aequalsa

Yes and yes, of course. Morality is exclusively applied to actions which are volitional. If he was going out looking for women to "automatically" turn him on, morality would become applicable. Such is the case with a strip club.

I don't have time for a full response this mornig but I would like to clarify two mistaken premises. First is, with regard to our active subconcious decision making, we are aware of our actions and can introspect and determine what beliefs caused us to act in such a way and then decide if it is in our best long term interests. The shoplifter chooses not to do this. Second, I don't consider participating in this message board a waste of time. (In many other boards I would, so I do not participate)I find the people here, even those I disagree with to be, by and large, very honest intellectually with a sincere interest in understanding things further. Disagreement in debate, often takes on the characteristic of devils advocacy. Before accepting an idea you do not hold, it is perfectly sensible to strike it from every angle. A great deal can be gained by having other rational types scrutinize your ideas and force clarification. (See the most recent exchange on the strip club thread between IAMMetaphysical and myself for an example of this value.) I dont "enjoy it" in some hedonistic way that I can't help but do for the reasons I have stated. Third, you might have missed Sophia's post above where she explained that people get what they deserve out of life. That they get the happiness they deserve. Not necessarily everything they want. But on that note, how likely you are to get what you want is largely dependent on your focused mind and persistence. You have to know what you want and keep getting up and walking towards everytime the world knocks you down. My experience has been when someone makes an offhand comment like "I want a million dollars" or "I want to write a book", they are confusing cause and effect. They want a million dollars to land in their lap or they want to have wriiten a book without actually writing it. To have any chance in hell of getting those things, you have to "want to earn a million dollars" or actually enjoy writing regardless of the accolades you might later recieve. Happiness and achievement both result from valueing productivity. This is something that you can conciously decide to do.

No. It is something which occurs automatically. When I am in a grocery store and see an attractive woman I can't help but notice. When in a relationship with someone I adore, I have noticed that my immediate evaluation of their attractiveness is less then it is otherwise. This tells me something about my feelings for the girl I'm with. But again, it's automated, so not really subject to morality. A big difference is the reason you are admiring it. Most often it is amazement at the skill of the artist and enjoyment of the sense of life he captures, rather then lust. Although some statues.... Like I said before, cirque du suleil and grinding on a pole are hardly the same thing.

You make a good point that both the physical and mental ought to be considered. I hope that I did not give the impression that a person ought to pursue a relationship with someone they admired without regard to physical attaraction. I believe both are important. I disagree very much that you should have sex with someone you find hideous even if they are great mentally. And I do not believe being attracted to someone physically without knowledge of the context of their character is wrong. It is an automated emotional response. I only believe that acting on such limited knowledge would be unlikely to be beneficial to your life. Also wrong would be to sleep with someone who was attractive but who you knew to be immoral. Thanks for pushing for clarification. I do not see your comments as off topic.

What was untrue was that we have somehow avoided the question. We have answered it in a hundred different ways or more in several different threads. I am not sure exactly how I would be "drawing you into" a conversation you started, but ill let it go at that. The answer to both questions is essentially the same. Art is the selective re-creation of reality. The choices the artist(of whatever type) make draw attention to or away from, specific details. Romantic realism is the school of art which attempts to depict life as it could and ought to be. The more the sense of life presented in the piece matches the sense of life of the viewer, the more they are going to like it. If the viewer is a rational integrated person, he is going to like films which depict a world where values are achievable and obstacles can be overcome. The shawshanke redemption comes to mind. An altruist is going to like movies like pay it forward. Art should portray the ideal, if the artists purpose is the appeal to and inspire other rational minds. If the artist wants to make people feel unhappy and communicate to them that the universe is malevolent, values are pointless, and success when it does occur is a matter of luck, he should make his movie focus on those aspects of reality. What he chooses to communicate tells us something about what he thinks of the universe in the same way that knowing who a person sleeps with, tells us what he thinks of himself.

This is patently untrue. We have provided the answer, you just don't like it. So here it is in a nutshell, again. Man is composed of both a mind and body. Integrity is achieved when the ideas in the mind do not contradict one another and the actions of the body do not contradict the beliefs and values held in the mind. Emotional contentedness is the result. A properly integrated man wants a woman that represents his values. A man can want anything in the world. He can hold any number of contradictions. He can act against his best interests. He can act against reality. He can believe whores are sexy, suicide is preferable, and smears of paint are beautiful and moving. But he can't do that and be integrated and consistent with reality at the same time. Our axioms are that contradictions do not exist and things have a particular nature. Man's nature is that he survives by the use of reason. Reason leads necessarily to the belief that a woman that represents his values is better for his life then a woman who is opposed to his values. It also leads him to believe that art which represents his values is better then art which opposes his values. It doesn't mean that no value can be gained from a somewhat irrational woman or from technically good art with a bad sense of life. All it means is that less value will be attained and a rational man wants more, in value when he can get it.

I consider myself an Objectivist or student of....not sure what level of knowledge or degree of association to ARI is required to get the title...I have read all of Miss Rands work at least once, as well as several books by other objectivist authors. I have attended quite a few lectures and have listened to several taped series. I have also been involved in two different Objectivist discussion groups over the course of several years. Thus far, I do not disagree with the philosophy in any way that I am aware of. So you can catagorize me in whatever way you believe appropriate. Fantasy books are works of fiction. As such they can have any element in them the author desires. In general, I do not prefer fantasy to romantic realism in books, but will confess quite readily to loving Lord of the Rings. Fantasy often seems to emphasize the heroic, and that alone makes it of interest to me. Your question seems strange to me an I wonder if you mean something else. How it is used in each book is what will determine what I think about it. It is a metaphysical element. You can just as easily ask what we think of rocks used in novels. What do the rocks represent? What purpose do they serve in the story?

Hello Becky, I am not sure what you mean by appropriate. Obviously it should not be illegal. I think about it from the perspective of it's benefit to my life. What value does it confer for m? I should confess that I have been to strip clubs only 3 times in my life, all of which, I was dragged by friends or acquaintances. And in all 3 circumstances, lap dances were bought for me. It might be argued that I lack imagination, but I was unable to view the experience out of context. And for me, the experience was that I was paying a woman of questionable character twenty bucks to pretend to like me for 30 seconds. Something, I shouldn't need to do. The acknowledgment of this fact was far too negative to make up for the pleasure of seeing a naked woman, much as I like naked women. So I would be curious to know what value proper value can be gained from attending a strip club. In what way can it be viewed as a gain? The only one that occurs to me is an individual too physically and personally revolting to acquire the attentions of any woman without payment, but that is lifeboat scenario talk. Note: I don't buy the, beautiful talented bodies as pieces of art, idea. If that was truly the case, the ballet or cirque du suleil are far, far superior and usually less expensive.

What do you mean by being non-volitional? People are always choosing one way or another. I do not understand how someone could lack the ability to choose. At most they lack knowledge of some particular alternatives. Not the ability to choose, per se.

I am very skeptical that a person can feel depressed for no reason. I suspect that many people feel depressed for reasons they do not understand.

Anyone else get the feeling we are discussing articles out of The Onion?

Not dating Aussies either then. Man...keep this up and I'll have to rule out the entire western world.

That is a context related question. Every individual is going to have to decide for themselves what level ofknowledge they need to be certain about the preson they are intereseted in. It's not quantifiable.

Right, cause that will make it much easier to get raped by muslims who don't sit down once they're invaded like france is. Then they'll have the full 'woman experience', since 11 out of every 10 women is a rape victim according to feminists. OUt of all of the efforts at emasculation I have heard, this is clearly the worst. 17%? remind me never to date a swede. Bad odds. I'd prefer to stay intact.

Doh....my fault....I was in that section when I click new topic...modertators? Please save me from my embaressment.

In actuality they would because reality demands coherence with it to some extent. Functionally, the problem becomes that you can't say something is good or bad, when you accept determinism. No passing of value judgements. So defense of freewill is important to objectivism as a philosophy. In day to day life it isn't a big deal as long as you don't try to live by determinism.

HI Dan, welcome to the forum. The morality we are currently discussing is from the perspective of what is in a persons long-term, rational best interests. No one here would advocate making it illegal( I hope). The question is whether or not a rational person ought to pursue sex divorced from psychological meaning rather then if someone is harmed by it. If the pleasure of the physical act is worthy of pursuit as opposed to pursuing someone for more serious values they possess. And it would need to be more then 60 hours a week for me to condone it. After all, that still leaves 108 hours a week for pursueing better women.

It is a very important question as the wrong answer undercuts all of ethics. If someone is not free to choose otherwise in any particular circumstance, then they do not control their own fate. If you have no choice, then nothing is significant.

The right to life is properly bestowed not on the possession of consciousnes but on the capacity for it. When I go to sleep, I do not lose my right because I am no longer conscious. The same applies to children, the only major difference being the time before becoming conscious. A necessity for the granting of derivitive rights(liberty,property), which is connected directly to conciousness, is that the possessor be able to respect the rights of others. When a childs consciousness develops to that point, they can be given these other rights. Prior to that point, the parents are reposible for their actions and welfare. I believe that this would be an implied contract created by bringing a child to term.

Sylvia...I think it's love at first site...di Fair enough. I'll say this, your not going to find a cut and dry answer like you are looking for. This is mainly a matter of psychology and induction and feelings and emotions are heavily involved in the answer. I suggest you inquire as to why sex for physical gratification with regard to yourself is so repulsive. Why you would not even let someone you do not value touch you for a massage, let alone sexually. What you would lose. What you would gain if you treat it as sacred. The answer, if you are a rational integrated person is going to be the same answer for any rational integrated person.

Ok...This hadn't occurred to me to use consciouness as the differentia for animals. I thought of it more along the lines of being related to mobility, I see that this is probably not correct. Thanks again.

I don't think that you are correct in believing that masterbation has no affect on ones view of sex. As an experiment, (anyone easily offended, cover your eyes ) You could try not masterbating for 3 weeks and then masterbate thrice daily for three weeks and compare your feelings about it. Another factor is that masterbation tends to invlove fantasizing for most people. If, for example, I were to masterbate while fantasizing about billy goats, my feelings toward them would change over time. Since the fantasy is not real, I doubt the association formed will be as strong as it would were I actually intimately involved with the little bearded furry critter of my dreams. Please, please, please believe that the goat example is not serious.

–noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. —Idiom 9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad. Still looking for something which identifies faith as an action. Since 8 of the definitions refer to it as a noun akin to belief and one as an idiom, I expect difficulty. Am I using the wrong bible...err...I mean dictionary for a definition of faith? edit: And if you would, please elucidate on in which ways the mystical altruist you link to is correcting john galt.

OK...thanks Iam. That makes sense with regard to mammals. So animal is a reference to his possession of perception since perception is the primary differentia of animals as opposed to plants? Mobility, for example, would not be a useful differentia for animals since bacteria move around too. So why then is animal, in the sense that it is conscious, of particular importance? It seems redundant with regard to having rational as the differentia. Rational would imply conscious. A living thing or life form would seem more useful as a descriptor as it describes only man's metaphysical nature, with rational then describing his epistomology. Rational animal has a better flow to it linguisticly but wouldn't that imply that there were non-animals that were rational, by the same reasoning? And yes, I had definitional genus in mind.

I have a question about the definition of man, which has troubled me. Why is animal the proper genus? As opposed to mammal, life form, primate, etc.?