Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KendallJ

  1. Yes! The fact that men and women are different is metaphysical. So at what conceptual level are those differences relevant. Biological? Yes, obviously (hopefully we all agree on that) Psychological? Rand says Yes, but at best you might say that she was not a psychologist and while she may have been generalizing from her own introspection that psychology as such has not developed a strong theory on the differences. I personally think there are probably some psychological differences, but I cannot in any way claim that I have a definitive, other than by my own introspection which is only 1/2 of the puzzle. Political? No - men and women have the same rights, etc. Ethical? No - men and women have the same proper virtues. Epistemogical? No, men and women both have the capacity for rationality I think questioning Rand's initial premise is fair. But, accepting her premise, I think her logic is sound. I'll scan the article up when I get home tonight. It's not too many pages.
  2. I believe that Rand said that this was possible, but that it would take "giants" to be able to emotioinally sustain such a relationship without it becoming immoral. Meaning of course that it is not intrinsically bad, but contextually bad for all but a handful of people.
  3. In what way does it seem a contradition? I would suggest a full read of the article. If you like I'll scan it and send it to you. What does woman qua woman imply to you? Rand implies that woman as human being, or woman as rational being wouldn't necessarily find it so. I don't find that contradictory. Woman qua woman is woman as a feminine being. Look, I can't validate what she says about the psychology of femininity, because I'm not female. So you will never find me arguing that she is right about this perspective. Ultimately, you as a female, (qua woman, if you like ) will have to introspect about your psychology and see if you concur. But, if you start from her premise, I can see how she arrived at her conclusion, and I don't see a contradition with her philosophy.
  4. No, academic philosophy calls it metaphysics. The term metaphysical in its common usage is what you may be implying. That's been somewhat co-opted (to mean more like supernatural) from the academic meaning. hmmm.. well since we've started talking about it, and since you seem pretty sincere, I'm interested to know a little more about what you posit. It'll also help me learn about how you are using the word reason. Your use of reason and "being reasonable" may not be quite the same thing. Objectivism justifies the use of reason (as opposed to being reasonable) because it is man's only means to propertly identify the nature of his word, and ultimately to survive. So anyway, tell me more about the dogmatism you see in "being reasonabl".
  5. in succinct conceptual form. I only said that because it can be pulled out and stand by itself as a statement of the philosophy (and that was done in For the New Intellectual). You can certainly pick up the elements the philosophy througout the book as they are shown everywhere in concretized form.
  6. Shading, welcome to the forum. Yeah, I don't think I'd start there. There are a miriad of reasons that Miss Rand named her philosophy Objectivism, but don't gravitate to the issue of objectivity has having primacy. Objectivism advocates reason, and states that reason when properly used, is objective. But that relies on Objectivist metaphysics, epitemology to conclude. I'd read some more before I tackled that one. Highly suggest if you haven't read The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged first, that you do so. While Atlas explains the philosophy succintly late in the book, the real purpose is primarily motivational. If you really love those, then you'll come back to the ideas, and be willing to spend some time with them. If they really, really, really turn you off, then trust me, you aren't ready for us.
  7. Read it again, then because that is not what it says. Where does she say anything about damaging men's masculinity? My best explanation was in a previous post. And she specifically applies it only to the Presidency, not any other situation where a woman "place herself in leadership above men". It really is so delimited, and as she said, based on psychology - not philosophy, that it should never have created the stir that it did [back then].
  8. Short answer. It is not part of the Objectivist philosophy. I pulled the whole essay from Voice of Reason. I'm not going to quote the whole thing here, but hopefully give you enough that you'll get a better context. Ironically, the two sentences the open the woman qua woman paragraph denote clearly that it is not a philosophical issue. As to the context of her specific beef with the presidency... In the early part of the article, she delimits what she does not mean by this preference. (apologies for the typos...) Howzat?
  9. While RationalCop is giving you the third degree, I'm going to assume that you are sincere, and parse your argument. Your basic syllogism is: An orgy is a purely physical act [of lust satisfaction] where emotion should be involved. Purely physical acts like this are degrading to all involved. Therefore, something that is degrading is anti-life. And I told you if you could show it was anti-life, it would be generally bad. My issue is with your claim of degradation. Why are they degrading in all situations, to all involved? As it is, its just a claim. Its the equivalent of saying "Purely physical acts are generally bad", which ends up being a circular argument. Purely physical acts are generally bad for all [in place of degrading] Generally bad things are anti-life, therefore purely physical acts like orgies are generally bad. You are pre-assuming what you set out to prove, or "begging the question". This is something I commonly encounter when arguing with Christians. It takes about 2 or 3 steps for them to always be pushed back to "because God says it is so" as a reason. I'm not trying to argue for orgies. They are not for me personally. But I am trying to show you what you are going to encounter here. Objectivists won't long put up with the "it is so, because it is so" type of arguments, and Christians are prone to them (I know, I used to be one...). If you're going to stand firm with type of argumentation, it can't be reasoned with, as you have accepted your faith as a fundamental means of knowing something to be true. You may find some losing patience with it and suggesting that you read some of the basic literature first.
  10. Allright, how about this. I'll throw one of your Rand quotes back at you. Now, is that not enough "looking up" for you? For me, one of the biggest changes in my thinking as an Objectivist was around the meaning of love. I was raised with the Christian version, that love was "unselfish", that it was more about accepting your love's flaws. Objectivism turned it around for me 180 degrees. It took my a while to reconcile that statement above. I felt it emotionally, but didn't want to admit I felt it, out of "fairness" or "equalness" to the other person. Shoot, how can you conquer something you admire? Isn't conquer synonymous with destroy, crush, debase, force to submit? Doesn't a woman looking up to her love mean that she is somehow not as good? Here's how I reconcile it. Love is about mutual admiration or worship. Not for your flaws, but for one's virtues. That's the Objectivist basis. What Rand posits is that it is one's emotional perspective toward that worship that is just slightly different. It's really a specific difference, in a very specific context, but feminists trip over the words, because they're "fighting words".
  11. Moderator, Split the thread please. Not much time to respond, but I'll clarify later tonight. A couple of thoughts: 1. all of the quotes you cite (with the exception of the "... President" excerpt which I'll address separately) are literary descriptions or metaphors as opposed to stated principles, and must be considered in context. Be very careful about "it's as if she thinks" sorts of generalizations. You might be psychologizing intent that was not there. 2. The Fountainhead rape scene has always been highly controversial. (I had one friend who said he couldn't take Rand seriously because she was a "misogynist" and could only point to this scene to justify his claim). You may have heard that of this scene Miss Rand said "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." Most people pay attention to the 2nd phrase, but the first phrase calls into question whether you could even call it rape, in the truest sense of the word, from Rand's perspective. But the real issue is: 3. In reference to the Jan 16th quote you say: Whoa. You've equivocated on the word "possessed". My question for you is, "in what way did she think women ought to be possessed?" Did she mean literally held captive against their will? Show me one concrete character in any book or any statement that follows that up. In fact, if you look at the quote in context, it is all in regard to attraction, and a sexual relationship to which she is referring. She is looking at the male and female perspective within the context of attraction, and relationship. This applies to the "engraved invitation" as well. 4. Finally the "...President" quote. This is not realy considered part of Objectivism but reflects Miss Rand's personal opinion of feminity, so you can be a true Objectivist and claim Rand had some rotten ideas on feminity if you like. Note: I believe (don't quote me, and I don't have it in front of me) that she qualified this essay by some statement to the effect that these were her feelings only. You say: Tell me how? She is not saying anything like this. Her statement here is: I believe the nature of feminity is X. A woman acting under that premise, would find being President psychologically unpalatable, and unenjoyable. I would find it so much so that I would never be President. Your experience is really not what she's talking about I think. I work with women who are my peers, supervisors, and such. While none of them "sacrifice" their feminity as such, I think in the context of the relationship with their male subordinates, they do sacrifice it a bit. Rand is just saying if I were in a situation where the majority of men I dealt with were subordinate to me, I'd sacrifice enough of my feminity that I wouldn't have a strong enough outlet for it, and would find such a situaion emotionally repugnant. She said nothing about the ability or right of a woman to be president, nor rights in general, nor the equality of men in general. As an aside, someone tell me why my carriage returns are showing in triplicate. Annoying!
  12. Give me a good drum corps anyday. Interestingly, my family and I are going to see BlueMan when we're at OCON in Boston. Welcome to the board.
  13. Well that's a pretty bold assertion. Help me out on that one. Where do you come by that perspective? (plus, I believe her personal views on women's roles aren't part of the Objectivist corpus. "true Objectivists" don't take everything Miss Rand said as gospel...) [moderator, feel free to split the thread if needed...]
  14. No, just that capitalism is a political concept, and so comparing it to ethical concepts that relate to individual choices is confusing. You can analyize in an ethical framework, but analyze it correctly. To just toss it out as an example muddies the waters. Ms. Rand said "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your life is its purpose." So what you can say about someting in general is "Is it in any way anti-life, or not". In the realm of individual choices however, once you've said someting about a certain thing in general, there may still be all sorts of contexts that cause you to value it not at all, or to value it greatly. It is not sufficient to argue that you would not value and hence not do something, therefore it is inherenlty bad. I think that's the point that is being made. People want to argue the topic from their point of view or their context, or their experience with strippers. Proper argument here is against a standard. Tell me why its anti-life... Capitalism is inherenlty pro-life. The Objectivist virtues are pro-life. What Objectivist virtue does stripping specifically contradict? If it is not anti-life per se, then you go the context to see if you can say its ethically wrong. i.e. you examine the context of the person's life, and what they are pursuing. Subjectivists, skip the whole standard part and just say, "if I value it it's good." Intrinsicists say "Because things have intrinsic value, all rational people would value something that is good; therefore, if many people, (or even just I) don't value it, it must be inherently wrong." There you have whim vs. the mob. I think of it like this. Objectivism says "Be productive, act as a trader." What I choose as a profession is purely contextual. Are there still ethical dilemmas I can encounter in my context? sure. It is wrong to choose journalism as a career if I am engergized by engineering moreso than journalism. You tell me why its intrinsically bad. Walk through the analysis. Why is it anti-life in and of itself?
  15. yesindeed, you substituted capitalism for value there, and that's not quite right. Capitalism is a political concept. Rand was specific about what values are, and how to evaluate them. Don't mistake contextualism for subjectivism. The "standard of value" is that which is proper for man's life. But the specific choice to pursue is yours. the choice of values is contextual to you, but not subjective. So therefore, Objectivism says you should be productive, and act as a trader, but it doesn't say what profession you should choose. Choice of pursuits is contextual, not subjective. It's not the same thing.
  16. Thanks. No worries. I've got the low down, and fine with both forums.
  17. That is a veeeery long story. How much time do you have? I think Diana has pulled together the most info, and is probably the most balanced in that she supported TOC (earlier IOS) in its earlier incarnation. http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html The fundamental schism is between David Kelley and Leonark Peikoff, over a) when one can pass absolute judgement, and is Objectivism an "open" system. However, Nathaniel Branded allied himself with TOC, and so the secondary schism is the original Branded / Rand split. Basically TOC is out peddling it's own brand of Objectivism, and claims that ARI, are absolutist Nazi's (my phrase). Diana's split with them appears to be because TOC is running out of intellectual horsepower, and it's ideas are becoming threadbare. I won't put words in Diana's mouth so she can add comment if she cares. At the time IOS was coming into it's own, I have to say I was open to some of the ideas (young Objectivist, what can I say - it's best to be familiar with O, before digging in), but frankly, after hearing a few of Peikoff's courses, I thought that Kelley was misrepresenting his position, and I thought Peikoff to be pretty rational. Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. I'm sure others will give you their perspective.
  18. Woops, didn't tell you did I. Yes, it was Myers-Briggs.
  19. Well, that was probably a poor choice of words. I guess "surfing" is the right vernacular. I've been an admin on other IPB boards, and I saw apo (alt.philosophy.objectivism for those too young to remember) turn into a lawless wild-west bar brawl so I know the trouble trolls cause. I join 4AynRand to, but not sure I can keep up with both. Is the Speicher split thread still on the board?
  20. INTJ, like most. Interestingly, I took a business course in ellicitation techniques a few years ago. The instructor was ex-intelligence (CIA, or military, I believe). He told us that the military has looked at many different types of personality profiles, and found only one to be a priori predicitive of a person's behavior (i.e. given someones type, one can make somewhat accurately predictions about how they might react in future situations). This doesn't make the system fundamentally correct, but empirically useful. Up until then I had though these mostly parlor games, but that was an interesting comment.
  21. hmm interesting thread. 1. Most of my internet sigs have "Who is John Galt?" embedded in them. 2. Checks say the same on them. 3. No car paraphenalia although it's an interesting concept. 4. I have a firebird tattoo'ed on my ankle, from the period where I finally decided I had studied Objectivism enough to call myself one. 5. I collect fountain pens. A while back I had one custom made in Japan with the kanji for "capitalist" inscribed on the barrel. Of course, most people dont' know what it means.
  22. Hello all! I found this board by accident when trolling some old Objectivist friend's blogs. I'm a 38 yr old Objectivist. Been so (Objectivist, not 38) since 1995. Started my journey into Objecitivism when I read The Fountainhead in 1991. I was in the habit of randomly picking up books to read and one day, just picked it on a lark. Ironic that something that impactful stayed on my bookshelf for almost 18 months before I started it. The rest is history. I used to be active in the early UseNet discussion boards. Anyone who knows what apo or mdop is knows the era I'm from. Names like the Speichers, Diana Brickell, Jimmy Wales ought to be familiar to some. Looks like the debate is civil on the board. Its interesting to note that some fo the same questions are still being asked, and discussed. Anyway, look forward to some good discussion. I'll probably lurk for a while until I get the feel of the board. All the best, Kendall Justiniano
  23. Woops!. Sorry. Shoudl keep reading the rest of the forum.
  24. Hey folks. This is easier. Signon and have somone pin this link. Obj Online Map
  • Create New...