RationalEgoist

The ICC just issued an arrest warrant for President Putin.

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.

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.

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.

You'd be better off talking to a wall, man. This guy is a dunce.

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.

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?

Hm, what point are you arguing against here? Because I don't think it's the one I tried to make.

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.

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.

Found it! https://peikoff.com/tag/values/page/8/#list

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."

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.

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).

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.

I was quoting Harry verbatim who himself seemed to be quoting Rand from a personal conversation that he had with her. If you look at the context, it's clear that Harry was specifically referring to British colonialism.

The US is not bombing Ukraine. Russia is. Basically, I think the mistake you make is downplaying the fact that there are strong currents within the Ukrainian population who have a will of their own, and that will is moving towards some kind of integration with the West. It isn't a conspiracy operating in the shadows. This is beside the point since Objectivism does not automatically recognize the sovereignty of a nation. Actual standards are involved when evaluating a nation's right to self-determination. As I and @Eiuol have consistently argued in this thread, a dictatorship (like Russia) can claim no rights for itself as a legitimate entity so long as it actively violates the rights of its citizenry.

Is entering the public domain basically the default when a copyright/patent has expired?

What is bad about US hegemony and what would constitute a positive alternative to it? As a side-note, I like what you wrote on empire, so thumbs up for that.

Objectivist Summer Conference

This statement strikes me as subjectivism. I think it would be a mistake to look for similarities among different groups of people whenever one can find them since what actually matters is the essence of each respective culture. Did mysticism, collectivism/tribalism, and brute force constitute the essence of Enlightenment philosophy (and the nations which it went on to inspire)? Clearly it did not. Look, I basically view this in terms of two broad societal trajectories, and then I make a judgment based on the type of culture I'd rather be surrounded by. On the one hand, you have the Native American culture "unblemished" by European influence, and on the other is the path of the Enlightenment with its shortcomings. Which society, in the long run, is more conducive to individual liberty? It's a rhetorical question, of course. Had the European colonists never settled in America, the world would've been considerably worse off for it, and we are living in an age where this is becoming increasingly more challenging to say without relentless abuse being hurled at you. No, verbal abuse is not a violation of my rights, but it could signify the beginning of an attitude which could lead to, say, hate speech laws being passed. Something about this made me feel off, and I've been trying to pinpoint exactly what it was that irked me. Partly, I think my issue with what you said is that the philosophy of Ancient Greece (in particular the contribution of Aristotle) played a key role in the formation of the modern West, so your hypothetical scenario just makes no sense. No Greece, no America. Again, this just goes back to my whole point about which type of worldview is more conducive to the development of a free and rational society. Had the Greeks built on top of their great legacy instead, they could have possibly been the America (philosophically, that is) before America, whereas the Native American tribes could not so long as they consistently acted in accordance with the pillars of their worldview. You can say "well, they could have gotten there with time", but suffice it to say I'm highly skeptical. Just look around at the world today. Where exactly is this America 2.0 to be found? The closest comparison that comes to mind is Hong Kong, which does have its own relevant history with the British. Ideas matter, as I'm sure we can agree.

I agree. The problem, in my opinion, is one of emphasis. If you actively go out of your way to emphasize the crimes of Western colonialism above and beyond the crimes of other historical civilizations (e.g., the Spanish, the Muslim caliphate, the Mongols) then you are appealing to the rabid anti-Americanism of the nihilists. This is corrupt and cowardly. Ultimately, it comes down to one's view of the following: were the colonists who came to America a force for good in world history? I would unhesitatingly answer in the affirmative. The philosophy of the Enlightenment, which the British colonists exported to the American continent (not without contradictions, of course), was fundamentally good. I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you would inject this into the discussion, I wasn't making this point in my original post. I was making the point that (young) Objectivists shouldn't automatically discard Rand's more "controversial" positions because of outside pressure from today's culture. It's not a question of tribal loyalty. Well, no, because her views on the Native Americans are indicative of her political views. Concretely, the question which Rand answers is: what is the status of property rights for inhabitants of a primitive society when such a society comes into contact with a more civilized group of people? Perhaps you will object to my generalizing language here, but my point is simply to get to the roots of what Rand was trying to explain.

As a preface, I grant that since you have watched more of the series than I have, I could be mistaken about my interpretations. You did? I thought that the clarity and forcefulness with which Wednesday delivered her sentences implied genuine seriousness. Now, she is nihilistic as a whole, which is another reason why I argue that dropping these nuggets of social justice ideology into the script can come across as forced. Hm, I wonder if we're referring to the same scene here. I'm referring to the scene where the "pilgrims" walk up to Wednesday and she looks at a flyer/pamphlet from a theme park. You could be right, perhaps the meaning escaped me completely. I didn't claim that I was isolating essentials here. I can see how you could justify it out of a sense of independence/rebelliousness, this would fall in line with Wednesday's character. But whenever something corresponds to social justice ideology so well, I do get suspicious about the intentions of the writers. Sure. But, then again, I could just flip this on its head and ask why they would specifically cast a black woman for this role. I haven't seen the rest of the series, perhaps Wednesday gets to enact her revenge later on in the storyline. "No good deed goes unpunished"... That's interesting. As I said, I was actually somewhat fond of Wednesday's character. In particular her independence, her ingenuity, her awkward bluntness, and the overall mystique emanating from her. I also recognize her destructive streak. In the therapy session, she literally said that "kill or be killed" is a summary of her personal philosophy. In other words, the world is a zero sum game, and the interests of men clash. Chaos over the predictability of reason.

(As I have not yet finished watching the series (and, in all likelihood, won't), this post is not at all meant to be read as a review or a deep analysis of the content. I am merely sharing my own reflections and extending an invitation to anyone who is willing to engage philosophically in regards to understanding the series and its mainstream appeal.) The 8-part TV-series, Wednesday, has recently made headway in the world of entertainment. The series has received glowing reviews from all over the place, and its rating on IMDb currently sits at a whopping 8.3/10. Although the particular genre is not up my alley (I haven't even watched Harry Potter, guys), I decided that I would give it a shot nonetheless. After having delayed it over and over again, I finally watched episode one earlier tonight. As I'm sitting here trying to communicate my thoughts in a coherent way, I find that I struggle to come up with anything concrete to say about the plot, and I think this is because of a few reasons, one being the fact that I was left with this bitter taste in my mouth because of what I perceive as the forced politicization sprinkled throughout the script (a pattern I notice in many modern movies and shows). This is the crux of the thread, so allow me to elaborate. Slight spoilers ahead, so beware. Although I for some reason do take pleasure in watching a character like Wednesday Addams on the screen, it didn't fail to elude me that the following sentiments were all expressed by her at some point within the very first episode: chivalry is a part of the evil "patriarchy", the Founding Fathers deserve no reverence because their legacy is genocide, public schools are underfunded, being a wife and/or housewife should not be the pursuit of an independent woman. Now, it isn't just that I disagree with the aforementioned views, but that they were simply not necessary for her to express in the context of building up her character to the audience. I will continue. All throughout the episode, Wednesday is presented to the audience as being able to dominate everyone in her midst through sheer intensity of character. However, there is one glaring exception, namely during the scene in which she receives a cut above her eye having been on the losing side of a sword-fighting dual against a fellow student at Nevermore. The student? A...black female. Sorry, but in this context I can only assume that is some kind of intentional symbolism. Anyway, yes, I'm aware that these are all very scattered points, and that you should not judge a whole series based on what amounts to trivial non-essentials, but nonetheless, they all remained in my mind as I was watching. Eventually, I just felt such discomfort that I simply had to turn it off, close down Netflix, and do something else with my time. Although the supernatural element still doesn't strike me as all that appealing, I think I would've kept on watching had the social justice agenda not been so overt. I wonder if any of you struggle with this as well whenever you consume entertainment and if there are any positive ways of dealing with it so that one avoids feeling alienated or depressed. Has anyone watched the series? If so, what are your thoughts on it? What is the theme? Philosophically speaking, does it say anything about Western culture that a series like Wednesday has successfully risen to the top so rapidly? Let's discuss it.

But even to fuse into the discourse the idea that acts of colonialism, imperialism, slavery, or genocide were perpetrated by other groups besides white European men will most likely evoke an intense fervor among the mob since pointing it out will be interpreted as "not validating the lived experiences of colored folks" or something like that. Such a mentality expresses the primacy of consciousness in its raw nakedness. A seemingly basic question in regards to slavery is: who ended it? This obviously doesn't fit the agenda, which just goes to show you their nihilism. There is slavery in the world today, but they're more keen on blaming whitey for supposed historical wrongs. Virtue invites abuse.