Leaderboard

I guess not all of us would wish to possibly alienate a newcomer with terse response to "go look it up" than give a simple answer. If you don't want to participate then don't.

What does objectivism hold as the rational way for the opposite sex to pursue romantic interest? In general, is it the most rational for men to pursue women, or is this irrelevant? I find that usually in our culture, men do not think of women as members of the opposite sex, but as buddies with different plumbing. It is very unsatisfying as a woman, I like to be pursued, and be appreciated through my feminine qualities, not as a buddy with benefits. It is very frustrating to have to change my own natural behavior to have a conversation with a timid man who I am interested in. Does modern feminism dehumanize men and rob them of their sexual self confidence? This is what I've always thought. There is an implicit hatred in society for traditional masculinity, and most young men learn to de emphasize their behavior because of this. Acknowledginng the strengths that one sex tends to have which is complemented by the other, is not in any way sexist.

Why would it be more rational for men to pursue women? I never have found a reason to suppose this is so. The only basis I'd have is what is usually done socially speaking, but norms aren't an indicator of what is rational or not. A traditional "men are pursuers, women are the ones pursued" is an untenable position to have because of same-sex couples, multi-person romantic arrangements, transgender people, and really whatever you can imagine about different self-identities (I'm not going to get into those, at least not yet). The way I see it, pursuit is more of a matter of who has the greatest immediate interest in having a relationship, and that's how it goes. Historically speaking, women seemed to have been the pursued because it was expected or reasonable to expect women to be homemakers. Expected to be passive in general. I imagine what may be nice about being pursued is that the other person is clearly into you. But a male would certainly like that, too. Still, if achieving high levels of valuation is your goal, just hoping to be pursued won't get you anywhere. You can't just sit around expecting to have any kind of relationship by hoping someone decides to pursue you (friendship or romance). What I'm getting it is somewhat similar to what Kat is saying: depends on the individual. I'd go further by saying that if you like someone enough, it is practically obligatory to act and pursue the other person, male or female. In the sense that if someone is objectively beneficial to your well-being, you should do something about it. Waiting on someone else to act when you already have an interest, I'd call second-handedness. Pursuit makes sense to the extent you're into someone, being pursued makes sense to the extent you're unsure about a person. And the sex of the person does not matter. Can you explain further what you mean by traditional masculinity? Use examples. Also, can you explain why you think tradition really has any relevant implication on what is a rational behavior relating to romantic interests?

A movie doesnt need a big budget in order to be good. A movie need a good script, good actors and a good director. It seems like no one of these actors could actually act, and no one on the set read Atlas Shrugged. This movie was lack of talent, creativity and abilities, which makes me very sad. The person that wrote the script obviously doesnt know how to turn thoughts to actions, picture and sound, he probably have nothing to do to cinema language which makes me sad. I'd love to make my own version one day. I think that Javier is sexy enough and it's possible to work on his accent, I don't think it's that bad. In the movie, it's fine to have the slight accent. Sam Rockwell... I think he is too young and pretty, to be James. I thought more of alec baldwin =] his lyfe syle and the way he acts could easily suit both James and Guy Francon. and you are right, it's Christian BALE. I checked it on IMDB

"Open" and "closed" are redundant in this paragraph. If the meaning of open is that there is no system, then the only real distinction to be made is that there are systems and non-systems. Systems are composed of tightly interrelated parts and non-systems are composed of parts not tightly interrelated or not related at all. Getting back to basics, the reason the word "open" came to be used in relation to Objectivism is by regarding Objectivism as a concept, and concepts are open-ended in referencing to yet unknown particulars as instances of the concept. By implication, "closed" would not refer to any additional particulars. If Peikoff himself refers to his own particular work on induction as Objectivism, then he is implicitly regarding Objectivism as an open-ended concept. Attempting to "close" Objectivism (or any concept) against only contradictory additions is redundant to the roles of the definition and essence as described in ITOE. The open vs. closed debate is just so much obscuring fog. The real dispute is over whether or not Kelley contradicts Objectivism in some way in his work on benevolence. Identifying that contradiction is enough to defend the integrity of Objectivism as a system. By the same standard, if there is no identifiable contradiction and there is implication then the integration into the system ought to be made. The complete the analysis, the last possibility is that there is no contradiction and no implication. Then we would have a potentially valuable work of philosophy by an Objectivist philosopher which is not part of Objectivism. Even merely making the case that Kelley's work is nonessential to and not implied by Rand's Objectivism would be enough to keep it outside of that system without appealing to any "closure" argument. Regarding Objectivism as the fixed set of principles enumerated by Ayn Rand (and other authors in periodicals edited by her) makes the author the essential rather than the inter-relatedness of the system's principles and the logic of implication. There are contexts (citations in academic work) wherein that is the proper essential. The system context is how Ayn Rand herself thought of it and by naming her system she objectified it, she separated it and made it distinct from her person and her other thoughts. Objectivity with all that presupposes and implies is the essence of Objectivism and it ought to be treated differently, more objectively, than we treat the work of other philosophers.

As to your first point, certainly Rand thought it was more appropriate for men to pursue women in romance and for them to take the active part. In her own life, however, she did not do this - she pursued Frank O'Connor (in fact she tripped him), she pursued Nathaniel Branden, and she may have pursued several other young men as well although they did not actually begin a relationship. I am hesitant to speak for "Objectivism" but my honest understanding is that, like so many other things, IT DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL. Clearly, from your post, you prefer to be pursued. If this is the case, you should probably strive to be with men who are willing to pursue you. There is such a thing as romantic compatibility in addition to just personal compatibility. You should not apologize for or be ashamed of your preferences. However, you should also understand that they are not universal and that it is not "better" to prefer to be the pursuer or the pursued. In fact, it may even change from relationship to relationship - with one person you (the royal you, not you in particular) might do better as the pursuer and in another relationship with a different person it might be better for you to sit back and wait. There are many rational reasons to take either role (or to mix them up, there's no law that says each person can't do a bit of both). When you pursue, you can feel confident that you are taking action to achieve a value and that your success or failure is more dependent upon what you yourself have done. On the other hand, you run the risk of rejection and you are "showing your hand", so to speak. When you are being pursued, you essentially ask the other party to make an "upfront investment" in you. You have a position of power whereby you can take or leave what someone else has offered. The downside to this is that you may feel like you are left waiting around, that you aren't doing anything, that the dynamics of your relationship depend primarily on another. It is my belief that either the pursuer or the pursued can be "in control", but they are different forms of control. Your second point re: feminism. I don't know. It depends on what sort of feminism you mean. There is a type that seems to hate masculinity for its own sake as well as any behaviors perceived to be masculine, such as assertiveness, stoicism, etc. I would not, however, blame feminism per se for the lack of confidence the young men you run across seem to feel. I would just say they probably don't have much self-esteem which is a cultural problem more generally. Keep in mind that many, if not most of those traits often associated with masculinity are also strongly tied to individualism. Someone who does not know how to be an independent guy may simultaneously lack "masculine" qualities for that reason. I will just finish with the thought that often thinking of "men qua men" and "women qua women" obscures the issue, in my opinion. There are many different kinds of both men and women, which is a good thing. Keeping the discussion to opposite-sex relationships for simplicity's sake, a "traditionally" masculine man might be a wonderful mate for one woman but not another. Although clearly some qualities are objectively desirable (intelligence, good health, strong character), the precise combinations of those traits that are optimal are highly individualized. Some women would consider a wealthy, powerful man dedicated to a socially-valued career (doctor, lawyer, politician) and desiring to be in charge of his household and family a wonderful mate, but I would not. The most important thing is to stay true to yourself and your values. If you won't be happy with a passive guy, then don't pursue them and make yourself uncomfortable. On the other hand, if you're just striking up a conversation with a more timid guy, that doesn't seem like such a big deal. You're just talking, right? You don't expect every man you talk to or befriend to be a potential partner, do you?

I was 14 when I read Atlas Shrugged. I doubt many people that age would have gotten much out of it, so I wouldn't reccomend it for a class unless the teacher knows he has the right mix of students. As far as the sexual content is concerned, it's pretty tame. When I was that age my friends and I found ways to get access to R-rated movies and pornography (for years, actually). With the internet as omnipresent as it is today I doubt most thirteen year olds would be negatively effected by the content of Atlas Shrugged. But of course, that's a decision best left to the parents.

Trying to avoid getting sued for any Grandfather Paradoxes?

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Yeah, obviously both are also relational concepts, but which interference fails as a result? Right. It seems to come from confusion between time and distance. Distance relates to an area to which travel is relavent. Time is a relationship between events and "travel" through time makes no sense at all....

See this thread: Bill Clinton's Impeachment--The legal aspects of abnormal behavior. It's quite a long one and full of pointless bickering, but there is about 10% or so of the posts where you will find some thoughts that may be helpful. If you don't want to go through all that invective, then as a very brief summary, the philosophical basis for legal restraints on public displays was stated by Miss Rand as follows:

I disagree with this in part; positive emotions (or any emotions, for that matter) are not the standard of value, but they are values.

"Team John Galt" all the way!! Not only is he ~the man~ (who stopped the motor of the world) but I really don't like red-heads (sorry, Roark!)

It establishes that she is dishonest. Are you telling me that if in court you discover a liar on the stand you are then going to parse what she is lying about and what she isn't? Not a good policy. If, IF, it isn't part of Objectivism, then it isn't part of Objectivism. "Objectivism does not exhaust the field of rational philosophic identifications." -- HBL No thank you. I'll let you summarize in your own words what you meant by your vague and passing insult. Actually, we know; God does not exist. Agnosticism in Objectivist parlance means unwilling to know or take a stand. Your words indicate that you want to have it both ways depending on what one means by "Objectivism". But Objectivism is one thing, it is what it is, it is Ayn Rand's Philosophy. "Positions", in the way you use it here -- meaning "opinions", on philosophic issues are not part of Objectivism. Not even Ayn Rand's opinion is part of Objectivism; only what she could prove. Your usage of the the word "seemingly" means that you don't know what their purpose was. Beyond that, who cares if you were invited? I wasn't invited, does that mean that you can ignore the rules while I can't? Maybe you need to speak to the owner instead of the moderators if you have a problem with the rules. Fortunate for me, unfortunate for you. Which of Ayn Rand's enemies do you support or sanction? No, sir, it will be you pounding sand if you continue to flout the rules. Furthermore, what is your signature meant to imply? Is it an insult aimed at the owner of this site who so kindly allows you to post here? Reprehensible.