drewfactor

Nice website Scott, very cute. You guys seem very happy! Do you find that your views on marriage and relationships differ from your peers and family? Some people are shocked when they hear me discuss how love is rational, it seems to fly in the face of the dominant conception of love as an unknowable feeling.

Well, the time has come, I've made the committment, I'm getting hitched next summer. My girlfriend and I have been together for several and have decided to embrace the time-tested institution of marriage. I firmly believe in the value of marriage, I think it's one of the most (rationally)selfish things one can do. Of course it involves long range thinking, a true understanding of your values, and a full understanding of what you are "getting yourself into." Contrary to the beliefs of many of my colleagues, peers, and family members, I do not embrace the view that marriage entails "selflessness" and "sacrifice" but instead requires selfishness to the utmost degree. The decision to share a life with someone does not require that you abrogate your ego, but reinforce it with a partner who reflects your values and provides you with a source of admiration. I am so absolutely certain that my marriage will be successful that I wish others could feel the same way. I am utterly convinced that success in relationships comes from a rational foundation and the complete rejection that a long-term committed relationship is founded on altruist ethics. For example, one might say to me, "being married means you can't go to the clubs as much, party it up, and pick up chicks; aren't you sacrificing for your marriage?" I don't have you explain to the members of this forum why that is not the true meaning of sacrifice. Are there any other members that are married or planning on getting married? I'm interested in a general discussion about marriage from an Objectivist perspective.

Hi there, I'm from Hamilton Ontario. I studied at McMaster and am currently working here. Great to see others from S. Ontario.

I found this interview recently too. I agree with the above comments. I am unable to understand how people who have supposedly read Ayn Rand and used to consider themselves influenced by her, utterly fail to understand one iota of what she actually said. I'm utterly baffled and frustrated.

I just wanted to add something I just found out from listening to John Ridpath in an interview. Apparently, when the Candian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was drafted, "property rights" was ommitted from the document. Basically, our charter says: "Everyone has a right to life, liberty, a decent job, 3 square meals a day, and a hip replacement." Hmmmm..No wonder the concept of property rights is so alien to eveyone up here.

I'm a Canadian who works up here as a nurse in our "universal health care system." I've been watching this unfold from up close, so perhaps I can fill in on this issue. It's an interesting situation, and I think many Objectivists would find this a great case of justice being served. Namely, the whole thing got started when a doctor and a patient went to court over their individual rights to make a contract and exchange a fee for service with regard to some type of orthopedic surgery. As in the United States, individual rights are protected by the Constitution, ours are supposedly protected by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, we have another document called the Canada Health Act which is essentially a guaruntee of the "collective rights" to universal health care. What this means is that private health care is in a large part banned. In other words, it is illegal for doctors and patients to privately exchange fee for service in a free market fashion for many services. Anyway, justice has been served because the ruling for the case was in favor of the individual rights of the doctor and patient to make a contract and exchange fee for service. This is espcially just when you consider the amount of time these people spent rotting on waiting lists. The reality is that this has delivered a shattering blow to our monolithic socialist relic which is our "Universal (lack of) access Health care." Believe me, many of our leftists up here are finally conceding that maybe our system just doesn't work. Just how absurd is this: Our politicians are proposing to save socialized health care by sending people on waiting lists to *gasp* the United States, where they will receive private care, at TAXPAYER EXPENSE! I can't bear the absurdity.

Good point Don. I agree that this is a smear, exactly the way you described. I find it interesting when reading/listening to discussions, arguments and debates how people seem unable to understand the concepts "indivudual" vs. "collective." This idea that the collective (ie. society, community, family, union, group, nation etc.. ) is somehow a uniqe organic entity OTHER than a sum of individuals seems to be the common notion. Otherwise, why use smear terms like "cult" when referring to someone who advocates individual rights?

It's been several times over the last month or so that I've heard someone in the media use the phrase: "the cult of the individual" as an attack on an opponent in a debate. The context or the content of the debate usually involves someone of the leftist pursuasion defending some sort of collectivist measure or a Conservative attacking gay marriage. Anyway, I don't understand this phrase at all, and I find it a bit insulting. First off, is it not a contradiction to refer to the advocacy of individualism as cultism? Cult, by defintion implies a group or "collective" in which blind obedience and dogma reign supreme. I think this phrase is an explicit revelation of the true premises of which the person who says it is operating from. It's basically like saying, "I oppose the concept of individualism, the collective (be it society, or the public good) takes all precedence over the individual. " Has anyone else heard this phrase or have any thoughts?

Upon my (fairly recent) discovery of Objectivism, I began reading voraciously all the books I could. Since then, and prior to discovering Objectivism for myself, I have never found a system of thought that made so much sense. On an emotional level, as a consequence of understanding the principles and applying them to my life, I would say that I do feel happier. However, I think that I have a long way to go towards full integration of Objectivism and setting myself on the pathway of being the fully integrated man that is my goal. As an aside, I think that discovering this philosophy younger in life would make it easier since you have less to "undo" - meaning less bad ideas that you hold subconsciously that need to be "weeded out" of your mind. By practicing introspection, I'm certainly on the right path. Setting goals is important as is continuing to read as a way of providing emotional and intellectual fuel. I just want to add that reading Objectivist based psychology ie. Dr. Hurd or Dr. Kenner is very helpful. Sometimes just the Philosophy on its own is hard to use for the transition and integration of the ideas into your life. As others have stated: Objectivism doesn't make you happy, using Objectivism to guide your life gives you the tools to make yourself happy.

I think that Peter Keating is an easy one to spot. The second-handedness of a character like Peter Keating is so pervasive in our society. I think about all the "popular people" in high school and I see plenty of Peter Keating in them. I think of all the twits who run all the campus clubs in University and run for student politics as well (that is a broad generalization of course). I hate to say, but some people I even grew up with as "close friends" turned out to be quite Keatingesque.

Interesting thread. I have personally pondered many of the questions you metal fans have made in relation to a personal taste I have, which happens to be Electronic Dance Music. This is the music most of you would associate with raves; yes this is the "sound of the jungle played in stinking" basements. This however does not mean that I endorse drug induced mind stunting activities, I simply enjoy the beats and a well constructed house or trance track which actually requires some creativity to produce. I enjoy the happy, uplifted, sense of life that is possible to find among people who are also in the scene, despite their often destructive and contradictory premises. I try to offer my own views and philosophy as an alternative (ie. objective reality as opposed to drug induced escapism and achievement as the true pathway to happiness).

Alright, I'm being facetious. However, the first time that Dominique Francon and Roark get it on is a pretty aggressive sex scene, you have to admit. Luckily, I have Atlas Shrugged right here and I happen to have flipped right to a passage that might highlight what I am saying: "He twisted her arms behind her, holding her helpless, her breasts pressed against him; she felt pain ripping through her shoulders, she heard the anger in his words and the huskiness of pleasure in his voice: "who was he?" She did not answer, she looked at him, her eyes dark and oddly brilliant, and he saw the the shape of her mouth, distorted by pain, was the shape of a mocking smile. He felt it change to a shape of surrender, under the touch of his lips. He held her body as if the violence and the despair of the way he took her could wipe his unkown rival out of existence, out of her past, and more: as if it could transform any part of her, even the rival, into an instrument of his pleasure. He knew, by the eagerness of her movement as her arms seized him, that this was the way she wanted to be taken." I realize my comment was made out of context, but I just wonder if Ayn Rand just liked rough sex. Nothing wrong with that. Just editing to add that that's from page 252.

Hmmm..You'll have to clarify your application of the stolen concept fallacy. From what I understand, the stolen concept fallacy is when someone tries to deny the existence of an axiomatic concept, but can't escape the use of the concept in their refutation. For example, stating "man cannot be certain of anything" - well, how can you be certain that man cannot be certain if cetainty is impossible? Sorry if I'm going off topic. Again, I think you are creating a package deal by lumping together benevolence and altruism by the same conceptual common denominator. For a better discussion explaining why I am right, I refer you to this link: http://www.prodos.com/archive018benevolence.html Hear Prodos, Dr. Bernsein (from ARI) and Dr. Hurd (Brilliant Objectivist psychologist) discuss why benevolence is not altruism, and why helping others is compatible with rational egoism.

If one can guarantee that that teenager might use the money for his studies ONLY?? what if he falls for some addiction...........or for that matter if the movie is smash hit, that ticket which I was to buy could have very easily be bought by some other person........ and if the movie is a dud then to hell with the operating incharge who foolishly dared to put his money in the project. What if the money raised with the film is used by some mafia specializing in drugs and other unscrupulous activities. What if the homeless man actually buys the meal from some food-cart owner who then uses the same money for his pupil studies...........oh... one can always put in their own stories to prove the point......lets keep the example as simple as put by One Prime Mover: who wants to use his trivial money to buy a day meal for homeless. My answer:if thats the case its not sacrifice of value..............but is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE". just make sure that your trivial Sacrificial money "of value" is used to buy a day meal only (or is used for good and not opposite). I hate the term charity and never compare it with "sacrifice OF VALUE". But if its always possible for us to make sure that ones hard earned money is been used for good??? Altruism is sacrifice of value but what is "Sacrifice" "OF VALUE"?? I guess this falls within the Objectivist regime. You are right, I see the flaw in using stories (anecdotes) to prove a point. I'm not sure I'm clear on your last point there, it's a bit hard to decipher your point in the way you structured your typing or articulated your comments.

If someone gains an emotional benefit, a feeling that they "helped someone in need" then yes, I can see that charity (in that case) is different from altruism. Objectivist ethics does not forbid charity or any form of giving. The type of charity that One Prime Mover is describing (providing it is voluntary, not coerced as in gov't taxation), is not altruism. Aside from the feeling of "doing good for others" (a selfish gain), One Prime Mover is correct that we can gain selfishly from the bemefits society earns from our charity, however this is not altruism BECAUSE we are gaining selfishly.

I think you've created a picture of altruism based on the typical "package deal" that is often promulgated by altruists. That package deal consists of interchanging the idea of benevolence (charity) and altruism. These are two different concepts and are not interchangable terms. Secondly, I notice several assumptions which seem to be made as if they were statements of fact, which in reality do not show to be true. One of them is the assumption that the person making the sacrifice is giving up a "trivial value" (ie. renting a movie or giving up a negligible amount of tax money) and the person gaining the value is necessarily gaining a higher value. To illustrate the flaw in this thinking, think about that five dollars that you decide to spend on a movie and a snack, instead of giving it to the homeless person. The teenager working at the counter of the video store whom is saving his pennies to pay for college, the store owner who took the financial risk of operating a business, the vast industry surrounding entertainment employing millions of people etc...are all members of society too. The distinction here is that they are productive members of society, and your exchange of value for value by paying for that movie is immeasurably greater for everyone. Compare that to giving the money to a bum, who may pay for his next meal, but will more likely buy a substance for his addiction. Instead of promoting productivity, you promote the gaining of unearned value, while you ultimately gain nothing. Do you really stand to gain from a society that supports moochers, parasites, and bums?

I would agree that there's something about the sex scenes that depict a sense of sadomasochism. Some girls like it rough I suppose.

It's not that humans don't "need" social interaction, it is that individuals are not the means to the ends of others - in other words, to the undefinable and vague concept that is society. The individual is the primary, the free interaction and trading among individuals that constitutes society is the consequence. Key term here is freedom, namely individual freedom.

What is a Thomist? Is it someone who adheres to the ideas of Thomas Aquinas?

Faith being the belief in something by a means other than reason, or belief that contradicts a conclusion obtained by reason, indicates an irrreconcilable split. Take the biblical claim that man was created 6000 years ago. Reason, by observation and scientific analysis disputes this claim, so you have to choose one or the other: faith or reason, as your means of knowledge. If you still maintain that God created man (as the bible claims) and you claim that faith and reason can coexist, you start to rationalize the evidence with the faith-based claim. Hence, many people will still believe that God created man, but the bible must not be taken literally, so evolution can then be called a means of creation. Unfortunately, as more and more evidence piles up to contradict your faith-based claim, it becomes more and more arbitrary, and therefore less connected to reality. In today's world of skepticism, people just say, "you never can really know anything for sure" and then just continue to have faith because of tradition, because they feel it's true, or because they want it to be true etc...

I wanted to further address the issue of "existence having primacy over consciousness." For example, my girlfriend and a colleague entered a debate in which the other party stated (in summary) as follows: "X exists according to me because my consciousness tells me that it is there, however I can not prove that it actually exists beyond the fact that I can touch and see it." This sounds like an example of someone claiming that their consciousness creates reality. Of course, this is bunk if you consider existence and consciousness as irreducible primaries ie. existence exists and my consciousness perceives existence. Perhaps there are other threads about this, but I was wondering how to validate the claim that something exists independant of my consciousness.

Interesting, thanks for the responses. David: I was wondering if the acceptance of a logic that accepts contradictions would essentially be a form of mysticism? I mean, in order to accept that God manifested in the flesh as a human being who was fully God and fully man or that Jesus turned water into wine is sort of like accepting that A sometimes equals non-A. Also, what constitutes different types of logic if logic is the art of noncontradictory identification? My reasoning is that in order to identify, you must identify something, and therefore that something must exist in reality either in the form of concretes and/or abstractions. Given the Objectivist idea that abstractions are connected to reality, I can see how it may differ from, let's say, a Kantian perspective that might say what exists in the nuomenal realm may contradict what exists in the phenomenal realm.

I recently visited my local university Art Museum which is currently displaying two features from a couple so-called artists. The art peices were called...get this: "Sorry" and "The Failure of Intelligence." The former was a collection of blown up pictures of people speaking on TV regarding the trend of "public apologies" ie. those of politicians or pop stars. For example, there was Janet Jackson apologising after her "wardrobe malfunction" and Rumsfeld apologizing for the Abu Ghraib scandal. The latter was just some huge letters painted on a wall that spelled "redefine." I asked the girl at the museum to explain what these art pieces meant. Some of the messages were anti-capitism, media manipulation etc... She said, "and they're very Canadian because they display a sense of anti-Amercanism." I asked her why we define ourselves as Canadian by referring to a negative value? What are we, as Canadians for. I also asked what any artists are for, and why all the art is supposed to be anti-something? Blank out.

I have been unable to find a dictionary meaning of the term: polylogism I believe the last place I saw this term was in Objectivist literature, perhaps Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff. Anyway, my understanding of the term is that it means "many logics" or "different types of logics." I derive this from "poly" - meaning many and "logism" - which pertains to logic. The reason I bring this up is based on a meeting I had today with a professor of a student I am precepting at my job. I won't delve into the context, but the discussion came to philosophy in which I said that I disagree with the philosophy of "constructivism" because I don't believe that individuals "create their own reality," instead, they "perceive a single metaphysical reality." I also stated that there's no such thing as " black logic" compared to "Chinese logic" compared to "white logic." The professor disagreed with me and stated that reality and logic can be culturally determined, but our discussion did not go much beyond that. So, how do you defend the position that there is but one logic, ie. man's ability for non-contradictory identification vs. claims that there can be many forms of logic? My first inclination is to distinguish between "cultural context" vs. the concept of "culturally constructed reality.

+1 Male in his early 20s. I agree with much of what was already stated in previous posts, so I won't repeat. Since I've discovered Objectivism, I've been corresponding with my dad via email regarding issues and providing him with links to articles etc... He's nearly 60, and I must say, he has a much harder wrapping his head around stuff than I seem to do. He was raised a devout Catholic and his philosophic discoveries in his life were those of existentialism and other German philosophies of the post-enlightenment. I find that I've discovered Objectivism and approach it with more of a "blank slate" frame of mind, as opposed to him who has become a cynical old fart mired in 40-odd years of bad premisis from bad philosophies.