Sex and OPAR

[sjw]

Also, if Peikoff said that stuff about published work versus lecture (I will try to find it later), he said it. Any alleged nonsense is his, not mine for repeating what he said. And it is pure nonsense to call my mentioning of Peikoff's alleged nonsense "nonsense."

Even if he said it and meant it, doesn't mean that we should follow it. To take an extreme case, if a teenager in a fit of rage declares himself to be thoroughly evil and deserving of nothing good, that does not mean we should take him at his word. I don't take other people's orders about how I should judge them or their works; I judge them according to my own standards.

[Victor Pross]

To give Peikoff the benefit of the doubt, I believe he is speaking in a normative manner of what sex can [or does] mean to a person of self-esteem—versus those who engage in neurotic sex--such as the woman who believes that just because she is physically desired she will magically gain self-esteem by giving herself to man after man. Or consider the macho player who seeks to sexually conquer women, as if sex were an instrument to wield, so as to gain some feeling of a personal triumph.

Let’s not toss out the baby with the bath water. Let’s try to understand where Peikoff is coming from. Here’s an experiment: Let’s take Peikoff’s quote and follow it up with an experience of Nat Branden’s to see if he is describing what Peikoff capsulated. Let’s see if these two men are on the same page.

L. Peikoff: "Sexual feeling is a sum; it presupposes all of a rational man's moral values and his love for them, including his love for the partner who embodies them. The essential meaning of such a feeling is not social, but metaphysical; it pertains not to any single value or love, but to the profound concern involved in all value pursuit: the relationship between a man and reality. Sex is a unique form of answering the supreme question of a volitional being: can I live? The man of self-esteem, using cognitive, conceptual terms, concludes in his own mind that the answer is yes. When he makes love, he knows that yes without words, as a passion coursing through his body."

N.Branden: “When a man makes love for the first time in his life, he feels aligned with the forces of the universe in a new way, and aligned with the internal energies of his own maleness. The connection feels cosmic. I felt a deepening sense of integration and power. Sensuality and spirituality fused together into a shattering force.”

I think Branden and Peikoff are talking about the same thing here.

It seems that both the macho “conqueror’’ and the vacant slut, in my above example, are striving to achieve this feeling—except it is not as clearly articulated in their thoughts as these two thinkers have presented.

Let me ask more: do you think that Branden’s experience and Peikoff’s passage would be possible to a person who did not even feel a marginal glimmer of esteem for their partner [or for themselves for that matter]? What if that person meant nothing other than a living and breathing blow-up doll in which they could masturbate on or in? Do you think this person could experience what Branden and Peikoff are talking about? I don’t.

Here’s a million dollar question: does what Branden and Peikoff are presenting have survival value? And is it therefore not moral?

Considering all this, does this shed a new perspective on the Peikoff passage? Anybody?

-Victor

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Victor Pross]

I was thinking some more on this subject, I wish to add a qualifier to my post: I agree that Peikoff does have rationalistic tendencies—he himself has said that this has been a problem for him—but I don’t think that the sex passages are a monumental example of this. In fact, I really don’t find anything so objectionable about his “the mind is the ruling factor” proviso at all.

See, without the mind, the body is a corpse -- and without the body, the mind is non-existent. So who is in charge around here, hmm?

The mind, the psyche, the moral fiber, the spirit, the intellect, the emotions—call it what you want—seems to have a large stake on the matter of how the body is put to use. I am reminded of what Branden wrote of Patricia when he fell in love with her:

“I knew the essence of my attraction to Patricia was spiritual, and the sexual, while extremely important, was only a consequence. [italics mine]. Why, is Branden saying that the mind is the ruling factor? Is he saying, like Peikoff said: No human pleasure as intense as that of sex can be dominantly a matter of physical sensation.

You see, the funny thing here is, we don’t need to refer to any passages from Branden or Peikoff on this matter. We know that our minds drive us. We are human beings who can think and introspect.

In regards to the physical and the spiritual being equally important, my view remains the same. Ultimately here, I agree with Angie: I don’t choose one over the other, but neither do I pretend that one does not come before the other.

-Victor

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Robert Campbell]

Shayne,

You're doing what I did for so many years--excusing the deficiencies in Leonard Peikoff's books by referring critics to his recorded lectures.

Peikoff gave a whole lecture on the topic "Sex as metaphysical" in his OTI series. So all these Peikoff-bashing remarks are quite off the mark: clearly he thought this topic was worthy of a much more detailed treatment than he gave in OPAR.

The problem with this defense is twofold.

The lectures are much harder to get hold of than the books, indeed expensive enough to deter anyone who is neither an acolyte nor a scholarly specialist in Peikoviana.

And by Peikoff's own admission (see Roger Bissell's quotation, elsewhere on this site, of a comment that Peikoff made in a 1990s lecture, to the effect that he wouldn't dare put what he just said in print), the books and articles are what Peikoff is willing to stand up and defend in front of a wider public.

So if Peikoff didn't see fit to provide reasoning in OPAR that he did attempt to provide in a recorded lecture, well, it's up to him to decide what's worth the trouble of writing up for publication and what isn't.

Turnabout, however, is fair play. I'm not obliged, in interpreting or criticizing his work, to go beyond what he has put in print--and neither is anyone else.

Robert Campbell

PS. I take a different view of intellectual figures who died before they could complete major projects, so their lectures or drafts had to be made ready for publication by others. But Peikoff is 72 years old and has had the financial means, at least since Ayn Rand's death, to spend as much time as he likes writing books.

[Paul Mawdsley]

The mind, the psyche, the moral fiber, the spirit, the intellect, the emotions—call it what you want—seems to have a large stake on the matter of how the body is put to use.

Victor,

What are the differences in these terms? I do not believe they refer to the same specific phenomenon as your statement would suggest. Would this be a good tome to start with definitions? I think that some (myself included) might contend that it is precisely the spirit, the emotions, and the intellect that need to be aligned if we want to achieve fulfillment because these are distinct elements of the psyche. And it is our awareness of the activity and the content of these elements of the psyche that gives us the broad category of phenomena we have labeled the mind. Is it not Branden's focus on spirit that distinguishes his view from Peikoff's focus on intellect?

Paul

(Note: I do not use the word spirit to represent some unextended entity with disembodied actions. I see existence as basically physical things acting and interacting according to the as yet incompletely identified principles of causality.)

[sjw]

Victor: I agree with you. I not only see nothing objectionable in that Peikoff quote, I think it's on the mark.

You're doing what I did for so many years--excusing the deficiencies in Leonard Peikoff's books by referring critics to his recorded lectures.

I did not admit a deficiency in OPAR on this matter. I said that more could have been said, and more in fact was said by Peikoff. Big difference.

That brings up another problem I have with Barbara's critique. She talks as if a writer must always supply evidence for every assertion. But the truth of the matter is clearly the opposite: there's a judgement call to be made on the part of the writer regarding the reader's context. The writer, not the reader, is at liberty to pick and choose his audience, and make it clear to whatever context of knowledge he chooses to write to. Just because someone is too ignorant to grasp something without having his hand held is puts no logical burden on the writer to spell it out.

So Barbara has it flat out wrong when she says it doesn't matter if Peikoff is right or not, what matters is whether he presented "evidence". In fact, whether Peikoff is right or not is at the heart of the issue--if you want to critique him. If he's right, then you have no business doing so on this point. You have no business telling Peikoff that he must stoop down for you and write to your level.

The lectures are much harder to get hold of than the books, indeed expensive enough to deter anyone who is neither an acolyte nor a scholarly specialist in Peikoviana.

They're not that expensive, anyways, that's a silly criticism. This stuff isn't mainstream, it's simple supply and demand that makes them expensive. (I recently wanted to buy a book on some scientific specialty for a hobby and came to find that the book was about $300--too much to justify for my hobby, but certainly reasonable if it's my job). I personally got a lot of value from the OTI class; at the time it was a great intro to a subject that at the time I was quite fuzzy about.

Turnabout, however, is fair play. I'm not obliged, in interpreting or criticizing his work, to go beyond what he has put in print--and neither is anyone else.

It's at least partly understandable to make a mistake and criticize Peikoff because you don't know enough about him; it's not excusable to stick your head in the sand and not want to know more facts about him just because he said something or other about lectures not being "official". The fact of the matter is that he spent a whole lecture expanding on this very topic, explaining it in detail to students (though it's been years since I heard it and can't recall much about it). Combine that with my above critique regarding the onus of writers to spell things out, and this line of criticism of Peikoff is indeed a lot of nonsense.

Edited December 31, 2006 by sjw

[Victor Pross]

Paul,

I understand and appreciate what you are saying, but I am merely saying that they do belong together of a larger whole and are to be totally distinguished from the body. You wrote: “I think that some (myself included) might contend that it is precisely the spirit, the emotions, and the intellect that need to be aligned if we want to achieve fulfillment because these are distinct elements of the psyche.” Sure, I’m with you on that. But what does the spirit, emotions and intellect have in common? They all belong to that wider non-tangible phenomena--however they may differ from eachother--they don’t have a physical body.

My point was merely to draw attention to what comes first and to draw a parallel between where Branden and Peikoff are coming from: the same page. If others shudder at this point, I can’t help that. That’s how I see it.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

-Victor-

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Neil Parille]

SJW,

I'm with Professor Campbell on this. And, as a practical matter, say I'm a philosophy professor who wants to write an article about some aspect of Objectivism. Should I have to transcribe and cite a tape? Are people who want to interact with my article obligated to buy the tape series as well?

In any event, I think we should safely assume that if someone doesn't put a lecture in print, it isn't necessarily his final view on a topic.

There are plenty of professors who have turned their lectures into books. Almost all the Gifford lectures have been published. If these people can do it, why can't Peikoff?

Neil Parille

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/

[Victor Pross]

I’m afraid that this topic is going to turn down a trivial road—printed books versus recorded lectures. Yawn. What about Barbara’s Branden’s critique and my follow up on it?

And Shayne—good to know we are in agreement regarding this matter. N. Branden and L. Peikoff—the similarities in their views regarding sex. Does this sound like more interesting fodder for discussion?

-Victor

Edited December 31, 2006 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That brings up another problem I have with Barbara's critique. She talks as if a writer must always supply evidence for every assertion. But the truth of the matter is clearly the opposite: there's a judgement call to be made on the part of the writer regarding the reader's context. The writer, not the reader, is at liberty to pick and choose his audience, and make it clear to whatever context of knowledge he chooses to write to. Just because someone is too ignorant to grasp something without having his hand held is puts no logical burden on the writer to spell it out.

So Barbara has it flat out wrong when she says it doesn't matter if Peikoff is right or not, what matters is whether he presented "evidence".

Shayne,

Your recent lack of reading ability is surprising me. Greatly. You are better than that. Barbara never said it doesn't matter. Here is an exact quote from her post: "But neither Peikoff nor I can reasonably require that our positions be taken seriously -- much less be accepted as true -- so long as we present them in the form of a string of arbitrary claims."

That's a far cry from "doesn't matter."

Another point--and on this I won't insist beyond this post as I know OPAR was important to you. This book is terribly written. If you don't mind Peikoff's vagueness and wish to excuse it by saying the audience isn't good enough to understand the author, that's your business. I think bad writing is a perfect example of bad writing, nothing more. It certainly doesn't prove very much. But if Peikoff did not really care about being understood by those he had to "stoop down" to address (as you insinuate), I wonder why he sent that initial printing around to the philosophy departments of all the major universities for free. Writing as poorly as he wrote, is it any reason he didn't convince those intimately familiar with philosophy, but not familiar with Rand, not as "academics," but as "human beings"?

He also does not sound like he is choosing his audience the way you seem to be saying. He stated clearly in the Preface to OPAR:

The present book is the first comprehensive statement of her philosophy.

I have presented the ideas of Objectivism, their validation, and their interrelationships.

That sounds like he is trying to be understood correctly and does care about explaining the philosophy. Except he forgets a lot about validation as he goes along and prefers pontification. I guess he thinks pontification--sanctimonious pontification at that--is a proper means of rhetoric for explaining a new philosophy.

Jesus did the same thing in the Bible.

One last item. I detest Peikoff's view of sexuality because it is based on a false view of human nature (especially emotions) and it is tailor-cut to induce guilt if it is practiced literally. I accept part of his view for certain contexts. I believe I have been clear on which parts in my previous posts on this thread.

In my view, one strives for the best to be happy on earth, not to be correct according to a system of thought. Man starts from the good (sex) and strives to get better (sex with love and high values). He does not start from the bad ("animal sex" stated while holding one's nose), or "suboptimal" to coin a phrase, and strive to become human.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

One last item. I detest Peikoff's view of sexuality because it is based on a false view of human nature (especially emotions) and it is tailor-cut to induce guilt if it is practiced literally. I accept part of his view for certain contexts. I believe I have been clear on which parts in my previous posts on this thread.

In my view, one strives for the best to be happy on earth, not to be correct according to a system of thought. Man starts from the good (sex) and strives to get better (sex with love and high values). He does not start from the bad ("animal sex" stated while holding one's nose), or "suboptimal" to coin a phrase, and strive to become human.

Michael,

The body and the physical capacity for sex suboptimal? For the sake of clarification, I don't hold such a position either. Such a position would be a dichotomy, placing the physical on a lower rung. But my point above—within the delimited context I placed the parallel between Branden and Peikoff—is valid. I am talking about the order of business: first the mind, then the body--NOT what is the nature of that body, evil or good? That is not my approach, if indeed it is Peikoff's.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

Maybe I haven't been clear. Peikoff wrote:

As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor.

This is put in moral terms where if the mind is not the ruling factor, sex is immoral.

Well what about cases where the mind took a hike? That happens to everybody at one time or another in life (not necessarily in sex).

Peikoff's view of sex ("in all such cases") presumes that the urge, the appetite, and just about everything else exists in the same quantity and relationship within a person at all times. But the reality is that our daily lives are processes like waves, with intensity followed by relaxation over and over again. Some waves are tsunamis and others are ripples. Then there are the different components of awareness, non-volitional appetites and a host of other processes--all going on at the same time to vastly differing degrees in the same day depending on the situation.

The damage a person does to himself on castigating himself for "immorality" for a moment of less will-power is a sin in itself. This is holding guilt up as a value. Any doctrine that preaches this as the good is wrong at the root.

In short, my qualm is not so much with Peikoff's high end. It is with his low end. What he calls "immoral" in sex, I call "the good." It comes from an urge-to-live that is experienced at a visceral level.

But even at the high end I don't agree with him. The mind does not rule all in sex and love at will. I am much more in line with the idea of complete integration, where all parts are equally important, mind, body and spirit (in the Objectivist sense). This also means that any part in isolation is also the good. The mind is good. The body is good. The spirit is good. What they do in isolation for the benefit of a human being (using reason and health as the standards) is also the good.

If the mind is absent and the sex is healthy, such sex is the good. It may not be the best, but it is the good.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

I was about to respond to Victor but was called away. Now that I am back I find that Michael has expressed the spirit of my response most eloquently. I especially liked:

...the reality is that our daily lives are processes like waves, with intensity followed by relaxation over and over again. Some waves are tsunamis and others are ripples. Then there are the different components of awareness, non-volitional appetites and a host of other processes--all going on at the same time to vastly differing degrees in the same day depending on the situation.

and

I am much more in line with the idea of complete integration, where all parts are equally important, mind, body and spirit (in the Objectivist sense). This also means that any part in isolation is also the good. The mind is good. The body is good. The spirit is good. What they do in isolation for the benefit of a human being (using reason and health as the standards) is also the good.

On Branden's view, the ego is the unifying centre of awareness and is something distinct from one's particular thoughts or feelings or impulses. This is the core of the spirit. It is that which thinks, chooses, and wills. As with all life processes, the ego's primary role is to attain and maintain the integration of the organism. This includes the integration of thoughts, feelings, and impulses. In The Art of Living Consciously Branden writes:

Living consciously entails the attainment of a wider field of vision that permits reason and emotion to be integrated rather than mutually opposed.

This is quite distinct from what Peikoff says. Peikoff's view assumes the state of opposition between reason and emotion in which reason should rule. One source of information about our relationship to existence, our emotions, is automatically made less important and the disowning of its content is implicitly encouraged. One more part of ourselves to, piece by piece, be suppressed to the subconscious. Peikoff's view is not about integration. It is about opposition and choosing sides between adversaries within one's own psyche. It is no stretch to assume one's emotional and sexual impulses towards the opposite sex should be suppressed should reason (or rationalization) rule this way.

The adversarial approach has very deep roots in Objectivism. This is a mistake within oneself and between individuals who's goal is to seek the truth. The adversarial approach has more to do with competing for social status than striving for objectivity.

Paul

Edited December 31, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[Barbara Branden]

Shayne: "Peikoff gave a whole lecture on the topic 'Sex as metaphysical' in his OTI series. So all these Peikoff-bashing remarks are quite off the mark: clearly he thought this topic was worthy of a much more detailed treatment than he gave in OPAR."

A book -- especially one entitled Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand -- is expected to be a self-contained entity, to be understood and judged on its own merits, not on the basis of material not contained in the book.

Victor: "Leonard Peikioff is disliked for a host of others reasons and not really because of sex. His views on sex [taking Rand’s lead] are simply up for grabs for ridicule. Hell, why not? It has got to the point that when someone is this disliked, they can’t say or do anything that is right and there is some cheery-picking among the Peikoff selected quotes here. There is a lack of objectivity."

Victor, your comment made me think of a reply I gave when someone said to me, after I had defended a friend, "You think he's honorable because he's your friend." My reply was: "No, you have cause and effect reversed. He's my friend because I think he's honorable." If I "pick on" Peikoff's comments and actions, it's not because I dislike him. I dislike him because of so many of his comments and actions.

Shayne: "That brings up another problem I have with Barbara's critique. She talks as if a writer must always supply evidence for every assertion. But the truth of the matter is clearly the opposite: there's a judgement call to be made on the part of the writer regarding the reader's context. The writer, not the reader, is at liberty to pick and choose his audience, and make it clear to whatever context of knowledge he chooses to write to. Just because someone is too ignorant to grasp something without having his hand held is puts no logical burden on the writer to spell it out.

"So Barbara has it flat out wrong when she says it doesn't matter if Peikoff is right or not, what matters is whether he presented 'evidence'. In fact, whether Peikoff is right or not is at the heart of the issue--if you want to critique him. If he's right, then you have no business doing so on this point. You have no business telling Peikoff that he must stoop down for you and write to your level."

You found me out, Shayne. What I wanted was for Peikoff to stoop down and write to my level. However, in my ignorance, I thought I was saying that he ought to have given evidence for his assertions. In the Preface to OPAR, he appears to think that evidence rather than mere assertion is indeed required; he writes: "I have presented the ideas of Objectivism, their validation, (italics mine) and heir interrelatinships."

Barbara

[Judith]

As far as self-esteem issues, I guess either you are a pro, or you are not. Pros: My boss was in Vegas not long ago and he was grilling his cabbie about things. The cabbie talked about two top customers-- two slightly older ("MLF" types if you know what I mean) ladies who come into town every two weeks. They own their own half-million dollar townhouses. Business. Of course, as nice as that operation is I still doubt it's legal because I believe it is still illegal in Vegas proper.

I was in Vegas in October (and I'm headed there again on Friday -- EWWW!) and there are pages and pages of ads in the Yellow Pages for just about every kind of prostitute you can imagine. I don't think it's illegal there.

Amazing what they think the market demands. Lots and lots of ads for "BARELY 18!!" Only a tiny handful for "Over 40" or "Over 50" or for men (and I'd think that the men are there servicing both sexes). Lots of ads providing "TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!" Interestingly, a number of ads said, "Not a service!"

Yuck.

Judith

[Judith]

This is put in moral terms where if the mind is not the ruling factor, sex is immoral.

Well what about cases where the mind took a hike? That happens to everybody at one time or another in life (not necessarily in sex).

Peikoff's view of sex ("in all such cases") presumes that the urge, the appetite, and just about everything else exists in the same quantity and relationship within a person at all times. But the reality is that our daily lives are processes like waves, with intensity followed by relaxation over and over again. Some waves are tsunamis and others are ripples. Then there are the different components of awareness, non-volitional appetites and a host of other processes--all going on at the same time to vastly differing degrees in the same day depending on the situation.

The damage a person does to himself on castigating himself for "immorality" for a moment of less will-power is a sin in itself. This is holding guilt up as a value. Any doctrine that preaches this as the good is wrong at the root.

In short, my qualm is not so much with Peikoff's high end. It is with his low end. What he calls "immoral" in sex, I call "the good." It comes from an urge-to-live that is experienced at a visceral level.

But even at the high end I don't agree with him. The mind does not rule all in sex and love at will. I am much more in line with the idea of complete integration, where all parts are equally important, mind, body and spirit (in the Objectivist sense). This also means that any part in isolation is also the good. The mind is good. The body is good. The spirit is good. What they do in isolation for the benefit of a human being (using reason and health as the standards) is also the good.

If the mind is absent and the sex is healthy, such sex is the good. It may not be the best, but it is the good.

What continues to bewilder me about your position is how you can so glibly split people up into minds, bodies, and spirits. We're all one being. We can't split ourselves apart like that.

You talked about animal sex. Have you ever watched animals having sex? It's a very beautiful thing; it's clean and pure and guiltless and healthy. Somehow people think of it as a "low" thing; I can't imagine why. Animals can't conceive of sex as being dirty. Only people can do that, so only people can make sex dirty. Animals don't split themselves apart when they have sex. They do it with their whole beings.

Judith

[Dragonfly]

Fie Barbara, you can't really expect Peikoff to stoop down to your level! Worse yet, it seems you're not even intimidated! Shame on you! I can only conclude that you're completely corrupted by those corrupt modern scientists who always insist that you back up your argument with evidence. Tsk, tsk. You should know by now that when Doctor Peikoff hath spoken the matter is settled once and for all and that it is a mortal sin to question his statements. If you want to know the reasons for those statements, you'll have to raise your IQ by 40 points first. Then you might perhaps (using a pseudonym of course) buy one of his lectures for only a few hundred dollars, so you can hear the revelations from the Doctor's mouth itself.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Dragonfly,

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

One can find many asseverations of *truth* in Ayn Rand's work without supporting arguments or evidence. To some extent that's all right for a pioneer covering a tremendous amount of ground in a concise and artistic way, but for an "intellectual heir" to imitate that by speaking from on high to ignorant, "rationalistic" Objectivists who simply don't understand the philosophy through the use of DIM, whatever that is, instead of buttressing Objectivist arguments and positions with logic, research and evidence is a pitiful joke.

--Brant

[zarxo]

Here is my sum. Sex is sex, love is love. They are both separate and can be experienced separately CONSCIOUSLY; however, if you can find both in one person, then you've found a good "thing". Also, as values change, the person who you love, may change, which results in falling out of love. Pefectly normal if the other partner is not conscious of you growing and changing. I do think true love, the kind that just smacks the universe, can happen but I think that type of love is more of a finding someone who is the objective image of your subjective soul. Hence the widely used term, "soul mates". Part of being human is sexual desires, just know your intent when sex is involved and be frank to the other person too. Not all times will the outcome be as expected; especially when another person is involved. There is a saying that I have, "unspoken expectations", just know that it exists and logic will see you through.

zarxo

I have a great deal of trouble reconciling the following passage from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff with reality. I even find it difficult to reconcile it with Rand when I think about the Playboy interview and some other instances.

The passage is from OPAR, p. 344-345:

Sexual feeling is a sum; it presupposes all of a rational man's moral values and his love for them, including his love for the partner who embodies them. The essential meaning of such a feeling is not social, but metaphysical; it pertains not to any single value or love, but to the profound concern involved in all value pursuit: the relationship between a man and reality. Sex is a unique form of answering the supreme question of a volitional being: can I live? The man of self-esteem, using cognitive, conceptual terms, concludes in his own mind that the answer is yes. When he makes love, he knows that yes without words, as a passion coursing through his body.

Sex is a physical capacity in the service of a spiritual need. It reflects not man's body alone nor his mind alone, but their integration. As in all such cases, the mind is the ruling factor.

There is a biological basis of human sexuality and a counterpart in the animal world. But all animal needs and pleasures are transfigured in the context of the rational animal. This is apparent even in regard to such simple needs as food and shelter. Human beings, precisely to the extent that they have attained human stature, gain comparatively little enjoyment from the mere sensation of satisfying these needs. Their pleasure comes mostly from the accompanying emotions. It comes from the constellation of conceptually formulated values that define the needs' human satisfaction. Thus the joys of haute cuisine with special friends amid crystal and tapestries in a fine restaurant, or of beef stew and a glass of wine with a loving wife in one's own dining room, as against the act, equally nutritious and shielded from the elements though it may be, of chewing a piece of meat in a vacant cave somewhere. The principle is that a pleasure which was once purely biological becomes, in the life of a conceptual being, largely spiritual. The principle applies preeminently to sex. No human pleasure as intense as that of sex can be dominantly a matter of physical sensation. Dominantly, sex is an emotion; and the cause of emotion is intellectual.

Before I get into my own considerations, I would love to hear some of yours. (I am still shuddering...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What continues to bewilder me about your position is how you can so glibly split people up into minds, bodies, and spirits. We're all one being. We can't split ourselves apart like that.

You talked about animal sex. Have you ever watched animals having sex? It's a very beautiful thing; it's clean and pure and guiltless and healthy. Somehow people think of it as a "low" thing; I can't imagine why. Animals can't conceive of sex as being dirty. Only people can do that, so only people can make sex dirty. Animals don't split themselves apart when they have sex. They do it with their whole beings.

Judith,

Obviously my comment is to be understood in relative, not absolute terms. If a person completely loses his mind, for instance, his body stops functioning unless he is put on an artificial life support system. When I say the mind is absent in this context, I mean that conscious control according to professed will is predominantly absent--the part that purposely makes use of reason. So the idea is not to "glibly" dissect a person in non-integratable parts.

If I notice that the body has a heart and a liver, for instance, and that each part is good and that it exerts its separate influence on the body, do I then "glibly split the body up into hearts and livers"? We all have a mind, body and spirit. What's wrong with noticing that and observing the characteristics of each? Do you deny that these parts exist in a whole person? Do I really have to be master of the obvious like this to be understood?

About animal sex, I think you really misunderstood me. I was attributing a negative view of this to the orthodoxy, not looking down on it myself. (I see nothing at all wrong with it.) Also, I was not talking about any animals other than human beings in this context. I was talking about the inner sexual drive--the one that surges in human beings without conscious control--that comes provided by nature. Peikoff & Co. claims that this is wonderful, but that is only lip service. When it is acted on without philosophy, they call it immoral. I don't buy it.

Look at your experiences in Las Vegas to see this urge catered to in full bloom. Those ads would not exist if there were no market for what is going on. That market exists, not because people are immoral at root (i.e., born with "Original Sin" that they did not try to eradicate with philosophy), but instead because they have automatic sexual urges and wish to satisfy them without a lot of hassle. Money does the trick. They prefer to use their minds for other things.

I do not call that bad. That urge--and the satisfaction of it--is good. It is not the best, so obviously these people are not choosing the best in that one area of their lives. But they are still choosing the good. It is far better to sleep with a prostitute than to be celibate and lose the sexual drive altogether from atrophy.

Also, I am obviously talking on a metaphysical, not social, level. I don't think it is good to cheat on your spouse, for instance. Nor do I wish to have an area in my life where I don't aim for the best. But I don't begrudge a person who doesn't make that choice and call him immoral. It's his life, not mine.

Immoral sex for me is rape or knowingly transmitting a disease (or even cheating on your partner when the intent of exclusivity has been conveyed)--when actual moral values are breached. Unhealthy sex is when there is a lot of pain and injury, or when there is risk of disease and no protection is used, or when a person knows he/she is prone to strong emotional entanglements with casual sexual partners--things like that.

Casual sex with a stranger, in itself, is not immoral. Like most activities in life, it can be or not, depending on the context. And it can get complicated because of emotional entanglements. But once again, I reject Original Sin.

Michael

[sjw]

You found me out, Shayne. What I wanted was for Peikoff to stoop down and write to my level. However, in my ignorance, I thought I was saying that he ought to have given evidence for his assertions. In the Preface to OPAR, he appears to think that evidence rather than mere assertion is indeed required; he writes: "I have presented the ideas of Objectivism, their validation, (italics mine) and heir interrelatinships."

I don't see how this addresses my point: that authors rightly draw a line for how much "connecting the dots" work they're going to do for their readers. That's not a sign of "rationalism"; it's a sign of prioritization. OPAR is already 500 pages long. I suspect if he attempted to apply what you are demanding of him it'd be 5000 pages or more long. So go ahead and argue that he should have cut some other section in order to spend more time on this one. But accusing him of "rationalism" for making that call is totally unfair, particularly since he saw fit to expand on this very issue later.

Shayne

[jenright]

You talked about animal sex. Have you ever watched animals having sex? It's a very beautiful thing; it's clean and pure and guiltless and healthy.

Judith

Good point, Judith. I never hear anyone talk about animals having "casual sex". I do wonder if "casual sex" is actually a vast misnomer.

John

[sjw]

Another point--and on this I won't insist beyond this post as I know OPAR was important to you. This book is terribly written. If you don't mind Peikoff's vagueness and wish to excuse it by saying the audience isn't good enough to understand the author, that's your business. ...

It's probably been over a decade since I read through OPAR so I can't give my fully up to date impressions of the book. However, I can say that OPAR for the most part was not vague to me. It was an awesome introduction to Objectivism for someone who'd just read Atlas and The Fountainhead. It's likely that if I'd read all of Rand's philosophy first, it'd have had less of an impression. But that was my first exposure to explicit Objectivist philosophy and it was a great experience. So I think calling it "terribly written" is laughable. It was a great read. I don't claim that it's perfect or that there aren't some areas that are just plain wrong, but it's a great book overall. The only way I can conceive someone wouldn't get a lot of value out of it was if they already understood Objectivism, or if they weren't quite bright enough to understand it from OPAR, or if they had a bad attitude while reading it and therefore didn't get it.

One last item. I detest Peikoff's view of sexuality because it is based on a false view of human nature (especially emotions) and it is tailor-cut to induce guilt if it is practiced literally.

Is this Peikoff's view or Rand's view that you detest? From what I can tell, Peikoff's view looks to be in line with Rand's; yours appears to be quite on its own path.

[Kat]

Victor: Let’s not toss out the baby with the bath water. Let’s try to understand where Peikoff is coming from. Here’s an experiment: Let’s take Peikoff’s quote and follow it up with an experience of Nat Branden’s to see if he is describing what Peikoff capsulated. Let’s see if these two men are on the same page.

L. Peikoff: "Sexual feeling is a sum; it presupposes all of a rational man's moral values and his love for them, including his love for the partner who embodies them. The essential meaning of such a feeling is not social, but metaphysical; it pertains not to any single value or love, but to the profound concern involved in all value pursuit: the relationship between a man and reality. Sex is a unique form of answering the supreme question of a volitional being: can I live? The man of self-esteem, using cognitive, conceptual terms, concludes in his own mind that the answer is yes. When he makes love, he knows that yes without words, as a passion coursing through his body."

N.Branden: “When a man makes love for the first time in his life, he feels aligned with the forces of the universe in a new way, and aligned with the internal energies of his own maleness. The connection feels cosmic. I felt a deepening sense of integration and power. Sensuality and spirituality fused together into a shattering force.”

I think Branden and Peikoff are talking about the same thing here.

I don't think Peikoff is on the same page as NB. Peikoff seems to want to dismiss the psychological, physical, and social aspects of sex in his pursuit of value. He seems to say that sex cannot exist outside of love. Sex outside of love may not have much value, but it is still sex.

It certainly doesn't take that much for most men to have sexual feelings, and is it far more likely to be a result of visual rather than intellectual stimulation. It can be big business, too, especially in Vegas. Love certainly enhances sex, but is no means a necessary element of it. Ideally, sex is a celebration of being with someone you admire who shares your values and sense of life, but in many instances sex is well, just sex. A physical act. A stop along the way in the quest to find the one who is your highest value...or not. Sometimes it is just nookie qua nookie. The important thing is that both parties are on the same page, it is consensual and they have the same expectations from the encounter.

At this stage in my life, I could not conceive of casual sex for myself, as it would be cheap and unfulfilling, but for many people, especially in their 20s, it is very much a reality. They are in a different stage of life and hold different values from my own. Sometimes you gotta sow your wild oats before being ready to settle down and many people do. Apparently that type of sex doesn't count as sex according to LP because it doesn't meet all the above criteria....so let's just say (metaphysically, of course) that despite having two children, I was a virgin when I met Michael.

I simply cannot relate to LP's overintellectualizing the topic of sex as it seems so out of touch with reality.

Kat