Xray

It was you who brought the (real-life) "communities" into the discussion. Let's stick with the novel - I'm all for it. So if you don't think it was a rape scene, what was it then in your opinion? What purpose did it serve?

But the scene in the Fountainhead was no prearranged kinky sex game.

Could it be that Rand gave Frank hero status to justify him as her husband? For when you you compare the heros in her book to Frank, they differ completely imo. They are unempathetic (Roark is even a rapist!), cold, unfeeling, contemptuous (they mostly run around with a "mocking, derisive smile" on their faces), are often geniuses who excel at everything, etc. In short, they are everything Frank was not. He was a gentle, affable man with an artistic talent, but also conflict-shy and suffering from low self-esteem.

I haven't read Judgment Day, only Barbara Branden's Rand biography. It looks like Nathaniel B. was also the object of AR's projection. When she laid eyes on him as he and Barbara stood there in the hall of Rand's home meeting her for the first time, she thought of how "heroic" he looked; to Rand, NB physically represented in perfection the picture she had in her mind of a hero. Imo the real prototype of a hero in Ayn's mind (I personally would not use the Jungian term archetype here), was someone else: Cyrus, the fictional hero of a fantasy story young Ayn (Alice) (when she was still a child IIRC), had fallen in love with. Fearless, brave Cyrus. In today's time, Cyrus would probably be some kind of comic strip superhero figure. Imo AR never got over this intial infatuation with a fantasy figure, and the longing for such a hero shaped her relationship with men all her life. I think she more or less tried to fit the men in her life into that mold. But (not surprising), the result was in no way as desired. Attempting to measure up to Rand's childlike (imo) mental creations HAD to end in a disaster. For the self-conflict of trying to become something one can never become is one of the most tortuous. Trying to change one's nature is the denial of real subjective value in pursuit of illusory objective values prompted by an equally illusory "ought." Imo it resembles the very common contradiction found in all religions: Denial of self for the sake of self. jmpo

I have one...she married him. I don't think she would have married if she thought otherwise. ~ Shane What do you think qualified Frank O'Connor as a hero in her eyes?

I'm from Germany and work as a teacher. I have a daughter - so you may in part be confusing me with another poster. This is what I'm seeking: truth.

... acting as a "priestess" (Rand called Dominique Francon that) for the man she chose as her "hero"?

I'm not a troll. I have seen many trolls come and go on forums and you can easliy recognize them by their (often deliberately asinine) 'hit and run' posts competely disconnected with the topic discussed. You will never get a troll into a discussion because they have zero interest in it. Every time you suspect someone is a troll, just do the litmus by trying to get them into a discussion and you will see the fraud exposed instantly. In terms of Rand's position, I'm especially interested in discussing the "value" and "selfishness vs. altruism" topic, and wrote on another thread that I invite everyone who thinks that objective values exist to a debate. The same goes for everyone who thinks altruism exists. My challenge is that any so called "altruistic" action can be traced back to a self-interest motive at the root of it. You have misread it. I wrote that I have been in many forum discussions and debates [about thought systems], the gamut ranging from religious fundamentalists to fervent Marxists. Both groups have more in common than one would think when it comes to the rigid defense of their belief.

I have a theory as to why she elevated Frank to hero status but since I asked you the question, would like to hear yours first if you don't mind. As for to whom she referred to as heros (herself, her husband, Barbara, Nathaniel) - if she meant this, imo it was a projection of her own desire to be a beautiful heroine surrounded by other heros. How do you perceive Rand's book heros? Imo they are strangely devoid of empathy.

MSK wrote in the Epistemology section thread (bolding mine) http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry67991 So it looks like the rejection of a religious concept (the original sin) did play a large role in the forming of Rand's philosophy. Again . . . review what we are talking about. Not a pillar, not a foundation. Bill P But an integral part - yes?

That would interest me too: are the people here who actually try to live like Rand suggests? Do the posters here on the forum agree with Rand's claim that there exist objective values? If yes, why do you agree? If not, why not?

MSK wrote in the Epistemology section thread (bolding mine) http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry67991 So it looks like the rejection of a religious concept (the original sin) did play a large role in the forming of Rand's philosophy.

The term "psychogical" straitjacket" you used is very apt here imo. The idea of an original sin is a horrendous mental aberration indeed. Born inherently evil - how crazy can it get? The "holy water" washing off the sin - a magic ritual of exorcism. Hilarious that the Pope recently condemned African magic rituals as "superstitious", for the Christian churches' rituals are no less different. For example, Jesus dying on the cross, taking all the sins of mankind on him, is a variation of the ancient scapegoat chased from the village to perish in the desert. I have issues with any ideology telling me how to "properly" live my life, no matter what the provenience.

I was born and raised a Catholic and regret not having left that club earlier.

Non vuole spiegare un po'?

"...Radnäd logif gor hereo?" Deutsch ist das jedenfalls nicht. ;)

I know. B. Branden's biography on Rand was one of the reasons I went looking for an objectivst forum for further discussion, and found this site. I have been to Nathaniel Branden's website quite a few times too. Have you read Barbara's "The Passion of Ayn Rand"? Do you have an explanation why Rand would consider her husband Frank O'Connor as a "hero"?

But they "exist" as fictional characters only. She said that in her novels, she wanted to create a universe in which she herself would like to live in. Just because Rand invented those characters does not mean the same types of heroes exist in real life. A type like d'Anconia for example is so removed from reality that it borders on the absurd imo. I went strictly by what Rand said. Do you consider the "heroic people" in her the novels as role models you would like to emulate in "real" life?

I'm not playing any word games. I'm serious about this. Imo Rand's opposition selfish vs altruistic is an artificial construction because we are all constantly motivated by self-interest which is a natural condition. Why do you think Keating asked Roark for help? What was his motive if not self-interest?

You have evaded my question about the priestess. That's quite obvious. But keep in mind that anger often prevents us from thinking clearly.

Cool down a bit. Why are you so upset? I'm not distorting anything. Did Rand call Dominique a "perfect priestess" or didn't she? Why did Rand use that word in your opinion? What do you think she wanted to convey with it? I prefer logic to oracles. So going strictly by Rand's words, it would mean that "Ayn Rand on a bad day" would have made the perfect woman and priestess for the "noble soul par excellence" (her own words), Howard Roark.

Imo in that case objectivists could no longer be objectivists since their thought system would completely collapse should a God show up. For the "ultimate value, that end in itself, man's life" credo would go up in smoke confronted with a superior supernatural being. Rand claims that there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: "existence and non-existence." What would be left of the objectivist philosophy should it turn out that there is another form of existence - an "afterlife", as claimed in many religions? No, imo objectivism would not survive the 'encounter' with any God. Which in its consequence means that Rand's philosophy too must be tested using one's reason, to see if it stands up to rational scrutiny. Rational assessment of her 'values and virtues' catalog leads me to conclude that it is a subjective selection, her own personal choice. I invite anyone who believes that objective values and virtues exist to a debate here. A fair debate which for me implies respecting the feelings and beliefs of the 'opponent' in the debate. I have nothing at all against tough questions and challenge - that's part of a debate. But fair play is an essential. Objectivism may not be define itself as religion, but can be treated as religion by fervent followers. B. Branden for example commented: (bolding mine) "Objectivism and Rage by Barbara Branden A lecture presented at the TAS 2006 Summer Seminar, July 4, 2006, Chapman University, Orange, CA One cannot avoid recognizing that we live in a very angry age. At one time, people spoke to “My worthy opponent” when addressing someone who disagreed with their views. That attitude of respecting differences has long disappeared. Today, in discussions of politics, of religion, of environmentalism, of war and peace, of abortion—of all the issues that concern and often divide us—we hear little but raised voices and enraged insults coming from all sides of every issue. Speak to an opponent of the Iraq war and suggest that it might have been a good idea—and a torrent of abuse washes over you. Say that Israel is morally superior to the Palestinians—and statistics about Israel’s supposed “atrocities” of the last 2,000 years fly furiously at your head. Say a kind word about George W. Bush—and you had better take to the hills at once. Objectivists are by no means immune to this rage. On the contrary, I find it to be increasingly prevalent among Objectivists. We see everywhere—particularly on the Internet—the spectacle of supposed supporters of reason and free inquiry erupting in fury at the least provocation and hurling abuse at anyone who opposes—even questions—their convictions. But what I call “Objectivist Rage” has a peculiar twist to it, unlikely to be found anywhere else except, paradoxically, in religion. It is almost always morally tinged. Those who question our ideas and those who oppose them, we are told, are not merely unintelligent, ignorant, uninformed; they are evil, they are moral monsters to be cast out and forever damned."(end quote) [Excerpt taken from Article's thread OL, post # 1] I'm no follower of any philosophical school - "sapere aude" alone suffices imo. I have been in many discussions and debates on forums, the gamut ranging from religious fundamentalists to fervent Marxists. The more rigid the system, the more ferocious the defenses were. Whether it was the Bible, the Koran or Capital - these sources usually went completely unquestioned by the supporters. Marx never made a single mistake of course, his infallibility had god-like proportions, etc. I find it very interesting that Rand called Dominique Francon the "perfect priestess" of Howard Roark. Priestess it a religous term. By calling Dominique a priestess, Rand clearly places the male above the female, and elevates the hero Roark on a pedestal to a god-like status.

Sorry, I got the quote frames mixed up. It was not you, but B. Gaede who wrote "However, your last statement is correct." (end quote) The statement was: "One can't be an objectivst without being an atheist" (end quote) What do you think? Rand is quite adamant in her atheistic position. I don't think I'm imagining this.

I did look at what Rand thought about a specific issue. And that was all what was needed for this specific topic. Rand verbatim claimed that belief in god is incompatible with rationality. What she wrote about e. g. religious leaders or religion in America is irrelevant for the specific discussion here since her position remains clear: objectism is irreconcilable with religion. From your quote Rand: "If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion." (end quote)

Please give an example of a "floating definition". It's just when different participants in a discussion have different working definitions for key concepts. Thus the definition floats around from one to another depending on who is talking. --Brant This just happened in another thread. Micheal says the objectivist use of reason is different from the standard use. I responded saying that was not a good idea - if you want to communicate with people its best to stick to conventional meanings as much as possible. That was an excellent post you wrote over there, GS.