress, research shows that women physically have a "tend and befriend" reaction. In other words, when stress hits, women are more likely to nurture and seek out nurturance. The difference between these reactions arises from hormonal response to oxytocin versus testosterone. Interesting information. My lady was completely non-resistive. We had a number of arguments as to dealing with an intruder. Hers was not to resist and mine was to kill the intruder as quickly as tactically possible in a given situation.AdamYour observations are exactly in line with the evolutionary explanation for men/women differences. The theory is that when small tribes or societies were attacked by other warriors (men), the women reacted by clutching and protecting their young, and by submitting to the new attackers in order to survive.Chrisbtw, this thread is slowly being hijacked by Xray. Bla - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Whereas men have a "fight or flight" response to stress, research shows that women physically have a "tend and befriend" reaction. In other words, when stress hits, women are more likely to nurture and seek out nurturance. The difference between these reactions arises from hormonal response to oxytocin versus testosterone. Interesting information. My lady was completely non-resistive. We had a number of arguments as to dealing with an intruder. Hers was not to resist and mine was to kill the intruder as quickly as tactically possible in a given situation.AdamYour observations are exactly in line with the evolutionary explanation for men/women differences. The theory is that when small tribes or societies were attacked by other warriors (men), the women reacted by clutching and protecting their young, and by submitting to the new attackers in order to survive.Chrisbtw, this thread is slowly being hijacked by Xray. Bla -Christopher:I am working on a lead shielded thread! Gonadal Shields & Lead Blankets.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Whereas men have a "fight or flight" response to stress, research shows that women physically have a "tend and befriend" reaction. In other words, when stress hits, women are more likely to nurture and seek out nurturance. The difference between these reactions arises from hormonal response to oxytocin versus testosterone. Interesting information. My lady was completely non-resistive. We had a number of arguments as to dealing with an intruder. Hers was not to resist and mine was to kill the intruder as quickly as tactically possible in a given situation.AdamYour observations are exactly in line with the evolutionary explanation for men/women differences. The theory is that when small tribes or societies were attacked by other warriors (men), the women reacted by clutching and protecting their young, and by submitting to the new attackers in order to survive.Chrisbtw, this thread is slowly being hijacked by Xray. Bla -This sounds like the "just so" stories I mentioned here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8353&st=0&p=92717 And it does sound like a good story, but is it true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) If there is no objective foundation under various subjectivities there is zilch. If the central idea of Objectivism--there is an objectively knowable reality--is garbage, you have nothing to stand on. Every claim you have made on OL for nearly a year now is a claim for an objective truth.I think Xray's main thrust has been that there are no objective values, not that there is no knowable reality. I might add that while values may be considered objective in the sense that they exist, ie. food value, they are subjective in the sense that one is free to value whatever they wish, depending on their goal.I consider that to be one position she retreated to as early as last summer or late spring. Then she pulled back from dealing with basic essentials as food, water and air as objective values by putting them completely outside her value continuum. Not once did she try to deal with my thesis that for individuals most values were subjective but that qua species there were objective values absolutely. No man qua man for her; it's all individual people only whose various act of valuing create the (subjective) value. Furthermore I have pointed out that an objective value like food was valued differently at different times and circumstances and that the subjective aspect of the value was how much, which varied, but still underlying the subjective value and valuing was the foundational objective value. Her attempts to render the subjective from the objective is in itself an objective (pardon the redundancy) claim to knowledge. As soon as she admits to any objective value, always subjectively valued in my lights, 95% of all she has posted here gets washed away, so she'll just keep repeating herself or simply hold her tongue.--Brant Edited March 9, 2010 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Your observations are exactly in line with the evolutionary explanation for men/women differences. The theory is that when small tribes or societies were attacked by other warriors (men), the women reacted by clutching and protecting their young, and by submitting to the new attackers in order to survive.Chrisbtw, this thread is slowly being hijacked by Xray. Bla -This sounds like the "just so" stories I mentioned here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8353&st=0&p=92717 And it does sound like a good story, but is it true?The story is obviously a post-hoc explanation. Focus on the research results: under stress, women have a hormone-driven tend-befriend response. Under stress, women cling and nurture more than men. One can only guess why this is based on historical environment, but the story sounds quite reasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 The story is obviously a post-hoc explanation. Focus on the research results: under stress, women have a hormone-driven tend-befriend response. Under stress, women cling and nurture more than men. One can only guess why this is based on historical environment, but the story sounds quite reasonable to me.It sounds reasonable, but that's probably because it fits one's prejudices. This is exactly why, in my view, testing is necessary with these stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 The story is obviously a post-hoc explanation. Focus on the research results: under stress, women have a hormone-driven tend-befriend response. Under stress, women cling and nurture more than men. One can only guess why this is based on historical environment, but the story sounds quite reasonable to me.It sounds reasonable, but that's probably because it fits one's prejudices. This is exactly why, in my view, testing is necessary with these stories.Dan, I appreciate your inquiring mind, but I don't think such things are possible. Evolution is a black box and we can only look at the circuits, not the designer. We have records of history, but we cannot test those records to determine whether such and such environment would result in evolution. Regardless, there is no need to assert the importance you are giving to the stories. The important point is that research shows how humans work. Let science tell you what humans need and how they operate, let philosophy guide the story how man should obtain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 9, 2010 Author Share Posted March 9, 2010 Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.TonyI don't know how you inferred this from what I wrote.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.TonyI don't know how you inferred this from what I wrote.--BrantTrue, I dealt you in though you weren't even at the table. Sorry; but how do you see this subject of Man either being a slave to his past and his pre-cortex, visa-vis having the capability to command his own Human Nature?Within genderism, or more broadly?Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.TonyFor the record, I do NOT think or believe in biological determinism. Rather I was trying to be clear about how any evolutionary influence on this or that part of human nature might be addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan2100 Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) The story is obviously a post-hoc explanation. Focus on the research results: under stress, women have a hormone-driven tend-befriend response. Under stress, women cling and nurture more than men. One can only guess why this is based on historical environment, but the story sounds quite reasonable to me.It sounds reasonable, but that's probably because it fits one's prejudices. This is exactly why, in my view, testing is necessary with these stories.Dan, I appreciate your inquiring mind, but I don't think such things are possible. Evolution is a black box and we can only look at the circuits, not the designer. We have records of history, but we cannot test those records to determine whether such and such environment would result in evolution. Regardless, there is no need to assert the importance you are giving to the stories. The important point is that research shows how humans work. Let science tell you what humans need and how they operate, let philosophy guide the story how man should obtain it.I'm not sure what that means in this context. Let me try another approach. There is a phenomenon X. We are trying to explain X. One explanation -- one you seem to like because it sounds reasonable (and that's not a strike against it) -- is E. So, the story goes, E explains X. My view is we must find a way, if we want to know the truth, of figuring out if E really does explain X. That's what I was focusing on.Oh, and I must add: I don't know what's not possible, in terms of explanation in regards to this. I certainly do believe it's possible to explain and I wouldn't start out with a belief in its utter impossibility. (Of course, you only stated you didn't think it was possible -- not that you knew.) I'm also not sure where such an inquiry will lead -- what fruits it'll bear, though I'm benevolent enough to believe knowing is unlikely to be a bad thing. Edited March 10, 2010 by Dan Ust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 Dan, Christopher, Brant, then must I take it that everything is predictable and predetermined by Man's biology?Frankly, this is a dreary and depressing scenario, and while it may be truthful in its science, is also anti-individualist, and non-volitional.This cannot be the full story, I'll stake my life on it.TonyFor the record, I do NOT think or believe in biological determinism. Rather I was trying to be clear about how any evolutionary influence on this or that part of human nature might be addressed.Dan, In that case I'll curb my impatience. I do enjoy learning from others' (and your) theoretical knowledge, but also have a tendency to rush ahead in pursuit of the philosophical angles, and practical applications.Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now