Kevin

Both of those statements are certainly true (thohghI would insert a "currently" into the second one), but I'm not sure what your point is. Is this in regards to irreducible complexity? The fact that a chair is less complex than a cell doesn't change the fact that removing one step of an evolutionary chain on the microbiological level does not result in the complete loss of any evolutionary advatnage. Making the process more complex simply increases the imporbability of it, thereby requiring more time and a greater sample pool, both of which exist in abundance when one considers the history of the universe. The second point doesn't seem to relate to anything that has been said recently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that scientists have done experiements where they took inanimate matter and generated basic amino acids, the building blocks of life. Granted, this is not the same as churning out a fully grown rhino, but I don't see what you're trying to get at with this statement.

Not quite accurate- you might be able to show that taking away parts of a cell would keep it from functioning exactly as it had before, though David's hair example shows that nt even this is true all the time. Behe's arguments fail to recognize that just because a cell can no longer function as it origincally did, it can still be a benefit to the host organism. Many of these irreducibly complex systems, if taken apart to a degree, have different but still bebeficial properties from an evolutionary standpoint. I would reaffirm Liriodendron's suggestion that you do some follow-up reading to the Black Box, as many of the arguments therein have been refuted (I haven't actually read the book she mentions, but I'm sure it's a good place to start).

The lottery example doesn't really apply, because there doesn't have to be a functional universe out there. They could have all been failures form a life-sustaining standpoint.

Actually, in establishing rational selfishness, Rand did exactly what we are asking of you. I assume you know the details of her proof regarding the necessity of rational thought for the survival of Man, but at the beginning of her argument is the element you are lacking in this case. She begins with a concrete difference between Man and the rest of the animal kingdom- His rational faculty. This is an innate characeristic of Man that sets him apart from the rest of life that we know of, and it forms the foundation of the assertion that Man must live his life differently than other organisms if he is to flourish. Is there a similar difference between men and women that forms the foundation of this argument? The fact that, in your experience, women have worshipped the men they were with is no more compelling than my observation that some haven't done so. I might as well say that, in my experience, God has shown Himself to be true and omnipotent, and if your observation is different, then that's just too bad for you. Clearly this is not any kind of argument an Objectivist would subscribe to, and yet it is precisely this kind of subjective case you are trying to make. The fact that you and Rand share the same view doesn't change that.

I think I'm not expressing the key point well enough here. The issue is not whether people can or do draw happiness from others, it's whether or not thet must do so. That's why I included the example of admiration (which, incidentally, I never claimed to be the same as hero worship, hence the phrase "also a means"). Yes, I may draw strength from people like Rand and Jefferson, but I don't have to in order to live a fulfilled rational life. But, according to you, women do. They must have someone in their life to give them strength or else it is universally impossible for them to life a fully rational life. This is what follows from making hero worship a primary for them, is it not? I agree with JMeganSnow in that it would probably be pretty lonely to be completely by yourself, but to say that rational fulfillment under those conditions is impossible seems like quite a stretch to me, one that differing sexual organs can hardly justify.

That sounds more like a parasite, though perhaps the two terms are synonymous. In any case, isn't a hero-worshipper drawing a life sustaning value from the accomplishments of another person? You can't worship nothing, and in fact Rand says that the object of worship would have to be someone of great virture themselves. In that context, it does seem like living off the productive work of another. And I don't think it matters that the producer in this case doesn't really lose anything in the process. Again, the key factor is the necessity of the worship. Admiring someone for their virtues, or appreciating a beautiful work of art, is also a means of drawing strength or life from another, but it is a compliment to a rational person's life, an added benefit that makes living even more fulfilling. But it should not be the base of that fulfillment, nor should it be a requirement for happiness. A hypothetical for the group- could a man lead a rationally fulfilling life alone on a deserted island? Really, the island part is unnecessary. How about just without other human contact, assuming he had the means to sustain his life. Could a woman?

Actually, in this we agree. I also think they are irrelevant. I used them because they are the only differences I found mentioned in this thread, the only attempts to supply some kind of justification for Rand's claim. What I would like to know is, what differences are relevant? Do you agree that in order to back up this assertion, one would need to establish some kind of universal difference between men and women? I think that it is you who missed the point about the relationship between sex and hero worship. I agree that they are both pleasure-giving interactions requiring interaction with others. But, would you agree that sex, or in fact romance in general, are not essential to Man's surivival qua Man? I believe that Rand would- after all, Roark didn't need Dagny in order to be fulfilled. He made it clear that his work was more important to his survival as a man. And this seems to be as it should be. So, sex and hero worship, given your understanding of hero worship, differ in that one is necessary for rational fulfillment (at least for women), and one is not. Maybe my conception of second-handers is off somewhat, and if so I'd be happy to know what your own definition is, but actually requiring another person, rather than simply desiring one, in order to achieve happiness seems like it qualifies.

Sigh. In my response, I mentioned all of the differences I observed in dispute in the previous posts, and argued why each one was insufficient for establishing such a claim. Again, at what point was my reasoining faulty? As for coitus, that's an interesting point. Does Rand say that coitus is a necessary aspect of a fulfilled, rational life? I remember a past thread disussing Roark's sex life before he met Dominique. Something about cold, unemotional affairs meant simply to sustain a biological need. But in that case, wouldn't masturbation suffice equally as well? This seems like it might veer off in another direction, so maybe I'll stick to the original question- is sex absolutely necessary for the happiness of a rational being, or is it an optional, if significant interaction, built upon the already sufficient foundation of one's self-centered existence?

Daedalus, I'd still like to know what part of my initial post (page 9, fifth from the top) you feel to be illogical or incomplete. I understand that you're interest lies in defending Objectivism, and my primary concern is with what part of my reasoning is contrary to Objectivist principle. A general question about hero worship- if a woman is only rationally complete, or satisfied, when she has a man above her whom she can exalt, is this not a form of second-handedness? It seems like it places the focus, or the foundation of woman's happiness outside of herself. Even if hero worhip requires a woman to be rationally demanding of herself and her object of worship, the fact remains that that necessary focus is something other than herself. If hero worhip is not absolutely necessary for a woman, but simply a common element in women's lives that adds to their fulfillment, then the second-handedness seems less of an issue. But to call it necessary...am I missing something?

It's true, your acceptance of an idea does not require convincing me. but I would question why you are here on a dicussion forum if not to impart and suport your views. We have all read Rand's views on the subject, so there is no need to continually quote the same passage. But appealing to an authority, even Ayn Rand, does not substitue for actual thought. You can keep repeating the mantra that hero worship is the essence of woman qua woman, but it's not getting any more convincing. The wuote you included just moves the assertion from your mouth to Rand's, and while I have great respect for her philosophy, it doesn't mean that I accept every word that leaves her mouth without rational scrutiny. Great, hero worship is a virtuous and demanding task. I don't disagree. But nowhere in that quote is there any actual evidence for it being an essential part of womanhood. If you are fully convinced, tell me why. If you disputed my origianl arguments in an earlier post, I confess that I'm unable to find it. Can you, or can someone else, explain what these essential differences are between man and woman, or why the three that I identified and discarded deserve more attention?

A few things. First, there's no reason to regard my reasoning as inherently superior. I've asked you several times to critique the reasoning in my previous post, and I'd be happy to compare my rational argument with your own, once you supply one. Second, you are the one making the positive assertion here, yes? To claim that woman are fundamentally different than men puts the ball in your court, and the onus of proof is on you. You don't have to bow to my superior forces of reason, but you do have to present some reason for your claim. Third, I'm not asking for a ase by case analysis of your female experience. If you asked me to defend the assertion that gravity operates in a certain way on the planet Earth, I wouldn't need to give you a play by play of every time I dropped an object from height. I could simply state that every time I dropped an object in this context, it fell as suspected. Can you make similar generaliations about the nature of women that stand up to repeated testing and lead you to your assertion? As for Rand's assertion of the sanctity of individual rights, maybe someone else can back me up here. Are there not observable connections between the level of individual freedom in a nation and the success of its people? Certainly the gap between the US and say, Cuba is indicative of such a correlation. I'm not asking for charts and graphs here. In fact, I already gave you some examples to start with. Women are smaller than men, they have different hormonal compositions, and they tend towards a natural maternal instinct. Granted, I find none of these universal or sufficient to support a claim that they are unfit for the presidency, but it is this sort of difference that one would need to identify in order to generate support. Do you disagree?

Can't you see why this is not a convincing argument? I've presented an argument regarding why the differences that I can identify between men and women are insufficient in supporting Rand's assertion. You've simply repeated that she made the assertion, and that you've found it to be true. If, by detail, you mean actual facts rather than vague references, then I would ask not to be spared. I can only see two options- either your observations in this matter aren't sufficient to support the claims you've made, or there are observations you feel are relevant and compelling, but you've chosen not to submit them. Am I missing something? Consider, as well, that the existence of some women in your experience that have exhibited hero worship is not confirmation of a universal trend. Hal is exactly right to say that this sort of observational conclusion could easily and mistakenly be applied to a whole host of situations. What is needed is objective, consistent data regarding the nature of females that would lead one to draw your conclusisons.

I don't suppose you could be a little more specific? What experiences?

I still don't see what sensory data leads one to the conclusion that women are inherently more hero-worshipping than men, that it is part of their essence, but not part of man's. What evidence do you see for this, Daedalus?

What experience is this? My own real world experience has indicated that hero worship is an idea common to both genders. Certainly I know many males, myself included, who have looked up to people in the past, and continue to do so. What is it about female hero worship that is so fundamentally different? I gave three examples in my previous post of differences I find to be insignificant, so I'm interested to know what real world difference you believe carries some weight.

In order to assert that the presidency is not a suitable profession for women, you would need to establish a concrete, universal difference between men and women, and then explain why that difference is relevant in terms of the duties facing a president. Identifying concrete differences is not such a problem- smaller stature, hormonal diffferences, the maternal instinct. None of these are absolute, obviously, but they are pretty clear general trends. I fail to see, however, how any of these differences presents a strong foundation for the assertion Rand makes. Stature is hardly a reasonable basis. This idea of "looking up to men" certainly can't be based on mere size. Maybe looking up at men, but there have been many rulers, male and female, of many shapes and sizes who have commanded respect and loyalty. I doubt that Napolean felt he was looking up to his men from anything but a physical standpoint. This also applies to the military issue. What makes a women unsuited for dealing with political adversaries on a military basis? It's not as though she's going to challenge them to individual combat. The president's military power is symbolic, backed by the actual troops underneath him/her. Why would a woman be less apt to wield that power than a man? Because of her emotional differences? The hormonal cycles that separate men from women may create different general emotional patterns, but at most that seems to indicate that a woman president would simply have to be on the emotionally stable side of her gender. I would arue that that is true for a male president as well. No one wants an emotional rollercoaster in office, male or female, but to say that all women are bound to be plagued by this kind of emotional imbalance because of the stresses of the presidency seems hasty at best. We've already mentioned examples of woman leaders who performed beutifully under this kind of pressure. As for the idea that a woman will inevitably turn into a mother when faced with a bunch of men who are her moral or intellectual inferiors, thereby undercutting her ability for rational fullfillment, I would reiterate the idea that the presidency is demanding of anyone. Do you think male presidents enjoy being badgered and pleaded with and denounced by people who are obviously inferior to them? I'm sure that it wears on them, too. Look at Atlas Shrugged- did Rearden do a better job of dealing with the parasites that Dagny did? Both of them were torn apart by the competition between their love of ability and their loating for the parasites who demanded it. It's not as though Dagny's maternal instincts kicked in towards James, and while yes, it was hard for her to be in that position of authority, it was no less trying for Hank. It just seems like the assertion that women are, by their very nature, universally unfit for an office like the presidency would require a lot of solid evidence, and Rand's appeal to the idea of hero worship or femininity just doesn't justify it. [Edited to break up into paragraphs. Matt]

Does Rand's position in this affect women's ability to hold any leadership role? Would a female head of a corporation or a four star general encounter the same dilemma? At what point does the nature of a particular office run counter to a woman's essential makeup?

At the risk of simply rehashing what has already been said, I thought I would add a few observations. As far as the reasoin for prolonging life is concerned, doesn't it come down to a cost/benefit analysis regarding the state of that life? Meaning, the only way one can experience happiness is to be alive. Therefore, other factors nothwithstanding, the longer life has the greatest potential for happiness. Now, it's true, that a long, unsatisfying life is not as good as a short one filled with joy and achievement, so length cannot be the only standard. But do you see how, assuming one is living life in a way that generates happiness, it would make sense to prolong that happiness by prolonging life? The example of the heroin addict simply demonstrates a case where a particular kind of happiness is only achievable through the destruction of life on the physical level, to a certian degree. It's no different than someone who enjoys eating so much that they become unhealthily overweight. The benefit accquired must be weighed against the necessary cost. This is where reason and logic come in. If a heroin addict were able to honestly examine his life and conclude that he could reasonably expect to generate the most satisfaction on a lifelong scale from a year of getting high, knowing that he would die as a result, then I think it would be a logical choice. So it is not a contradiction or a refutation of Objectivist ideology, because the conclusion comes from rational observation and integration. I think, however, that the other members are right to assume that such a person would be very hard to find- you might as easily find someone who would rationally conclude that pulling off their fingernails one at a time was their only path the happiness. The problem is that people often use this idea and forget about the rational evaluation part- they are to lazy to genuinely examine their own desires, and are content to slip into a state that does not truly bring them happiness, but which they defend nevertheless because to do toherwise often requires difficult effort.

Did anyone notice that the music during the explosions was one of Rand's favorite composers (she is a Tchaikovsky fan, right )? V certainly has good taste. I though that Natalie Portman did an excellent job. I remember seeing concerns about her ability to play the strong partner to V, but I though her transformation was done very well. When she was finally able to accept the possibility of death because of her convictions, it didn't seem contrived or inorganic. And Hugo Weaving...my respect for him as an actor continues to grow.

Got it. Thanks.

So why have two terms, irrationality and immorality, if they necessarily include one another? Both immoral and irrational acts involve a suspension of reason and a result that is anti-life, if sometimes only on a small scale. I'm still not sure I see the distinction. David calls immorality "choosing wrong", but isn't irrationality also choosing wrong? In answer to Megan's question, my thought was that morality necessarily involves suspending someone else's rights. So, for example, giving someone poison would be both irrational and immoral, whereas willingly taking poison yourself would simply be irrational. This may not be what Rand intended, but if not, then I don't see what other line can be drawn between the two. Perhaps you give give me an answer to your own question, Megan?

What exactly makes an act immoral, as opposed to simply being irrational? I think I'm right in saying that any immoral act must be irrational, but not all irrational acts are immoral, so what is the distinction?