epistemologue

nice, welcome to OO! drop in the chat sometime!

Just because something seems nice to you doesn't mean it's right. What a bizarre statement.

Welcome, drop in the chat sometime!

One's hair color, ear size, or lack of an appendix are not at all fundamental aspects of one's nature. Unlike one's sex, these are not deep, organizing principles about the human body and its anatomy, its physiology, childhood development, psychology, and so on, but rather small traits that are the not the basis of many other things. If you start to think about: - questions about one's life choices, like, "what should my goals be", "how should I develop my character", "what kind of relationships should I pursue", "what kind of career should I pursue", "what kind of person should I become", "how should I behave in social situations", "what kind of life should I live" - or thinking about how the expression and emphasis of characteristics of one's self should follow by rule - in aesthetics, in style, in manner, in behavior, in character - and how these should be intentionally sought-out and learned, chosen, pursued, and practiced Little characteristics like one's ear size have relatively little bearing on any of these things - whereas fundamental aspects like one's sex, which are responsible for many characteristics of one's nature, have bearing throughout. Think about the innumerable ways one's sex plays into all of the above considerations: things like body image and mannerism - are you going to emphasize masculinity, by pursuing consistently a masculine physique and style; or will you pursue femininity by pursuing a consistently feminine physique and style; or will you ignore the prescription to learn, emphasize, and practice this at all? Of the things one values most in life, and the goals one has in life, things like sex and relationships play a central role. Are you looking for a relationship consistent with - and an expression of - your masculine or feminine character, and are you looking to learn the character and style of this type of relationship, or are you looking for a relationship which is actually inconsistent and contradictory to your nature in this respect, or are you ignoring these principles entirely? Are you looking to have sex in such a way that is again consistent with your masculinity or femininity, and is actually an expression of this aspect of your character - or are you looking for the opposite - or again ignoring the principle entirely? Suppose you have committed yourself to the consistent practice and the intentional expression of your masculinity (or femininity) in all of the innumerable ways implied by these considerations I've listed - including in your body image, in your physique, in your style, in your mannerism, in the type of relationships you want, in the type of sex you want to have - this is not a specific, delimited list at all, but is in fact a pervasive principle throughout the development of your character, psychology, and ultimately the course of your life.

I have not said *nothing* about "what those important oughts are"; I have not *only* said "principles exist!". Here are the things I have been saying about the origin and the nature of the principles of masculinity and femininity. You need to follow each step. Instead of jumping to any conclusions, I will explain step by step, in order to show the form that the solution should logically take, and the reasoning behind the conclusions that should ultimately be reached. - In "The Objectivist Ethics" Rand describes the fundamental principle of morality as "life as the standard of value", and this principle is based on the nature of man - specifically his fundamental nature as a living organism. - Rand then goes beyond this most fundamental aspect of man's nature - she specifically says it's not strictly man's physical survival as a biological organism, but rather the standard of life *qua man*. For example, she identifies another defining aspect of his nature, this one the most differentiating, his rationality, as also being essential to the standard of morality: "“Man’s survival qua man” means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." - In general, the principles of morality - the normative standards to which our volition is measured - follow from the form of man - the nature of his identity. Ethical principles follow from, and emphasize, man's form, identity, and metaphysically given nature. - As a fundamental aspect of human nature and identity, this includes one's sex. Ethical principles, guidelines for emphasis, optimization, beauty, etc, do follow from this; Masculinity and femininity should be ethical principles which guide one's volitional choices - and going against those would be immoral. To the degree one surrenders, renounces, or betrays these principles one is committing an immoral sacrifice. In general, these principles should be expressed and emphasized consistently throughout every aspect of one's life - including one's choice of career - and should not be compartmentalized only to sex or romantic relationships, or as an abnormal exception in human life. - A view that "eliminates specific roles based on being male or female", or views these roles as a "myth" or as "baseless social norms", would be a bad thing *in principle* - the principles of masculinity and femininity are prescriptive about the way one ought to be - in sex and in everything else in life. - To "view himself as an individual" instead of to "view himself as man" is missing something important about his nature that should be part of his view of himself - for the same reason that to view one's self purely as a biological organism, or purely as a rational mind is missing important things about one's nature. Gender identity - based on one's innate sex - *should* be an important part of one's "psycho-sexual visibility". One way Ayn Rand said it was this: "It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs." (About a Woman President). Questions about one's life choices, like, "what should my goals be", "how should I develop my character", "what kind of relationships should I pursue", "what kind of career should I pursue", "what kind of person should I become", "how should I behave in social situations", "what kind of life should I live" - every question one has should be viewed and answered through the prism of Objectivist ethics - that one's life is the standard of value - as well as the rest of the moral principles that follow objectively from the fundamental aspects of one's metaphysically given nature, which includes masculinity or femininity according to one's sex. That is, those characteristics which make one a man or woman by nature, and all of the expression and emphasis of those characteristics which should follow by rule - in aesthetics, in style, in manner, in behavior, in character - should be intentionally sought-out and learned, chosen, pursued, and practiced - in sex, and in every aspect of life.

Would you work for a company whose main source of revenue was government money? Say in public transportation, for example? Would you want that on your conscience? What about the fact that you're working for a company where all the money is stolen? That the "profit" of the company is served by lobbying for the continuation and growth of this criminal enterprise? That by working there you are making them "successful"? What about the propaganda that you are directly or indirectly supporting, pushing environmentalism, wealth redistribution, communism, etc, as what's morally righteous? Do you think that's okay? Including spreading moralizing propaganda for its continued expansion? What if your company is directly taking part in both lobbying the government and propaganda to the public? Is this not basically an anti-capitalist organization? If they are deliberately, strategically selling environmentalism and government funded transportation to the public as morally righteous, with lobbying and other sorts of natural activities a company like this would engage in, in order to perpetuate and grow this whole enterprise? So where's the line? Are there no moral boundaries whatsoever?

can you elaborate on this? does he regard children as property, and not as people? what is a "free market of children"?

this is basic propositional logic. an implication is only false is the first term is true and the second term is false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

I think my description of how moral principles follow from one's nature in Objectivism is a good explanation of why masculinity and femininity are important. It wasn't "just an assertion".

I think the first step is just to acknowledge that these principles exist. It seems like that's just been missing from the view of the issue, for example: In my post, I explained that "the standard of life qua man", and subsequently the ethical principles guiding our behavior, should include masculinity and femininity. So (1) a view that "eliminates specific roles based on being male or female", or views these roles as a "myth" or as "baseless social norms", would be a bad thing in principle - the principles of masculinity and femininity are prescriptive about the way one ought to be - in sex and in everything else in life; and (2) to "view himself as an individual" instead of to "view himself as man" is missing something important about his nature that should be part of his view of himself - for the same reason that to view one's self purely as a biological organism, or purely as a rational mind is missing important things about one's nature. Gender identity should be an important part of one's "psycho-sexual visibility". I think it's important to establish this basic idea - that masculinity and femininity are important and necessary aspects that one should see in themselves and their identity, and that one should develop their character to reflect this identity. I think given that we've established that, inquiring further into what is characteristic of masculinity or femininity, in sex or in general in life, is a good next question. For example dominance and submissiveness, as the most essential characteristics of masculinity and femininity respectively, should be developed in one's character and expressed both in sex and in life in general. This is certainly not to say that they should be fetishized into a contradiction of moral or rational virtues, but rather that they should be an integral part of one's character in one who seeks the highest, non-contradictory achievement of their moral perfection, and the incomparable pleasure, beauty, pride, self-esteem, and happiness that proceed from that achievement.

The sense of pleasure, beauty, pride, self-esteem, and happiness that proceed from the achievement of one's moral values culminates nowhere greater than in the act of sex itself. In the highest, non-contradictory culmination, the principles of masculinity and femininity, based on one's innate sex, are expressed and emphasized in the act of sex. And in general, these principles should be expressed and emphasized consistently throughout every aspect of one's life - including one's choice of career - and should not be compartmentalized only to sex or romantic relationships, or as an abnormal exception in human life. To the degree one surrenders, renounces, or betrays these principles one is committing an immoral sacrifice.

In "The Objectivist Ethics" Rand describes the fundamental principle of morality as life as the standard of value, and this principle is based on the nature of man - specifically his fundamental nature as a living organism. Rand then goes beyond this most fundamental aspect of man's nature - she specifically says it's not strictly man's physical survival as a biological organism, but rather the standard of life *qua man*: "Such is the meaning of the definition: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. It does not mean a momentary or a merely physical survival." If you take a simple, essential definition of man as a rational animal, it's his rational species that she emphasizes the most - the standard of life *qua man* means the proper terms, methods, conditions and goals of a rational being "“Man’s survival qua man” means the terms, methods, conditions and goals required for the survival of a rational being through the whole of his lifespan—in all those aspects of existence which are open to his choice." Rand is stating that the most fundamental moral principle is based on the most fundamental nature of man as a living organism - and more generally about "qua man", she's identifying another defining aspect of his nature, this one the most differentiating, his rationality, as also being essential to the standard of morality. There are further aspects of man's nature which I think she would agree are also essential to the standard of life qua man. In particular, his immediate genus, in this definition, his animality. In other words, man is not a floating mind, he actually has a body, and that nature of that body is relevant to his standard of morality. So for example, I think we can speak objectively about the values of food, water, shelter, etc. If certain animal needs aren't satisfied, man is not going to be happy or healthy, he's not going to exercising the proper goals, tasks, behavior, etc, that are relevant to the standard of life qua man. The principles of the function follow the principles of the form. Specifically I'm stating that the principles of morality - the normative function which is the standard to which our volition is measured - follows from the form of man - the nature of his identity. I'm reminded of Roark's quote in regard to the principles of building a building: "The purpose, the site, the material determine the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it's made by one central idea, and the idea sets every detail. A building is alive, like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth, its one single theme, and to serve its own single purpose." Here's another Fountainhead quote along that same line: "The relation of masses was determined by the distribution of space within. The ornament was determined by the method of construction, an emphasis of the principle that makes it stand. You can see each stress, each support that meets it." The principles of morality - the standard of life *qua man* - are the same in this sense. Ethical principles follow from, and emphasize, man's form, identity, and metaphysical given nature. In this way, we maximize our life, our happiness - "to realize our nature perfectly". The principles of ethics are meant to guide and define the emphasis and optimization of our volitional choices. The virtue of pride is best described as "moral ambitiousness" for this reason. Specifically, my thesis here is about the basis of moral principles in one's nature - *all* the characteristics of man's nature - not just his survival as a living organism or his rational faculty. And really what I'm trying to cash in on here, is that there are aspects of human nature from which moral principles do follow, and should define the emphasis and optimization of our volitional choices as I've described. Specifically I'm referring to one's sex. I believe that ethical principles, guidelines for emphasis, optimization, beauty, etc, do follow from this important aspect of human nature and identity. These would be like any other aspects of morality, they are not optional, or dependent upon someone's subjective whim. This is an important part of the standard of life *qua man*. They follow my thesis here, that ethical principles do follow from one's nature and identity - so what i'm saying is that the emphasis, the ornament, the shape, the "distribution of masses" and so on, should follow as well. They should be consistently applied principles, including with respect to one's sex - which means the emphasis of masculinity and femininity in this case. Masculinity and femininity should be ethical principles which guide one's volitional choices - and going against those would be immoral.

check out Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (automation is good for the economy, not bad)

See sens.org for example: http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research

Death is the end result of the biological process of aging. There's no reason we can't (or won't) invent interventions for the harmful biological effects for aging. So all of this going on and on about inevitability and acceptance is absolute bullshit. Belief in the inevitability of death is irrational, and accepting it is immoral. The standard of value in Objectivism is your own life. Fight for your life and your survival. This is something we can and should fight, and win.

If anyone is interested in chatting about epistemology, please send me a PM or drop in the chat on this site sometime. I have a bunch of topics/questions/etc, I'm just looking for people who are interested in epistemology discussion. Thanks.

I collected a few articles on why wealth/income inequality is a good thing: http://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-very-deserving-super-rich.html http://alibertarianperspective.wordpress.com/tag/income-inequality/ http://mises.org/efandi/ch9.asp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pq79lYauZo http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa640.pdf http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/inequality_its_a_good_thing.html http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229100/fallacy-fairness/thomas-sowell http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/21/tom-g-palmer/some-thoughts-inequality-wealth-moral-claims-we-may-make-each-other http://investorjunkie.com/26637/wealth-inequality-america/ http://lubbockonline.com/editorial-columnists/2014-01-20/williams-wealth-redistribution-bad-solution-income-inequality#.UuM5lBAo670 http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/03/03/the-life-enhancing-unrelenting-brilliance-of-income-inequality/ http://www.policymic.com/articles/12319/6-myths-about-income-inequality-in-america http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/happy-tale-cities-article-1.1483174?pgno=3 http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/the-upside-of-income-inequality http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-07-08/an-upside-to-inequality http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=28740 http://www.redstate.com/imperfectamerica/2012/05/29/three-cheers-for-wealth-inequality/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/1vzolu/joshua_job_explains_why_wealth_inequality_is_a/ http://qz.com/96836/inequality-can-be-a-good-thing/ http://www.examiner.com/article/income-inequality-is-a-good-thing http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/15/income-inequality-and-the-founding-fathers/ http://www.nextgenjournal.com/2012/01/extreme-economic-inequality-is-good/ http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=986 http://www.oregonbusiness.com/contributed-blogs/11474-income-gap http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzfDxWYlCkQ

The idea of rational people going quiet is seriously disturbing... might as well be dead, no?

It's from my essay, "Rejecting "Optional Values" as opposed to "Optimization"" http://activeobjectivism.com/rejecting_optional_values.html

Yep. Exactly right. "Eddie Willers sold his soul to the railroad – and not to the ultimate value of his own life and happiness. He evaded or rejected many higher-value alternatives in many choices over a long period of time. He shared the same fate as the railroad accordingly. All his actions were in the wrong direction because he had the wrong values, despite perhaps having all the right virtues. It's your own responsibility to choose to fight for the ultimate standard of value which is your own life and happiness, and to check your premises and the consequences of your actions by that ultimate standard. It's your own responsibility to be your own John Galt. If you end up dying alone and defeated in the wilderness, failing miserably by that ultimate standard, even when alternative choices abounded around you for a very long time even up to the very end, then you are the very picture of immorality."

Have you read the Sword of Truth series?

http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/ld5/stupid_questions_december_2014/ advancedatheist asks on LessWrong: Did organized Objectivist activism, at least in some of its nuttier phases, offer to turn its adherents who get it right into a kind of superhuman entity? I guess you could call such enhanced people "Operating Objectivists," analogous to the enhanced state promised by another cult. Interestingly enough Rand seems to make a disclaimer about that in her novel Atlas Shrugged. The philosophy professor character Hugh Akston says of his star students, Ragnar Danneskjold, John Galt and Francisco d'Anconia: "Don't be astonished, Miss Taggart," said Dr. Akston, smiling, "and don't make the mistake of thinking that these three pupils of mine are some sort of superhuman creatures. They're something much greater and more astounding than that: they're normal men—a thing the world has never seen—and their feat is that they managed to survive as such. It does take an exceptional mind and a still more exceptional integrity to remain untouched by the brain-destroying influences of the world's doctrines, the accumulated evil of centuries—to remain human, since the human is the rational." But then look at what Rand shows these allegedly "normal men" can do as Operating Objectivists: Hank Rearden, a kind of self-trained Operating Objectivist who never studied under Akston, can design a new kind of railroad bridge in his mind which exploits the characteristics of his new alloy, even though he has never built a bridge before. Francisco d'Anconia can deceive the whole world as he depletes his inherited fortune while making everyone believe that he spends his days as a playboy pickup artist, when he in fact he has lived without sex since his youthful sexual relationship with Dagny. John Galt can build a motor which violates the conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics. Oh, and he can also confidently master Dagny's unexpected intrusion into Galt's Gulch despite his secret crush her, his implied adult virginity and his lack of an adult man's skill set for handling women. (You need life experience for that, not education in philosophy.) On top of that, he can survive torture without suffering from post-traumatic stress symptoms. So despite Rand's disclaimer, if you view Atlas Shrugged as "advertising" for the abilities Rand's philosophy promises as it unlocks your potentials as a "normal man," then the Objectivist organizations which work with this idea implicitly do seem to offer to turn you into a "superhuman creature."

at the end of the chapter: "The reason why are has such a profoundly personal significance for men is that art confirms or denies the efficacy of a man's consciousness, according to whether an art work supports or negates his own fundamental view of reality"

Oh, haha: "I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken."

Well my next point was that there seem to be some issues with that approach. First of all, it was implied that you can't sue the government and win ("All right, go ahead and try to sue the government. Try it."), and also this could take a long time, people would move into the building, etc, and it would not be possible to simply destroy it at that point in case he lost in court and decided to "bring a test case", as it were...