aequalsa

Moral means good for your life. If someone I knew fixated on having sex with anumals or children,, or only got off by fantasizing about skanks, I would say that something is amiss in his belief structure to elevate something of that sort to a sexual desire. The judgement would be entirely context dependent. What they chose and why is critical to judging them. I tentatively agree. If the person is immoral in a significant way, it really should be a turn off. I take it though thaty this would be an issue of minor import that you hope she can work out rather then serious honesty issues or something on that scale?

This is why looking at people from the outside in, doesn't help with this subject. These are "reasonable" people who haven't put enough thought into understanding their motivations and desires in regard to this major part of life to even explain why they want what they want? You don't need to have other people who have unusaul sexual practices tell you. Think about it for yourself alone. What would you need to change mentally to view pain as a necessary component of sexual pleasure? A better outlook on life? Higher self esteem? High tolerance for pain? Or maybe a malevolent universe premise that every rose needs a thorn?

Ignore, I understood to mean, not take into account. If someone you are involved with has a detrimental trait, you might be willing to put up with it, if it is in your best interests overall. But it would be unwise in the extreme to not remain cognizant of it. I was referring to myself primarily in that statement. For example, if I avoided relationships of meaning preferring the company of prostitutes, there would have to be some cause for that choice. A desire to avoid rejection, or something of that nature. So statements such as 'I know a person who is rational and happy and loves life, but prefers drunk bar flies to women of value', don't sit right with me. He might be a great guyin a dozen ways, but whatever causes him to pursue trash, is at it's base, character flaw or psychological problem. If your values are well integrated, I doubt you could ignore major flaws. The feeling of attraction stems from that which you conciously value. If someone has characteristics which repulse you, it should be difficult if not impossible to manifest any kind of desire. To be clear, the flaws I have in mind are volitional flaws. To ignore cellulite or an unattractive scar would probably be sensible. If that is what you mean by non-major flaws then I fully agree. However, even non-major volitional errors should be considered as they likely represent more then what you see at the surface. They might be things which you would be willing to put up with or that you hope will change, but I would not ignore them. I wouldn't dwell on them either. If you do dwell on them, then they are in all probability, not so minor. I get the impression that this is what you have in mind. When you say ignore you mean, not focus on as it is not necessarily at issue during sex?

This is an interesting point that I don't think has been brought up yet. Masterbation has been treated as a good. But masterbation is usually accompanied by fantasy. The nature of the fantasy would probably qualify it as good or bad in the same way that the nature of the relationship with another person would qualify it as good or bad. They don't. Those questions were examples meant to illustrate that I am considering this primarily from an introspective position. The point made in earlier posts with regard to animals was that if sex was good just because of the physical sensation of a vagina, then any would do, including animals'. I disagree with 1. It could also be a moral condemnation. I agree that morality is necessarily involved though. Number 2. is not my position either. It doesn't have to involve your highest values but it neccessarily involves your values. Who you sleep with and why you sleep with them are choices that you make. These choices define an aspect of your character which is almost always(always in my personal experience) tied to many other values. This information allows you to make fairly accurate judgements about the person. Number 3 I agree with. It is evasion and evading reality is always bad. I could evade some major character flaw in someone I do business with or I could take note of this flaw and depending on the risk associated with it, either continue to do business with them or not. I don't think sex is much different in this regard.

Now that's just silly. He would have had to come a first time before he can come a second.

Hi RationalBiker, I realize and respect your desire to not be involved in the discussion and do not mean to engage you in the debate, but do have a factual question regarding the situations you mention above. My experience has been that it is hard to really know someone through and through with regard to their psychological motivations since outward appearences and behaviours can be very deceiving. So most of my thoughts on this subject are based on introspection. What would cause me to want a one night stand? What would cause me to sleep with an animal? In every circumstance like this, I usually see a psychological problem I would need to have not yet dealt with. If for example I sought sex with a stranger without any mental connection, I would need to not want to see the reflection of my values in another person. At least at that time. Ostensibly due to not being sure what my values were or having values detrimental to my life. You mentioned that these behaviours manifested themselves at certain times and stages of the lives for the individuals you refer to. So finally, my question is, do you believe, suspect or know if it is the case that these folks had things either wrong or not worked out which led to these behaviours?

This statement indicates to me that you are looking at this backwards. Sex with an animal or corpse does not cause you to have poor self-esteem. Having poor self-esteem(might, but hopefully won't usually) cause you to have sex with a corpse or animal. Ayn Rand's view was that if you show her a woman that a man sleeps with, she can tell you his philosophy of life. In that she realized what was necessary for a man to be attracted to a second-hander or guttersnipe or prostitute or corpse. Consider a case where you meet a woman with apparently good self-esteem. Rational, intelligent, attractive, capable...always seems happy....but you find out she is in an abusive relationship. You check your premises and realize that she must not possess the self-esteem you would otherwise have assumed. Her attraction to someone that does her physical harm tells you something about her view of herself, the world, and relationships. In this circumstance, the abuse doesn't cause poor self-esteem...poor self-esteem allows the abuse.(some feminists would disagree with me, I'm certain) The same approach can be applied to the friends you keep or, really, any other value you possess or pursue. These facts are telling of your belief structure. They don't determine it. I can imagine a situation where someone has excellent self-esteem and a perfect outlook philosophically and is only attracted to corpses or whores, who I just haven't met yet. It should be noted that I can also imagine a pig with wings that I just haven't met yet.

Like I mentioned...it's not always bad to drift. If you have a lot of time waiting in line or for the bus or whatever, and have too much negative self-talk, you might try to decide on something to think about during those moments, conciously. Something you don't understand or are trying to figure out. For example, I'm a martial arts affectionado, so often times while walking I play with posture and balance...Or perception. Walking by a group of people and trying to ascertain their number without looking directly at them. Close my eyes and try to imagine the terrain with all of the objects around me, then opening my eyes to see what I missed. Sometimes some mild parkour(making a straight line for your destination without regard to obstacles-be very careful with that game ) That sort of thing. If waiting in line or at the bus, forcing yourself to try and make conversation with strangers is very helpful at learning to be more extraverted. Occasionally, though admittedly not often, you meet someone interesting. The nice thing about strangers is that no matter how much of an idiot you come off, it doesn't matter much since you are not likely to see them again. At the least it will give you a more accurate notion of what all those people you worry about are actually thinking. As opposed to what you imagine them to be thinking.

Ahhh...see...you don't want to go through life without experiencing that. Now you're life is complete. Anyone who hasn't had a woman throw a dead squirrel at him just hasn't lived, IMHO.

In this circumstance you made an educated guess based on quite a bit of evidence. Can you show how that is the same concept as faith when used in reference to in a supreme being? It seems like the same word applied to two different concepts.

Now, I don't know what girls you have in mind, David , but I have always taken that as a sign of affection.

Hi Magitek and welcome to the forum. A couple things occured to me while reading your post. One is that when describing the extravert/introvert dichotomy you seemed to be conflating concrete/intuitive personalities with introvert/extravert. Extravert and concrete often go hand in hand, but not always. I suggest looking into meyers-briggs personality typecasting for some increased understanding of what is going on in other people's minds if it interests you or would put your mind at ease. I think it does a good job of breaking down motivations and patterns of thought for different sorts of people. Second, personally, I experienced a similiar discomfort when I began working in construction. I would tend to day dream and wander in my thoughts because the work was never challenging to me, mentally. What I eventually realized was that my advancement to more thinking based parts of the job(foreman and now owner of my own company) were dependent on me doing my job quickly and well-not just understanding it. At the time, despite my high oppinion of my mind and abilities, I was performing on par with other people I worked with in terms of output. The reason, I discovered, was the aforementioned daydreaming. Daydreaming is another way of saying unfocused. So what I did was make a concious decision to stay in the moment. To stay focused on what I was doing right then. To be 100% present mentally and physically. Even if easy and boring, I could make it more interesting to see how quickly I could do it. When I cam to a block I would try to invent some new way of performing the task. I became a scientist with regard to my work. So needless to say, my productivity went to between 4 and 5 times average(I am fortunate enough to have a job that is accurately quantifiable). It wasn't long(3 months)before I was a foreman. So again, try not to conflate unfocused daydreaming with having an intuitive mind. That powerful mental aspect you possess when sharpened and brought to bare is the best tool you have. Just be sure to keep it directed on what you are doing. Note that daydreaming and the occasional escape is OK if it does not interfere with any of your values. The more concrete bound mentalities seem to have an advantage in that they are always acting in pursuit of their values without effort. This advantage is easily and quickly outweighed by the creative ways an intuitive mind can tackle complex problems when it is in focus. Combined, of course, with action. I have been making an effort recently to stay present in this way, in other aspects of life then work. In conversations, while reading, while playing with my dog, listening to music, etc. I am finding that I learn a lot more, I enjoy a lot more, I get more out of the experience, and I really live a lot more. Best Regards, Gordon

In Ray Kurzeil's defense, in the interview with him that was linked to this site awhile back, he said that 25 years was the point at which longevity enhancing technologies would increase the human lifespan at a rate faster then people age. The average lifespan, in other words would be increasing at a rate faster then one year per year. I don't know much about the transhumanist philosophy and am not trying to defend it. Just a clarification on time frame.

Here's a spot where objectivists might disagree(a little). I have studied martial arts for some time and have found certain psychological aspects of eastern philosophy to be functionally, very useful. Especially those centered around focus and perception. I would not endorse them in total, of course. A big problem I have with eastern religion is it's vagueness...that many parts seem to be understandable in different ways. Leads to some undesirable and incorrect conclusions. Objectivist's are not opposed to charity or compassion, per se. They are considered to be contextual issues which are not neccessarily moral or immoral. The circumstances and reasons which you are compassionate or charitable under determine it's morality. I think this view you hold comes from a misunderstanding regarding the way in which we use the word selfish. Selfish is a kinda shorthand for longterm-rational best interests, which very often can mean giving to charity. For example, I know a great number who give money to the Ayn Rand Institute for their highschool book projects and what-not.

If you could elaborate a little more, I would be appreciative. I still don't have a very concrete understanding of the system that you propose. For example, You would not have police, but would have a national guard to deal with common psychopaths. In what way would the peoples guard be different from police. I assume psychopaths to mean, muderers and rapists primarily. Since there is ostensibly no right to personal property it would not include stealing. Is this correct? Or is there no acknowledged right to life or liberty either? And without prisons, what would the national guard do with such criminals to protect the people? Do courts exist? If not, how is guilt determined in regard to the psychopaths? How are producers who do not give away there wares dealt with? Who decides how particular industries and factories are managed? ARe managers elected? How is distribution managed? Especially with regard to things of limited supply where the demand out paces the supply? Who gets to consume those things and how is that decided? I or someoneelse might be willing to engage in a debate, but would need to have a clearer understanding of what you are actually proposing.

If I remember right, an objectivist already did articulate just that...he said..."but, I don't think of you."

That was well written. Very nice, Ifat. But, in Olex's defense, he originally referred to a relationship as a secondary value. This would mean it is still a value, just dependent on the primary ones. So the lack of this value could not damge his primary value, but would still have a negative overall impact on his life. At least, that is how I undertood him.

A distinction which I haven't seen stated on this thread, yet, is differentiating the stressors themselves from being stressed. Chosen responsibilities and challenges, as well as the unchosen ones which inevitably arise, can be viewed in two different ways. They can be "bad things that happen to you, because bad things always do" or they can be the expected cost of achievement, the overcoming of which make the pride of the accomplishment, all the sweeter. Not having stressors would mean not being challenged. Not having stress would mean knowing how to deal with the stressors in a more constructive way. The pain can only go so deep, after all.

Actually, A paternal attitude is the appropriate one when you come accross someone who has such a large number of mistaken premises and you wish to believe that they are honestly mistaken rather then evasive or trolling. This naivete is best evidenced by your suggestion that a best economic system isn't to be decided by "this kind of philosophy". Not sure what "kind" you have in mind, but I will answer in general that economics is an aspect of politics and politics is an aspect of ethics and a proper ethics is derived from a proper understanding of both metaphysics and epistomology. If you do hold an Objective view of things and disagree only with the Objectivist economic system then I ask you to please explain what you believe Objective ethics, epistomology, and metaphysics is. Because if you did accept those, then capitalism naturally follows. THis leads me to believe that you disagree on a much more fundemental level. The referral to mans nature was not about his being selfish. In fact he very often is not selfish, at least in the proper way. I was referring to the fact that he is volitional. He has freewill and must be free to think and to act in order to prosper. Rights of life,liberty, and property are necessary for this end. A right can not impose a positive obligation on another. You have a right to have your life not taken away but not a right to have it provided for. If you did, this would presuppose the question, provided by who? If it must be provided by someone else, then you have taken away their right to property they have acquired and by doing that you have taken away some amount of their time, which is to say, you have stolen some part of his life.

Oh dear, Kitty...I don't know where to begin. First I suggest that you read some objectivist materials. In brief, capitalism follows from objective thought because objective thought leads you to a correct understanding of man's nature. A "rational animal" A volitional being that uses reason to survive. To excercise his reason and produce that which he needs, he must be free to do so. Capitalism is the only economic system which respects man's right to act according to the edicts of his own mind and therefore to act to benefit his own life. You are conflating utilitarianism with one effect of capitalism. Capitalism does provide the greatest good for the greatest number but that is not it's moral justification. I would like you to back up your assertion that sweden has the highest standard of living. I am fairly certain that is not the case, but Ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's a hard thing to advise someone on, when you lack a similiar experience to compare it to. I have a fairly dangerous job(commercial roofing) but not really in the same catagory as having people shoot at you. I would only suggest that it is important to know why you take the risks that you do. If he believes in what he is fighting for, then the risk is probably worth it. So I would focus on the reasons he joined, if you know what they are. Hopefully, it's more along the lines of wanting to preserve his freedom, then getting money for college. Unfortunatly, it sounds to me like he views the risk to his life as sacrifice. You might try and convince him of the nobiliy of his purpose. Another factor worth consideration is that when in a dangerous circumstance, emotional instability is your worst enemy. The more you can keep a reasonable state of mind the more likely you are to survive it. That comes from some firsthand experience, such as it is. Hope that helps a bit. Best Regards to you and your nephew, Gordon

Confessions of an Economic Hitman-john perkins, is an enjoyable read and has a sizable section on the house of Saud and our dealings with them from 1950 to present. A lot of descriptions of the backroom dealings you are looking for.

Move to colorado or texas...they're a dime-a-dozen there. Not really but they do seem to cluster in those areas. Seriously though, you don't have to worry about comproising the meaning of friendship. You just need to differentiate between the different types of friends you can have. Aristotle divided frineds into 3 categories. Friends of utility(someone you interact with at work or school), friends of pleasure(someone you share an interest or hobby with), and friends of virtue(the sort that you want but havent found). My advice, in the meantime, enjoy the parts of people that you can, disregard the other parts, assuming that they are not damaging or destructive. Also maybe look for objectivists. Start a campus obj. club, for example. Might be more around then you would suppose. They have this nasty tendency of being holed up in their apartment drawing buildings.

First off...welcome and thank you for the intelligent and well worded question. This problem of avoiding a "tyranny of the masses" without creating a more traditional tyranny, goes way back. In fact it was a major concern of the founders of the US, which is why they attempted to create a republic(not a democracy) with representative rather then direct democracy. The hope was that the masses would keep the holders of power from going to far astray, since they required their reaffirmation every 2,4, or 6 years. Meanwhile, the power concentrated in the hands of the few (theoretically) excellent people would insure that decisions were not made on the whim of a mob, but rather, by way of rational discourse. A system of checks and balances, in other words. I highly recommend "the federalist paper" for more on the subject. Without recounting the entire history of America's 230 year fall from grace, I would suggest that a major cause has been a change in the charactor and views of the people, for the worse. Essentially from individualism to paternalism. This change, I believe could have been avoided if property rights had been protected as an absolute and unamendable section in the constitution. This was the little crack that eventually gave way to the burst of the socialist dam. A concrete example would be the way insiduous laws such as the income tax amendment get passed, become recipricol, and then grow. Briefly, it was presented as a 1% tax on income in excess of $5000, affecting less then 5% of the population at the time. When it was passed a senator proposed a cap of 10% and was laughed down on the premise that it would never get that high. Of course now federal income tax is as high as 33% and affects 95% of the population. Once granted the power to tax income, income stopped belonging to the earners by right. You don't have the right to 67% of your income instead of 100%. They just happen to let you keep 67% for right now(not counting social security-13%,medicare-2%, state income tax +/- 5%, property tax(varies), sales tax, gas tax, phone tax,etc,etc). Their is a moral difference between 0% and 1%. The difference between 1% and 98% is just a political decision. Now with this redistribution of buying power from the producers to these thugs who steal it, comes a shift in expectations of the populace, since they always steal the money while offering to provide some additional service. Social security is an excellent example of this. Since the government "guarantees" you retirement, you no longer must think ahead and plan for your own. Also, because they steal your discretionary income, which could otherwise be saved and invested, most are not able to save significantly for retirement. So now a vote comes to change a bankrupt social security. We must either raise taxes or lower benefits. How will most of the masses 55 and up vote? So by providing this garbage and stealing the money, the predominent outlook shifts from right to entitlement. Motivations change from productive to consumptive. I don't believe Ayn Rand or any other objectivist advocates democracy. Probably more along the lines of a republic with an objective constitution. That being said, the commonly held belief is that the philosophy of the masses must change before the government realistically can, so interest in political science discussions at this point is fairly low.

This reminds me of the star trek teleporter dilemna. Is it the same me on the other side? The answer seems to be obviously, no. But what if they took out a single cell in your brain and replaced it with an artificial one which functioned normally, but would not die? Would you still be you? What about two cells...or three? At which point do you become not-you. I believe that your suggestion is correct, JMegan. That is, that gradually if the continuity were preserved by giving the existing brain time to integrate the added parts, you would not notice a change and would be, in fact, the same person. Not a nuerologist, but that's my laymen's guess.