Carla

That's exactly it! Thank you!

Yes, I think you're right. Since I rarely interact with other O'ists IRL (except for my brother), I think I'm also struggling to find a name for "bad selfishness," meaning that which an I might be accused of by someone who does not understand the true/objective meaning of the word. That is, if a family member is annoyed at me for acting "selfishly," and I know that "selfish" has a positive definition, they must be accusing me of something else...right? No, they are accusing me of acting selfishly, they just see the opposite--selflessness--as a value. Not that I get accused of selfishness very often, or that my family members would see me that way--just an illustration of why I sometimes still struggle with that word. I guess it's time for me to go back to the drawing board and examine the essentials again...but I guess that's a topic for another thread.

Agreed. In fact, I just changed it in my post. On a side note, do you think that "whim-worship" is a suitable term to cover all aspects of irrational selfishness? In this case, it fits the bill, but it seems to me that it doesn't really cover the full spectrum of possibilities. That is, someone could be deliberate (not whim-worshipping, per se) in their disregard for others. Or is that just another form of whim worship? On second though, perhaps "irrational" does that job just fine. Language precision: one of my pet interests.

Marotta, the problem is that you're confusing the woman's lack of self-interest in having the child with some kind of all-consuming whim-worship with no regard for anything or anyone else. I'm not suggesting selflessness or anything, but the fact remains that once a human life is in this world, you have to give it the respect it deserves (unless it proves itself unworthy by conscious action, e.g. terrorists). Just as I can't kill my neighbor because he keeps bothering me with requests for cups of sugar, I can't abandon my unwanted child (once it is born) simply because I don't want to raise a child. But I'm not saddled with the child for the rest of my life, either; as alluded to by others in this thread, the obligation I have to the child is to ensure that she gets proper care, which I can easily do by putting her up for adoption. The point is that it's not a sacrifice for me to spend a couple days ensuring that the child goes to the right agency instead of taking off for Hawaii immediately after cutting the umbilical cord; I have a respect for human life and a desire to take care of the innocent life in front of me. The obligation would be the same, by the way, if (for example) the mother died during labor, and the father didn't want the baby. He would be responsible for ensuring that it is cared for in the best possible way; after that, he is completely free to live the life he wants to, as a mother would be. Of course it's a sad fact that, in the case of a deadbeat guy, the woman bears a much greater amount of the responsibility for the child. But that's an unavoidable consequence of biology, and thus must be accepted or provided for (by the woman taking BCPs, etc.). *edited to change "selfishness" to "whim-worship."

I don't have anything to add to the Eminem discussion, so I thought I'd get back to the favorites, since I haven't contributed to this thread yet, and I love music! Most of my classical (using the term loosely to apply to basically any instrumental music from the 17th/18th/19th/early 20th centuries) favorites have already been mentioned, so here I'll address a genre that I don't believe has been mentioned in this thread yet--my most favorite music to hear, in almost any mood: 60s/70s R&B/Soul. The reason I love this music so much is the voices (though the songs themselves and the instrumental musicianship are often outstanding, as well). The giants in my collection are: Al Green Marvin Gaye Stevie Wonder Otis Redding Donny Hathaway ...and the queen, Aretha Franklin. Ordinary mortals can only aspire to the voices of these singers. They each have unique qualities and specialties, but in their specialties cannot be matched. [N.B.: I do realize the that most/all of these artists sing about religion/other irrational topics at one time or many times, but the point I'm trying to express is their vocal quality, and to a lesser degree, the absolute joy in living implied in their singing.] Aretha (only one name needed) in particular has, I think, an unlimited range of emotion and beauty to her voice. She can express the greatest sorrow and the most unbounded joy, and she can do it calmly and simply or with every fiber of her being. And, as anyone who's ever listened to "Respect" can attest, she can get a party started. To understand the difference between her and "normal" singers, listen to the well-known version of "Son of a Preacher Man" by Dusty Springfield (on the Pulp Fiction soundtrack and elsewhere), then listen to Aretha's lesser-known cover (note particularly the orgasmic--life-affirming--"Hallelujah" in the chorus). Stevie Wonder is a real package-deal (in a good way): outstanding (instrumental) musician (he plays almost all of the instruments on "Innervisions," one of his best albums), fantastic song-writer, and beautiful voice. Note too that most male R&B and even pop singers who came after him (from his contemporaries such as Carl Carlton, to Michael Jackson in the 80s, to Usher and Justin Timberlake today) have emulated his singing style, to greater or lesser success. This is getting quite long, so I'll elaborate upon request, but just a few more snippets: Al Green has got to have one of the sexiest voices ever (try "Simply Beautiful"); Donny Hathaway is smooth and heartbreaking; Otis Redding is deep-down gritty soulful and heartbreaking; and Marvin Gaye is joyous and sexy. The other genre I love (though I'm not as well-versed in it) is 70s funk, e.g., Sly and the Family Stone, Graham Central Station, and Parliament Funkadelic/P-Funk. The first two happen to include especially good singers, but here the focus is more on the instruments--the driving, funky bass, especially. Again, it's not the lyrical content that's important (usually, though there are plenty of exceptions), but the groove and the quality of musicianship. Two other singing greats that I must mention, though they don't really fit into either of the above two categories, are Ray Charles and Ella Fitzgerald. There are plenty of others I have omitted, and other genres I enjoy, but I wanted to say my piece on these artists in particular for their virtuousity (IMO). Finally, though the opinions expressed herein are entirely my own, I must acknowledge my debt to my brother, who introduced me to almost all of the artists I mentioned (he also lurks here sometimes).

I second Erandror's Cox and Forkum suggestion, Ash's promise to purchase, and Charles T's request for a referral to a good formal logic introduction. I am particularly tickled by "AisA City" and Rational Man's alter-ego as the mild-mannered philosophy teacher.

Oh, I agree, We the Living is great. I just meant that for someone who's just starting out with Objectivism and looking to absorb as many of the essentials as quickly as possible (as, I believe, many of us did when we first started out), it's not the best book to read for that purpose. For the confusing part, I didn't mean to imply that it's confusing as a novel--I think any non-Objectivist could enjoy and learn a lot from it. My point is that, given how explicitly Rand's other novels explain her philosophy, We the Living is a shift in a very different direction. I also think that Kira is not a purely Objectivist hero(ine), like Dagny or Roark, though I suppose that's arguable. I know you may not have been "speaking" specifically to me, Ash, but thank you anyway for making me clarify what I said!

I read Anthem first, when I was probably 13 or 14, and The Fountainhead a little bit after that. I could read them both over and over... I finally read We the Living last year. It's a fascinating read, both as a Rand's first novel and as a striking depiction of that era in Soviet history--it gave me the chills. But, it's definitely a much less important part of the Objectivist "canon." I'd recommend to anyone considering it that you read it only after her other fiction and most of the non-fiction, if your goal is to learn about Objectivism. I think if I had read it earlier, I would have been confused by it.

Lucent, I think your policy of asking if anyone minded your smoking was perfectly "moral." You recognized that other people don't always appreciate being around a smoker, and since your smoking was something you could control with little inconvenience to you, you were just being considerate of those around you. On the other hand, the smoking ban is absolutely ridiculous. I hate cigarette smoke (most kinds of smoke, actually)--it bothers my eyes, makes me cough, and I despise the smell of it. But for the government to go to privately owned businesses on privately owned real estate, and tell those businesses that they can't allow smoking by their customers, who choose to patronize their establishments, is a huge abuse of government power. Furthermore, the effects of secondhand smoke aren't even well enough established to justify such regulations on something like the harm principle. (I believe Dr. Binswanger cited a statistic at a Q&A session that someone who is around secondhand smoke all the time--like a child with parents who smoke--has his chances of getting lung cancer increased by something like 1/2000th.) The problem is solved easily enough by proprieters exercising their private property rights. Plenty of places (before the smoking bans) didn't allow smoking for one reason or another; others had separate sections for smoking and non, and others still allowed smoking. No one needs to go to a bar or restaurant. Those who wish to remain in smoke-free environments, may do so by only patronizing smoke-free establishments. Letting the market handle things like this is so obvious to me, I wonder how anyone can think otherwise. Oh well...

I too enjoy movies for the entertainment value. However, when it comes to listing my favorites, or even those that are "enjoyable," I would not include those that have disgusted me with their poor sense of life--unless there is some other truly redeeming aspect of the movie, like a superb performance by a particular actor. The reason for this is that I view art or entertainment as primarily a source of "fuel" for my own outlook on life (similar to what Rand suggested in The Romantic Manifesto). That is, if I'm going to spend my time on it, it had better give me something that I want or crave: some belly laughs, inspiration, or just a benevolent outlook on life. My tastes tend toward the "lighter" side when it comes to movies, but the more dramatic movies I enjoy usually have a particularly inspiring character or two. That being said, AutoJC, why did you like Mystic River? I haven't seen it, but the previews I saw made it seem like an excruciating movie to watch. But I would like to hear what about it appealed to you. On to some of my favorites: Amelie (full French title: Le Fabul Destin d'Amelie Poulain)--some of it's a little silly or mystical, but the important aspects are: despite her parents' fearful outlooks, a young woman takes a few chances, acts benevolently towards others, and finds love. It just leaves me feeling happy. Elizabeth--Cate Blanchett's performance is wonderful. Seabiscuit Chocolat High Fidelity--clever and some great music. Shakespeare in Love Some Like it Hot--for the laughs and Marilyn Monroe. Charlotte Gray--another Cate Blanchett film, I don't believe this one was in wide release, but it was very, very good--about a Scottish woman who joins the French resistance during WWII. Cold Mountain--although the very end soured it for me. Big Fish

Hi karkar. I think it's admirable that you're trying to understand your brother in this way. I find life very satisfying, for many reasons. The number one reason is that I pursue values in my life for myself alone. I am not worried about pleasing a higher power or society, nor do I feel the need to credit any one else with my own successes. That means that I do what makes me happy, and I don't feel guilty for doing so. Doing so requires a great deal of personal responsibility, too. If I'm not happy, I don't blame someone else, but I also know that I can work to improve my situation. I definitely experience emotions, to the fullest! But I don't let them rule my decisions, and if I'm feeling badly for some reason, I try to figure out what the reason is so that I can improve my mental state. I certainly value joy in those who I care for, like my family and friends. In addition, I empathize with their sadness. This does not in any way contradict this philosophical position; I want all the people that I value to be as well-off as they can be. What Matt said. Also, if you really want to understand your brother more fully, I would suggest that you try to read a little something by Ayn Rand. Her novelette Anthem is very accessible and a useful introduction to the basics. It's only about 120 very short pages, and can be read in 1 to 2 days--it's even worth the time just for entertainment, it's just that good.

my amazingly creative AIM name: CGreenberg99

CapFor, since you started this thread, I hope you'll corral us if you feel that we're straying too much from the topic. Skywalker, you raise some interesting points. I think Rand's response to evolutionary/instinctual points is often to dismiss them as neither necessary nor sufficient for explaining something about human behavior (given our rational faculty, we are not tied to instinct), but I think that in this case they must play some role. The biology of the human body cannot be ignored when it comes to sex, at least, and the value Rand places on sex between committed partners further implies this. Not being a scientist, though, I really can't say more on that subject. From anecdotal evidence (my own personal experience), I find myself attracted to men who seem "manly" in physical appearance and demeanor. But I value mental strength equally in myself (and other women) and in men, so this would seem to leave the purely physical element, but that can't be right. Romantic love, obviously, is mainly not based in the physical, but in the mental. Perhaps the appeal of outward/physical strength is simply a prerequisite to evaluate a man for further consideration as a romantic partner. How does it work the other way? What do men look for in women, then? This is where the problem of definitions comes up. Are there specifically "female" attributes, other than Rand's defintion of femininity (i.e., the worship of metaphysical masculinity)?

Many thanks to you three, I really appreciated all of your responses. (Lucent, how is your arm?) As time goes on, I become more and more attracted to joining the military, even as I discover the complications it will add to my life. Socionomer, that is exactly how I hoped to fit "military" ethics into my own belief system, though it seems that even doing so there would still be plenty of opportunities for frustration. I am also deeply concerned about the civilian leadership, but I also feel that the situation in the world is too dire for me to not do everything I can, even if it does mean placing myself in a position where I run the risk of being at the mercy of politicians. But maybe that is my youth speaking. I also feel that I have a lot to gain personally from serving. In particular, it is this Ayn Rand quote (from "Philosophy:Who Needs It?") that inspires me: "You have chosen to risk your lives for the defense of this country. I will not insult you by saying that you are dedicated to selfless service--it is not a virtue in my morality. In my morality, the defense of one's country means that a man is personally unwilling to live as the conquered slave of any enemy, foreign or domestic. This is an enormous virtue." And that was in 1974, not long after the worst misuse of the American military to date. I believe that the War on Terror (despite the silly name and often wrong-headed tactics) is vital to the survival of American freedom. Non-military Objectivists, I'd like to hear from you, too.

I think this is a fascinating and extremely difficult topic. In "About a Woman President" (in VOR) Rand wrote: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship--the desire to look up to man. 'To look up' does not mean dependence, obedience, or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments [...] 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 [...] 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." The biggest problem for me is that she does not define masculinity. Now, we could look at Howard Roark and John Galt to see what Rand's concept of an ideal man is, but this is further complicated by the fact that Rand specifically states that masculinity is not any "human virtue" a woman might lack. So what can it be? In the same essay, Rand encourages readers to look at the "basic motivation" of Dagny Taggert as illustrative of that of an ideal rational woman. It's been a while since I read Atlas, but what stands out to me about Dagny is mostly her perseverance, her ambition, her willingness to take risks--and her business sense. All of these seem to me to be characteristics that are equally present in Rand's heroes. While Rand's heros and heroines seem to have many personality traits in common, the main differences occur among the physical descriptions of Dagny and Dominique versus those of Roark, Galt, etc. While I don't want to say that all of the differences between men and women are in their physical traits (nor do I want to deny that there are differences), I think that Rand herself did attribute at least some of the difference(s) to the physical, especially the different "roles" physiologically "played" by the man and the woman during intercourse, specifically that the man, essentially, thrusts, and the woman receives. (I'm basing this on an audio-taped lecture by Dr. Peikoff that I last listened to two summers ago. The tape was entitled "Love, Sex, and Romance," and I believe the portion I'm referring to was in the Q&A section, though I can't remember very well. If I'm paraphrasing anything incorrectly, please feel free to point it out to me.) While I understand this explanation, I'm not entirely sure what the implications are. Furthermore, if femininity is to worship masculinity, what is a man's relationship to a woman? That is, does he, as a man, worship her femininity? That clearly doesn't make any sense, for to do so would, by Rand's definition, mean that he worships her worship of him. Why doesn't Rand talk about heroine-worship? Frankly, I don't think she believed such an attribute could exist. Well, I've raised more questions than I've answered (in fact, I don't believe I've answered any), and there are a few more I'd like to raise, but I think for now I will just put this out there and see if y'all have any comments.

I'm still a newbie here myself, but I'm happy to step up to the plate and be the first to welcome you to the forum, Aaron. I was planning to be an English lit major, but I became so frustrated with courses like "Reading and Writing the Body" and "Renaissance Sexualities" that I dropped it, and I'm just a minor now (Poli Sci major). How's the department down there at UVA?

Ooh, Socionomer, hop on over to my thread in this Misc. forum called "Objectivists in the military"--I'd love to have you weigh in on the topic.

That's very funny. I did well on the paper, though I only quoted Rand once or twice and mainly used other sources. (And yes, the quote was from "Patents and Copyrights" in CUI). This year I've been working on my senior oral thesis on private property theory and my advisor (a different poli sci prof) asked which sources I saw lining up with my own views the most. I tentatively mentioned Rand, saying that I realized she was not very popular at Swat, and surprisingly, he responded by saying that it didn't matter, if I wanted to use Rand it wasn't a problem! But he's probably the only prof in the department who has ever taken her seriously--he's a socialist, but he's done a lot of work on Nozick, so I guess he was a little more open to "entertaining" such ideas. (Sorry I took so long to respond, Ash.)

Hi AspiringObjectivist, Welcome from one newbie to another. Where in Philly are you? I'm out in the 'burbs.

I like reading "intellectual histories." I was a smart kid, and it always bugged me that my peers would make fun of me for getting good grades and for reading. I was also raised as an atheist, very different from my mostly-Catholic friends. I didn't really think about "existing for one's own sake," but I certainly wasn't into community service, and when we studied Buddhism in my 9th grade "Civilizations" class, I thought "life is suffering" was a crock, even though many others seemed to accept this as "deep." My older brother has been studying Objectivism for a long time, and in high school he used read me short passages from Ayn Rand's work, mostly Capitalism and The Virtue of Selfishness, I think. Eventually I read Anthem, and then in my senior year of high school, The Fountainhead. That, of course, got me hooked, but I knew right away that these were ideas that others thought crazy or even "dangerous," so I didn't speak up too much about it. My parents were liberals, and my dad especially, though a brilliant man, was pretty hostile to anything related to Rand. My freshman year of college, a close friend sent me what I called my Ayn Rand kit: OPAR, the Lexicon, Ayn Rand postal stamps (I still have some) and Rachmaninov's 4 piano concertos. It wasn't until September 11 that I really started taking philosophy seriously, though. I read more Rand (though I still don't have a handle on OPAR), and found myself increasingly alone in the sea of liberalism that is my school. My junior year, I wrote a paper on intellectual property for an independent study with a professor I really liked, and I used a quote from Rand. Her response? A comment that Rand is not an "academic" source. This is the first year, however, that I've started arguing from an Objectivist perspective. For the most part before I would keep quiet in class, unless I had something uncontroversial, or something that wouldn't be labeled "conservative" to say. As smart as people here are, they don't grasp the subtleties of any thought that is not liberal--if it's not liberal, it's conservative. A select few have noticed that I have "libertarian leanings," and I usually leave it at that. For some reason, the name Ayn Rand (which everyone insists on pronouncing "Ann") either raises people's ire or makes them dismiss me out of hand.

Hi Circe (and others), No, I haven't been to Penn State's club. Penn State is about 3 hours from here, so it would be a little out of range, though I should look into it to see if there are any interesting events there. Are you from PA?

I wanted to hear from you all about your thoughts on the U.S. military. I've found at least one servicemember on these boards, but even if you don't have any experience with/near the military, I'd like to hear your opinions. I'll be graduating from college in May and I've been thinking a lot about what I'm going to do next. In high school, I never ever would have considered joining the military--it was very, very far from my own sheltered experience. Close to 3 years ago, however, I met a Marine, who has since become my best friend; and then, of course, September 11 happened. Since then, I have been increasingly concerned with the defense of the U.S., and increasingly aware of the work done by the men and women of the Armed Forces. Over the past year, I started wondering what it would be like to join the military after graduating--I've met a lot of Marines over the past few years, and also had an opportunity this fall to get to know a number of West Point cadets, some of the most impressive people I have ever met. So, to get to my questions. I know that Ayn Rand respected those who serve (see "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"). But what about the requirements of serving? I believe that joining the military is not a sacrifice, but the ultimate expression of one who acknowledges that in this world, freedom must be protected--the individual who will fight to protect his/her own freedom, as well as the system that guarantees that freedom. But all of the services preach self-sacrifice and duty (as well as other more laudable values), and that is what trips me up. Would you willingly associate yourself with an organization whose main mission is something you believe in, but whose means of achieving that mission (particularly in training) are contrary to your values? I believe that there are some very basic contradictions between the tenets of the military and the values of Objectivism--the service part is one, the emphasis on religion another...etc. What do you all think? Are any of you active or former servicemembers? Do you know anyone who is? Do you know any Objectivists in the military? What are your/their experiences? If you don't have any direct experience with the military, what you think about this situation? I have some more thoughts on the issue, but I'd like to put this out there first and see what you all have to say, then maybe add more later. In case anyone wants to know, if I do really look into joining up, I'd consider the Marine Corps before any other branch.

Hi everyone. I've been lurking around here for a while, and since I just posted for the first time (on another thread) I figure it's about time to introduce myself. I am a senior at Swarthmore College, an institution located on Crum Creek in Pennsylvania and once described by Spiro T. Agnew as "the Kremlin on the Crum." It's a nickname that still fits pretty well. I wouldn't call myself an Objectivist yet, as I am still learning, but I have been studying Objectivism off-and-on since my senior year of high school, and fairly seriously for the past year. I am a PoliSci major/English lit minor, and I intend to go to law school in the near future. I'll be graduating in May, and between now and law school, I have no idea what I'm going to do--though studying Objectivism is certainly part of the plan. At law school I hope to study IP law, and perhaps international law--maybe even both together. I love reading; listening to music of many kinds; dancing; travelling; looking at beautiful things, and making things around me beautiful; editing; photography; comedy; arguing about international and domestic events. I've met a couple of Objectivists my own age though the Objectivist club at UPenn/Drexel, but that's about it. It's very refreshing to read this board and see that Objectivist thinking is alive and well amongst us youngsters (and the young-at-heart). Thanks to those of you who facilitate/administrate the board, it's a great opportunity for the rest of us. --Carla, who couldn't think of a clever nickname for the board

Hi Chanticleer, While Rand certainly believed in equal rights for men and women (as for all human beings), she didn't specifically write about "gender issues" that much--I think she wasn't as interested in it as she was in other, "bigger" issues. I think she saw it as almost a non-issue, as if this kind of equality should be self-evident. (Please note that the above are just my thoughts, what I've gathered from reading much of her work, and not established fact by any means.) She definitely would not have thought that women should have more "traditional" roles in the home. That being said, here are a few places where Rand referenced women's roles, etc.: In "An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President)", originally printed in The Objectivist she discusses "the essence of femininity," which to her is "hero-worship--the desire to look up to man"; also, "the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity. She also outlines why this "primarily pscychological" issue would mean that a rational women would never wish to be president of the U.S. This essay was reprinted as "About a Woman President" in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought. "Playboy's Interview of Ayn Rand" also has some interesting statements about women and careers and stay-at-home moms. She says that staying at home is not a full-time career, except when children are very young, but if a woman does choose it as her career, she must approach it as such by investigating it scientifically. This interview is often passed out as a pamphlet at Objectivist lectures and the like; you can probably request it from ARI. Excerpts are published in the AR Lexicon. There might be a few more, but as I said before, I'm pretty sure Rand discussed her views fully in (non-fiction) published work (though as AshRyan mentioned below, Atlas Shrugged laid it out pretty well. In particular, I've often wished that she had discussed her ideas of masculinity and femininity much more fully--the essay I mentioned above has frustrated me many times with its ambiguousness. I also think I mostly disagree with her there (it might be the only topic I could say that about!), but if she had explained it more, I might have found a little more common ground with her thoughts.