CoryDeskins

Thanks for the replies guys. I normally do not argue politics at all on campus for exactly this reason. I didn't want to argue with the professor, it was just that she went too far and I felt the need to speak up. I was very polite when I raised my hand to comment. I simply wanted to state an alternative opinion and had no idea she would interrupt me in the middle of speaking. I don't know how many of you reading this are fellow college students, but let me just say that the situation on college campuses has become extremely toxic for Objectivists. I kid you not, almost everyone here is a Bernie Sanders supporter. One of my other political science professors actually urged the class to vote for Bernie Sanders, though he didn't give any extra credit. To be honest, I feel stressed and alienated here. Once I saw a "Who is John Galt?" sticker on the back of somebody's car but it was parked and there was nobody in it and I thought it would be strange to leave some kind of note. I think I must have misinterpreted something in the Objectivist literature because holding these beliefs has really negatively impacted my standard of living. I know Leonard Peikoff talked about this exact issue in "Understanding Objectivism," but unfortunately it's not in my dorm room with me... I could really use it right now. Of course, I would never go back in time and erase "Atlas Shrugged" from my reading list of 2008. I just have some things to think through and work out. You guys have any other thoughts?

My political science professor was lecturing to the class about the need for more environmental regulations. I raised my hand and tried to argue that human life and success depends on conquering the environment for our own ends. At the end of my comment I said that many environmentalists are anti-man. The professor quickly told me to rephrase my comment without using sexist language. She said that the word "man" was sexist and patriarchal. This really made me upset so I launched into a passionate defense of the word "man" as a concept designating all of mankind. She asked why I couldn't just say "humankind" and I said that it was because I should feel free to use the word "man" without fear of a politically correct backlash. It was a really intense, argumentative back and forth which made me extremely uncomfortable. As a student, was it proper to debate her in front of the whole class? In the end, she never addressed my comments and told me to avoid using sexist language in her class in the future.

*** Mod's note: Merged topics. - sN *** Is language learning a proper purpose? While learning languages is very enjoyable and rewarding, is it productive? My premise is: a suitable purpose must involve productive achievement. I want to achieve happiness and self-esteem and I know I need to be productive in order to do that. My self-esteem has been declining recently because I cannot find a purpose for my life. I have many hobbies but none of them are really productive. So, is language learning productive? Do I have to physically create something in order to achieve pride and self-esteem?

Ok, I've been searching for answers. The ARI eStore has a .99 download of a Q&A with Leonard Peikoff. He specifically answered my question along with many others. Basically, animals have no idea why they reproduce. They don't care- they're just living their lives. You cannot approach an animal and ask: "What is your ultimate goal?" The animal is unable to answer, he is just enjoying himself. Also, reproduction is inherent in the nature of life. That is just how the system works. Here is the podcast: https://estore.aynrand.org/p/121/cultural-commentary-q-a-mp3-download (around the 33 min. mark)

Well, I'm trying to understand "Serial Thinker's" comment. It's late and I have ADD, so it is very difficult to grasp the concept. It sounds like a complete rationalization to me, but maybe my IQ is not high enough to understand. If anyone would like to clarify, I would be grateful. BTW, thanks to everyone who submitted a reply.

Ok, I understand that evolution simply describes a scientific process. I also understand that evolution does not provide man with an ethical system by which to make choices. Ethics is only possible to an organism that must exercise its means of survival by choice. Still, Rand states: "[the actions of all living organisms] are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of an organism's life." This is obviously incorrect. What about reproduction? The physical reproductive parts of an organism do not maintain that organism's life. Those parts are for mating with others. My question is: how does reproduction maintain an organism's life? Child-rearing is obviously very hard work in any species. Finally, since human beings are rational animals, perhaps reproduction is the end in itself. We obviously must maintain our own lives in order to reproduce, but reproduction is the ultimate goal of any biological organism.

I'm so disheartened and disappointed. Evolution seems to reject the Objectivist position that life is an end in itself. Isn't our purpose as biological beings to reproduce? After all, why do we have reproductive organs? Someone please explain to me how evolution is compatible with objectivism. I have searched the forum and Peikoff's podcast's but it is taking too long to find an answer. Thank you, Cory