Pulsar

It seems to me that if Christianity were in fact to blame for the creation of Islam that naturally Judaism was the stem from which concepts of a foretold 'messiah' came first. Any sunday school child knows that back in the day that Judaism was in conflict with other religions, be they monotheistic or polytheistic. Religion, or worship, of some kind has been present in men since their most primitive stages. Likewise, the more primitive the man, the more vague the faith. Having a limited amount of truth to interpret men worshipped the unknowable. They gave themselves over to the concept that there was a power higher than themselves, so high that it was above being comprehended. Seeing themselves as pawns to the whims of a deity, is it any suprise they saw one another as human currency? And too often they use the metaphor of 'god' or 'gods,' to in fact justify the particular standard they were attempting to force on other individuals at that time. The majority of argument here seems to seek to understand what started the age of irrationality within which mankind is currently still immersed, and I would ask that you remember that man is descended from beast, and that his current faculties had to evolve, they were not as they are now perhaps thousands of years ago. It would take a conscious decision of evil to begin an age such as this, a consciousness with which would have made the enemy quite formiddable. However, despite the effect of many collectivist mentalities, a SINGLE collectivist mentality is small and frail without the claims it lays to charity through the guilt of its victims. However what it is important now is that we realise are NOT animals, that we can percieve, judge, and reason. The enemy is not a single man, religion, or event. It is a murky, cowardly philosophy that has worked from the inside of ugly men and slowly begun to affect the world around him. What is important that it is able to be recognised. It cannot be denied any longer, because its results have become objective; visible in every part of the world around us. What is important now is that men realise it and free themselves from it.

What counts is when we ARE around, not when we aren't, wouldn't you say? It could be part of the reason why christians are in total denial of reality. In focusing on 'heaven' beyond earth, and renouncing life as it is NOW, they make 'hell' for themselves on earth. Consider for example, the wars that have been fought over religion. Perhaps the homicide of so-called witches, jews in nazi germany, or the stoning of adulterous women in biblical records. What kind of perverted sense of life is that? So considering their idea of heaven? Quite honestly I'd rather be on earth than become some lethargic fat naked angel strumming at a harp, deprived even of something to think about that I'd done in life that bore some semblance of being significant. So who's gloating in the end? Certainly not the people who never lived life in the true sense of the word, and who then proceeded to laze about in a pacifist's paradise which they never earned? No, I'd say the truly living have more of a laugh than those who never lived at all, no matter what the outcome.

I would say that men are born as individuals and are perverted into collectivists. In any case, being an Objectivist is natural no matter who you are. No person is born more of an individual than another. It is merely a case of reclaiming what's been taken from you by the false moral assertions of society. Wonder why people tend to say "I felt like this once, as a child?" or, "I had bigger dreams, as I child, but I grew less passionate about them;" in essence: less selfish? Why? Because that word, selfish, has been mistreated and misinterpreted. Objectivism IS the only and natural mode of thinking for man because it works with his the best of him rather than against the best of him. It is something Ayn Rand helps us to realise that we own: ourselves.

I have read We the Living, and it appears to me that, at least in Andrei's case, the favors were those of a relationship, not a business exchange. Kira was the only one who was motivated solely by the money she was attaining; Andrei gave it to her because he was in love with her and thought she needed it for herself and family to survive. This is not prostitution, because both parties were NOT making a conscious decision to have intercourse based on profit, as they would in typical prostitution. Also it must also be remembered that Andrei was good friend's with Kira before they slept together, and demonstrated a willingness to help her and her family even before their affair. I do not believe Kira's actions are morally questionable and thus they are not comparable with the question I am raising. I agree completely and this is what I mean to argue- that the mindless performance of sex for no sake but itself, even when done so for profit, degrades man and his higher levels of thought, and undermines the standards he looks for in other human beings.

I have encountered a contradiction of sorts that I believe I may have managed to solve- whether or not, on principle, an Objectivist-like, rational society would allow or, (if not restricted) have this kind of trade at all. Considering that sex is the celebration of the recognition of values, is it moral for persons to seek it for its own sake, excluding concern for the actual individual which one pays for the act? Likewise, is it right for the prostitute themselves to do this solely for profit? After all some would argue, it is a fair trade, and outlawing prostitution would indeed be a violation of individual rights and a threat to pure laissez-faire. Yet I came to see that the precise reasons for which it is outlawed, are almost the same as those for which it exists, and is in fact, sellable. Furthermore I have concluded- that in a rational society, prostitution will not need to be outlawed- because it will not be sought. This is because persons who understand the honor of the act- similiarly there would be no one willing to sell it. Prostitution is the product of a society which refuses to accept human sexuality, just as readily as it denounces the physical world. Thus the satisfaction of one's desires must be transacted by underhanded, shameful means, and only by those 'low' enough to perform them. Note how 'platonic' love and chastity are traditionally exalted - in short the denial of one's body- while carnal desires and acts are condemned. Just as Adam and Eve were made to feel ashamed for their sex, that same shame arises in men and women present-day and I believe it is in fact the driving force which not only places them in the gutter, but creates it. It also agrees with the concept that the act becomes an expression of mutual contempt. The acknowledgment of the body and the willingness to use it as a device for one's own desires while living on and celebrating the world. Yet the widely held belief is that the act is sinful, one of shame. And this is the exact explanation for why prostitution present-day is condemned yet has such a large amount of customers. While it is wrong for any government to outlaw this, I believe that the exchange would not even exist in a society founded on realistic, objectivist principles.