Ifat Glassman

The difference between Roark and Mallory (from The Fountainhead). Mallory talks about it with Roark in some of their conversations (what makes Roark immune to other men while Mallory got hurt from the battle).

And what is it that you think is left in an artist's life or actions if you take away the art? "don't look at what he has created his whole life and what he devoted his life for - look at his actions!" Second point: Art reveals a whole lot about the artist - more so than other kinds of job. It is definitely a valid source of information about the artist's personality. small point: I think Ayn Rand thought the same - if you ever read her article about Marilyn Monro, she talks about the actress's character - the kind of character she projects. How do you suppose someone sees and recognizes these things when they only have the person's acting and some interviews available? A man needs to develop this kind of "vision", but if he does, it opens up a gigantic world of information. This is how Roark could recognize who Dominique was from a single glance, and the other way around. In fact there is a sentence in The fountainhead said by Toohey, about how a person's first response to a face reveals a lot about them. Anyway, I'll stop at that.

I am deeply sorry he died. I admire him as an artist and I think his story of downfall is tragic. It seems like all the people at the top of the entertainment world get hit with some vicious force - Marilyn Monro is one example of many. Perhaps it is their success that makes them the target of hatred and envy of many who try to make them feel bad for who they are and bring them down. "In early 1996, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued a press release charging Jackson with antisemitism regarding lyrics in the song "They Don't Care About Us" "For a number of years, Sony had been pushing to buy all of Jackson's share in their music catalog venture. If Jackson's career or financial situation were to deteriorate, he would have to sell his catalog. Thus, Sony had something to gain from Jackson's career failing." "Jackson denied the sexual abuse allegations, saying that the sleepovers were in no way sexual in nature. Jackson's friend Elizabeth Taylor defended him on Larry King Live, saying that she had been there when they "were in the bed, watching television. There was nothing abnormal about it. There was no touchy-feely going on. We laughed like children and we watched a lot of Walt Disney. There was nothing odd about it."[123] During the investigation, Jackson's profile was examined by mental health professional Dr. Stan Katz; the doctor spent several hours with the accuser too. The assessment made by Katz was that Jackson had become a regressed 10-year-old and did not fit the profile of a pedophile." Looking at Michael Jackson's videos, expressions and movement, I think he felt very intensely about life, had a very high capacity to enjoy life, had self confidence and was uninhibited to express himself in a degree most people can only dream of and never experience in a lifetime. His music released such a positive energy into the world, nothing short of a spiritual giant can do that. If he had a screwed up psychology, it was buried deep in his early years. Seeing himself as a child is something I can understand and relate to; kids are innocent and happy, adults seem grim and dishonest. A person seeking to enjoy life can easily make the mistake of thinking that the source of joy is a childish spirit. I think external factors had a lot to do with his detirioration. Had the world been a better place, I don't think he would have broke down like he did. I find his story tragic.

The relation of a genius to an ordinary man is not the same as an adult to a child. A child does not necessarily even grasp explicitly the concept of "truth", he did not have enough life experience to see that some people are right and some are wrong in what they teach him. An adult is not in the same position. As for the difference in context - the child's context is more limited, but as he grows up, if his thinking is right, his growing knowledge adds on top of his previous knowledge - it does not contradict it, but expands it. Limited context is not a problem if one uses logic to infer from it. For example, I live in a small village and I see that when men's freedom is respected the village is flourishing, and I understand why. I conclude that individual rights are required for survival. Does it make any difference that someone out there is living in the big world, and has knowledge of various countries and their regime? He has no power to wipe out your conclusions by the grace of his wider context if you did your process of induction right.

Huh? This is ridiculous. The only reason someone would be so fragile in their confidence of their opinions is if they never actually understood them. To understand means to see the meaning of their ideas in countless cases in reality, and see how the idea relates to their other ideas. If your mind is so fluid that every intellectual can wipe out your ideas, you are the one who gives them the power to do so by giving up your own judgement - by not insisting to think and understand, but letting go of your conclusions because of the presence of an impressive "authority". Second point is that you put a lot of emphasis on the genius refuting your ideas, and no emphasis on them convincing you of their ideas. I'd never trust someone who all they can offer is just refutation of my ideas, but no ideas of their own. Someone who seeks to understand reality should have many positives to offer, not just refutation of things.

"should the government charge for citizenship?" No - they have no right to do that. They offer a service, they can only charge for the service they provide and do their job - to protect the people who pay them from internal and external threats. They should screen out people who pose a threat to the public (criminals, terrorists, etc'), but they have no right charging people just for staying on that land. The only argument that could justify it is that they increase the value of the land by providing protection - but even then the argument would be wrong. People can improve the value of things (like a person rebuilding the area outside his store nicely), it doesn't put other people under obligation to pay them up.

Just do me a favor, ok, call me Ifat? (pronounced if, as the condition if, and at as in "I've been at this place before") I got your question, I think it's a good one, I've been thinking about it too. Some lecture recommendations: "Understanding Objectivism" by Peikoff - he talks in length about intrinsicism and subjectivism (though more from an epistemological point of view than ethical as far as I remember - though it provides good explanations of these), then in "Objectivism through induction" again by Leonard Peikoff - he actually explains with examples what it means to have objective values. That's the jackpot for you, IMO, you'll find your full answer there. So, about the question... Let's take it to a different field. Suppose instead of trying to live well or be happy you try to design a bridge. A subjectivist would go by his feelings "I feel that putting a beam here will make the bridge good, therefore it makes it a good idea", an objective approach will try to discover the best way to build the bridge based on facts like the weight of the bridge, the load it will carry, the surrounding, etc' and at the same time employ creative thinking to come up with new and more efficient way to build the bridge. (Just for the hack of it, the intrincisist will not try to think creatively, rather he would try to let reality dictate to him how a bridge should be built). So both the subjectivist and the objectivist have the same goal, but they have different methods. Now cut paste the same thing, but replacing the purpose of the bridge with the purpose of getting pleasure, being happy. The subjectivist acts by his feelings, the objectivist learns the principles by which he should live to achieve this purpose. One principle is that you should consider how something you do will influence your long term goals, how your goals relate to one another, the meaning of your desires against the requirements of psychological health. A few examples: A desire to get a dog A desire to have a vacation A desire to sleep with someone A desire to drink alcohol A desire to go to a movie Dog: Subjectivist feels like having a dog? Hell with everything, so long as he has enough bucks in his pocket he'll get that dog today. Objectivist feels like having a dog? He thinks about his ability to raise the dog, the requirements of taking care of it, what it means for his daily routine, the reason why he wants a dog and whether or not that reason is good (Does he wants a dog because he sees it as a substitution for human companionship, or as a fun addition? If the former than getting a dog will only make a psychological problem worse). Vacation: Subjectivist feels like running away from work after a crappy day? Vacation now, to the first destination that happens to appeal to him. Objectivist thinks how it will affect his work if he goes for a vacation now, what vacation he can afford and at what expense, which location would serve his current needs best (Is he looking for relaxation and quietness or excitement and action? and why - does excitement and action meant to dazzle him so he doesn't have time to think of how much he hates his job, or is it because he enjoys the fast pace of activities?), in short, he considers the meaning of a vacation in the context of his other values, mental and physical health. A desire to sleep with someone: Subjectivist: Go with the moment, do what you feel now. Is it good to sleep with her? Of course it is, because that's what I feel like doing. Objectivist: Who is this woman, is she trustworthy, why do I want to sleep with her, what does sleeping with her mean for my other values (like, say, a wife), etc'. I'll stop here, I think it's enough to get the idea... The subjectivist ignores reality and only looks at his emotional impulses. The Objectivist considers options for action against principles and long term consequences. I think you would still ask, well, but suppose he answered all of those questions satisfyingly - he trusts the woman, he wants to sleep with her because he loves and admires her, it does not destroy his life if he does sleep with her, and yet, he wants to sleep with her and not any other woman not just for her general virtues but because of her unique appeal to him like her unique sense of life, sense of humor, interests, the degree her thinking matches his, and stuff like that. Isn't he subjectivist for choosing a woman based on something personal, something in him, in who he is and his personal preferences? Well, no. Who he is (like SoL, sense of humor, method and pace of thinking, etc') are things he needs to take under account. The opposite of subjectivism is not to eliminate personal identity (that would be intrinsicism) - personal identity is a fact just like any other that needs to be taken under account. Just because you have a certain character, does not make it a personal whim. It is a fact of reality like any other. So long as who you are is not immoral, it is compatible with living and achieving happiness, there is no reason to change it. So you just accept that this is who you are and use it as one of the factors to make decisions.

From my blog: link Values as objective What makes something good? Is it how you feel about it, how the universe "built" it, or how something in the universe relates to you? These are 3 different philosophical approaches to "the good", which are Intrinsic, Subjective and Objective: Intrinsic: "Eating a banana is good because food is good" Subjective: "Eating this banana is good because I feel like it" Objective: "Eating this banana is good for me because it gives me energy, health and enjoyment" Intrinsic: "Religion is good because that's the nature of reality as dictated to us by god" Subjective: "Religion is good because I feel good whenever I read the bible" Objective: "Religion contradicts reason, which is requires for my survival, therefore it's bad" A description of the three approaches by Ayn Rand, from "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" (in blue): "Intrinsic value" is the approach of the man that says that what makes something good is how the universe "built" it. Examples of an intrinsic approach to values: "The elimination of the human genes in the process of evolution is good because this is the nature of the universe, or the will of the universe, if you will" "The existence of living things is good" (This implies that something can be good regardless of someone for which it would be good) "Having sex before marriage is bad" ("Why? Because god said so" - or "it simply IS") "Cutting down plants is bad because it hurts mother earth" The Subjective approach: Subjective approach examples: "Religion is good because whatever makes the person happy is good for him" "What I see as good is not the same as what you see as good, therefore, there is no real concept of "good" or "bad"; In your worldview, a killer is bad, but in his worldview, he is not." "Nobody really knows what is good or bad for anyone - it's a matter of individual feeling." "I am good because I am me, and every person thinks of himself as good." (implies that a person is good because he wants to be good, not because he has some criterion to judge himself by) Objective approach examples: "This medicine is good for you because it will cure your illness" "Having independent thinking is good for you because it allows you to create material good necessary for your life" "Listening to this kind of music is good for me because it uplifts my spirit and inspires me to acquire the success I dream of having" "Listening to this kind of music is bad for you because it drives you further into despair and running away from reality, despite the fact it provides temporary emotional relief" "This woman is no good for you because she is a liar and a cheat who will end up hurting you" Notice that in each case a fact of reality is identified, which is relevant to the person's well being - not just his momentary feeling, but that which allows good feelings in general. In summary: If the intrinsicist followed his idea of the good to the fullest, he'd be like a robot acting to satisfy the universe or "god" or some unquestioned moral code. In one example, he'd be trying to eliminate himself in favor of the next step in evolution, or in favor of preservation of "mother earth". If the subjectivist would follow his ideas to the fullest, he'd be looking only at his inner state to decide what is good for him - never at reality. If he craves food he'd be fat, and if he's fat, then he'll say that being fat is good, because he decides what is good. Only the objectivist (denoting here: a man who uses the objective approach to values) lives with his eyes open, considering both the facts of reality, how they relate to his well being and to the satisfaction of his spiritual needs. What makes something good for someone is not just how it makes him feel, nor how the universe is built - but his own identification that the thing promotes his physical and spiritual well being. Like the subjectivist - he strive to enjoy things - to give his emotions satisfaction and achieve pleasure. But unlike the subjectivist he uses reason to identify how to achieve enjoyment, not mere emotions. Like the instrincisist he strives to follow a moral code - but unlike the intrinsicist he does not take a moral code from "the universe", from god or from society as a given - he develops his own moral code by discovering the principles necessary for his life and happiness. Personal experience, books and other people can be of great aid in this process, but essentially the process is done with his own judgement. Under this process the values he chooses are objective: They are his choice, but not an arbitrary one: They are a result of correct identification of the facts of reality in relation to him.

It depends what you seek out of the competition. If you want to replace their judgement with yours - then it's not good to participate, you should instead learn to trust your own judgement and to evaluate your art by your judgement (you can still gain knowledge from others, but the ultimate evaluation has to be your own). If you want the exposure for the sake of a career advancement - you should check if you're ready to commercialize your art. If you want the money - sure go for it - why not? Money is always good. If you see this competition as a test if your art can sell or not - then it's not a good idea to participate, because of the fragile position it puts you in. It is essentially the same situation as the first I mentioned. Other people's admiration of your art should be a secondary enjoyment - a good bonus - but the primary evaluation and motivation for what you create has to be your own. If you feel that it is too difficult to maintain your own evaluation in face of other people's evaluation - I suggest you pull back from showing your art until you develop your own standards, confidence in your judgement and learn to evaluate your art by your standards. When you are not longer vulnerable in that sense - then is the time to show your art. You know, it might help you to think how Howard Roark approached his work. He worked for Henry Cameron to learn Cameron's knowledge - but he did not substitute Cameron's evaluation of his work with his own - instead he[/]b judged his own work using the knowledge he got from Cameron. Roark had a hard time finding costumers - in fact most of the time he was poor on the verge of starvation. What kept him going in his career in his own style was the fact that he judged his own work as good, and he was waiting for the kind of costumers who would use independent judgement to evaluate his work. He did not give up on Architecture (because he loved it too much) and he did not adjust his style to popular demand to get costumers. He did not accept his work as good regardless of what he did - he had very strict standards in judging - but yet he was confident in the value of his work because he worked hard to live up to his own standards. The key to his confidence is the fact he never gave up his independent thinking.

It's hypocritical, yes, but I don't see why this is arrogant. I've never heard something like this being referred to as arrogant before. I guess if you add the part about seeing us as "peasants" I can get it as arrogant.

Haha, that's really funny. That guy is a laughing stock, I can't even seriously think of such a person as anything else. Keep up the examples, it helps me to concretize what you mean by "arrogance". Better yet if any of you have examples from real life.

I didn't find your appreciation annoying at all. I think it is well based - by everything you see an improvement does show. And there IS actually a level of improvement. I enjoyed your compliment, and just added the later as an interesting point. I've been through that. You phrased it very well, too. But you've got to keep reminding yourself that allowing room for mistakes and imperfections is part of a process of learning. Such an approach doesn't come automatically - you got to want it, insist on getting it and train yourself to be like that. Simply tell yourself "now you just enjoy, do whatever feels inspiring, don't worry about technique". Then, every time you have the opposite thought, just tell it to go away, don't let it control your actions. I know it's hard but with time and repetition it works. That's what happens after years of inhibiting self-expression (because of fear it won't turn out good "enough"). At this point self expression won't come automatically anymore. You need to take steps and change your approach for it to come back. I've had this problem as well, and I am much better now - I draw and paint from imagination. You just need to train yourself and not give up. It will be worth it. It is possible. Don't let pessimism get the best of you. That is true, what you said about childhood. But it's possible to enjoy the adult world just as much - and in different ways than as a child. That's a topic for a different thread though..

I think considering the fact she was opposing ideas that his whole life is based on he took it pretty well and actually continued to think and try to understand. I think the audience and Donahue have a different method of thinking and have different premises to understand her philosophy in such a short time. For example, you can't talk about god before you established the proper method to gain knowledge ("you are not called upon to prove a negative").

Could you guys give examples of arrogant behavior or arrogant people? The more examples the better. It will be even better if you can explain what about the behavior makes it 'arrogant'. Thanks in advance.

With plenty of music (that I like) I can barely sit still. I've got to dance. I remember when I was 7 I was watching a movie about a Rock n' Roll star, and when he was playing "balls of fire" I got up and started dancing like crazy - the music was just too energetic to sit still. Is dancing art? Oh yeah. It most definitely is. You just need to see the right dancers to understand how abstract things like freedom, self-confidence, nobility, passion etc' take on a physical form. It's like it hits you in the face. It's also a great form of self expression, but it doesn't come right away, it takes time, exactly like megr.ferg described it: I also like the following (I find it interesting. I never thought of it that way or noticed it): You know, I'm not sure how accurate this is. To give you an example - I would normally hold hands with very little contrast or strength, but yet I'm not a passive person. The way I hold hands does show something about me, but the interpretation is not necessarily so straight forward in all cases. Would be great if you can tell more about what you learned (the meaning of certain styles/ movements), or give an example.

Thanks. You know something though, you can't really tell if I improved based on the drawings here. I could do the same years ago too, more or less - so long as I have a picture/ model to work with. The time I will say I have improved is when I draw things from imagination that look as good as this - which I'm beginning to see here and there. There is something very good about also being able not to worry about technique, and just paint whatever inspires you - in that sense (of creativity, not technique) my old stuff are better than the new. I don't do dry exercises. I draw using pictures that I like, and as I go about it I learn patterns of light and anatomy. This way I am not bored with the process of learning. Maybe you can try that. Then I also do drawing from imagination, to see my progress, to see what parts I'm not sure how to draw yet so I can pay more attention to them in the future, and also because the ability to draw from imagination is important for maintaining ease of self expression. The key here is that because I see drawing from imagination as part of the process of learning, I allow myself room for errors and disatisfaction with technique doesn't stop my motivation. I agree with you, the process is not easy. It requires a lot of looking, exercising, and even thinking. But it doesn't have to require self discipline and boring exercises. I think the key for motivation is not to be self critical in the negative sense, focusing on what you enjoy drawing while combining it with a process of learning.

Some of my new drawings:

What do you mean by "great things"? Why do you want to do them? These are difficult questions (I think) but finding the answer to these can be crucial to your life.

One last thing is that I'm sorry if I discouraged anyone from posting here by displaying impatience. I like discussing topics when there is a mutual desire to understand the topic, even when there is disagreement. I do lose patience though when it comes to certain things. But please don't hesitate to post on-topic questions, opinions or disagreements.

I think it is a contradiction to YOUR view, not A contradiction. If anyone is interested in this topic, here is a good thread with good presentation and good questions on this very topic: My problem with Objectivist meta-ethics, Does Objectivism collapse to hedonism? I ask anyone who wants to continue this line of discussion to do so there, where it belongs. Then, if there are conclusions that apply to this topic, we can discuss them here. You are consistent in thinking (or saying) that I present my own confusion or questions to others. I was directing these questions to you, to point out problems in your viewpoint, for you to think about and respond. I think it is very obvious. You are also using a condensending tone again, as if I were your student. I suggest you introspect why you see it appropriate to talk to people (or me) that way.

You're using a different definition of 'Happiness' here. See my previous post about two possible meanings. Some values are not optional - you must have them to survive. I think the virtues is one example - the virtues are required for survival and happiness, it's not a matter of personal preference to be independent in thought or to blindly rely on others. If you're not independent in thought you are not equipped to live. Same for honesty. You can't "prefer" to lie to yourself as part of your pursuit of happiness. It's not like saying "I rather be a cook than a teacher". To the best of my understanding this is what Peikoff means by "optional values". Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, because it is drifting away from the content of my essay too much. I certainly don't see a point continuing a discussion with Miovas, judging by his last post, communication isn't really working, and also I don't like it when people ignore (as in not answer) a written challenge/refutation of their viewpoint, like avoiding questions that challenge their view, and yet present their view again. For me that's a sign that talking is useless. As I see it; either the person doesn't see your questions as making sense, or he doesn't want to deal with a threat to their view. In either case, communication is not possible. If anyone wants to discuss the essential ideas in my essay I can do that. But I don't like the kind of 40 pages threads that go on about anything and everything except the actual topic. Cheers! Ifat

One can get pleasure, but not happiness by Ayn Rand's definition of happiness as achievement of values that do not contradict one another (joy without contradictions). Happiness is fallible in the sense that one may be mistaken in one's choice of values, and as a result not achieve happiness. Happiness has specific requirements. Just a small correction. No, I don't know how you understood that from what I said. My main point here is that values need to be chosen to match one's unique personality and preferences. It is not enough to just get a productive career, it is crucial to get a productive career (within the possible) that is right for you. That is my main point and everything after that is just a side discussion with Miovas, not very connected to my essay or to this point as I see it. The second part I did say, but not the first one. I am not saying "don't over-think things, you'll waste your life trying". I'm saying that the method of trying to reduce everything to man's life as the standard in the same way a philosopher would do it requires way too much thinking, is impractical and does not serve one's life very well. That is what one should not do - waste time thinking in a wrong method that requires a lot of effort and time. One should definitely spend a lot of time and effort thinking about important, life changing, life shaping decisions - but using the right method. Peikoff presents the right method in his course "Judging, Feeling and not being moralistic". To put it shortly, as I understand it he presents a process of checking facts relevant to the choice of pursuing a value, combined with examination of your emotions at every step of the way, in a way that takes under account both one's personal preferences, and the Objectivist ethics. For example: if you want to rent an apartment you consider its benefit to you (practical and emotional), what it will cost you - if there is something else you'd have to give up like clothes - then ask yourself if buying clothes is more important than the apartment (matter of personal preference) and make an informed decision. I think the course is brilliant and it presents the perfect method of choosing values. My essay does not present the actual method of choosing values (this is something Miovas brought up)- it is focused on another point, of morality as duty vs. choice (which also implies, morality as anti-personal or personal). I hope I'm clearer now. Feel free to ask if not.

Survival of man as a man includes survival of his cognitive abilities as well - of his emotional capacity, ability to reason, etc'. Still survival and achievement of happiness are two different things. Survival of man means his actual survival as in life vs. death. To quote Peikoff on this (OPAR, page 213) He is talking about "life" in the sense of survival - life vs. death (physical and mental). I think the quote makes it pretty clear.

Your ability to live in society doing what you like to do does depend on others to some extent, as well as on other factors. It still doesn't make the standard for self esteem how others evaluate you. SELF-esteem is your evaluation of yourself. It is a mistake to let other dictate how you should judge yourself, or to try to substitute their judgment for your own. In any profession if you wish to make money you need to provide something of value to other people. Still this does not mean that the industrialist who's producing pipes, for example, should take the opinion of every layman as to how to market or produce pipes. He needs to make himself the expert, to judge his pipes by his knowledge and standard and then to offer that product to others. I'm not big on history, but I think if you look at all the men who succeeded big time, you'll see they always followed their own mind, what they thought was right. People like Walmart, Edison, Ford... Even when people told them it can't be done, it's foolish, etc' they stood by their own vision and their own knowledge and judgment, pulled through and ended up with a great product they could make money from. The key to their success was independent thinking. The same is true for other professions. For an artist (such as yourself) this is especially important because the fuel to create art comes from (a form of) self-expression. If an artist tries to substitute self-expression with creating whatever others want him to, he's finished right there. Not only will he/she lose motivation after a while, but also they would never, in my opinion, be able to create good art.

As I understand it, it does mean just that. Happiness as the purpose of morality is just the second side of the coin, but it is not included in "survival of man qua man". In the later she actually talks about survival. What do I mean by "other side of the coin"? As Ayn Rand explains in The Objectivist Ethics article, happiness is a metaphysical concomitant of life; meaning that when a philospher discovers what is required for man's survival as a rational being, whether or not he wants it, he also discovers what is required for man's happiness - in general terms. For god's sake, I already said many times that when I am talking about optional values I am only talking of those things within what is good for man's survival. I think you do not give enough significance to the fact that we do need to choose from options, all of which are within life as the standard. It makes the difference between misery or happiness to know how to make the optional choice correctly. It's not just "well ok, this man or this man won't kill me, so just choose one as my romantic partner". It makes all the difference in the world if you marry someone who matches your sense of life or not. It makes the difference between misery and happiness. I don't think you give this part of optional choice its due credit - you put all the emphasis on whether or not it follows life as the standard. Let me tell you, if all my values were within man's life as the standard, yet none of them matched me personally (my clothes, my romantic partner, where I live, what I do for a living etc') I wouldn't really care to live anymore - because while I would be alive, I could not be happy. So let's make it clear that the ability to make these optional choices correctly is a matter of life or death - not a small side issue. And secondly, I think at this point you should recognize you were wrong in saying that the right way to choose values is by reducing every possible value to man's life as the standard. Obviously, this is part of the process of choosing values, but it is not THE method of choosing. I don't agree that this is the "ultimate context". The context is YOUR life. Not "man's" life. By the way, you did not answer the most difficult question, which is what justifies suicide when happiness is no longer possible for an individual - since suicide is the ultimate action against life as the standard. According to you we need to reduce everything to man's life as the standard and decide based on that, so then how do you explain this?