Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rameshkaimal

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

995 profile views
  1. In her answer to the question: how does one lead a rational life in an irrational society? Ayn Rand advocates that one must know clearly one's own moral evaluation of every person, issue and event with which one deals, and act accordingly. So the individuals in both groups, by contributing to O2 without seriously thinking about OO & O2, are failing to know clearly their own moral evaluation of an organization they are dealing with. If one has not seriously thought about OO & O2, how can one morally evaluate them or even know clearly one's own moral evaluation of them? Hence t
  2. Given below is a hypothetical scenario involving 2 organizations, O1 & O2, and a group of individuals. O1 believes in promoting Objectivism as a closed system whereas O2 believes in promoting Objectivism as an open system, or Open Objectivism (OO). O1 also believes: 1. OO is dishonest because it evades the fact that Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand gave to the philosophy she created during her lifetime. 2. O2 is dishonest because its purpose is to use Ayn Rand's name and the name of her philosophy, to spread ideas she never believed in, and therefore, did not include in her p
  3. In my post, I had said 2 instances of the ultimate constituents were moving towards each other in submicroscopic space. This means eventually, at some point in time, say t2, the distance between them would become zero. Not before. But since their motion towards each other reduces the distance between them, then at some point in time, say t1 (before that distance reduces to zero at t2 point in time), the distance would have become so small that nothing could occupy it. Hence my question was: couldn't one say that at the t1 point in time when the distance became so small that nothing cou
  4. Here's a discussion Ayn Rand had about the ultimate constituents of entities. It's from Appendix - Philosophy of Science, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded 2nd Edition: -- Discussion begins here -- Properties of the Ultimate Constituents Prof. E: Could you argue, on metaphysical grounds, that all observed properties of an entity are ultimately explicable in terms of, or reducible back to, properties of their primary constituents? Ayn Rand: We'd have to be omniscient to know. The question in my mind would be: how can we [as philosophers] make conclusions about the ultimat
  5. The axiomatic proposition, existence exists, in the Objectivist metaphysics and the discovery, in science, of the existence of a physical world are not synonymous. Here is Ayn Rand's full discussion of why they are not. It's from Appendix - Axiomatic Concepts, Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded 2nd Edition: -- The discussion begins here -- The Physical World Prof. K: Some philosophers treat our knowledge that existence exists as equivalent to our knowledge that there is a physical world. They hold that to know that existence exists, and is what it is independently
  6. Thank you, DonAthos, for pointing out that recognizing the fundamental fact about human consciousness, i.e., that there will always be objective differences in the minds of individuals (including differences in their sexual orientations, sexual standards and sexual preferences), does not invariably mean one is being subjective. Regarding homosexuality, there was very little which was known in the 1960s about sexual orientation, particularly homosexual orientation. So at that time, homosexuality was considered as "unnatural" (and therefore, "immoral"), i.e., as going against one's own heteros
  7. In Post #37, in paragraph #3, I had stated the following: "It's disastrous to prescribe normative generalizations in sex because such universals ignore the specific contexts of individual couples. It's what leads to intrinsicism in sex. In this respect, sex is not like philosophy. In philosophy, a generalization such as reason is Man's basic means of survival can be induced from reality by first observing how actual men (and women) use reason to survive and then omitting the individual measurements (or contexts) altogether." I have been thinking some more about the fundamental difference b
  8. From what I can recall, neither Ayn Rand nor Nathaniel Branden have specified orgasms as part of the basis for their view. But in the quote I gave in Post #47 from Branden's article: Self-Esteem & Romantic Love (not sure if it's Part II or III) in the February 1969 issue of The Objectivist, Branden says the following: "Sexually, his is the more active and dominant role; he has the greater measure of control over his own pleasure and that of his partner; it is he who penetrates and the woman who is penetrated (with everything this entails, physically and psychologically)." From
  9. The basic problem with the dominant-submissive view is that it is not a generalization which can be properly induced from reality, i.e., by integrating all relevant particulars which one knows, including the context of real women who cannot achieve orgasms through penetration alone. At the time that this view was presented by Nathaniel Branden in the February 1969 issue of The Objectivist in the article Self-Esteem & Romantic Love: 1. The topic of sex was not as openly discussed in the culture, particularly by women, as it is today. 2. No anonymous surveys were being taken among women
  10. The quote given below is the original thesis of the dominant-submissive view by Nathaniel Branden first published in 1968 in The Objectivist in the article Self-Esteem & Romantic Love (Part 2) when he was still associated with Ayn Rand. When I first created this topic (and wrote its first post) I could not include the quote given below simply because I could not find it in the Objectivism Research CD-ROM which I own (the article was removed from The Objectivist after Ayn Rand terminated her association with Nathaniel Branden). But yesterday, I came across the below quote in the ess
  11. OK, I get what you are saying. So for example, regarding the purpose of sex, if one says sex makes possible psycho-sexual visibility, that would be a valid inductive principle in sex (which one can relate to the wider principle of psychological visibility). Regarding the sentence it's not possible to induce masculinity and femininity from essential psycho-sexual differences between men and women, I should have added "if any" after the word differences. That's what I meant.
  12. I'm not sure I follow this. Can you provide an example in sex, of a principle, one can induce from a wide range of particulars in sex by omitting their contexts, and then apply to a given context? The way I see it, one can apply reason (a rational philosophy like Objectivism) to a specific field such as sex. But that would be deduction not induction. For example, one could say that those who seek pleasure by inflicting pain during sex are equating or inverting pleasure and pain. Hence it is not based on reason (it contradicts the Law of Identity) since it evades reality. Here we are (ded
  13. 1. The partners-in-sex view is based on a specific context, namely, the context of those couples where the woman is unable to have an orgasm from penetration alone. So this view makes sense in that context. If the context is different, as for example, where the man stimulates the clitoris with the lower pelvic region above the base of his penis, then the man is, by penetration and such stimulation (which, as per Post # 3, is not something most men can do), making possible not only his own orgasm but the woman's too. So there's nothing wrong with a couple in such a (somewhat unique) context,
  14. During sex, even if a man and a woman view each other not as dominant-submissive but as partners, they are doing different things to make it mutually pleasurable. And those things are different because they have different genders (if those things were the same, they would have to be of the same gender; but then we would no longer be discussing gender roles in sex, i.e., how a man and a woman ought to be during sex given what is.) As examples, a man gets sexual pleasure by penetrating the woman or from fellatio given by the woman. Whereas a woman gets sexual pleasure by stimulating her clit
  15. According to the collectivist view, masculinity and femininity refer to specific gender roles to which men and women must conform. Such a view is, obviously, sheer nonsense. But if one takes an individualist approach towards these concepts, just as a sense of life creates the style of one's soul (this is from Ayn Rand's The Romantic Manifesto), masculinity/femininity is about the style of one's gender. So when a man falls in love with a woman, what he's drawn to, is the total package, i.e., a styled soul in a styled woman.
  • Create New...