~Sophia~

No. The warning signs were there. Kevin just has more experience reading them (and he was emotionally detached).

You can't be happy living like an animal. You can't have true self worth living like an animal. If you start acting like an animal toward the end of your life - those things are impossible. It would affect the most important value there is - my self worth. Self evaluation is the last thing and probably the most important thing for anyone before they take their last breath.

One can achieve happiness (and true positive evaluation of one's life and self) only on the basis of rational values. Same can not be obtained through hedonism. I would tell them to do something they could be proud of - something/anything meaningful. Well, I disagree.

Help me do what? For as long as I am alive I ought to live qua man - the recipe for which is rational morality. Benevolent Universe outlook is not the same as self esteem. Also, I could not possibly die happy with myself and my life if I abandoned reality based moral principles.

Are you suggesting that a person could have moral pride even though they abandoned moral principles and became rights violating savage toward the end of their life?

Happiness is the successful state of life and it is the purpose of ethics.

Happiness is impossible without moral pride. This is as "primary" as it can get. I am not this way because it fits "my psychology". You have reversed cause and effect. I am this way psychologically (I have pursued and earned that state) because it is a requirement of real happiness. I would not want to live even a minute any other way.

If I had very little left it would have been extremely important to me to live the whatever precious remaining I have left as the kind of human being I would be proud of. I would want to die with moral pride. Seems to me that you underestimate its value overall (I noticed you did not list it above along other virtues) and especially when life is limited. No value is higher than self-esteem - that fact is not affected by how much life you have left (I would argue the opposite - that it becomes more crucial when near the end of life) It is easy to identify people who fully grasped Objectivism. They display "radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in values of both material and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself".

At the very heart of Objectivism is the recognition of the objective nature of reality. Not sure why you equate clarity about right and wrong (that it exist and what it is) with "youthfulness". Let me guess, "not uncovering the differences" would be an example of benevolence?

I find it difficult to understand what it is that you are trying to say here. Full agreement with Objectivism is not necessarily a sign of lack of intellectual independence (I assume, that is what you mean by conformity ). Lack of full agreement with Objectivism is not a necessary product of intellectual autonomy. If you are trying to say that on the path to philosophical integration people will/may fall somewhere along the spectrum and that process can take time - I don't think anyone here would argue with that. That has never been an issue here. The issue, as I am sure you know, has been altering Objectivism yet still wanting to call it/sell it as Objectivism (in order to ride the wave of Rand's success). It is fine to critique and to disagree providing your reasons but then be honest about what it is. You said: Most Objectivists I know understand the fact that a mind has to come to certain conclusions on its own and thus they display a lot of patience with others and respect for their mind. I certainly have been - I do have "Kelleyite" friends (as I do religious friends or even socialist leaning friends) and I will continue to befriend (and even join forces, if necessary) with other closely like minded individuals. What I am NOT going to do, however, is to blur the line between right and wrong for the sake of "togetherness". This IS what properly "toleration" should look like. From my experience, what Kelleyites mean by tolerance, is granting them equivalence between their ideas and mine. I have lost a friend due to this fact because he wanted me to say that his ideas are equally valid even though in conflict with mine. Me respectfully and politely not downplaying the conflict between our ideas was "intolerant".

This is so terrible - I am lost for words.

I answered - NO to this question few posts back. He can't reason himself into being attracted to this girl. This is not what I meant. What I do know is that sexual attraction is not something unexplainable. These preferences were and are formed based on certain evaluations and associations. For example, I noticed that many of the physical attributes which I found attractive where those of my past boyfriends. I made a positive association between certain physical features and pleasure (both physical pleasure and that derived from their character) and that became my sexual preference. I realized that many of those were accidental: if they had different features my preferences would form differently. This is just one example. Do I think there is no baseline at all? NO, there probably is, but it does not have to be that rigid. It is not for me. I have no preference for race, or coloring, or even weight became a rather wide range for me after some amazing experiences with someone who was a bit bigger than what I would normally go for. But this is not something you can convince someone of - I would never attempt to. This is a self development thing. Also, from my experience physicality can only start and fuel sexual attraction for about 6-8months after which what maintains chemistry, at least for those people who are thinkers like me, is character. I have fallen out of love many times because of this, because I went for chemistry and the person, although they did have many good qualities, did not spark admiration in me enough after the initial infatuation period was over. I don't think you see people clearly until that 6-8month mark. Knowing that, I go for character today as that is the only thing which actually can make it last for me. That is my 2cents of wisdom. That is my recipe. If something else is working for you - great.

Kendall wrote a very wise post some time ago on the topic: chemistry vs. character in romance. I will quote some of it here: I completely agree that chemistry that does not flow out of character is not going to last. The stable part of chemistry is closely tied to values and virtues.

Sorry, I intended to say here "did not reflect them".

There is. What I find physically attractive has changed over the years as I made new/different associations. When I was much younger I was constantly running into situations in which I was physically attracted to people who, most often than not, did reflect my values enough, and on a few occasions I found myself not attracted to those who I knew did reflect them to a large degree including the optional values. This placed me in a loose-loose most of the time and made me feel very disintegrated. I wanted to have both in one and the reality is that great people are hard to find - much harder than some specific physical type. I don't find myself having that dilemma today.

This is a child's weight. Anyone above 5 feet 3 inches with this weight would be in the unhealthy range. This is unrealistic for most women and no sane woman would even hold herself to this standard (although some women still do, sadly). There are still plenty of men out there with reasonable sexual preferences, thank Galt.

For me, the physical response does arise from the qualities of character more than anything else. I think that is true for a lot of women. Among men, you are the minority. It is almost the opposite: if the physical attraction is there, men can go lower on the virtue scale and they will make all kinds of rationalizations for their choice (in some cases they almost don't see it as if blinded).

Of romantic love - it absolutely IS and not mere byproduct - it is an essential.

I agree.

Perhaps you don't know what love is because from what you describe you are not in love. You want to be this guy who can love this girl but you are not. As a result you are being cruel to this woman. It is probably the most hurtful thing in a romantic context.

Unfortunately, I have to say: NO. You should not romantically pursue women who do not attract you sexually. It is called friendship. You have to find the qualities you value in a woman who also turns you on.

Yes given reasonable cost. I do consider OCON every year but I can't justify it's high cost. It would take away most of my yearly vacation budget which is unacceptable to me - I want to spend some if not most of it vacationing with my son.

I agree with Mindy's point that you seem to treat philosophy like a theoretical subject that only becomes relevant later in life. Even though Mindy never mentioned Rand until recently, her life philosophy was reflected in her parenting from the moment her daughter was born - both in terms of how she approached raising a child and what she taught her child. Your and your partner's epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics are relevant from day one and influence the development of your child's epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics.

I want to give you an example. Let's say that you notice that you lack motivation at times. The way you can "manage" that issue is by finding ways to inspire yourself when you need it. One way of doing so could be, for example, by reading books written by people (and going back to them when needed) who also have it very hard but successfully deal with their serious issues, mental or physical. So rather than dwelling on the fact that you lack motivation and thus, in your estimation, are not virtuous - you treat motivation as a goal - like a plant that needs to be watered from time to time. Same thing with independence or anything else really. Have those things on hand when you need them. Find out what things you need to "water" your plant of independence. Taking the outsider perspective also will allow you, when necessary, to dissociate yourself from the symptoms of your illness in order to manage them. If you find yourself having irrational thoughts and responses you don't like - you can realize that that is not you - not the you you choose to be. You can say: Ok, I am having those feelings and thoughts but that is not me. You is not your brain chemistry - you is the person who wrote the post above. Also, keep in mind that failure is a part of success. In reality, successful people are not those who never fail - they are those who don't give up despite their failures and learn from failures.