J.S. McGowan

A teacher today said that Homosexuality is a personal life choice and that it is unnatural... I said that you get Gay Animals to which she said, "animals only act in such a way when there is no females available to mate with..." any comment on her response or the topic in general? :-)

Haha Thanks Adam. That be a mighty fine response. :-)

When ever I have discussions with people. I always get people blurting, "well that's just your opinion..."

It seems that statement is made with the intention of invalidating what I have said. Its as if the people I argue with believe in multiple realities stemming from ones opinion...

today for example: I got told off by my peers for challenging a teacher about her ideas on homosexuality, my peers told me that I mustn't challenge her because she is religious and I mustn't try to break down the foundations that she has built her life upon. When I said that I was just presenting scientific fact: they said that science has value in my own personal opinion and that the teacher upholds religion and that i mustn't challenge her beliefs because i might hurt her feelings...

any reply or statement or idea that i propose is answered by "well that's just your opinion..." and I just don't know what to say...

I love Karl Pilkington, he is fantastic. I have seen most of the ricky gervais show and I have seen all of the Idiot Abroad. Im surprized no one else has posted some form of praise to the monumental figure that is Pilkington...

J.

You are determined culture-wise by your environment. You learn your language that way, the religious or philosophical culture and so forth.

When some massive influences permeate the culture in all things, not just in words, like blacks are inferior to whites, you end up adopting these attitudes without even realizing it. Malcolm Gladwell, for instance, who is part black, discovered to his dismay that he actually had that bias when he took a Harvard test (he wrote about it in a book called Blink). Here is the test he took: Project Implicit.

The good news is that we have volition and we can shape our character. Notice that in all cultures there are good guys and bad guys. Part of that is genes and environment, but it is mostly chosen. You either want to be a good guy--and make yourself into one, or you don't.

Through volition, we can actually undo some of cultural programming. But we have memory, so we cannot program ourselves to forget. But we can reevaluate something and repeat that often enough that it becomes a habit while the old evaluation atrophies.

I am not a fan of Ayn Rand's tabula rasa concept (which she got from older philosophers). I have heard it criticized and defended all over the place and I'm tired of seeing the same old arguments repeat. I believe this is a misleading oversimplification, but with a kernel of truth. Newborns actually are tabula rasa in terms of integrating experience, but they are not when thinking about growth. Some mental things will grow and develop on their own irrespective of experience.

Keep on thinking. You're doing a good job of raising premises that you need to check.

And when you come to your own conclusions, you will have something no one will be able to take from you.

An independent mind is a most precious thing.

Michael

Thanks Michael, I enjoyed reading your post. It made alot of sense to me. :-)

I'm just a bit confused on determinism. How can the environment that one is born in not have a determining influence on a persons character... I understand that one can say that the person has made a volitional decision to go along with the social norms... but that doesn't satisfy me as a good enough explanation. If one sees mankind as being born tabula rasa (another issue I am skeptical about) how can one say that external influences do not dictate a mans character?

The amount of psychological damage that has been done to the majority of South Africa over the centuries, seem to me, almost uncorrectable and I find it difficult to comprehend the amount of reparation that can cover the damage.

thanks Mr Marotta. you provided links to interesting reads :-)

I'm still uncertain about Rorschach. but i certainly have gained some insight.

One question I have remaining is: whether Rorschach's martyrdom can be compared to Kira Argounova's in We the Living?

what im gathering from these responses is that reparation is necessary but has been fulfilled. I doubt any Objectivist would agree with the policies of BBBEE (Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment)

but when I see what goes on here in South Africa I cannot help but feel doubt about objectivism's denial of determinism: the situations that the majority face here seem almost impossible to transcend above...

I know that the Government is socialist. but what i am wondering is whether economic retribution, of some form, is justified because of what apartheid did to the country...

This is a question I have had for a long time that I have wanted to be answered by a more senior objectivist: in South Africa we have the Reconstruction and Development Program and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment policies. These are put into place to redistribute wealth in post apartheid South Africa. I know these policies are immoral but when i take into account the sins of apartheid I can not help but wonder whether it would go against causality for "all to be forgiven".

My question, for someone willing to give me an answer, is whether some form of retribution for the racist policies of the white nationalist government of South Africa is necesary and morally justifyable.

I've never heard of Rand herself saying anything about 1984 (though she took a dim view of Animal Farm in one of her published letters). Branden in Who is Ayn Rand? and Peikoff in a podcast point out that Orwell depicts a regime that is at once totalitarian and very advanced and capable technologically; this is squarely at odds with Randian thinking, and history has shown that she was right and Orwell was wrong.

yes thats the opinion on 1984 that i heard.. it was one of Peikoffs Podcasts. I remember now

but can the regime in 1984 be regarded as advanced and technologically capable? in the book the regime was barely able to maintain adequate lifestyles for its people. the majority live in abject poverty and the party members live on pathetic rations. I think the fault of the book is that it gives too much psychological power to the "Big Brother" regime. I don't think any totalitarian dictatorship could maintain the level of fanaticism that is in 1984. i think people would become distant and impartial and hence the regime would have no grounding in the public mind and would collapse.

Is Rorschach as an objectivist superhero as a result of his uncompromisable dedication to a black and white moral code?

in the comic and movie: he doesn't seem to be be persistent with his morality: he brakes a bystanders fingers to coerces people into giving him information (that doesn't seem to be very objective but rather the act of a brute) when he kills the kidnapper in the movie and the book he appears to be driven more by emotion than thought, and is it "objectivist" to make oneself a martyr? Ayn Rand has specified that it is OK to lie when one is faced with death...

Id like to hear what other people think about this though. At present I am unsure of whether Rorschach can be considered an objectivist...

Jeff Riggenbach hasn't posted on OL for a long time, but I just sent him an email about this thread in the hope that he will write some comments about Brazil. He is a big fan of the movie, and I recall a conversation many years ago in which he had some very interesting things to say about it.

cool id be interested to hear

I have read anthem and I enjoyed it alot. especially the anthem part

im just curious as to what ayn rand would have thought of Brazil. Plus i do think that plots should ultimately have some moral value. and im wondering whether the fact that sam lowry ultimately went crazy rather than give up his values gives Brazil value in the eyes of the Objectivist philosophy. I think it does...

Im reading We the Living at the moment and doesnt its main characters/ heroes die in the end? doesnt that contradict ayn rand usual plot premise? (I cant say to much on the topic as i have not finished the book yet )

Hey just joined OL. Names Jacob. Im 17. I live in South Africa. Iv never actually met another objectivist so i thought joining a forum was the next best thing.

"Converting" people to Objectivism is proving second too impossible here :-(

I feel bad for asking (because i dont want to sound like an born again evangelist :-P) : but how does one go about opening other people up to objectivist ideas?

When I speak about my views in class i get rolling of the eyes and general bad looks from my peers (especially in the history class)

Am I wrong in saying that Ayn Rand didnt like 1984... do you think she also would not have liked Brazil?

they are both very similar in plot: but in 1984 Winston at the end comes to love Big Brother whereas Sam Lowry ends up going insane (so he doesnt really compremise his values...)

this is a question iv had on my mind for a long time that i have wanted to be answered by a senior objectivist. In South Africa we have the Reconstruction and Development Program and the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment policys: these are put in place to redistribute wealth in South Africa. I know they are wrong but when I take into account the sins of apartheid I wonder whether it would go against causality for "all to be forgiven".

My question, for some one willing to put an answer in black and white terms, is whether or not some form of retribution for the racist policies, of the white Nationalist Government, needs to take place in South Africa and whether retribution (of some form or another) is moraly justified?

unfortunately chatzaf: im originally from the UK and I only moved down here 4 years ago. I have managed to retain my British "icksint" :-)

Il defenitely have a look for that thread bout south African constitution and Il look into that book adam- thanks.

Has anyone seen the movie Brazil? I really enjoyed it. But it had a pretty morbid plot and I dont quite know what moral it is trying to impart. id like to know what other people think of it.

hey adam.nice to get a speedy reply I study history, Business studies and art.

I live in South Africa. And I have beein into objectivism for at least 2 years. Its not an idea that many here are familiar with (especially seeming though the area i live in is predominantly populated by christians)

I go to a christian high school and would be interested in discussing objectivist topic with people my age. :-)

just btw: I have read Atlas Shrugged, Fountain Head, Anthem, the Virtue of Selfishness and at the moment im reading We the Living.