ThomasHägg

That's pretty good man

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

Happy Holidays! Post/send something from your trip later will you?

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.

This thread is finally starting to make sense to me...

So many wise things said here.

Oh, got it. Gonna do some research on him and the rest when I get a chance then.

"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.

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?

Great! It's on my list now... Yes, the Nietzschean influences are clearly there, but even Nietzsche got some things right... Thankfully Rand did see a spectra, not merely two sides with nothing inbetween. (Though she could ge too agressive and bad at putting that forth at times) 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?

Sorry Thomas, that is my way of separating the "orthodox" Objectivism of Peikoff, the pitiful carrier of Ayn's flame...and taking the rational foundational parts of her philosophy and growing them based on NLP and eliminating her bizarre theory of art/aesthetics, etc. A... I can't accept "bizarre" Adam. But you know that. Unusual, perhaps. What's good for life and the individual's life and mind - is "good". That's all it is. It simply and exactly follows from all the rest of the philosophy. The issue of music was where I was focusing. And bizarre is, like The Donald, hyperbole. Also, not an area of philosophy that is a strong area for me. What did she state was acceptable when it came to music? A... I will post the most "cold" logical part of Rands description that I know of in this area and it is better, I think at least so far, than her description of "art". Music gives man’s consciousness the same experience as the other arts: a concretization of his sense of life. But the abstraction being concretized is primarily epistemological, rather than metaphysical; the abstraction is man’s consciousness, i.e., his method of cognitive functioning, which he experiences in the concrete form of hearing a specific piece of music. A man’s acceptance or rejection of that music depends on whether it calls upon or clashes with, confirms or contradicts, his mind’s way of working. The metaphysical aspect of the experience is the sense of a world which he is able to grasp, to which his mind’s working is appropriate. Music is the only phenomenon that permits an adult to experience the process of dealing with pure sense data. Single musical tones are not percepts, but pure sensations; they become percepts only when integrated. Sensations are man’s first contact with reality; when integrated into percepts, they are the given, the self-evident, the not-to-be doubted. Music offers man the singular opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an intelligible, meaningful entity. To a conceptual consciousness, it is a unique form of rest and reward. - "The Romantic Manifesto", this time as well. There is also a try to explain music itself as being in part a mathematical phenomenon, but that is not necessarily a part of "objectivism" (capital O or not I would think) as Rand made sure to point out in connection to it that "I can offer a hypothesis on the nature of man’s response to music, but I urge the reader to remember that it is only a hypothesis". In other words, she knew she was not a scientist and didn't want to mess up her lifes work. The kind of valuation that goes on in art and music, can in my opinion at times be subtle in a similar way as to that which goes on in the beginning of the process of choosing a partner for sexual romance, as I tried my best to describe in the "Love defined in one sentence" thread under the (perhaps not perfectly fitting) term of "being hot for someone". She also claims that Until a conceptual vocabulary is discovered and defined, no objectively valid criterion of esthetic judgment is possible in the field of music . . . No one, therefore, can claim the objective superiority of his choices over the choices of others. Where no objective proof is available, it’s every man for himself—and only for himself. Well I like the sound of that lol.... Myself I listen to all kinds of music. Sometimes I focus intently on the lyrics, other times I just love the sound of the music itself. Jazz, soul, blues, rock, hard rock, heavy metal, techno, reggae, (modern and old) rnb, rap, even opera some times - If I can give it enough focus and some time to grow on me I can enjoy almost anything where there is tone, rythm and skill involved. My taste may vary from time to time; "sense of life" is what matters. And listening to new and novel music some times is good for the imagination and creativity I think. The brain creates new nervepaths to deal with the "strain" and the more you listen the more you like it, as long as you take a break once in a while of course. A personal anecdote on the topic; Having listened to dubstep for a longer period of time because of the novel feeling it gave me, I realized upon listening to opera on the radio during work hours that I actually found it pleasurable! I used to hate it entirely in all its forms, but I was starting to notice that there were these rythms and tones that to me were actually "pretty similar" to what I focused on in dubstep. I think my brain may have done exactly what scientists describe and essentially developed a series of nervepaths (in common terms "a taste") for things similar to dubstep, in this case opera. The way the brain works with music is both strange and interesting I think. Neither dubstep nor opera is my favourite kind of music though. Heavy metal and rap for work and jazz for complete relaxation...

Me, too! Apart from a laugh, photos proving ... what exactly? Assume some cute woman stamped her foot and told her man: "Sweetie, you know how I love you to take me to the Mall in your Porsche and show you off to everyone - so I KNOW you will sacrifice your silly golf day (your bonsai club meeting, your philosophical group) to make me happy"... ...he's something of a puppy dog and she's a probable long-term sacrificer. A woman with values and a "sense of self" should rarely insist on a self-sacrifice from her man for a shallow matter, and a male with values and guts would seldom accede to her demands. It seems clear that little sacrifices mount up to big ones and then it's a habit. But true, a man will in reality - and without sacrifice - have to wait for his lady outside a store once in a while. Yup, bring a book, take a stroll. Can we lift this debate? Value, value hierarchy and sacrifice is conceptual, not founded on range of the moment trivialities. I wish I had more "likes" to give away...

May I ask what (if possible to describe here) it is that you find bizarre in her theory of art? I have yet to study it properly, but from what I read here it seems to work with me. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/art.html What I didn't see, was any direct reference to examples of "dark" forms of art. You know, creating things that are not nice and wonderfully perfect, but the kind of art that you create to make clear distinctions between good and bad. Rand herself didn't write "wonderful fairytales" so I don't think she herself would have had any problem with that kind of art, but none the less there is nothing explicit about such art in that description. I will probably buy that book to study it more sooner or later. Maybee as a late christmans gift for myself.

It is only possible to prove that something exists. It is not possible to prove that something doesn't exist because what doesn't exists leaves no evidence behind to prove anything related to it.. We cannot say that a fragment of our imagination (such as dragon or unicorn or tomorrow I may come up with some creature of my own imagination entirely), to be existent maybe because we have not proven that they do not exist. Since they don't exist, we can't prove anything about their not existing; we need a proof for showing that something exists. And till we don't have any proof which suggests its existence, we naturally give it the status of non-existent Thats right. Thinking in these terms, we can't even "prove" that there are not "square circles". But it is still absolutely self-evident. . . . existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness - Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology As existence is one "thing" and we want to "prove" that this thing exists by means of science, we would need something "outside" of existence to confirm it. But our conciousness won't allow us to percieve anything outside of existence and "what does not exist" can not be used as "evidence". When it comes to the "being" of god, it should be equally obvious that unless god exists there is no percievable, understandable, usefull, judging or "being" god that at all could ever affect us in any manner. And "god", could it simply "be" without "existing", would have to "be" outside of our existence; it would "be" isolated from us and uncapable of any contact. If this was the case (which it logically can not be), you would still be correct in saying that "God does not 'exist' and therefore has no power over me". I - mistakenly perhaps - still use the term "prove" sometimes. As in "proving by logical reasoning", but what I am really refering to then is reasoning and the use of axioms to conclude why there can not be supernatural entities. Not "proving" by actual material scientifc evidence as this would be impossible, but most importantly pointless. If someone who reads this still doesn't understand "just what the heck we are talking" about here, don't worry. It probably took years of thinking for must of us to understand these details. It may be "obvious" when one understands the nature of determining reality well enough, as described by Rand, but it is not easy for most people to wrap their heads around. - I think that my explanation (even if it should turn out not to be perfectly logical this time around that I write it) illustrates fairly well to the educated soft/agnostic atheist why "gods" should be considered "impossibe"; that is "unable of" or "contradictory to be within" existence - or as we sometimes call it "to reality" / "to nature as a whole". If not convinced however, I would refer them to the "Ayn Rand Lexicon" online, the "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" and to read it side by side with for example the Bible/Christian theology.

Thomas, Unless you are a politician he donates to, why? Do you do shabby work or products? In Trump's projects (inhouse), everything runs on merit and with utmost respect. If it ain't high quality, he dismisses you--without a scene--and gets another who can provide it. Michael If this is the case, I would want to work for him (were I seeking employment). But I still think - perhaps without clear reasons I admit - that he is an egotist. I wish I had some (self experienced) quotes or videos to put up that could show more clearly why I made this decission some time ago, but as of right now it seems I can't find any. Not good... or rather that is good, I should say. That is unless I did I lousy job looking for it.

Ayn did develop "rational egoism." She did not invent it, however, she sure nailed it to the proverbial church door of American culture...hmm that has a nice Martin Luther touch to it. Right. I don't think Trump is a rational egoist, I think he is an "ego tist".

Awesome. Congratulations! That's a great painting by the way.

Hillary Clinton is notoriously evil and abusive in private, smiles in public. Trump is just Trump, no artifice. I've seen him show off those teeth in public. Both ways. + He reminds me of someone whom I won't mention by name, but whom had a bad temper. He just wouldn't let the steam out "on air". He would be "cooking" for days and then when you were alone with him he he would erupt like volcano. It's a personal thing and not really something I can prove here. Call it anecdotal.

If they love him that's great. Money is not everything. I'm not sure I'd want to be paid by Trump.