Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tabitha

Regulars
  • Posts

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tabitha

  1. You're right; that's more of what I was getting at. Also, "Puritan" has religious connocations (in which case, it would also be incorrect to associate Puritanism with Objectivism).
  2. I don't think the word "puritanical" is apt. To ask if there's a "puritanical streak" among Objectivists is like asking if there's a "reason streak" among Objectivists. Most of behaviors that are so-called "puritanical" are basic common sense to me. "Puritanical" behaviors, as defined by any action that promotes health and well being, should be the default. There's something about the word "puritanical" that implies a need for defense or justification, when in fact, almost everything that qualifies as puritantical stems from reason. Using alcohol responsibly, abstaining from alcohol and drugs, and not engaging in risky sexual activity should be norms, whereas hedonism or other forms of "non puritanicalism" (irrationality) should be the subject matter under the microscope.
  3. An individual might be healthy enough to live one hundred years, and all the power to that. The problem is that, intellectually, people with Down Syndrome lack the level of reason required to be productive and (financially) self-sufficient.
  4. This discussion reminds me of a social work professor I had in graduate school, who refused to even use the word "disabled." Instead, she referred to the disabled as "differently-abled."
  5. The same could be said of you. Such fallaciousness isn't becoming. Well, I'm not concerned with being "becoming"... so I guess that takes care of that. If you can provide a non-hedonistic argument of why people should sleep around, I'd certainly like to hear it. But before you even attempt to do that again, I'd like to follow up with a comment Inspector made on the previous page. This is an Objectivist message board, not a general philosophical message board. It is therefore the responsibility of the posters to have actually read Objectivist texts, which in your case would be The Romantic Manifesto. I have asked you twice if you had read this, to which you did not reply. Now, if you read the basic Objectivist writings and find a specific point debatable, by all means, bring it on. I have done myself that in previous threads. We are not here to discuss Libertarian metaphysics, dog grooming, or anything else. Coming here with the expectation that myself or anyone else is going to do your homework and teach you about Objectivism, from its axioms, is not only time-consuming but pointless on our parts. For the same reason I wouldn't go to a Scientology forum and expect people there to take me by the hand and walk me through everything from point one, step by step, I'm not going to do the same here for those that haven't done the backround reading, and who haven't offered quotes or specific ideas (or problems) by the main Objectivist writers for discussion. On a general discussion board, yes -- it would be incumbant upon me (or anyone else coming from an Objectivist standpoint) to present these arguments from a blank slate. On an Objectivist message board, or on a message board that has any other angle, no. Those of us who are here chose this message board for a reason. If we wanted the tedium of talking Objectivism with those who don't know the first thing about it, we could go to a general message board. I therefore maintain that if you want this part of the discussion to continue, you should read The Romantic Manifesto. You remarked earlier that you "use reason, not Rand." Aside from the point that anyone could say they use "reason" ("I'm going to blow up this building because my reason tells me to," "I'm going to screw everyone and their sister because my reason tells me to"), such a dichotomy is false. Also, Ayn Rand did come up with the idea of Objectivism, and therefore wrote the bulk of books on Objectivism. Like it or not, that's a fact, and that's what people are here to discuss.
  6. (quoting metaphysical) The context I am keeping is that people have accused me of not loving my gf, simply because I do not wish to put shackles on her feet. You don't want to "put shakles on her feet," or you don't want to develop patience for a proper romantic relationship? Let's get real. You mean to say, in 100% honesty, that if your girlfriend could choose between you being monogamous and you wanting to sleep around, she'd either be indifferent / pick the latter? It has been asserted that the nature of romantic love is different from platonic love. It is far from supported and even farther from being validated. It has not been shown how a romantic relationship REQUIRES exclusivity, not by a long-shot. So you WOULD sleep with your golf buddies? Thus, the cycle continues.
  7. It looks like it! After six pages I have yet to be given concrete, specific examples of what one values in other sex partners that they aren't already seeing in the one person, aside from the physical. Instead, I'm seeing a bunch of contradicting vagaries. Two words to describe what's happening here: cognitive dissonance. If those with multiple sex partners choose to think deeply about the nature of romantic love, they would have to change their lifestyle. Why would they want to do that? This thread is turning into a waste of time, IMO.
  8. Stated at least three times elsewhere in the thread. (Go back and read; sorry, but I'm not going to rehash something I've discussed elsewhere for one person's benefit.) (quoting IAmMetaphysical) I already told you that the values that make me want to have sex with my gf are the same types of values I would have sex anybody else. I have sex with her and with them for the exact same types of reasons, of course with her there are different emotions to be experienced and she is a different person, but fundamentally the reasons are the same. What are the reasons? Case in point. Wait a minute. I thought having multiple sex partners carried the same emotional import as having multiple golf partners?
  9. Of course they have value in the short range. Having orgasms with multiple people not only serves no purpose, but is disasterous as (rational) sex cannot be separated from emotion. Again, what reasons are there for having sex with multiple people, other than "it feels good" or "different people are better / worse at different sex acts," or "I value large breasts, and also small breasts" (that last one is your quote!)? You have yet to shed light on the different value bases of your girlfriend vs. your other sex partners -- specifically. On a different note, you stated that you have been "insulted" in this thread on at least two occasions. If your position is correct, why do you allow yourself to feel insulted? (Remebering here that emotions can be explained by thoughts.) Don't you think that says something?
  10. Physical pleasure that is short range (and disasterous in the long range) such as drug use, sex for the sake of physical pleasure, and eating a lot of junk food. (I'm going to bed, so I likely won't return to this thread until tomorrow.)
  11. Sex is an act that celebrates the body's capacity to experience and share physical and emotional pleasure. My philosophy is not one of hedonism, so you're right: this is where the underlying disagreement lies. I explciitly stated that I do not want to have kids with those people who aren't my "top value." Where the hell do you get that I want to have kids with people who aren't? I didn't. You likely misread a previous post; perhaps my response to Moebius'.
  12. Sex is the ultimate level of expression for one's top value. This is where the contradiciton lies. If the person you're having sex with holds your top values, you wouldn't feel the drive to seek these values in other people. Think about it. What values -- specifically -- do you see in your other sex partners that you're not already seeing in your girlfriend, and vise versa? This is why I find it hard to believe that this isn't just all about getting more sex. It's also pretty sad and disastorous when people bring kids into the world with sex partners who are not their top values (as your post implies), but I suppose that's another thread topic.
  13. If your girlfriend is meeting all your needs (high values, etc.), then why are you looking elsewhere for additional romance? What are the other women doing for you that your girlfriend isn't? (And I just looked at part of the polygamy thread from Inspector's post on page 2 of this thread; yikes!)
  14. First of all: I use REASON to support my arguments, not Rand. If this is a problem for you then I would be glad to cease the discussion. Reason is non-contradictory, and you have yet to reconcile statements like this: with this: (italics mine)
  15. You still haven't addressed the problem (from an Objectivist POV) of having different value standards for different "types" of sexual partners; that you don't require your other sex partners to have the values you do for your girlfriend. Yet, according to Objectivism, having sex with anyone other than those who don't match your values is anti-self-esteem and therefore, irrational. I would suggest reading Rand's writings on Romantic relationships, and try to support your argument for non-monogamy with quotes from Rand herself. Until then, it would be impossible for this part of the discussion to continue.
  16. (quoting Metaphysical) There are certain standards for who I will go to bed with, they are just lesss trict than who I will choose to start a family with. Again, for reasons already stated here (and also in Rand's own writings), this "free love, sex with detatchment from values" (this "less strict" business) is far more in line with Libertarianism or liberalism than it is with Objectivisim.
  17. While I agree that actively pursuing multiple partners is not mandatory, I don't see how, if it is a value, its pursuit is immoral. How can pursuing a value be immoral, isn't that the basis of morality? Obviously if its pursuit involves the sacrifice of a higher value then it would be immoral, but it does not necessarily involve sacrifice and I would argue that a person who would not want you to experience pleasure/happiness and values would not be a value to be in a relationship with in the first place. I would argue that a person who would not want you to experience pleasure/happiness and values would not be a value to be in a relationship with in the first place. I would argue that hedonism or any other form of whim-worshiping is immoral. What long range goal or value is one fulfilling by having muliple romantic / sex partners? The most important criteria for me in choosing a life partner is their level of morality. In terms of a sexual partner, my criteria are a little less strict. But Objectivism doesn't distinguish between "life" (romantic) partner and sexual partner. They are one in the same. (When you say "life," I'm assuming you mean romantic or primary.) To have sex with someone whose values are in your estimation not surpreme is immoral (to the self).
  18. Sorry; I added more to my previous post as you were writing your response. I need to stop doing that!
  19. When I have sex with my gf I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, her value, her chosen values, etc. WHen I have sex with someone else I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, etc. Why does my appreciation of one's girls value make my appreciation of another girl's value worthless? Is it a betrayal of water to appreciate ice? Is it a betrayal of the atlantic to appreciate the pacific? I suppose it wouldn't. While I question what's behind the drive to pursue multiple romantic / sexual partners, as I said I think it can signify neediness (I went back and added something about this to my original post -- what's the point of having a partner in the first place if you feel a need to go elsewhere for sex and other perks; why not just live as a single and do the same thing?). I would give you that having multiple partners isn't inherently immoral, but it is not an Objectivist value worth actively pursuing (which, I don't think anyone's arguing anyway). Is it a betrayal of a friend to appreciate your mother, your lover, your other friends? Again, you're putting platonic love (friends) on the same level as romantic love (lovers). (Have you read Rand's Romantic Manifesto?) The characters in Rands novels who had affairs did so out of discovery that they did not share the same values and convictions as their partners. Rand herself came to discover that her husband was not as "heroic" as she had originally thought. Right or wrong, from an Objectivst standpoint, this is what fuels affairs: a realized mismatch of values (and therefore, the fading of romantic love). What made you seek other romantic partners outside of your girlfriend? Are her values and convictions not the highest?
  20. (quoting IAmMetaphysical) Were there unhappy with it? Did they voice their unhappiness, therefore letting their partners know they were unhappy or did that expect their partners to read their minds? From what I've read (Barbara Branden's book), it was the former. Peikoff believes the latter to be true. As far as I'm concerned, it comes down to little more than "he said, she saids." I would agree with you that people should not be expected to mind read. You assume that a person who wants to have sex with someone outside their primary relationship is not 100 percent happy with ther partner? Would you say that someone who has more than one golf buddy is not 100 mpercent happy with hsi most frequent golf partner? What makes sex so fundamentally different (read: other than specifics, i.e. qua recreational activity engaged in with someone you value) from golf? Sex is the ultimate expression of value appreciation, as it involves the body, ergo self, in the most intimate way possible. (This is why Rand argued that sex and love cannot be separated.) One does not become physically bonded with his golf buddies (I would assume...).
  21. Rand and Branden didn't lie about their affair to their spouses; their spouses gave them "consent." Nonetheless, I question the morality of their affair on two fronts. 1) Although Barabara Branden and Frank O'Connor consented, it should have been patently obvious to Rand and Branden that their spouses were not happy with it. Thinking that their spouses were happy with it would have been an evasion of reality, and 2) if your spouse is not your highest value on the romantic front, why stay married to him/her? I think the very concept of affairs is anti-individualist and anti-self-reliance. If you're unhappy in your relationship and would rather be with someone else, then why not leave it and be with the new person? The chorus of replies is predictible and never-wavering: "because I don't want to give up the security of my relationship," "splitting up would create financial complications," and "I'm afraid to be alone." Less common is: "well, I love both people, but in different ways." But that just reeks of neediness to me. Maybe it's time to spend more time alone and developing oneself as a productive individual, and less time being wrapped up in "loving others in different and many ways." The very notion of Objectivists staying in a relationship with which they are not 100% happy (and, to boot, because they don't want to go back to living single -- relying on the self) rings disonant with Objectivism.
  22. In no way would I ever argue for passive consumption on the part of the student (or on the part of anyone). What would happen is that the professor would give us readings and other assignments, to be discussed during the next class. Many times these planned discussions would never take place, as one or two chatterboxes would dominiate the discussion and go off on tangeants -- with themselves as the point of reference. If I wanted discussion based on "personal experiences" (as opposed to readings and intellectual exchanges of ideas), I could have easily found such a group in my personal life. The role of the professor is to present relevant material, to inspire thought in the individual, which in turn should be discussed and debated among students as appropriate. All too often, this is sacrificed in the name of screwing the books and "learning from each other."
  23. Yes; well said.... I also wonder if a lot of my frustrations are simply due to lack of patience on my part. Groups cannot accomplish anything immediatly after forming, as there is a process of general acclimation (getting a feel for others' personalities, etc.).
  24. These are some statements from the handouts that I’m having difficulty with: “Team members are interdependent – they are accountable to each other on an equal playing field.” “Have more faith in people than they do in themselves…” “Recognize human diversity as a gift, and the human spirit as a blessing.” I’m all for brainstorming ideas, but I don’t see how fostering codependence and dumbing oneself down (“diversity” of thought implies that some thoughts are not as good as others, but should be considered regardless) is supposed to help the individual improve. I have never liked group work, especially in college and graduate school. It always took twice as long to do and the final (ie: collective) product was never as satisfying, most likely because it wasn’t a product of my mind alone. I also used to dread classes that were run primarily by discussion, as opposed to lecture – based on the premise that “you learn as much from each other as you could from me (the professor).” I always felt like saying, “Um, no. I’m not paying thousands of dollars to listen to certain classmates that like to hear themselves talk. I’m paying to learn from a fully credentialed expert – you.” Sure, sitting around with peers and hearing people’s learning experiences can be helpful, but if that’s something I could have easily found on my own, and for free. Forming classes and “Professional Learning Communities” around does little for the growth of the individual. And if the individual isn’t the focus of the improvement, how does one suspect the given “society” to improve?
  25. I always shudder when I hear people describe themselves as "social." To me that sounds right on par with "mindless" and "time-wasting." I've never been into "going out" for the sake of going out. (When all is said and done and you come home, you ultimately have to deal with yourself; your drinking buddies add no long term value to your life.) I do feel I have a need for connection with others, but like others here have said, over time you develop an ease for selectivity and the friendships you do form are often more valuable. I also share your struggle of wanting to meet more (like-minded) people, but lacking the time for new people...!
×
×
  • Create New...