Sieur Bertrand

Put it this way, there is no rule or law that says I necessarily have to agree with every single little thing that Ayn Rand says, or perhaps more so what you have so far interpreted as Ayn Rand saying, but it's a lot more complex than that really which is why I recommended you look into evolution if you have not already. It is said that homo Sapiens are social beings but on the same token I would have to agree that they are also sexual beings. The main issue I take with you is your implications. Honestly, why assume or imply something about someone instead of asking? Furthermore I don't see how any of this is an equal and fair trade, nor do I see how I have not sufficiently explained myself. If it is not understood the first time, what the hell should make me think it would be understood the second time around. Quite simply, I am not here to repeat myself. If this classifies me as an anti Social asshole or anything else of that sort, so be it.

agreed, or better yet help each other. Watch out for altruism, don't let your guard down!

I find the direction of this topic utterly ridiculous. If the truth wasn't painful why the hell would most homo Sapiens go to such great lengths to avoid it? Recognize that "they" not only lie to others, but also to themselves. Furthermore I am not too big on Plato myself, but that doesn't mean I don't, much less can't, find merit in some of his writings, providing of course that they are rational/logical. And on that, How is stating that something is so and so or such as such supposed to convince me, much less anyone, if you don't cite a reason why? What the fuck is this perceptual forums now?! I mean, damn I knew I was controversial but what the hell am I thinking barging into here trying to be productive, golly I'm stupid, somebody change my freaking mind and talk some sense!

Well, at least it's good that you see no reason to explain. I, of course wouldn't want you to waste any time on it. Go ahead and throw any other accusations you have off the top of your head while your at it.

When was the last time you did any serious research into evolution Inspector? I don't like what you are replying and you sound like a buffoon, try reading/re-reading the original post in regards to Prometheus and see if it registers

Pain is to be valued. The truth is painful is it not? Did you not read Plato's Allegory of the Cave, much less the Fountainhead? If you look at the sun, your eyes will burn, but only for a short while. Tell me this, which is better, the man who sees and has pain, or the man who doesn't and has no pain...?

It is, however if you wish to pretend it to be something else I don't see the harm

Imagine. A man/woman passed by a man and noticed abrasions upon his back. The person sarcastically ask, "What the hell happened, you get attack by a cougar?" to which the man replied, "Close to it, it's from sex" Scratching, hair pulling, & ripping clothes off during sex are all masochistic actions. It is the fight which excites, the struggle. It is the attempt, the act of attempting, to exhaust another. Physically, mentally, & spiritually exhausting them to the point of surrender. A battle of wills, of strength. Who is stronger, man or woman? Individual vs individual. Sex is meaningless for the common, for the god it is a science. It is a sacred act you perform, a ritual of intoxication. Why else was the Pythia said to react in violent physical sensations when receiving prophecy from Apollo? Anything less may as well be considered impotent. Is not? Choking or squeezing of any kind Necessarily whips, chains, or anything necessarily abusive others? (et cetera...) Is? Smacking biting Violent will struggle fight battle erotic (Etymological Erotika, from Eros-god of love: Cupid in Roman etc...) The human spirit The mind (et cetera.... others?) Sex is the evolutionary compendium of interaction?

Last one is my normal "critical expression". I do the raised eye brow thing a lot due to the fucked up nature of the world, to put it bluntly that is.

I'm not that extreme folks, no dominatrix damnit! Pull the hair, little spanking, scratching, that sort of thing, you know the drill

True and I think the question you are "reaching towards" comes down to belief. For example, I am selfish because I believe in no thing but one thing, which is myself and therefore antithesis of selflessness. A religious person on the other hand, will attribute what they perceive as "miraculous" to the external god. This is really strange when I think about it because it is a seeming contradiction yet the evidence says otherwise in that I am subjectively (Believe in self) objective (Selfish w/evidence/reason). What's the story of Prometheus? I put it in my into post, I'll refrain from posting it but you might like to check it out for further consideration. As far as thinking, most people think that which is convenient or easy. In the case of fire, it was thanks to god whereby stating as such is more or less an excuse for their own shortcomings and personal choice as it may relate to mediocrity. Basically they feel/think/choose, for whatever reason, that they cannot simply do a "great" thing such as make a discovery or somehow improve themselves/realize their potential so anyone that does is an automatic threat to their existence which they must, in someway, explain away, hence attributing it to an imaginary god. In the case of the Greeks it was reversed. Whenever something was good, they would often attribute it to man and his ability, but when something was bad, or inadquate, they would attribute it to god (i.e. **** you Eros! Zues, help me out! (Or help myself!) ) -Derek

I am an objectivist, but I do not see why I must necessarily use the philosophy of Rand to Illustrate my points. Rand, as well as other objectivists, advocated reason and logic above all else did they not? What then, is so wrong of me to present alternative philosophies so long as they are in fact based in reason or logic? I am philosopher, and I admire Rand immensely but on the same token I won't follow her, or anyone for that matter, "to the gates of hell and back" without sufficient reason for doing so. My life is mine alone is it not? With that said I will then proceed to debate the comments made that are wholly understood and accepted by your own objective volition rather than your subjective volition as it may concern to accepting ALL of what Rand illustrated for the sake of your admiration of her rather than the sake of your apparent lack of reason in understanding and applying said concepts by way of a rational choice. There was a man who lived about two thousand four hundred years ago by the name of Socrates. He was the first in a long line of men, some of whom were philosophers while others may be scientists and revolutionaries. He was like the beginning spark in a chain of events that has gone on to shape humanity, and thus the world, until present time. To illustrate, it was once said, "Plato Was a student of Socrates, Aristotle was a student of Plato, and Alexander was a student of Aristotle. Alexander conquered the world." That is not the point I am trying to make however, merely evidence for what I am about to say in relation to the greatness of this man as well as the greatness he bestowed upon humanity as a whole, for, Socrates was a philosopher and he did not teach the civil law. The law Socrates taught, was the moral one; the absolute; the god in man; reason; Logistikon; et al. So then, which is greater, the statuary or the moral? Which is right? Which is Proper? Which is Logical? Which is Rational? Which is Perfect? The function of government is to govern. If it was not, don't you suppose we would not call it government? The questions to ask are: What limits must a (external) government have? What shall the government govern? Who shall be the governed? etc... Why did I make this thread? I knew this would happen. You can say, "well this is a forum if you don't want to debate then don't post" but you know, I would simply tell you that you are not specifically addressing, much less considering, what I originally proposed or my reasons for it... etc... we could go on all day like this, but what the hell is the point? Give and take right? Push and pull

Great comments, thanks a bunch. I also see Dagny with short hair. -Derek

That's all fine and dandy but you still havn't told me why they are wrong, and to be quite honest I don't think you can. What is it that you find fault with my argument? Word Choice? How the statement is phrased? I don't get it. Is it your perceptions that are the conflict?

If by proper function of government you mean to say that the individual governs himself first and foremost then yes I understand quite well, however, not all people of a country are so able or interested in such as as it may be it is up to those that do to make it known what is proper and improper, through the/a controlled medium of government system by way of written statuary law and the persons who enforce it such as judge and jury or, if need be, the individual himself as in the case of Howard Roark. As far as hubris is concerned, I think you should reread what it said as I don't think you fully understand. That or I am not fully understanding you as I cannot see how anyone in their right mind could state so confidently that a law against hubris or acts of hubris can be wrong and restrictive of free speech. Just as it is morally wrong for a person to physically attack you for no reason whatsoever other than their own desire to, so to it is wrong for a person to insult you for no reason whatsoever other than their own subjective desires. I could very well cite the deterioration of society through various facts and statistics, but I won't because it is irrelevant information being that anyone who is aware enough would automatically realize and know what I am talking about. If you however, are not familiar with it, I would suggest you make it a top priority to find out as it is, as you say, hardly irrelevant and a pressing concern for any free thinking objectivist that knows absolute moral premise(s). Contradictions cannot exist in reality. Therefore if you see one, or should I say, think you see one, it is perceptual and opinionated. Push and pull buddy, push and pull

Those are all very good points, and I am aware of them but I will still stand by what I say and ask you to reconsider given the following: Hubris or hybris (Greek ὕβρις), according to its modern usage, is exaggerated self pride, arrogance or self-confidence (overbearing pride), often resulting in fatal retribution. In Ancient Greece, "hubris" referred to actions taken in order to shame and humiliate the victim, thereby making oneself seem superior. Hubris was a crime in classical Athens. It was considered the greatest sin of the ancient Greek world. The category of acts constituting hubris for the ancient Greeks apparently broadened from the original specific reference to molestation of a corpse, or a humiliation of a defeated foe, to molestation, or irreverent, "outrageous treatment", in general. The meaning was further generalized in its modern English usage to apply to any outrageous act or exhibition of pride or disregard for basic moral law. Such an act may be referred to as an "act of hubris", or the person committing the act may be said to be hubristic. Ate, Greek for 'ruin, folly, delusion', is the action performed by the hero, usually because of his/her hubris, or great pride, that leads to his/her death or downfall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Before the United States, there was moral law, as there always have been. But it wasn't until Jefferson and the Constitution that it became civil law. There is a certain importance that needs to be placed upon the act as it relates to the actual writing of it out don't you agree? Also, please do not discount my comments in regards to Orwell (freedom of speech=freedom to speak truth) and Yellow Journalism.

I completely agree. My father is one of those intellectual types and would often take me and my sisters to museums and such as children. Well, I got the bright idea to build a campfire like I saw at the museums one day while my father was at work and my mother was watching her soap operas as she always does. What I figured at the time, was that as long as you had stones piled in a circle, there would be no possibility of fire escaping (as if by some magical law I didn't fully understand). So of course the first thing I did was to get my stones ready. When I was satisfied I went to ask my mother for some matches. I specifically remember her saying, "What the hell do you need matches for? You better not be messing with fire!" and then going on about watching her soap operas. Of course I ignored her and though I don't specifically remember how I eventually was able to start my campfire I do remember quite well that the stones didn't work as well as I thought they would at the small fire quickly became a large one. My father did not punish me, much to the discontent of many, but he did ask me if I now understood what had happened and why I did it to which I replied yes, I did. I realize now that all my mother had to do was to take an afternoon off from watching soap operas to have a little fun with me and satisfy my curious nature in discovering what fire was all about.

I've always been attracted to short hair, particularly in females to a great extent. I saw some of the members on this site and noticed two women with short hair out of viewing a total of about five. Am I just being silly or does anyone else feel the same way? I would be interested in hearing thoughts on this and curious to know if anyone were to be able to hypothesize a link between attraction to short hair females, or perhaps even males -as concerned with eroticism-, and it's possible relation to masochism. Something in the subconscious perhaps? Denotes some feeling of ability -e.g. long hair get's in the way of activities does it not? Or perhaps just a subjective tendency based on my own preference for short hair? This may be silly but I've wondered of this question for quite a while now and would hope to get at least a few responses. Thanks, Derek

I consider myself to have always been an objectivist. I can say this knowing my thought patters and choices made as I aged. It would be accurate to attribute myself as an objectivist to as a process of maturation however, of which I started reading GoodKinds novels about 4 years ago and followed up by reading The foundtainhead and Atlas Shrugged in fall and winter of last year (2007). I can relate to Atlas Shrugged so much in fact, that occassionally I will tell people who are particularly interested in understanding my person to go pick the book up from the library. I fit just about everything in that book to a 'T' including the HIGHLY EROTIC masochism

"in what sense"l, i.e./as in what level of reality? Honestly don't see the difference. Appears you are simply restating, albeit in somewhat different and perhaps clearer terms, my comment. With that said, how is it wrong?

I would first state that calling it belief is an insult and quite an inadquate term to use. I would then proceed to tell you that a person, by way of his mind, is shaped by his choices, which for most are based subjectively on what may be considered "wishes and whims", hence your illogical comment, and that a few, in the case of Ayn Rand particularly, advocate objective choice, whereby the individual adheres not so much to himself as he does to the very principles of the universe, as it is logical/rational, when choosing. It is also important to not that a person is only capable of making a subjective illogical choice at the expense of others. For example: stealing.

I take issue with this rule as well and am not quite sure why Goodkind chose to phrase it as such. To explain further, I am not a fan of apologies. I could care less if someone is sorry and will most always simply ignore the remark when I hear it. What I do care for, however, is willingness to learn and become better. It is ok to make mistakes, but it not ok to make the same mistake over and over again. Maybe that is what Goodkind meant. Make a mistake, don't necessarily be sorry for it, but do be sure to improve yourself in future. Once said improvement occurs, go on your happy way about it and be glad the mistake occurred, both for the person who made it and the person who finds it at fault, because it was a learning experience (wtf I sound like a psychiatrist) and you are now a better person for it. So maybe what is meant by the term magic, is fulfilling the potential of yourself or man in general, man's mind, or man's ability.

Why is it that we are held accountable for what we do, especially in relation to the government (Vs. Individual), but not for what we say? Why is there not a moral standard that regulates between individuals or citizens just as well as there is a moral standard that regulates between government and citizen/individual (constitution)? With that said, wouldn't it be quite an honorable and proper thing to do that we should devise a second constitution outlining rights applicable between person to person relations? We have these troubles with free speech. On one hand a person might argue that they can say anything they please, but from a moral standpoint that is not necessarily true is it, much less objective? What was it that Orwell said? "Freedom is the ability to say 2+2=4. Freedom of speech should necessarily imply freedom to speak the truth, NO MATTER WHAT, should it not? Yet we, the American Pullitzers of the "modern Era", continually insist on yellow journalism and bullshit as newsworthy and proper. What is it that we've come to? How could the great Thomas Jefferson, who was aware of problems when dealing with the subject of the press, not foreseen said eventualities? Second Constitution? Yea or Nea!? How can we allow a person to take another to court in a sue lawsuit, be found to be a liar or a crook, and when he loses, think nothing of it and allow said liar to get off "scott free"?!

If you would consider the writings of Thomas Jefferson, as outlined in the American Constitution, then you must defend against enemies both foreign AND domestic, where, apparently those whom are domestic pose the greater danger. Alexander Hamilton for example, original proponent of the Federal Reserve, and man who's face is on the ten note was/is known for slandering opponents in his "politics" including Thomas Jefferson himself. He died when he tried to do the same to Aaron Burr whom challenged him to a duel in response to his accusations and killed the SOB! Just goes to show how deep that runs, most people might idealize Hamilton but in reality, he really was an SOB and may best be considered as the Anti Thesis to Jefferson and the original bureaucratic scumbag! As far as supporting the troops, you should check out youtube. There's one video I saw where a marine threw a puppy off a cliff. But you know how it is, "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!" no matter than the reasons for war and whether it is unjust or against constitution or not... We can always make excuses right? I also wonder what this business about serving your country is, particularly in regards to America. See, I always thought that the only thing I ever owed, and I stress "owed", in any sense of the word, to America, or more so to myself, was to be an individual. With that I do not fully understand how joining the military for the benefit of others necessarily fulfills that. Point being, if you want to join the military, do it for yourself. Make it selfish. Get whatever you can out of it, whether it's general self improvement or the shit load of inflated currency they want to offer.

Anything and everything you can imagine has at least some reality to it. A dream is real, if you can think it, it is real. That, however, it not necessarily the question. More so, the question is how real is it? To answer, one must decide what exactly god is. I will spare you the details and state that god is power Here are some notes from my writings to further illustrate: 5. What god is God is Power; Power is political; Politics is power; etc.. Ex. Nuclear/atomic capabilities has semi divine status given it's apparent adoration by the masses. If it just so happen to be that it was the most powerful thing knowable, you can be sure that it would become the absolute god and would be given sacrificial animals during worship. To a child, who has not been indoctrinated into the world, the mother or father may be thought of as god, if the child sees fire, it may be god, it may also be magic, or a miracle. Also may consider the realities to the Ancient Greek god's. Eros for example, was not so much the god of love as he was the embodiment of love. With that said, any time you happened to have experienced a feeling of love, you would attribute it to Eros. Further from this, if you were to have "troubles" with love, then you would in turn blame Eros (Cupid in Roman) and, often enough, actually curse the deity/force! Most know, for example, that the Trojan war was blamed, to large extent, upon gods. This is because, for the most part, Greek culture, ideology, and religion dictated that men could be and sometimes were greater than the gods, thereby making it possible to ignore, surpass, or bypass concepts of holiness when referencing the potential of man himself. Since god is power, and for me the most powerful thing I know of is truth, then necessarily, for me, god is truth and truth is the ultimate power. signed, -meanderings of a philosopher