How to Join the Strike!

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The men who think that wealth comes from material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think—for the same reason—that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of one’s mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. 

-Ayn Rand, The Meaning of Sex, For the New Intellectual

So the assertion that sexual orientation is caused biologically or psychologically actually contradicts what Ayn Rand consciously and explicitly published.

[Nicky]

So the assertion that sexual orientation is caused biologically or psychologically actually contradicts what Ayn Rand consciously and explicitly published.

So, just to be clear: You have read that paragraph, and you honestly believe that it's about sexual orientation, and the logical conclusion of that paragraph is that heterosexuality is moral and homosexuality immoral? That when Ayn Rand says "tell me what a man finds sexually attractive, and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life", she is referring to that object of attraction's sex?

That is your honest, best effort of understanding that paragraph?

Here's a hypothetical: there are two men, Jim and Sam. Jim was sexually attracted to Carl Sagan (back when Carl Sagan was alive). He found his intelligence, charm and passion irresistible. Sam is sexually attracted to Snookie from the Jersey Shore.

Apply the method of evaluating someone's philosophy of life based on who they find attractive referred to in the paragraph you quoted, to establish who's philosophy of life is more like that of Ayn Rand's: Jim's or Sam's?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Nicky

[Harrison Danneskjold]

So, just to be clear: You have read that paragraph, and you honestly believe that it's about sexual orientation,

Yes.

 

So, just to be clear: You have read that paragraph, and you honestly believe that it's about sexual orientation, and the logical conclusion of that paragraph is that heterosexuality is moral and homosexuality immoral?

No, she said that elsewhere.

 

That when Ayn Rand says "tell me what a man finds sexually attractive, and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life", she is referring to that object of attraction's sex?

Among other things, yes.

 

Here's a hypothetical: there are two men, Jim and Sam. Jim was sexually attracted to Carl Sagan (back when Carl Sagan was alive). He found his intelligence, charm and passion irresistible. Sam is sexually attracted to Snookie from the Jersey Shore.

Apply the method of evaluating someone's philosophy of life based on who they find attractive referred to in the paragraph you quoted, to establish who's philosophy of life is more like that of Ayn Rand's: Jim's or Sam's?

I have no idea who Snookie is but I presume it's some woman with a horrible philosophy?

If so then the man attracted to Carl Sagan would clearly be closer to Objectivism, and Ayn Rand clearly would not have considered the other person's mind irrelevant.

In fact, if someone said the decision should be made regardless of the other person's mind or regardless of their body (genitals included), she would've replied "mind-body dichotomy" in a split second.

---

 

I am not trying to assert that homosexuality is immoral.  That is horribly wrong but it's part of "the philosophy explicitly published by Ayn Rand," because it's a moral idea (which is part of philosophy).

[Harrison Danneskjold]

And that's why I wouldn't consider the philosophy "closed" if its content is at least partially determined by its internal consistency.  In that case we could show, with minimal time and effort, exactly how this principle on homosexuality contradicts everything else she thought at points A, B, C and D, exclude it on that basis and be done with it.

---

What I disagree with is that a moral proposition can be considered 'not really part of philosophy' so that people can accept some of what Ayn Rand wrote, completely reject some and still call the system "closed".

That's all.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold