Leaderboard

It reveals that the poster looks as concrets with elementry observation and can see that reason, let alone Objectivism, is not represented in arts and entertainment. A scoiety's cultural output is indicitive of the ideas it has accepted, even if implicitly. While I disgree with him on religion it is no small stretch to see he is right on this point. If you disagree channel surf for five minutes. Philosophy to arts today can be somed up simply as Garbage In - Garbage Out. People will not accept reason until they want to and as DA points out they are not passionate to do so as reflected in the choices they make.

Same old, same old. Assuming the conclusions ("principles") which were criticized instead of addressing the criticisms, insulting others, and not backing up your claims. Why do you keep posting this stuff on OO.com when you don't get the agreement you're looking for and you don't try to get others to see your view?

Yes, it can be courteous. But we're talking about a different thing, here. When I walk through a door, if someone is behind me I will hold the door open for them. If I am behind them, they may hold the door open for me. It doesn't matter whom it is, or what gender they are (or what age, or anything else). It's just a small, courteous thing. But what Kevin is talking about specifically concerns dating and courtship conventions. He thinks that the man must always open the door for the woman, and not vice versa. And if a man doesn't do that, he fails in some degree to be a "leading man" or a "professional" or a gentleman, or whatever. What he seems to not properly consider is how things like a man insisting on opening a door for a woman communicates at least two very negative things. One, it communicates to the woman that you view her as being on a different level than you are as a man; often it comes across as though she's on an inferior level (i.e., "You're to be taken care of, as though you are unable take care of yourself even with little things like opening a door."). Of course, what the man is trying to communicate is that he views her on a higher level, as though she's a treasure and should be treated as such, so "let me put my coat over the puddle so you can walk over it," or "Let me pick you up, and drive you, and pull out the chair, and pay for your mean," because she's the "treasure." But you know, it still comes across as belittling, and if it's not belittling to her, then it's belittling to you. And that's the second negative thing: By trying to put her on a higher level and treat her like a treasure (some stranger whom you hardly know, keep in mind), you actually make yourself less attractive as a person, and for good reason. You become the silly little peasant bowing down to the princess, trying to win her favor. Well, she may (and rightly so) let you pay for her meal, and if she's of weak character she may even enjoy the princess treatment for a night, or at least aspects of it. "Hey, pretty girls get dumb guys to pay for their meals, maybe I can get that to happen for me too sometimes." But it grows tiresome, and you will turn her on about as much as a coat lying in the mud. And in truth, it IS belittling, even if you think you're trying to treat her like a precious treasure. Because she's not in a different category than a regular human. She's a regular human. And she can actually open that door for herself, thank-you-very-much. But even if you do encounter that rare woman who insists on traditional courtship conventions, I ask you honestly, how can you live with yourself by entertaining them? By being a little bit sub-human, and a little bit of a clown, in order to treat her as a little bit superior-human? This does not mean you should treat her, or any person, rudely. Be a nice person. It's a good thing to do. But I view a woman as distinctly a woman, but also still a human just like me, on the same level. If she want's to be a princess, and expects me to be a pauper, and refuses to get out of the car until I run around and open it for her, then I hope she enjoys sitting inside my car and watching me eat in the restaurant through the window. I'm looking for a human, who views herself as an equal person to me. If we develop a deep romantic love after begin together for a long time and growing in love together, then I'll treat her like a princess sometimes in my own special ways. But that's something different, and something specific to people's specific relationships, and happens after you've been together for a while and grown in love with each other. Yeah, but that's true of anybody. A woman dominating the conversation is boorish. Conversation is about give and take, and enjoying the exchange. That goes for any two people talking to each other for any occasion. But on Kevin's dates, he is not really having a real conversation, and not really enjoying himself in a natural way, and not really connecting with the people he spends time with (if that person is a woman and he's on a "date"), it seems, because he's too preoccupied trying to make sure he gets to the door first before she does, make sure he says "let's sit over here" before she can get a chance, or opportunity, to suggest a table, and too preoccupied trying to eat at just the right, slow speed, while looking up at her and letting her talk mostly, keeping himself from talking "too much." That just sounds like an awful time, particularly for his date. And there exists in all that ridiculous courtship-keeping ritual zero opportunity for an actual, real connection between two people without any pretense. And that's one of the main problems with Kevin's philosophy. In all his trying to be a "leading man," he has forgotten how to be a "real person." Not to mention that his philosophy at it's core wallows in sexism in the worst of ways. I am curious what Kevin's actual love life is like, and how his "leading man" philosophy goes over for him. I'm not trying to be mean or nasty, I'm just honestly curious. I have no doubt that he may find, or maybe has already found, a woman who loves him for all his "leading man" goofiness. There are all types. But for me, the women I like are the ones who know they can open a door for themselves, and don't even flinch when you let them. (Because I don't even think about it either. It's whoever gets to the door first, obviously.) Taking this back to objectivism, I'd have to ask Kevin how his dating principles fit into the objectivist ethic. In other words, answer the "why" questions for me. You think that it's wrong for a guy to let a woman on a date open the door for you? Why? You think it's wrong for her to have input on where she might want to sit? Why? You think it's wrong to touch a woman in public? Why? You are presenting value statements (it is good to do this; it is bad to do this), but I'd like to know where those values derive their value. Explain the connection, in your view, of the principles you believe in to the objective value foundation that they rest upon. I want to say more, but I don't have time at the moment. There is a much, much better way to understand and approach human relationships (including romantic relationships), where you can maintain your status as "real person" with proper self esteem, engaging in real connections with other real people. There is a way to avoid the oh-so-very-unattractive persona of being a relationship-fraudster; who tries to put on a facade or caricature of what he thinks he ought to be in order to impress someone; who (out of an extreme lack of self-esteem) treats himself as though he is either a higher being than the woman he wants to impress (thus acting like a ass), or as a lower being than the woman he wants to impress (thus acting like a needy weakling). I really, sincerely want to help you, Kevin, from the personal and social pitfalls that you unknowingly, warmly embrace, and to help other people who are confused and think that your advice is good advice. It isn't.