IAmMetaphysical

The context we are talking about is "need" for the life of a rational man. If you want to include in the concept man, a wife, 2.5 kids, a mansion, etc. then go ahead. I won't stop you. Dan Edge is trying to make a universal statement about the nature of man, and describing monogamy as a need, presumably because it aids a man in living his life. My point is that "qua man" does not mean "to the fullest possible extent a man can achieve values" it simply means the life of man committed to reason, who produces no more than he consumes, and regards himself as worthy of consuming his products.

You mean "sexual attraction is a response to values" right? Sex, the act, is about what?

You're right in saying that to exist, something can just be an attribute of something "tangible." Entities are a type of existent, i.e. something that exists, but attributes of and relationships among entities also exist and are existents. To exist is to be, that is to have some sort of reality. A jump is intangible but it exists as an action of something that has tangibility. One thing to keep in mind is that, metaphysically, entities have primacy, in that there can be no existence of attributes or relationships or actions apart from the entities that act or are related or have attributes. Attributes have a special relationship to entities in that one gains knowledge of entities only through its attributes and thus an entity is inseparable from the entity that possesses it, whereas an entity can exist without acting, e.g. jumping, or relating to other entities, e.g. being behind a car. In this sense "an entity is its attributes," which is another way to say "existence is identity."

My point is that what "need" means, it means requirement for survival, at the basic level. Everything above that is gravy.

What about the sex threads?? Woe unto he who creates a thread about tipping prostitutes.

The point is in your use of "need." The reason I posted the cardinal values is because they are derived from aiding man's bodily physical survival. Value can not be separated from life, and one sustains one's life qua man by committing oneself to reason, being physically productive, and feeling worthy of physical survival. These are the basic and only needs if "need" is to have a real, rational meaning in terms of aiding man's survival.

The standard of value is life, and "life qua man" does not equal "the best that the best man could achieve," or "life qua John Galt." Living qua man means living the life of a rational being, which means "the life of an independently thinking man." There aren't any milestones to be reached, no necessary levels of achievement, no necessary acheivement of value. A rational man is one who produces, not one who does a certain amount or type of production. A rational man is one who has pride, i.e. a committment to moral ambitiousness, not a man who settles for a certain level of moral worth. A rational man is honest, not one who aspires to simply never tell a lie to others. A rational man pursues values, and while certain values are important to his survival as a rational thinking man, not all of them are. The three identified by Ayn Rand are: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem. One need not be in a relationship with another human being to attain any of these three values. Reason requires the use of your mind, and the mind is not shared among romantic partners. One's purpose should be one's productive work, not the relationships one has with others. Self-esteem is built from one's own evaluation of one's character, not the fact that one sees some or all of the values one aspires to in another, one need only look at oneself to find the data needed to esteem oneself. Now we can go on all day about how it is necessary to have a two door garage and a wife and 2.5 children in order to be living "qua man," but only as long as we lose sight of the fact that "means of survival" is the standard of making reason and rationality cardinal needs for a man to live as a rational being. Dependant irrational people need others in there life in order to feel like life is worth living. Rational people need only their mind, body and freedom, i.e. their mind, body, and mind free from others.

I think that my sense of self is based on my introspection, not extrospecting on some other person who is like me. Another person serves as an object of the values I value, but not as an object that mirrors me, obviously because I am heterosexual and desire women who look nothing like me(although I do have a fine ass). Beyond the physical, I value those things in my partner because they are a value, not because I possess them as well. I possess them in fact because they are a value. This ties into your other essay about loving the optional facts of your physical existence simply because you possess them. While I think it is proper to value the particular characteristics of your physical existence, I find it improper to regard them as a higher objective value in the way your other essay at least implies. (If this is not your stance then please elaborate as it seems that you are saying "blue eyes are better than green eyes because I have blue eyes" instead of "I value the fact that I have eyes, which happen to be blue, but I would value them just as much if they were green.") I do not regard my gf as a part of me or as a reflection of me. She is her own person, with her own particular manifestations of value. She is an object to my eyes, but she is an end in herself and a subject for herself, I never lose sight of this fact: while she is MY girlfriend, she is not MINE, she is hers.

How does non-monogamy prevent one from pursuing long-term romances?

I think this point is important. You must realize that "space" is a relational concept and as such only describes relationships among entities and is not itself an entity, therefore it need not be bound by such limitations as finitude. So since space is not material, it can not possess and edge, only entities possess edges.

No. Outside of existence there is no "is" or "there." Your problem is your reification of a zero, i.e. giving actuality to nothingness. Nothingness isn't, it doesn't exist, has no identity, and can not be described or spoken about.

Without specifics being known: If you have hurt him in the past and he hasn't forgiven you enough not to feel like the fact that you hurt him gives him license to hurt you, then you really shouldn't be together as that is not the proper foundation for a relationship. Relationships should be about the enjoyment of each other, not trying to get away with things and using past wrongdoings as some sort of justification for sadism. On a more general note: Your standard of forgiveness should not be that the other person is sorry. Forgiveness should be granted only when the other person shows remorse AND a committment to preventing the same mistake from occuring again, only when you are sure that the other person UNDERSTANDS how and why they were wrong and that they mean to correct it for the future is it proper to forgive them, their being sorry(but not sorry enough) definately does not cut it. No. You should never accept another person's emotional outbursts and screaming in the context of romantic communication, not as a proper way of dealing with your issues. Emotions are good at the identification of how your partner is feeling, and he should be allowed to show his anger, BUT he must be given the time to cool down and when he is cooled off HE MUST be willing to talk reasonably and calmly about why he was feeling angry, and how you two will work that issue out. If his emotional outbursts are so prevalent as to keep you constantly on edge, then you need to talk with him about YOUR feelings CALMLY, and explain to him that while it is ok for him to become angry, it is not okay for him to treat his anger as an unquestionable fact of life. If this doesn't work, and you feel that rational calm discussion is immpossible with him, then you should end the relationship, if you value yourself. Doing things "for yourself" does not necessitate that others wouldn't want it too. It is possible and proper for your selfish actions to benefit others, they need not be at another's expense to be "for you." I suspect that you have some resentment toward him and are wanting to not be tidy just to spite him. If that's the case, if your motivations for your actions are to either please another or to displease another, is anything you do really "for you?"

There can be no talk of "IS" outside of existence or Identity.

Would you be providing an actual service, i.e. would you be doing something, like converting CO2 to something else?

Yup.

But you get what you pay for.(collectively in the case of tips) In the case of a person not tipping, they are benefitting from the overall tips provided by everyone else. For example: you go to a restaurant and the waiter gives you the best service they can because they want to garner the best tip possible. Four people before you tipped that waiter $4, $8, $4, and $2 respectively. The waiters average tip is then is $4.50 for each of those people before you. This is what the waiter is expecting from you, and his level of service will reflect that. If the average for that restaurant is lower, he will probably be less motivated; higher, more motivated. You of course are not obligated to even contribute to the average if you don't want, so your tip of $0 makes his average$3.60 over five people. For the most part, since the waiter is waiting on you for the first time usually, they are servicing you based on an average they expect from all of their customers' tipping. When you contribute nothing, you are lowering the average and benefitting from the tips of others. When you tip higher than the average you are helping increase the average and possibly the waiter's motivation for the night. (notice that most tip earner count their tips based on a night and not the individual tippers) One can gain a reputation for being a big tipper and can reap the benfits of that of course.

Labels ultimately are not important. I frankly don't care if I am an Objectivist or not, or whether you think I am or not. I care about being right about reality.

I have read The Romantic Manifesto. I have read nearly every other book as well. The ones I haven't are the letters, journals, and the art of non-fiction and fiction. To echo what Mrock said: as an Objectivist, my main concern is reality, not Objectivist literature. I happen to think that Rand agreed with me on this, but I am really not concerned with proving that, as it would not help my case one bit. I'm guessing you think that "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" is also overly simplistic, or "Reason is man's basic tool of survival," or "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." I'm guessing you would prefer that certain cocnepts were kept vauge and complex and never sumplified in one's conscious understanding? If not, then why don't YOU explain it? The "Ugh" was at the fact of their asking. The "I don't care" means that she doesn't care if I choose to be monogamous or if I choose to find other lovers. Her main concern is that I choose to be rational, and choose to be with her. I was trying to essentialize them, of course the concept will subsume ALL the characteristics of its referents, not just the defining or essential ones. (See I have read ITOE Tabitha, have you????)

For the most part, I do not wish to limit her experience of value. I do not necessarily recommend that she actively search for lovers, but if I ever came across an amazing man that I know she would love, then I'd introduce them. I do take pleasure in her experiencing pleasure, whether by my hand or by anothers, but I would not force her to pursue another relationship if she did not want to. In the same respect I do not actively pursue other women, but if I came across an amazing woman I would pursue a sexual/romantic relatonship with her. I do not think it is an obligation to have sex with as many people as possible, only that if it is a value and if she wants to do it, I am no one to stop her, and to sacrifice the value that is my relationship with her because she wants to engage in rational, life affirming activities with others would be against my self interest. I do not believe that I have a claim on her life or her choices. As long as she is rational, she is a value to me. If she becomes irrational, by having promiscuous irrational sex, then she will cease being a value to me and our relationship will dissolve. I make no demands, but I also make no compromises or sacrifices, and vice versa. The same could be said of you. Such fallaciousness isn't becoming. I don't think the feeling is that different, I just think it is accompanied by other feelings (such as jealousy) in your case. I may be wrong, in which case, if you do not experience jealousy at the thought of your man having wonderful sex with another, then correct me. I have no problem with a situation like that. I think it is totally fine to make that choice for yourself, to choose not to, or to not be interested in having sex with anyone but one's life partner. I just think that it is self sacrificial to not allow the other person the same free choice. To demand that you be someone else's one and only, and restrict them from the value of other relationships, at the cost of not being with them is to lose the value that is their relationship for the sake of their lack of sacrifice(as it would be for them to not engage in the rational enjoyment of their life with others that they want to engage in.) Can you at least try to describe the feeling? I agree. (depending on the feeling you're talking about, I tend to speculate that this "feeling" is the false self-esteem achieved by believing that one is the best lover in the world simply because the other person is "satisfied" with only you. I don't necessarily propose that that is the feeling you're describing, but in my experience talking to people who want monogamy, that is what they are trying to achieve, but alas they are usually quite irrational.) You're begging the question, hard-core. I just asked her. She said "Ughh! I don't care," so I guess the answer is indifference. What my esteemed colleague Mrocktor said. Doesn't make it undescribable. The emotional response to values is not different. Romantic love is [emotional response to values]+sex, intimacy. Platonic love is [emotional response to values]-sex, intimacy. Motherly love is [emotional response to values]+nurturing, guidance, etc. "Romantic," "Platonic," and "Motherly" are qualifiers on the emotion of love, they do not change its fundamental nature.

The context I am keeping is that people have accused me of not loving my gf, simply because I do not wish to put shackles on her feet. Now, if my view is irrational and mistaken, it would still not make the emotion I feel for her any less valid or true. It has been asserted that the nature of romantic love is different from platonic love. It is far from supported and even farther from being validated. It has not been shown how a romantic relationship REQUIRES exclusivity, not by a long-shot.

Do you need only one friend? Should you not have more than one friend as that would signify that you're not totally satisfied with having only one?

Nor did I say that they did. Love is not something only rational people can experience.

My relationship with my gf is about a lot more than sex. Basically, to state it shortly: she is attractive, enjoys sex for the right reasons, is honest, smart, and good at it.

It is one thing to state your views like this: I think that someone who would share their lover doesn't really love them, and to state it like this: I think that when you find a better girl than the one you have, you'll think differently. One is a statement of a view, the other is condescending and has no place in a RATIONAL discussion.