AwakeAndFree
Regulars-
Posts
714 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by AwakeAndFree
-
"Just curious" is not an answer to my first question. I'm interested to know where is your curiosity coming from. As I see it, it can either be hostility or attraction to Objectivism. So which is it? Don't worry, you'll not get banned for admitting you have deep disagreements with Objectivism. But please be honest about it, either way. As for the "insinuation" I saw in your post - I'm happy to discover it wasn't intended. I don't think any of the most active members spend more time here than they can afford. As to the ways in which Objectivism makes life better. Well... think of it as having a pair of X-ray glasses that allow you to see to the bottom of every issue, and better understand the essentials, the forces that drive people, events, and the history of nations. In terms of morality, think of never having to feel unearned guilt, frustration, confusion or depression. In terms of your personal life - think of it filled with things you value, admire, enjoy, and learn from every day. And think that you understand fully WHY you feel the way you do about them, and knowing that it is RIGHT to feel that way. Think of being at peace with yourself and the world around you, not as a matter of mindless, momentary refuge - but as your constant and rightful state as a moral, productive, rational man living his life on an earth he loves. Objectivists still need to struggle, they still have problems, pains, and defeats - but they don't seem to matter as much as what can and ought to be accomplished in this life. And last, but not necessarily least, think of all the great people you get to meet and share all those values with.
-
No, but I heard the name before. Actually I kind of like it. I think a robot programmed with Objectivism and lacking volition would still do better in life than most people. Of course, the combination of Objectivism AND free will conquers all.
-
Well, in the movie Kinsey only meets this pedophile once, is shocked by what he is hearing, and the meeting ends with a break-up. One of Kinsey's aids is so outraged he can't even sit through the first few minutes. No, the guy is not in jail at the time. He seems to be living in an expensive home, if I recall correctly. Anyway, this pedophile thought Kinsey would approve of his actions, and Kinsey was very clear about disapproving. Though what he did with this disapproval - the movie doesn't say.
-
You don't get it Megan. He doesn't think we're in pursuit of truth. He think's we're a cult! Yet for some reason he's afraid to be thrown out of this cultist forum.
-
Please read the last paragraph of my last comment. Let me say so again: there is nothing immoral or unscientific about interviewing a pedophile. There IS something immoral in knowing the name of a pedophile unknown to the police and not reporting it... but we don't know for sure if Kinsey did that or not. A closer look might prove you right, but I don't believe you have enough data as of right now to form an full and objective judgement.
-
Why are you so interested in people who believe in Ayn Rand's ideas without being interested in Ayn Rand's ideas yourself? As to your other question, I don't think anyone spends more than an aggregated hour a day on this website - which is a perfectly reasonable amount of time to give to a nice hobby. How could you possibly justify that question and the insinuation behind it?
-
Welcome Adleza. May you meet a lot of good people with good premises. Have you been to the Ayn Rand Institute website already? It's www.aynrand.org They have many events and an annual conference for like-minded individuals. And they can probably help you find out more about Ayn Rand philosophy, Objectivism, and Objectivist campus clubs around the country. Cheers!
-
Tasha, If you think Ayn Rand is a genius after just reading Anthem, then you are in for the ride of your life. Please keep reading her novels, and I want to hear a report from you after each one!
-
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Isn't the scientist's job to find the truth? And isn't determining the chronology of sexual development an important part of human sexuality? You are letting your emotions get in the way of your thinking. Think of a scientific book on human sexuality, and the facts that it should include. Then think of the ways to measure and collect these facts. SOME facts can only be gained through the morally questionable. That doesn't mean that the information itself is questionable! Are you implying that a scientist should limit his research to law abiding citizens, and thus cutting off entire areas of what can be scientifically learned? Is criminology not good science because criminologists interview criminals for their studies? A scientist is charged with giving the most complete, accurate, and detailed account of what he is studying. Of course he should take into account the morality of his own actions. But frankly, does the very act of INTERVIEWING a pedophile make you immoral? I should say not! You may say that he should have gone to the police and give them the names of pedophiles he talked to. But frankly, I don't know any details about this situation beyond what I saw in the movie. Maybe he DID tell the police... or maybe the police already KNEW... or maybe he signed a contract beforehand that obliged him to keep quiet. I would agree that this kind of theoretical research does NOT justify letting a pedophile go free. But I need to learn much more on the specifics of this case before I'd pronounce Kinsey immoral.
-
Murder is by its very definition a violation of rights, and hence is always immoral. Killing, however, is not always immoral, with that I agree.
-
This here strikes me as a gross injustice of this article: This is basically an ad hominem, and a false one at that! He "labored to prove" here is a dirty insinuation that he had an interest in proving this, that his objective was not the truth (after all, what he "labored to prove" is true!), and that his methods of proving it were by molesting children, or at least supporting such an act. None of this is correct. The only way to discover such a thing is to talk to pedophiles, which is a disgusting necessity in the interest of producing a complete scientific account of human sexuality. Just as it is necessary to go to gay bars and talk to gays before describing gay sexual behaviour, and just as it is necessary to talk to prostitutes to get a sense of many other sexual behaviours. Other than that, Kinsey interviewed people from all walks of life, to learn about common practices in different groups. Another idiocy: This is a statement of fact which is totally unsupported in the article. But even if his goal really WAS to shake America out of it's puritanism - does it make him any less of a scientist. To these guys, challenging the Christian convention, is bad enough to make him a monster. As to his zoology training... one of the movie's themes is that zoology is not background enough to study human behaviour, and that in human sexual behaviour LOVE is key. Kinsey himself, in the movie, recognizes this towards the end, and even gets into a major depression over the damage he has done. I don't know to what extent this is true, but if that's true it would give you an indication of his intellectual honesty.
-
Look, I obviously agree with you that Kinsey's materialistic approach was wrong (though personally I prefer to live in today's sexual world than the one of the 40s-50s, and certainly of the world before that). But in terms of his influence, I think you are underestimating the positive effects this man had. Yes, the female orgasm was a known fact - to scientists and pornographers. But the common man did not discuss it, did not read about it in the papers, and did not learn it in school. Yes, not everybody was forced to wear these horrible contraptions, but they existed, and their use was considered legitimate. And as to gays... even talking about gays was taboo in popular culture just a few decades ago. You wouldn't read about gays in the paper, or talk about them as freely as you can today. I pity a gay teenager who had to live without this knowledge, feeling totally isolated. I suggest you rent the movie out and then compare it with the article. I think you'll reach the same conclusion as I did - that both of them are ignoring important aspects of the man. However, one is a work of fiction and the other presumes to be an objective criticism. These religious nuts find it convenient to ignore how taboo was the whole subject of sex just a few decades ago, when Playboy's first issue featuring Marilyn Monroe was such an outrage, and sexual matters where never discussed "in mixed company". EDIT: As to the honorable character of Kinsey himself... well, that's not the real issue of the film OR this article. The article is attacking Kinsey's character as a way to discredit his ideas and influence. I have no opinion of the real man, as shouldn't you - who have neither seen the movie nor read an objective account of his life.
-
Beware of Kamin. He is no Objectivist, and from stories I've heard he is not someone you want to hang around with at all (not just philosophically speaking). Other than that - welcome to the forum!
-
Obviously I didn't mean life supporting drugs, i.e. medicine - and I don't think my post was unclear in any way. I certainly don't need to proscribe amounts and list chemicals to make my point. Any action that is inherently irrational is immoral. If you want to start a discussion on drugs, you'd better check previous discussions first. I think you are having a problem "chewing" the Objectivist concept of immorality. Most people ARE immoral, according to Objectivism. They are sacrificing important values for lesser ones, they don't follow moral principles at all, or they follow the wrong ones. That being said, there are many degrees of immorality - and I have friends who I consider immoral in certain ways (for example people who regularly smoke pot), but which I still respect in other ways. Certainly I don't think they deserve any artificial punishment by me, society, or the government - beyond the damage that they inflict on themselves.
-
Either you didn't understand the story, or you don't understand the meaning of the word prostitute.
-
Actually, Inspector is right. Ayn Rand defined Rationality as the primary virtue, and said specifically that any act of mental evasion is immoral. That something is immoral doesn't mean that it should be made illegal. Doing drugs is immoral whether you ask others to pay for it or not. Prostitution is immoral even if you earn your money honestly. The role of government, however, is to strictly to prevent the initiation of physical force. It's not the government's responsibility to make everyone moral.
-
Those distasteful and awful people are exactly the same as the people around you in real life. Unless you are spending your days sneering, or you are in a faraway utopia which I've never heard about, you should be used to them by now. The only characters you might not have met yet in real life are those of Howard Roark, Dominique Francon, and Gail Wynand. The rest are just "average" people, in sharper focus. It's kind of like trying on a new pair of glasses. You see so much better it may be disturbing. But you can't just give it up, can you?
-
I totally disagree with this slanted article. I'm sure the movie did not treat the subject objectively, as it is a work of fiction. I'm sure there have been some disgusting influences and outcomes to this research, and yes - there might be questions about the scientific validity of Kinsey's methods (even though I believe he did TRY to get as large and accurate sample as possible). The fact remains that this is a man who dared to suggest, in the puritanical America of the 50s, that sex can be the subject of scientifical study, that it's a natural phenomena, and that religious dogma should be ignored in studying it. Yes, he went too far in separating morality from scientifical study. The movie does not "gloss over" it. In fact, that's one of the movie's main themes. Still, Kinsey remains largely responsible for the more healthy and open attitudes towards sex today. Teenager are no longer forced to take ice baths or wear strange contraptions to avoid masturbation, gays are no longer treated as sinners and excomminucated, female orgasms are a widely known fact, and oral sex is not considered dangerous. Everyone should be able to appreciate Kinsey's sexual revolution, even if parts of it went too far.
-
It's not a lot, but here's what I found: http://www.macdesktops.com/images/1600x120...nt1600x1200.jpg http://www.centurywalkingtours.com/AR1.jpg http://www.accs.net/users/wolf/ayn_rand.JPG
-
The Unlikeliest Cult in the World is a dishonest work. Reading parts of it made me sick. The amount of lies in this book, plain lies, was really shocking to me. And no, I don't accept the claim that Objectivism is a cult. It is obviously not a cult, if you take the objective definition into account. What I WAS trying to show is that not everyone who's stuck with this impression is necessarily dishonest. There ARE some things that the average person would associate with a cult, and would almost never see outside of cults or religions, until meeting with Objectivism.
-
Actually, I started writing about it thinking it's going to be interesting, and then 60% through I found out it was boring me. So I added this sentence about it boring me. So you see, it's not so much being sacrificial as wanting to finish what I started.
-
I've often heard people suggesting that Objectivism is a cult. I'm sure many of you heard it too - and since I've read some questions about dealing with this issue, I'd like to share my thinking on the subject. It really bores me to death to write about these things, but it may prove helpful, so here goes: 1. There are some objective similarities between Objectivists and members of cults. 2. There are also many crucial differences. 3. The honest, intelligent person may get the impression of a cult in early stages of familiarity with Objectivism, but will soon learn to distinguish Objectivism from a mindless cult. 4. The dishonest will persist, in face of evidence. Their attitude will show clear disinterest in learning the facts. They will pronounce a judgement and will never agree to examine it objectively. First, let's look at the definition of cult, from the Oxford English Dictionary: I have no problem with someone charecterizing Objectivism as #3: "something popular or fashionable among a particular section of society". What they mean, however, is usually 1 or 2. So let's start with some objective similarities between Objectivism and real cults: * Objectivists believe in their ideas very strongly, and speak very confidently. * Objectivists feel very strongly towards their ideals. They may get protective of Ayn Rand or Objectivism if they feel it is wrongly attacked. * Objectivism may affect decisions throughout an Objectivist's life, including his choice of career, his artistic taste, his choice of a spouce, his way of dealing with other people, his political inclination, etc. * Objectivists enjoy meeting and talking to other Objectivists, and there is a kind of international network of ties that spans cultures, locations, and languages. Objectivists often feel a strong bond with someone upon discovering he is an Objectivist (this is many times unjustified, BTW). Some crucial differences: * Objectivism is not a religion, and is not based on faith. It's an atheistic, secular philosophy which upholds reason. Objectivists should therefore always willing to consider a logical argument. This is outside the realm of any real cult. * Objectivists do have a sense of worship towards its ideals, but only in the sense of something being "extremely important and valuable", not as a self-degrading act. The objects of worship are experienced as beneficial to life, and therefore important. They are not above life, or above happiness, in any way. * There is no leadership or heirarchy in the conventional cult sense. No one is giving or following orders. There are no orders, and there can never be orders since one of the top principles is that every man is an end in himself, with his own happiness as his goal. Some philosophers and intellectuals might be considered an "intellectual leadership", but only in the sense of their words being very convincing and hence influencial. * Objectivists usually have non-Objectivist friends. They are involved in many activities, hobbies, careers that do not involve Objectivism. They usually don't live around other Objectivists, or choose their location according to the this. They often marry non-Objectivists, and they judge people according to their character, not their stated philosophy. Once in a while, as with any other philosophy, a mentally unhealthy and evil individual will try to use Objectivism as a basis to forming a real cult, with mind-control techniques, group pressure, and deceit. In these cases, however, the real strength of Objectivism is revealed. These cults usually either fall apart very soon after, when the followers discover the real nature of their "leader", or the cult leader finds that he cannot use Objectivism, and drops it for a more "constructive" philosophy that leaves room for faith and subjugation. Any other thoughts on the matter?
-
New Policy: No Account Deletion
AwakeAndFree replied to DavidV's topic in Website Policy and Announcements
It's very simple, really. As the writer, you have a right to your work. But as a publisher, by posting on this website you have granted us permission to feature it. You can't retract it just because you changed your mind. It's out now, and it may have triggered a lot of responses that will be deemed incoherent once the original is removed. Replacing a post with a link to the essay in some free publication is fine, but you are assuming that the publication that PAID for exclusive rights to the essay, is now offering it for free, online, and for an unlimited time. That is almost never the case. And of course, this is not "holding the essay hostage" - we don't prevent it being published elsewhere, but we must reserve the right to continue to feature it, once it has been posted. I'm sure if any such case will arise, a proper agreement would be reached. -
No, it's not. Anyway I just wrote what I did because your first post didn't even connote that the movie was a comedy.
-
David, this is a beautifully made argument. I agree with it 100%.