Cheri

I've been reading all the posts here and I'm still trying to wrap my brain around some of the answers. In order to do that I've had to do a little more reading, as I am not always familiar with the terminology being used or what it implies in certain contexts. In other words, I don't speak "Philosoph-ese", so before I respond to something I try to make sure I understand what's been said. Which is fine since it gets me reading and learning things I think I'm better for knowing. ;) I'll be back...

Hi Brant - Everything you've just said has crossed my mind. Of course there's a lot more to know, but much of your observation is very astute. As far as being a "victim", I tend to cringe at that term because I don't always know what someone means by it. I don't think of myself as a "victim" in the long-term sense, as if I can't recover control of my own self and my own life. However, I have always believed that it's appropriate and healthy to acknowledge and willing feel my feelings, thus to work through them even if it takes time. I feel that avoidance is not strength, in other words. That being said, my feelings have been hurt, my finances have been hurt, my home has been left in a shambles which I have to repair, etc. In light of all that, I have been a victim of his behavior, but only until I clean it all up. If that makes sense?

"... do NOT do unto others that which is hateful if done to you." Not saying the above isn't a good way to live, but I still don't entirely understand the answers to this one. I mean, I'm beginning to get a grasp, but there's a little thought hovering over in the side of my brain that says, "Okay, but wouldn't it basically be in this old guy's 'rational self interest' [i'm still learning the terminology here] to say 'screw it, it's not my problem' and it makes no difference to me what happens to anyone else since I'm about outta here...' because it really isn't his problem?" How did my font change there? Anyway... Someone said, "A rationally selfish individual would not pursue behavior which is "...not good for men..." That's where you lose me. Why wouldn't a rationally selfish individual pursue such behavior? Why should he care about men, especially since in the very near future he won't be caring about anything, what with his one foot in the grave and the other on the proverbial banana peel.

On a side note, I'd said that I would tell the whole story about my foster son since this seemed a good place to discuss some of the issues I'm working through regarding him. I haven't changed my mind, but I have decided to take a little time about it. First of all, it's kind of a long story and I don't want to leave out anything relevant. But more importantly I've given it some thought and realized that it might not be wise to open up conversation about such a personal part of my life before getting to better know some of the characters around here. It's not a matter of privacy concerns, just that it occurred to me that I don't really know the people here that well yet, and to discuss personal things at length may open me up to negative reactions that I may not be quite prepared for. To be honest - and I do tend to be open and honest to a fault, which is one of my concerns - this drama is still a bit fresh for me, and if I found myself feeling defensive, even against a stranger, it might bring me down at a time when I'm already trying to recover. So, I will do it, but it make take me a while to post.

Thank you, daunce lynam. I appreciate your kind words and your observations with regard to the questions I'd asked. I am trying to make the time to visit here often, in the context of also trying to make the time to engage in some necessary reading in order to avoid accidentally spouting off about some topic before I know much about it. Ha ha... ;)

A Bret Easton Ellis novel... Yes, I can see that, actually. No, I don't believe he's consistent with a Rand novel character, but I believe he's engaged in a lot of self-deception, so it's hard to imagine how he sees himself.

Okay... It wasn't that deep. :-/ I just meant he wanted to discuss with me things he was learning in school and a documentary he'd just watched. I couldn't honestly even tell you now what he said because our conversation ended up going in another direction. It just makes me happy that I have kids who are inquisitive and enjoy learning, and that they like to talk to me about what they've learned. Even if I don't understand it... Ha ha... (Truth: I don't even have a high school education myself, so anything I know is only because I've chosen to read and/or learn about it. I know very little about physics.)

Well, I'm happy to post it wherever is most appropriate in the context of the way this site works (obviously I'm not entirely familiar with it all yet). I don't really have any privacy concerns, though. Anyone who knows our family already knows the whole story, and anyone who doesn't know us would likely be disinterested. Aside from that stuff, is the personal blog section the best place for me to put it? If so, then yeah... I'll probably need some help. Let me know if that's the way I should go, and if so I'll contact you "back stage". Oh, and thanks for offering! ;)

Yes, I have read about Attachment Theory and Reactive Attachment Disorder. This stuff may very well be in play here. Since so many here have insights on this matter (which I don't mind at all, but rather welcome them) I will go ahead and tell the whole story about my foster son, my relationship with him and what happened that made it all go so wrong. Honestly, when I first came here I only brought the matter up as a context for what prompted me to start looking more deeply into my questions about Objectivism. I hadn't intended to really get into the story all that much. But I can see now that, as an added benefit of having found this site, there are a lot of you here who are wise, older than me (and therefore having more life experience), and also - since you are knowledgeable about Objectivism - in a much better position to understand the things he says to me than are other people I encounter in life. To tell the truth, as I've struggled through the difficulties of my broken relationship with him over the past year, I have had no one to talk to about any of it. So, many things he's said to me I've had to ponder and try to make sense of on my own with no other person off of whom to bounce my thoughts. It's been particularly difficult because unless someone understands Objectivism they will not understand the things he's said to me in conversations, and thus relaying those conversations to anyone for discussion purposes has been pointless. I end up arguing with him in my own head when I'm trying to fall asleep. I didn't come here looking for help in sorting out the wreckage of a relationship, but interestingly enough I may have found the only place where I could get any help sorting it out. So, if you are all interested, I will tell you about it and you can tell me what you think. If you don't mind? I'd have to do it tomorrow, though. It's a long story. :-/

This is another question I posed in the "Meet and Greet" forum, but I don't think I worded it very well. I asked: "What reason does an Objectivist have to care about something that does not directly impact him/her? For example, why should an Objectivist care if the waste from a factory they own is destroying all the land in the area, especially if the Objectivist in question is getting older and will most certainly not live to see the damage? In such a scenario, the damage being done will in no way impact the life of the person benefiting from the factory, so does he or she have any reason to care about it?" I later expounded thus: "And as for question #3: Perhaps I should have worded that one better (it was late). What I wanted to know is whether an Objectivist has any reason to care about damage he/she may be doing to the world around them, or other people, etc., when that damage will not impact his/her own life directly. In other words, if I own a factory and that factory is disposing of waste in a way that will damage the land permanently or at least long-term, thus negatively impacting others in the future but not myself, do I have any moral obligation to give a damn? I've sometimes pondered whether an elderly Objectivist wouldn't be a potentially dangerous person if they didn't have their own personal reasons not to do certain things. It seems like if I have only a short time to live, I have very little reason to care one way or the other what damage I leave behind and therefore I could feel justified in being very inconsiderate, if not downright nasty in the extent of my selfishness. I know it sounds almost comical, but I have actually wondered from time to time about this!" Anyone care to clear this one up for me? Thanks in advance. ;)

I was about to start another thread when my sixteen-year-old came in and wanted to have a discussion about physics. So I got distracted. I love having smart kids. ;) But I'll be back here shortly.

Thanks, J. Thanks to everyone, actually. I appreciate the responses and feel I've gotten answers that make sense to me and satisfy my curiosity about this question. Now I suppose I'll start another thread and go on to my next question. ;)

Hi Ninth Doctor - I would believe exactly the same thing as what you've said. However (and I know life takes people down different roads and can be unpredictable, so of course I don't say this as if I have a magical crystal ball to see the future), I strongly doubt he will ever have children. He has never wanted them and is a person with such difficulty connecting emotionally with others that his current relationship, in my opinion, is quite unhealthy. He has adopted the belief that one person cannot hurt another person unless the "victim" allows it by "getting attached", and that, therefore, anyone who "gets attached" is foolish and deserves to be hurt. The way he speaks to his current girlfriend is appalling. I believe - and this is just my opinion, but based on some facts - that they have a twisted situation going on where they are downright nasty to each other, and then when each of them tolerates the abuse but reacts by appearing "not hurt", they deem each other worthy of respect. I believe that while he was with our family during his adolescence he tried to allow himself to grow and tried to let himself be part of a family. Ultimately he failed at that, and I think he then hardened himself and determined never to attach again. Of course, he would not acknowledge this as a failure, but rather a discovery that he is above all this emotional connection stuff. His point of view now seems to be that humans who attach to other humans are suckers and he's better than that. And going through life now with no older person to be a mentor of any sort, I doubt he'll voluntarily ever let someone "call him out" on any of his problems. Naturally I hope I'm wrong. Not only because I think I deserve an apology and someday deserve acknowledgment from him of what I did for him - I'm not gonna lie, I want that - but because I care very much about him, I invested a lot in him, and I hate to see that his life is turning out so unnecessarily sad (which he'll deny - he's perfectly happy). I'm feeling more and more sure that I'm going to end up telling this whole story here at some point, but right now I just have a lot of questions for the forums here and I don't want to get side-tracked too much.

I was following you until here: "But if a. we live in a world of other people; b. we each have inbuilt mechanisms for compassion and to assist others - then it's a given: that's reality." I don't fully understand that sentence. When you say, "it's a given," I don't know what you mean is a given. I understand the "if" but not the "then".

Oh, and thank you very much for directing me to read Unrugged Individualism. I'm tremendously interested.

Thank you, studiodekadent. Your answer was clear and well-written, and I appreciate that. Based on what I've heard so far here, I think I'm going to find that there are a number of mis-perceptions I've held about Objectivists in general. And I was hoping to find that.

Unfortunately I can't seem to figure out the "quote" button, so I will just do the quoting myself... "And who's to say raising kids to be adults ain't productive?" *That* is exactly my point. I believe it is productive. As a matter of fact, I've built my life on the idea that raising kids to be adults is productive. However, Objectivists I've encountered *seem* (although I've acknowledged this may only be my own perception) to deem this kind of work as less productive than that of the person who, say, invents the washing machine. I think you're telling me that my perception has been wrong, and that Objectivists as a general rule don't necessarily view work like mine as lacking in productivity. Which, of course, is what I'd hoped to hear.

Brant - I appreciate your response, but I have to admit you totally lost me... My question is basically about a perception I've had of Objectivists and what they hold to be important (which I presume to be a reflection of the philosophy itself). Is it accurate to say that Objectivist views tend to place more importance on the creation of the tangible than on work that provides care and support for fellow humans? Is that attitude something that was actually endorsed by Rand (I obviously haven't read most of her work), or is it something that's held more by people who have twisted her views, or is it, in fact, not even accurate for me to have perceived such an attitude?

Okay, I took it to the Living Room. Somehow the name just sounded more comfortable for me. ;)

After just having introduced myself and having been engaged by a few friendly OL members over in the "Meet and Greet" forum, I posted some questions. I asked if perhaps I should present them in another area, and the "Objectivist Living Room" was suggested. Just giving you all a little context. This was one of my questions: It has seemed to me, and I'll grant this may just be an impression I've gotten rather than something I've specifically read, that Objetivists typically place less importance on any kind of work that is geared toward helping other people than they place on work that "produces" something tangible. For instance, someone who invents better mousetraps or someone who writes books is regarded as creative and productive, especially if they make lots and lots of money at it, but someone who, say, cares for the elderly because they really enjoy helping people and find it rewarding in other ways than monetarily (because obviously this sort of job doesn't make anyone financially rich) is deemed less productive or even sneered at. (Ugh, again with the ending of a sentence with a preposition.) My question is whether this is actually an accurate perception of Objectivists, or whether it's something I've probably just picked up because of whomever I've happened to encounter. To which Kat answered... "Be ambitious and productive doing what you love and are good at. Money and recognition are icing on the cake. We can't all be millionaire industrialists, but one should never feel guilty for making money from honest work. Trade value for value. Money is good but it should not be obtained via force or fraud." To which I replied... "I'm not sure you entirely understood my question. I was seeking input as to whether my perception (that Objectivist views tend to place more importance on the creation of the tangible than on work that provides care and support for fellow humans) was accurate or not." So, that is where it was left, and now I've brought it here. Would anyone care to provide further insight?

Thank you, Michael. This was my "#2" question. Where would be the best place to post it? There are so many forums and threads, perhaps you can make a recommendation for this newbie? #2 It has seemed to me, and I'll grant this may just be an impression I've gotten rather than something I've specifically read, that Objetivists typically place less importance on any kind of work that is geared toward helping other people than they place on work that "produces" something tangible. For instance, someone who invents better mousetraps or someone who writes books is regarded as creative and productive, especially if they make lots and lots of money at it, but someone who, say, cares for the elderly because they really enjoy helping people and find it rewarding in other ways than monetarily (because obviously this sort of job doesn't make anyone financially rich) is deemed less productive or even sneered at. (Ugh, again with the ending of a sentence with a preposition.) My question is whether this is actually an accurate perception of Objectivists, or whether it's something I've probably just picked up because of whomever I've happened to encounter.

Does anyone want to address my other questions? Or would it be more appropriate for me to take them to another thread/place/forum, since this was really just "introduce yourself"? Not entirely familiar with how the place works yet...

Well, yes. But it's a pretty extreme condition. One I haven't yet experienced, with the possible exception - as I mentioned - of my grandmother who has Alzheimer's Disease. Is she really even herself, for me to say I love her? I don't know. Fortunately I don't really care, either, in the sense that I don't mind visiting her and treating her kindly, anyway, so it's not as if I have to spend a lot of time figuring it out. But what you're basically saying is that unconditional love doesn't exist because of the condition that "you" are still "you". It's such an extreme thing that to debate it on that level almost seems like an exercise in frivolity.

The problem I see is that words mean different things to different people. For instance, "love" isn't the same as "gratitude", which is what I'd feel for someone who saved my life. You may save my life and I will be eternally grateful to you, but if we have nothing in common or I think you're generally kind of a jerk - well, it's unlikely I'd ever say I "loved" you even though I'd be grateful for what you did. As far as unconditional love as I defined it for my purposes, I think it exists. Heck, I know it exists. I'm 43 years old, so I've been around long enough to have had some life experiences, and I personally have never stopped loving someone whom I've said I loved unconditionally. Now, the form of that love may change; for instance, someone I dated as a younger person I may have loved romantically at the time, and that may change. But everyone I've ever held in such esteem as to say that I loved them unconditionally - if I still know those people, I still love them. Even if I'm mad at them or not happy with how they're living at the moment, I still love them. So again, it may be just different meanings of words. When I say that I love someone unconditionally (something I would rarely say about anyone beyond my children, but there are some), I am referring to something deeper and more solid than a temporary feeling that comes and goes based on changing circumstances. Of course there are standards, but - at least for me - those standards are met in who you are as a person, so unless you make some sort of total turnabout in your core character... Why would I not still love you?

GHS - Yes, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with regard to my foster son. And I know there's likely not much, if anything, I can do about his unfortunate situation. I have to admit, though, that I've sometimes felt a twinge of guilt over having presented Ayn Rand to him when perhaps he was not equipped to "handle" her. The thing is, at the time I assumed I had plenty of time with him in which we'd discuss these things. After all, he and I discussed everything practically to death. :-/ And as to that Groucho Marx quote... Yeah, that one crossed my mind pretty much immediately when I heard what he'd said to my daughter.