Eiuol

I can think of many. The most obvious is any intimate/sexual scene. That is a direct and visceral way of experiencing emotions. Especially in the Fountainhead, when describing any state of pride when making his buildings. Repeatedly, Rand uses examples of self-esteem in her characters, or what happens with a lack of self-esteem. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny felt a deep pride in her work that she didn't want to leave the railroad. She managed it by being involved in her work, being passionate, valuing working with railroads, and much more by listening to music, helping people she cares about (Cheryl came to her for advice), or even just being around people she likes. I can't see where there is a lack of emotion in any of her work. Perhaps there's more to say about expression, but it happens a lot, even if you don't get a manual of how. What? o.O I was explaining to you earlier, and in another thread, that there should be no connections between oneself and others. You shouldn't live for the sake of others; you should live for your sake. That does not exclude valuing others deeply. The idea is values should improve your life, and people do it all the time. You seem to think Objectivism ignores others or treats them as pure utilitarian value as opposed to any emotional value. That's not true. Really it's a philosophy of individualism of your whole life, which can and should include people that allow you to flourish more than otherwise. Some people who are Objectivists may be obsessed with evil and seem to forget any good, but that's a problem of their own psychology. What I meant by bias earlier wasn't a bias due to you not liking or disagreeing with a viewpoint. I meant in certain environments, you see more of some personality styles, so you are probably overgeneralizing those personalities to what Objectivism prescribes. If you go looking, you may find really passionate, emotional, and rational people, all in one. I don't know how far your experience goes.

Lol. Definitely a troll/sock puppet. Your only post is this thread, recently made account, use of the word "orthodox" (the people who use that term would never say anything positive about ARI), and the absurd exaggerations of praise... Need I go on? Amusing, though. Heh, and your treatment of what "closed" Objectivism as though it means its supporters as an idea seek no knowledge outside of Objectivism's definition. Be honest, don't hide behind satire here. You won't be banned or modded for mere criticism of ARI.

Can you give an example of how Objectivism is missing others in terms of relationships, or an example of what you think is valuable/important about people that Objectivism misses? My concern isn't with what is "true" Objectivism, just what is entailed by Rand's philosophical positions. You say a lot of emotion, but perhaps the apparent lack of emotional consideration is a bias due to your sample of an online forum, where probably you won't see the depth of emotion there is. By the way, your "National Emotion Bank" is great potential for dystopian fiction... I'd say money already serves that purpose, and many non-monetary transactions use a sort of implicit social capital. Same with "likes", views, post count, etc. The program you propose is inflated in terms of implementation. Not only that, it addresses a problem that isn't really there.

What do you mean by primacy of mind there, Ilya? You seem to treat it as considering the mind of primary importance. Rand meant it as treating the mind as what dictates the nature of reality. In your sense, Objectivism could be primacy of mind, to the extent its epistemological theory is based on the relation between mind and reality, and individual means of apprehending reality. That is, the mind is a method of understanding reality at all, where the mind is of primary importance to life and knowledge. However, it doesn't dictate reality. "I think the latter is more elegant and allows more freedom, such as "I will A [and B]" or "I will A [and ~B]." " That's fair to say, mostly I prefer statements of a positive than negative phrasing as well. It's not anything that indicates the black and white dichotomy you claimed Objectivism holds. Indeed, Objectivism is whatever Rand said it is, errors and all, though I think throughout all her works it's easy to see that other people matter, that you can only evaluate the relations you hold with others is the selfish value that they provide.

The difference between viewing and using is quite different. Seeing genitals really in no way negatively impacts the importance of sex, all it means is that sight of something has no special meaning. Actions can because that affects how you lead your life, while the sight of something has no such impact that I am aware of. You'd have a point if you demonstrate how the sight of a nude body objectively has an impact on your life, especially any impact on having sex. Except, that connection appears to be taken for granted. At best you can say "well, I just don't prefer it", which is fine, but not any argument against "disgust over any nudity is irrational".

But I take it that you find the discomfort of orange in a totally different way than discomfort of some nude bodies. You used feces to describe the discomfort of some nudity, while it doesn't apply to orange to you. Personally, I dislike the color yellow. It doesn't gross me out like oysters (which has a sensible justification), or feces (again, a rational justification exists). There isn't a rational reason to dislike yellow, but it can't apply to rationality anyway unless it was like "I think yellow is a color of special value that should only be seen in intimate situations". There is no specialness to yellow, nor is there for nudity. Yeah, sex is special - the act of it. Seeing it? Not really. Seeing genitals at all is even less noteworthy. If you just don't prefer nudity, it is fine, yet to be wholly disgusted seems to be missing any justification.

There are many reasons to not post a nude picture that have nothing to do with embarrassment about nudity. One is privacy in general - privacy does not imply embarrassment over what is kept private. I wouldn't even post a picture of myself, and I wouldn't post one nude, either. You can't assume that his reason has anything to do with nudity. I take it that his reason is something besides the irrational one, i.e. falling to social pressure. I'll make a post later today expanding on why I agree with JASKN, so the question you asked him would apply to me.

No, they also need to be proven as unrelated. I mean, you aren't wrong, it's just wrong to characterize Objectivism as saying that the law of excluded middle means A and B are contradictions. It just means A and ~A is a contradiction. There is no 3rd option for A, except possibly "90% A", which would mean that A actually consists of 90% X and 10% Y of some assortment of characteristics... And so on! "Objectivists would wrong first on the assumption that they would be wronged (attack is better than defense)." Err, being wronged is just as "bad" as doing wrong. Retaliation isn't wrong, so you can't characterize it as "doing wrong is better than being wronged". It's 100% right. At the same time, I think there are many valid questions to ask about if it really was retaliation or justifiable to nuke, but insofar it is retaliation, it is right.

Well yeah, so she went on to demonstrate that they are mutually exclusive. "but to wrong is better for an Objectivist." uh, how do you conclude this? What you've tried to say is "neo" Objectivism is just regular Objectivism. "Many valued logic" is fine, in the sense there are many variables. A thing cannot be anything other than the thing it is at that moment in time. Only "true and false" is two valued, depending on the characteristic in question. Generally, the least you can say is a 5 pound weight cannot also be ~(5 pound weight) at the same time and in the same sense. The difficulty of reason is to determine what is in fact mutually exclusive. Can light be a particle and wave, simultaneously? I don't know. But light wouldn't be a particle and not a particle *at the same time*, while a wave might be related to a particle if they are both conceptually related. It's not so simple as saying "particles can't also be waves!" Simple as "A is A" sounds, it doesn't mean reason is simple as declaring a definition.

No one really buys the analytic/synthetic dichotomy anymore, not since Quine anyway. I think because logical positivism is not viewed favorably anymore for many reasons besides Quine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine#Rejection_of_the_analytic.E2.80.93synthetic_distinction

I'm more inclined to listen to Robert on this one. I never read the book, so what is Machiavellian about it? I'm interested because it is pretty common from my experience with others for kindness/benevolence to be treated as a sacrifice of self to others. It might not be a virtue, but usually it is good to be open to talking to others. Effective communication isn't about saying the "right things", it's about seeking to be understood. It's a skill to be direct yet also fair and just. That's as opposed to "social manipulation" to get what you want at any cost.

Have to? No, but it isn't wise to assume people are Keatings as a reason to not speak to them. They might not be. It's fine to not be interested, but whether or not the reasons are good is a separate issue. The choice is for attaining value, social interaction doesn't mean any loss to bettering yourself, so "developing one's mind" is actually not mutually exclusive. If you don't like a person, it's just a drain. If a person ends up valuable to you, it isn't a value drain or even preventing development of your mind. Mere immersion in other interests can sometimes be rationalizing being anti-social, and ends up only exacerbating isolation. Calling people Keatings can be a form of rationalization too, but it might also be correct. For me, I cope with intellectual differences by not worrying about it, while talking to people if they seem interesting. I don't have prejudice towards how they might be. Still, I don't talk a lot since I am introverted, so I do my own thing anyway, but it's not because I think all/most people are second-handers.

No, that isn't a way of handling it, that just pushes the issue back and hides it. What to do? Talk to some people, go to places you like that have multiple people. How do you know if someone is really a Keating, anyway? You have to talk to them.

Ah. So I'd say such a concern is ill-founded. Plus I'm not sure what crazy means here. I am curious about what your way to overcome this concern, I think it relates to maybe any concerns about social topics. Depending on your sex drive, that may be sufficient - my main point is that even then, neither friendship nor masturbation will eliminate lingering desire. Sex is too different to compare on equal terms. You seem to agree at least on my main point. At the same time, it's one reason for me to say that sex is morally appropriate outside of a romantic relationship sometimes. I'm not sure if you meant to imply that labeling a relationship as romantic one is necessary. I agree about what you said about short-term relationships. I mean, I personally see it as a uncertainty past the short-term, but cutting out someone as a friend is needlessly cruel. Define relations to people individually, not to what "relationship" means! Anyone at all would feel distress, perhaps men may feel worse because the social norm/expectation is to be non-emotional.

@Eamon Arasbard: I think there are some ideas worth expanding on in your post. One is that masturbation is a sufficient substitute for sexual desire. If a person merely wants a sexual release, that's fine. But the difference between sex and masturbation is not a matter of degree where you can at least get some satisfaction. They both can be appreciated on their own terms in different ways, so they can be differentiated as different activities entirely. Now, if your sex drive is low, then masturbation may really be able to satisfy some sexual desires, and at least be not as bothered. If you have a high sex drive, it probably won't help the desire for sexual intimacy. In any case, I doubt masturbation makes a notable difference to anyone, and at best is separate from sexual desire. Sex isn't masturbation plus one person - adding a person changes a lot. Another question is hold on for what? The right person for Stryker to be satisfied with? If I understand the OP correctly, holding on (read: suffering through) is not working anyway. People don't simply appear, and some pro-activity is needed. Meeting more people is good, as you say, although crazies is an unfair term when it doesn't seem to add anything helpful. Personally, I don't think the short/long-term distinction is important. If you like someone, then that's all there is to it. If it lasts a month or 2 years, it is not any less important. Permanency is not important really, as long as love is present. Non-permanency though is why at the very least I want to remain friends with someone I enjoy a lot. Also, monogamy isn't a requirement, just in case that is a reason to avoid finding more than one person to appreciate or love.

That makes sense. But do you mean you don't like anyone even as a friend? I mean, do you have friends that are girls who would be open to something sexual? I have no advice to give if you don't like anyone at all, although it is also possible you're being too quick to judge. I'm a bit older than you and in a similar situation, so I at least empathize. If you're doing it all "right" (right attitude, right understanding of yourself, etc) then really all you can do is expand where you're looking. If it really concerns/bothers you, just try it out with someone who is at least kind/understanding/fun, I'd be surprised if you really had 0 options you would be happy with. The worst that happens is you didn't enjoy it, don't you think? I doubt you'd suddenly treat sex as meaningless and reduced in importance if you didn't enjoy it. I generally agree with Rand about sex too, though I wouldn't take her views as suggesting that you shouldn't go and find out for yourself what sex is like first hand. If sex is so important, you certainly want to learn about it first hand. You can still take sex seriously while still exploring it. If you make a mistake, great, you learned something. Plus, the worst the mistake will be is "well, I don't want to do that again!" At best, you'll be happy with the result. And I'd bet things will end up more on the happy end. Keep in mind though, it's not as if your desire for sex would go away. If you do go and have sex once, then what? Worth considering.

Robots. I'm 100% serious. Burger flipping is a job robots can already do. Not sure how accurate/reliable this story on McDonalds Europe installing touch-screen cashiers. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mcdonalds-replace-cashiers-touch-screen-computers-200601087.html It's okay to raise wages, but technology is a viable alternative and probably more cost-efficient.

Are you saying you are not attracted to those girls in *any* sense? Or just not attracted enough to justify a long-term relationship? Or something else? To say you are not attracted to their personality doesn't really say you dislike them as a friend. So if you like them as people, you are attracted to that degree, just not necessarily romantically. A second question is if you want to get your "virginity out of the way" (a destructive attitude towards sex I think) or if you genuinely want to experience sex for some good reason.

You didn't give any substantive reasons for your suggestion. For $100, it'd be worth writing something substantive.

I don't find the post hard to understand, it's just a misunderstanding that is common, where a positive statement is taken then compared to a negative statement, as if the negative statement exhausts all possible alternatives. I've heard people say that Rand only took capitalism to be good BECAUSE communism is bad, i.e. constructing a dichotomous view. It would seem like A is equal to "I live for myself" and ~A is equal to "I do not live for others", but ~A in this case is simply all non-As! So while B is ~A, C is also ~A. ~B is also a non-A. Of course, strictly speaking, if we only have A and B, all we can say is that the two are opposed in some manner - we need to conclude that B is exclusively a ~A rather than a fact to integrate into A+B. Rand did argue to show that living for others is incompatible with living for yourself. She did go on to argue that living for others is exclusively ~A, i.e. a contradiction. Neo-Objectivism? This is just regular Objectivism.

"As a man, I like women to love me for what I have to offer: my competence, productivity, security, stability, support etc. (I am aware women don't want these, I will come to that later)." I am sure many women want to be loved for the same reasons. If "women" (scare quotes for a bad, sweeping generalization) don't "really" want that, then "men" don't "really" want a virtuous woman. You're talking about being loved for your virtue. My point is basically you don't really need to fret about how many people don't want to love the virtue in another. Rephrase pragmatism in this context then: what exactly would you be getting more of? Sex probably, which if that was your only end, on its own without valuing the person, doesn't seem to be all what you want. Or if it is what you want purely and only, you are doing what you criticize others for doing. If it's having a girlfriend you have more of you mean, wouldn't it be rather boring and irritating to "lower" your standards? Pragmatism seems to offer no good options either.

Heh, I know, it's a horrible subreddit now, but rarely I post there. ParahSailin is a dishonest person who has a fondness for sock puppet accounts, so it's hard to even say what his views really are. I wouldn't worry about it, it's a phenomena of reddit that some places turn to trash. You just need to start over sometimes if it does go bad.

"A race includes more than one complete society (3 > 2), but a society cannot include more than one complete race (2 < 3). Therefore, race is greater than society." Did you specify earlier what a society is precisely, or do you mean to say society is one aspect that makes up a race? That would make race a combination of society and genes, in which case a race can have multiple societies to it. As one element of a race, it is necessarily "smaller" and not all encompassing. This has problems on its own, especially since on my own experience, it's the opposite - society is made up of races. In terms of your own consistency, I'm not sure what this would be based on in reality. Yet it looks like you're just saying a society is less than race in terms of degrees, so a race is just any set of people larger than a society. At some point, why couldn't it be 3 = 3? So I think you are missing the simple possibility and I think fact that race and society is the opposite of what you say. How are they not identical under your description? Race is narrowly biological, while a society may be non-biological. That a minimum of 3 people make up a race, and a minimum of 2 people make a society, doesn't mean that a society is always smaller than a race. There is no maximum value to the total members of a race or society. Suppose 2 races of the minimum size, 3. Those two races interact to form a society of size 6. Already, we have a society that is bigger than either race; 6 > 3! Now, if we counted how many sets of races and societies we'd have 2 and 1 respectively. 1 < 2; there are fewer societies then races! But even then, it gets screwy... We can subdivide all 6 members into several possible societies. So yet again, societies are still bigger than a race.

I agree with Rand's theory, but it's important to note that what she said on IP specifically is minimal. I agree with her to the extent that Franz is the source to the type of piano having any value, and that source of value is a major reason to support any property. So for her the only question is the proper implementation of a legal system which protects property best. If Franz is the source of the piano's value, then Wolfgang is not since he helped Franz construct Franz's design. Wolfgang did less in regard to the piano's value, albeit an important role in a factory. It's important to recognize that some people are more important in production!

Okay DonAthos, responding to your post #217! http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25840&p=324003 Long delay because I was finishing up schoolwork for the semester. Interestingly, one paper I wrote is about creation/creativity for a philosophy class, which is at least indirectly related to IP. I'll backtrack my posts a bit, since I misunderstood the second example you used. You started mentioning core points that I was aiming towards in my thought experiment. We don't want to talk about what is merely property, but what it in fact the relation is between creation. You acknowledge a relation too, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about Wolfgang building a piano with his own materials. I'm only mentioning the second example for clarification about what I was saying. Anyway, on the first example, I think we agree. Well both of them probably, since if a piano design is in public domain and you said that all piano designs conceivable were in public domain (separate from what makes it public domain), there are no *IP* rights to apply for anyone's piano designs. As far as piano designs are concerned in your example, IP effectively does not exist. Now, if I understand you properly this time, the second example asks how piano ownership would work in Franz's piano factory. Labor contracts are permissible, since as far as designs, no one has a valid claim on the designs, except for the medium the designs are printed on (paper, website, etc). Strictly for this example, a contract is the perhaps rational thing to do and leave property aside - Franz would probably add a clause to say he will have sole right to sell the pianos for his profit. On the other hand, I want to emphasize that Franz owns the factory (is this fair to assume) and means of Wolfgang to make anything. Is it actually the most rational policy to leave all rights pertaining to property and piano sales up to negotiation. We need to reference some principle of rights which to premise a basis for Franz's labor contracts. Franz can't make slave contracts, so we don't want to assume setting a negotiable sales price is permissible, at least until we establish the contract does not contradict rights to live. Contracts cannot be used to sign your rights away. Like you said, our concern is the rationale for Franz to have the right to dictate how the pianos are sold. As far as I can tell, your position is that supposing Franz owns the factory, he is in a position to develop contracts for his laborers to accept or not. As a result, his contracts may specify how pianos will be distributed. My position is that supposing Franz owns the factory, he is in a position to develop *labor* contracts for his laborers to accept or not. Specifying how the pianos will be distributed is a separate concern, and neither Wolfgang nor Franz can or even need to contract that Franz is sole owner of the factory pianos. In the a similar way, I don't need a contract with you to say that the car you borrowed from me is still mine. That is, contracts delimit a person's permissible actions with property you already own or have established control over. It doesn't make sense to me that a contract can properly establish who will own the produced pianos. Basically, I'm saying an argument about labor contracts is different. "Wolfgang did not make the piano in a "weak" sense. He made the piano, full stop. " Let me be clearer. This is also an answer to your question of Wolfgang doing "little". Wolfgang put the pieces together on his own. He did not create/buy/develop the factory, so in the Franz factory, he did comparatively little. The factory owner (i.e. Franz) does and did more to get that piano made than Wolfgang, even if Wolfgang did the final step. There are further degrees Wolfgang probably did contribute, but he's still not the prime mover of the factory. Franz is the prime mover, so that established him as sole decider of piano seller (assuming he isn't a liar, etc). Keep in mind that by prime mover, I mean the primary person who enables the whole piano production, along the lines of how Rearden is the prime mover of Rearden Steel. Again, there are degrees, especially here since Franz used designs he downloaded. So I'll call Franz a "big mover" to just suggest he gets the factory working and producing pianos. Wolfgang is like a worker bee - worthy of respect (I don't want to imply he is mindless), but he is simply not a big mover like the queen bee similar to Franz. Part of the whole premise of Atlas Shrugged is this point, where some people are in fact better at some particular role, and some people "do more" with respect to certain activities. "Franz has "greater mindful awareness"? " In the sense he runs a factory. Originally though I thought you were supposing Franz made the designs. So, I will only say Franz needs to do more at the factory than Wolfgang. Without Wolfgang, the factory will be okay (unless Wolfgang is doing something we haven't specified yet). Perhaps worse without Wolfgang's craftsmanship, but still surviving. We can argue about how much Wolfgang provides to the factory, Franz put together the entire operation. Without Franz, well, hopefully Wolfgang will be able to take over after being a dedicated employee. If Franz is a buffoon, his factory will fail (again, like Atlas Shrugged - if Franz is a James, the factory will fail. If Franz is a Dagny, he'd do a damn good job). Maybe Wolfgang is an Eddie, or a petty man, so has his own virtues, too. Basically, Franz is a heroic mind of the factory world, and maybe Wolfgang is a heroic man in other domains like writing perhaps. That's my stance so far.