Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

mosespa

Regulars
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About mosespa

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Illinois
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  1. Tyler Durden does not seek to create a new order, he only seeks to obliterate one and thus create anarchy. The impasse, is this: One cannot create something from nothing. To destroy something is to obliterate it completely. There will be nothing from which to fashion a "new world." Mind you, I love Fight Club. I think David Fincher adds something to the vocabulary of movies every time he makes one. Chuck Palahniuk's books, while not Objectivist in nature, do display a capable use of language to create his characters and often actually point out why collectivism is so destructive. But the character of Tyler Durden is not what one would call a proper hero. He is, in many ways, the anti-thesis of the proper Objectivist hero. Galt had no "indifference" to the world around him. The world around him was indifferent to him and was destroying itself. Galt did nothing to the world around him to facilitate this destruction other than to recruit prime movers to join his strike. But his strike was also tacitly mandated by the world around him. By trying to strangle the minds of the prime movers, the world in Atlas Shrugged basically told them "we don't need you." Galt, seeing this, simply pointed it out to the others, reminded them of the difference between why they were producing and why they SHOULD be producing and showed that it's not at all inappropriate to remove one's presence when one's presence isn't valued. Tyler Durden isn't "indifferent" to the world around him. On the contrary, he is quite malevolent towards it. He seeks to change the world by forcing change upon it. His expectations of his army are blind obedience and unquestioning loyalty. Galt never asked the other prime movers to surrender their minds to him. He knew that to be anti-life and against everything he represented. And, in the end it seems to me that the ultimate difference between the two is this: Durden sought to change the world by actively destroying the old one to build his vision. Galt simply started building his own and when the present one collapsed, he was ready to replace it.
  2. If by "intimacy" you mean "sexual contact" (of which there are varying degrees, admittedly,) then the question comes down to the two people that one is having sex with. Sex is something one properly does with someone who reflects one's own value system. The reasons why people have sex says much about the people themselves, particularly their own sense of self-worth. The question to ask oneself, it seems to me, is this: "Exactly WHY am I having sex with this person." One must ask this in regards to each person one is having sex with (if they are the one "cheating," as it were.) If one is having sex with a person for reasons other than that they reflect one's own highest ideal, it would be appropriate to cease having sex with them and take a closer look at why one is involved with them in the first place. One may find that their premises are not in check. If one finds out that one's sexual partner is having sex with other people, it becomes necessary to first examine how one feels about that. If the relationship has been mutually agreed upon as monogamous, then the partner has broken the agreement. The partner's trustfulness has now been called into question. It would not be inappropriate for one to now end the relationship, but that's entriely up to the individual who has been cheated on. The partner who broke the agreement has no right to expect the relationship to continue. If the partner knew that their indescretion would end the relationship and the partner violated it anyway, clearly the relationship is of little value to them. Another factor to be taken into consideration in this day and age is the fact that having sex with the wrong person can not only end one's own life, but also the lives of everyone they have sex with afterwards. Depending upon the degree of care taken to prevent the transmission of diseases, the cheating partner is not only endangering their life, as well as the life of the person they are cheating on if the partner continues to have sex with them; but they are also display a disregard for the sanctity of their own continued existence...they are behaving in an "anti-life" fashion. Of course, if by "intimacy" you mean things other than sex...none of the above matters, yet.
  3. The only error that I see in your statement is that you use the term "Objectivist" to describe people other than Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand once said that SHE is the only person who could be called an Objectivist as she is the one who described the parameters of the philosophy. Anyone else is simply a "student of Objectivism." Other than that, your argument against Ms. Young's position seems sound.
  4. I understand where you're coming from...and I agree. But, to say that "homosexuality IS NOT a mental illness" is not an attempt to prove non-existence. On the contrary, it is an assertion of the existence of "well-balanced" homosexuality. Which I say doesn't exist according to my experiences (notice those last four words, please.)
  5. 1. I'm not dismissing anything. I'm simply offering an alternative argument. You don't have a problem with that, do you? 2. I'm dismissing no inconsistencies...I've not encountered any personally, so there is nothing for me to dismiss. 3. I don't. Again...I'm not saying that straight people are automatically mentally healthy. Heterosexuals can be just as screwed up as the homosexual examples I've given. 4. It's possible. I don't proclaim to have "gaydar." Unless a homosexual is openly so, I don't know. In fact, I seem to recall using "Hank" as an example of someone who had to TELL me he was gay before I knew it. Not all homosexuals are flamboyant and obvious. 5. I suggest you re-read my initial post a little more closely. Not ALL of these people were "flamboyantly neurotic." I had to get to know them as people before I could make the observations about them that I have made. You see...these people have all been friends of mine at various times in my life. They are not people I have simply spent a couple of hours around one evening. I've KNOWN these people on a personal level for years. 6. That is, of course, a ridiculous statement...I agree with you there. It is not my intention to offer a parallel view. You've said that you know exceptions to my theory...I'm simply asking you if you have as many facts at your disposal as I do? Are you a close confidant of these people? Do they tell you the intimate details of their lives? Do they confide in you their deepest secrets? Because my example do and have. That's how I'm able to make the assertions that I make about them. 7. I'm not "complaining about all the crazy gay people I meet." I am offering examples from my experience to back up my argument. I would expect someone who can toss out "a priori" in a post to understand that that is how one conducts a discussion. Adrian, I feel it necessary to point out to you that while this IS my first "objectivist" forum...it is not my first forum ever. I recognize the tactics of attacking one's opponent in an argument (i.e., "YOU'RE the one doing such-and-such," which you've used twice in this post,) and am nonplussed by it. The only thing you are accomplishing here is undercutting your own credibility. As has everyone who states that homosexuality IS NOT a mental illness but hasn't provided a causal link to show that is not.
  6. 1. You don't sound pushy...we're just discussing, there. This is how it works. You may be right...I may have missed some points. 2. I consider that a good thing:) 3. Neither has anyone else who holds an opposing view. 4. Okay...so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that I should show a link between homosexual behavior and other deviant behavior. (Long pause while I wait for that to sink in for everyone.) To me, this is where the whole thing gets kind of sticky. As I see it, "normalcy" is a collectivist notion...it is that which is "socially acceptable behavior." "Socially acceptable behavior" implies collectivist assent. Of course "Anti-social behavior" is seen as another form of collectivism. I hate to be the one to bust everyone's bubble...but the minute you have two or more people in agreement upon something, it immediately becomes a collectivist notion. Or maybe I'm just displaying novice thinking. Having studied Objectivism for a decade and a half, I'd hate for that to be the case because it demonstrates that I'm not quite as clever as I think I am...oh, well. Back to the issue at hand: either I've misspoken or I'm being misunderstood. Of course there are going to be exceptions to any rule. There's a school of thought that exceptions often tend to define the rule. Again, I may be showing myself a novice here, but it seems to me that there is an opposite for everything. To me, one of the key fundamentals of everything is Newton's Law that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." I believe (notice those two words, please, everyone,) that one can also extrapolate from that "for everything, there is an equal and opposite." It's the very nature of duality...and this IS a dualistic world. I don't deny that there are "well-balanced" homosexuals out there; I simply maintain that I've not yet met one. The most well-balanced homosexual that I've ever met STILL has "parental issues." As I said earlier, modern psychology would have one believe that EVERYONE has unresolved issues. Perhaps this is true, perhaps not. I certainly know hundreds of heterosexuals who display symptoms of "mental illness." The only assertion that I've made is that homosexuality seems to me to be either a mental illness in and of itself OR a symptom of further mental illness. This has caused some controversy in this thread. People have spoken out about well-balanced homosexuals that they personally know...which could be just as big a coincidence as me having only encountered unbalanced homosexuals. Thus, a vicious circle develops. If I've misrepresented this point, please allow me to apologize and clarify: It is MY EXPERIENCE that every homosexual that I have encountered displays evidence of other neuroses. I do not intend to discount that there are exceptions...I'm not interested in making blanket statements here, nor do I wish to give the impression that I think homosexuals are "evil." Many of the homosexuals that I know are very nice people...when they aren't having their frequent emotional breakdowns. 5. I never meant to suggest that exceptions weren't possible...I only intended to convey that I, personally, have not encountered any. I've also never encountered a Norweigan...but I'm certain they exist. I'll state again that I firmly believe that without an opposite, nothing is possible. Without darkness to define the opposite state, there would be no definition of light. However, the presence of light does not prove the non-existence of darkness. In the same manner, homosexuals who seem to have no "mental illness" do not disprove that there are those who do. 6. Out of curiosity, what would the "scientific method" accept as causal proof in this case?
  7. SPOILER: In the final act of the movie, just before Leonard decides to make Teddy his scapegoat, Teddy tells Leonard that they have been going from town to town finding "John G's" to kill. Teddy paints himself as the mastermind of the scheme. At first he felt sorry for Leonard because he DID find the real killer...but couldn't remember it. So Teddy set up someone else, Leonard failed to remember that. Then (apparently,) Teddy began to see a way to make a little money on the side out of it. After all, Teddy claims to be the cop assigned to Leonard's case. How could a cop travel from town to town with Leonard and still keep his job? It has also been speculated that Teddy was actually the second intruder in Leonard's home that night...the one who got away. Perhaps he has been sticking close to Leonard to insure that Leonard never finds out who he actually is. If this IS the case (and again, this is speculation...we don't really know WHO Teddy is other than the fact that he ends up being a "John G" himself,) then Leonard's actions, misguided though they may be, would actually end up being an action of justice...he just wouldn't know that.
  8. Indeed it is ominous. The moment one allows oneself to believe a falsehood, one risks breaching one's ability to differentiate true from false forever after. However, given that he allows himself to believe this falsehood in order to right another wrong (that being of "Teddy" using him to kill people for profit,) wouldn't there still be a sense of "justice" rising from his willingness to accept a falsehood? Objectivist principles hold that no good can from giving in to evil. Yet, by giving himself to a false belief, Leonard commits an (admittedly questionable) act of justice. At least, that's how I see it.
  9. First, to Andrew: 1. That's Qwertz' opinion and they're welcome to it. If you agree, that's also your opinion and you are welcome to it. But before you assume that I'm simply making a broad categorization based upon a casual observation, keep this in mind: The six people I listed in my previous post are not the only homosexuals I know...and they are not the only one's who display some sort of neurosis. I know homosexuals who are seemingly pathological liars, homosexuals with dissociative disorder, homosexuals with kleptomania...the list goes on. My "sweeping generalization" is based upon EVERY homosexual I've ever met displaying some mental foible...not just those six. Is it really a sweeping generalization if every specimen of a certain type that one encounters displays a specific characteristic? I'm going to assail our patron saint, here...I'm braced for the inevitable backlash: Ayn Rand held the belief that man is inherently good. She based that belief upon her interaction with a very small percentage of mankind. Is that a sweeping generalization? 2. This is a true enough statement, and I could completely get behind it if I were just talking about two or three homosexuals that I've encountered over the years. But I'm not talking about three or four, I'm talking about dozens...admittedly not a significant percentage of the population, but not an insignificant number either, I feel. Where does one draw the line between a sweeping generalization and an acceptable conclusion based on a body of evidence? 3. That's you, Andrew. I'm slightly more impulsive, it would seem. I see the wisdom in your statement, but I would say it's too late for me to hold off as I've already made said diagnosis. Now, I simply have to defend it. I don't expect that to be an easy task, but that's part of why I did it...to see how and where it may be flawed. 4. I don't. I go on to say in my previous post that it's not only homosexuals that display this type of behavior. I also go on to say that it's not only homosexuals who have neuroses. Believe me when I say that as rash as I may appear to be so far, I am not rash enough to assume that everyone with Obsessive/Compulsive disorder is a homosexual simply because I know a homosexual with OCD; nor will I assume that every homosexual has OCD. 5. This is extreme behavior, don't you think? In fact, I would even go so far as to call it homophobic behavior...which, as I've already stated, it typically based in the fear that one may be homosexual. 6. Correct. 7. Again, you are missing my point that I'm not basing my theory upon a handful of homosexuals I have encountered; I am basing it on EVERY homosexual I have encountered. If every straight man one encountered threw around the word "faggot," and threatened to punch your teeth out for questioning their orientation, then I think one could be justified in assuming that all heterosexual men must suffer from a mental disorder...at least until they encountered only one who didn't fit the paradigm. I have not encountered a single homosexual who doesn't fit the paradigm. I am a straight man who isn't bothered if people think I'm homosexual. In the past year, no fewer than seven people have asked my manager at work if I am gay. I find it amusing, because to me it displays exactly how narrow minded people can be. It doesn't anger me, it doesn't worry me, it doesn't inspire me to extreme emotion. I simply shrug it off and go on about my business. But then, I'm not a collectivist. What others think of me is of no consequence to me. If someone considers me "unworthy" of their company, then it is obvious to me that they are unworthy of mine. No loss, there. And now, Adrian Hester: 1. Again...is it presumption to notice consistency? 2. Are you sure? Perhaps they're just very good at hiding it...which simply suggests further neurosis. 3. Sounds like a presumption to me.
  10. mosespa

    Abortion

    Unfortunately, my copy of the Lexicon is in the possession of a friend of mine...but there's a statement about the first trimester being the only appropriate time to consider an abortion. Or something like that. I've no doubt that someone will correct me:)
  11. What good are property rights if one can be denied access to said property? The owner of "H" now has a property that he cannot access. I don't think this situation would happen. A court (or other governing body) would be called upon to settle this disagreement (in Randian terms, one of only two proper functions of a governing body.) It COULD be seen as "coercion to sell," but if they have constructed a "donut" around "H," then they seem to have reached beyond a governing court and would likely be called upon to offer restitution of some sort even if it meant failure to obtain property "H." It would seem that there is no way to solve this problem without resorting to collectivist tactics. But then again, my vision may be limited by a lack of knowledge of the "proper" handling of this situation. Someone else can feel free to interject here.
  12. Andrew, only the findings of my own personal research. I trust that I do not have to have them "published and accepted by a collective" in order to validate them. I'll cite a few specific examples: 1. The self-professed "lesbian" stripper. I've encountered a few of these...but we'll call this specific one "Jana." I first met Jana outside of the strip club during one of my respites from that particular field. I didn't know she was a stripper until she had already spent ten minutes never missing an opportunity to remind me that she was a "lesbian." I began to wonder who she was trying to convince...me or herself? When I returned to working in the club, Jana became a co-worker of mine. I began to get to know her well enough to know that she was given to wholly irrational logic (bordering on solipsism,) violent episodes which indicated seriously unresolved issues in her life and frequent emotional breakdowns. All three of which, when taken together, certainly indicate mental illness, though I'm no professional. She is given to believe that she can "turn" any woman into a lesbian...this is not only delusional, it defies any notion of the argument as homosexuality as something one has no control over or even that of a choice one makes. It implies that she believes that she can alter the way one thinks. If she belives that she can "turn" any woman into a lesbian, clearly she seems to think that she is capable of overriding the rationale of a heterosexual woman. This is, in my opinion, Facist. 2. John worked in the same restaurant that I do. Presumably raised by an overbearing father (I know friends of his parents,) and an overprotective mother, John is what one would call a "flamer." Although he doesn't dress in an especially feminine fashion, he is certainly very flamboyant. His speech patterns are those of the "stereotypically" gay...a feminine lilt, a hint of lisp. John is also certain that everyone is gay, merely in the closet. Now, if that isn't a solid case of delusion, I don't know what is. 3. Hank is agoraphobic. He doesn't like to leave his house and he won't explain why. He goes to work, he goes to the store to buy his supplies and he goes home. Now, if this were all, it wouldn't necessarily indicate an underlying neurosis...but he absolutely REFUSES to go anywhere else unless dragged kicking and screaming. Hank is also a misogynist. He has, on more than one occasion, blatantly refused to even shake hands with a woman, choosing instead to offer the icy response "I don't TOUCH women." He only suffers the presence of a woman if there is no other alternative...and if there IS no other alternative, he creates one. Control freak? Other areas of his life (i.e., the compulsive orgainzation of his impressive comic, paperback, video and album collection,) seem to indicate a desire to exert control over something. The "control freak," as I see it, is the person who feels impotent and must exert whatever amount of control they may be able to muster over whatever they can...however seemingly insignificant. He certainly displays these controlled objects with pride to whatever visitors he may have. 4. Steve is active in the local political circles. His sexuality is open to speculation. No one has ever seen him in the company of a woman and several men have claimed he has come on to them. He has come on to me. Along with his political aspirations, he is also a local businessman. His thirst for power (if only on a local scale) is almost psychotic. People are only useful to him according to what they can offer him. Once used, they become disposable until they can prove of further use to the forwarding of his own goals. I've seen him devolve to a blustering, stammering neanderthal upon any slight challenge to his perceived authority. 5. Tina decided to wait until she and her husband had been married for a few years and had a couple of kids before springing on her husband that she's a lesbian. There is a desperate intensity in her eyes as she seeks to be defined by others so long as their definition of her lines up with what she wants them to think of her. It's something of a vicious circle. 6. Roger is also agoraphobic. He is also neurotic, claustrophobic, xenophobic, this-phobic and that-phobic. He is the one who takes about 15 meds a day just so he can continue to exist without dissolving into a blubbering mound of human jello. I have a few more examples I can pull out if need be...but I should think that the six above offer a decent cross-section of what I've encountered. It's possible that I may have misspoken. I shall elaborate: To me, the definition of "mental illness" goes beyond that of a person who is unable to comprehend that "A equals A;" it also encompasses those who refuse to accept that "A equals A." Now, lest I appear homophobic (which I will address shortly,) I should perhaps point out that according to modern psychology, EVERYONE (regardless of sexual orientation,) has "issues" to some degree or another. Fine...I'll accept that as a given. Everyone has something that needs to be addressed that they put off having to address for as long as they can, lest their self-image become endangered. This all boils down to self-esteem issues, as I see it. Perhaps it's oversimplification, but it seems to me that ANY neurosis comes back to an unsatisfactory self-image. Agoraphobics feel that they're not strong enough to overcome whatever threat they perceive lies outside their door. Misogynists fear that women MAY be more powerful (or at least stronger of will) than they are. Homophobes fear that they may be the very homosexual that they disapprove of. Xenophobes fear that the unknown may reveal some flaw in their own design. Technophobes fear that technology will replace everything that currently defines who they are and their place in the world. It all comes back to the fear that the self will cease to exist. Those who fear that the self will cease to exist are afraid that the self might not be strong enough to overcome adversity on it's own. Now, the argument could be made that by the very act of holding parades and social functions, homosexuals are confronting the fear that they might cease to exist. They are boldly stating what they are and anyone who has a problem with that is the person with the problem...not them. But what they overlook is this: By the very act of broadcasting their orientation, they reveal the fact that their identity is defined by those who observe them. They're only "truly" gay if people know about it. Homosexuality is but one branch of this line of thinking. It's a collectivist notion that one doesn't exist without the validation of others. To my way of thinking, the belief that one ceases to exist without the validation of others is a mental illness. It is the belief that "A is only A if B says so." This attempts to obliterate the Law Of Identity. The very act of "announcing to the world" indicates that one is concerned with what the rest of the world thinks about one. This is collectivism. "Militantism" is the practice of asserting one's views to the point that it appears that one is trying to force one's views onto another. The only proper use of force is retaliation...so let's look at that for a second. Homosexuality HAS been a subject of forceful repression in many societies. There's no denial of that. I'm not saying that that's right, either. But, it seems to me, the fact that homosexuals seem to feel the need to make sure that their existence is known against all odds is a desperate attempt to make others acknowledge the existence of homosexuality. Again, the idea is that if others don't acknowledge, then it ceases to be. The reason that altruists are the villains in the work of Ayn Rand, I feel, is because altruists assert that there is a DUTY to ensure one's fellow man's well being regardless of merit. That one should be compelled to ensure the comfort and survival of one's fellow man. Compulsion. The assertion of power over another. Before one can assimilate the idea of "Gay Power," one must first ask the question "power over what or whom?" What do the gays wish to have power over? The "status quo." Otherwise known as "what others perceive." Ayn Rand had Howard Roark say something to the effect of "the man who seeks ME out is my kind of man." Howard Roark didn't feel the need to broadcast his talent. Those who would use it in a way that he would approve of would find him. Show me a homosexual who keeps it under wraps because he realizes that it would be collectivist to broadcast it...a homosexual who doesn't feel the need to insure that all others around her know that she is gay...a homosexual who doesn't care at all if another person knows or not... and I'll show you a figment of your imagination.
  13. I apologize in advance if this has already been said. There are twenty-five pages to this thread and I'm afraid I haven't time to read them all just to make sure someone hasn't covered this already. I have encountered a great many people in my thirty-odd years on this planet, from all walks of life. I have held many jobs in all this time, from stocking supermarket shelves to DJ-ing in a "gentleman's club," to waiting tables to selling shoes. I know several practicing homosexuals and I have yet to encounter anyone or anything who can dissuade me from the following conclusion: Homosexuality is either a.) a symptom of mental illness or b.) a mental illness itself. Every homosexual I have ever known has also displayed other symptoms of having some sort of imbalance. One guy I knew was even taking something like fifteen different drugs per day (all of them prescribed, mind you,) just to be able to function nominally. If there IS an exception to my "mental illness" theory (and I know that I'm not the first to postulate such a notion,) it would be this: I DO believe that some people believe themselves to be homosexual because they exhibit certain behaviors that society deems "unusual," and that the only explanation for these behaviors is that the person MUST be "gay." However, I also consider this a form of "mental illness" as it represents the sort of self-esteem issues that cause one to doubt their own minds and thus depend on others to think for them. Collectivism, if you will. Just my fifth of a dime.
  14. mosespa

    Billy Corgan

    I think that Siamese Dream is not only one of the greatest albums of the 1990's, but also one of the greatest rock albums ever. Mellan Collie And The Infinite Sadness was ambitious, to be sure...but I somtimes think it would have been a superior albums as a single disc.
×
×
  • Create New...