Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


RationalEgoist last won the day on January 21 2023

RationalEgoist had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Philosophy, current events, music, sports, TV-shows, video games, nonverbal communication
  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Sexual orientation
  • Relationship status
  • Experience with Objectivism

Recent Profile Visitors

2555 profile views

RationalEgoist's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. The ICC just issued an arrest warrant for President Putin.
  2. For the life of me, I cannot understand all the fuss about vaccines. Don't want to get a shot? Then don't. The government isn't forcing you. Conspiracy theories about the COVID vaccine are weird. Get off the internet for a bit.
  3. Really? I mean, I can see what an Objectivist could find admirable about Elon's character, but after listening to Yaron's recent take I lost even more respect for him. For instance, look at how he handled the recent Twitter mess. To me, he just comes across as someone who follows his own whims. A poll to decide whether he should step down or not? Come on. I get this overall impression that Elon is kind of like a teenager stuck inside a man's body. And not in a good way.
  4. The user's handle is RageAgainstWar? How amusing. I wonder if they have condemned the actions of the aggressor in this conflict, namely the Russian government. Yet another person led astray by the nihilist narrative that pervades every political corner (leftists, libertarians, nationalist conservatives, etc.) today. May the Ukrainians be victorious soon.
  5. You'd be better off talking to a wall, man. This guy is a dunce.
  6. Why no mention of the recent Russian onslaught in Dnipro where over 40 people who lived in an apartment building were either vaporized or helplessly buried in the rubble? "UN charter"...yeah, whatever.
  7. OP asked me if a woman settling for a man who is good enough is "asking the impossible". My reply was that it can be rational to do so if the only alternative is not being in a relationship. Do you disagree?
  8. Hm, what point are you arguing against here? Because I don't think it's the one I tried to make.
  9. The essence of masculinity ("the metaphysical concept of masculinity") is strength. For her, this had certain implications when it came to the sexual act, in particular. Men are active/dominant while women are passive/submissive. Unfortunately, Rand never said much else on the subject. What she saw as an ideal man is really for you to come to your own conclusions about through reading and absorbing her fiction. It simply won't get any more concrete than the art.
  10. No, it can be perfectly rational. I mean, there is such a thing as a biological clock, so women don't have an infinite amount of time to settle down with a man. Losing out on a romantic relationship altogether because "perfection" was nowhere to be found would not be in a person's self-interest.
  11. No! It's funny, Dr. Peikoff answered this exact question on his podcast once, except the questioner asked from the perspective of a man. I wish I had a link, so you could listen for yourself. Perhaps I can dig it up. Anyway, no, that is definitely not how Rand's conceptualization of femininity is meant to be understood, so don't worry. Here is a direct quote from the article I mentioned earlier: "Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men."
  12. I mean, I think I'm in general agreement with the gist of what you've written here. Money, as such, is not a proper standard by which you can gage the quality of a man (this is especially true in unfree societies). I don't think a man's wealth is necessarily irrelevant, but context matters. Ability exists on a spectrum. Not everyone will want to look for a John Galt or a Dagny Taggart, nor is that necessary for a happy relationship. The virtue of a potential partner is what's most important, as well as how you gel together in terms of temperament. That being said, however, I do think there's something to the idea that femininity involves looking up to man. Thing is, your average Joe can be just as moral as an intellectual giant since ability and status are non-essentials when evaluating the moral character of a person. Eddie Willers and John Galt were moral equals, but unequal in ability.
  13. Welcome to OO, Apollo Masters. In order to grasp why Dagny ultimately chose Galt, it would be useful to understand Rand's theory of femininity. This essentially falls under the category of psychology, so it isn't a part of Objectivist philosophy. Rand wrote an article titled "An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President)" where she explains her views on the subject. The essence of femininity, in her mind, is hero-worship. A properly feminine woman seeks the highest man she can find, so that she can have a concrete manifestation of masculine strength to look up (and submit) to in admiration. In Atlas Shrugged, it's Galt who possesses the most brilliant mind, as Rearden himself concedes implicitly seeing as how he ultimately lets Dagny go by the time they all reach the valley. Galt and Rearden are moral equals, but Galt is superior in ability. It should be stated that Dagny is an abnormally intelligent woman, and that we are talking about a work of fiction. Not every single woman will want to pursue a man of Galt's stature, nor is it proper for every man to pursue a woman such as Dagny (in Atlas, this is illustrated very clearly by the character of Eddie Willers).
  14. Very good question! Rand identified the essence of friendship as a response to values. I agree with her, although I think something like temperament is also important in regards to who I would find pleasing. Being an introvert, I would not find qualities such as aggressiveness, intensity, or boldness appealing. I'd prefer someone mild-mannered, quiet, shy, cautious, modest, and reflective. In regards to virtues, I need not repeat the list from Galt's speech. I would not say that I respond to the same character traits regardless of the sex. In other words, there are traits I would find appealing in a girl which would be unappealing (or unimportant) in a guy. (As a side-note, just like Rand I don't really believe in the idea of having friends of the opposite sex, but to each their own). Something that I've sort of learned over time is not to place people in boxes. Each individual is their own and everyone possesses their uniquely stylized character making them truly distinct. Sometimes you just know that someone is a good fit for you, and I find that overanalyzing their character can ruin the organic spark that made them appealing to you in the first place.
  • Create New...