Faust06

I'm amused that you found it necessary to lecture me in such a way. I started the thread to gain insight, not convince people they are wrong. It exists as much as a concept can, but not beyond that I think. People attempt to practice voodoo magic, that doesn't make it real. As one poster suggested, I don't think altruism is possible. If it's not possible, it's not real.

Do you recall Mother Theresa? You bet it exists! Ba'al Chatzaf How does that prove anything? She did what she thought was in her best interest to do.. probably to grant her a nice spot in heaven or something. Isn't that selfish? Obviously I can't really know what her true motivation is, but I can imagine the possibilities. She devalues her life in the real world, because she values the one "in the next life".. but to "devalue" something in any context always relates to the value to the self. Had she thought this world was the only one we have, she'd probably seek pleasure and happiness here. Similarly, people who have "the will to fail" and sabatoge themselves have a problem with possibly fear or guilt. I don't understand the psychology behind it completely, but as a masochist kind of behavior they find it safer and more comfortable to fail. Obviously it is not in their best interest to fail.. but they don't believe so.

See the essay "Isn't Everybody Selfish" by Nathaniel Branden in the September 1962 Objectivist Newsletter. Bill P Alright. I wasn't completely certain it had all been said before, but oh well.

Hi guys, glad to be back. Objectivism makes a strong argument against altruism, but I've always doubted that altruism exists in the first place. Isn't everything we do selfish any way we look at it? We simply have different motivations. Helping others because we like to do so, or because of potential help in return, or because we believe it is just.. it's all intended for our own interest, though sometimes it doesn't help us as much as we'd like to believe.. that key word, belief, as well as fear, tend to be the driving forces behind what seems to be considered altruism. I suppose it was important to make some distinction for Rand to drive the point home: you don't live for others, you live for yourself. So-called altruists seem to correlate objectivism with loneliness, as if to break off our dependancy on others. Do you believe altruism exists, that is, selflessness?

Definitely worth watching. I am biased being a DDL fan, but it really stands out among the terrible flicks out there this year. Well, this one and No Country For Old Men.

In regards to rationality and choice: I figure a man can either be ignorant, or chose to ignore rationality.. but is inherently rational.

That's an incredible compliment! You made my day, thanks. Advice noted. I'll think about it.

I'm not too concerned about it. We inevitably experience it, in spurts, in certain situations anyway. What I'm talking about is something of a "peace of mind" that I'm doing the right thing for myself. I don't expect or want people to tell me what to do.. I'm just wondering how they deal with it themselves, particularly objectivists. You may be right. Speaking for myself though, there isn't much I desire to completely understand.

How does one "do" science? I think we have an inherent desire to understand, but that alone doesn't satisfy me. It seems the possibility that existentially something SHOULD be done aside from our own self-preservation and happiness is slim to none.. we'd just delude ourselves into thinking so. But the thing is, I WANT there to be something else. I don't want to live for the sake of living, for the sake of comfort and physical/emotional pleasure.. I just don't care, don't ask me to justify it. This seems childish, but it bothers me every day. Of course, that also leads to the theory that part of being human is never being satisfied, ever. There is acceptance, but not satisfaction. Otherwise we wouldn't "move forward", we wouldn't keep digging for truth and pleasure... it would have to stop somewhere, but that's impossible. I've always equated buddhist thought with giving up. Acceptance, suppression of desire, and just being a vegetable really. I don't believe we can just "be".

I'd say that, to be "guided by nothing but one's emotions" just means lack of foresight, lack of tactical thinking. In the end, everything in our "interest" as I understand it is to maximize our happiness/pleasure, and taking the logical steps to get there. So, I don't think it's far off.. just that hedonism is associated with blind pursuit, with impulse, when it isn't necessarily so. This is true, and I expect some diversity in what people deem important, but I also expect a strong correlation when it comes to objectivists. I'd like to be an objectivist, but I'm not sure I meet the criteria yet.. anyway, I'd like to know exactly what your "standards" are in this case. That doesn't sound so hard.. except for the fact that we inevitably die anyway.

I'd like an "objectivist" take is on what really matters to us. I'm guessing an answer not far off from nihlism and hedonism, which is fine by me. I'm not talking about some inherent purpose.. we have the freedom to decide what should be done, what matters most to us, etc. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything aside from fullfilling some basic desires (including work/productivity, knowledge). I myself can't imagine the human race being around merely to sustain itself and live peacefully. There would be no point in evolving, no point in moving forward... that is what we want, isn't it? What does it mean to move forward? What are we trying to achieve, collectively? Is the product of our work merely for convenience, for sustainment of life?

Good for you. Mine's a specific yes-or-no question. If I'd go for yes, I can't think of a valid reason why... just that punishing an 18-19 yr old for having relations with a 17 yr old seems ridiculous. It's hard to justify at what point the age gap is too much passed 18, etc. I think it would be more practical/effective to just lower the legal age.

It's not that introverts don't like to talk at all. They prefer one-on-one affairs, so it's not so out of the ordinary. You can set aside superficial conversation easier that way also.

It's sketchy.. would you make punishment more or less severe based on age gap?

I've had quite an obsession with typology once. Tried to understand myself as thoroughly as possible. I'm INTP, and frequent the intpcentral forum.. it can get interesting talking to others so like yourself. If I had to guess, Rand was probably somewhere between an INTP and INTJ.

Having experience with this, I can assure you you're right to be skeptical. My being diagnosed with ADD (twice over) just came down to the question of my having trouble paying attention at times. Nevermind that I was sleep deprived, anxious, and bored in class, it had to be ADD apparently. So they put me on Ritalin, and it was one of the worst experiences in my life. I'm glad I cut it short.

Ironic that Christ, based on what I've read, was an iconoclast.

What was? Masturbation? I don't see your point.

What better topic for a first thread? Thought we could explore the objectivist take on this behavior. Not necessarily the "pleasure from pain" aspect, but dominance and submission. Evidently, it's self-serving either way. Is it not then in our interest to pursue this behavior? I think it must depend on what you compromise for it.. in the case of a sub for instance, your other desires. Thoughts? EDIT: I've just found the "worship" thread in the ethics section.. why did Rand seemingly believe that this nature is gender specific? The claim is that it isn't an "inferior role", but is "hero worship" not a little submissive, regardless of whether or not two people are worthy of each other?

The lines are really blurred as to when it's "okay" for younger people to have sex.. they don't all age the exact same way. Generally, it should be fine in their mid-teens.. knowing myself and others back at that age, we were all horny as hell. You can't keep them from having sex, but you can educate them and keep them from doing something incredibly stupid. A teenager doesn't generally think they're immature or "too young" for sex. That being said, the "legal age" should be lowered to at least a year or two after the age that teenagers are generally easily aroused.. which is around 16. Right, depending on the environment a child grows up in. Too be honest, I discovered jerking-off when I was around 8 years of age without any outside motivation.

This all depends on what we define as a passion. A leisure activity we enjoy immensly (which isn't too hard to come by), or an effort/work that we feel must be done? The former is an end unto itself.. the latter is a means to an end, though the means can be enjoyable in a sense... ie, being "in the zone", exercising your abilities. It's hard for me to find the motivation for my favored leisure activities when I feel I'm neglecting some other need. I wouldn't call it a "purpose".. just a desired effort. Now I have to ask myself: what do I give a fuck about? What matters to me the most, existentially? It comes down to one question for me: What does it mean to move forward?

I wouldn't pick Eastwood, myself. Maybe David Fincher, or Christopher Nolan.