["Demoting" a Relationship]

You can know the things that are "so important" to you (as your partner should also know for hers) beforehand. What does this have to do with never making mistakes and your other bulleted points?

Why would treating a relationship seriously and rationally make it impossible to "demote" a relationship? E.g. if your mate converts to Scientology, and this were utterly unacceptable to you, do you then demote the relationship?

Or do you tell yourself that her "betrayal" proves you obviously didn't approach the relationship seriously and rationally enough?

["Demoting" a Relationship]

I just assumed [Peikoff] meant that you could not be friends with someone after a love relationship with her.

I wouldn't think so. Imagine if Francisco said he couldn't be friends with Dagny...

I no longer have romantic feelings for any of my ex-girlfriends. There have been a few instances when an ex expressed a romantic interest in me, and I was not interested... once I reorient my relationship with the woman to a friendship, then it feels like a friendship.

Hmm. I guess I'm quite different - if you have romantic feelings for girls with qualities XYZ, then how (why?) do you just turn off the romantic emotion that XYZ naturally brings in you?

I do understand the idea that this person (with XYZ) does romantically attracts me, but I can't/don't want to have a romantic relationship with them, however.

Merely remaining friends with Francisco is not the demotion of the relationship. They will never have sex again but they will still have what they had, have achieved the relationship that they achieved, because what they experienced was real after all.

That's the way I look at it. Finding a greater love (than d'Anconia) or deciding not to have a romantic relationship with someone you are interested in doesn't strike me as demotion, because your feelings for the person don't change.

Trying to be friends with an ex would mean just trying to ignore that physical awareness of each other that you will always have.

Could you elaborate?

It is unlikely for me to divorce someone because they don't want to have children. Why? Because if it was so important for me, I would never find myself in a romantic relationship with them in the first place.

Whatever will lead me to end a romantic relationship with someone has to be something so serious that friendship between us is also impossible.

But this assumes

• that what interests you romantically is immutably settled and explicitly known, here and forevermore
  
• as are your wife's
  
• and that you two assess each other so well that you don't make mistakes
  

Isn't Peikoff divorced?

Nice Godfather reference

["Demoting" a Relationship]

Interesting, particularly as I am currently in a situation highly analogous to the topic...

[According to Peikoff] relationships "cannot be demoted," they can only be "promoted." In other words, once you have had a romantic or sexual relationship with a person, you can never "demote" your relationship with her to a friendship again. Peikoff notes that Rand emphatically agreed.

I'm not sure what he/she means by "demote" a relationship. I would offhand doubt Peikoff/Rand meant that you couldn't have a platonic relationship with someone you have romantic feelings for (e.g. Francisco and Dagny post-Galt) If he means that your romantic appraisal of another person doesn't just dissipate for no reason, I'd agree.

Sort of an example, if one of the "demoted" girlfriends begins to again have a romantic interest in you, you'd still have romantic feelings for her, right? The relationship may be "demoted" in a sense, but not likely the feelings.

[A Philosophy Degree - Who needs it?]

If one is a student of Objectivism, what reason is there to study Philosophy at university?

What point is there in studying anything at university for oodles of $$ if you think you can learn it on your own? Street (i.e. academic world) cred is probably the top reason. A university-educated philosopher is simply going to be taken more seriously by the majority of folks than a man with the same philosophical ideas who didn't waste time on the B.S.

Why study philosophy, if you're an Objectivist?

If you want to be a philosopher, IMO it's best to put your ideas to more stringent scrutiny by analyzing the criticisms/alternatives that non-Objectivists may have. On the other hand, if you want to be an Objectivist (and don't care what other philosophers have to say), there probably isn't a point to studying non-Objectivist philosophy. Either way, there are a lot of valuable nuances and philosophic subtleties you discover by broadening your philosophical horizons (even if it means enduring some philosophical garbage in the process.)

[Judicial System]

Are there any checks to insure the integrity of the judicial branch?... By what authority can a politician or head of another agency fire a judge?

The specific grounds and processes for evicting a judge may be nebulous for some judicial offices, but as far as I know they do exist for all judges, federal or state.

How is the judicial branch funded? Who determines the budget?

Just an educated guess, but I'd assume that virtually all judges are budgeted by legislative bodies, and the charge of paying out the money is almost always an executive duty. I'd be interesting to know definitively, but I doubt any American executive bodies have any real power to withhold judicial monies, particularly in order to affect judicial outcomes.

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

Why would it be necessary to shoot at or kill Americans? Can you name an actual concrete situation where this would be necessary - where they can't just run or surrender?

Surrendering assumes a policy of accepting surrender from civilians - a policy you don't believe America is morally obligated to have? As for concretes:

• If a plane were about to drop a nuke on a Hiroshima citizen, she might shoot at the plane on the one-in-a-billion chance that she might prevent her whole city being annihilated. Running from an imminent nuclear blast isn't too effective, nor is surrendering to the approaching pilot an individual's option.
  

Do you have a right to shoot at the police in "self-defense?"

You could just as easily ask if you have a right to run from the police in self-defense. But in answer to your question: no, for all intents and purposes. The policeman, as a matter of policy, isn't going to kill or torture you if you surrender. No promises with the attacking force of a rational foreign government, eh?

A foreign army's job is not to protect the rights of non-citizens. It is to eliminate threats to its citizens.

And you're saying that the job of a person under a dictatorship is to get free or die trying?

The chosen job of a father under a dictatorship may be to protect his children. Getting free may not be a simple matter with the children in tow (i.e. it may take longer than America is willing to wait), and dying isn't going to protect the little ones in any way.

I'm saying that if the Americans come over and kill this father and his family in the course of stopping the dictatorship, the moral onus is on the dictatorship, a statement I believe you'd agree with. But I would go further and say that if the father kills an attacking American (particularly if safe surrender isn't guaranteed), the moral onus is still on the dictatorship that has improperly brought two rational parties into conflict.

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

If you attempt to vanquish your dictatorship and fail, why would that mean you have to passively sit back and watch as foreigners ignite you and your loved ones?

You can dodge the bombs, but it would be immoral to kill Americans in your defense.

But wouldn't you agree with this (bold mine):

Nobody has to put up with aggression, and surrender his right of self-defense, for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have an ounce of self-esteem, you answer with force, never mind who he is or who's standing behind him. If he's out to destroy you, you owe it to your own life to defend yourself.

?

People have a right to want to survive - even the harshest of conditions. They don't have a duty to act as martryrs.

They don't have the right to buy that survival at the price of the violation of the rights of a free people.

If a peasant who (despite his best efforts) has not brought down his dictatorship decides to defends himself against an attacking American, wouldn't the dictatorship be the violator, not the peasant?

Nobody has the right to stay in existence when they act in defiance of existence.

A lot of people believe in God and wrap their entire life around this belief which is in defiance of existence. According to you they don't have a right to stay in existence.

I think Inspector means it more in the sense of; people do not have a right to be free from the consequences of their harmful choices and actions.

I am saying that no - they do not have the right to be free from their choice to exit existence. If they choose to die, then there does not exist some right to be free from their own bad choices.

I don't think it works in any of those senses either. It too closely parallels emergency ethics. E.g. I am taken hostage by 3 thugs, the authorities are going to shoot me in order to get to the thugs, I defend myself against the authority - would I be acting in defiance of existence, or the thugs? Would the moral consequences of the stabbing be upon me, or the thugs? Am I choosing to exit existence and die if I defend myself, or instead have the thugs chosen to die by initiating force in the first place?

IMO all the moreso if the "thugs" are a million-man totalitarian army and the "authority" soldiers of a rational foreign government...

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

There's a lot of other stuff here to comment on too, but before I go to work...

I don't think you've made the case that this:

you have the right to fight a dictatorship, leave it, or die trying

leads to this

The point is that while you have a right to shoot at the [dictatorship's] border guards, you do not have the right to shoot at the [attacking] American bombers.

If you attempt to vanquish your dictatorship and fail, why would that mean you have to passively sit back and watch as foreigners ignite you and your loved ones?

IMO it's entirely different if a means of saving oneself is offered by the foreigners, but if their tactics require mass killings of civilians, why would that mean they are morally obligated to not resist being killed???

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

What rights do said fishermen have in protecting themselves against a foreign military that is trying to blow them up for tactical reasons?

I don't think I understand the correct meaning of your question. Would you rephrase it for me?

Sure:

A group of individuals defending their own right to life need not consider possible innocents except as it pertains to the achievement of their own goals.

If a group of rational individuals represented by a government (e.g. the US) has the right to defend themselves, does it equally follow that a group of rational individuals misrepresented by a government (e.g. rational fishermen in a tyrannical land) has the right to defend themselves?

But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overthrow their bad government and establish a better one, then they must pay the price for the sins of their government, as we are all paying for the sins of ours. And if people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia, and some did in Nazi Germany—they deserve what their government deserves.

If "pay the price for the sins of one's government" means simply that those living under irrational governments are potentially in the face of attack by rational governments, I'd agree. If it means that helpless/inefficacious people under a tyranny morally ought to not resist being firebombed or nuked or poisoned by said rational government, I really don't understand why such people ought to choose to pay such a price.

They would have no right to defend themselves against the moral country. They should surrender to it immediately and unconditionally.

If the foreign rational government is offering santuary, OK.

But if the rational government is (for tactical reasons) is not accepting surrenders, and is killing villagers whether they attempt to surrendur or not? Don't the villagers have the right to protect their lives and those of their families?

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

I doubt anyone would recommend killing people for fun with nothing to be gained. Not killing them, however, is a matter of tactics. "In what way will blowing up this fishing village give us an advantage?"

And what rights do said fishermen have in protecting themselves against a foreign military that is trying to blow them up for tactical reasons?

[Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?]

There are no non-combatants. The infants are either future soldiers/workers or females who will breed future soldiers/workers. The adults are either soldiers/workers or breeders of soldiers/workers. In an ant heap all its inhabitants are "involved".

As in My Lai, right?

[Are Video Games Art?]

my argument...

1. even if the "movie part" [of a video game] is arguably art the "puzzles part" is not
   
2. thus [video games are] not a new art form
   

If video games were merely movie art + non-art puzzles, then it'd still be art, albeit not a new art form. So if the "puzzles aren't (can't be??) art" argument is true, then I have no problem with 2.

However, it's questionable to say that no existing games (qua puzzles) qualify as art, and even more questionable to imply that puzzles/games can't ever be art.

Games can certainly be selective recreations of reality based on their creator's metaphysical value judgments. You can make a game where not treating your allies right means they aren't around to help you in the endgame, or where committing crimes makes you untrustworthy. A game where ammo has to be carefully conserved and rationally rationed out has different value judgments from a game where ammo is infinite.

I suspect you agree with the above on some level, but still discount games as art because, in most game cases, violating the game value judgments makes the winning the game harder but generally not impossible. E.g. you still might be able to beat the game (with much, much more difficulty) if you mistreat your allies and commit crime, and thus some might say that the game doesn't emphasize friendship and non-initiation of force. I'm not sure that this is your thought on the matter, but I disagree with such a premise at any rate. I think it's a case of trying to squeeze interactive art into passive art constraints.

IMO most games are rather one big (integrated?) puzzle as opposed to a series of unrelated puzzles. Would that make a difference in terms of games as art?

[Are Video Games Art?]

Is a game a selective creation of reality? Can a game be based upon its creator's metaphysical value judgements?

I don't think so... A game isn't so much a recreation of reality as practically a redefinition of reality: it sets up a bunch of artificial parameters and an artificial goal and says the equivalent of "off you go now".

I admit that I don't get the distinction between a recreation of reality and a redefinition of reality. Is chess a recreation or a redefinition? What about a novel like Snow Crash or Animal Farm?

Flux does sound interesting. I'm checking into it some more.

[Spiderman 3]

SPOILERS ensue...

Spider-man 3 wasn't the OMG movie I was hoping it would be, but I thought it was pretty good.

Thematically, I thought this movie was a bit stronger than the first two. To me, Spider-man 3 was about revenge and forgiveness/redeemability.

Peter uses bad judgment with Gwen Stacy and the symbiote, MJ messes up with Harry and in not telling Peter what's going on, Sandman made his mistakes, Harry treats his friends badly, Eddie Brock does the wrong thing in pursuit of a job etc. Largely, the movie says that people can pick up the pieces from their mistakes if they're willing to try. Most of the characters realize that you have to let some things go, and that stubbornly obsessing over the mistakes others make will only make you unhappy.

In terms of revenge, the movie made a strong point that revenge isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Kissing Harry doesn't make MJ feel any better, "killing" Sandman doesn't get Peter any positive response from Aunt May, Harry's treatment of his friends doesn't gain justice, dancing up a storm with Gwen in order to spite MJ only makes things worse for Parker, getting Eddie Brock fired really doesn't help PP/Spidey.

Another thing I liked is that the characters largely didn't blame other people and situations for their plights. Spidey didn't blame the symbiote for the way he acted, Harry didn't excuse his behavior on account of Green Goblin juice, MJ didn't justify alienating Parker because she (presumably) was threatened, Sandman felt guilty over Uncle Ben's death even though it was an accident. The big exception is Eddie Brock, and it could be argued that his blaming others for his problems played out consistently with the theme.

I REALLY wish they hadn't killed Harry; what was the point????

My #2 gripe was that Eddie Brock/Venom wasn't as developed as he should've been. In the comics, Eddie not only dislikes Peter Parker for personal reasons, but also dislikes Spidey for not being enough of a vigilante to do whatever needs to be done to protect the innocent. The comic book Eddie actually wants to be a good guy, but uses bad means to his end. The movie's Eddie didn't care about Gwen almost falling to her death or about using his Venom powers for good, apparently only caring about prestige, status, and revenge. More complexity would've been good.

In M.J.'s case, when she's feeling down and things aren't going her way, she doesn't confide in the one person she should know loves her. Instead she expects him to somehow telepathically know that something is wrong. Instead she sees things than can easily be misinterpreted and assumes the worst in his character. ARRGGHHH!!!

Agreed

[Tax Avoidance]

As I understand [~Sophia~'s] argument it is that if everyone picks and chooses what laws they want to follow, it will result in chaos.

Ah, rule of law...

The argument is that in this context [of a country that has freedom of speech, "relative" freedom of person, and "significant" rights to property] everyone should agree on the principle that they will use words and arguments to convince other citizens to change their viewpoints in order to change the laws, rather than trying to evade the law.

Hmm...

To whomever would support such an argument:

1. Is "relative" freedom of person and "significant" rights to property an objective standard, or a subjective one?
   
2. Is it a sacrifice for the would-be evader to not evade an unjust law?
   

[Are Video Games Art?]

Art, according to Ayn Rand is a selective re-creation of reality in accordance with the artist's metaphysical value judgments.

A video game is still a game and that portion of it is not art.

I still don't get that part. Is a game a selective creation of reality? Can a game be based upon its creator's metaphysical value judgements?

Chess, snakes and ladders, poker, and 52 pickup certainly evoke different metaphysical value judgements, at least as I understand things.

While it might be rather... unorthodox, I would think some games (including video games) could qualify under the definition of art.

If you had a beautiful sculpture portraying Man the Hero, it'd be quite incongruous and possibly even horrifying if you slapped on a tentacle for an arm or something.

Every part of a work of art has to tie back into it.

The first statement implies that art shouldn't give messages contradictory to its intended theme (with which I agree).

But I don't agree that every part of a work of art has to tie back into it e.g. does Roark's orange hair and Rearden's blonde hair have to tie back into Rand's themes?

No other art form that involves a story includes lengthy pauses where you go off and kill a bunch of stuff so you can get a level so that now you can wear the big suit of armor and kill a bunch more stuff.

True. But that would merely mean video games as art would be different from other art forms. As long as video games meet the definition of art, I don't think they have to be further judged by the additional standards of literature, sculpture, music, etc.

I'm saying that [art] shouldn't proceed in jerks and stops.

Dif'rent strokes?

[Tax Avoidance]

How does one plan for and build a long term future, when that future is so clouded with uncertainty?

That applies whether one evades taxes or capitulates to them. The evader implicitly thinks "This money is rightfully mine. I thus will keep it, and risk the already unjust IRS guys committing more injustices against me."

The capitulater implicitly thinks "This money is rightfully mine. However, I might unjustly get beat up if I keep it, so I'll sacrifice it now, and one day I may be able to get (some of) it back."

Giving your lunch money to the school bully isn't necessarily long-term thinking.

[Are Video Games Art?]

If you're playing in a game in which you can be a vile assassin or a noble warrior or even a personality-less gold-accumulating drone, then how is the video game "selective"?

I think an answer here is that a video game can have one selected theme, and allow the player to implicitly choose different plots under that singular theme. So long as the theme isn't altered, a video game could (theoretically) present a theme from different plot perspectives, perhaps allowing the artist's metaphysical value judgments to be presented in a unique way. Hypothetically, a Fountainhead game where Wynand can realize his error and change his ways before it's too late, or Keating can decide to follow his dream of being an artist, or playing a Toohey storyline in which his ideals inevitably can't beat Roark, or Dominique ...

Granting that a lot of games with diverging storylines don't have an overarching theme, and that most games don't even particularly have themes in the first place.

Even if there is a story to the game, most of it still comes down to the interactive elements which are not art: all the elements of a work of art need to be integrated into it. So what is the meaning of that triple-jump-backflip you just did? Is the video game designer saying something about ledges being a metaphor for life?

I think this might be a bigger difficulty than the selectivity issue. Conveying the artist's metaphysical value judgments through plot/theme isn't hard (even in a video game), but does a video game have to present its metaphysical value judgments through gameplay to be art?

Artistically, I think that the triple-jump-backflip oughtn't contradict the aesthetic intent... but otherwise I don't think that the gameplay has to specifically convey the aesthetic intent. OTOH...

I think the biggest problem in widespread acceptance of video games as art is that the gameplay of most games is of the punch-drive-shoot mechanism, and the "artsy" stuff is usually presented as cutscenes separate from the gameplay experience. If gameplay were expressive of those metaphysical value judgments, there'd be less talk that video games aren't/can't be art.

[Is it possible to have CONSTANT motivation?]

I think what I'm really talking about is WILL... how to frame my mind to maximize it? I have discipline to work 80% of my potential it seems on a constant basis, but not enough to maintain that 100%. What should I be doing?

Bleh, does anyone know what I'm talking about here?

I think so.

It’s not a feeling I’m after (the feeling of “let’s do it!”). It’s the willingness, the willingness to fight against all pain and laziness to do something 100% that never ends until death – is this even possible?

What's the effective difference? If you had a constant "let's do it!" feeling, wouldn't you constantly be willing to fight?

[Nurture and Suicide]

Perhaps James thinks reality has a big reset button called "Suicide"; press it and try again.

Suicide is more like throwing the PS3 out the penthouse window - ain't no trying again. I can understand breaking controllers because of some

frustrating games, but suicides on the HNL.

First, I like your picture. Did you save the princess too? Or find world -1?

Hehe, yup, I even found out small fiery mario on my own back in the day

One's happiness/satisfaction with life doesn't necessarily correlate to how one was raised/nurtured.

Sure it is. The mind is an organ, not unlike a leg (yea, I know a leg isn't an organ, but listen to this...). If a young child has his or her leg binded up as a kid, that leg will never grow to a full sized leg, regardless of the type of therapy or help he or she gets.

Sure, but that's a correlation between health and one's nurturing, not between happiness and one's nurturing. If a bad upbringing meant one was fated to be forever unhappy, that might excuse a person for killing themselves because of a bad childhood. Since no such enevitability exists, killing oneselves because of what one's parents chose to do seems a bit of a copout, and saying that one can't be happy because of what others did seems to be a social crutch i.e. based on false premises and probably even more detrimental to one's happiness than one's upbringing.

I am going to make the assumption that you are unable to fly. Not unwilling, but unable. You don't have the proper tools to flap your arms and to lift up; it just isn't possible. In my story, James is unable to lead a successful life that is happy. Not because he's not willing, but because he's unable (or, to be optimistic, he doesn't know how because he was never taught how).

I somewhat understand what is required in order to be able to fly, but what does one have to know/be taught in order to be happy?

[Tax Avoidance]

What's with people saying "if tax evasion is moral, then..."

Morality is not a binary state, it is a continuum and it depends entirely upon the circumstance.

For instance killing is moral under certain circumstances, but you can never say "Killing is Evil" as a blanket condemnation.

This thread has gone from tax avoidance to tax evasion; avoiding taxes is completely legal, tax evasion is not.

I don't think it was ever so much as a legal question, though. Also, I think a major part of the "tax evasion is moral" argument is the idea that

there

isn't

any circumstance in which forced taxation is moral, ergo the ethical status of evading a forced tax is not dependent on the circumstance.

While I'd be in about 90% agreement with that idea, I'm sure of its veracity.

Whilst Bobsponge prefers a Paper Fiat currency such as the Greenback, as he expressed in the first page of this thread, I prefer a Gold Standard

Hmm, did bobsponge say that? At any rate, I'm with you (as most folks here are) on preferring something non-govermentized like gold.

[Teenage Angst Novels]

Don't mean to be too contrary, but I couldn't stand The Catcher in the Rye. Pretentious kid who saw phoniness in almost everyone except himself. I think Catcher is a bit overrated qua "classic novel", but it does show some of the things you say. Some people might get more from it than I did. I never read (or had even heard of) The Perks of Being a Wallflower, I'll have to look into that one; you make it sound interesting.

The Chosen is also IMO a very good teen/coming of age book, though it's in quite a different vein than Catcher. Not particularly angsty, either.

I liked The Chocolate War too, though again, I'm not sure that would fit with the rest of the books...

[Tax Avoidance]

Tax evasion among many other things is a sacrifice of a higher value for a lesser one. One is placing their grip on life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness in a grave danger in order to preserve X amount of dollars.

To you, tax evasion is risking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To another, preserving X amount of one's own dollars is a means to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[MMORPGs teaches the wrong things?]

If you play MMORPGs (particularly World of WarCraft), there's a chance you might have read this article.

Do you guys agree or disagree with its position?

I don't particularly agree. A lot of games are meant to be explored and experienced, rather than teach something. Same thing with movies. I'd hate to hear what he thinks Katamari Damacy teaches...

[Hello!]

I'm in college right now, planning to major in Japanese, hopefully with a minor in animation.

That's a nice combination. What do you want to do when you get out? Welcome to the forum

I wasn't aware that there were many other objectivists who considered the potentiality of "art" in videogame design, so it's refreshing to see that other people have the same progressive views as well.

Ditto, I think that's one of those new frontiers that hasn't been tapped very much yet.

I wasn't aware of a discussion here concerning high aesthetic merit in video games. However, I think it's an interesting topic.

Indeed!

It's been a while since I read it, but for you and anyone interested, film critic Roger Ebert recently sparked a discussion and debate on video games as art following his review of the movie Doom (based on the original ground-breaking video game).

I think Ebert (and a lot of other stuffyheads for that matter) vastly underestimate the aesthetic significance and potential of video game. 'Course, I am biased

Edit: response to Jenni

I'd say rather that [video games] are a work that is made up of numerous small works of art and artistry, much like a web page isn't a work of art even though it may be very artistic in its setup and contain many individual works of art. A video game is more like a gallery of art.

Hmm, that is food for thought. But movies might also be said to be composed of numerous works of art, and yet they qualify as arts themselves. On another note, while I don't think most games qualify as art, I think some existing games might and certainly think that some in the future will qualify.