Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


splitprimary last won the day on October 29 2016

splitprimary had the most liked content!


About splitprimary

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Atlas, TF, Anthem, VoS, TRM, ITOE, CTUI, OTI, DIM, AR early fiction
  • School or University

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rochester, NY
  • Interests
    philosophy, religion, art, psychology

Recent Profile Visitors

7524 profile views
  1. “anti-essentialism”, identity as “non-existent” and having any conception of it as “pathological”, “infectious”, and “ultimately harmful”… yeah i’d say that’s a true opposite! you say "Korzybski includes Kant in the aristotelian tradition", which i'd agree with, but i wonder, does he count anyone before him as anti-Aristotelean?
  2. this was not a personal question, the OP asks in the abstract. and he poses a new abstract question after the initial discussion on that one. even still, Eioul did start by asking questions! the other posts were good general advice. i don't see anywhere where someone has changed what they've said, even though when it finally did become personal (13 posts down the thread!), it clashed somewhat with the topic (as Nicky complained, not actually being an instance where the woman is known to be "unattainable"). a lot of interesting issues have been discussed here: the validity of "league" thi
  3. i agree with Eioul here, if you think there could have been confusion and maybe even bitterness on her part, the best approach would be to let her know that you -are- interested in her, and didn't mean to come across otherwise. if you're able to explain it to us, you should be telling her instead! she's the one you want the relationship with. even ask her out, because it's not clear that the opportunity is lost yet, even if there is someone else in the picture now too. think about how much worse you'd feel later if you found out you'd called it and given up too soon, when you still did have a
  4. it's not a matter of it being immoral, it's just not a good way to handle it. from what we know about her (assertiveness, then texting the group about her potential romantic activity), she would be perfectly willing to tell you how serious the new interest is, all you have to do is ask. driving around would be wasting more time to obtain far less reliable info. and what it would show her if she did find out is that you'd rather try to collect information on her secretly than openly have a conversation, which doesn't reflect well on your ability to be in a relationship! should she want someone
  5. Agreed! She put herself out there, if you did nothing with that it would rightly be interpreted as rejection. Makes sense for her to "go cold" and it's understandable she has a bit of an edge now making it clear to you that she's moved on, since she's probably feeling hurt herself.
  6. it's quite possible that the text was meant specifically for you to see, to elicit some reaction, but i don't have enough info to tell what the objective might be. if you analyze the time leading up to her "going cold" there may be clues about what triggered the sudden change, and a solid guess about that could help interpret signals now. it depends on her hierarchy of values, not just on her actual traits. as intelligent and analytical as Rand was, she was an artist at heart and Frank had the aesthetic/stylistic flair she prized. she talked about his sense of life, and he was a majo
  7. Welcome to OO! -though i haven't read very much about it yet, there was a non-religious group based out of NYC that was having some success with this kind of approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetic_Realism#Aesthetic_Realism_and_homosexuality
  8. i did not attempt to deny that these people are genuinely experiencing a "bad feeling", my point was that that doesn't tell us anything further with certainty. (i didn't even contest the identification that it is was somehow "related to one's sex", that much would be true for both cases below.) i grant at least the possibility that there is some kind of rare medical condition that results in precisely this. but even if that were proven, the transgender assertion: “i am a [male/female] trapped in a [woman’s/man’s] body” would remain an extraordinary claim. just because some people were that
  9. perfect response! his post that i liked has moved off of that original severely limited definition, he’s now smuggling in a lot more. i can’t help it, i’m so curious about “a rational woman cannot want to be President" not being the same as “a woman ought not want to be President”. is this due to some grammatical trickiness i’m not catching? it seems like saying that you can’t rationally want x.. is saying that you can only irrationally want x (or that wanting x is irrational)… which is saying that you ought not want x. it’s safe to say, like tautologically almost, that you ought not b
  10. -at all these steps, there is possibility of error in the identification. you're trying to translate a really basic, gut-level awareness and bring it up to the level of a conceptual statement. it's very hard to pinpoint what's wrong and people misattribute all the time. this is just introspection! in any instance of this, even a much more trivial one, it can take a wrong turn and yield an answer that’s off, which you might not realize for a long time. i might feel vaguely bad.. manage to trace it back to this morning.. realize it’s centered somehow around my sister.. eventually land on it
  11. i'm saying that if you're an Objectivist you don't accept the fact that universals exist. (Rand did clarify in the ITOE Q+A that she did not mean "mental entity" literally). i think Objectivism as presented is a species of nominalism, but i do believe in universals myself. and i don't see any reason why someone couldn't take a position she rules out: that universals do exist in reality, but that we obtain knowledge of them through a mediated process of concept-formation much like she's outlined. this comes from an author you might be interested in.-http://www.scholardarity.com/wp-co
  12. ^is that your own opinion? i know you've said you don't want to make this thread about her theory of universals.. but your complaint against nominalism here is that it "argues against the existence of universals" and says that "only particular concretes exist". but Rand does not accept Aristotle's metaphysics concerning the real existence of universals either. 2046 makes an important point here- ITOE: Peikoff, from DIM: but this leaves open any grouping as being equally valid if grounded in fact, and contextually pragmatic. rather than the concepts "male" and "femal
  13. i guess "just one step beyond casual sex" is true not just in the motivation like you mentioned, but even to the form relationships take in her novels. they're "a little deeper and longer range" than hook-ups: usually affairs, usually not lasting the whole book, never marriage for main characters. as long as the people have valid reasons for admiring each other and that's what the isolated interactions are based on, that's good enough for her. "about self-consistency".. there isn't any necessary longevity to it. it lasts while it lasts. she doesn't seem to recognize any "directedness" to
  14. but i think we’re missing the intention behind that part of the story in speculating about disorders. “at first” it says she was “shy and intimidated” as the reason for her for not immediately objecting, as anyone would expect from someone who isn’t okay with what’s happening. but it fills in some of her thought process as she considers it further and actually consents on the basis of her original conditional: “Maybe this is his way of saying he wants to be with me? That was the agreement” the interesting question here is whether there was a contract that for them to have sex meant agreem
  15. to be clear, i'm not at all convinced that it is plausible even with a disorder. it has not been established psychologically that someone with PTSD would suddenly behave like a pheasant instead of a human whenever they experienced unwelcome physical contact, and be completely unable to move or even vocalize for extended periods of time. i find that highly unlikely. i was just responding to your comment above that some kind of rare disorder was only one possible explanation among many, that this kind of "tonic immobility" is not even that abnormal to expect. i don’t think it’s reasonable to
  • Create New...