Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

IAmMetaphysical

Regulars
  • Content count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About IAmMetaphysical

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Chat Nick Anonymous
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  1. What you advocate, if applied consistently, would mean the abolition of all religions.
  2. If it were a sport the bull would win more often.
  3. How much does "psychological damage" depend on the person/psychology in question? What kind of standard could ever be used to determine if a thing is "psychologically damaging" if a big factor is the psychological context/health of the viewer.
  4. My defense of the value of physical attractiveness is not a defense IN OPPOSITION to spiritual values, but as their concrete symbols. It should not be assumed that since I place physical attractiveness high on my list of traits desired in a partner that that means that I do not put things like honesty, integrity, and pride up there as well. Its an unfortunate symptom of the world we live in that most people do not measure up well on either the spiritual realm or the physical, and tend to choose (if they do choose to develop themselves) only one or the other. So you end up with airheads and jocks on one side, and nerds and geeks on the other, i.e. rationalists and empiricists, mystics of spirit and muscle, advocates of the value of the mind as independent of the body and advocates for the reciprocal. Man does not live outside of a body. He is not a floating will that chooses virtue or vice, never having to relate his choices to material matters. Neither is he simply the material application of floating and disconnected virtues of health and hygiene. He is an integrated whole of matter and spirit where both realms are equally as important, and equally as meaningless without the other.
  5. The concept of good is ultimately a relational one, meaning that to say that something is good is to say that it is good FOR something, in order TO ACHIEVE something. The fundamental something to be achieved is life; it is the most basic alternative that exists. The ultimate good therefore is that which achieves life.
  6. Eiuol: I think physical attractiveness has a lot to do with a sense of proportion and integration, especially as it relates to symmetry and to physical features that show vitality and youth. I don't think a certain type of nose is "better" so to speak, but I do think what makes a face attractive is that the proportion among and the relationships between a person's nose, eyes, chin, and so forth can be "better" or worse. They can speak of a certain continuity or integration that is pleasing. Symmetry appears orderly, the ugly is chaotic, without a unifying theme. Things like weight and fat distribution, scars, pimples, bagginess, slackness of skin, dull complexion, etc are outward signs of disease and unhealthiness. Radiant and smooth skin, supple lips and hair are signs of health and flourishing. Toned muscles are a sign of strength and ability. Put simply: Beauty is a concrete expression of vitality, a representation of virtue, a symbol for all that is pro-man.
  7. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having high physical standards. The contemplation of physical beauty is an immense psychological value, and physical excellence, taken as a concrete symbol for human greatness is a goal every man and woman should strive for in their own lives. "Average," "Normal," and other such words are smokescreens for physical mediocrity, a way for people who discount the value of material brilliance to pretend that all that matters to a man's life is the spiritual, and that bodies are simply warehouses for the will, ultimately interchangeable little nothings. This couldn't be further from the truth. Man is a being of matter and spirit, of conceptual thinking and concrete experience. Man must think to live, but he must live in a material world, and he must be able to relate his most important concepts, his principles and widest abstractions, to the daily task of engaging with reality; and he engages with reality on the concrete level. This ability: relating his concepts to his percepts; relating his principles, his values, his entire conceptual hierarchy--to the occurrences of his every day life is an indispensable capacity, it is the capacity of concretization. In no other aspect of human life is concretization more vital and important than in romance. Romance is not a way of rewarding those that you deem to be moral. It is not a way to say "Hey, I think you live a good life therefore I will reward you with sex." Romance is profoundly self-centered. It is a reward for oneself, a way to gaze upon one's own personally important values exemplified and embodied in the actions, convictions, AND appearance of another person. The only thing more damagingly hypocritical than demanding an intensely attractive mate while not being intensely attractive oneself, is to be intensely attractive yet regard it is unimportant or valueless, to profess a love for human greatness yet snide at its physical manifestation, to profess to love the exceptional yet hold the "average" to be "normal." That is why "mere looks" are so important, because that's the whole point of the thing; you're romantic partner should be a concrete symbol for your own love for your own sense of life and of values. If they don't "look the part" they can hardly adequately serve that purpose, at least not consistently and without contradiction. Does that mean that only people who look like "Maxim" models are suitable romantic partners? Absolutely not, though they probably make the best candidates all other things being equal. Good romantic partners must fit within one's own hierarchy of values, and they must reflect as much of the top ones as possible. The more values they embody the better they are, but if they lack even just one of those that occupies the top few spots they fail at their purpose which is to concretize THE MOST IMPORTANT personal values. To get more to the topic at hand: Don't feel guilty for not being sexually attracted to someone you love, and love deeply. That is the difference between platonic and romantic love; its not a matter of degree, but of type. You can love your platonic friends immensely and that is such a valuable thing without the introduction of sex. Sex is not necessary in order to get the most value out of a particular relationship. The question then becomes: can this woman take any action to make herself a more fitting romantic partner for you? If she can and its a matter of her taking steps to show she values her body as much you do yours, then its up to you to try to convince her that her body is that valuable and that taking those steps would be an added value to her life. It wont work if she does it simply for you. If not, then you must face the inevitable and state clearly that a platonic relationship is all that you can have with this woman, hopefully that can still include the exchange of affections you enjoy to partake in, I suspect it wouldn't.
  8. Bluecherry, your posts and arguments are excellent, I appreciate your defense of a lifestyle that means a lot to me. Michael
  9. MKE, first of all I applaud you for bringing this up, it deserves attention. I am currently in an open relationship myself, and have been for the past five years. My GF and I have not had many other lovers in our lives because we haven't found many people who are good enough. There are many issues that arise out of a polyamorous relationship (just like a monogamous one) and the ways to combat those issues are the same as with any other realtionship. It seems like you already know the value of honesty and that is the biggest thing. If you have any more questions please send me a personal message as I am no longer participating on this forum, I only posted this to get your attention. If you do not have any questions then let me just say that I wish you the best in your quest for love and if this relationship fails it says nothing about polyamory as such, just as a monogamous relationship failing says nothing about monogamy. Michael EDIT: I would just like to add my disgust at the post by GRAMES who, when discovering someone else's trouble, laughed and ridiculed them. That is not productive at all, you should be ashamed of yourself.
  10. Ifat, I must say that your posts in this thread and in the other one regarding this issue have been superb, I just wanted to drop by and give you some praise for them, you have helped me understand the issue at the heart of a lot of these debates. Thank you. I value you. Michael
  11. Yep, 5 stars from me as well. You deserve it. Mainly because of your independent thinking and desire to integrate knowledge. Job well done.

  12. I haven't posted on this forum in a long time, but I couldn't let this go past without comment. This is a great analysis and wonderful identification. Great work! Michael
  13. Then Objectivism be damned, I will have no part in it.