KendallJ

Amoral SOB, huh. What's the world view you've adopted? "Randroid".. ha... love it...

Yeah, what she said... Little help here, ambiv. Context, purpose, need?

hmmm... some questions... 1. It's interesting to me to juxtapose your masculine and feminine. Leaving out the fertile-virile contrast for a moment you have softness-toughness, and sensitive-competent. It seems as if all the realists (except maybe alethiometry) and Deco have similar types of contrasts. I assume you at times are tough, and competent as well. What emotionally makes you prefer to want to project the feminine as opposed to the masculine. 2. The Realists (except for Greedy) and Deco, including yourself, all appear to have the Romantic piece with similar relationships between man and woman, in that man is in a more active or dominant role (man kissing woman, etc.) and woman in a responsive role. Is this significant in your Romantic peice? Could you envision the same emotional response if the peice had the woman kissing the man's neck instead? The Classical's have very similar Masculine and Feminine, but they did not evoke the same emotion in me as my choices so I am interested to here there descriptions. I've got my descriptions worked out, but will wait a bit to post.

Ambiv, Adding to the comments of Software Nerd. a. In general, you let the Christian drive the argument, looking for an opening in your reasoning. b. You misstepped at "idealism" and "making the world a better place". c. You gave him an opening at admitting your emotion at need to be with someone, which is potentially valid, but he twisted it to his ends, and you didn't correct it. d. "God" to fill the tiny gaps. Blew it big time. At least if you were counting on Objectivist thought to be your defense.

Because that is not where miseleigh is tangled up. She already recognizes the issue of having to accept that premise. She is trying to integrate the reasoning, given teh premise. Also, I've already said, the fundamental premise isn't something that more reasoning will determine, but rather looking to reality (experimentation, etc...)

All right. What did Rand mean by "a rational woman". OK, well, we know that raionality in any sense does not mean omniscience, but in this context, I do not think it can simply mean someone who has chosen reason, and is earnestly working to improve their level of integration (i.e. holding of non-contratictory premises), regardless of their level of integration in the issues relevant to this decision. So, in this context, "rational woman" must imply a woman who has certain level of strong integration with repect to the issues relevant to make this decision. It does not have to be complete (omniscient), but it certainly is a matter of degree (to what degree Rand does not say, and does not need to). We can certainly debate what that list of relevant issues is, but in my mind it includes career priorities, psychology and its effect on other areas of life, and yes that includes gender psychology. Rand is just saying then that when your level of integration gets to a certain point, the context changes and the moral implications are different. So is miseleigh "irrational" in wanting to be President? If you accept Rand's premise, then miseleigh is holding a contradiction which she has yet to resolve, and is hence not at the same level of integration, and so yes, maybe a bit... Now, how can a woman who is not to that level of integration still be moral in wanting to be president? Easy. Being moral does not require omniscience. It requires that you make choices that are rational given your best level of integration at the time. I liken this to the choice of career path. Many people change careers for valid reasons at differnet points in their life as they learn more about themselves and the context of the career choices they made. Does that make the early choice immoral? no. Does it make the choice to stay in a career once you know that you can and would prefer another immoral? yes if there are no other factors that weigh on the decision as well. So for me as a voter there are 3 possible outcomes if I think miseleigh is qualified to be president and decide to vote for her: 1. Miseleigh during her term in office never reaches the level of integration necessary to even see the problem 2. Miseleigh reaches the level of integration during her term, but it does not impact her performance (just her desire, and maybe regret at having taken the job) 3. Miseleigh reaches the level of integration during her term, and it DOES impact her performance! I as a voter care only about her performance. Her personal ethics decisions are no concern of mine unless they affect her ability. (They certainly affect her though, which is why I emphasized htis was a personal ethical decision). The only outcome I have to worry about is 3 then. So, if I think 1 and 2 are probable and three is not, using my best knowledge at the time, (remember I don't have to be omniscient to be moral either) then I would be perfectly moral in voting for Miseleigh. Yeah! Miseleigh for President!

Sorry, I'm thinking and writing during lunch hour. Not much time to go back and edit... - the one from miseleigh's quote in bold.

No! I think I see what you are trying to do, and thanks by the way for the very thorough analysis. I should be careful in sending you articles, I see... . Now, this is a subtle point, and not explicit in Rand's argument, but I do not believe the conclusion you can come to is that Rand would answer no to your moral question. I believe her answer would be: "it depends" (i.e. it's contextual). I think in your approach, your analysis hinges on a) What does Rand mean by a "rational woman" in the context of this discussion and b ) an omission you made in your statement above. Let's accept Rand's premise on the essence of feminity, since that is an issue that psychologists will ultimately determine. It's not germaine to your analysis here anyway. If it's true, you still have a problem, and if it's not true, well then Rand was wrong about it and we all can go home. I think you are correct in being able to say that it can be considered a moral question since Rand says it is an issue of a woman's values. It is a question of personal ethics as it really is an issue of wether or not the woman should want to be president, rather than if we should want her to - i.e. should we select her because she's competent for the job (I, unlike Rand, would vote for a woman President - Condoleeza Rice in fact - but that is another thread). Given that, Rand's argument leads to: Can a rational woman morally be president in a normal situation? Rand's answer here is clearly NO, for personal ethical reasons. But this does NOT generalize to your statement. I think a woman can morally be president in a normal situation, and that the public could be moral in voting for a woman President. (Rand herself said she would not, but never addressed the issue of wether WE should not) All of this NOT contradicting Rand's statements above. I believe the answer turns on what Rand meant by "a rational woman" in the context of this discussion, and my analysis to that will have to wait until after lunch. Hold on...

Not what I meant. If you feel you find it helpful continue it by all means. Looking for contradiction to the premises is certainly what one would want to do, but it contributes if it is using the approprate method. I merely posted my contention to suggest that there maybe significantly better methods. You would not purport to study optics by sitting in a dark room and closing your eyes, the way the early Kantian scientists did, would you. I'm just saying I believe that the Amazonian experiment may be entirely invalid in that same way. miseleigh is mixing ethical and psychological concepts. If you keep feminism in the psychological realm and realize that Miss Rand's arguments are purely from a psychological perspective, individuality is not contradicted.

It's part of an inductive argument, tied to reality, and not some fantasy world. In the same way that the aging process is part of an inductive proof of mortality. If you can a) show degrees of psychological difference that appear to be induced by increasing level of male subordination, and look at how the woman deals with that pressure you may get some clues as to wether or not this is a real issue. It's only a portion of the proof, but the Amazonian thought experiment contributes ZERO. It provides not one inch of useful advance. Does it parry a potential assailant??? Yeah, but real advance crushes it. What are you wasting your time for?

OK, guys, as of this writing we have six submissions. 5 male (I think?) and 1 female (thank you Sophia). Not exactly a scientific sample, but this was never meant that way. First, thanks for posting. I am just curious about your perpectives and this might be fun. There are some intersting similarities in choices and some interesting differnces. Can I split into 4 groups, just for unit economy, based on similarity of style: 1. The female (Sophia, your style is a lot like group 3, but since your our only woman, and we want a separate perspective) 2. Classical (Metaphysical and Laslo) 3. Realists (me and aequalsa - by the way, you Romance link is wrong) 4. Deco (Vladimir) I am interested now to have you go to an intellectual space. Essentialize for me what it is about your three peices that is the essence of the theme. I know that the works show fully integrated human beings (i.e. Man as productive, woman as rational, etc...), but focus on the key aspects of the works that essentialize the 3 themes. List only the top 2 for each. If you want to say a few words about why you chose the pieces and describe a bit about your emotional state as you view the peices as well, that's fine. Beyond that we can start comparing soem of what we see and see if anything is similar.

WARNING. If you have not yet submitted art for the discussion, the consider doing so HERE before you read the discussion in this thread. If you do not care to post art, then you're welcome to discuss anyway, but look at the art so you know what we're talking about!!!

Ok. lots of good advice. Some counterpoints to some suggestions: 1. Sophia, your argument is pretty conceptually correct, but without some way of tying to reality directly, it will seem hollow. It feels purely conceptual (if A then B then C then D. QED) 2. The, "I can argue you into non-existence" is interesting, and will make the person you are arguing with think a bit. But someone who entertains odd epistemological arguments might be quite willing to accept your non-existence, and be happy to keep you there with them. You must make a path out of the cave... 3. It is true that nobody would seriously entertain rational skepticism in a fully consistent manner, but poor epistemology comes from not resolving the contraditions and continually chasing your tail, not from truly accepting it. My approach is thusly: a. Figure out where they are coming from first. Many times a source of contradition comes from a faulty reasoning process, usually by using arguments about induction to show that existence can't be induced. The basic error is that "I've never seen every example of a man, therefore I can't be sure that man is mortal" - applied to reality. Combine it with man's infallibility, and you get subjectivism. If you accept this, you'll never get out of it. b. You drive the argument toward reality. You want to bring them to primacy of reality, right. You have to get to the axiomatic nature of reality. To do that, you don't have to fix the poor induction. Rather explain the concept of axioms. Validation by sense perception. Now, I accept that I am fallible, but if I could show you that even with that infallibility, there are aspects of reality that I can know for certain, that are implicit in everything. I then would focus on 2 things: identity and cause and effect. And here I make it real, because the ultimate justification is look around. Now you're pelting them with evidence, and asking them to take it in. Identity: an apple is not an orange, and it never will be. EVERYTHING follows this. No matter how far science maps cause and effect, EVERYTHING acts one way other things and one way only. When science is wrong about something, and is later corrected, the solution has identity and cause and effect. Psychologically, they will have to sit with this for a while so this is abou the best you can hope for I think, but look at the position that you've put them in. They will now have to use their deduction skills to posit things to you like miracles, things that are anti cause and effect, which will not sit well with them. God invariably comes into this. Don't let it. Howzat?

Um, guys, I think that the Amazon senario isn't going to get anywhere. It feels rationalistic to me, a lot like where the orgy thread was headed. Look, you guys have chewed the logic a few times. Megan, I know you've internalized it well. There are 2 possible objections that seem rational to me: a. you disagree with Ayn Rand's psychological characterization of the essence of feminity. b. you agree with the psychology, but disagree that a woman President couldn't find a way to express her feminity within the confines of her life as President. Ok, fine. What's the next step? It is certainly not asking what some mythical Amazonian women would do if they were President. And it is not casting about for someone to give you better logic than you've already got. The answer: look to reality! Integrate with what the concrete world tells you. Olex brought this up already! If it is proposition A, go look to see if there si any scientific literature develoepd that validates the position. If B, then find examples of women who live with large majority males in subordinate positions. See what their psychology is like. Doesn't have to be President, but you ought to see some sort of affect of having a large numbers of men in subordinate positions. All the while trying to make sure you've considered cultural norm influence. But Amazons? please...

The forum experiment is posted as a separate thread here. I need your participation to build up a dataset!

hmmm. I can go with that vocabulary too. I think that the common usage of worship is what you think is unmasculine.

By the way moderators, I think this thread might belong in esthetics. Also, I would ask that people refrain from dialoguing about the selections until we've had a chance to let most people add theirs. I really want emotional responses. The more we throw ideas into the mix, the more it biases the "experiment". In fact, I will set up a separate thread to discuss the selections and leave this one for postings.

Well, you know Rand, she was specifically using words that had different common meaning in an attempt to "take them back" from those who she believes co-opted them. (e.g. selfishness, etc...). The net effect is that Objectivism seems to have a slightly different vocabulary, but you know that is true of philosophy in general. You have to know how a particular philospher defined and intended a concept otherwise you risk bringing in an incorrect context or a package deal. Plus, I'm not sure the Christian notion of love doesn't present the same problem. I'm not sure where Rand said that specifically, but the answer, for me, is yes. A woman's feminity is part of what I worship.

So the whole topic of Rand's positing the possibility of psychological differences between genders makes me want to test it out a bit. This is a completely non-scientific experiment, but I am curious as to what it will yield, and it might be fun. Here is your assignment - Go out on the web and bring us back three peices of art representing the following essential concepts: 1. The Masculine 2. The Feminine 3. The Romantic (i.e. the nature of the emotional relationship between man and woman) I want your psychological responses so I want you to try to find the peice of art that for you has the greatest emotional response. i.e. it takes your breath away and makes you say "Aha, this for me in my heart is the essence of __[e.g. Masculinity]__!" I am particularly interested in responses from women out there, as contrasted with the many responses I know I'll get from the guys. Please - nothing pornographic. We're all Objectivists here so I assume we have a modicum of self-esteem... Happy hunting. Don't all run to Quent Cordair Gallery at once...

I am not sure that hero worship necessarily implies submission. As I mentioned before a really big conclusion for me was that Objectivist worship, and the Christian notion of worship (which is a dominant influence today) were diametrically opposed. The Christian notion of worship connotes humbling yourself before God, i.e. recognizing your imperfection in contrast to God's "perfection". I think that is where I would reject definition 5 as deriving more from the Christian notion of worship. The Objectivist notion in contrast is egoitistical. It is, in a way, exhalting in your own virtue, by admiring similar virtues in another. That is why you must have significant virtue and self esteem in order to worship another. So an Objectivist must worship another, not by humbly bowing before them, but by standing as tall as they can, and in a sense basking in the glow of (i.e. valuing) shared virtue of another. As I said before, I believe that in the sense of valuing another, love is mutual worship. The whole "hero worship" vs. "heroine [who reflects his deepest vision of himself] possession" again, only relates to the emotional perspective of this mutual worship. Rand posits that this is a relevant psychological difference. You believe it is entirely contextual.

hmmm. Ok that helps a bit. I think Featherleaf also said the same things. So if I contrast what I think to be the differences in where you and Rand might think gender differences are relevant: Rand Biological? Yes, Psychological? Rand says Yes - miseleigh doesn't like her premise about it though= Political? No Ethical? No Epistemogical? No miseleigh Biological? Yes, Societal? (i.e. cultural norms) YES Psychological? No Political? No Ethical? No Epistemogical? No My question for you is do you think that cultural norms are 100% arbitrary, i.e. things that have evolved at random without and relation to any relevant difference (even biological) between the sexes? I think certainly we could all agree that there are various culture norms that are derived from perceived differences which are non-existent, - i.e. arbitrary (her Presidency article lists some of these, so I'm going to assume she would have agreed with the implication that there are cultural norm differences) . Arbitrary cultural norms are certainly ones that both Objective men and women should rebel against. The way your phrase your statement "characteristics that are generally associated with being female" would seem to imply to me that you feel these are associated with being female entirely by arbitrary, and that you personally don't in any way psychologically respond to them as feminine. Note: this is not a unique perspective for Objectivist women. I located a Diana Hseih article on the topic where her specific argument is that an Objective standard by which to work with ideas of gener is with respect to cultural norms. Here. (It's a fairly old article so please read Diana's cautionary note at the top of this page. She may or may not still hold that position. I am including it only to show that you are not so out of bounds in your contention.) So the key difference between you and my hypothesis of Rand is on wether or not psychological differences exist that are relevant. Tough question to answer even upon introspection because you need the contrast of the two psychological perspectives to be able to discern. So maybe a thought experiment. Forget any perceived cultural norms for a minute and focus on your psychology, your emotional response. What traits make you feel "feminine"? tough to draw specific conclusions I know. Sit with it for while. If you say none in particular affect your pschology, then ask yourself if, in any given romantic situation, you can be confident that your boyfriend takes the exact same emotional perspective that you do. Heck, maybe ask him to introspect and try to share his emotional perspective with you. Are there any differences? (hmmm I have an idea for a forum experiment)...

Yikes. I searched where I thought the reference was and can't find it. If this is correct then 1,000,000 apologies. That is a misquote I never want to make again... My apologies.

I have to say that I'm of the same opinion. I've seen this topic discussed before, and while I was interested in discussing intrinsic vs. contextualness of concepts, using this as an example is tedious for me. If someone wants to propose an example around which we can continue the discussion I'd be happy to stick with it. As to Rand's views on sexuality, I think that while everyone seems in earnest about their belief that Objectivist though supports their position, I'm unsure if anyone has stated a position that is as complete as they would believe. I pulled out The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics since it deals with the concrete example of Miss Rand's own sexual choices. I remembered a section in it where the author reviews what is known and expressed about her thoughts on the topic. I am going to quote the whole passage that seems relevant so that folks can read it, but I do not plan to discuss it in any way. I have taken the liberty of underlining a few passages that echo parts of what several individuals on both sides have said. The underlining is mine only. Otherwise the passage should be exact (save a typo or 2).

Exactly the issue, and exactly the complexity. Ultimately this gets worked on by psychologists, and that's the place we should go to see if there is evidence that would support or disprove Ayn Rand's introspective statement. I think her essay makes a generalization about female psychology, that she didn't really have evidence for, other than her own introspection. I'm not sure what other forms of induction she relied on to be so sure about her conclusions, but whatever they are, she didn't really refer to them, which leaves us wondering where she gets the premise from. I can vouch from my own introspection about my personal similarity to her view on masculine psychology, but that doesn't leave me able to generalize either. I am sure some clever psychologist can come up wiht creative experimental design that starts to look at isolating gender differences in psychology, but we may have to wait for the answer. no doubt difficult to do. That was a nice observation by the way. I only like worship because it contrasts the Objectivist view of love with the Christian view of love (which is all to common). I know its been discussed before, but for newcomers, it's not always helpful just to read over the old material. It's is not the same as "chewing" on the concept by having to address point and counterpoint in discussion. I'm more than fine in "rehashing" something that others have gone over before. For the record, mdop, held a debate on this very topic in 1999, 2000 or something. Diana Hseih was very involved in that one then. I should see if I can find some old posts on the topic.... No, I shouldn't.

Miseleigh, Note, I don't think its necessary to reappend this thread to the original discussion on this topic. This one is separate and occured amonst different people, at a different time. You said (in the old thread) I want to build up exactly what your premise is contrasted to Rand's. If the fact that you and your boyfriend are different genders "has little effect... outide the purely physical", could you please describe the effect it has outside the purely physical? You didn't say it has "no effect outside the physical" so it must have some. Where is that, and what is it's nature? In other words, I'm trying to get you to classify where the concept of feminity is relevant: Rand Biological? Yes, Psychological? Rand says Yes - miseleigh doesn't like her premise about it though Political? No Ethical? No Epistemogical? No Miseleigh Biological? Yes - you said that above Psychological? ????? Political? No - you said earlier Ethical? No - you said earlier Epistemogical? No - you said earlier So what does feminity imply to you, outside of the purely physical.