Cheri

Kat - Thank you for your responses to my questions. As to question #1: The reason I asked is because the concept of unconditional love seems contrary to what I've heard or read about Objectivist philosophy. However, I've long believed that this is because, as you said, Rand never had children and therefore couldn't really speak to the issue. Of course, I am implying here - and intentionally - that our children fall into an unusual category of people in our lives to whom the concept of unconditional love in its most basic form can really apply. That being said, I still believe in "unconditional" love as being the most genuine kind of love, and I know a lot of Objectivists take issue with that idea. However, I've often suspected that's because I am defining "unconditional love" a bit differently than they are (many times with Objectivists and myself I find this to be true - that ultimately we aren't in disagreement, only defining words or concepts differently). To me, "unconditional love" simply means that I love you for who you are and not for whether you happen to be making me happy at the moment. It means there are things I value in you that are a part of you to the core, and the only circumstance I can imagine where that love would be abandoned would be one where you changed so deeply and so utterly that you were not the person I knew and loved. And I can imagine situations where that could be an issue worthy of debate - such as my grandmother with Alzheimer's Disease - but they are such unusual situations in life that I've never considered them worthy of a lot of sleep lost in pondering them. As to question #2: 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. 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!

Okay, regarding my "top three questions", which Adam asked me about earlier... I don't know that I have a "top three", as there isn't any issue in particular that weighs on my mind any more than another issue; it's more that things just "come up" now and then. So, I will just give you the first three questions I could think of that regularly come to mind for me. #1 Do Objectivists love their children unconditionally? #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. #3 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 apologize if my wording is getting less... coherent. It's getting late, even for me. ;)

Hi Tony - No, I never sleep. Ha ha. And apparently this maybe common in AZ. ;)

Hi Brant - Just stepped in here for a minute and saw your post, so I'll answer very quickly. Right now he's finishing up school and working as a bus boy, as far as I know. As far as being better or worse than at 16... Well, it can get complicated to define "better or worse", can't it? He is physically healthy. He is educated. He isn't involved in any criminal activity that I'm aware of, nor that I suspect. In those ways, he's better. But he's utterly incapable of managing personal relationships, and behavior that I have observed (briefly) and heard about (a little more extensively) toward his current girlfriend is downright abusive. Whether there is physical abuse between the two of them or not I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me based on the verbal abuse and intense fighting of which I am aware. And they both drink a great deal. In those ways, I don't think he is better. By the way, all of that behavior started when he moved out of our home a year ago; I never observed any such behavior when he lived with us. Never. Yes, what I do can be dangerous. I'm careful. This foster son is the only person of his - shall we say "street caliber"? - that I've ever kept in my home, and when I took him in I had reason to believe it would be okay. And it was. He never presented a danger to us. Yes, I've considered sociopathy as a possibility. Yes, I understand that what I do is "ego food", as you said it. I think - and this is me just speaking without benefit of any philosophical or psychological education here - that whenever we use our talents and enjoy seeing the results, our ego is fed. And I'm fine with that. As far as the "strength" he is displaying, I don't know that it's really strength. Unless you mean that he's conquered certain past "demons" and continues to go to school and better himself in that way. If so, then I suppose that's strength, but I can't say that he got it from me necessarily. He was always a strong person in the sense that once he's determined to do something he can follow through.

I wonder why all my paragraph spacing went away in that post... ???

Hi Brant - You're not wrong about any of what you've said, but the situation is a little more complex than what little I've told you here. And I don't want to make this conversation too much about my situation with him, not because it isn't worth talking about and not because it isn't an interesting story (it is, actually), but because I'm really not trying to "fix" anything with him right now (I can't, anyway, because we don't have contact) and because my time to post here is kind of limited, so if I spend too much time on that story I'll never get my questions out. Just to clarify, though: No, I didn't beat him when he was five (I only met him at sixteen) and I didn't denigrate him in his adolescence. I mean, obviously you don't think those things anyway, but I just want to be clear that the things he's angry with me about aren't issues of mistreatment. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite. I was very, very good to him and put a tremendous amount of work into helping him evolve from a cocaine-addicted street thug, car thief, home-invasion burglar and gang member who wore his pants sagging under his butt and spoke only street slang to a college-educated intellectual who speaks in words that have more syllables than your social security number has digits, plays classical Spanish guitar and knows how to order all the right wines. And that is why, ironically enough, he claims to be at odds with me. When my daughter saw him at a party last November he said to her, "Of course I don't have any respect for you or your mom. What kind of people would take in someone like me?" But enough about him, at least for now. I said I'd come back and explain what it is about my "lifestyle" that's pegged me with the oh-so-dreaded "altruist" label. It's this: I take in stray kids. I've been doing it for years. And I don't get paid for it, nor do I receive any child support for my biological kids, so everything I do is out of my own pocket. I didn't receive any monies for the care of the aforementioned foster son, either, because I refused to apply for the foster care funds after I fought for custody of him (like I've indicated, it's a complicated story). But here's the thing, before all the Objectivist radar starts frantically beeping... I do what I do because it's a talent I have and I enjoy using that talent. You can't ask a painter not to paint, you can't ask a singer not to sing, and you can't ask me not to mother. The only reason I don't get paid for it - don't get me wrong, I'd love to get paid for it - is because I've never managed to find a way to get paid for it without having some outside party, be it the government or an absent ex-husband or some kid's abusive biological parent, getting involved in how I do things. I do things my own way, live my life my own way, and always have. I don't want to have to answer to anyone else about how I parent, so I don't involve anyone else, and that means I don't make any money at it. As a matter of fact, it costs me a great deal and I have to work very hard at my job in order to keep doing what I do with my life. But it also costs money for most people to do the things they enjoy, so I don't see this as any different. I still have to respond to the "top three questions about Objectivism" that I was asked about, but I'm out of time for the moment. Be back later. ;)

Hello Michael - Just saw that you and I must have been typing at the same time. Yes, it's one of my kids. I'm going to read the rest of what you wrote now, and then I will be back here a little later. ;)

Hello again and thank you for the welcomes. Reidy - To respond to your advice, I should tell you first that I was never necessarily looking for a way to "make" Objectivist views work out in practice - mostly because I'm perfectly happy with the way I live my life, but of course I'm always open to learning and changing something if I think it requires changing. When I said that I "harbored some degree of questioning about how some of the principles she espoused would be applied in day-to-day family life and personal relationships" I meant it in the sense that you might look at someone and say, "Hmmm... How's that workin' for ya?" In other words, I'd always raised a bit of an eyebrow at it. So, while I'm not looking to change anything necessarily, I may read Branden's stuff at some point (although, like you said, I'll probably need to be more familiar with Objectivism first) just to A) see whether there's anything I decide I should change for my own benefit, or B) see if there's anything I disagree with and think through why I disagree (always good to think through it). As far as your second piece of advice, well, this guy (remember I said it was not a romantic relationship) was my foster son, now grown and in his early twenties. I love him very much, so I'm not glad to be rid of him, but I have to let him live his life and make his own choices. It's unfortunate when some of those choices are based on misinformation or misinterpretations, but he's not in a place right now where he wants to listen to me, so it won't be up to me to convince him of anything. Brant - Howdy from Phoenix. We're practically neighbors. ;) Selene/Adam - To answer your "out of curiosity" questions: 1) He's a Philosophy major who is one semester from graduation, he's read a lot of Rand's writings (I bought him a couple of the books myself as birthday gifts), and as far as I know he is or has been involved in some Objectivist discussion groups, so I'm fairly sure he understands the philosophy. However, I'm also quite sure he has his own personal and psychological reasons for wanting to "understand" it in a way that suits him. In that sense, I can't say how "clear" his understanding is. If that makes sense. 2) I'm not sure I understand your second question. Are you asking me if he intentionally chose this philosophy to "club me over the head"? If that's the question... No, I don't think so. I think he finds it "handy" to attribute to me some beliefs that I don't really hold and then declare those already-mis-attributed beliefs to be inconsistent with his own Objectivist views so that he can justify not speaking to me. The truth about why he doesn't want to speak to me is, of course, much more complicated than that. He's just using Objectivism as an excuse to cover up some real reasons that he doesn't want to admit. However, it has bothered me that he's chosen to believe things about me that are false, and that is, obviously, part of my reason for wanting to more concretely articulate my actual beliefs. In other words, if it comes up again in my life - either with him or with someone else - I want to be able to more solidly back up what I believe. Perhaps if I described what I mean by my "lifestyle" this would make more sense. I am running out of time in the short break I had here to type this out, so I'll do that in another post a little later. But in a nutshell: I've been labeled that most terrible of all things, an "altruist". Now, in layman's terminology, in the sense that I do things with my life for which I ask no payment in return, this would be true. But to say I'm an "altruist" in actual philosophical terms or particularly as it's defined by Rand... That would be absolutely false. I am no such thing. On to your third question: 3) He certainly wouldn't say he feels justified intruding into my individuality. He claims, rather, that he understands my nature and that, while he would never expect me to change, I am someone with whom he does not wish to associate. The problem is that, as I've said, this is really all just a cover for some deeper reasons he has for what he wants to do (cut me out of his life). And it's not up to me to fix any of it, as much as I might wish I could. You asked me to give you my top three questions about Objectivisim. I'm short on time now, like I said, so I will come back later and put those also in another post. Thank you all, again, for the welcomes and the conversation.

Hello! My name is Cheri, I am a 43-year-old single mom of teenage and college-aged kids, and I live in Phoenix, AZ. I don't know if I would consider myself an Objectivist or not; I certainly wouldn't go so far as to label or identify myself as one at this point. I've simply been looking for a forum where I can learn more about Objectivism and have an opportunity to discuss certain aspects with people who are more knowledgeable in this area than I currently am. I'm hoping I have found such a place here. I have read small pieces of Ayn Rand's work here and there over the years, I read The Fountainhead two or three years ago, and I've read just a few chapters of Atlas Shrugged (to be honest, it just didn't hold my interest, but I do intend to finish reading it). Until recently my viewpoint on Objectivism was simply that I had never read anything by Ayn Rand that I disagreed with per se, nothing that really seemed to conflict with the views I already held personally, but I'd harbored some degree of questioning about how some of the principles she espoused would be applied in day-to-day family life and personal relationships. However, other than occasional reading out of mild curiosity, I never gave it a great deal of thought. Within the past year, though, a conflict within my personal life has landed me in a position where I feel as though it's more necessary than it had been previously to define and articulate my own "world view", my own opinions and my own reasoning for the way I live my life - all in light of and within the context of Objectivism. In a nutshell, there is a person in my life who now fancies himself an Objectivist (a philosophy, ironically enough, that I personally introduced him to as I thought he might be interested) and has decided to club me over the metaphorical head with it and deem my lifestyle and personal views to be inconsistent with his (no, this is not a boyfriend or a romantic relationship). Being presented with this assertion, I set out to clarify for myself exactly what I believe and why; whether or not this person ultimately agrees with me is not the issue, but when I'm defending my personal choices in my own mind I would, naturally, like to have a proverbial leg to stand on. In other words, putting it simply, this relationship conflict has brought the matter to the forefront, but I have my own reasons - as we all should, I think - for wanting to solidify my beliefs and the bases for them. So, over the past year I've done a little reading as I've had the time, but I've often found myself wishing I knew an Objectivist I could talk to (the aforementioned person isn't speaking to me because he claims we're "incompatible", which isn't the case but that relationship is a whole 'nother story). I'm hoping this forum will be a place where I can find some people willing to let me bounce some thoughts and questions off of them. I suspect I'm going to find that I agree with a lot of Objectivist thinking. I also suspect that I'm going to run into areas where I need to think through things and ponder them a bit more than I have in the past, and that pondering is what I hope you all will help walk me through. Also, I really, really hate to end a sentence with a preposition, but that last one just didn't seem to come out smoothly any other way. ;)