Uberzilla

Well I briefly checked this out. It reminds me why have a natural aversion to groups. In fact I do not call myself an Objectivist, nor do I care to take on any label. It's all just about getting the right answers. Anyway, I did not read all the posts, or check into your history of posting. If they (your positions) were matter of fact - correct, then there should be no problem and people should not whine about their feelings. I will dissect the following because there is some disconcerting bits: "Let us not get lost in the details of each particular past incident. Let us even assume for the sake of discussion that in the vast majority of these incidents you may have been in the right. Still, it does not appear that you were persuasive," Truth is not a matter of persuation, it is a matter of facts. You can point them (the facts) out, but is up to the other individual to integrate them for their own understanding. "and in fact, in numerous cases the incidents devolved into people being very angry with you. Assuming your intent was to try to be persuasive and not to inflame, at some point the sheer number of such responses should raise a question mark in your mind -- as the question once occurred to you during the matter between you and Ahmad (and yes, again, that particular matter is closed -- the point is your question about the sheer number of these situations in your life)." Again, if in fact you were correct in the debates / arguments, then the real question is why are people so insecure. More important is that this individual is trying to infer that the number of "situations" (people) is an important factor. The numbers in this case is are being used to infer something in an invalid way. I.E. you could be living in a society of cannibals and disagree with everyone about the fact that it (cannibalism) is a violation of individual property rights. Would the fact that you are one against many, change the fact that cannibalism is a violation of individual rights? Obviously not. "on what the difference is between citing 30 years of experience" This is a useless claim. It does not account for efficiency. A mediocre person putting in 30 years is not comparable to an exceptional person. A lot of rhetoric builds up in social situations. If correct answers are the goal, then all insecurities that result in offensive and defensive behavior become a severe liability. What ever the real facts are here (again I did not check into all of it), rationality will prevail ... or not.

Strictly speaking ... No 1) blatantly inferior competition As already partially mentioned in previous posts, there is no context. Say your a 23 year old athletic individual playing tennis with 12 year olds (or some 80 year olds). Not much of a victory. 2) Winning with a sub par effort Winning when you have not pushed yourself to your best, or to a new level is not very rewarding, as has been pointed out. 3) Unsuitable intellectual appraisal Another point: what if your victory is a result of an ignorant group of people who are the ones who decide who should be victorious. One of the clearest examples of this was pointed out by Rand in the R-Manifesto - Art. What if people decide abstract smears of paint are better then studied realism. Should the person who smeared the paint be rejoiced in their victory, or should they be unnerved by the fact that these peoples intellects are inspired by contemplating barely constructed gibberish. 3) What can be gained by losing As pointed out already; if one is bested by a superior effort by an individual, they can learn from that defeat. If they are bested by an inferior effort, or a fraud, then there is nothing to learn. Well except that people who have no ability to assess something can be fooled; or cheating (performance drugs in sports) works, if winning is your only goal.

Addressing the original question: Religion is a product that serves many purposes. It is a popular product, that has been successfully marketed. The reason for that success ... well ...

Maybe it is better to say: recognition of that which is good. You want to have, that which is good (about you), recognized by others. That means only those capable of that recognition, will in fact be able to see those good things. Depending on what you do (or accomplish) will determine who, and how many, will be able to recognize those things. If you are at the other side of the bell curve (the side where intellects exceed the average) your accomplishments will most likely not be recognized by the average person (people - the mean average). You could rightly say a scientist that does something incredible will most certainly not be as popular as a sports athlete. It is easier to understand what a football player does than a genetic researcher. People can guzzle beer in front of the boob tube, and have what they call, a good ol' time. You can't get drunk with yahooing buddies, and read some genetic research. It requires a some proactive focus. To go with the Objectivist examples: "Peter Keating" wanted popularity, or unqualified attention, not real admiration. Back to your original question. Recognition proceeds potential admiration. It takes X amount of good things to be recognized before an individual will admire another. That amount will depend on that person's (the potential admirer's) own level (abilities). So wanting admiration is not really a good desire. Wanting recognition for the good is. Admiration will only happen if the situation is correct. Analogy - redundant to previous posts. Who appreciates a finely engineered automobile more? Person A who knows nothing about the vehicle except that, when they are seen in it, they get attention. person B who knows the specs and much, or all (at least in concept), of the engineering involved. Replace the vehicle with you. Would the professed admiration, of person A, be as valuable as person B?

Sorry about the late reply. I do not post, or visit forums much anymore. I do not consider myself an "Objectivist" which is why I usually put a disclaimer on my posts. I do not know all the Objectivist view points. I came at this process from a simple angle - it's all science - the drive to get correct answers. A previous post used the word subjective. This word is only valid in limited context. The word objective means without prejudice, to observe as is. It is the proper frame of mind needed for proper scientific methodology. Example: For an automobile to function; it must adhere to the dictates, of the reality of, the environment in which it must function (objective). The color of the vehicle is a personal preference (subjective). I will finish by saying that; Abstractions and concepts must adhere to reality (be based on reality), like the automobile example given above, in order to be valid. Morals are concepts. I am not up for a more elaborate explanation. Two final notes: 1) Many people are turned off when conversing with "Objectivists". Some "O"ists are better then others. Thinking is a skill. Rand the originator was an exceptional intellect (I have read Shrugged, Fountainhead, some Romantic Manifesto). 2) standard Disclaimer: I am a rogue intellect claiming no affiliation. Edit: the 1st final note might sound condescending (I hope not). We are all intellectually held to reality. capitalist versus a socialist I consider socialism any social organization that creates a system (governing body) that can use force against individuals, as opposed to anarchy, which is individualist allowing no such body to exist. In that context it is: Socialism vs. Anarchy Note that in either situation individuals can be, and interact, morally. The knowledge of what is moral, and it's application is a choice. So I am not dodging all the "isms", religions, or philosophies. I just address issues, as stated at the beginning of my response. In this case the issue is "morals"

"But there's a dark side to Rand's teachings. Her defense of greed and selfishness, her diatribes against religion and charitable sacrificing for others who are less fortunate" Rand was not against helping someone of value. ". Rand's plot violates a key tenet of business existence, which is to constantly work within the system to find ways to make money." If the system is corrupt your need to fix it ... don't you? "Real-world entrepreneurs are compromisers and dealmakers, not true believers. They wouldn't give a hoot for Galt. " ("an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism") The above is true. However Skousen is saying that compromise is then a christian value. Ergo compromising ethics for gain is then an accepted christian value. That's why some christians were OK with slave ownership (way back) ... compromise. "Perhaps a true capitalist spirit can best be summed up in the commandment, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39)." Except you can compromise the love part and in any unethical manner - stick it to them, if there is something to be had. "John Galt – it's time to come home and go to work." And give the value of his intellect to whatever system, or to those who would compromise him for short term gain? Oh well ... Guess that's why some things will never change. Too bad. Mr. Skousen, you absolutely have a right to practice your religion. Just keep it where it belongs ... in your home or church. disclaimer: I am a rogue intellect claiming no affiliation. Uzilla will now leave the building.

This is really taking something out of context. He does not actually understand what a moral is. An isolated abstraction embedded in a fallacious concept removes the full context from the abstraction and corrupts it. Morals are not pragmatic. Honesty and productivity are moral pursuits when set in proper context. The above statement is false. In fact religions remove morals from their full context, and in the process cause confusion. Some would say better then nothing. A moral and a set of morals (forming a code) have an objective origin. You do not invent a moral. It is an objective observation.

Isn't this statement a bit contradictory.

It's a give-and-take thing. I used to find it irritating when a woman doesn't speak up about such things. Especially during early dating. How else are you going to know? The last thing any rational person would want is to make someone, they are interested in, is to feel uncomfortable. Food allergy or whatever. I will leave out my irritation about the use of the word instinct.

Rational thinking is a choice. All individuals must make their own choice. That choice will have it's rewards and consequences. Quote Moose from suggested earlier thread "Like I said, it's practically impossible to find someone who will share all of my principles" It is impossible that two people would value all things the same, or all the same things. Quote Kevin Delaney from suggested earlier thread: "It's a very bitter pill to swallow for a lot of people, and people fight it in every way imaginable: Romantic love is between equals. And to be "equals" in this context means to be able relate to one another as equals. Not as teacher to student, or as parent to child, but as two complete, mature, independent adults." Equal in an all inclusive context, does not exist. That is; people are never intellectually equal. A more harsh pill is that: You may, or may not, find your equal as in the context given above. (Ah the Bell Curve ...) Attempts to compromise, like all actions, lead to results (both short term and long). To sell your "objective value" short is to invite unnecessary punishment. To try to sell high - attempt a fraud, yields no positive return, and won't last. Another harsh reality is that in a bad environment, where incorrect thinking is promoted, your choices will be equally affected. There is always fantasy and self love quote gnarqtharst from suggested earlier thread: "I believe that we typically fall in love with a person's "sense of life". In our present culture, a person's sense of life is very rarely also expressed in explicit philosophical terms, and sometimes one's sense of life is contrary to one's professed philosophic terms." Substitute "attracted to" for "in love with" and this is a rational observation. Were any relations lead from there is dependent on values (valuation). quote gnarqtharst from suggested earlier thread: "On the other hand, I think it's reasonable to desire that a person's positive sense of life becomes integrated with a positive explicit philosophy over time. If it does, great. If it doesn't, also fine, as long as the sense of life remains intact. But if a bad philosophy threatens to corrupt a good sense of life, trouble can arise." I think there is a better way to explain it, then using the word philosophy, but so be. Incorrect thinking (that which does not align, in complete context, with reality) will lead to the destruction, damage, or alteration of, a positive sense of life. action > result It is sad to see someone, with a positive sense of life, who has been taught to self destruct. disclaimer: I am, an independent rogue intellect, claiming no affiliation.

1) My presumption was that Dismuke has not. As stated in one of the above posts I have met a few Objectivists in other forums. You have taken this out of context. 2) You have inserted yourself claiming to be the representitive of many others. Because of the way you entered this I have to question your motive. Of what you wrote the last sentence and the bolded portions are the ones I will go along with. I really have to leave this now as it is not productive.

Hmm, well, I need to end this and bail for a while. I have many things to do and little time...especially in the immediate. All of this definitely reinforced the fact that full situational context is critical to any serious matter. In this case it can not be done here. If there is a syndrome for seeing full situational context in any given situation, as well as people's motives (when interacting) too quickly. Then count me in. I will say this I am not fimiliar with the syndrome you purposed and I am not much for such things as they are seldom contextually anchored. JMEGAN; I think that is a more realistic observation. Anyway thanks. Time to tune out for a while. I do recommend one thing and that is roaming through many forums and debating the multitude of people who are not capable of making critical observations and consequently unable to put together proper concepts or rational arguments. If you really push people, I am affraid you will find there are not very many truly rational ones.

Well I knew I should not have posted this. Especially without putting it into full detailed context. I want to laugh, but so far in my online adventures in different forums (in debates) has demonstrated to me that people calling themselves Objectivists have been far better at making points than others. So I will consider your post to be sincere. Here I must also point out that I have never considered myself an Objectivist. It is a label that keeps getting pinned on me in debate forums. Having run into Objectivists in debates in Atheist forums I have developed some respect for these individuals. That is what led me to try to post this here. As stated in the first follow up to the first persons response, the problem is solved. To try to bring an end to this monster, I will add a little more to the context. I am ruthless about assessing value. I consider the potential relationship between men and woman to greater than any other. As such I hold it to a far greater standard than any other. Miss Rand pointed out in her books that a man can not really have what he can not earn. Very true. To really have something, you must be able to really grasp its nature and value to be able to earn all of it. If you can not you are just a primitive holding onto something in ignorance. Relations are the same. One sure sign of primitive behavior is an attempt at manipulation. Manipulation is a form of power gaming used to aquire what someone can not earn in an up front honest manner. Look around you. How many people make an honest attempt to be strait forward vs. those who think the ends justify the means. So it is simply this. Many many years ago I reached a point of full contextual understanding of what it means to be honest vs. manipulative. Independent vs. dependent. At that point I realized that in order to earn the level of woman I was able to conceive, I had to make some really hard decisions that would (in a particular context) cost me. It mattered little in the face of what I knew to potentially be out there. In fact shortly after that critical point in my life I read, the first of three Rand books, Atlas Shrugged. From the first Metaphor of the mighty tree, that turned out to be hollow and rotted, I was hooked. More over it was confirmation of what I had already understood. One last bit. Life is too short to waste on compromised relations. I am in a position to accomplish many things. Things that, as a child, I never dreamed of. I am very selfish about this. Add to that the fact that I do not have enough life left to get to even a third of the things I can. Call me a Vulcan, if you wish, but it is incorrect to think that I am incapable of feeling.

For the heck of it I stopped in to check the physical fitness thread, and was about to move on. I saw someone had posted here so .... Though I already found the answer I was looking for, I decided to respond. First up; thanks for the time. mia culpa I would say that, as most people are not capable of consistent objective thinking, any society (collection of individuals) is irrational. If only a spoon full of sugar would make the syllogism go down... Hmm I am not sure what is worse? That joke, or the fact that that song is still stuck in my head. I am too private a person to fully address this. So here is a brief explanation. I feel more sexual after an accomplishment (the stuff of life). So combine a celebratory feeling with the fantasy of what my ideal woman is and I make it work. Sure, it is absolutely no substitute for the real thing, but sometimes making do is better than nothing. If received a $100 dollars for every time "Spock" or "Vulcan" came up when people have addressed me... Back on a serious note; thanks for the time spent.

This is coming from a lower case objectivist who is just passing through. I have only read Fountainhead, Atlas Shruugged, and Anthem. This does not qualify me as an Objectivist. Your brain is part of, and dependent on you body and its systems, therefore keeping your body at an efficient level of fitness is the only logical choice. The first part about: Though largely true this is superficial in nature. The only way anyone should allow someone to lead them is if the can objectively see that this person has superior skills. In this fashion they can learn from this person while improving themselves. Sadly in real life that is not always the case. The second part about: This like your other example seem to show that you are very concerned about the affect of appearance. Rational people will be more concerned with your abilities. Lesser intellects will not be able to go much beyond the superficiality of appearance.