Avila

"Hardly anybody cares what Kant thought about aesthetics, yet people who have never heard of him follow his lead by denying that objectivity is possible in any field whatever, including art." I think you're giving far too much credit to Kant. The impulses driving the visual arts at the time had far more to do with the political/cultural context of the times. Skill was out, "feeling" was in. This was a very handy and acceptable criterion, as it meant, for the first time, that skill mattered little. In fact, any evidence of skill was denounced as counter-whatever the new standard-bearers declared was OK. And you all swallow it up as so many sheep..........I doubt that many here are familiar with the Declaration and the Constitution. If they were I think they would have to be honest and state that they wished to promote a very different state (Objectivism) than traditional values. I haven't seen any data that shows that abandoning traditional values is a positive force (quite the opposite). So -- just how are you trying to transform society, and why? Since historically the "family" has stood in the way of Utopian idealsim, just how does your Utopia better that record?

"The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy -- it was true for Christianity during the Dark Ages, and it is true for Islam, insofar as Mohammed was the true spokesperson for Allah, and his edicts must be followed to the letter." But this statement simply ignores historical facts. For starters, the Dark Ages (the period following the collapse of the Roman Empire) was not, in fact, a period of theocracy -- rather, it was a period of chaos of political governance characterized by smaller, tribalistic nation-states warring with one another and with the various barbarian forces who had overwhelmed the Empire. Christianity survived this (and preserved, through the monasteries, the legacy of the ancient Greek and Roman learning), but was far too dispersed to constitute a "religious totalitarianistic theocracy". Even in the medieval period, regional (national) differences were quite real, and the term "theocracy" would not apply. Further, your statement "The logical political system compatible with a God created universe who hands down commandments is a religious totalitarianistic theocracy" also ignores the establishment of the United States. Clearly, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the founders (a mixed lot theologically, but all deists) believed in a "God-created universe", but this did not result in a "religious totalitarianistic theocracy". Quite the opposite" -- we have a pluralistic society, and the Constitution specifically mandates the free exercise of religion without interference of the government. This in opposition to your "logical" assertions...

"Only a physically independent, socially interacting, rational animal has rights. The fetus lacks at least two and maybe three of those attributes." So does a mentally retarded person, or someone in a coma. So they don't have any rights, by your definition. So it's OK to kill them? At least the fetus, if left alone, will develop the attributes you mention. Not so the mentally retarded, and it's not certain for the person in a coma (some people have come out of them after years).

" Please tell me if I am wrong (not, that I would care) but isn't objectivism about beeing and end withing itself? So thinking and living independent." As Bluecherry said above, "Independence is not a matter of being detached and impervious to the rest of the world." Ayn Rand's success, after all, depended upon people buying and reading her books. I wouldn't go so far as to say that "no man is an island", because this country does, in fact, have a colorful history that includes a few truly independent characters (mountain men, gold prospectors, etc.). But, for the most part, this "idependence" is, as Bluecherry suggests, a psychological detachment from the concerns and esteem of other men.

"Keep explaining myself to them, to insane detail, and with the sole purpose of saving face." This is unclear -- just what are you explaining about yourself? Or rather, what about you needs explaining? This seems like an odd situation. As several here have already mentioned, it is the quality of the work you do that is primary. If that work requires a pleasant, easy-going manner with co-workers and/or customers, then those qualities are naturally going to be examined as well. Just out of high school (ages ago....) I took a job that required some basic graphic arts skills. My skills were actually in a different but related line, but I was hired. This despite (I was told later) competition from better qualified applicants. My boss told me that I was hired because of my personality -- I was cheerful, quickly established a good rapport with other people, and communicated well. He figured that the graphic arts skills I lacked could be easily taught, whereas the working with people skills could not be so easily taught, being a matter largely of personality (hard to change). So don't make the assumption that personality traits are irrelevant.

"If I take this literally would one be able to say that the bible promotes communism?" No. Religious communities, especially those who take a vow of poverty (Franciscans, for example) live a communist-style structure, but it is not meant to extend to those outside the community. "I went to a Catholic High School (not by choice, I assure you) run by the Marist brothers, and in social studies classes they taught that communism is the moral ideal, and as proof they would say just look at us, your teachers." What idiots. And they certainly weren't following Church teaching -- the Vatican finally had to crack down on this kind of teaching ("liberation theology") by stating that is was not in accord with the gospels.

"It's only a word, but always important is its definition, and I can't see how 'martyr' can mean anything but being the victim of sacrifice(by force), or of self-sacrifice (voluntarily). Sacrifice is the act of surrendering a higher value, to a lesser(or nil) value." Whynot is correct here -- "martyr" is a person who is killed because they refuse to give up their principles. There are those who voluntarily sacrifice themselves in various ways and let that be known to everyone around them, but those people -- I think we all know one or two in our families -- are merely annoying, and they certainly derive some value out of posturing that way. The term "martyr" is best reserved for those killed for refusing to compromise their principles.

"It is a commonly held notion within the philosophical context of our age that an intensely moral person is, in essence, a martyr. The prevailing image of an impeccably moral individual is one of suffering, i.e., a religious man living in self-imposed isolation whipping himself for merely thinking about an immoral act. This is a false image and a highly destructive cliché that is accepted by the majority." Although I like the rest of your post and agree with it (rational selfishness), I don't think that you are at all correct in the statement above. I see very little evidence that the "martyr" figure that you describe -- someone in self-imposed isolation whipping himself for immoral thoughts -- is "accepted by the majority". If you accept that popular culture tells us what a culture values, then that sort of figure is not regarded very highly and is not emulated -- quite the opposite. Hollywood reflects the ideals of the pop culture in its heroes and heroines, and they are generally strong men of action and strong, beautiful women. Not exactly what you describe. If a culture values a certain kind of man or woman, there will be more of that kind of man or woman as many people will want to be valued that way. I don't see many of the martyr-type being valued. More people watch sports events and American Idol, and dream of being famous in that way. What is your evidence of the martyr being valued by the majority?

"At the most fundamental level, life has only one purpose: to survive. All absolutes within the universe are arranged to offer life that opportunity." Actually, observation shows that reproduction appears to be the purpose of life: survival is important insofar as it furthers that purpose. There are some examples (spiders, mantises, etc.) of life forms losing their lives for the purpose of reproduction, and, more generally, survival is compromised by reproduction for most if not all life forms (animals risking their own lives to defend their young, the considerable "cost" of raising offspring, the depletion of energy for reproduction seen in both plants and animals, increased vulnerability to predators, etc.). So, survival would appear to be secondary, a means of serving the primary purpose of reproduction.

"I'm curious, though, how the Catholics on the forum reconcile the fact that nearly all the rites and traditions of the Catholic faith trace back to the Roman pagan religion, and that the hierarchical Catholic church bears very little resemblance to the individualist concept of religion developed by Jesus Christ, who rejected organized religion, in favor of a personal, private interaction between a man and his "Father."" To answer the first part of your question: the rituals are Jewish in origin. As fot the second part of the question: it's not relevant to the topic at hand. You can send me a private message if you want to discuss it further with me (though I will say that your assessement is false).

"This is the issue I'm having: I'm not so clear that it's not true. It may not be necessarily a bad thing that a kid is told to wash dishes, but the issue I'm having trouble with is the idea that child labor is not slavery. Would I have to argue that, by definition, a kid is a slave until he is an adult capable of making his own choices?" Slavery entails the usurpation of one's rights to one's proper wages and to one's ability to determine one's own choices. It makes a man a commodity, little more than a useful machine that can be bought or sold. It is a degradation of man. Expecting a youngster to contribute to the welfare of the family that is supporting and protecting him is not a degradation (within reason...), but rather a sharing of responsibility, one that will prepare him to be a more effective worker when he is on his own. It's an educational opportunity, not slavery (I am speaking of typical conditions here in the United States). I don't know why you would have to argue otherwise.

"I was talking about Objectivism rather than self-labeled Objectivists. I consider "Objectivism" the philosophy that Ayn Rand explained and claims to have discovered in her books (along with her co-authors). To me, that philosophy seems optimistic because it asserts that individuals have massive power to alter their well-being for the better and happiness is attainable (to those who understand Objectivism, adopts its values, and behave accordingly). Whether or not it is true, I think that specific part of the philosophy has a very hopeful ring to it." I agree with you completely here, and had meant to add, to my earlier post, that I thought that Objectivism itself was quite positive, much more so than other atheist strains. I do think my experience with self-identified Objectivists probably stems from the age factor I mentioned earlier.

I agree with Capitalist Fred. I'd also point out that in some professions, such as farming, much of the learning is done by working as soon as possible (I grew up driving tractors and helping with livestock long before I was of legal age to drive a car). I have friends in the restaurant business who grew up working -- and learning -- in the family restaurant when still quite young. Some professions such as competitive athletics requires huge investments of time when still very young -- if "work" is regarded as slavery, then "practice" might be included under that umbrella. A distinction should, and I think could, be made between exploitation and work.

"Avila, I have to defend Objectivism on this one. I am not an Objectivist but I can tell you as a naturalist that it is the most optimistic (naturalist) philosophy I know of." I wonder, then, if the differences between your observations and mine could be attributed to age. By far, most of the self-identified Objectivists I have known personally (and it seems to be the case here on this forum) are young, often in high school or in college. Ordinary adolescent angst might be a factor, as well as the fact that most of them are not providing for themselves and have accomplished very little. This is not at all blameworthy (it's hard to run a railroad when you're still in high school), but perhaps many end up feeling that they don't and can't live up to the superhuman (non-human, I would say) characters in Rand's novels. In contrast, the "normal" atheists I have known (as described above in an earlier post) have been older, usually established in their careers, and are less idealistic (and thus not so disappointed with real life). At any rate, I have come across far more depressed and angry Objectivists than other atheist types.

"Also, It's important to distinguish atheists (you could say normal atheists) from Objectivists. (normal) Atheists tend to be humanists or naturalistic pantheists or materialists. Objectivists are in a different category values-wise. And because of their strictly realistic viewpoint on life, are probably more likely to be depressed." That is in keeping with my own observations. Many of my acquaintances are atheists or agnostics (because I was an atheist for decades), and most of them would fall into what you call the "normal" atheist category. They honestly don't seem to live according to their own professed belief system, and some simply deny the reality of observation and thought, but certainly don't act accordingly. I have always suggested Objectivism to these people, but not many have been interested. I wonder if it is because they suspect it might make them unhappy.

"So you are advocating that man should only live long enough to reproduce, and then lose their lives, or just having difficulty trying to identify what is fundamental to survival for man?" I didn't advocate for anything. I was pointing out that reproduction, and not simply survival, appears to direct non-human life. Survival is a means to that end. Nor was I "trying to identify what is fundamental to survival for man." Try again. I like and agree with many aspects of Objectivism -- I'm simply not convinced, as an earlier poster claimed, that it has never been proven wrong. I think there are problems with some of Rand's premises. This doesn't mean that it is not a useful philosophy -- aspects of it are -- but I don't think it should be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

"So, religion, which by definition is not "reality-based," No, that would be your assessement, not a definition. "....is more reality-based than actual reality? No. That is a poor interpretation of what I said.

"Other times, I have to suppress a lot of stress when someone starts talking to me about Jesus, prayer, and how much the Bible makes sense. If I do not change to subject or leave, I know it is just a matter of time before I think to myself, "Are you THAT f***ing stupid???"" Much depends upon the level of Christian you are talking to. In general, I have found that Evangelicals and Pentecostals are almost impossible to talk to, as they argue in circles. Most Catholics I run across are so poorly catechized that they can't explain even basic tenets of their faith to themselves or others. However, the two most intelligent men I have had the fortune to meet were both Catholic priests: one was the physicist and author Stanley Jaki (he died a few years ago), and a philosophy professor who was a Thomist. I also had a correspondence with another Thomist, Ralph McInerny. I doubt you'd have had the same reaction (that is, Are you THAT f***ing stupid???"") if you had conversations with that level of Christian. "So, anyways, my point is that I am not sure Christians are worse off." No, they aren't. Psychological studies show that religious people, in general, live longer, happier lives and heal faster. When broken down, it is the result of three basic components: the promotion of healtheir lifestyles, the social support offered by the religious community, and the optimism that is part of the Christian worldview. The latter is especially important... "My default position is, rather be unhappy and be intimate with reality, than be happy and be disconnected. At the next level, of course, it doesn't work this way; with on-going evasion of reality, one's anxiety and guilt grow stronger. It is the indisputable nature of the "rational animal"." It would be "indisputable" if actual evidence supported it. But suicide rates (which would logically follow the increased guilt and anxiety that you assert) actually are lower among religious: http://ajp.psychiatr...act/161/12/2303 Depression is harmful to one's health. If being "intimate with reality" leads to unhappiness and depression, then I have to wonder if it's really very reality-based at all. It would be contrary to one's nature (survival), then, to follow that particular view of the world. Perhaps, then, your definition of the "rational animal" is flawed.

"3. I think the main reason Objectivists refer to the books is because they think it is only fair that if you really care about the position you are trying to argue against, then you should at least make some effort to understand the position you are arguing against. The simplest and fairest way to gain that understanding is to read the relevant literature. It just implies that you are not very interested, if you are not willing to make that effort. So why should one care to engage you?" I understood the OP to be making a somewhat different point. Of course, one should be familiar with the relevant literature, but what she is saying is that in response to specific questions, some Objectivists will simply say, "Read such-and-such..", instead of answering themselves. It does give the impression that they can't answer on their own, or, perhaps, they think the writing is so self-evidently true that if a person reads it, they are completely convinced -- voila! They don't seem to accept the reality that intelligent, sincere people can read Rand and not agree with all or parts of it. That would tend to explain the tendency to simply refer to her books over and over...

"A dispute is not a proof." True enough. But I'll be specific -- I mentioned I had difficulties, shall we say, with some of Rand's basic assumptions. Let me take one: she states (through Galt) that living things (outside of humans, that is) cannot act for their own destruction. The assumption she is making, then, is that survival -- biological survival -- is the pattern or blueprint (sorry, neither word is quite right) that animals and plants follow. But that's simply not the case -- the natural world seems to be geared towards reproduction, with survival simply a means to that end. Plants and animals expend themselves to reproduce, which is at odds with the idea that survival is the primary driving force. Some, such as spiders, lose their lives because of reproduction, and only live long enough to do the job. Another difficulty I have is with the way Rand attempts to solve the "is - ought" problem. I have noticed that Rand slides past biological survival (and, frankly, there are many ways to survive, not one), and into what a man's life ought to be -- I don't think it works.

Jaskn, Given the quality of your comments here and elsewhere, I've concluded that you're not worth responding to. So you're just wasting your time.

"I'll add that if I ever went onto a Christian site (for some reason) I'd show a lot less contempt for other people's convictions than you show here for atheists and O'ists.)" I was an atheist for almost 30 years. I don't have any inherent contempt for them.

"It would be more precise of me to say that if a person will be beneficial to your life as a whole, it will have some impact upon your career. I was trying to convey an incidental benefit to career, even if perhaps the main value of that relationship is regarding some kind of emotional support. Given that I do say career is an extremely fundamental aspect of leading a good life, any value would properly be improving or helping along the pursuit of that fundamental value. Relationships should primarily benefit yourself, your life. If you hold a value in that way, you can't help but have it impact your career." I agree entirely. Thanks for taking the time to clarify. "Career, though, is a goal in life, where you as an individual are trying to go, expressed as productivity. Without that as a personal guide to where you are going in life, you'd end up wandering aimlessly." Yup, we agree here too. One of the aspects of Objectivism that I have always admired is its insistence on the importance of productivity. "If family is placed as more fundamental than career, you are literally making other people your guide - which is second-handed, and in that sense, immoral." I don't think "guide" is quite the right way to put it.... I think it is in keeping with rational selfishness to put one's family above one's career. Again, I give myself as an example: I love my creative work. It's certainly part of who I am, and I'm fortunate in that I can do what I love to do for a career. However, if push comes to shove, my family comes first. If one of my kids developed some kind of health problem, say, that required me to change careers in order to make more money or have a certain kind of insurance, I'd do it in a heartbeat, no matter how boring or unfulfilling it would be. I would die for my family -- I won't die for my career as a painter. To be honest, I don't know of any of my friends with families (the vast majority of my friends, given my age group) who wouldn't do the same. We may be hard-wired that way -- certainly, in nature, adult animals will put themselves at risk to protect their offspring. "I probably should explain more about productivity and career. These are things all people require, based upon the identity of being a person in the broad sense." I would say that a sense of purpose is something that all people require, based on the identity of being a person. "I'm not going to get into the induction about it, but "possessing the faculty reason" is the essential characteristic (without that, you literally are not a person, so different principles would apply)." Does this mean that the mentally retarded are "less human"? I suspect that that is a subject for another thread....never mind, now that I think about it I believe that I did read such a thread. As I recall, one person stated that they weren't, but that they should be accorded the same sort of regard as animals, so it would be mean to poke them with a stick, for example. Another poster said that this interpretation was wrong, and his explanation was sound. "But as I was explaining before, career is required to have a long-term pursuit and goal in life." A career can simply be a means to enable the pursuit of long-term goals. I want (who doesn't?) to live a long, healthy, and happy life. I derive much joy from my family. I also derive much satisfaction from my work (I am fortunate in that I can do what I want and what I am good at), but it is also the means by which I maintain my superior source of joy, my family. "That's why it isn't open to individual variation." Sorry, Eioul -- I just don't agree. I don't see this "truth" reflected in the lives of people around me. We'll just have to disagree here, but I appreciate your patience in explaining your position. "It is possible in some ways for family to be career as was explained, but family on its own will not and cannot provide your long-term goals for you." We agree that family can, in some ways, be a "career" -- I know of several stay-at-home moms with large families, and that is certainly their creative work. However, family does, in fact, provide long-term goals! Just one example of just the financial aspect -- if one of my daughters wishes to become an Olympic - level equestrian competitor, she will need to start long, long before she is capable of earning enough money to pay her own way. I will have to structure my short-term and long-term financial goals starting NOW in order to give her the ability to meet her long-term goals. It's what parents do. And, long-term, I would like to spend my retirement years enjoying time with my friends and family. That's a family-based, long-term goal, and though it is furthered by financial planning (career), it is furthered more by human interaction (love and friendship). "Can you give an example of a wound that can't be fixed on one's own? I'm not quite sure what you might be referring to." Two examples come to mind. One, the painter Carl Larsson (I mentioned him earlier). He had a horrendous childhood -- his father was a brutal drunk, beating his mother, who finally left them destitute. He grew up in the slums. He ended up in a school for the poor, where his talent was recognized -- but he was shy, nervous, and was crippled socially. He struggled with his work as an illustrator, but it was meeting and marrying his wife that marked the major turning point in his life: they had 8 children, and the emotional wounds and their effects -- the shyness, the sense of being inferior -- was healed by his relationship with his wife and children. The other example that came to mind was an article I read recently about an orphanage in Russia. Because of a shortage of staff, the children were fed and kept clean, but the workers did not have much time to spend with them. They encountered serious problems as the children grew older -- they could not engage in the outside world, and exhibited hostile, unsocial behaviors. They enlisted the help of local grandmothers who would go in and pick up, caress, and talk to the children -- in short, to love them. Without that external help, the emotional deprivation they suffered could not be healed.

"There are even threads on OO.net which dispute aspects of her philosophy. A dispute is not a proof." Actually, I'm not sure "proof" is even the right term to use when assessing philosophies. One can't "prove" that a particular philosophy is true, in the sense that one tests a scientific hypothesis through experimentation.

"Actually, the moral principles are determined without regard to what one feels since just wanting or not wanting something to be a certain way does not make it so." We agree. "As for saying this is just her opinion, this is not a subject where it is open to opinion anymore than how many apples there are left if one starts with four and then eats one. Ethics certainly has room for various ways it plays out differently for different people, but because there are certain things about human nature that apply to all people, some things will be morally off limits for everybody still." And that's really where the difficulty is -- you are assuming that this particular ethical position (putting career above family, as Rand states in the Playboy interview) is based upon some universal aspect of human nature. I disagree with that premise. "Consequently, while the particular career and family people have is open to huge variation, that career needs to be primary over family isn't open to individual variation." I see no rational basis for that conclusion. "I have been mostly absent for a few months, so I apologize if you have been asked this lots before, but exactly what are your sources thus far on the content of Objectivism?" To save me typing time, just go to my profile. "I'm pretty sure Avila means "first" as in "above career" in this case." Yes -- thank you!