Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
EC

We The Living

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I disagree. No prostitution takes place on either side. I am absolutely pressed for time, have to go to work at the hospital, but anytime Leo or Andrei or even herself refer, or put a name to what she has done, that name wasn't "prostitute" or "prostitution". What was it...."whore". That was the word all three used. The only time prostitute was used was in reference to the ones on the street the night Leo and Kira met. In the novel there is a clear difference between a prostitute and a whore. No?

When you get a chance, hit me with a quote where any of them refer to the act as whore if you would.

Second of all, whore is a synonym for prostitute. It is used more in a vulgar/perjorative sense than a technical sense, but it is still a synonym.

In fact, here is the definition of "whore" from www.refdesk.com (Merriam Webster's Online):

Main Entry: 1whore

Pronunciation: 'hOr, 'hor, 'hur

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English hore, from Old English hOre; akin to Old Norse hOra whore, hOrr adulterer, Latin carus dear -- more at CHARITY

1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money

3 : a venal or unscrupulous person

and from dictionary.com (not my favorite online dictionary...but it works in this case :) ) :

whore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hôr, hr)

n.

A prostitute.

A person considered sexually promiscuous.

A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

intr.v. whored, whor·ing, whores

To associate or have sexual relations with prostitutes or a prostitute.

To accept payment in exchange for sexual relations.

To compromise one's principles for personal gain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you get a chance, hit me with a quote where any of them refer to the act as whore if you would.

Okay. I have time, I just finished my shift.

*Kira mentions it repeatedly.

Here on p. 384:

She says, "So I was the highest of women, a woman like a temple, like a military march, like a god's statue? Remember who told me that? Well look at me! I'm only a whore..."

*Kira finishes what Andrei is about to call her.

From the scene on p.384:

"Get out of here," he repeated.

She tore her hat off and flung it aside, she threw her coat off and dropped it to the floor. "Get out, you—"

"—whore?" she finished for him. "Certainly. I just want to be sure you know that that's what I am."

He asked: "What do you want? I have nothing to say to you."

*Leo says it as well when he says, "for some other whore."

From p.423:

He says, "And he was just tired of you, he probably wanted to get you off his hands, for some other whore."

Second of all, whore is a synonym for prostitute. It is used more in a vulgar/perjorative sense than a technical sense, but it is still a synonym.

Yes. I knew that before and said to look at the way they used those terms "in the novel". They are two different things in the novel, because they really are. She may have "sold herself -for money-" but it is NOT prostitution if Andrei does not have any clue that he is the "buyer", if you will. No sexual soliciting, no explicit sexual propositions, no "money on the nightstand" after sex, transaction. It was all lies that she loved him, it was all manipulation on Kira's part. She also knew what to say for him to just give money, like just mentioning her family, and the money was in her hands. If you don't know you are the purchaser, or buyer, but manipulated into that sort of role, indirectly, it is in NO WAY prostitution. No buyer, no prostitution. Example. In the U.S. LEGAL sense, if you say that a girl lied to you that she loves you, and has sex with you, that the overall entirety of the relationship turns out in the end that she was only using you, it is NOT prostitution. If you were to say that she wants me to have sex with her for money, and you do, or that you want to give her money to have sex with her, and she is willing to do so, then it IS prostitution. (also even if you were to call her a whore, as they have, or a prostitute in light of the truth about the relationship, or even if she calls herself a whore, as she did, or a prostitute while telling them the truth behind the relationship, it's still not prostitution, since the truth comes after.)

No prostitution took place.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think I may have it.

She prostitutes herself(as you said, and I mostly agree, but only in the context that she says"I sold myself-for money-"), but she is not a prostitute, and NO prostitution(as you said) actually took place.

What do you think Evan?

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets go back to definitions here:

Main Entry: 3prostitute

Function: noun

1 a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : WHORE b : a male who engages in sexual and especially homosexual practices for money

2 : a person (as a writer or painter) who deliberately debases his or her talents (as for money)

With that definition, we need to know what promiscuous means:

Main Entry: pro·mis·cu·ous

Pronunciation: pr&-'mis-ky&-w&s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscEre to mix -- more at PRO-, MIX

1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things

2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE <education... cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas -- Norman Cousins>

3 : not restricted to one sexual partner

So to translate that all into one easy to understand defintion:

A prostitute is a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money (the word indicates "for the purpose of obtaining" and makes no comment on if both parties understand the motives/intentions of the prostitute)

in an indescriminate manner. Such a prostitute don't restrict themselves to one person or class (like the constrains that normally bind in a romantic relationship), nor are they restricted to one sexual partner.

She isn't a prostitute in a career sense. She doesn't do the act of prostitution frequently, but I don't think that is the issue of whether or not her manipulation was serving the exact same function as prostitution.

it is NOT prostitution if Andrei does not have any clue that he is the "buyer", if you will. If you don't know you are the purchaser, or buyer, but manipulated into that sort of role, indirectly, it is in NO WAY prostitution. No buyer, no prostitution. Example. In the U.S. LEGAL sense, if you say that a girl lied to you that she loves you, and has sex with you, that the overall entirety of the relationship turns out in the end that she was only using you, it is NOT prostitution.

1) The definitions I have provided make no mention of a buyer's knowledge. I think my definitions are pretty reasonable, but if you (or anyone else) wants to offer a more precise counter definition or explain why my defintions are bad, biased, or messed up in any way...I would more than welcome that debate.

2)In the "legal" sense, you are correct about prostitution. However, I'm not debating legal technicalities here :). For the purpose of debating a literary/linguistic technicality, I offer the argument that legal technicality is unimportant. The legal burden of proving that a customer *knowingly* offers money to a woman that consensually offers sexual services exists due to the needs for objective legality. You could almost never prove a woman's motive in the case of prostitution that exists outside of the manipulated's knowledge. She might be using you for cash and have *absolutely* no interest in you (think Anna Nicole Smith), but how do you objectively prove that in a court of law unless the woman in question turns herself in or confesses? The objective requirements for such a courtroom are high and necessarily so. It would also be hard to prove or disprove the man's knowledge of the affairs. After all, historically speaking...many mom's have whored their daughters out through arranged marriages to rich guys that the daughters have absolutely no love/interest for. People definitely cohabit and use the legal protection of marriage (and the tax benefits that go with it) only for the purpose of splitting costs of living and incurring financial benefits. That fact is almost never tried in court, nor would it be easy to really prove in court. In fact, I agree with the fact that they need to be present....though I disagree that it is within the state's objective/moral parameters to police/sanction marriage to begin with (or prostitution for that matter...as it IS a business transaction :) ).

For the purpose of this discussion however, we (the audience) are given the full facts of reality. We have 100% objective evidence to the full picture because they are given by Miss Rand in the form of the plot and its details.

Here is how I see it....

In the case of *overt* prostitution, you have TWO things going on.

-A man knowingly soliciting a woman by offering her money for sexual services

-A woman knowingly offering sex in exchange for payment or accepting a man's offer for payment in exchange for sex.

If you really want to get legally technical, those two things are two separate crimes. One is called "solciting the services of a prostitute" and the other is "prostitution."

Even the law draws a distinction. It is how they nab guys on soliciting charges in undercover sting operations. The female cops that bust the guys are NOT real prostitutes...lol.

Edited by Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eep...I can't edit my post anymore, but I would like to add that when I say :

In fact, I agree with the fact that they need to be present....though I disagree that it is within the state's objective/moral parameters to police/sanction marriage to begin with (or prostitution for that matter...as it IS a business transaction:) )

I meant that I agree with the fact that a high burden of proof (relying on objective facts, not speculation) is necessary for a legal system to be objective. Such important facts as motive, etc DO need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone and that is as it should be. That is what I was intitially going for. I kind of merged sentences and forgot to edit out the resulting vagueness as to what I was initially referring to (it was clear in my first draft...lol).

-Evan

Edited by Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money...[promiscuous means]...not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE

She didn't do it "indescriminately". She "restricted [it] to one...person". And it wasn't done for money directly. But according to the definition you have of prostitution from the dictionary, the word "especially" means that it could be done for reasons other than money, money being the main exchange for the services, but it doesn't have to be. Okay, but it still wasn't "indescriminate".

Such a prostitute don't restrict themselves to one person or class (like the constrains that normally bind in a romantic relationship), nor are they restricted to one sexual partner.

She did. She restricted it to only one specific individual, a specifically targeted, sought after individual...Andrei. She just didn't walk the streets at night like the "street women" did in the novel hooking indescriminately.

I do want to thank you ever so much, Evan, for taking the time that you have here in trying to patiently and generously help me try to understand, but if I am still unsure I will still go on until I'm not any longer.

So I guess I should just see if you agree that what Kira did was not "indescriminate", and see where we can goe.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She didn't do it "indescriminately". She "restricted [it]to one...person".

Lol. Looks like I need a definition for indescriminate.

in·dis·crim·i·nate

Pronunciation: "in-dis-'krim-n&t, -'kri-m&-

Function: adjective

1 a : not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment <indiscriminate reading habits> <indiscriminate mass destruction> b : HAPHAZARD, RANDOM <indiscriminate application of a law>

2 a : PROMISCUOUS, UNRESTRAINED <indiscriminate sexual behavior> b : HETEROGENEOUS, MOTLEY <an indiscriminate collection>

- in·dis·crim·i·nate·ly adverb

- in·dis·crim·i·nate·ness noun

In this case and context that we applying the defintion to (prostitution) the "careful distinction" caveat in the defintion means that the prositute doesn't descriminate when it comes to WHO they are having sex or the other standards. Would Kira have had sex with a fat balding Communist for the purpose of getting money? Would she have had sex with a male model? Kira would definitely have had a preference for an attractive person over an ugly one, Sure. Hower, such descriminating taste was not necessary or important for Kira. I think it is a safe bet that had the fat balding Communist been the only guy offering money for Leo's treatment, she would have still slept with him. Standards like sexual attraction, philosophical outlook, real valuing, etc were NOT the primary concern, nor did Andrei meet Kira's *real* standards. Kira's standards were unimportant because the GOAL of the sex wasn't a response to values nor was it for the purpose of building a lasting romantic relationship. In this sense, Kira WAS indescriminate. Having descriminating taste means that you have standards with which to descriminate with. In the historical sense, racial descrimination happened when people set an arbitrary standard (race) and used it do distinguish/discern perceived value in people. It is descriminating taste that lets you say with certainty that filet mingon has a qualitative superiority to a McDonald's cheesburger or vice versa. Discriminating taste is what lets us separate concretes, group them, and integrate them into a philosophical categories. In the gem world, a jewler needs to have a discriminating eye. He has to be able to differentiate quality from crap...in essence fulfilling the definitional requirements of "discriminate" by being able to discern one gem's distinguishing qualities from another. Kira was indescriminate in her choice to have sex with Andrei. Due to the fact that she was only sleeping with him for money, WHO she slept with was not as important when it came to achieving her monetary ends as the fact that they would be able to give her enough money to save Leo. At best, it was only marginally important. I think Kira saw it is as easier to have sex with Andrei (who was a good person, but really misguided philosophically) than some evil bastard like Victor. In that sense, her descrimination was only extremely marginal. When I say Kira was only marginally descriminate in her choice of lovers I don't mean it hat she indescriminate in the sense that she had (or would have had) sex with 20 people or that she had absolutely NO standards. I'm not sure Kira would have had sex with a donkey or with a retarded person for the purpose of getting money for Leo....but I'm also not sure how important that degree of distinction is to the overall picture though. After all, if we can only judge whether or not someone is 'indescriminate" in their choice of lovers by looking at a numerical value of how many people they have slept with...then what is the brightline for that? Dagny had sex with 3 different people in the course of Atlas Shrugged, yet she had EXTREMELY discriminating taste whereas Kira sleeping with Leo was an act of marginally descriminate prostitution and not love.

And it wasn't done for money directly. But according to the definition you have of prostitution from the dictionary, the word "especially" means that it could be done for reasons other than money, money being the main exchange for the services, but it doesn't have to be.
I think the defintion that I used includes the word "especially" because money is the most common form of trade and prostitution is a business transaction. If some dude offers my girlfriend a new computer for oral sex, that is STILL prostitution despite the fact that he isn't offering legal tender currency.Make sense?

I do want to thank you ever so much, Evan, for taking the time that you have here in trying to patiently and generously help me try to understand, but if I am still unsure I will still go on until I'm not any longer.

:confused:.

It is my pleasure. I find your desire for precision and clarity really really valuable. I think it is something that makes Objectivists so enjoyable to be around. You aren't willing to accept less than 100% certainty or clarity. If there is some ground that we have yet to explore and it raises a question due to it being part of the integrated whole...then such a question MUST be brought out into the open. Such discussion is valuable to both parties because it forces both parties to attempt to be as precise as possible and indentify their terms. It makes me be exact and explain why I believe I'm right considering all of your objections or questions (which haven't been arbitrary or unintelligent AT ALL). Personally, I wouldn't back down from questioning unless all corrolary questions/arguments were resolved in my mind. After all, it is in YOUR mind that YOUR learning and personal growth takes place. Nobody else can learn for you and you can only learn at your own best pace. I see learning as valuable and achievable for both parties (mutual trade for mutual benefit), so I'm happy to discuss this issue as long as needed.

:)

Edited by Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol. Looks like I need a definition for indescriminate.

in·dis·crim·i·nate not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment

I still am still in disagreement with you.

Kira was definately discriminate in who she was to get money off of. Her visit initially to Andrei was to try to get the necessary funds for Leo's betterment. That was all. She had remembered, in a scene in the novel, that she did know of someone who "had more money than they would be able to spend on themselves." She specifically sought him out for that reason, and that he has just given her money very easily before in the past.

I still don't think she fits the definition of a prostitute. There was no "promiscuous [or indiscriminate] sexual intercourse, especially for money" going on here. Somewhere in this lies why she is a self-titled "whore" and not prostitute, and why she is called a whore by both Leo and Andrei and not a prostitute. The content and context of the novel is best to see in what sense it makes sense in. Make sense.. :):confused: I don't see us bridging a gap, but only widening one further.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you descriminate (i.e = weigh or differentiate between possibile alternatives), you do so based on a standard.

If I am using my faculties of descrimination (differentiation) to tell you what makes Objectivism better than Communism, I must appeal to a standard that gives my audience a way to evaluate the arguments. If I say, "Objectivism is better than Communism because it better promotes Justice which is defined as X, Y, and Z" then the standard of "justice" becomes the criteria for descriminating and separating the two philosophies.Same thing with people. If we are talking about descriminating on the level of physical attractiveness, I could say that a woman that is in shape is better looking than a morbidly obese one because of her weight (in this case weight acts as the standard or criteria).

When you say:

Kira was definately discriminate in who she was to get money off of. Her visit initially to Andrei was to try to get the necessary funds for Leo's betterment. That was all. She had remembered, in a scene in the novel, that she did know of someone who "had more money than they would be able to spend on themselves." She specifically sought him out for that reason, and that he has just given her money very easily before in the past.
all you are saying here is that she descriminated in terms of who she approached based on whether or not they would realistically be able to give her money or not. In the We the Living example, MONEY is the standard...but it is the ONLY standard that is important to Kira. If someone's pocket book is the ONLY relevant factor that you take into account when you have sex with someone, you do NOT have discriminating taste overall. You have descriminating taste when it comes to their pocketbook (which is one of a large number of factors that make up a human being). What about other factors like a person's personal philosophy, their looks, their sense of life, their sense of humor, etc? What about the fact of being in love with someone? Should those facts not go into the calculus that one uses to descriminate between lovers? I love my girlfriend for a whole lot of reasons...not just because she is loaded. I see my girlfriend as beating out other women on a LOT of different playing fields...thus I have a GREATER discriminating taste because more variables went into the decision making process. I did *more* discriminating.Thus, someone that *only* takes into account how wealthy a person is is by definition *less* descriminating...perhaps we can agree that they are indescriminate in comparison? :)

Kira's stated goal was to get money for Leo's health. We agree on that, right? Thus, in terms of achieving her goal...the ONLY relevant factor Kira took into consideration was choosing a person to get that money from was whether or not they had the money to give. It wouldn't have made sense if Kira was hypothetically making a list of people to beg from and she put someone she KNEW was homeless and destitute on the list.

Kira also approached Leo's German relatives (you make mention of it in your other post) despite the fact that the probably had a pretty good idea that they wouldn't be supportive of the fact that they were unwed.

We can see that she didn't discriminate when it came to who she asked based on IMPORTANT things like philosophical agreement, friendly relations, etc. She didn't approach Andrei because they were friends. If THAT was acting as her standard...she would have approached Andrei FIRST instead of Leo's unfriendly relatives. You don't honestly believe that Kira was in love with Andrei or sexually lusted after him do you?

If not, then you have to acknowledge that the only relevant factor Kira took into consideration when choosing who to approach for money was the fact that they HAD money. I'm saying that the only reason why she had sex with Andrei and sought him out instead of prostituting herself AS A STREETWALKER was because it was an easier to have sex with an essentially good (but screwed up person) like Andrei than deal with some one that was *worse.*. In that sense, she was choosing between the greater of two lessers...which means that she pretty much threw all relevant criteria out the window in the areas of romantic and sexual love because she wasn't responding out of genuine feelings of love (which in turn should have been based on philosophical harmony) which is DEFINITELY a relevant factor when it comes to evaluating who you ought to sleep with and why. When you ASK yourself the question, "What woman should I have sex with and why?" you are asking yourself what standards you descriminate with...in essence...what standards you use to separate the good women from the bad women. What standards to YOU find important when it comes to who you feel you would like to ideally sleep with? What do you think is the criteria (standard) that we should use for determining who is descriminate or indescriminate in their choice of sexual lovers?

I think we should take a wide variety of variables into our decision making process and calculus. The person who takes into account the most philosophically relevant variables (shoe color isn't philosophically relevant...lol) should definitely be considered to be more descriminate in their choices.

Descriminate just basically means choosy.Someone who is really choosy isn't generally choosy on one front.

If you and I are both restaurant critics that evaluate restaurants and you think that the elements that make a good meal are spicyness, presentation, friendliness of the waiting staff, and the restaurant's view...you have VERY descriminating tastes. If I think that spicyness is all that matters and don't care whether or not the restaurant is located amidst a disaster zone, I take FEWER criteria into account when evaluating restaurants. Thus, I'm LESS descriminating. You are going to be MORE likely to have higher standards of what you accept as "quality restaurants." A five star rating for you could mean a really classy restaurant with great food, great atmosphere, and great service wheras a five star rating in MY book could be a kibab stand in Beiruit that serves up great tasting kibabs when it isn't being shelled and the waiters aren't getting drunk behind the building. I think we can safely say that I'm indescriminate in my evaluations when compared to your highly descriminating taste. Compared to the OBJECTIVIST standard of romantic and sexual love, Kira is TOTALLY indescriminate in choosing Andrei as a lover because it isn't as a response to love, philosophical values, or anything that Objectivists deem relevant. By Ayn Rand's OWN standards, Kira is indescriminate. She has less exacting standards for who she sleeps with than say...Dagny Taggart or 'Frisco.

I still don't think she fits the definition of a prostitute. There was no "promiscuous [or indiscriminate] sexual intercourse, especially for money" going on here.

Promiscuous in the "not restricted to one partner" sense and indescriminate in the ways that I just described above. Compared to a rational, valuing, Objectivist person...Kira was big time indescriminate. :confused:

Somewhere in this lies why she is a self-titled "whore" and not prostitute, and why she is called a whore by both Leo and Andrei and not a prostitute. The content and context of the novel is best to see in what sense it makes sense in. Make sense..

Lol.I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. I think Ayn Rand chose to use the term whore to show just how passionate and violently the characters reacted to what Kira did. Leo was really suprised and upset by it. Andrei was crushed. Kira felt self loathing for the fact that it was the only way she could get money to save a man that shouldn't have needed saving in the first place but did because of the fact that the USSR sucked ass. Prostitute and whore are synonyms in reality and in a dictionary sense. They are also synonyms in the novel. The only difference between the words is essentially in the fact that the word "whore" conveys a lot more depth of feeling and reaction as it is a much more incindiary word.Calling someone a prostitute isn't the same as calling them a whore in terms of the emotional impact it is supposed to have. "Whore" is a perjorative and NORMATIVE syonym for the sterile and technical word "prostitute." They mean the same thing. Whore, prostitute, lady of the night, hoe, and hooker all MEAN the same thing. Would you have this confusion if Ayn Rand would have inserted one of the alternatives I just listed into the text of the novel? Do you seriously believe there is a definitional difference between a hooker and a whore? How about hoe and prostitute? I think you are giving far too much weight to evaluating the importance of word choice when the word choice was among syonyms. I think the answer to why Ayn Rand decided to have her characters say "whore" instead of "prostitute" was really simple: the word "Whore" is supposed to be a more poweful word because it conveys hurt, pain, anguish, anger, etc. It conveys emotion, insult, and normative weight whereas prostitute is clinical, technical, etc. It is like the difference between calling someone (or yourself) an indescriminate teller of falsehoods versus calling them (or yourself) a lying piece of shit. If you want another example it is like calling a woman unclean and promiscuous versus calling her a filthy slut.

Can you differentiate between the two examples and what purposes/intententions the different word choices convey?

-Evan

Edited by Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm saying that the only reason why she had sex with Andrei and sought him out instead of prostituting herself AS A STREETWALKER was because it was an easier to have sex with an essentially good (but screwed up person) like Andrei than deal with some one that was *worse.*. In that sense, she was choosing between the greater of two lessers...which means that she pretty much threw all relevant criteria out the window in the areas of romantic and sexual love because she wasn't responding out of genuine feelings of love (which in turn should have been based on philosophical harmony) which is DEFINITELY a relevant factor when it comes to evaluating who you ought to sleep with and why.

That is discriminating. Here's let's look at it's definition:

dis·crim·i·nate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nt)

v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates

v. intr.

To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.

To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

v. tr.

To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong.

To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: unable to discriminate colors.

To make or constitute a distinction in or between: methods that discriminate science from pseudoscience.

It doesn't say "based on a standard" or rather a standard of value. That is more fundamental, anyways. It can be based just simply on the highlighted above. I'm still in disagreement with you that her actions were indiscriminate. They were discriminate.

Also you asked:

You don't honestly believe that Kira was in love with Andrei or sexually lusted after him do you?

No not at all, and nothing I have typed here even implies that I would. I said the entire time she was lying and using Andrei. But I understand why you asked, and I think that love also is "a relevant factor" in choosing who to go to bed with like you had mentioned. That is the standard but not an absolute. Because of context, it is not in a vacuum. Case in point, Kira and Andrei.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't say "based on a standard" or rather a standard of value. That is more fundamental, anyways. It can be based just simply on the highlighted above.
I'm talking fundamentals here:)

That is discriminating. Here's let's look at it's definition:

Descriminating or indescriminating is a matter of DEGREE. I didn't say that Kira had absolutely NO standards. As I said earlier, I don't think she would have had sex with a donkey or a dead person to get money for Leo. The presence of standards that exclude some possibilities and include others is what makes a person descriminate or indescriminate. However if the presence of only ONE standard is all anyone needs to be descriminating, then damn neary everyone from porn stars to Objectivists are descriminate. Hell..NO prostitute could be accused of being indescriminate...because even PROSTITUTES have their limits. Some prositutes won't have anal sex. Some won't swallow. Some won't do threesomes. Are they descriminating in their sexual choice? I would argue that most prostitutes wouldn't agree to a client that asked them to slit their wrists and give oral sex at the same time...even if the amount of money involved was pretty significant. That is a standard, is it not? Can you say that because of that fact that a prostitute is indescriminate? Of course not.

I'm saying that the "indescriminate" part of the defintion for promiscuous is relative term. Some prostitutes are more descriminating than others. Some expensive call girls are really descriminating and have enough money (or only prostitute themselves out rarely) to only make a business transaction among a small class of men (the rich, famous, well endowed...lol...etc). Some prosittutes are more descriminating that REGULAR people.

Because " indescriminate" is a matter of degree....prostitutes are labeled indescriminate either on the basis of the numbers of people they have sex with relative to the general "more picky" population (that is a generalization, I admit...but a fairly intuitive and good one) or the criteria and number of criteria they use when deciding between whether or not they will have sex with someone.

A slut (definitionally speaking) is indescriminate in her sexual choices, however she isn't necessarily a prostitute.

Kira was NOT a slut, but she sold her body for money. Thus, I'm not saying she was indescriminate in the NUMBER of people she had sex with, but the criteria (and number of criteria) she used when determing whether or not she would have sex with Andrei or not. The only thing relevant to her was money.

It says

To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
To make a clear distinction between things, you need a standard with which to judge. If you aren't judging based on fundamentals, what are you judging based on and how can you be "clear" in your distinction?

If you are judging based on arbitrary standards, are you really descriminating?

If I select my lover based on eye color, what kind of sound system they have, the color their underwear, and what brand of shoes they wear....that is a LOT of descriminating.

However, it isn't descriminate on a romantic level. It is descriminate on a MATERIAL level.

See the difference?

Look at these defintions again.

3prostitute

Function: noun

1 a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : WHORE b : a male who engages in sexual and especially homosexual practices for money

2 : a person (as a writer or painter) who deliberately debases his or her talents (as for money)

pro·mis·cu·ous

Pronunciation: pr&-'mis-ky&-w&s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin promiscuus, from pro- forth + miscEre to mix -- more at PRO-, MIX

1 : composed of all sorts of persons or things

2 : not restricted to one class, sort, or person : INDISCRIMINATE <education... cheapened through the promiscuous distribution of diplomas -- Norman Cousins>

3 : not restricted to one sexual partner

We are debating whether or not Kira had sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting money (we agree she did) and whether or not she was "promiscuous" in that regard. Promiscuous says "not restricted to one sexual parner" and "not restricted to oen class or person : indescriminate."

The reason why the "part three" of that defintion has "not restricted tone one sexual partner" is because the NUMBER of your sexual partners is a CLASS. "Amount" (as a concept) is a quantifying CLASS.

You can group things based on their amount. The way you descriminate (or restrict yourself to classes) is based on adherence to fundamental characteristics unique to that class.

In the case of sexual choice, you are descriminate or not based on whether or not you adhere to standards that let you objectively separate lovers. If you are separating lovers out based on material possessions, you are NOT a descriminating lover no matter how many material restrictions you place on the class because you can only say that the standards are valid if they apply to the subject being discussed. It is in NO way philosophically relevant to choose a lover based on how many stereos and television sets they have. If those are the standards that let you be "descriminate" then they are based on the enshrinement of arbitrary whim.

If we aren't debating whether or not Kira was restricted to one class, person, or sort based on FUNDAMENTAL characteristics unique to that class...what are we discussing?

When it says that discriminating is making a clear distinction or distingushing...aren't there varying levels of degrees of clarity? Isn't clarity (or vaugeness) based on the number of things, fundamentals, values, that you are taking into consideration when judging between two options?

You can be MORE or LESS clear when you distinguish between categories based on the number of standards you use (fudamentals).

It is the difference between saying something is a "Fruit" (sort of generalized) and saying something is an "apple" more distinct. The apple is definitely a fruit, but it has it's own qualifiers that make it an apple as opposed to a banna.

The number of standards/distinguishing characteristics needed to DESCRIMINATE between something that is simply a fruit and something that is an apple are greater when it comes to determining what an apple is.

When determining whether or not Kira is a prostitute or not we are arguing whether or not she was indescriminate in her choice of lovers. We are arguing whether or not she made clear distinctions between her options. I'm saying she was UNLCEAR beacause she used relatively few standards in her choice to have sex with Andrei. In fact, the standards she DID use were not VALUABLE standards when it comes to determining whether or not to sleep with someone. They were not fundamental. On a FUNDAMENTAL level, Kira was indescriminate. She wasn't really "picky." She didn't make a "Clear distinction" based on a number of exacting standards *THAT APPLY* to the subject that she was evaluating (sexual choices). Monetary wealth/ financial security is ONE standard. Is it the most philosophically relevant? Probably not. HOWEVER regardless of that fact...a person who takes more important standards into account can AUTOMATICALLY be said to be the more discriminating lover.

This is extremely simple mathematics.

Person A judges between potential lovers based on: wealth, personality, sense of life, being in love (as a response to philosophical values). That is a grand total of THREE standards to use when judging between whether or not you have sex with someone.

Person B judges based on wealth.

I'm not arguing that wealth is a bad or functionally useless standard...but it is ONE standard. Person A is definitely more descriminating. Their choices are more "clear" more "distinct" and are more prejudicial. There are MORE "preference" calculations being made .

Those words I quoted are all in your defintion. Do you now see where I'm going with this? Even by your own defintion of "descriminate" you cannot *logically* say that person A is NOT indescriminate when compared to person B.

Kira is person B. We recognize that there are a LOT of important variables that you take into account when choosing a lover because the purpose of choosing a sexual lover is to further romantic and sexual goals. Kira didn't have those goals in mind, so she evaluated very few criteria (the only one she used was wealth) when making a sexual choice. Thus she can be said to be indescriminate in her sexual choice.

But I understand why you asked, and I think that love also is "a relevant factor" in choosing who to go to bed with like you had mentioned. That is the standard but not an absolute.

Clarify. If you aren't descriminating (choosing between alternatives) based on ABSOLUTE standards...what are you chosing based on? Indescriminate whim? Whatever pops into your head? Each standard a person judges by is an absolute standard as you use it EVERY time when judging between people.

If you find it relative to separate out potential lovers based on their wealth, good looks, and cologne...you don't selectively apply those standards to some people and not all. You use each one of those standards ABSOLUTELY or else your standard serves no function.

If you look at Person A and say, "He is rich, handsome, and wears a nice cologne" (those things are important to you as standards) you don't look at person A and only take into account ONLY their looks and cologne. If you sort of pick and choose when to take wealth into consideration based on conditional elements (maybe the question of wealth is only important if the person is ALREADY good looking and smelling nice), then you can isolate wealth as a NON-fundamental standard.

Thus, we CAN say what standards are important or not. We can determine what absolute standards Kira used to evaluate alternatives.

She used wealthas the only standard (which is why she approached Leo's relatives as well) that she based her decisions to approach people on because her goal was such that it was the only standard that was important. It isn''t important to love someone if your only goal is to borrow money off of them.

Kira's goals were not SEXUAL or ROMANTIC in nature...so in the choice of a SEXUAL encounter...she was INDESCRIMINATE in her choice because she didn't descriminate between sexual choice based on factors that are objectively important when taking into account choices between lovers (you admit that love is one of these criteria).

Compared to a woman that DOES take these factors into account, like Dagny Taggert...she is indescriminate.

I urge you to address the meat of this post and my last one.

Edited by Evan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I urge you to address the meat of this post and my last one.

Evan, this last reply of yours really demonstrates to me, even more than before, that the two of us are only consistently reaffirming how opposite we are in the way we think about Kira and Andrei, what we can call their actions, what we can call them. The more we reply, the more examples we show each other that we think supports or goes against the others way of interpreting the scenes. I really appreciate you trying to help me to understand my confusions I have(if they are), or the conclusions I have drawn, or with my comprehension with the numerous examples you have presented. I am where I was before, as are you. I think that replying again may not be in my best interest. I think that I want to make a post, to open this up more, and to see if the way I interprete, or comprehend their relationship is still correct in my mind, so that others here, who may not be reading our discussion/debate or stopped reading it, can now see it in a different more organized way, and be able to feel more free to reply then they may have in the way this post is going.

I think I will make a post in the next couple of days, a post on my comprehension, or my take on it, so that others can disagree or agree with what I have to say. Everyone may just disagree as you have, but maybe also something will click and I will change my mind, but I don't see that happening, and I don't see you changing either. A disagreement among two rational men that only becomes even more of a disagreement with each reply, leads me to think that it's on it's way steadily to futility. Maybe I'm wrong, but at least opening it up more, organizing my understanding in a new post, might be a better choice than to continue these reply's here.

Thank you ever so much Evan. I am determined now more than ever to blow away the mental fog I have in any of my readings of Objectivist material. And if I make a bit of a fool of myself, so be it...Inhibitions will only keep the wind from blowing the said fog AWAY. At least some where, some how, some way, some day, on this forum I will reach full understanding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't seem like a bad idea. My replies have been kinda long, so I'm sure that has deterred *some* from taking any particular position. If we kinda get "stuck in the mud" there is no reason why you can't or shouldn't open the topic up again for more broader discussion. Besides, it interests me what others will say.

-E

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.

No problem.

In a generalized sense, one of the things I think we got stuck on (and maybe I should have pointed this out earlier) is the fact that a lot of arguments are interrelated.

If you noticed (earlier) I made a ton of arguments that at some point stopped getting addressed.

One thing that would make things more effiencient on both ends that YOU could do...is define an acceptable standard for determining what YOU consider "proof."

For example...I find myself asking (after making a sizable number various inter-related arguments...some of which stopped getting addressed), "What would Steve consider necessary to prove that Kira was indeed engaging in an act of prostitution?"

It would help to develop substantive approaches to know that.

If you hypothetically agree that me proving that Kira was indescriminate is all that is necessary, than we could have focussed exclusively on that part of the debate (which might have been your intention by focussing your responses on that segment of my arguments).

If I needed to prove to you that having sex only for the only intention of getting money from a person (whether that person is a victim of manipulation or knowingly making a business transaction) is enough to make someone a prostitute (in the ethical and not legal sense) regardless of the frequency of such sexual acts...then we could have focussed on that area. In fact...in that sense...a woman like Anna Nicole Smith is no different than Kira or any woman that marries (knowing that sex is generally an accepted condition of marriage) exclusively money. In THAT respect, I think it is relatively easy to prove that one doesn't have to be hooking on the streets to be a prostitute.

You should take an active role in setting the parameters for what YOU feel is acceptable for debate and keep in mind...you don't necessarily have to select only ONE parameter/condition that needs to be met.

I think it is reasonable to say that both conditions (or perhaps even more conditions) need to be met. You seem to be relatively new to the field of argumentation, though that doesn't mean you are necessarily *bad* at it. If my perception of that is correct, I understand that being new can make setting the agenda (so to speak) a daunting or perhaps even difficult task.

It helps to shape your questions to keep such an agenda in mind.

If I had any advice (as a debater), I would recommend taking a more active role in stating what it is EXACTLY that you are seeking in terms of what constitutes necessary proof.

Those standards can be rebuked (if necessary) on logical grounds or accepted and worked with. If someone tells you that your standards are unreasonable and suck...you can consider their arguments and perhaps change the angle/way you are approaching a certain question (or even questions in general).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that would make things more effiencient on both ends that YOU could do...is define an acceptable standard for determining what YOU consider "proof."

When I look back and see how all of this began, it began with me commenting on you using the word "prostitution" to describe what happened, or using the word "prostitute" later on to describe Kira. So I guess the main problem was calling what happened "prostitution" and her a "prostitute". No where in the novel does she or they call her that, only whore. Any additional positive claims of knowledge needs to be proven by the presenter of that claim. So if I were to set the parameters for proof, the burden does not lie with me. She was called a whore and not a prostitute and it was never described as prostitution in the novel. So all our reply's mainly focus, sometimes a with many tangents, from you not being able to convince me it was "prostitution", or that she was a "prostitute". I'm just not agreeing with what you have put forth, so I just want to open it up a bit.

"What would Steve consider necessary to prove that Kira was indeed engaging in an act of prostitution?"

Yes, that is exactly what you have to do. See, I don't have to do the reversal of that, because I didn't initially put forth "prostitution" or "prostitute". What I began this all with was, trying to remember, was I asked if what happened can even be called prostitution, like you said initially.

Yes, you are correct, in that I am new to argumentation. And that you for the advice, I'm trying to apply it with this reply, but I'm pressed for time, but I think it makes sense, and I have the info. correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But prostitute and whore are synonyms. So I don't understand the fuss here. Whore is just a more vulgar word for prostitute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I guess the main problem was calling what happened "prostitution" and her a "prostitute". No where in the novel does she or they call her that, only whore.
I already addressed this once before in this thread and I also addressed it in your other thread once and for all.

Any additional positive claims of knowledge needs to be proven by the presenter of that claim.

The positive claim I'm making involves knowledge within the book. You admit yourself that all three main characters call Kira a whore. The word whore is synonym with prostitute, thus I'm not advocating interpretation outside of the text.

I agree with your assertion that the onus of proof is on the person making a positive claim. HOWEVER, to discuss issues of proof, you have to have a standard with which to refer. There were multiple issues (some of which you ignored completely and failed to address with counter arguments...while still claiming disagreement despite ignoring the arguments or attempting to answer them) involved. For the sake of clarity, if you won't accept strictly *textual* proof or we end up debating definitions....you need to specify what needs to be proven in YOUR eyes for you to be swayed by reason, logic, etc.

If you ask something unreasonable, trust me...someone will call you on it. However, if you demand increasing levels of clarity in unpacking definitions...you must say so.

Yes, that is exactly what you have to do. See, I don't have to do the reversal of that, because I didn't initially put forth "prostitution" or "prostitute".

I have to do that, yes. You aren't *obligated* to do it...but if you don't....debates get really disorganized and really tangential really fast because there isn't an accepted standard or even debate over what the standard should be. If you don't have a standard, it is hard to know which arguments have more weight or which ones to prioritize.

You can prioritize and weigh arguments without an explicity labeled standard...it is just harder to do and the likelihood of error goes up. You said you were new at formal argumentation (debate) which is the only reason why I suggest that particular m.o.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just finished reading "We the Living". Wow, I loved it.

I found myself identifying with Andrei, not that I'm a communist. And I also really admired Kira! The end brought one tear to my eye though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've just finished reading "We the Living". Wow, I loved it.

I found myself identifying with Andrei, not that I'm a communist. And I also really admired Kira! The end brought one tear to my eye though...

I liked Andrei very much as a character. More than Leo, he was a real jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I liked Andrei very much as a character. More than Leo, he was a real jerk.

Interestingly enough I too preferred Andrei to Leo. I also greatly enjoyed Irina and was sorry to see her storyline end so sadly.

I know We the Living is an earlier work but in some respects I actually prefer it to Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged simply from a literary standpoint because it is more raw and passionate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just now finishing AS, probably the best book I have ever laid eyes on. I will be starting WTL soon and I hope the same writing style from AS is used in it. Ayn Rand's work is a complete embodiment of her. You don't find many authors who can portray their ideals in their works clearly and precisely as she can. Also, do you recommend me reading Fountainhead after WTL or should I bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am just now finishing AS, probably the best book I have ever laid eyes on. I will be starting WTL soon and I hope the same writing style from AS is used in it. Ayn Rand's work is a complete embodiment of her. You don't find many authors who can portray their ideals in their works clearly and precisely as she can. Also, do you recommend me reading Fountainhead after WTL or should I bother?

I'd say you should read The Fountainhead before WTL. In my opinion, The Fountainhead is the greatest of Ayn Rand's fiction (Though Atlas Shrugged is BARELY behind it). I didn't really feel the same feeling of elation while reading WTL as I did AS and The Fountainhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

At the Objectivist Summer Conference 2011, Shoshana Milgram, Robert Mayhew, and Onkar Ghate will discuss new chapters they have written for the forthcoming expanded edition of Essays on Ayn Rand’s We the Living.*

My own discussion of We the Living is here: 1, 2, 3, 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...