Nicky

Change and loss are not synonyms. In fact, what you are describing is improvement, which is the antonym of loss. So no, there's no grief involved when you improve.

I'm gonna stop you right there. There's no "we". You and I are not a team. As for how I know things, I don't think you'd understand if I tried to explain it.

The logical consequences of an obligation to passing down the family's genes are pretty striking. It means for instance that an adopted child can not be part of the family. It also means that people unfit to have children should bring them into the world, and raise them in misery and abuse, rather than just "break the link". It also means that family supersedes justice, and powerful families have a duty to protect a criminal son or daughter from the consequences of their actions, lest that breaks the genetic link. Conversely, it means that children born into dysfunctional or criminal families (like the Mafia) should remain in the fold, and lead the irrational, destructive way of life that family imposes on them. Some humans. Not all. There are plenty of examples, throughout the ages, of people who've been able to remain rational in the face of cultural pressure to set reason aside when it comes to family.

Of course we know...because we know that the claim that blacks have an inferior intellect due to genetic differences, is arbitrary. It has no basis in reality. That's what "not true" means. That's how we know there's no God, that's how we know there's not a porcelain elephant on the dark side of the Moon, etc., etc. ... when faced with an arbitrary claim, the rational response is to dismiss it, not to reserve judgement until we can go and check.

Wow. You went from this: to only being interested in who's "losing the argument". So which is it? Are you here for help with your "struggles with fundamental problems", and to have your misunderstandings corrected? Or are you here to win arguments? They're not even debates anymore, now they're full blown arguments...give it two more pages, and you're at war.

If anyone's interested in shifting gears just a bit (because, honestly, enough already with this duty nonsense), here's a take on the disintegration of the concept of family that I stumbled upon by accident, and found interesting. I'll admit, I was looking for all the sex talk in the first 13 minutes of the clip...the relevant conversation, starting at the 13:00 minute mark, which connects the breakdown of family life back in the 60's, 70's and 80's to the current cultural crisis going on in the United Sates, I stumbled upon by accident...and I found it very compelling, figured I'd share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_SP8wwu0QE

Really? Who's in this "movement" that you know for a fact exists? Please note that the only way to back up the claim that an organization's existence is an "objective fact" is to provide a list of members, and verifiable proof that they are in fact members. Which of course shouldn't be too difficult with modern technology. If you're in possession of information that proves an objective fact, it should take a few seconds to copy/paste that information into the same box you just typed your claim into.

Objectivism is a philosophy, not a movement. There is no reason for Objectivism to be a movement. It's perfectly fine the way it is, with people knowing exactly what it is, and free to subscribe to the philosophy, in whole or in part, and free to choose whether to work together for some common goal, or not. If it ever becomes a single, "open" movement, that movement will end up with leaders, and the leaders will want to add their own ideas to the tenets of the movement, and, since Ayn Rand was a genius, them and their ideas will end up not living up to her intellect...and then that will be that, because no one will care about another self-contradicting Libertarian political movement that can be thoroughly demolished by anyone with half a brain. That's what an "open Objectivist movement" is, btw. : Libertarianism. They took a few really good ideas (mostly Ayn Rand's, and a few Economists'), formed a movement and opened it up to whatever ideas anyone willing to participate could come up with. Now their movement has religious fanatics, pacifists, anarchists, anarcho-socialists, protectionists, isolationists, nationalists, wackos and weirdos and dingbats and dodos... everything except for intellectually consistent defenders of individual rights.

Precisely because Objectivism is one of the few ideologies rational enough that there's no one at the door checking for emotional investment. All you need to be accepted by its proponents is Reason. Not devotion, not being a disciple, not emotional attachment. I can just live my life, and pop in once in a while, see if there's something interesting being discussed. Starting to feel like I'm out of luck today...but maybe not, I still haven't checked Gus van Horn's blog feed.

Everyone gets to decide it, obviously. And we have: everyone who favors closed Objectivism already decided. I don't. Never met her, she was never even alive while I was alive. She's just a historical figure to me. If you wanted to speak for other dead philosophers, I would've told you the same exact thing: don't. Speak for yourself. That goes for what you said about me, too. I'm not Ayn Rand's disciple, I'm an independent thinker. I have drawn a very clear line of separation between my ideas and Objectivism. I suggest you do the same, because you can't be a confident, self respecting thinker and a disciple at the same time.

That is in no way, shape or form true. Ayn Rand is not Jesus Christ the Savior, she was just a person, like the rest of us. Also, she's been dead for 37 years now. Stone cold dead. Not resurrected, not sitting on the right hand side of God, but buried in some dirt, and well on her way to decomposing. There's no Objectivist, in any faction, who would think that we all got done coming up with useful philosophy 37 years ago. Ayn Rand herself wouldn't have thought that humanity is all done coming up with useful philosophy, after she died. That's not what closed Objectivism means. Closed Objectivism simply tries to preserve her work for posterity, uncorrupted by people who claim to speak for her. She deserves that much. If you wish to come up with new philosophy, go right ahead. I'll read it if it's interesting. And if you think your philosophy has been influenced by Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), go ahead and cite her as an influence. But that's all the level of familiarity you're allowed, as far as "closed Objectivists" like myself are concerned. You're not allowed to claim any kind of deeper connection than that, because, guess what: you don't have it. Objectivism is HER philosophy, and hers alone. Anyone who contributed only did so with HER direct approval. Anyone else, who claims to be adding to HER philosophy without her approval, is an interloper. The book on Objectivism closed when Ayn Rand died. The book on rational philosophy is wide open, you just have to earn your paragraph, page or chapter in it on your own, as a philosopher, without claiming any kind of magical connection to Ayn Rand.

Does it? You've been debating away for a week or so now, and you're yet to learn a single thing. How could you? You refuse to pay attention to what anyone says, you're too wrapped up in your "debate".

My mistake. I didn't realize we were having a debate. I'm not looking for a debate. I thought you were here to learn about Objectivism, and trying to clear up a perceived inconsistency. I would never participate in a debate against an anti-Objectivist. It's a silly exercise, and a total waste of time. By the way, please go back and re-read your very first paragraph in this thread...because, if your true purpose here is to debate Objectivists, that paragraph is a total lie.

My definition was in English. You asked a question, I answered. Now your role isn't to "translate" my answer, it's to understand it. Feel free to ask for clarifications, if what I wrote isn't clear enough. Since you raised the issue of the parent-child relationship, I'm gonna assume you are interested in what I think about it. I think it's a unique relationship, substantively different from other family bonds. The difference is that there's a biological (metaphysical) bond that doesn't exist in adult relationships. But there still isn't any duty involved. It's still a commitment based relationship: the parents CHOOSE to commit to raising a child. There's no duty to make that commitment, it's fine to not have children. I ignored the parent-child relationship for two reasons: 1. because Objectivists raise their children to adulthood, same as everybody else 2. because the parent-child bond in homo sapiens isn't a matter of tradition, it's first and foremost a matter of biology: human children, like most mammal offspring, are helpless without nurture from their parents, and parents are emotionally bound to their children. So you don't need tradition or "duty" to justify raising your children. It is beyond obvious that the only two rationally selfish courses of action are to either have children and care for them into adulthood, or to not have them at all.

The real twist would be if Banksy managed to draw something that's above the skill level of an eight year old...or, even better, said something more sophisticated than an eight year old.

While it is true that Objectivism is a rational belief system, and therefor doesn't assign any magical qualities to "blood", that doesn't mean Objectivists (and secular people in general, this isn't really an Objectivist position) don't differentiate between friendship and family. Secular people do form bonds that they expect to last for a lifetime...which is what the essence of "family" is, and what differentiates it from a mere friendship. That is how families start: two non blood relatives become friends and lovers, and then, eventually, their friendship and love deepens into a bond they commit to for a lifetime. Even heterosexual, same sex friends, once their relationship reaches a stage where they expect to have that bond for the rest of their lives, start referring to their relationship as family, the kids start calling them uncle/aunt XYZ, etc., etc. And legitimately so, because that is the essence of family: the expectation of a lifetime commitment. Only difference between the rigid, religiously prescribed (that's what conservatives mean by "traditional") view of family and the secular view is that secular people don't look at blood, and other arbitrary rules to define the concept...they look at the nature of the relationship as the essential attribute. P.S. By "lifetime commitment" I simply mean that one commits not to break that bond without sufficient justification. A deep enough betrayal of shared values IS justification to sever a family bond. One cannot commit to stand by someone fundamentally different than the person they used to know. But they do commit to not break that bond just because a nice job opened up in Tokyo. I would argue that a family defined this way is far more likely to provide comfort and fulfillment, than one where people stay together out of a sense of duty. What would be more illuminating is why you agree. Because this position doesn't follow from your premise that there are traditionally defined duties one must fulfill, to have a family. This is what the traditional definition prescribes, in most cultures through history. So what exactly is the problem with a girl fulfilling her duty, as prescribed by the traditions that define her family, irrespective of her rights or self interest? And sure, after the Enlightenment, the "right to the pursuit of happiness" became a thing, so young people who weren't born into extremely religious families started being able to date around and choose their own spouses. But that's a very recent development, and a very radical break from a long established tradition of imposed marriages. The majority of conservatives may think that it is congruent with their religion, but is it really? Would the main character in their favorite book really be okay with it? So why allow it? Why not go with the tried and tested tradition of arranged marriages?

Objectivism only rejects the "traditional" definition of family values to the extent that they impose rights violating and/or self interest violating obligations on individuals. A good example of a family value Oism rejects, and the most common family value in human history, in my evaluation at least, is the moral obligation of a girl to wed according to her father's wishes, and then serve and obey her husband faithfully for the rest of her life. Objectivism rejects this value both in cases when the girl is physically forced into such a marriage, as well as when she is merely psychologically pressured into it. Do you agree or disagree with that position, and why or why not? As for the family values Objectivism doesn't reject, that would be ALL the mutually beneficial bonds within a family that there are. Every last one of them. You name 'em, Objectivism likes 'em. Only time Objectivism has an issue with "family values" is when something like what I described in the first example happens: someone is sacrificed to further the interests of the dominant member of the family.

I don't have a complete answer, but I think preference for a genre should just be taken out of this equation completely. The genre is a non-essential, sometimes even arbitrary, attribute of any given piece of music, and picking favorites just means you're closing yourself off to music you might like, that happens to be classified in a genre you don't favor. Also, most modern "music" (including progressive rock, if by that you mean bands like Pink Floyd or Jethro Tull, possibly even Zeppelin) is a combination of music, poetry, visual art and performance art...not necessarily in that order. The poetry or the performance aspect of the art can sometimes be more important than the music itself. Some of the greatest musicians of the 20th century describe themselves as poets first. Which might mean having to limit your analysis to instrumental pieces and songs in languages you don't understand, to take the lyrics out of the equation. And of course, most people barely listen to that kind of music, they actually value the poetry and the performance art the most, when they claim to be "music fans". I'm one of those people, 95+ percent of my playlist is songs, not instrumental pieces.

It's a mixed bag. Might actually be a net improvement over NAFTA.

Can't address the contents, because I stopped reading. That's a personal policy of mine: as soon as someone starts re-stating what I said, I'm out...because people who honestly attempt to understand you would never do that. And you can't have a meaningful conversation without understanding the other person.

A competition implies that the side with the lesser performance loses. The US Postal Service is not a competitor for private companies, it is an obstacle. The goal of private companies isn't to beat it in competition, it's to treat it like any other obstacle that can't be removed: work around it. Just like you would go around a mountain that's in your way.

And that's better? My post is right there. Why would I need help finding out what's in it?

Just so you know: the worst word you could possibly start your first thread with, on an Objectivist forum, is "need". You'd be better off going with "f#4k Ayn Rand". So change your pitch. Explain why this is a win-win proposal, instead of why you need things.

Stopped reading, sorry. As fascinating as it would be to find out what I believe from a stranger who seems to be upset with me for some reason, I have a very important youtube video to watch. It has guinea pigs in it.

In my experience (as an observer...I'm a man), a woman living up to the expectations of even just her middle class social circle, using cosmetics, beauty products, bathing products, various services she pays for, and clothing and jewelry she has to pick out and pay for, takes massive amounts of resources and know how, that is developed through painstaking practice (and learning from the time she is a young girl, from other women). And, on top of that, routine work...an average of 20-25 hours/month, easy, once you add it all up. And once it's upper class expectations, we're talking at least a couple of people drawing a salary from maintaining one rich woman's appearance. Meanwhile, I groom and dress to standards I'm expected to groom and dress to, and it takes maybe 5 hours/month. And it's basic stuff you can learn from a youtube video, like how to dye your hair (I'm prematurely graying), cut your beard, or shave your privates without slicing anything you (might) need off. So yes, it's a waste of resources that could be turned towards a far more useful hobby. While girls learn how to dress and make up, which is not a particularly useful skill in the workplace, boys practice leadership and team work through sports, learn musical instruments, work on buying and maintaining their first car, learn how to use and program computers, etc., etc., and, in my mind, this at least partially explains the pay gap between the genders.