Dominique

Ok, so it's merely a benevolence with regard to the grey area between ignorant errors and full knowledge? I guess it's also what determines the number of chances you might give someone? Am I understanding correctly? Like I said it's up to you guys. I'm more concerned that I am understanding my basic terms here and their application. I just got mixed up during the course of reading your initial argument as to what way you were using your terminology. I wasn't getting a clear idea of what either of you really meant. I think I'm all caught up now though, and if you want to drop the subject or start another thread to discuss it either way is fine with me. I may jump in if you pursue it though, since I already started questioning here.

It motivates me to learn as much as humanly possible about Objectivism It is strange though because I feel like there is so much un-learning to do first, and that knolwledge I thought I gained was actually wrong, gives me a feeling much like what you describe here: I'm probably going to get the tapes on study skill from ARI so I can be more efficient in my acquisition of the new knowledge which I want to replace the old

Was the problem then over the morality of the act? Or over the morality of mistakes in general (which is what I ended up gleaning from it) Or that these types of relationships are intentional and moral? I couldn't understand what you two were arguing exactly. It seems like the fundamental issue was what the act would be. It seems to me a matter of degrees. Then the act itself becomes intentional and is no longer a mistake at some point on this continuum. So she was stating that certain types of relationships are not mistakes-they are intentional ok, I see. I don't know, it's up to you guys, Better here than there though. I asked the question about terms because I originally said I disagreed with her use of generous in a moral judgement.

It seemed to me also that you two might even be close to agreement on the issue, but that you both had different ideas of what mistake meant, especially since qualifiers had to keep being added. Is there not a better way to define a willful mistake vs. an honest mistake? I think that I need my terms defined for me before entering any conversations here, BurgessLau is right to always insist on those up front. I'll start by defining generosity. Here's what I found: 1.Liberal in giving or sharing. 2.Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous. 3.Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake. 4.Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine. 5.Obsolete. Of noble lineage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [French genereux, of noble birth, magnanimous, from Latin genersus, from genus, gener-, birth. See gen- in Indo-European Roots.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- gener·ous·ly adv. gener·ous·ness n. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language generous adj 1: willing to give and share unstingily; "a generous donation" [ant: stingy] 2: not petty in character and mind; "unusually generous in his judgment of people" 3: more than adequate; "a generous portion" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- But those aren't so helpful to me. Based on those I would say generous is giving more than you've recieved, out of the "niceness" of your heart, and asking for nothing in return. To me that's like saying, you should (morally) judge a person harshly for his action, but you are going to give him even more benefit of the doubt then he has earned, out of the niceness of your heart. In forgiving someone a moral judgement when they've been careless, you are not being generous, you are making the judgement you feel to be appropriate to the situation and the level of the offense. How can you be generous in the way I defined it, in the application of justice? (Edited to add definitions and second half of post and fix some spelling errors)

Like criminal negligence? Manslaughter and the like-where people may not have been trying to do what they did, but they did it anyway, and must be punished. Is that what you mean? Well then I'd say the lines need to be drawn on the levels of accident, mistake, error, and relationship. Perhaps this is understood but not by me. Is that how this came up? Trying to find the level of where a sexual act becomes immoral, or where a bad relationship could be classified as immoral? I'm sorry I forgot the way this whole thing got started, I've been real busy at work all day and a little scatterbrained.

Yes, that's what I was after. Other than that, I don't think I have stated anything that disagrees with your post, Dominique. I'm not saying that everyone who has made a mistake was at some point willfully immoral. The nature of induction is that we, as human beings often have to *guess,* and that means that we will sometimes guess wrong. I clearly am missing the basis of you both's argument here, so I'll take it to the other thread to sort out.

I think you need to define mistake specifically In my mind it neccesarily means *accident*. Or like an error in judgement. It isn't willfull. Intent makes all the difference. How can you judge the morality of the type of mistakes when the peron should have known better? You can only say that the person themselves is willfully ignorant or evasive, and then wouldn't hang out with them, but to look at the act as the deciding factor of intent is backwords. And it doesn't affect the morality of the act, or the mistake, or anything. A mistake is a mistake, an evasion of the truth is immoral. They are not the same thing. I don't wish I hadn't made mistakes, I mean sure, it can be embarrassing, exopensive, what have you, but it's a lesson. When I look in my past and see somewhere that I was evading the facts of reality, I feel regret, but the individual acts are not moral or immoral neccesarily, what was immoral was my dishonesty, or my altruism, or whatever.

I think we have a semantics problem here. Unless I'm misunderstanding your intentions. When I said earlier about genorosity not being appropriate in response to a mistake, I meant that a mistake is a mistake, and by definition an accident, and not wrong. There is no reason to forgive it and no call to generosity in response. There is no intent in a mistake, you (meaning anyone-not you specifically)were going for one thing and ended up with something else. Your goals were in the right place, but your knowledge hadn't caught up yet, or knowledge of that kind was not possible. This is not a deficiency on your part, and requires no generosity of others except in their personal preference to not hang around people that make mistakes, but it isn't a *moral* judgement. Or is that what you are arguing? Whether a mistake should be judged morally or not? No it shouldn't. Oy, I'm confused.

I agreed when I first read it, but now as I go through the thread I see the problem. When you said "How do you feel about that relationship now? It sounds like you are not and that you regret having it (a perfectly correct attitude)." as Meagan pointed out, you implied that mistake=regret, and that a person ought to feel guilty over their mistakes. I don't feel regret about the mistakes I made honestly, because I learned something from all of it, and learning is a process. A person has no need to feel guilty over mistakes of this kind. You are equating the wrong things. I'll read more and see if i can't be more specific

I suppose that would be a result of being totally honest, wouldn't it? Honest to the facts of reality. Is this a separate character trait? Like Ambition, or Good Hygene, which can be learned? Because (I don't have my lexicon handy here but...) isn't desire an emotion, which can't be maintained? Self-improvement seems to fall under some other heading, but I'm not sure which one.

Right. Honesty in the fullest sense of the word. This is probably the biggest barrier, because we make so many concessions, and by the time it blows up into a fight, the trail that led to the fight is so long that neither realizes what has happened. They only know "He doesn't look at me" and "She isn't the same girl I married" or something along those lines. All those little white lies adding up over time. I suppose an ideal woman would only say ideal things and an ideal man would say ideal things Haha, of course, I am only being silly.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'm going to go read that and see if it doesn't answer my questions.

I have commented on some of the other articles that have have sprouted surrounding her birthday on My Webpage. I will probably pull this one apart tomorrow. Any comments private or public regarding my content is appreciated. As I have previously stated many times, I am new to Objectivism and do not wish to misrepresent it. However, because it is a value to me, or even the value to me, I do not wish to let the nonsense go unanswered. Esp. since writing about it helps me to apply it and therefore to understand it more fully. I hope this isn't taken as an advertisement solely for my site. I really mean to just thank you for the tip on this article and open myself to constructive criticism from people who's values coincide with mine but who might be better integratged/more knowledgable on the subject.

I assume you mean wouldn't. Or do you mean that they intended the outside world to collapse? Either will work, but I prefer to understand the specifics of your position. Why is that ok? Isn't that sort of deterministic? You're only as good as the brains you were born with? I understand that good people were left behind. I got the right understanding out of Galt's speech that some good people would be forfeited, and would have to fend for themselves. But Eddie was a central role. He was Dagny's right hand man. Galt got all his info from Eddie, Dagny had him replace her as acting VP and controlled her railroad through him. He obeyed, he was moral, he was as good a character as Dagny in my opinion, except less endowed perhaps. I understand meritocracy, and why the elite would be on top, but why was HE, in particular, unworthy? This smacks of eugenics if you are going to talk about the elite in this manner. He did nothing immoral that I can see, and they all knew full well where he was, and why he was there-for the railroad, same as Dagny had taught him, so why did they completely ignore him? And why did Ayn Rand make it so? What message is here? That try though you might, your natural born intelligence decides for you how worthy you are? That is not what I got from her over all message at all. I got that anyone, any little peon brain, could be good and moral and "worthy" in his own right if he applied himself. What did Eddie do wrong? Is it because he couldn't find "Atlantis" on his own? The leaders of the strike approached the other members, they offered it. Why was he excluded? If people of his level of intelligence are to be excluded, then why include him as a character? To say that life relies *only* on the geniuses is probably what turns people off to Objectivism. Eddie had a mind, he wasn't a robot, he questioned things, he was honest. He wasn't fully integrated, but hell, Dagny had to be shown the way too. I'm sorry, but this particular upsets me, and I don't feel satisfied with your response. I mean I appreciate your responding, but this explanation just doesn't do it for me. I understand they couldn't go around saving everyone who had an ounce of sense, but why this character? Why even have him if he's so negligable, so unimportant? He died pursuing what he knew to be the right. The same right that Dagny held, though without as much depth perhaps. I might even venture to say that he was more moral because he pursued the right and was blind to the other option-such as Galt's Gulch, when Dagny was told about and even saw Galt's Gulch and willfully rejected it. What was it about Eddie that wasn't good, since the whole of the story rests on the idea of good vs evil, and no character was without purpose. What purpose did he have except to work his whole life honestly and dilligently and in pursuit of the good, only to be left behind when the elite, who happen to be his friends since childhood, leave him to start a new world that doesn't need little Eddie Willerses? Would it have been so altruistic to repay his loyal service throughout the years with an invitation to at least choose Galt's Gulch?

Haha, too funny. If no one minds, can I ask a semi-related question under this topic? I haven't found any similar threads yet, but will go to one if there is one, or start a new thread if necessary. Perhaps just starting it here you can tell me if it is deserving of a new thread. I'm hesitant to start one without knowing where it should go and the proper way to do so. My question is: Why does Eddie Willers get left behind? What did he do wrong? What was his fault? Only ignorance it seems to me, and it's probably the only problem I have with Atlas Shrugged. Why does it start with him, keep him as a main character, and a good one at that, and then let him perish with the rail road while Dagny and everyone else who benefitted from his honesty goes on to paradise?

Ok, I see. I understand that a person has to take responsibility for protecting their own work, but I was hoping that your policies would include room for an agreement of this kind.

Right on, thanks. I didn't even think of that. Not that I have an essay to contribute-yet. But in general this seems like an agreeable option.

Thank you. That makes sense to me. I'm not completely versed in the rules of online publications. I know my friend was trying to get a story published, and he told me very few places which he spoke to allowed stories which were posted on other sites, and so if he was accepted I would have to take the version he gave me off of my blog. I certainly wouldn't have refused since I consider the story to be his, not mine. But I think that's what confused me. I wouldn't have considered it mine, even though he gave it to me, so I wouldn't see why OO would consider it "theirs". I understand not letting people go randomly deleting all the content they contribute, but I didn't understand why a request to remove an item which had been purchased by someone else would be refused. Esp if the purchase relied on the removal of the item from this website. I guess I understand better now, it still sits a little funny but I thank you for the response.

Rationally? I have no experience here, but I'm guessing that Honesty is key. As long as one is honest with themselves, and honest with a partner, all individual issues remain that and can be dealt with in their isolated instances, but if a person brings the element of dishonesty into a relationship, they undermine the very value that brought them together in the first place, and that would do irreperable harm. In my opinion, a person shouldn't even enter a partnership such as marriage until they are satisfied that they deal with themselves in a brutally honest and direct manner and are looking to pair with someone who does the same. The ideal woman talks less, the ideal man talks more. It is dishonest. It ignores the facts of reality, it is subjectively based on the desires of a group of whim worshippers who seek to strip man of his identity and replace it with woman. Whereby woman loses it's identity also, since by irrationally acquiring an identity which is not in their nature, they seek to erase the nature of woman, and of *man* in general. I don't agree with your use of "generous" in this manner. I understand a person making judgements about another's actions, but I see it as being done in order to define the "judge's" values, and I don't see how "generous" comes into play. If I was "generous" in this sense-wouldn't I be decieving myself by leniency on the "judged"? How does genorosity apply to justice? More to the point, why is it generous to forgive an error of knowledge-and why would you need to forgive the individual instead of the error? How did the person harm you by not having the right info? Wouldn't they have harmed themselves more? Wouldn't the judgement be based not on what level of intelligence they have acquired but whether it was willful and whether *as a person* they are ignorant or whether they were just mis/un-informed? (Edited to make it clear where I was kidding and also to fix some spelling/grammer)

Why couldn't the author replace the post with a link to the paid publication which bought it, so as not to miss out on an opportunity to be paid for his work? What would be the motivation of this site to hold the work exclusively, which it has not paid for? I doubt that is policy. Surely if someone posts an essay here and then is able to publish it for pay later on the basis that the products *rights* are to be bought and the article removed and given to the credit of the buyer, GC would not *hold it hostage*?? It seems like that is what you are implying-that he would. Does *posts* refer to essays also?

On My Website, I commented on a ludicrous response to a contest which rewarded the winners with plastic surgery. I find the fact that we have to pay our "parents" to restrict us once we become adults to be vomitous. I never agreed to that.

I agree. One of the most disheartening things, as I see it, of this whole war, is the emphasis on Democracy as the means to freedom. In highschool-having been raised and educated on that belief, I also thought that Democracy was the key and that Capitalism was undermining our Democracy. Whereupon reading Ayn Rand I realized Democracy was actually undermining our Capitalism. "There has to be a better way"- I've been saying and thinking about since my highschool government class. Luckily, Objectivism provides a firm foundation for that "better way" and I aspire to, as I learn more about it, formulate a strong idea on all democracy-including trial by jury. But at the current time, I can't think of a better system, and am reluctant to debunk it without a better idea.

In my introduction, you can see where I had a brief dilemma over whether to use my name or a nick. I am trying to build a presence online (hence the website et al.) but at the same time sometimes it's fun to operate under a pseudonym so that you can give a little more personality to your "image" and also to set the tone of your comments, since on the internet we are deprived of body language. But I am certainly proud of what I produce, even if I start from a place of obvious ignorance I am honestly trying to move into the place whare I "know", so I am not ashamed of the things I might say in ignorance (neccessarily-certainly I wish I knew everything. but of course I can't and I don't think that shames my *name*) It's a matter of pride-what you put your name on. I think this is certainly a place of pride for many people. That's why I went back and forth before deciding to use a pseudonym, because I am proud of my name-but the character of Dominique, has a flavor to it that I like,and maybe even adds a dimension that everyone here-hopefully-understands. I guess my explanation would be-we aren't exactly a bunch of *shrinking violets* here. Honesty is key, and including your name is a voucher of authenticity. "I said that" so to speak Also a recognition of the pseudonym as *not reality* and keeping it in it's proper place (as a descriptive-or stylistic accessory). Haha, that's my humble opinion anyway. -Sarah Beth Cole

Possibly, but what I mean is gave up on life. It could be just that since reading Ayn Rand it seems so obvious to me that that is the logical progression of their nihilism, and then they are so unwilling to even consider that reality might be knowable, which distresses me so much. That it's so ingrained to reject out of hand any claim that truth even exists, and can be known to man. It takes effort to make your mind into something structured instead of malleable goo. I guess some people find it too hard or not worth it, and welcome the greyness in which they are not responsible for following their own thoughts through to their logical conclusions, in which they can *go with the flow*. I don't either, if I did I wouldn't have friends at all. But the differences matter. Where they are and how they are handled is key. It's the "open-mind" syndrome

Haha, I am at least. Welcome to The General