IAmMetaphysical

Love is not an action, its a re-action, an emotioanl response to values. Loving someone does not mean you won't beat them or yell at them, people often abuse the things they value. Like I said, I wasn't talking to you. I know you don't care whether you're being insulting or innapropriate or over the line when it comes to rational discussions. I figured Dan might be a little more courteous than you are.

If the desire to be admired is the desire to admire those that would admire you, for their admiration of you, then you're okay. (if you can untanlge that I'll give you a candy)

I am reformulating Objectivist politics, and the principle of rights. You say that it contains "life, liberty, and property" and that I only include "percieve, concieve, and act"? Well lets look at these shall we?? Life FOR MAN means the use of his tool of survival--HIS MIND. His mind must be able to perceive, conceive, and then put his ideas into practice in order to create the values he needs to sustain his life. Liberty for man, means the ability to use his mind and translate his thoughts into action, without compulsion from others. Man is a being of body and mind so both must be free, but since all action starts in the mind, the mind being free is most important. He must be able to perceive(mind) conceive(mind), and then act(body). Property is that which a man has produced by the work of his mind and his body. property are the values that he has created for the furtherance of his life. property are the end results of his percieving, conceiving, and acting. Rights are not about resolving conflicts between two men who "want" to do contradictory things. The right to life for man, is the right to use his mind, which means that he has a right not to be dissallowed to use his mind, not that he has a right to use his mind in order to restrict others from using theirs. EVERY man has a right to his mind, which means that every man must NOT impinge on another man's ability to use his mind. If one man wants to build a house(legitimately use his mind) and another wants to stop him, the second man is violating the first's right to use his mind. A man may decide the best route for his passage, but since the golf course owner has right to the products of his mind, the rancher must respect it, and take that into account when he decides his route. AGAIN: no man has the right to violate rights.

I wasn't talking to you so I don't care whether or not you want to discuss it with me or not, its hardly a secret that we do not like each other. I wasn't insulted, but his statement was insulting as it insinuated that I don't love(value highly with emotional responses) my gf. I find that laughable, but just as if someone would make light of the value of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, or Objectivism a la Stephen Colbert, it is disgusting and offensive when people make light of my feelings for my gf. I know Dan, there was no offense taken. I am truly, madly, deeply in love with my gf, and that's why I would smile and be happy at her experience of pleasure. I value her too much to ask her to sacrifice a value for my sake or for any reason. Maybe an elaboration is in order as to what types of behaviour I would not accept from her. If she were to have self-sacrificial sex, irrational sex, or sex with someone I thought was not good enough, then it would be a problem for me. This doesn't mean she has to gain my approval before having sex with someone, only that she knows my standards and that they are reality oriented and moral and that they coincide with hers anyway. I don't take offense, sorry to get you all paranoid. I have read your essay, and while I may agree with you about the value of psychological visibility, I do not think that the distinction ebtween my gf's existence and mine becomes non-existent. We are two different people and her having sex with someone is not her sullying my image. (That's at least the gist of what I got out of your essay. Why do you assume that the sex I would have with others than my girlfriend would be detached from emotion? I already told you that the values that make me want to have sex with my gf are the same types of values I would have sex anybody else. I have sex with her and with them for the exact same types of reasons, of course with her there are different emotions to be experienced and she is a different person, but fundamentally the reasons are the same. I find it insulting to insinuate to a person that they don't experience a certain emotion, especially an emotion that strong. It is incredibly presumptuous to try to dictate to someone what their emotional states are.

I know you probably had good intentions, but look at this carefully and try to see why to someone who loves their gf immensely, how insulting this statement is.

This is exactly my point. Having pleasure as a value is not the same as regarding pleasure as the standard of value. I regard pleasure as a value, that serves my life. Tabitha accuses me of hedonism, which regards pleasure as the standard of value. I do not, I regard life as the standard.

So then orgasms have no value to you? Or do you see that they aren't necessarily "short-range"?

So then you shun physical pleasure?

Well, we disagree there so maybe that's where the confusion lies. Sex is an act that celebrates the body's capacity to experience and share physical and emotional pleasure. I explciitly stated that I do not want to have kids with those people who aren't my "top value." Where the hell do you get that I want to have kids with people who aren't?

Like I said, I am not currently looking elsewhere for romance, but if it comes along I will have the option open for whether or not I would like to enjoy it. I do not think that "needing" something is the only justification for trying to obtain something. Of course, sex is a psychological "need" but it is also an "end in itself," i.e. its enjoyment is its own reward.

There is no contradiction. I choose to have sex with my gf by the same standard as I choose to have sex with anyone else. I choose to start a family with my gf for other reasons. Having sex with someone, and starting a family with someone are two different things. Different things can have different standards without violating the Law of Identity.

First of all: I use REASON to support my arguments, not Rand. If this is a problem for you then I would be glad to cease the discussion. The standard of value for having sex with anybody including my gf are exactly the same. The standard for having a live-in lifelong partner with whom I intend to start a family with is at a different level. My gf fulfills both.

All claims of a right are of the negative kind and are an explicit prohibition on the actions of others, the prohibition that they must not violate his right to use his mind WHEN USING HIS MIND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF ANOTHER TO USE HIS. A man does not have the right to use his mind in order to prevent others from using theirs, that would deflate the meaning and purpose of rights, this is elementary Objectivist politics, and I am surprised that a person whose handle is "Capitalism Forever" would not grasp that.

Thanks a lot. I read it to my gf after writing and said "This is brilliant! If this doesn't convince them, I don't know what will!" I worry that that might include deliberately getting someone's attention with a "hey you!" as being lumped in with the deliberate pink light. Also: Would a deliberate annoyance such as "nanny-nanny-poo-poo" be illegal then? Can you clarify on the distinction you're making?

Yes, and ask: "What did he do that you liked so much?" in order to learn. Well I assume that when a person asks "What is Objectivism's view on x" they mean "What arguments does Objectivism have in favor of or against x" But you may be right, some people may just want assertions from Ayn Rand or Peikoff. I think you're making certain assumptions about the nature of the sex I am talking about, like that I mean one night stands or sex for physical pleasure's sake or what have you. I don't mean those things. If I meet someone that I would enjoy having a lifelong friendship with and have sex with, then I will do both and enjoy a lifelong relationship with them. I choose to have the sort of lifelong relationship with my gf that includes a family because I like her philosohpy on raising kids.

Oh my god man! She was probably referring to Nathaniel Branden as the mistake. But I don't want to get into a discussion abotu who is on Ayn Rand's side anyway. And who gives a damn what Peikoff says if he gives NO ARGUMENT!?

I am saying that her statements concerning it are an application of philosophy, much like the science of law is an application of the philosophy of politics. In regards to negative identification this is my point: telling us what something isn't does not necessarily tell us that much about what it is, just like telling us that God is infinite, incomprehensible, non-spatial, etc tell us nothing positive about him, they also don't tell us anything about him in actual concrete terms. Like if I said that a color was "not blue," you couldn't tell if it was red, yellow, green, purple, lavender, or the myriad of colors that fit the description of "not blue."

Yup, which goes to show you that our disagreement is more fundamental than ethics.

If sex is not necessarily hedonistic, then sex with someone outside one's "main" relationship is not necessarily hedonistic. There is nothing about having sex with more than one person that makes the act itself immoral, immoral sex rests on different factors like choice of partners, whether or not its divorced from moral value, or sado-masochistic for example. When I say "life partner" i mean "someone you intend to be with for the rest of your life, or for a very long time at least." A person who I intend to share my life with in the long run must be very compatible with me in a variety of different ways and areas of our lives. Someone who I choose to have sex with must only be compatible in a relatively smaller way. This does not mean that they will be less in my estimation, only that they do not make a good candidate for living with and raising kids with. There are certain standards for who I will go to bed with, they are just lesss trict than who I will choose to start a family with. If it was a friend who I thought she should have and would enjoy a sexual relationship with as a value then I would encourage her to do so. If this meant she would be having less sex with me, that would be fine. I would not want her to be having sex with me only because I was the only one available, I would rather she chose me because she finds value in it. I would be very happy for her, and smile at her pleasure and happiness. If he was a person I thought she would get value from having sex, I probably would have told him about her. I would not feel terrible at all, I would rejoice in the fact that she is enjoying her life, and can accurately gauge a person's worth. I would feel the exact same way for the exact same reasons. I am offended that you assume that I haven't introspected about it.

I really do not seek them, but I have the option open if I ever find one, because it would be a value to my life. My gf is amazing, and I'm not sure what you mean by "highest." Do you mean "is she the best woman in the world"? Perhaps, I wouldn't know, I haven't tried dating all the women in the world. I know that she is good and thats enough. Do you mean "does she have the characters that you value the most"? She contains the most important and at least one of the ones that are optional, e.g. while I value small breasts and large breasts, she has only large breasts. She is not as fit as I would want her to be, but she is working on that. In the same respect I am not as fit as she would want, but I am working on that. In terms of strictly voltional aspects, she is perfect. The most important criteria for me in choosing a life partner is their level of morality. In terms of a sexual partner, my criteria are a little less strict.

While I agree that actively pursuing multiple partners is not mandatory, I don't see how, if it is a value, its pursuit is immoral. How can pursuing a value be immoral, isn't that the basis of morality? Obviously if its pursuit involves the sacrifice of a higher value then it would be immoral, but it does not necessarily involve sacrifice and I would argue that a person who would not want you to experience pleasure/happiness and values would not be a value to be in a relationship with in the first place. Of course it can signify neediness, but it need not do so necessarily. A number of rational pursuits can be undertaken irrationally by irrational people for irrational reasons, it doesn't make the rational pursuit of such immoral. I have my gf because we intend to be together for the rest of our lives, but at any time if she stops being a value to me or vice versa we will end it and go our separate ways. We are together as long and as much as we are values to each other. In a way, we are both "living single", in the sense that we aren't committed to "always be with each other, under any circumstances." We enjoy each other, and spend a lot of time together, we love each other, and have amazing sex! What significance would commitment add to this relationship except a pretense at ownership and sacrifice?

I hug my golf buddies all the time! When I have sex with my gf I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, her value, her chosen values, etc. WHen I have sex with someone else I am appreciating her body, her mind, her convictions, etc. Why does my appreciation of one's girls value make my appreciation of another girl's value worthless? Is it a betrayal of water to appreciate ice? Is it a betrayal of the atlantic to appreciate the pacific? Is it a betrayal of a friend to appreciate your mother, your lover, your other friends?

The fact is that you don't "make" a home, if "home" is going to include things like "absence of 140db noise." You can not "make" or "create" an absence, you create a presence. You create a house, a yard, a driveway, a street, perhaps a garden, and everything inside the house. The "home" that then exists, i.e. the overall qualities of the space which surrounds your house, yard, garden, etc. are a product of both yourself(for creating the change in the metaphysically given), and the absence of the changes of other humans. You have a right to the absence of other humans on YOUR property, i.e. what you've created, what you've changed about the metaphysically given, but you have no right to demand of them that they obstain from changing the metaphysically given for themselves. They must respect your right to what you've changed of the metaphysically given, but they must not respect the metaphysically given, to do so (in principle) would be their death. The basis of rights is the fact that in order to survive man must use his mind. "Use his mind" here meaning anyway he might be able to do so, and does not preclude irrationality. The nature of the human mind is that it will not work under compulsion, it shuts down, and the mind dies. So in order for men to be able to use their minds, they must be free from compulsion, i.e. physical restriction of the use of their minds or their minds's products. Perceptions, although non-volitional and thus not under that which one can consent to, are not infringements of a man's right to use his mind as "using his mind" presupposes a perceptual content. Man's use of his mind is not pre-perceptual (since the perceptual is given and automatic), but conceptual, which is the taking of the perceptually given and integrating it into concepts and then acting on the understanding of those concepts. Therefore: The right to use one's mind, for man,(which is the basis for all his other rights) means the right to first percieve, and then to integrate his perceptions into conceptions, and then to form generalizations and principles based on those concepts, and then to act on the basis of those generalizations and principles, as long as he does not infringe on any other man's right to do the same. So: the only ways to infringe on a man's rights is to either disallow him to perceive (by creating 140db+ noise which drowns out all other noises, by tying a blindfold around his eyes, by encroaching upon his sense of smell to the point where he cannot function and is overwhelmed), to disallow him to integrate those perceptions (by knocking him unconscious, or any other encroachment upon his being conscious), or by disallowing him to act on those concepts (which is more commonly understood as: chaining his arms and legs, killing him, or stealing the products of his labor). The inversion that occurs when people start expecting that a man has the right NOT to percieve, instead of a right TO perceive, is totally baffling to me. The mind starts with perceptual content and works from there. Unless a perception disables a person from further percieving and using his mind, it can not be an infringment of his rights, as his basic right is the use of his mind UPON the perceptual.

Why make this assumption? Does the existence of Nathaniel Branden make Frank O'Connor totally worthless? Did Ayn Rand really want to leave Frank, was she really dissatisfied with him or did she find another value? Were there unhappy with it? Did they voice their unhappiness, therefore letting their partners know they were unhappy or did that expect their partners to read their minds? When you are honest with someone about wanting to experience the value of sex with someone other than them, they also should be honest with you about how they feel about it and what consequences that action will ave on their psychology, if they want a completely honest and rational relationship with you. You assume that a person who wants to have sex with someone outside their primary relationship is not 100 percent happy with ther partner? Would you say that someone who has more than one golf buddy is not 100 percent happy with his most frequent golf partner? What makes sex so fundamentally different (read: other than specifics, i.e. qua recreational activity engaged in with someone you value) from golf? edit=spellcheck