Superman123

The following is certainly not the official Objectivist stand, but my own.

How will you treat this question, metaphysically or psychologically? your tastes or the truth? Maybe Objectivism resolved that riddle but not explicitly.

Even if by empirical evidence we could be certain about the sun rising tomorrow, the sun is still too close and well understood. We are ignorant of that which exceeds our scale, which may or may not be infinite. the distant past, the distant future, the very small and the very large (Richard Dawkins compares this to viewing from a burka). When thinking/speculating at a scale that far exceeds what humanity will ever get to know, we our confronted by uncertainty.

For all conceivable practical purposes (and Objectivism demands the application of a principle to reality) absolute certainty is applicable.
For Objectivism to be rational it demands to be fallible even if 99% correct. It's it's neither authoritarian (dogmatic/infallible) or mystic (relativistic/ applying uncertainty to the scale humans can indeed control).

Objectivism rightly asserts that the universe is knowable, and it is to a certain extend that is good enough. But if we call this "contextual certainty", we must acknowledge that it plays a (rightful) psychological role - that of focusing on the knowable instead of literally going crazy with the unknowable (unless properly channeled).

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo deals with the subject. Ayn Rand loved Victor Hugo, and indeed referenced to him and also to the problem of stealing a loaf of bread - can't back that up with a quote by I know it's there. In We the living, you'll see somewhat similar problems in practice.

simple answer. if it's a loaf of bread because you're starving it'd be altruist not to eat it. If you're trying to extrapolate that situation to something more general, that would be another more general question.

@Dante, I recently watched the office all in a row, having never watched it before. I remember that situation, but throughout the whole show it seems like that guy is trying to have it both ways with his 'family of employees'.

It sounds cliche not melodramatic and I mean it in a sympathetic way. I don't believe there's anything unnatural in the way you feel.
The stage between sleep and wake is a window that allows us to see our mind more "integrally" or in another "whole" way (as we can glimpse BOTH our states of mind while dreaming and while being awake, almost at the same time). That is why awakening and going to sleep are the phases where most normal typical psychological troubles become obviously evident (like people who have trouble going to sleep).

you say of that time when you awake to a new day (after spending hours digesting thoughts in very different cosmos within your mind)



but there IS reason for feeling something both special and intense. There is no reason however to feel neutral, that would be a feat to accomplish.

you have every valid reason to feel angst during that time (expressed in either emptiness, or mild depression, whatever).
I've found myself in that situation a lot. The only exceptions don't occur naturally or by default, they occur when I purposefully set something that I really want to wake up to. For instance if when I wake up I know I'm at the beach and that the ocean expects me, I just feel joy. (for others might be the arms of a lover). But that's ideal. Another way is to wake up wanting do something you really love doing, something you had to give up the night before due to physical stress (sleep). By doing what you like, I specifically mean the absorbing state of mind best described by Mihaly Csiksentmihalyi as "flow" .

That seems to me the best most productive and satisfying way to avoid dealing with the infinite existential questions that pervade a semi intelligent mind on a daily basis.

other popular but less satisfying ways to evade the full scope of reality include earning a living for the sake of it, raising a family (for the sake of it), drinking and doing drugs.

Flow occurs naturally so it might be hard to achieve if you're conscious about trying to achieve it (in the same way that sometimes when you don't remember something, you know you will eventually remember it if you stop thinking about it) . So maybe a way to begin your daily routine of achieving flow might be doing something that mildly engages you increasing difficulty gradually.

Maybe you already achieve flow and you still the same way on the mornings. Psychology is surely not clear cut, no "science" called study of the soul can be.

---
My take is rather cold and objective as I am not an American citizen or resident. I reside in the other end of the Americas and am a citizen of certain European country. But here you go,

What you call invasion is actually a normal phenomenon. When a population dwindles and decays, another takes its place and such is the case of the many immigrants.

I am assuming (strictly by your demeanor and avatar picture) that by "communistic Mestizo" you mean Mexican regardless of ethnicity or ideology.

Mexicans (along with Canadians which don't count in this discussion) are the only ones who have the special distinction of being a mixture of two complicated groups in American dynamics; immigrants and native americans.
It is so itchy a subject because the existence of the Mexican identity (a mixture of indeed immigrant conquistadores and Catholiced-by-force native american population) cancels out the existence of the American Nation identity, and vice versa. this is long and fresh ground for many misunderstandings.

All immigrants except Mexicans have to either sail or fly into a new continent, the New World. Certain magical aura comes with it. And yet Mexico is the most powerful country of Hispanic America with interesting projected growth.

I could go on until you are inevitably banned, but do you really wanna continue this conversation

It is an interesting topic and as James said it overlaps into many many threads. But Ayn Rand was far from homosexual so we can leave all the gay threads aside for a bit and consider the question of an intellectual woman during the rise of Feminism who had some subtle masculine traits of herself and wrote a lot about gender roles.

I consider most striking seeing Dagny in three different capacities, as an executive single and then with Rearden, as a housewife (more specifically as Galt's housekeeper), and then somewhat to our imagination, in all her proper femininity, under her hero and then rescuing her hero.

Her take on masculinity and femininity somewhat resembles that of other non feminist woman intellectuals such as
to the left, Camille Paglia (ouch!)
to the right, Celia Green

Her take on gender roles seems to me consistent every other area, most obviously ethics; neither abuse or allow to be abused. There is some sort of compensating force in play. (ex, her masculine traits in a heterosexual woman).

As cliche as it is.. (and as much as I feel it is traditionally used as a one phrase catch all by morons).

There is some truth to the saying

"haters gonna hate"

People need to feel good about themselves. Some people do it in a productive way by getting in shape, learning and improving themselves.

Others, go about it by believing in god and that they are his special child and live perfectly according to a set of rules which are impossible to practically follow.

Sense of life is a lot like a psycho-epistemological style. In other words, it's an issue of psychology in addition to some re-evaluation of premises. All Peikoff probably meant was, based on his knowledge about psychology as a layman, it may take a long amount of time to change one's sense of life. Since sense of life is a result of a lifetime of experience, change may take a really long time.

Search for the "Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality" thread, which is I think over 50 or 60 pages long. There are also many, many other sex-related threads from the past which discuss masculinity and femininity. Beware: much rationalizing ensues.

After reading some of those threads, maybe you could submit your own ideas about the many facets of human sexuality here in this thread.... or just add to the existing threads.

I would put it a little differently. Anger is "only" an emotion. It can be based on either good or bad premises. When the reason for anger is justified it can be a useful fuel for action.
I agree that supressing/repressing your emotions is bad. However, so is getting overly emotional and acting without clear thinking.
Slightly off-topic:
I have indeed just passed the first phase in the recruiting process. I must say i'm pleasantly surprised by that. The next step is to pass a personality test. This is based on allocating points on a series of statements. Each step has 3 statements and 6 points to allocate. The statements go something like: it's important to work in a good enviroment, have challenging tasks and think outside the box.
Sheesh, is that kind of crapola common in todays market?

• The ancient Romans used to say: “A healthy spirit is in healthy body”. I’d add to this that a healthy body is a beautiful body. Beautiful means harmony and beautiful form usually means perfect function. In “The Fountainhead” Roark’s structures were beautiful because their forms reflected their function. In regard to the human body beauty means optimal function which promotes and enriches the goodness of the human’s life. Here is the point where aesthetics becomes ethics. For man a beautiful body means good life. Therefore a desire to have an esthetical shaped body represents a deep, often subconscious benevolent sense of life and healthy self-esteem. A man, who is training even for the sole purpose to have beautiful toned body, loves himself and his life. However, there is another type of body builders. They are pumping iron as like as their very life depends on it and consume steroids in industrial quantities... They develop incredible unnatural mass of bulging muscles. The ugly sight speaks loudly that their bodies are unhealthy. Even more disgusting the sight of women who engage in this kind of “sport”. The question why do they do it? I don’t have one simple answer. Endorphin addiction is maybe one of them. A desire to punish oneself maybe another. But more likely, that such a people try to acquire in such a way the self esteem which they don’t have. Self-esteem is a deep metaphysical sense that the life is good and one is inherently equipped to live and to enjoy one’s life. Self-esteem is inseparable from the sense of life. People who punish themselves in gyms apparently don’t have it. Their attempt to substitute the self-esteem by the ugly disproportionally bulging muscles is a failure. They don’t work out in order to live and enjoy but live in order to work out.
In regard to “American Psycho”-I never saw the movie, but from the description I understand that a hero belongs to the kind of men which I just described.This also reminds me the situation with American Superheroes (Superman,Batman, Spederman etc...)They all seeking a self-esteem via altruism. The problem of Batman and the other superheroes is not the inability to love. Their real trouble is that they constantly have to choose between their own private happiness and the selfless service to humanity which gives them the false sense of self-esteem. Usually altruism wins which is not surprising, since this is a dominant philosophy of our times. Batman at least managed to marry his sweetheart in the 3rd or 4th sequel. Superman never made it...shame...

Reason counters religion. Post renaissance, and all the way to the late1900's, we've seen a general trend away from religion. This was true not just in the Christian countries, but elsewhere too. Westerners did not become atheists en masse, but many of them began to reject the sillier aspects of their religions and adopting a more secular view point. In the British Empire, local educated Hindu and Muslim elites began to do the same. In general, these people would still call themselves Christian, Hindu and Muslim, but in fact they were growing less so, adopting a more rational viewpoint. The more recent movements toward more religion -- the hippies finding Hinduism, the theocratic take-over in Iran, and the rise of Christian politics in the U.S. -- are smaller counter-trends in the larger move away from religion.
To answer the question, there's no easy short-cut to stop religion from spreading. Rationality can take time to spread. Such change can take generations. The good news is that rational ideas simply make sense. It is not hard to see why people would believe in god as some type of unknown and fairly abstract idea. However, it is quite a different thing for people to believe that some guy born in Saudi Arabia was a prophet, or that some other guy born in Bethlehem was the son of God (or a prophet). The deist conception of God that people like Thomas Jefferson professed is just a "filler" in our lack of knowledge of the universe. However, it has little political impact. So, that's not what one has to fight against. On the other hand, it takes many years of childhood indoctrination, mixed with a degree of intellectual laziness or apathy, for people to believe in Jesus or Mohammed. It takes a little stupidity for such people to go further and believe in the more nitty-gritty ritualism of their respective religions. This intellectual apathy and stupidity can only be countered by reason, and reason has reality on its side.

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living."

Reason: I know that healthy dieting and exercise will increase my health in the moment, my life's longevity, and my physique. These are metaphysical facts. Chocolate in excess makes you fat. Being a couch potato in excess makes you fat. I choose to increase my quality of life by working hard at the gym, and choosing healthy "fuel" for my body.

Purpose: I want to live life to the fullest, looking my best, feeling my best, so that I may achieve my career goals, pursue my love interests and attain happiness on earth.

Self-Esteem: I love myself. I love living. I love doing. I know that my life has value and that I am competent and worthy of living. If that is considered narcissistic than it is a virtue.

Their premise is likely that appearance only involves other people evaluating your look as good or not. To care about how you look would then indicate you are a vain person and only want the attention of other people. Why not be happy with how god made you? Don't be so narcissistic and try to grab the attention you don't need. As long as you're healthy, you don't need to alter how you look. It's what's on the inside that counts!

Such a premise is not true. How you look can be about yourself, *expressing* your values. Caring about how you look means you care about your body, because you'd be acknowledging that there is no mind/body dichotomy. The above paragraph is a great example of advocating a mind/body dichotomy. As long as you're mentally well, why care about going the extra mile for your body? That's all sorts of wrong, because your appearance is a manifestation of your mental well-being anyway. While it is true that not all people value working out, there are many ways to show how you value your appearance, whether it be makeup, clothing, or whatever other form of styling. Looking your best needs to be explained as valuable in terms of putting yourself as the standard of value. People often define "looking your best" as some standard defined by popular media, which is a narcissistic standard if anyone pursues beauty by that standard.

I disagree that you need to know the essentials of the entire philosophy before you can live by it. Understanding and living by the Objectivist virtues of rationality, productiveness, pride, independence, integrity, honesty and justice -- and understanding the values of reason (and that emotions are not a means of cognition), purpose and self-esteem is probably enough for most people.


Everyone already has a philosophy; even those with "second-rate minds" (a faulty concept, BTW) can't avoid it. Humans learn in bits and pieces; by experience; by trial and error. There's no need to memorize any tenets. Having someone, such as a teacher or a parent, who understands Objectivism can be enough. These are lessons (and learning opportunities) that come up thousands of times in a person's life. For example, most people already know that honesty is a virtue -- and they get value from that knowledge, even if they don't understand exactly why it's true.

The main thing they're missing is having someone help connect the dots between Objectivist virtues; to help them see things like the source and nature of pride, self-esteem and happiness.

To address rd, there is no indication as far as I can tell that feminism has anything to do with what has been discussed here. If anything, what promotes insecurity is gender essentialism of “women are from Venus, men are from Mars” where males and females are by nature different. Combine that with non-egoistic personal philosophy being the norm, and you'll have problems. Males may accept such a dichotomy of behavior, resulting in feeling a need to find a way to speak to females, when in fact there is no real different method that is needed. When a person sees another as almost a different species, insecurity is bound to happen. This sort of behavior is certainly taught. American culture seems to promote traditional masculinity (and femininity!) more so than the avoidance of those concepts.

For whatever reason, it is more acceptable for a woman to be “masculine” (not wearing makeup, enjoying video games, being a computer programmer) than for a man to be more “feminine” (wearing makeup, enjoying talking about fashion, being a hair stylist) is some sort of travesty to existence. This is in terms of society at large, so my point is that feminism only would have to do with lack of self-esteem to the extent that after a lot of time and changed minds, it's now okay for a female to be male-ish. Not nearly as much has happened for it to be okay for a male to be female-ish. There are programs to encourage girls to get into science, but there is no equivalent thing to encourage boys to do something traditionally female-oriented (cooking, fashion, sewing, styling). Still, for the most part, males and females being distinctly divided still seems prominent. Twilight, the book, is a good example of that sort of divide being promoted in popular culture.

What appeals to me more is a sense of equality amongst all people at baseline. Not just in the political sense, but in the conceptual sense. This is especially consistent with Objectivism because of how all people are choosers and act according to their own judgment, not attached to what their biology says. To ask what is more rational or less rational for a male or female to do is simply a pointless question. All this is in line with what I said earlier about evaluating your individual circumstances when deciding to pursue a person or not. You may know precisely what you prefer, and be really happy when you get those preferences met, but at times it may be necessary to make changes, lest you rely on luck to get by in life. I mentioned non-heterosexual relationships and identity before because I understand that to be evidence of how you can't possibly have a meaningful answer to how a person ought to act around the opposite sex. Or the same sex!

Not sure where to fit it in, but it's relevant to what Dreamspirit said in post 11. Testosterone probably increases aggresiveness, but there is also evidence that estrogen increases aggresiveness, too.

In reality, people exist all over the spectrum of sexual aggression, for all kinds of "normal" reasons which span their entire lives. If you have reached adulthood and your life is more or less balanced for happiness (healthy self-esteem, satisfying career, fun hobbies, good physical shape, etc.), and you are male and less aggressive than other males and females, then that is just the reality of your person. No mess-ups, it's just who you are. I see the issue as one of personality to the core, and one that really can't be directly changed. Nor should one even try to change it. Would you try to change your sense of humor? What about your preferences in artistic things or music? They are just your preferences, end of story. They may change over time as your self and ideas evolve, but you cannot force yourself to do it today or tomorrow, and there is no reason to even try.
There is no "ideal" in the realm of sexual aggression, except as it relates to your spouse/other. If you have found a spouse whom you love for all the right reasons, and you are compatible with each other, who cares who is more or less sexually aggressive?

Otherwise: Why do women "look up to" men? What does that mean? How would you have a heterosexual couple revert to this type of behavior if it is not already a part of their persons? How could they force it? If it had to be forced to "be" at all, why should they do it?

Tenderlysharp, once again you wrote such a thoughtful response. I really appreciate this.

I strongly do agree with you that you have to look at the context of Ayn Rand’s life. She did regard the essence of femininity as hero worship i.e. looking up to a man. “… seems like at the time she viewed lesbianism as a rejection of men, and she couldn't see herself doing that” Perfectly put Tenderlysharp.

Where I really get frustrated is how straight people compare their relationships with gay relationships. In gay relationships there is no male role and female role. You get a straight person looking at a gay couple and say, “He must be the ‘she’ in the relationship.” Gay relationships are completely different to straight relationships. “it is chosen out of a strong connection with a particular person it doesn't have anything to do with anyone but the two people involved” here again you show a lot of insight.

My experience of the gay relationships I have been in is that is a meeting of two equals. King meets King or Queen meets Queen. The rules have to be explored carefully, there is compromise but never, “I wear the pants in this household and so what I say goes.” I do not know enough about Objectivism to know if this would make it immoral according to objectivism but in my experience is that there is not *real* male and female roles in our relationships.

What is really funny is when a person thinks that if a man is very masculine he will take on the same sexual role. It is usually the opposite.

“Positive gay role models, (hero worship) will do more than anything in shaping public opinion about the issue. Objectivism is very good for inspiring each individual to confidently strive toward his or her potential.” This is what made me fall in love with Objectivism. There has been a need for more positive gay role models in the past. Slowly but surely we are finding them and they are making a huge difference.

Another problem has been the strong influence the left has had on gay cinema. There have been a lot of gay films collected and made by movie houses such as TLA releasing, Peccadillo Pictures and Here! Regent films. Most of them are full of tragic heroes making mistakes such as drugs, being promiscuous etc. I was so lucky this weekend to see a good gay film this weekend with a proper hero in it. http://www.tlareleasing.co.uk/details/product_details.cfm?id=215100 I plan to write a review of it on OO.

Also great post Tanaka. And Thank you for everyone that has been positive in their reply to my initial post.

Regards,

Superman

I have a couple of separate points:

1. There are two branches of Objectivism which relate to homosexuality:

One is Politics. In Capitalism, the state has no right to interfere with any kind of sex, or any kind of personal relationships, between consenting adults. End of story.

The other is Ethics. First off, there's the question of sexual orientation. Since it is very clear that homosexuality is not consciously chosen (but is determined from birth or during early childhood), it falls outside of the realm of Ethics. Beyond that, the morality of homosexuality depends on the particulars, just like in the case of straight sex and relationships. Sex and relationships based in people sharing the right values are good.

2. As for the opinions of self-proclaimed Objectivists, they shouldn't matter. Objectivism isn't a cult (or even a single "community"). At most, it's comprised of circles of friends, loosely connected or independent of each other. There is no reason why some self-proclaimed Objectivists' opinions should ever interfere with your life, or your choice of a philosophy, unless you expressly invite them to do so.

In my experience, most Objectivists are not anti-gay in any way. In fact there is an unusually high percentage of Objectivists who actually are gay. And if someone insults gay people, he is quickly refuted in Objectivist circles, just like any other bigot would be.

You shouldn't have any problem finding Objectivists who don't mind your sexuality to hang out with. So being gay should not keep you from seeking out Objectivism as a philosophy, or Objectivists to associate with.

Ayn Rand had a better relationship with her father, more of her friends were men, she said she was a male chauvinist, housewives bored her.. I think her 'off the cuff' comment was an emotional reaction to the prospect of trading the men she loved for women, when she had no female equivalents in her life who could compare. She liked being a woman but she was a man worshiper. It seems like at the time she viewed lesbianism as a rejection of men, and she couldn't see herself doing that. There are collectivist groups who focus excessively on Ayn Rand's anti-gay statement without the context of her life at the time. The negative focus distracts people away from the power that defending individual rights has to remove government intervention from their lives.

Would Objectivism have developed the same if she had been a lesbian? How would her philosophy be consistent if she said she worshiped man, yet found him sexually repulsive/uninteresting?

If gay people are engaging in a collectivist kind of rejection against the opposite sex, it seems like it would be negative toward half of human life. If on the other hand it is chosen out of a strong connection with a particular person it doesn't have anything to do with anyone but the two people involved. Society and the government have no business in the bedroom of two adults... two 'consenting' adults. The only time it should matter is when you are looking for a partner, and desiring someone of your preference to prefer you.

When I meet someone their sexuality is not my first concern, I am more interested in their ideas. Each person has different comfort zones when talking about sex, with varying levels of discretion on how soon into a friendship it seems like the topic is approachable. Flirtation is an aspect of friendship I enjoy, and my level of flirtation depends on each individual involved. I admire men and women, both straight and gay. I am a woman who has chosen a man as my partner, he is a unique irreplaceable element in defining my sexuality.

Positive gay role models, (hero worship) will do more than anything in shaping public opinion about the issue. Objectivism is very good for inspiring each individual to confidently strive toward his or her potential.

Anyone with any doubts that Rick Perry is a theocrat can mosey on over to a Yahoo! News writeup of seven changes the governor of Texas would like to make to the Constitution, as he explains in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. They look like quite the grab-bag at first glance, but they are uniformly bad or unnecessary:

Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. Notice that Perry's first two proposed changes are both direct attacks on the independence of the judiciary. The third sounds good, but would be unnecessary if the electorate really were in favor of lower taxes, and (if not), it would be easily circumvented with another tax. The fourth is unnecessary. The fifth is absurd: In a time of national emergency (like a real war), the government should be able to borrow and, absent a free banking system, the amendment could be overridden by the confiscatory mechanism like inflation, anyway. Finally, the last two reveal as a misconception that Perry considers "states' rights" a check against tyranny, or (and, much more important) that he believes the Constitution serves as a check on government power. That last is particularly disturbing, given Perry's track record as someone who is good at quietly amassing lots of power.
If we elect Perry, we may well find ourselves wishing we had an incompetent President.

-- CAV


Cross-posted from Metablog

Emotions are not tools of cognition they are a reaction to cognition. It is important to investigate your emotions in order to learn how to bring your emotions into harmony with your cognition. The more you practice this the less at odds with your emotions you will become.

A feeling of dissatisfaction could be misinterpreted as a lack of self esteem when actually your cognitive abilities are restless for more knowledge to tackle greater challenges. Maybe goals need to be reorganized and prioritized.

You may be pleased to know that Rand agreed - emotions are not tools of cognition, she said.
After that, she totally disagreed with you: she acknowledged the potency of emotion. I just checked 'Emotions' out on the AR Lexicon, and recommend you read some very absorbing stuff there, so I don't need to try to do it justice.

Not included there, is that philosophically (as much as psychologically) there is a vast importance to emotions.
Objectivism rejects the traditional philosophers' stumbling-block: the 'soul/body' dichotomy - more often called the 'mind/body dichotomy'; which should also - if I'm correct - mean rejection of a 'mind/emotion' dichotomy as well.
Integration of emotions with and beneath rationality is Rand's answer to that. Not to mention her regular references to "Joy".!!
Ultimately, this emotion is the whole point of her philosophy.
"Chemical messages", huh?!

(You are right in that emotions are not directly relevant to self-esteem.
However, (in short) the process from consciousness to sub-conscious self-judgement, -ie, self-esteem - is not that different from emotional formation, I think.)

Tony, This is where I really struggle with this.
I cannot see that emotions can be a 'barometer'. My past experience have been that emosions lie to you. I always find it better to rely on what I *know* is correct and reflect reality.

e.g. I when I *feel* worthless I say *NO* I have inherent worth as being a human been. I force myself to acknowledge what the reality actualy is.

I suppose I will have to look into the articles relating AR and emotions.
But I cannot think that my emotions have anything to do with my self-esteem. They are merely chemical messages from my brain.

Tony, This is where I really struggle with this.
I cannot see that emotions can be a 'barometer'. My past experience have been that emosions lie to you. I always find it better to rely on what I *know* is correct and reflect reality.

e.g. I when I *feel* worthless I say *NO* I have inherent worth as being a human been. I force myself to acknowledge what the reality actualy is.

I suppose I will have to look into the articles relating AR and emotions.
But I cannot think that my emotions have anything to do with my self-esteem. They are merely chemical messages from my brain.

I'm locking the thread because the OP easily violates the "consistency with this site" rule.