ThomasHägg

Members
  • Posts

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ThomasHägg

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    .
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

1,393 profile views

ThomasHägg's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Like every form of determinism, [it] invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his [capability of advanced volitional abstraction]. [it] negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. - "Randy", The Virtue of Selfishness (Rand with my specific brackets) It's hard to stay away from her definitions, because they are so accurate, but most of all so darn short!
  2. Rand might actually have meant "man only" in this case ...most pregnancies are due to selfish reasons on the part of the mother. Women actually enjoy sex - thankfully - and a lot of women also have a natural and rather strong "selfish" drive to be mothers, bringing them much pain but also so much joy that many end up doing it several times. Quoting Rand again... Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. Welfare queens start out as idiot teens, coin money with fatherless kids. No hero worship involved. Let's define love in one sentence. Start with the idea that rational men and women are different. Why? Why would you start by explaining the difference between two forms of human beings, when what we are trying to define is human love? There are differences, no doubt and I've said that. Brains, hormones, muscle mass, penis, uterus, yeah the whole friggin body is different to some extent. But both men and women (hetero and homo) are still human beings capable of "love". If you seek the definition of love, then what you need to find are commonalities and a logical base rather than simply pointing out differences. Sex is not love. But they should be connected and many times if not mostly are. The definition of love doesn't need to be a full biology class, unless what you actually seek is a biological explanation for why love exists. That's not the same thing and probably better suited for a forum where you'd find a lot of biologists. No, the author of the thread was seeking a one sentence definition, nothing else. What it is, not why it is.
  3. Rewriting Rand to suit a politically correct agenda? Jeez. She said man and meant man. Women bear children, a completely different experience with different priorities. Women put the welfare of her children first. Men don't. "Man" means men, women, even children. It's the over-riding concept. A man is subservient to it so is a woman so is a child. They are all particulars to the concept. For the sake of the literary quality of her writing and her preferred absolutism, she made a statement that needs to be recast to be correct. "Should be" for "is" for instance. The use of "[hu]" is not helpful. It's an attempt to prematurely particularize the concept. All it does is doubly confuse the issue that Rand confused. She liked to actually see a man when thinking about man--preferably naked, standing on the edge of a cliff preparing to dive into the lake below after masturbating to orgasm (she had to leave the last part out as too much, too particular, too peculiar, but that's what he was actually doing just before the dive; that's the most common reason a man by himself gets naked in the woods--plus some exhibitionism in this case). --Brant okay, maybe Roark just wanted a tan and Rand a living statue Rand might actually have meant "man only" in this case, but I put the "hu" in before because the same concept is actually applied by her to women as well. By the way, yes, a woman should only have and then care for a child if there are rationally "selfish" reasons for her to do so. And believe me, most pregnancies are due to selfish reasons on the part of the mother. Women actually enjoy sex - thankfully - and a lot of women also have a natural and rather strong "selfish" drive to be mothers, bringing them much pain, but also so much joy that many end up doing it several times. Fathers usually feel a similar way. Quoting Rand again, "brickhead" as I am; (Underlining is added to the quote by me) For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. In other words, what is desired in heterosexual romantic love is a combination of those values that are great for human beings in general - to the extent that one knows them - and the specific nature of the opposite sex. (In the case of other sexual orientations, it is still simply the sex matching the needs/expectations of ones natural orientation.) Now Brad for you, this is how I think about the "is" or "should" of the concept of man ("only" my opinion of course); 1 The conceptually "highest possible moral purpose of man" is limited by nature to be something already, no matter who recognizes it or not. No man can defy his entire nature and still live. And man can not live just as well, no matter how he lives. 2 Man ("life", rather than dead matter) chooses and can only choose to exist "for" his own sake as evident per the fact that he can only breath, think and consume food for himself. (Even if he doesn't understand the latter or is not conscious of his own existence. This last part however, would make him a "dying man" rather, or a kept body with the potential to be a "whole/healthy man" - an individual - again) 3 If he naturally exists "for his own sake" and it is his only way to exist, then it follows that he must exist this way if he is to be capable of morality. 4 If this is the way he comes into existence, the way nature demands he exists and the only way he should want to exist, then his end - his purpose - is his own. It is his, due to the fact that it can not fully be upheld or owned by anyone else, not even if he is threatened to his life or held as a slave; This is because he has to and and (consciously or subconsciously) has chosen it. - Even to be capable of holding him as a slave, another man must thus also make himself dependant on the slaves actions and choices. This in turn makes the enslaver a parasite dependant on his host. - Human slavery, however, is different from keeping a lower animal, mainly due to the fact that a lower animal lacks the capability of human levels of abstraction. A human being of any meaningful kind of intellect can therefore be reasoned and cooporated with for much greater gains of several kinds, than he can be held for as a slave and with much less work. Thus the evil of the "human" paracite is the irrationality of not recognizing the individual as such, making both parties smaller than humanly necessary, not taking responsibility for his own life, as well as causing and being content with suffering rather than being creative. All of these faults course being interconnected. And why should one want to continue existence? Because of how one feels about the gains of doing so. If one could feel nothing, there would be little (emotional) point to anything. There would be nothing for an animal of any kind to strive for at all, except the development of such emotions. Happyness is supposed to be the feeling one gets from being pleased with ones existence. Pain should be the opposite, but not ones sole motivation for staying alive. If it becomes so, existence will be either a dull or bitter escapism and likely to achive little except poisoning ones surrounding society and culture. So what Rand held is - in my opinion - correct both from the perspective of ethics and the status quo of continuously "existing" as a human being. This took some brainpower for me, so hopefully I got it about right without too many repetitions, horrible grammar, wrong spelling etc.... And this long rant was just me trying to be precise and not lose my train of thought, not really trying to lecture anyone that might read this.
  4. There are all kinds of lawyers, Jonathan. You have not described in what field of law she works, or from where her money comes... ... so it's not possible for me to know her politics without that information. Greg Yeah... Rand knew when she was just being cocky... I hope you do too Greg... I don't think that she did know when she was being cocky and over the top. I think she actually believed her own bullshit. J This was of course true at times and probably more so in the near end. But it clearly was an exhagerated statement, wether for effect or not. As it turns out this time, it was not "Rand" in person who "said it". I just didn't remember it actually being in Atlas Shrugged, so I figured she had made an over-the-top statement in some brief interview or something.
  5. I can't ever imagine Jesus would have said that though... It would seem extremely contradictory to most other things that he allegedly taught and practiced. http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/harris/the_christian_law_of_self-sacrifice.htm https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-9-surrender-and-self-sacrifice http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Self-Sacrifice In many aspects, Christ was the ultimate preacher precisely of the dogma of altruism, promoting sacrifice and self-sacrifice in particular. This was a continuation of the idea that sacrifices had to be made to that entity (God) which was considered the source of the world and of anything intangible or "spiritual", such as what was at the time considered (but not yet termed as such) "objective morality", as often described by theologians today. Only this time around it more explicitly also included sacrificing to God through sacrifices to the creation itself, to all other men on earth in good faith and the conscious disservice of ones own material living standards, of ones entire life. Perhaps the best example of all of this is found here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+12 And then there is this of course. "Submitting to all governing authorities" and "not gratifying the flesh". https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013&version=NIV
  6. You know, if you were just to tone it down a bit, it would be so much easier to comment positively on some of the other things you post. It would serve your cause. Just a thought.
  7. There are all kinds of lawyers, Jonathan. You have not described in what field of law she works, or from where her money comes... ... so it's not possible for me to know her politics without that information. Greg Yeah... Rand knew when she was just being cocky... I hope you do too Greg...
  8. Happy Holidays! Post/send something from your trip later will you?
  9. For decent men and women their moral purposes are harmoniously complimentary and beneficial. Outside of that is everything else... Greg I agree. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, [hu]man —every [hu]man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose. - "For the New Intellectual" by A. Rand The respective nature (and thus morality) of men and women are different, but neither contradict the nature of human beings or their morality as described by Rand.
  10. This thread is finally starting to make sense to me...
  11. Oh, got it. Gonna do some research on him and the rest when I get a chance then.
  12. "Likes" don't work very well if at all on OL. It's a technical thing. I can't even find any "LIKE" button to hit. (Wait a minute--there it is!) Regardless, it doesn't seem to tally up anywhere. --Brant (the brutal intrusion of reality) No? Too bad... It seems to work for me so far. I see total points when I visit other members profiles.
  13. Great! It's on my list now... Yes, the Nietzschean influences are clearly there, but even Nietzsche got some things right... I don't know virtually anything about Sciabarra but have already seen him mentioned a couple of times since I joined. Is he very respected in "objectivist" circles/on this forum? I would think so, however, I have not been involved in the post 1968 Leming actions by the Wahabi Objectivist sect led by Pope Leonard the Lame.... "Wahabi" lol are they really that bad? I'm gonna have to look into these "blasphemers" properly in the future ... So you're saying he's a follower of this Wahabism espoused by the dear Pope or the opposite?