Peter Morris

It's definitely not innate. It's a complex psychological issue. It's a habit. I don't understand it myself. If you figure it out, let me know. I have procrastination down to an art form.

Something about what you are doing strikes me as very wrong and makes me feel weird. I don't know why. It just strikes me as self destructive and odd. It strikes me as though you are going the opposite way. Some people only care about looks, you seem to only care about personality. If you are sexually attracted in looks, since you say they are attractive physically, why not date and have sex with them and see if things are OK? Why do you have to have a long term relationship with every girl you date and have sex with? You are a man. You are not a robot. Ayn didn't intend for us to cast off our humanity. A woman is an integrated being of mind and body. A man is an integrated being of mind and body. You seem to be completely denying your body, and denying the fact that you are attracted to these girls physically. So long as there are no false pretense and no false declarations of love, it's not dishonest. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. I've always had some issues with Objectivist love making rules.

I'm not sure what it is you are asking. How did he violate the spirit of the law? What is the spirit of the law? She should probably have defined her terms better. She should have asked him if he loves her and wants to be with her long term. If he said yes, and intended to leave after having sex with her, he was lying, and seeking to gain a value by faking reality which is wrong in Objectivist morality. If he said yes, and he meant it, then something must have happened to change his mind the very next day.

Yes. Most people do backwards rationalize their moral intuitions to justify them to themselves. That does not mean that that is the only way to do it. That does not mean that that is what morality really is. That does not mean that there are no moral facts.

I second this. To anyone reading this, before you ask a lot of questions of others, go to the source material and read it thoroughly first. You waste your own time by not doing so. You also waste other people's time. You cannot possibly hope to gain any real understanding of Rand's work from snippets or critiques. Rand's philosophy is accessible to all, but it is extremely deep and interconnected. If you fail to grasp her basic ideas, you will run into problems like the OP has. Not to mention, most men are rationalists. I was, or rather am recovering. I know it, and I still struggle with it.

The essential characteristics It's a table. And it's also flammable and buoyant. Those characteristics are not essentials though. It's possible for there to be a table made of steel, not flammable, or a table that sinks, made of iron. Wooden table is not a concept in itself. You cannot integrate non-essentials into a new concept. There is no concept for '24 year old blondes with blue eyes'. There is no valid concept for 'wooden table', nor 'steel table', nor 'tall tables with polka dots made of chicken wire'. That is the arbitrary. That is the antithesis of cognition.

I would have considered context to be more like viewing the thing while also considering all the other relevant things around it. I don't consider perspective to play an essential role in defining the meaning of context.

It kind of annoyed me. He kept saying it. 'You're just victim blaming.' It's a little infuriating because a) I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I'm just saying the are not entitled to other people's money, and b.) they are not 'victims' of anything, unless you consider being born to objective facts of nature being a victim. But in my view, you can't be a victim of nature, only of a person. You are not entitled to take rich people's money therefore you are at blame for being a victim of your poor circumstances! - WHAT.

My friend who studies philosophy at university claims firstly that I'm victim blaming when I say they are not entitled to any rich people's money because poor people and the needy are not at fault for being in that situation. Rich and well off people by and large were born into good families or with better brains, etc. I have absolutely not retort though. I have no idea what premises lead to the following: if you don't tax the rich to give to the poor you are blaming the victims! What is that? Can anyone elucidate where that even comes from? It has me flummoxed. Secondly, I'm being accused of being an absolutist. I just accepted it. I don't know if that's a bad thing or not. I'm indifferent to that label. Maybe I am. Why would that be obviously a bad thing? He says I don't live in the real world with the grey nuances of the actual situation. I guess he's a pragmatist. I vaguely remember Peikoff talking about pragmatism being essentially acting on percepts rather than concepts. Though I don't fully grasp the significance If any one could help give me some ideas to understand what this means, I'd be very grateful. I have not spent much time at all talking to opponents because I generally find it completely revolting. I have almost no interest at all in polemics.

Late to the party? Re-read previous pages? I really don't know what you mean by this. What would reading through the discussion achieve? Has everyone decreed one position correct or incorrect? Should I bow down to the consensus? I find this message to me to be quite strange.

You don't need an argument against the existence of God. You need proof.

I don't think morality applies to intelligent machines at all. Besides, it won't have any volition other than what is given to it.

I'm yet to hear a good argument for marriage. If you love someone, you stay with them. No contract required.

Oh yes, science is allowed to make logical fallacies and contradict basic philosophical facts of reality since it doesn't need to conform to anything as unreal and frivilous as philosophy because science is all about evidence not thinking.

No. Even if a particle disappears from our ability to detect it, that is not existentially going out of existence. Current physics is corrupted by bad philosophy. There's a lot on this kind of thing within the Objectivist community. David Harriman's lectures and book are fantastic if you are interested. The key point is that observation requires rational interpretation. Evidence is crucial but without the mind it is just sense data. It is the mind that intergrates and understands what it means.

Futhermore consider what you are saying. It is utter contradiction. You suggest that the entity's future is then random, but you just said that it has 'jumped out of existence'. So which is it? It exists or it doesn't. An entity that doesn't exist cannot have a future, it doesn't exist! It has no identity. It isn't there.

Entities cannot existentially 'jump out of existence'. That is supernatural nonsense.

frank harley, on 29 May 2014 - 2:35 PM, said: That is an incorrect interpretation of existence. frank harley, on 27 May 2014 - 2:40 PM, said: No. Most emphatically, no. It does not. Unfortunately, you are completely mislead. Firstly on the level of physics, there are many more particles than electrons, neutrons and protons. In addition, particle physics has no implications what so ever on philosophy! Even if we discover something physical that isn't even made of fundamental particles, it would not imply anything about existence. Existence is a philosophical concept available to all men at all times. No particle or plasma physics knowledge required. But anyway, plasma is electrons, protons and neutrons. Merely completely delocalized. And it most certainly does have properties! Plasma is like the fourth phase of matter, only instead of atoms being further delocalized, the actual parts of the atoms are. Besides, even under your definition of 'material properties' plasma has 'material properties'. Also, plasma has been known about for a very long time. Electric universe is a different thing, and I think it's better than the current theory. frank harley, on 27 May 2014 - 2:40 PM, said: No, no, no, no, no. This is pure rationalism, but I also think you are honestly mislead. Look at the above statement. Plasma is a state of matter. A state of matter that doesn't exist. Matter that doesn't exist. Does that make any sense? No. The state makes no difference. You're saying because the electrons, neutrons and protons aren't in the configuration of an atom they don't exist! That is utterly absurd! I guess electromagnetic waves don't exist either? And what about the neutrons used to split an atom in an atomic bomb? Nope, non-existent. Now if you're saying that atoms don't exist in plasma, that is utterly true! But atoms and existence are completely different matters. Rationalism is taking words and rearranging them without any regard for actual objective reality and the contextual meaning behind the words. Objectivists are very prone to this. I know because this is something only within the past few months realized I was guilty of! Peikoff is a great help with over coming this. I still catch myself doing it. Calling plasma a state of matter in physics is not strictly correct. That's what they mean. Context is so important. Phases pertain to the way atoms are arranged. But something ceasing to exist because it is 'too hot'. That makes no sense. Hotness is the amount of energy! Temperature is the average kinetic energy of the atoms! So once they are moving fast enough, they come apart, and cease to be atoms, therefore the entire thing goes *poof* out of existence? No It's like saying, the statue was there, but now it has been destroyed; it is ruble. The statue doesn't exist, therefore what made it up doesn't exist. Configuration versus actual physical existents.

I have an overt negative emotional reaction to the idea of prostitution. So maybe somewhere deep in my psyche I can see something wrong with it. I would kind of like for it to be wrong. So my explicit ideas are in conflict with my emotional reaction. I would not defend prostitution very hard. I just thought it stood to reason you could take his argument for masturbation and extend it all the way to sex. You make a good point that you are ignoring the other person's mind, but I'm not sure why that matters. I'm much more favourable to the idea of a rational man sleeping around until he finds someone worth keeping. I can't see how Objectivism got sexual attraction involved in your assessment of a person's values. It's mainly a biological reflex if anything. Akin to hunger or thirst. I think.

I have no idea why you would ask this question. Can you give any context? There is nothing in Objectivism that would lead you to think Objectivists would "live for the state". The reason Objectivists don't is because they are Objectivists. Living for the state is antithetical to living for one's own happiness. Objectivism holds that man is an end in himself. Therefore, he cannot live for anything other than himself. Anyway, if you live for the state, then what does the state live for? The state is then an end in itself? Why?

I suspect Rand's view of sex to be rationalism and a rationalization of how she felt. As a woman, love and sex are intertwined, and so she rationalized philosophically why this must be so. Sex can be used to express love. Sex can be used as a celebration of your own values. But sex is a physical capability. It is an evolved function of the human body. It's proper usage is not philosophically derivable. I rarely see holes in Leonard Peikoff's logic, but his view of masturbation could be used to justify using prostitutes. Peikoff states that masturbation allows you to experience sex and a sense of self sufficiency in this area while you look for or while you cannot find a lover. He states that it is not irrational to fantasize about sex while doing this, or to fantasize about women in movies, etc, while you are actively searching. He states that masturbatory fantasies are not evasion. So how then is using a prostitute evasion? He states that you can experience sex via masturbation so using a prostitute is unnecessary so you must be seeking more from it. Well, I'm sorry, Dr. Peikoff, but A is A. This is rationalism (you taught me that, Dr. Peikoff). You are not considering the reality of the situation here. The experience of sexual intercourse with a woman is world's apart from masturbation. The feelings are different, the pleasure is different, the entire experience is wholly different. To conflate the two as equally experience sex is to ignore the facts. So why then couldn't someone hire a woman to have sex with to increase the enjoyment of your masturbatory fantasy involving a woman you are deeply in love with? You know she is not really the person you are after, and you know when you are imagining it while masturbating that your hand is not. Having stated all that, the whole idea grosses me out for some reason, and I think I'd feel quite horrible about myself if I did it. I think because rather than paying I could find a girl who wanted to. So if prostitution would be OK. Having sex with a girl who actually does like you for the pleasure of it is even closer to your ideal fantasy. Even if she is not the ideal woman with whom you share deep values. So going out and having a one night stand does not seem particularly immoral to me. I just don't think that should become your whole goal in it. You are more likely to find your dream woman in the act of flirting with and approaching new girls, having sex with those you like, and getting to know the one's you share deeper values with, than by sitting around wishing you'd bump into your one true soul mate. ---- The next topic is on Objectivist politics. I agree that the proper political system proper to man is the one that upholds man's rights. However, I disagree that philosophy is capable of coming up with that system. I believe that is a more technical issue requiring a deeper inquiry involving the logic of human action. It requires economics and political science. I was into Austrian economics before I was into Objectivism, and based on the logic of human action, various arguments by Hans Hermann Hoppe and my own thoughts on Objectivism, I think the only true capitalism and the only system compatible with a rational egoist ethics is one where each individual is his own sovereign state. I think that the defense of one's rights is not only only proper on but only possible on the individual level. A government gives a group of men absolute authority and sanctioned concentrated force over all men in a given area. In this sense, a government that protects individual rights is a contradiction. A limited dictatorship is a contradiction, and why it ultimately falls apart. A limited government is a contradiction. Only individuals can uphold their own rights. Defence must be private, it cannot be otherwise. Individual rights must be defended by the individual. In other words, the only moral autonomous sovereign state is the individual. If the individual needs protection against a group of individuals, then giving absolute power to a group of individuals (the government) is not the answer. Force is not only immoral but impractical. Force is quite costly on the individual, even the irrational one. However, men can more easily afford to use force when the costs are externalized on every individual in society. This is what government allows individuals to do. In addition, government force is shielded and difficult to identify for most people. However, when force is out in the open, and all rights are protected on the individual level, any force would be seen plainly exactly for what it is. If force is to become common place in a system of individual rights protection, it would be obvious to everyone, and could only continue so long as the vast majority think this is OK. Such a society OK with overt force in dealing with others would be doomed even more so under a government. One cannot escape the degeneracy of society by having a government because the government is filled by people from society voted by people in society. I'm aware of the utilitarian arguments against this. I simply disagree that they would happen. I don't call myself an anarchist. It's so vulgar. I'm completely for governance and law and order. I'm for an emergent governance. I completely forgive Ayn Rand for this error. She was still a genius. I still agree with Objectivist politics in essence, that the proper form of social order is that which upholds man's rights. But only the individual can properly enforce his rights. Here is the main essay that convinced me finally of the impracticability of collectivist defense: http://www.mises.ch/library/Hoppe_PrivateProductionOfDefense.pdf Here is a video on the same topic by the author:

Taxation violates man's rights. It's both immoral and impractical. But that was not my question. I was wondering how people cope with it. If taxation was 10% flat, it would be immoral but not a large problem on my life, but taxation is increased with increased earnings and tops out at 45% (in Australia). It is demotivating to see 45% of it taken away. I guess I'll just enjoy what I keep, and enjoy producing. It infuriates me though. I do not take kindly to being considered a slave to society. I do not accept life by sanction of society! I am an end in myself. Rights are the moral sanction to action. The rights man has by virtue of being born a man. Survival of man is necessitated by these rights. Any violation hurts both the man, and the evil doers, and those who supposedly benefit from it (welfare recipients, public services) by trying to live by force and not by mind. One harms the motor by which one hopes to live. If you live by the sanction of society you are not a free autonomous human being, you are a slave. If a slave is allowed to go out, find his own employment, spend his free time as he wants, earn money and keep some of his money by sanction of the slave master, he is still a slave. It’s just a much more efficient way of extracting slave labour. There’s a lot less resentment and resistance from a slave when he is not aware he is a slave. There's a lot less productivity when he doesn't like doing his work. Taxation is advanced slave keeping. It is even more an insult to me that the more productive you are the less worthy you are of keeping each additional dollar you earn. All because that dollar is claimed by virtue of another persons inability to produce it, because that dollar would be worth so much to someone with very few dollars, so could for instance go to feed such an unproductive person. But you already earn enough to eat and be comfortable. What you would want to do with the dollar is of much less 'utility' to society as a whole.

I consider my philosophy my own. It has been heavily inspired by Objectivism. It is in essence Objectivist. For someone to adopt Ayn Rand's entire philosophy wholesale and forever unchanging would be to claim she knew everything ever to be known in philosophy on all topics in all contexts throughout time and space. This would be ridiculous. But to say I reject her entire philosophy because I differ on some minor points or because I wish to adopt ideas that expand on her philosophy (new knowledge) is also ridiculous. Peikoff's own theory of induction is also therefore, according to him, not Objectivism. I really don't care to argue about names. Let's find a word for "rational philosophy based on existence, reason, self interest". Kelley is correct in his goal to expand on and improve Objectivist ideas. Maybe he is wrong to want to call all such expansions or revisions 'Objectivism'. This is truly a linguistic war, and I find it entirely uninteresting. I'm interested in facts. I'm interested in the truth.

I read this when I was 15 or 16 and is one of the best books I've ever read.

I'm looking to learn more about what makes people successful especially in the context of successful businesses. There must be some patterns and principles that can be applied. Suggestions can be names of successful people or their biographies, but also books on what makes people and businesses successful. As an example, I would love to get my hands on "The Prime Movers: Traits of the Great Wealth Creators" by Edwin A. Locke.