Tenderlysharp

My own experience with this forum is a state of exhaustion. Reading paragraph after paragraph of words that don't inspire my sense of life. Once in a while something beautiful is posted and the flickering interest of its author never returns to continue a discussion. Simple curiosity is met with a dissertation on the flaws and conformity of Objectivism Is there any way to revitalize it? Is there a concise way to recognize why this happens? Is there any way to entice you to want to return here?

My emotional response to the name Nathaniel Branden is an empathy of loss, betrayal, confusion. Is it a breach of privacy to speak of Ayn Rand's personal life? Her antagonists have no problem dredging it up. What is the most enlightened response to them? The process by which a strong attraction transforms into a strong repulsion is a subject that has profound implications for any human... The loss of intimacy. The disarray of friendships and business arrangements. The long term repercussions.

I don't remember where I heard it, it was a story about Ayn Rand saying she rarely had an emotion that she couldn't figure out its source in a short time. The more abstract the subject the longer it might take. Leonard Peikoff remarked that Ayn Rand could respond emotionally to broad abstractions which is very rare. When exactly in her life did she organize words into the phrases that resonate so concisely, integrating a process of reasoning with a process of investigating emotional responses. I still wonder why the title of this thread is Nathaniel Branden.

Emotion is a very personal response. Is this thread trying to make a distinction between the Objectivist view of emotion compared to Nathaniel Branden's view?

An integrated emotion seems to be something you are not at odds with...

The perspective you take in any life challenge will give you energy or drain your energy. Regarding your best actions as a sacrifice will doom you to a world of hopelessness and despair. Knowing you have a choice puts the priority in a place of correct action. A man who feels helplessly drawn into war will not recover his efficacy, he will have no reason to fortify him against the horrors of war. A person who blames their helpless family members will not take the most productive action on their behalf. Is there a way to measure what sacrifices you didn't know you made? For an example a person with the potential to make a billion dollar invention. Is that family member or war worth more than a billion dollars to them? Could they have helped that family member or war front a billion times over if their time were spent in different ways. If you think your life is over because you help someone, what does that do to your mind? What state of mind is going to give you the energy to believe you can have it all?

2012 Looks like I missed you by a few years...

A little conviction: I posted this in the music section, thought I would put it on a Ron Paul thread too.

Here is a music video celebrating The Constitution.

Ayn Rand had a better relationship with her father, more of her friends were men, she said she was a male chauvinist, housewives bored her.. I think her 'off the cuff' comment was an emotional reaction to the prospect of trading the men she loved for women, when she had no female equivalents in her life who could compare. She liked being a woman but she was a man worshiper. It seems like at the time she viewed lesbianism as a rejection of men, and she couldn't see herself doing that. There are collectivist groups who focus excessively on Ayn Rand's anti-gay statement without the context of her life at the time. The negative focus distracts people away from the power that defending individual rights has to remove government intervention from their lives. Would Objectivism have developed the same if she had been a lesbian? How would her philosophy be consistent if she said she worshiped man, yet found him sexually repulsive/uninteresting? If gay people are engaging in a collectivist kind of rejection against the opposite sex, it seems like it would be negative toward half of human life. If on the other hand it is chosen out of a strong connection with a particular person it doesn't have anything to do with anyone but the two people involved. Society and the government have no business in the bedroom of two adults... two 'consenting' adults. The only time it should matter is when you are looking for a partner, and desiring someone of your preference to prefer you. When I meet someone their sexuality is not my first concern, I am more interested in their ideas. Each person has different comfort zones when talking about sex, with varying levels of discretion on how soon into a friendship it seems like the topic is approachable. Flirtation is an aspect of friendship I enjoy, and my level of flirtation depends on each individual involved. I admire men and women, both straight and gay. I am a woman who has chosen a man as my partner, he is a unique irreplaceable element in defining my sexuality. Positive gay role models, (hero worship) will do more than anything in shaping public opinion about the issue. Objectivism is very good for inspiring each individual to confidently strive toward his or her potential.

The idea of egoism brings to my mind a parallel with the open ended nature of knowledge. What is the definition of a "pure" egoist? Someone living on a desert island perhaps? Would Ayn Rand define herself as an egoist or a pure egoist? Existence/Identity/Consciousness is a trinity. It is as inherent in man as it is in the way he gains knowledge. An egoist makes the best choice he can within the context of what he knows at the time he is making the choice. An egoist develops self confidence in his choices. When a man gives something to someone he loves he does it because he values the person. To say he can't be a pure egoist seems to mean that on some level he can't value his loved one enough to make the gift genuine.

Yes pragmatism has had a strong pervading influence on the entire culture. Most people seem to be afraid of taking a firm and certain stand on anything because of how certainty has been manipulated and abused by mysticism. Ayn Rand said once "They will scatter like rats at the first sound of a human step" This gives me a sense that a willing mind that is right will triumph no matter how big and menacing the opposition seems to be.

Epistemologically one can mentally isolate the attribute red in order to define it, but the ability to do so depends on first observing it while it is attached to objects.

I am not sure I understand you, can you clarify your context?

The self is an entity. There are no choices without an entity to choose them. Just as there is no color red floating in a vacuum without the surface it is attached to. Try removing all of the words he, his, you, your, I, my, from your vocabulary.... You have to use self in the attempt to invalidate self. Your nature determines that you will make choices. You determine the choices you make. It is your moral responsibility to think about each choice you make. Morality only exists where there is a choice. The rock in your illustration has no choice about its nature, morality does not apply to the rock. Your value of your self-esteem will guide your choices. How can he be held accountable if his actions are not chosen by him? Consistency is necessary for self esteem. It retains its usefulness when a man has to weigh all of the evidence available to defend himself, and to choose whom he associates with in love and business. We are all under the threat of a car crash every time we enter traffic, but if traffic was chaos we would not be able to drive. Eliminating a concept such as car from the equation does not seem productive. In Objectivism Man is defined as a "Rational Animal." Extrospectively Man means all men who have ever lived and will ever live, and everything that applies to the survival of his mind and body. Introspectively Man means your self and everything that applies to keep your mind and body alive. Man is constantly facing motivating reasons that outweigh positive experience. Choices that seem to be in conflict, like cooking deliciously unhealthy food on that stove. In these cases the rational and the animal have been pitted against one another. When a man's rational nature is in line through his self esteem to his animal nature based on an understanding of long range happiness he makes better choices. And learns how to cook healthier food that is also tasty. There is a distinction between fundamental nature which is volition which is an axiom that is self evident in every choice we make. A man determines the nature of his character with each choice he makes. If you believed a prophesy foretells of a hero named Jo who saves a girl named Mary, and then Jo saves Mary. Jo had no choice in the matter. You can not say that Jo saved Mary, it was the prophesy that saved Mary, Jo doesn't exist as a volitional entity, he is merely the pawn of the prophesy. If on the other hand there is no prophesy and Jo loves Mary so much that he would do anything to save her, and circumstances come to where he has to choose to save her, he takes the dangerous risk of losing and is worthy of the reward. The difference it makes is: If a man comes to understand his mistakes are not from some innate flaw determined to remain consistent by his nature,(which many men use to evade responsibility) he has the choice to learn from his mistake and make better choices in the future. If his past mistakes were bad enough to place him in prison, he may remain there until he dies, but he still has the choice of how he is going to live with himself in prison. Will he evade and live as a zombie?, or will he face it full on do what ever he can do in the confines of what he has left, to make his world a place worthy of a rational mind to live in.

Elitism is used as an anti-concept. It insinuates that striving to be the best one can be is somehow condescending. It is a word used by those below to tear down those above so they don't have to go to the trouble of competing. Which may be why it took over 2000 years to for it to be better understood. But eventually it was understood in the practical application of the Declaration of Independence. This implies an equivalent. As though Objectivism and Christianity are interchangeable. A reason Atlas Shrugged may be so much more popular than Ayn Rand's non-fiction work is because abstract principles are applied to down to earth scenarios. A man who can't understand basic axioms is still using them as he stands there talking to you. An honest man who doesn't understand all of the implications of where altruism came from still doesn't like being stolen from. This is not so in my experience. It is a deterministic way of looking at humanity that drops the context of what a Man "Is". Because his rational faculty is essential in the very action of forming his mouth into a word while knowing its meaning. He is a rational being even if he swims in irrational thoughts. The rational part of his nature will surface if you use the right bait, and calm yourself so you don't startle him away. There are approaches to take with each person, an approach that begins with what you and your opposition have in common. When someone asked “What ought to be done about the poor?” the reply was “Don't be one of them.” Objectivism requires a man to be what he is, conscious, volitional, rational... There are contradictions in being blindly conscious, blindly volitional, blindly rational. Will the rational men in the future have no arguments to raise? The difference between Objectivism and all of these other movements is that Objectivism is the only one based on self-defense. In a world where Objectivism protects individual rights, ignorant people will only be able to hurt themselves. Trying to somehow control their thinking would go against the foundation of Objectivism. It is futile to try force the irrational to be rational. This would take specific scenarios to address. The question seems to me like a parent saying he doesn't know how to deal with his child. There are irrational people in the world now, there will probably be irrational people in the world in the future: Is this a deterministic view or is it based on the nature of choice? An objectivist forum is probably a good testing ground for what life would be like in an Objective world. Why does the question need to be projected into a future scenario? The problem exists now, it is better to deal with it now. Is there some social stigma in criticizing an Objectivist who's tactics you don't like. Is risking the discernment of each others reputation worth the investment of understanding?

I should have put the 'think for yourself' comment in better context. I meant that the cynicism of parasites finding a way to get their parasitic way, is deterministic.

Emotions are not tools of cognition they are a reaction to cognition. It is important to investigate your emotions in order to learn how to bring your emotions into harmony with your cognition. The more you practice this the less at odds with your emotions you will become. A feeling of dissatisfaction could be misinterpreted as a lack of self esteem when actually your cognitive abilities are restless for more knowledge to tackle greater challenges. Maybe goals need to be reorganized and prioritized.

Above all Objectivism requires you to think for yourself. If your interest in economics rates high on the hierarchy of your plans for your future, you will learn all you can about it. The more you know, the more empowered you will become to see where breakthroughs can be made in human understanding. The parasites only win by default when there is no conscious man to lead toward a better way.

It is better to ask if I am married or have a family before jumping to conclusions. I have been with my husband for 17 years, and we have a three year old son. When we decided to to conceive we did it with the conscious awareness of all of the responsibilities that come with caring for a human being for 18 years of his life. I am a thousand times more generous to my son than my mother was. To my mother everything was a sacrifice; I was constantly resented as a burden. Nothing I ever give to anyone I love will be tainted with a trace of regret in the thought that the money could have been spent elsewhere. I weigh all of my options and make the better choice. There are no sacrifices of any kind. There are only choices, and the choice I make is infused with a conscious conviction to be better than the choice I leave behind. Life is full of difficult choices, but the choice I make ought to be the better choice to the best of my knowledge within the context of the long term of my life. No pencil I will ever buy for my son will be seen by me as a sacrifice, because he is the better choice. Sacrifice is a debt that can only be paid with more sacrifice. I refuse to impose obligation for him to love me because I sacrificed for him. If he chooses to love me it will be because we respect, admire, and inspire one another. To assume that a man would naturally make the wrong choice (so he has to “sacrifice” to achieve good choices), is an attack on his self worth and the dignity of his discerning mind. But altruism is not asking a man to sacrifice his evil, it is asking him to sacrifice his good. Why does altruism believe sacrifice is necessary? Why are the reason's a man does not want to sacrifice evaded? Why is he accused of heartlessness, while the parasites who require his sacrifice are not? The "psychological disorder" you speculated on is prevalent in anyone to the extent that they see human sacrifice as a good thing. Objectivism is mathematical, it is not opposed to charity, it is opposed to bad investments. If a charity demonstrates that the money invested fuels a program that redoubles the productive output of participants, maintains itself, and repays the initial investor, no sacrifice is necessary and it will be praised by Objectivists. In most forms of charity the people getting the help have no money. The helpers can not make money by giving them help. The helpers have to get their money from someone who is doing something else... does the research show who that person is? Does the research show if he gave his money voluntarily? Or was it extorted out of him? Does the research include the people he could have given productive jobs to if he hadn't been forced to give it to charity? Could the charity recipients have gained some self respect by working those jobs rather than being condescended to by the charity workers and administrators (who also took their cut from the donations.) Looters look really happy when they are running off with a stolen television, but how do they feel a month later when all of the businesses and jobs are gone? Objectivists actually will not try to control someone who refuses to agree with them, as long as individual rights are not being infringed. Altruists collect in large enough groups to vote rights away from the individual, this is why distinctions are being argued over. Objectivism always acts from a position of self-defense. Ayn Rand said she never advocated an Objectivist Utopia. Volition (the necessity of choice) is central to Objectivist ethics. There is no choice without options. There is no choice to be rational without the option to be irrational, no choice to be atheist without the option to believe in God, no choice to give to charity without the option to decline. Objectivists are merely working to garner enough support to ensure a majority vote to protect individual rights.

Sacrifice is a bitter poison to any relationship great or small. Only a cannibal would appreciate a few drops of your blood in every piece of cake you offer. Everyone who sacrifices puts the beneficiaries in a spiritual debt. Obedience and passing on the 'favor' is expected, the bond that cements a relationship in guilt. You had better be a good person because someone sacrificed for you, not because you ought to want to be a good person. Human relationships are wallowed through begrudgingly. People are bound by obligation rather than striving to earn esteem with each new day. Do-gooders go around looking for someone's need to feed on. They tell the needy that it isn't their fault, that God has a plan, and he is showing his love through them. Why not be a parasite if it makes someone feel so good to help? They go around shoving that misery in everyone's face in order to guilt some money out of a selfless pocket. How can money be of value if the substance emanating from yourself is treated like shameful leftover trash that is so easily disposed of? Filling the needs of bodies with nothing left for any mind. It is better to be honest about it; If I give you something I am not sacrificing for you, I am making an investment in you. Here is what I will give, and here is what I expect in return. Hear are your virtues that I want to see developed. If I pay for my child's education I expect good grades. If I give my brother a loan I expect it to be paid back. I don't loan to those who have defaulted in matter or in spirit. I don't give blank checks. I don't loan to strangers whom I have never seen and will never see again. Why should they mean more to me than I mean to them? There are better men to loan to. Accountability will keep my wealth from disintegrating. If you don't accept my stipulations then don't take my money. If it is your value it is not a sacrifice. Anyone who speaks of giving as self sacrifice is accusing the self of being incapable of giving. Generosity and sacrifice are contradicting terms.

I am paraphrasing a speech Ayn Rand made, sorry I don't remember the exact information, she was comparing Christianity to Fascism I think. She said: "Christianity would have you love your neighbor as yourself, thats not quite right, but at least it doesn't forbid a man from loving himself." She was talking about Christianity as a milder state of altruism, and the significance of it is that you can't fight a strong altruism with a milder altruism. I think the Modern American version of Christianity has been greatly influenced by the founding principles of this country. Modern American Christians are no longer burning witches for instance. Christianity has a tendency to absorb the cultures around it, as Christmas and Easter traditions such as the yule log and the Easter bunny have roots in pagan rituals. It may even eventually go so far as to claim God was speaking through Ayn Rand because that is how God intended us to experience this world otherwise he would have revealed himself to us. But, as I watched an evangelist recently they are already appropriating some of Rand's ideas without giving her credit. I am seeing my own Christian upbringing as a kind of dream state, where nothing makes much sense, you can't be sure of anything, there are ups and downs, but no one seems to know why anything happens, and band-aids are the best they can do for the problems that keep reproducing themselves. Do the jobless people expect to become happy as they prey for the economy(they have no understanding of) to get better? Is a person really "Happy" when they are only dreaming of happiness? How many people who think they are happy have ever formed a solid definition of what happiness is, and know what effort is necessary to achieve it, and actually put that effort into practice?