Love defined in one sentence?

[ThomasHägg]

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Should all of her works combined be labeled "objectivism"? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things. That is, as long as we can show that there is logical congruence.

I use the scientific standard of reason applied to reality = the same thing as Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. That's two of the four most basic principles of Objecivism.

Then for the ethics and politics--for the remaining principles--I use the basic formulations plus what is to be built on them and there is where I start deviating from classical Objectivism.

In the ethics (morality) and politics Objectivism strives for the perfectionist ideal. I don't. I don't for it's unattainable and even as a "city on a hill" a fantasy.

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is just about all her published opinions on all subjects. Well, that was her philosophy alone. Every Objectivist has his or her own "Objectivism" even if they think its hers. In so far as it is also hers its second-hand. At least for her it was first-handerism.

--Brant

Do you use only 2 out of the 4 most basic principles and therefore "deviate from" objectivism when setting a standard from objectivism?

Because judging from your own words on the matter, that is what it seems you are implying. I'm not going to automatically dismiss you and please don't view this as an attack on you because it is certainly not meant to be, but I want to elaborate a bit here.

If you would have asked Rand, we can be pretty sure she would have told you (as she did answer simmilarily when questioned on the importance of selfishness and guiltlessness) that the "moral perfection" that a student of objectivism should strive to and indeed could achieve was his own and would be up to the level of his ability.

Here is a direct quote on the matter,

. . . one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand in "The Virtue of Selfishness"

In this this context of Rands writing, her reason for using the word "never" would not be to make ones own moral perfection impossible - as should be obvious by the quote - but rather to make sure the reader accepted that there were no "exceptions" to when one should not do these things marked in bold by me.

If our objectivism correlates closely enough to the objectivism espoused by Rand and intended by Rand for others to study, understand and accept, then it still deserves to be thought of as one concept with one definition. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree of course, but we must follow the defining feutures at least as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. To say otherwise would be deception of one kind or another. She herself told very clearly what she considered to be the irreplacable parts of her philosophy and not, and it was her own philosophy which she called objectivism.

If we can all agree on this statement of hers, it would be the creation of the concept and a start to objectivism; My philosophy (Ayn Rand commenting on "objectivism" as her creation), in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

In this sense, there should be nothing unachievable or undefinable about her philosophy, that is objectivism. The question is only if we should, if we do and to what extent.

Also, I probably made some logical errors myself in this comment, so be sure to point them out to me. I will be the greatest benefactor of that.

[Brant Gaede]

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Was it objectivism? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things.

I use the scientific standard of reason applied to reality = the same thing as Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. That's two of the four most basic principles of Objecivism.

Then for the ethics and politics--for the remaining principles--I use the basic formulations plus what is to be built on them and there is where I start deviating from classical Objectivism.

In the ethics (morality) and politics Objectivism strives for the perfectionist ideal. I don't. I don't for it's unattainable and even as a "city on a hill" a fantasy.

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is just about all her published opinions on all subjects. Well, that was her philosophy alone. Every Objectivist has his or her own "Objectivism" even if they think its hers. In so far as it is also hers its second-hand. At least for her it was first-handerism.

--Brant

Do you use only 2 out of the 4 most basic principles and therefore "deviate from" objectivism when setting a standard from objectivism?

Because that is what it seems like to me. I'm not going to automatically dismiss you and please don't view this as an attack on you because it is certainly not meant to be, but I want to elaborate a bit here.

If you would have asked Rand, we can be pretty sure she would have told you (as she did answer simmilarily when questioned on the importance of selfishness and guiltlessness) that the "moral perfection" that a student of objectivism should strive to and indeed could achieve was his own and would be up to the level of his ability.

Here is a direct quote on the matter,

. . . one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand in "The Virtue of Selfishness"

In this this context of Rands writing, her reason for using the word "never" would not be to make ones own moral perfection impossible - as should be obvious by the quote - but rather to make sure the reader accepted that there were no "exceptions" to when one should not do these things marked in bold by me.

If our objectivism correlates closely enough to the objectivism espoused by Rand and intended by Rand for others to study, understand and accept, then it still deserves to be thought of as one concept with one definition. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree of course, but we must follow the defining feutures at least as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. To say otherwise would be deception of one kind or another. She herself told very clearly what she considered to be the irreplacable parts of her philosophy and not, and it was her own philosophy which she called objectivism.

If we can all agree on this statement of hers, it would be the creation of the concept and a start to objectivism; My philosophy (Ayn Rand commenting on "objectivism" as her creation), in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

In this sense, there should be nothing unachievable or undefinable about her philosophy, that is objectivism. The question is only if we should, if we do and to what extent.

Also, I probably made some logical errors myself in this comment, so be sure to point them out to me. I will be the greatest benefactor of that.

I use all four basic principles of Objectivism.

Each is logically derived from the previous.

Each is linked by the inherent individualism of the thinking mind free to act on its conclusions.

The ethics is where the individual goes social as human beings are also social animals. Needs work.

The politics encompass the proper use of force in social existence. Needs work.

I have no direct use of Rand folderol about "moral perfection." Instead I concentrate on integrity.

Notice I am not trying to teach you about classical Objectivism. I stopped studying that decades ago. I do not engage people the way you are trying to engage me on that subject. I do note Rand did not achieve moral perfection and could have done better in the integrity department. As do we all. But she could have dumped the former and done better with the latter if she hadn't been such a control freak. Morality is all about control: self control and control of others. She didn't want to do anything more it would seem, if we take her at her word, than to pass moral judgments. That's the explanation of Galt's speech, which was flushing the world down the toilet after he had removed its productive, moral brains.

Take another look at your Rand quote. What's the most important word? "Never," "never," "never," "never" and "never." This is like being a Muslim and praying five times a day. You can hardly use your brain and function if you put all that John Galt/Ayn Rand-type moralizing, hectoring crap into it--which you can't but you can heroically try. Try integrity instead. It's easier to understand and if you mightily practice it it will become second nature.

--Brant

and don't steal the paper clips

(Perfectionism in Objectivism leads to Utopian thinking in morality and politics where it is impossible to practically and practicably exist.)

[ThomasHägg]

I pick up an antipathy to the concept of sacrifice, here. At least, equivocation. That is, sacrifice is not always such a bad thing - or that it can only be forced on one (e.g. by politicians) - or that sacrifice is 'subjective' and variable, according to the definition you want to choose.

Without life - a life - there is no value. (And without values, no real life). Value can only be earned or discovered (for a value to be recognised, one has to have standards of value), and then - only for oneself. Value isn't conferred on men from Above, or automatic, nor can it be imitated from others. That standard of earned value, supposes unearned value, unrecognised value - and the sacrifice of value, all of which I believe is self-sacrifice. An indentured slave or a camp inmate may still have the mind of a proud and independent man, a mind of his own while not his body. One who meekly gives up the values of his consciousness (his 'soul') hasn't an excuse. "It's your mind they want..."[Galt]

Right, hopefully I have not contradicted myself too many times in this thread, but there are in popular culture certainly at least two strains of thought when it comes to defining "sacrifice" and its use in language. Perhaps I was too quick to bite when seing the word and should have explained my reasoning better first.

In the dictionaries, it should be clear that both definitions are still very much present. Especially if we look at the older or more detailed definitions.

Historically, it has absolutely mostly meant to give up something or even kill something, no matter what the consequense or reason. This is destructive and there are already plenty of other ways to explain sittuations where this isn't the case. Therefore Rands opposition is to be expected and fully rational.

If anyone is not convinced that this is so, let's think about it for a moment;

The earliest kind of sacrifices that we still define as such were made in blood, body and mind of of animals or men to gods, or to other men in the form of death, pain or slavery.

The very word "sacrifice" or "sacrificium" comes from latin and was first used about practices in the abrahamic religions that "made something sacred". It created a link/established an "alliance" with "god". But this was usually a onesided alliance even in theory and of course not necesarily such a good deal, due to the nature of the gods involved.

In religion, if we sacrifice to a god, do we then expect something in return? No. Of course not. Such a thing can never be expected.

Not only because it of course never actually happens since "god" is a delusion, but because your god as a very powerfull entity and your master can never be commanded or be held responsible.

That is even in the event of if he did something that was considered wrong. And even then most gods, such as the abrahamic god, is never wrong, because he not only is the ultimate judge, but supposedly he is the standard used to meassure both good or evil by. (The pure good that just so happens to - with perfect knowledge - have created the evil.)

Must you still sacrifice if your god asks you to? "Yes, of course" religion would claim, because you are threatened into doing it "or you will be punished." "But if you sacrifice, you must still expect punnishment" they tell you. (This is especially clear in Christianity, where you are ordered to sacrifice yourself, so that you do not live for any selfish reason, and to live in complete altruism to Jesus/God or else you will burn. This position of course being irrational and leading to death)

Notice especially, even that historically and in popular culture all over the world today "sacrificing oneself" is thought of as an actual posibility. If one is to be capable of such a sacrifice, in a rational mind, the term sacrifice can never hold a meaning that is inherently good, because that would make suicide a good. For a christian, whos aim it is to go to heaven rather than live, it can. He then actually gains something by dying; by doing what a rational person would see as loosing everything.

(And if we took a quick look at books from say the 1800-1900s or so and perhaps earlier, we will most probably find that the usage of the word "sacrifice" alone, without explicitly making clear that it is concerning the self, implies something negative to rational values in most cases as well.)

Not sure if You, whyNOT, actually hinted at the same thing by quoting Galt from "Atlas Shrugged", but the meaning of sacrifice seems in the context of that quote to be, perhaps not clear, but at least implied.

[ThomasHägg]

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Was it objectivism? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things.

I use the scientific standard of reason applied to reality = the same thing as Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. That's two of the four most basic principles of Objecivism.

Then for the ethics and politics--for the remaining principles--I use the basic formulations plus what is to be built on them and there is where I start deviating from classical Objectivism.

In the ethics (morality) and politics Objectivism strives for the perfectionist ideal. I don't. I don't for it's unattainable and even as a "city on a hill" a fantasy.

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is just about all her published opinions on all subjects. Well, that was her philosophy alone. Every Objectivist has his or her own "Objectivism" even if they think its hers. In so far as it is also hers its second-hand. At least for her it was first-handerism.

--Brant

Do you use only 2 out of the 4 most basic principles and therefore "deviate from" objectivism when setting a standard from objectivism?

Because that is what it seems like to me. I'm not going to automatically dismiss you and please don't view this as an attack on you because it is certainly not meant to be, but I want to elaborate a bit here.

If you would have asked Rand, we can be pretty sure she would have told you (as she did answer simmilarily when questioned on the importance of selfishness and guiltlessness) that the "moral perfection" that a student of objectivism should strive to and indeed could achieve was his own and would be up to the level of his ability.

Here is a direct quote on the matter,

. . . one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand in "The Virtue of Selfishness"

In this this context of Rands writing, her reason for using the word "never" would not be to make ones own moral perfection impossible - as should be obvious by the quote - but rather to make sure the reader accepted that there were no "exceptions" to when one should not do these things marked in bold by me.

If our objectivism correlates closely enough to the objectivism espoused by Rand and intended by Rand for others to study, understand and accept, then it still deserves to be thought of as one concept with one definition. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree of course, but we must follow the defining feutures at least as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. To say otherwise would be deception of one kind or another. She herself told very clearly what she considered to be the irreplacable parts of her philosophy and not, and it was her own philosophy which she called objectivism.

If we can all agree on this statement of hers, it would be the creation of the concept and a start to objectivism; My philosophy (Ayn Rand commenting on "objectivism" as her creation), in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

In this sense, there should be nothing unachievable or undefinable about her philosophy, that is objectivism. The question is only if we should, if we do and to what extent.

Also, I probably made some logical errors myself in this comment, so be sure to point them out to me. I will be the greatest benefactor of that.

I use all four basic principles of Objectivism.

Each is logically derived from the previous.

Each is linked by the inherent individualism of the thinking mind free to act on its conclusions.

The ethics is where the individual goes social as human beings are also social animals. Needs work.

The politics encompass the proper use of force in social existence. Needs work.

I have no direct use of Rand folderol about "moral perfection." Instead I concentrate on integrity.

Notice I am not trying to teach you about classical Objectivism. I stopped studying that decades ago. I do not engage people the way you are trying to engage me on that subject. I do note Rand did not achieve moral perfection and could have done better in the integrity department. As do we all. But she could have dumped the former and done better with the latter if she hadn't been such a control freak. Morality is all about control: self control and control of others. She didn't want to do anything more it would seem, if we take her at her word, than to pass moral judgments. That's the explanation of Galt's speech, which was flushing the world down the toilet after he had removed its productive, moral brains.

Take another look at your Rand quote. What's the most important word? "Never," "never," "never," "never" and "never." This is like being a Muslim and praying five times a day. You can hardly use your brain and function if you put all that John Galt moralizing, hectoring crap into it--which you can't but you can heroically try. Try integrity instead. It's easier to understand and if you mightily practice it it will become second nature.

--Brant

If you know better than me, I would have hoped that you would teach me. If you don't want to, that seems fine with me as we then probably don't agree on the basic premises. You say Rand did not achieve "moral perfection", but according to her own thinking she and many others did and still do. That is, the only form of moral perfection she valued and knew was achievable.

Comparing moral to being religious is... well...

If you don't care about moral, then how do you form your ethics? Why do you care about ethics? In my mind, these two are connected, not because I'm in anyway afraid, for example of a god that will strike me if my behaviour is immoral. Morality is something that is required of me by nature. By my nature. That is, if I want to live well. And since I do, I form my morality, before I form my ethics.

You say you "focus on integrity". What "kind" of integrity(seeking a definition)? And how would this in any way disprove, contradict or make unnecessary morality?

I don't think agreeing or disagreeing that all Rand wanted was to judge would bring much value to the discussion, but I take it that you do not see anything wrong with judging per se?

And do you actually claim that you are not interested at all in, perhaps even that you are not moral in any way? Or do you claim that you are moral despite your disinterest?

[Wolf DeVoon]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

[ThomasHägg]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

I agree about Brant and in fact everyone I've talked to so far on this site. Whenever I quote, you know you've got my interest.

You have still not proven this and it makes no sense in the context of the basic principles of objectivism. Love is "selfish". See my earlier posts.

Quoting a few statements from yourself and others you fancy out of context or at least not relating to objectivism is not enough. Show us how and how this logically makes sense.

First answer this, exception-making from what?

No. Love is valuing very highly. Or if referencing a feeling of love, it is that feeling which comes from doing the former.

[Brant Gaede]

getting tired, btw, of un-referenced Ayn Rand quotes expecting a discussion off them (and Rand's pursuit of "moral perfection" is the worst part of her "philosophy"--it's garbage)

Can you reference it, so that we may evaluate what it is she did so badly?

She pursued moral perfection. See post 106. (My apologies to ThatGuy, for he did reference the Rand quote, but too many do not.)

--Brant

I read that. So how is this evident and why would it be bad?

And what standard do you use to determine what is Objectivism and what is not? I for one never claimed that everything that Rand said must have been in line with objectivism. But did I reference her? Yes. And I think most of what she said was. Was it objectivism? I might be wrong, and I think about this still, but that is how I currently see things.

I use the scientific standard of reason applied to reality = the same thing as Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. That's two of the four most basic principles of Objecivism.

Then for the ethics and politics--for the remaining principles--I use the basic formulations plus what is to be built on them and there is where I start deviating from classical Objectivism.

In the ethics (morality) and politics Objectivism strives for the perfectionist ideal. I don't. I don't for it's unattainable and even as a "city on a hill" a fantasy.

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is just about all her published opinions on all subjects. Well, that was her philosophy alone. Every Objectivist has his or her own "Objectivism" even if they think its hers. In so far as it is also hers its second-hand. At least for her it was first-handerism.

--Brant

Do you use only 2 out of the 4 most basic principles and therefore "deviate from" objectivism when setting a standard from objectivism?

Because that is what it seems like to me. I'm not going to automatically dismiss you and please don't view this as an attack on you because it is certainly not meant to be, but I want to elaborate a bit here.

If you would have asked Rand, we can be pretty sure she would have told you (as she did answer simmilarily when questioned on the importance of selfishness and guiltlessness) that the "moral perfection" that a student of objectivism should strive to and indeed could achieve was his own and would be up to the level of his ability.

Here is a direct quote on the matter,

. . . one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never resigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem. And, above all, it means one’s rejection of the role of a sacrificial animal, the rejection of any doctrine that preaches self-immolation as a moral virtue or duty.

- Ayn Rand in "The Virtue of Selfishness"

In this this context of Rands writing, her reason for using the word "never" would not be to make ones own moral perfection impossible - as should be obvious by the quote - but rather to make sure the reader accepted that there were no "exceptions" to when one should not do these things marked in bold by me.

If our objectivism correlates closely enough to the objectivism espoused by Rand and intended by Rand for others to study, understand and accept, then it still deserves to be thought of as one concept with one definition. It doesn't mean that we can't disagree of course, but we must follow the defining feutures at least as laid out in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness. To say otherwise would be deception of one kind or another. She herself told very clearly what she considered to be the irreplacable parts of her philosophy and not, and it was her own philosophy which she called objectivism.

If we can all agree on this statement of hers, it would be the creation of the concept and a start to objectivism; My philosophy (Ayn Rand commenting on "objectivism" as her creation), in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

In this sense, there should be nothing unachievable or undefinable about her philosophy, that is objectivism. The question is only if we should, if we do and to what extent.

Also, I probably made some logical errors myself in this comment, so be sure to point them out to me. I will be the greatest benefactor of that.

I use all four basic principles of Objectivism.

Each is logically derived from the previous.

Each is linked by the inherent individualism of the thinking mind free to act on its conclusions.

The ethics is where the individual goes social as human beings are also social animals. Needs work.

The politics encompass the proper use of force in social existence. Needs work.

I have no direct use of Rand folderol about "moral perfection." Instead I concentrate on integrity.

Notice I am not trying to teach you about classical Objectivism. I stopped studying that decades ago. I do not engage people the way you are trying to engage me on that subject. I do note Rand did not achieve moral perfection and could have done better in the integrity department. As do we all. But she could have dumped the former and done better with the latter if she hadn't been such a control freak. Morality is all about control: self control and control of others. She didn't want to do anything more it would seem, if we take her at her word, than to pass moral judgments. That's the explanation of Galt's speech, which was flushing the world down the toilet after he had removed its productive, moral brains.

Take another look at your Rand quote. What's the most important word? "Never," "never," "never," "never" and "never." This is like being a Muslim and praying five times a day. You can hardly use your brain and function if you put all that John Galt moralizing, hectoring crap into it--which you can't but you can heroically try. Try integrity instead. It's easier to understand and if you mightily practice it it will become second nature.

--Brant

If you know better than me, I would have hoped that you would teach me. If you don't want to, that seems fine with me as we then probably don't agree on the basic premises. You say Rand did not achieve "moral perfection", but according to her own thinking she and many others did and still do. That is, the only form of moral perfection she valued and knew was achievable.

Comparing moral to being religious is... well...

If you don't care about moral, then how do you form your ethics? Why do you care about ethics? In my mind, these two are connected, not because I'm in anyway afraid, for example of a god that will strike me if my behaviour is immoral. Morality is something that is required of me by nature. By my nature. That is, if I want to live well. And since I do, I form my morality, before I form my ethics.

You say you "focus on integrity". What kind of integrity? And how would this in any way disprove, contradict or make unnecessary morality?

I don't think agreeing or disagreeing that all Rand wanted was to judge would bring much value to the discussion, but I take it that you do not see anything wrong with judging per se?

And do you actually claim that you are not interested at all in, perhaps even that you are not moral in any way? Or do you claim that you are moral despite your disinterest?

There are many who will give you the discussion you want. I'm the guy who might give you the one you don't.

I do not eschew morality. I eschew moralizing.

What Rand thought she achieved through her own thinking doesn't necessarily match up with what she actually achieved. I have first-hand experience of Rand in action so I'm better able to objectively evaluate her and her philosophy than those who don't, all else being equal. This is not an objective evaluation of the philosophy per se (sans Rand).

In the case of comparing the moral to the religious, I did not. First I compared perfection to one aspect of one religion. Christianity doesn't fuck up your brain the way Islam does. It used to somewhat comparatively, but even Newton 300 years ago could compartmentalize the religious and scientific. Continual calls to prayer, even if self generated, make that impossible.

What kind of integrity? Let me channel Rand: Only somebody who doesn't think would ask such a question! There is only one kind! That of a first-hand, inviolate mind!

Not my way of speaking. Not my way of thinking. I'm no genius rushing to stupid judgments with the battering ram of truth. Morality in truth is passive. Rand inverts this and makes it active as in an attack. That's because of her experience with communism and the Red Decade of the 1930s when that was desirable and necessary. Also deep into the 1960s. It justified Atlas Shrugged. Today other types of weapons are needed. You see, the left gave up the intellectual in protest against the Vietnam War. They objected to that war because we were fighting communists, not Nazis. It was always moral/intelectual pretense on their part. It still is for the moral. Their problem is their brains can no longer function even for that faux superior intelligentsia they once so reveled in. You should read some of the crap they liked to turn out in the Atlantic and other magazines in the 1950s. They can't even crap their crap anymore and they are full of it.

--Rant

pant, pant, pant!

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

[moralist]

Although it's very entertaining...

...this discussion demonstrates falling away from the simplicity of truth and into the complexity of lies.

There is only ONE REAL love... and that's to love what's morally right enough to actually DO what's morally right.

All the rest are FAKES.

(...we will now continue with our regularly scheduled programming... )

Greg

[ThomasHägg]

I use all four basic principles of Objectivism.

Each is logically derived from the previous.

Each is linked by the inherent individualism of the thinking mind free to act on its conclusions.

The ethics is where the individual goes social as human beings are also social animals. Needs work.

The politics encompass the proper use of force in social existence. Needs work.

I have no direct use of Rand folderol about "moral perfection." Instead I concentrate on integrity.

Notice I am not trying to teach you about classical Objectivism. I stopped studying that decades ago. I do not engage people the way you are trying to engage me on that subject. I do note Rand did not achieve moral perfection and could have done better in the integrity department. As do we all. But she could have dumped the former and done better with the latter if she hadn't been such a control freak. Morality is all about control: self control and control of others. She didn't want to do anything more it would seem, if we take her at her word, than to pass moral judgments. That's the explanation of Galt's speech, which was flushing the world down the toilet after he had removed its productive, moral brains.

Take another look at your Rand quote. What's the most important word? "Never," "never," "never," "never" and "never." This is like being a Muslim and praying five times a day. You can hardly use your brain and function if you put all that John Galt moralizing, hectoring crap into it--which you can't but you can heroically try. Try integrity instead. It's easier to understand and if you mightily practice it it will become second nature.

--Brant

If you know better than me, I would have hoped that you would teach me. If you don't want to, that seems fine with me as we then probably don't agree on the basic premises. You say Rand did not achieve "moral perfection", but according to her own thinking she and many others did and still do. That is, the only form of moral perfection she valued and knew was achievable.

Comparing moral to being religious is... well...

If you don't care about moral, then how do you form your ethics? Why do you care about ethics? In my mind, these two are connected, not because I'm in anyway afraid, for example of a god that will strike me if my behaviour is immoral. Morality is something that is required of me by nature. By my nature. That is, if I want to live well. And since I do, I form my morality, before I form my ethics.

You say you "focus on integrity". What kind of integrity? And how would this in any way disprove, contradict or make unnecessary morality?

I don't think agreeing or disagreeing that all Rand wanted was to judge would bring much value to the discussion, but I take it that you do not see anything wrong with judging per se?

And do you actually claim that you are not interested at all in, perhaps even that you are not moral in any way? Or do you claim that you are moral despite your disinterest?

There are many who will give you the discussion you want. I'm the guy who might give you the one you don't.

I do not eschew morality. I eschew moralizing.

What Rand thought she achieved through her own thinking doesn't necessarily match up with what she actually achieved. I have first-hand experience of Rand in action so I'm better able to objectively evaluate her and her philosophy than those who don't, all else being equal. This is not an objective evaluation of the philosophy per se (sans Rand).

In the case of comparing the moral to the religious, I did not. First I compared perfection to one aspect of one religion. Christianity doesn't fuck up your brain the way Islam does. It used to somewhat comparatively, but even Newton 300 years ago could compartmentalize the religious and scientific. Continual calls to prayer, even if self generated, make that impossible.

What kind of integrity? Let me channel Rand: Only somebody who doesn't think would ask such a question! There is only one kind! That of a first-hand, inviolate mind!

Not my way of speaking. Not my way of thinking. I'm no genius rushing to stupid judgments with the battering ram of truth. Morality in truth is passive. Rand inverts this and makes it active as in an attack. That's because of her experience with communism and the Red Decade of the 1930s when that was desirable and necessary. Also deep into the 1960s. It justified Atlas Shrugged. Today other types of weapons are needed. You see, the left gave up the intellectual in protest against the Vietnam War. They objected to that war because we were fighting communists, not Nazis. It was always moral/intelectual pretense on their part. It still is. Their problem is their brains can no longer function even for that faux superior intelligentsia they once so reveled in. You should read some of the crap they liked to turn out in the Atlantic and other magazines in the 1950s. They can't even crap their crap anymore and they are full of it.

--Rant

pant, pant, pant!

I invited the conversation because I wanted it. Because of how much I value morality (some see it as a part of ethics of course, I separate the two for practical reasons) don't avoid moralizing at all times, but in some situations where it does not add the conversation. This is the kind of forum where I think it might even be important. I'm here both to teach and learn as much as I can about what is right and what is wrong.

So you met Rand is what you are saying? Maybee you are right and she did all of those things she said people ought not to do and never corrected her errors. In this case I was wrong about her of course, and she did not achieve the kind of morality in her life that she said she would work for and that her intellectual works would suggest. I just havn't seen any evidence that this was how she actually ended her life so far and I can only go by what I know.

To be exact, you complained about the use of the word "never" which in and of itself is not the perfect word to use in the sentence when speaking to an objectivist audience perhaps, but it makes an important point to those that are trying to learn about her philosophy. It makes clear that you can not act on whim and choose when and when not to apply the principles, or they fall.

You compared this moralizing to the moralizing in religion. It would seem the reason was that you tried to make a connection between moralizing and something obviously bad.

I don't think moralizing is always bad. It depends how you do it and for what reasons. Of course I would not be verbally moralizing in most sittuations in life, but this seem to the place to do so as long as it actually adds to the conversation and I'm not attacking or riddiculing anyone out of a malevolent intent.

"Christianity doesn't fuck up your brain the way Islam does" as you said, in most cases no, but it still is really bad for your brain. I can conclude this not simply from studying objectivism, but having been "mildly" christian and having met, befriended and debated both fundamental christians and muslims. Some outright fascists, most not unless the dictator was God himself.

Your "What kind of integrity? Let me channel Rand:" was actually pretty funny. We all know Rand could be overly aggresive for the same reasons you mention and perhaps medical. But you know I didn't ask because I really thought there could be several kinds, but to know how you defined it. I never shouted (or used that kind of language) did I? I'm not like that either.

"Morality in truth is passive" What do you mean by this exactly? You could say this, but If noone tells the truth we all suffer. And the last part about the left giving up teh intellectual and intelectual pretense on their part when it comes to war I don't find very similar to what I'm doing. But maybee you can expand on that and how it relates to what you/I said. I'm not declaring war here. I'm a noob on this forum... I come in peace. :/

[ThomasHägg]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

[ThatGuy]

Also I'm taken with your quotation: "They know of no better way to honor their god [than?] by hanging him on the cross".

Are you sure it was Nietzsche? I can't find it, tho it sounds like his

Anyway, he illustrates what men are capable of, in voluntarily relinquishing the best of themselves, "god" or no god.

I found the quote:

"They knew of no way of loving their God other than by hanging men upon the cross!"

It's not an exact quote, however. It was from a book called HAMMER OF THE GODS, that I read back in 1996. I've long lost my copy, and only found the quote on Google Books:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/226188.Hammer_of_the_Gods

"Madness is something rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, peoples, ages it is the rule." Hammer of the Gods presents Friedrich Nietzsche's most prophetic, futuristic and apocalyptic philosophies and traces them against the upheavals of the last century and the current millennial panic. This radical re-interpretation reveals Nietzsche as the only guide to the madness in our society which he himself prophesied a century ago; Nietzsche as a philosopher against society, against both the state and the herd; Nietzsche as philosopher with a hammer. Compiled, translated and edited by Stephen Metcalf."

So it's a "radical interpretion" of the passage I quoted in my post, I believe. (I don't have the book to see where the quote was sourced from, but the idea in that quote is spot-on, just not as "archaic.")

[Selene]

One of my dilemmas that she created for Catholics...lol...and we wonder why Buckley and her banged minds?

Ayn also linked morality and integrity in a dyadic sense.

Moral Judgment

¶

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. ****No holding back by this lady!

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

It is obvious who profits and who loses by such a precept. It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?

But to pronounce moral judgment is an enormous responsibility. To be a judge, one must possess an unimpeachable character; one need not be omniscient or infallible, and it is not an issue of errors of knowledge; one needs an unbreached integrity, that is, the absence of any indulgence in conscious, willful evil. Just as a judge in a court of law may err, when the evidence is inconclusive, but may not evade the evidence available, nor accept bribes, nor allow any personal feeling, emotion, desire or fear to obstruct his mind’s judgment of the facts of reality—so every rational person must maintain an equally strict and solemn integrity in the courtroom within his own mind, where the responsibility is more awesome than in a public tribunal, because he, the judge, is the only one to know when he has been impeached.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html

And the Catholic killer:

The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself.

There is no escape from the fact that men have to make choices; so long as men have to make choices, there is no escape from moral values; so long as moral values are at stake, no moral neutrality is possible. To abstain from condemning a torturer, is to become an accessory to the torture and murder of his victims.

The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/moral_judgment.html

That last sentenced resonated with me when I was 12 and it resonates to me today!

Ayn put that feeling that I had early on in life and gave me the non-religious hooks to hang that hat on.

Along with the "sanction of the victim" concept, she guided me onto the right paths.

Sadly, too many never did any trailblazing of their own from that path.

Good discussion...

A...

[ThomasHägg]

No kidding Selene, that woman had balls... figuratively speaking.

Thanks for the quotes. I personally love(!) the Ayn Rand Lexicon. It is a true wealth of knowledge and utility.

I will try not to make it my new Bible or marry it.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

You keep sorta saying what I say so you can say what you want to. I don't pull teeth and I don't let people pull mine. I know when I'm being played.

--Brant

[ThomasHägg]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

You keep sorta saying what I say so you can say what you want to. I don't pull teeth and I don't let people pull mine. I know when I'm being played.

--Brant

I'm not "playing" you. You were the one pulling jokes and said all of those contradictory things. You claimed to know more both about Rand and her philosophy. I didn't reject this. You might. You clearly know a lot. I just havn't seen the evidence for this yet. I engaged you because you challenged ideas that I think are very important. I meant no harm in that.

But since you don't seem to want to continue this, I guess I'll just say "thanks for playing".

I think I will take a step back for now. I have to recharge my batteries. Hopefully I have not made more enemies than necessary already. Everyone whom I've quoted or adressed so far have been helpful in my own learning process about people and philosophy. I value you all.

[Jules Troy]

All this love talk...

Well if all else fails Thomas you could always get a room and "love thyself" if you made too many enemies. (Haha?)

[Wolf DeVoon]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm sure Brant will reply. He's an interesting guy worth talking to. However, I'd like to interject.

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being. Those are conclusions; viewpoints. Not a philosophy but Rand made heroism part of her philosophy. Her philosophy is mostly cultural, not intellectual. Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

--Brant

I always thought of this as meaning the ideal man. Not just any man. And her philosophy makes this clear as well.

"Man--a man--is and is not an heroic being." That would depend on what you compare man to and what the values of a hero are wouldn't it? And what you consider "a real man". Context means a lot. Dirty and sweaty can show you worked hard or it can show you worked inefficiently. Clean and neat the opposite. And yes of course, culture influence her work. She wasn't immune to it and from her writing it would seem she didn't expect anyone to be.

"Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life." So you say, but apparently not according to her own thinking, I gather from one of your earlier comments?

"Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it." Yet she herself moralized and said she had lived her life according to her philosophy? This doesn't add up.

You keep sorta saying what I say so you can say what you want to. I don't pull teeth and I don't let people pull mine. I know when I'm being played.

--Brant

I'm not "playing" you. You were the one pulling jokes and said all of those contradictory things. You claimed to know more both about Rand and her philosophy. I didn't reject this. You might. You clearly know a lot. I just havn't seen the evidence for this yet. I engaged you because you challenged ideas that I think are very important. I meant no harm in that.

But since you don't seem to want to continue this, I guess I'll just say "thanks for playing".

I think I will take a step back for now. I have to recharge my batteries. Hopefully I have not made more enemies than necessary already. Everyone whom I've quoted or adressed so far have been helpful in my own learning process about people and philosophy. I value you all.

I'll give this another look tomorrow (I hope). I have to give you that courtesy because you've obviously given a lot of thought to a lot of what we have to call Objectivist knowledge.

--Brant

you certainly write better English than I can write Swedish (not one word)

[ThomasHägg]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most out of Rands so far; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

[Wolf DeVoon]

from Shmoop: "Dagny panics when her train stops moving."

Alarm, responding to an emergency, not panic. She doesn't run around screaming, incapable of action. You have read Atlas Shrugged, yes? (Maybe not?) It's a little square because it was written in 1957. For that era, her heroes were sexy and fearless, especially Dagny. Ten years before, Roark laughed at opposition, dealt with Dominique masterfully.

How homosexuals view Rand's fiction is opaque to me.

About Shmoop: founder and CEO David Siminoff's favorite lit: Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce

"Supreme linguistic virtuosity conjures up the dark underground worlds of sexuality and dream. Joyce undermines traditional storytelling and all official forms of English... Dazzlingly inventive, with passages of great lyrical beauty and humour." (Penguin blurb on Amazon)

Reminds me of Lois Cook.

[ThomasHägg]

All this love talk...

Well if all else fails Thomas you could always get a room and "love thyself" if you made too many enemies. (Haha?)

haha you ;) Nah it won't be needed I think. I'm not that lonely thankfully. Hopefully noone answering this thread is or will be for very long.

[ThomasHägg]

from Shmoop: "Dagny panics when her train stops moving."

Alarm, responding to an emergency, not panic. She doesn't run around screaming, incapable of action. You have read Atlas Shrugged, yes? (Maybe not?) It's a little square because it was written in 1957. For that era, her heroes were sexy and fearless, especially Dagny. Ten years before, Roark laughed at opposition, dealt with Dominique masterfully.

How homosexuals view Rand's fiction is opaque to me.

About Shmoop: founder and CEO David Siminoff's favorite lit: Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce

"Supreme linguistic virtuosity conjures up the dark underground worlds of sexuality and dream. Joyce undermines traditional storytelling and all official forms of English... Dazzlingly inventive, with passages of great lyrical beauty and humour." (Penguin blurb on Amazon)

Reminds me of Lois Cook.

Sorry, that's me editing my post again. I posted the wrong link. That one was from when I was searching for a direct quote online, instead of having to look through a book manually. The new link is now in my message. And it doesn't relate to fear or a specific quote, but rather to how subtle Rands writing can be. Take it with a grain of salt, I didn't double check the article to see if there was anything that might clash with objectivism. (I mean what the heck is "shmoop" even?) But that was not the point of the link.

I don't think I, was I homosexual, would have any problem with it. I can't remember Rand herself, in context, actually saying that all homosexuals were bad people or that homosexuality (unless chosen against ones actual nature) as such was immoral. If you were indeed born homosexual, which I think I there is evidence to suggest you can be, then that is the nature you were born with and would have to base your morality on. It is not inherently "harmfull" according to objectivist principles as far as I can see. Leonard Peikoff said something similar in an interview if I remember correctly... I just can't find it right now.

[ThomasHägg]

...man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,

with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Absolutely correct unless you fall in love. As J. Geils put it: Love stinks.

Love is exception-making.

I quote this again, because I think this is a highly irrational statement. (Sorry Wolf, but don't missunderstand me. I'm not saying you are an irrational being.)

Why do you love? Why do I love? Is there no reason? Of course there is. Showing love is not an exception to reason. Showing love is not an exception to selfishness. (Rational selfishness.)

When feeling "love", it is of course a feeling. But it results from the same kind of processes as other emotions and is therefore still linked to reason.

Otherwise it would seem to me that one has to reject Rands writing on emotions in general as well.

[Brant Gaede]

Ironically, most of the heroism of her heroes is abstract and you (almost?) never see them sweat or experience fear. It's an adolescent's view of heroism. Clean and neat. As such it's a starting point. Double irony: Ayn Rand lived a staggeringly heroic life. Triple irony: she didn't tend to dwell on that. She seemed almost oblivious to it.

Right as rain, beautifully put.

I'm not a huge fan of her novels, but what about in Atlas Shrugged for example? (This was, by the way, the book I disliked the most; But then of course, I only read it once and that was before I fully understood the basic premises of her philosophy)

Rands fictional heroes certainly experience both fear and work that is hard on them. Not that they are virtues. Courage and productive work are. They experience both pleasure and pain. But Rands way of writing is mostly meant not to focus on or describe these "feelings" to the reader. She doesn't want the reader to feel them at a whim, but rather she tries to provide him with the values needed to recreate the feeling accurately when it is rational, either as a general part of life or as it is needed in order to understand her fiction. These subtleties are very well portrayed here. http://www.shmoop.com/atlas-shrugged/dagny-taggart.html

(Not related to the link above) Dagny fears getting stuck in one place without any controll. She fears the irrational. She fears loosing Galt.

Is Hank Rearden a hero in this book? I would think so. Yet he fears the similar situation of being cornered and loosing his lifes work.

Is Galt fearless? Perhaps. I don't remember. Could he be in real life? I'm not sure. Would it really be bad if he was? Not on its own. Not unless it also made him irrational or was due to irrationality on some level.

I would say that fear is a feeling we experience in the face of a dilemma that we are unable to overcome. We lose confidence. Because fear makes a person hesitant and fidgety in his thinking, it can render a person more moldable by others. It can render him highly irrational. This is where we need courage. We need to focus on and do what we actually know is right. Starting again from the most basic axioms if it is needed; We may not percieve or understand every detail, but this way we can raise ourselves up once again.

Try google-searching the book for mentionings of "fear"

And when it comes to work and sweat; To do your best and to work hard when it is needed (even if you don't enjoy it), is clearly highly valued in all her works.

Howard Roark was a "hero", was he not?. And he sweat when he was working hard manual labour, drilling into the granite with a drill that he had to hold and push into the stone. It may not have been a kind of labour he enjoyed the most, but it was necessary at the time.

Describing "productive work", in "The Objectivist Ethics", Rand wrote;

It is not the degree of a man’s ability nor the scale of his work that is ethically relevant here, but the fullest and most purposeful use of his mind.

(Underlining added by me)

At the very least, it should be said that Rand mostly did not try to describe "übermensch". Her "heroes", which all carry some "flaws" of their own, may seem a bit "square" at times, but they are certainly not "perfect" in any other sense than the (emphasis on quotes) "moral perfection" used by Rand herself. A "perfection" that included admitting and dealing with ones mistakes, if one made them.

I think there is some problem here as English is not your first language although you write it very, very well for that. There are subtlies that might grate on someone like myself. As such they wouldn't be worth investigation so please don't ask for specifics for it wouldn't change anything.

If you were a young adult American reading AS shortly after publication and through the 1960s you'd have had a different experience than the one you had for the whole culture has since shifted and now the novel creaks in many ways it didn't then. I myself--I read it in 1963 in paperback of all things--will never read it cover to cover again, but read it in pieces. Sometimes I just throw it open anywhere, but usually I'm after something specific.

In pure literary terms, The Fountainhead is her best work. Not her greatest--that's AS.

I'm going to try to adjust to the way you are coming at Rand and her philosophy because of the obvious work you've done respecting it. There is going to be inevitable cultural friction and grating. The biggest caution for you is your tendency to lecture us on this material. Don't change--that is, don't worry too much about it. I'll merely recast your statements from you telling us to more like you asking us. The subtle thing is questions are frequently really statements, but questions go down easier. (You have asked questions too.) A lot of people have come to this site without a fraction of what you know to tell us what is what. They all fail for their actual agenda is dishonest and self-serving hubris and they are both ignorant and usually not all that intelligent.

--Brant