~Sophia~

The answer, at least partially, can be found in the introduction to "The Night of January 16th". I know that it was mentioned in the journals but I highly recommend reading it in full.

The way I understand it is that Hickman was an abstraction. The attraction was not conceptual (and thus details of the case were not relevant) but emotional, on a sense of life level. She used this case for her projection - like one can use a piece of art (even if the artist intended/meant something very different (even opposite) than what you getting out of it - it happens to me a lot). This was about the idea of individualism/independence - about the psychology it requires to be daring in this way. She did not admire this particular man. Her comments are not identifications about this particular case - but rather a hypothetical - conceptual exploration of emotional reaction. Rather than repressing it - she explored it. Sense of life reaction is not conceptual - one may react positively even though the details are horrifying. In my opinion this is a testament in a way to her underlying positive evaluation of herself (deeply rooted conviction "I am good") because I think many would have dismissed the feeling due to the details of the case.

It is very likely that the same is true of her journal comments related to society. It could have been her projection in relation to society's reaction to radicalism, toward those who boldly project that they don't need the approval of society, toward those who reject the notion that consensus, the majority of opinion - is a valid standard of truth and value.
It could have been an exploration of the reaction of society when it realizes that it lost it's grasp over the individual.

What Kendall said.

It is important that one should not take the content of his emotions as the criterion of his moral worth. Doing so leads to repression and repression is the opposite of introspection and prevents integration. It is not emotions which are being repressed (if emotion is not felt - it is not an emotion) - repression is always directed at thoughts, specifically, what is blocked is evaluations that would lead to emotions.

Man's moral worth is judged by the degree of rationality. What bares significance to man's moral statue is the way he deals with his emotions . If he proceeds to defy his reason and conscious judgment and acts on them while knowing they are wrong, he will have good grounds to condemn himself. But if, on the other hand, he refuses to act on them and sincerely strives to understand and correct his underlying errors, then, in the present, he is a man of integrity.

Feeling an emotion or having a desire does not mean one must act on it. A rational man neither represses his feeling/desires (even if irrational) nor acts on them blindly. One of the strongest protections against repression (and biggest contributors to integration) is a man's conviction that he will not act on an emotion merely because he feels it. This allows him to face his emotions calmly, to aknowledge them, and to determine their justafiability without fear or guilt. The man who is afraid of his emotions and represses them, sentences himself to be pushed by subcounscious motivation, which means, to be ruled by feelings whose existances and reasons he dares not to identify.

I agree.

It is precisely in the time of human conflict that moral principles are the most crucial. Harshness of war is no excuse for acting like a barbarian yourself.



If and only if the action was required for proper self defense. War is NOT a moral blank card.

I have always considered Kira's admiration for Leo a bit misguided. When I read the book, I thought that possibly Kira projected onto Leo characteristics which were not there. He was handsome enough to be a model but ultimately weak in character and turned out to be unworthy of what Kira did for him. He allowed his environment to destroy him and although I am somewhat sympathetic (considering his circumstances) there is not enough there to evoke respect in me.

Kira, in my opinion, had to face much harder challenges in life, much more difficult decisions than Leo did and yet her spirit, her values, her morals and her ideas remained intact. She was a survivor! She remained a fighter for her values, for the kind of life she deserved, for the person she loved, until her last breath. For that reason she has always been a source of admiration and inspiration for me. Kira is my favorite Rand's female character.

Visual art, unlike music, deals with concretes. As long as an object is representational - as long as it presents an intelligible subject- it can be evaluated objectively.

The process has 4 steps:

1. perception of the object
2. conceptual grasp of its meaning
3. an appraisal in terms of one's basic values
4. emotion

Even if this process is very fast and it feels to us more like: perception ---> emotion (like in the case of beauty) because the object IS intelligible - it is possible for us to deduce its meaning via reason and thus gain understanding behind our reaction to it. It represents this .... I value ... so I had a positive/negative reaction to it.

When the object is not representational the evaluation is subjective.

Beauty of representational objects can be objectively evaluated.

---------------------------------------------------------


There are observed commonalities in what people find attractive. In terms of human face, it has been observed that even newborns have positive reactions to more symmetrical/harmonious faces. Infants 2 months of age and older will spend more time looking at attractive faces when these are shown paired with faces judged by adults to be unattractive. Some studies reveal that symmetrical faces are an indication of a person who has evolved from a large gene pool (a good thing). The preference for a more symmetrical features also arose from the fact that throughout history, humans have chosen to breed with people they perceived to be healthy. Healthy genes mean a symmetrical face. During developmental stages, if genes are 100% healthy, your left side and right side will be perfectly symmetrical, complete mirror images of each other. This conveys to the world you’ve had healthy genes passed on to you. However, if outside factors skew symmetry, such as a small infection or malnourishment this causes small imperfections during development, creating asymmetry.

As many already noted changes in preferences (thinner or more plump), for example, over time do not make them subjective. Subjective would mean that there is no objective reason for an individual to have a preference for one over the other. But there were good reasons for those preferences then and there are good reasons for the preferences of today. There is a good reason for an individual to be attracted to a more fit body; there is a rational reason behind having a preference for a healthy skin.

Seems like some do not like that those preferences exist. To me they put themselves in conflict with reality really. To me it is no different than fighting the fact that humans are selfish.

Yes.

My judgment of Saville is that she is a very good painter. I don't like the message but it is not unclear.

Thanks for linking to that interview. Here is one of her answers:



Not surprising at all.


From "Why Art Became Ugly" :

Visual art, unlike music, deals with concretes. As long as an object is representational - as long as it presents an intelligible subject- it can be evaluated objectively.

The process has 4 steps:

1. perception of the object
2. conceptual grasp of its meaning
3. an appraisal in terms of one's basic values
4. emotion

Even if this process is very fast and it feels to us more like: perception ---> emotion (like in the case of beauty) because the object IS intelligible - it is possible for us to deduce its meaning via reason and thus gain understanding behind our reaction to it. It represents this .... I value ... so I had a positive/negative reaction to it.

When the object is not representational the evaluation is subjective.

Beauty of representational objects can be objectively evaluated.

---------------------------------------------------------


There are observed commonalities in what people find attractive. In terms of human face, it has been observed that even newborns have positive reactions to more symmetrical/harmonious faces. Infants 2 months of age and older will spend more time looking at attractive faces when these are shown paired with faces judged by adults to be unattractive. Some studies reveal that symmetrical faces are an indication of a person who has evolved from a large gene pool (a good thing). The preference for a more symmetrical features also arose from the fact that throughout history, humans have chosen to breed with people they perceived to be healthy. Healthy genes mean a symmetrical face. During developmental stages, if genes are 100% healthy, your left side and right side will be perfectly symmetrical, complete mirror images of each other. This conveys to the world you’ve had healthy genes passed on to you. However, if outside factors skew symmetry, such as a small infection or malnourishment this causes small imperfections during development, creating asymmetry.

As many already noted changes in preferences (thinner or more plump), for example, over time do not make them subjective. Subjective would mean that there is no objective reason for an individual to have a preference for one over the other. But there were good reasons for those preferences then and there are good reasons for the preferences of today. There is a good reason for an individual to be attracted to a more fit body; there is a rational reason behind having a preference for a healthy skin.

Seems like some do not like that those preferences exist. To me they put themselves in conflict with reality really. To me it is no different than fighting the fact that humans are selfish.

To most people.

Objective criteria of beauty in relation to human form has already been identified. This was not an invention of such criteria but an identification - an explanation of human preference. The fact that judgment about human beauty involves classification of harmonious vs. distorted is not controversial for most people. Now days, there are studies on this topic. Those working in industries related to human visual form, for instance, makeup/movie characterization have been relaying on this identification to obtain the desired effect. If they want the audience to see a character as not attractive - they distort the face, make the skin appear not healthy. This is what they teach in characterization classes. The author wanted Cyrano De Bergerac to be perceived as physically ugly so he gave him, an unusually for a human, large nose.
Women have been taking advantage of this for centuries by using makeup as a corrective measure, for example, to even out facial complexion and to make the face appear more symmetrical and thus harmonious.

To most people.

Objective criteria of beauty in relation to human form has already been identified. This was not an invention of such criteria but an identification - an explanation of human preference. The fact that judgment about human beauty involves classification of harmonious vs. distorted is not controversial for most people. Now days, there are studies on this topic. Those working in industries related to human visual form, for instance, makeup/movie characterization have been relaying on this identification to obtain the desired effect. If they want the audience to see a character as not attractive - they distort the face, make the skin appear not healthy. This is what they teach in characterization classes. The author wanted Cyrano De Bergerac to be perceived as physically ugly so he gave him, an unusually for a human, large nose.
Women have been taking advantage of this for centuries by using makeup as a corrective measure, for example, to even out facial complexion and to make the face appear more symmetrical and thus harmonious.

More subjective opinions and unsupported assertions. Will anyone who is claiming that their tastes are "objective" ever identify objective criteria to back up their assertions?

J

Many of the poses/stylizations chosen by her would make even a fit body look very unflattering. Her paintings do not show us the beauty of a larger body. She does not portray these women as beautiful.

Reasonably your partner can fully innocently miss some things sometimes (and when he does you should be understanding) but overall the trend should be that he is able to pick up on what is important to you without you asking. This is not mind reading because what is important to you is reflected in your behavior and in the choices you are making (if you have been keeping to yourself about some great value of yours then it would be understandable for him to miss it ). However, considering just how much effort and dedication it requires, and the level of physical achievement it represents, unless you run marathons very often, It is not reasonable to conclude that this was not an important event for you. Your friends picked up on it and you did ask. When a family member (let's say a teenager) gets a part in a play and asks another family member: "Are you going to come to the play?" it is commonly understood that he is asking for this family member to come and watch his performance, otherwise he would not have mention it at all. This is not mind reading - this is what reasonably follows considering the circumstances.

Don't ignore your feeling of invisibility. Ask yourself what the tend in your relationship has been and that will help you to decide what to do about it.

And that is why new security proposals must be proven to be genuinely effective, rather than creating a false sense of security while being incredibly intrusive.

No airport in the world faces terrorist threats more serious than does Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv and yet it is the most secure airport in the world. Ben Gurion has experienced no serious terrorist incidents for more than 30 years. At the same time we don't hear stories like the one above at that airport.

What infuriates people about TSA and what makes it different from Ben Gurion Aiport's approach, is the repeatedly displayed lack of common sense. A person does not need to have a degree in security screening to see that this family clearly did not pose any security risks.

Ben Gurion Aiport has a very comprehensive security planning but this thread is about the pat downs so I will focus on that.

Are there occasional pat downs at the Ben Gurion Aiport? Yes - there is a chance of that. However, those are implemented in conjunction with behavior pattern recognition. This policy not only satisfies civil liberties questions (I think it would for any reasonable person) but for over 30 years has been meeting their security goals. Racial profiling is not as effective because an enemy of a different ethnic background (but similar beliefs..) could be missed and potentially able to successfully carry out an attack.

I can guarantee you that if TSA airport security staff was well trained in behavior pattern recognition and "given reasonable suspicion...." was in TSA's vocabulary in relation to these pat downs - people like me would have a much easier time accepting this policy.

This is just one example of the kind of improvements which could be made.

Again, it is the lack of common sense, it is the blatant missing of the mark in terms of security like in the above example, which is infuriating. It is for this reason that TSA gets absolutely no sympathy from me even though, similarly to you, I do recognize the need for security.

There is no better introduction to Objectivism than Ayn Rand's own writing. I have not encountered more effective or as effective source than Rand.

In places like Somalia, what one has is a lack of essential governmental functions. These place highlight the importance of having a government. Without a government, individual rights will be routinely violated. More precisely, without a government people do not have legally objective and enforceable rights.
For instance, in the U.S. we might complain that case like "Kelo" undermine the right to property. While true in principle, in actual implementation, the procedures in Western countries around property titles have been in place for decades, making selling and buying much less risky than in a typical third world country. In many third-world countries, courts are so backed up, and corrupt that if a debtor does not pay a creditor, getting the money back via the courts is a daunting process. In many third-world countries, there are all sort of laws that few even bother to obey. This lack of a rule of law has an advantage: less restrictions. However, it comes with a steep cost: no recourse to justice. This, in turn, has a huge cost. English law and other European law have had centuries to formulate all sorts of procedures and protections, around various types of transactions. While these are sometimes restraining, removing all such protections is worse than the imperfect protections. An author who has addressed these issues is Hernando de Soto.

The main take-away is this: government lite is bad.

We might say government-lite is good if we focus on taxes, and restrictions, and drug-laws. However, as long as government is doing the right things -- protecting contracts, protecting lives, protecting property -- having it do its utmost and be super-effective in these areas is a good thing.

Are you not aware that this topic has been already extensively covered on this forum? Please use the search function.

However, I do have a comment. If there is no difference for you between a back muscle massage and a massage of your penis then there should be no reason to specify in your question that it must be a woman performing it. It is just rubbing - a trade for pleasure, no? Why not having a man rubbing your penis? If there is no difference between the two activities then it should not matter to you who is doing the rubbing as long as they are doing a good job. Back massages and similar forms of physiotherapy are judged by the quality of service and results obtained. Men are often better at deep tissue massages, for example, because they are physically stronger. A man in theory may be better at penis massages too I would imagine since they know first hand what feels good.

The desire to live is not equal to the desire for immortality.

Maken: What, in your mind, is the prime value in Objectivist ethics? "To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness."- Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics".

So either you think Objectivism would say that you should steal the guy's cure for cancer because "living" is the prime value, or you have to agree that having one's life as one's ultimate value and one's happiness as one's highest purpose would (as I think everyone should agree here) demand that you do not steal his cure. If you agree with Objectivism that the initiation of force is wrong, then the answer to your proposal is that no, you shouldn't steal the cure even though it could save your life. Regardless, your question doesn't highlight anything in particular about transhumanism, as transhumanism is not a philosophy unto itself, but a particular position in philosophy advocating the use of technology to expand our abilities and extend our lives for our own benefit. I haven't seen Hotu or myself say that survival at any cost is the goal in either Objectivism or transhumanism (some transhumanists might say that, but I have never heard of one).

I kind of think of it like this: Objectivists would fall in a "libertarian" place on a hypothetical political spectrum (by this I mean that, at the very least, everyone can agree that non-Objectivists would almost universally classify Objectivists as libertarians, whether or not the concept "libertarian" as well as "conservative" "liberal" and the rest are epistemologically justified, etc.). Similarly, an Objectivist is going to logically take positions in support of the development of any and all medical technologies to extend healthy life (with the obvious and I hope don't-actually-need-to-be-stated-explicitly restrictions against the use of force or fraud to achieve their development or use), as well as those that provide us with enhanced abilities of various sorts, etc. and so would be classified as a transhumanist by pretty much everyone else as a result of their positions. Now one can debate whether "transhumanism" is a valid/useful concept or not, just as one can about the names for various political orientations. But I think we can all agree that the support for the development and deployment of the sorts of technologies transhumanists call for (in the context of a free market absent any and all coercion) is an obvious application of Objectivist principles (whether or not one wants to call oneself a transhumanist).

I apologize for stating the obvious, but the accepted assumptions were only to point to the unconfortable fact that you are an idiot. You are not alone in that. We are all in the same boat. Some of us advance in some or more areas on our own, but are still left intellectually de-capacitated. In the discussion on Harriman's Logical Leap, it came out that some posters knew the easy error that Harriman made regarding projectile motion because as children we had the same book on physics. A kid's book from 1966 explained to us what others did not learn in a college physics class.

You do not think it is a big deal that the word "coin" has been hijacked by the government. You find no contradiction in people who buy and sell gold and silver advocating that the government adopt a gold standard so that "we" could have a stable currency. Yet, you probably claim to have read Francisco's "Money Speech." You do not connect these. Your formative years left you mentally atrophied. You think that everyone else suffered from collectivist education, but you escaped. And so you suggest that we discuss which of two unreal alternatives is the best way to fix the system, rather than asking what (if anything) any of us did to fix ourselves so that you could overcome your handicap. That is a another consequence of public education: you pursue political solutions to personal problems.

I don't speak for Mr. Biddle but I happen to share his point of view so I can offer you my reasoning.

There are two aspects here: the philosophical threat and the physical threat.

Philosophical enemies, in this case Islam as an ideology (but applies to any irrational ideology), can only be effectively fought and ought to be fought against on philosophical/ideological grounds. Currently Islam ideologically can't really conquer Americans. The chances of such a thing in America is extremely low. Nonetheless we should speak loudly against the ideas of Islam. The hold that Islam or other religions have is primarily through ideology and only secondarily through force. Attila needs the witch-doctor and they don't need to be two different people.

Then there is the physical threat. I am all for fighting against jihadists with uttermost ruthlessness. Being a Muslim, however, is not an equivalent to being a member of a terrorist group or a mafia. Even mafia members are subject to proper due process. I advocate the same proper due process for any criminal weather he is driven by religion or any other irrational idea. Concrete evidence of funding or aiding terrorists or advocating terrorist attacks against America is necessary to substantiate a claim of conspiracy. Those involved should be arrested and ruthlessly punished but objective process has to be followed.

The most significant threat to freedom in America currently can only come from Americans themselves. Freedoms are most likely lost starting with unpopular or offensive ideas first and always "for a good cause" and when people feel a sense of emergency.

What you do not want your or any government to allow, and which you dangerously advocate, is to violate some people's freedom of speech and assembly because most people/the government do not agree with their ideas. Again, there are already processes available for dealing with criminals.

Objectivist ideas are just as dis-favoured today by most Americans and the current socialistic government. Our conferences could just as easily be banned and websites could just as easily be blocked by order of the government. If proper due process does not need to be followed before such actions are taken, if the ideological disagreement is enough, then there is nothing stopping such a thing from happening to us or anyone with unpopular ideas.

What you and others are proposing is to me like digging a ditch under yourself. The kind of laws which are your only protection against the majority, laws which we all desperately need right now more than ever to fight wrong ideas, to fight our immediate enemies at home, enemies who are trying to grab more power to use against us every day - you want those laws your government to ignore - you advocate for such a thing - and all this while your government does not represent your ideas and was elected by that majority which also does not share our ideas.

The difference of opinion on this issue arise from the fact that some people underestimate the danger of allowing the government to take such actions. It seems unthinkable and unlikely to them that this won't be just a special scenario case - "only against the Muslim because we are at war" (except not officially and without properly identifying the enemy).

I judge today's context, given what has happened in recent years and months, as fragile on the freedom front. This is exactly the kind of opportunities, that little crack for a good cause, allowed by people with good intentions, that the enemies of freedom look for and unfortunately there are plenty of such enemies in America today. It is a process of slowly adjusting what is acceptable - little cracks against freedom make other cracks more likely and some shots have already been taken and accepted in the name of safety and security. Countless small incursions wear away freedom after freedom, and the government has a good excuse each step of the way. Today the excuse is terrorism.

If you wanted to understand better the opposite point of view - here it is.

I don't speak for Mr. Biddle but I happen to share his point of view so I can offer you my reasoning.

There are two aspects here: the philosophical threat and the physical threat.

Philosophical enemies, in this case Islam as an ideology (but applies to any irrational ideology), can only be effectively fought and ought to be fought against on philosophical/ideological grounds. Currently Islam ideologically can't really conquer Americans. The chances of such a thing in America is extremely low. Nonetheless we should speak loudly against the ideas of Islam. The hold that Islam or other religions have is primarily through ideology and only secondarily through force. Attila needs the witch-doctor and they don't need to be two different people.

Then there is the physical threat. I am all for fighting against jihadists with uttermost ruthlessness. Being a Muslim, however, is not an equivalent to being a member of a terrorist group or a mafia. Even mafia members are subject to proper due process. I advocate the same proper due process for any criminal weather he is driven by religion or any other irrational idea. Concrete evidence of funding or aiding terrorists or advocating terrorist attacks against America is necessary to substantiate a claim of conspiracy. Those involved should be arrested and ruthlessly punished but objective process has to be followed.

The most significant threat to freedom in America currently can only come from Americans themselves. Freedoms are most likely lost starting with unpopular or offensive ideas first and always "for a good cause" and when people feel a sense of emergency.

What you do not want your or any government to allow, and which you dangerously advocate, is to violate some people's freedom of speech and assembly because most people/the government do not agree with their ideas. Again, there are already processes available for dealing with criminals.

Objectivist ideas are just as dis-favoured today by most Americans and the current socialistic government. Our conferences could just as easily be banned and websites could just as easily be blocked by order of the government. If proper due process does not need to be followed before such actions are taken, if the ideological disagreement is enough, then there is nothing stopping such a thing from happening to us or anyone with unpopular ideas.

What you and others are proposing is to me like digging a ditch under yourself. The kind of laws which are your only protection against the majority, laws which we all desperately need right now more than ever to fight wrong ideas, to fight our immediate enemies at home, enemies who are trying to grab more power to use against us every day - you want those laws your government to ignore - you advocate for such a thing - and all this while your government does not represent your ideas and was elected by that majority which also does not share our ideas.

The difference of opinion on this issue arise from the fact that some people underestimate the danger of allowing the government to take such actions. It seems unthinkable and unlikely to them that this won't be just a special scenario case - "only against the Muslim because we are at war" (except not officially and without properly identifying the enemy).

I judge today's context, given what has happened in recent years and months, as fragile on the freedom front. This is exactly the kind of opportunities, that little crack for a good cause, allowed by people with good intentions, that the enemies of freedom look for and unfortunately there are plenty of such enemies in America today. It is a process of slowly adjusting what is acceptable - little cracks against freedom make other cracks more likely and some shots have already been taken and accepted in the name of safety and security. Countless small incursions wear away freedom after freedom, and the government has a good excuse each step of the way. Today the excuse is terrorism.

If you wanted to understand better the opposite point of view - here it is.

You did not answer the question why you chose lashes for lying rather than, for example, loosing your trust (of course the value of which he would first need to understand). Possible consequences of loosing your trust are much more severe. Given the choice, I would have taken lashes any day if by doing so that could "wipe my slate clean" with you as a parent. A smart and strong kid can use lashes the way Christians use confession. Furthermore, if the motivation for not lying is primarily external - there is no barrier to lying when one knows they won't be found out. You want your child to be motivated by the benefits of honesty rather than external consequences of lying.



I think you should re-examine your position on this. Never arguing or disagreeing is not the reality of relationships. You child can tremendously benefit from learning from you how to rationally handle and resolve disagreements (if you don't apply this standard when you argue with his mom then I agree he should not be exposed to that). By having this rule you are taking away from your kid a very important learning opportunity.

It is useful to keep asking yourself - what is that I am trying to accomplish by X - and whether or not doing (or not doing) X actually accomplishes it.

It can be: if you ask which parts he finds valuable and for what reasons.