Ifat Glassman

Yeah, except a lot of the audience didn't seem to get it. I think what this comes down to, for every person, is his choice between psychological safety and happiness. (This may seem like a statement out of nowhere, hu? but I'll explain) It's a battle of forces between wanting to know the truth, and discovering why AR's philosophy appears so convincing, even though it goes against many of a common person's ideas - and the psychological pain that can come from realizing that one's views and ideas which he adopted as part of his personality, are wrong and bad. It takes strength and bravery to consider the possibility that something in one's personality/ideas is wrong. And so it can be tempting for people to try to destroy their own recognition that AR's ideas are likely to be true. The woman on the show chose her psychological safety over figuring out the truth: Are her ideas and personality at fault, or AR's ideas? It is no wonder she joined the Objectivist movement as a religion. Religion is something that gives you forgiveness if only you take the actions the priest prescribes. And this is what a person who does not want to consider ideas (especially ideas pertaining to one's worth) is driven to for protection. "If only I stay loyal to the O'ist movement, I don't need to face the self-doubt I felt when I first read Ayn Rand. I placed myself in the AR camp, and this says everything about me". But when she decides to regain her "confidence" in her old ways, she needs to destroy, in her mind, the power of AR. This is what she came there to do. To declare, in public, that AR's philosophy is worthless. Instead of admitting that the real issue for her, is her chronic self-doubt - she tries to pretend that the problem is with AR's philosophy. What would a person interested in happiness do? First of all, he would admit he does have self-doubt. Second, he would try to understand why, and to correct the ideas causing it. He would be devoted to thinking, to the best of his ability, of the truthfulness of what caused him to doubt himself. Choosing to think is not emotionally easy at all, but ultimately, the person will be devoted to discovering the truth about himself and his ideas. Because only solving problems with one's self-esteem can allow happiness. On the other side, a person can choose not to think in light of a psychological threat, in which case he'd be choosing psychological safety at the expense of happiness. Selfishness, devotion to truth and happiness, or cowardice, evasion, emotionalist "thinking" and chronic anxiety. People in the crowd cheering for this lady were choosing (at least temporarily) to eliminate the psychological threat rather than dealing with it.

I have no idea what you're saying. Your language is incomprehensible to me and the sentences seem to have no connection to one another. Can you rephrase? In any case, regarding your last question (which is the only thing I understand) - the woman was not asking anything. She was just attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy as a whole. This is not a person interested in a discussion, rather she was interested in dumping on Ayn Rand in public. This makes the question of how she arrived to her ideas irrelevant for the decision whether or not to engage this woman in a discussion.

I think what is misleading here is that the woman appears in her temperament, to be offering an honest, polite opinion. In contrast, Ayn Rand does not react politely. But what is worse - telling someone the worst insults in a polite way (like that woman did), or telling them openly, without the pretence of an honorable discussion that they are unworthy of a discussion? If you look only at the appearance of tones, you get the wrong impression. But when you consider closely the content of what the woman was saying, you get a different picture, and you can better understand why Ayn Rand replied the way she did. What warranted such reaction from AR's side was not just that there was no real question asked. Essentially, the woman was telling her, in a self-righteous, allegedly civilized tone that Ayn Rand's philosophy is worthless. "Once I was part of your cult, but now I grew up and I know better, and I just came here to tell you this". Now, every person who has some self-esteem, and understand what is actually being said, will not take it quietly, given some rationality of other members of the audience. In this case, regarding this woman as a mere disinterest would be pretending she is better than what she is. Such a reply would still give the woman the appearance of an honest, decent person. I think if you keep in mind what the woman actually says (and not her tone, which is intentionally misleading), it is a lot easier to understand the hostility. [And why is the tone misleading? Because if you wish to kick somebody in the gut, you don't tell him at the same time, that you're doing it for his own good, and he should take it in a civilized manner. Instead, you face the truth that there is nothing civilized about it]. If you remember what she said in the VoS, you must also remember that she said that she is not referring to those who may feel uncomfortable with what she says, but will still choose to think and understand it. She was only referring to those who let their fear control their actions and choose their psychological safety over the truth. The people who run away from her philosophy will do so regardless of how nice she is. A person seeking the truth does not give it up because of social acceptance or the lack of it. One thing that bothers me here, is that the one person whose emotions and well-being you never consider here - is Ayn Rand. For what purpose is she suppose to tolerate willful stupidity, hostility and insults? For the purpose of helping those people get better? This is turning the other cheek. Perhaps your conclusion are coming from good intention of wanting people to be well, but I completely disagree with your conclusions. One should only be nice and helpful so long as one is respected enough and the person receiving the help has earned it.

Are you talking theoretically here, or specifically about Lewis Little? Because there is no way you can know if these things are true for Little, right? Other than that, I agree with what you say above. But what about ttn calling a member a "troll and a crank"? Is this acceptable too? (note, I am not asking because I think it is wrong to call someone that. But because I find it to be against forum rules, and I find it interesting that such a thing "passed" so easily, while other members saying something similar would be treated differently). I agree that you must judge the judge. And second-hand knowledge coming from someone you rely on can be (provided you have good reasons to trust the person) as good as evidence as first-hand knowledge. But that depends on the degree of complexity involved. It is rational to trust a friend who tells you it's raining outside. But not rational to trust a friend that "Capitalism is the best method for proesperity" (assuming you don't have the knowledge yourself to understand that). And so it is not rational to ask people to act based on your judgement, without providing them any means of coming to the same conclusion. Especially since he is a complete stranger to most people here. I agree with that. Well, there is no reason to doubt because I do not disagree here. I think my explanation above explains how I agree with you and with what I said before (about providing people evidence if you want to convince them of something).

I never said he should be obligated to argue with him. In my opinion, if you don't understand this, you are a troll and a crank. (should I provide my reasons for this judgement, btw, or shall I expect others to accept it based on my expert, undetailed opinion?) I did not speak of any obligation on ttn's part. My only point is that in discussing something with people, if you want to persuade them of anything, you should provide them the means of becoming persuaded by considering the evidence, and not by asking to rely on your non-detailed judgement. (note: I am not saying he does it all the time. Obviously, he wrote in great length about the shortcomings of the book, and explicitly declared he is interested in convincing others. But not all the time, and those are the cases I was talking about, because to me they stood out). Furthermore, I see no resemblence between Ayn Rand's response and ttn's. Ayn Rand was insulted as the only thing that was suggested for discussion, ttn was not.

She did. She said that she would only deal with a worthy adversary, not with someone who disagrees with her (which I understood to mean, completely disagree). Just the look on that cow's face, look of content for being able to dump her shit and get public support - is enough to make a person want to puke. The face of a tiny mediocrity trying to humiliate her better. I think Ayn Rand made the right choice not to have a discussion with this woman, but instead point out that her motivation is wrong: motivation in coming to a show dedicated to Ayn Rand and people who *do* want to hear about her philosophy. If the woman agreed in general, or in part, and then asked a question about a particular disagreement, it would have been one thing. But to come there to tell her in front of everybody "I grew up I know better than to accept your nonsense-of-a-philosophy" is not something you can debate with anybody. All there is to do is point out that the very act of publicly offering such a thing in that setting is improper. I agree with knast. Good reply (and explanation about the arbitrary).

Well, on one hand this is what you say, but on the other you make a post like this: You encourage members to adopt the same policy - but on what basis? On the basis of your expert opinion that this guy is a crank? This is appealing to people's trust in you rather to their acting on their first-hand judgement. The only way this "encouragement" would make sense to me, as a rational thing to ask from people, is if it was solely directed to people who can judge and understand for themselves, first-hand, that this guy really is a troll and a crank, and yet still have hesitations whether or not to interact with him. Another example, is what you said to Grames: I don't see it proper to prescribe to someone what attitude they should have (or what conclusions they should reach). People should come to such a conclusion by themselves. Telling someone what conclusion he should reach or how to examine something, is (for lack of better metaphor) trying to "shove an idea into their head", rather than relying on them to make a judgement for themselves. Sure, I agree. But equally wrong would be to say the book is worthless just because they read your opinion on it (without having enough knowledge to judge the book or your criticism) and this is important to emphasize. What about saying that the book is rubbish, and "thanks for sparing me the time of reading it"? Would you encourage someone who took this position? This is what I meant by "taking your side". I don't think it's fair to give such an assessment on someone without providing any evidence at all. If you cannot give people evidence to come to this conclusion first-hand, better not say it at all. Having said all that, I withdraw from the thread. The topic is not interesting enough, I just wanted to raise the points I did above, and I have. I find one thing interesting about this thread - and that is, that this thread is just like Night of January 16th, in which the evidence was completely balanced, and the jury's verdict had to come down to a matter of a sense-of life. In this case, lack of knowledge in physics makes the evidence balanced, and one can make an evaluation here based on who they trust more, which becomes a matter of evaluating characters.

One thing that strikes me as wrong here, ttn, is that you seem to put pressure on readers to act according to your evaluation of the book and the author. However, at the same time you are saying that the only way to arrive at the correct assessment is to have a lot of knowledge in physics. You have a lot of knowledge in physics, and therefore, a person has to either take your word for it, or study physics in depth. But couldn't the same be said on the opposite side? I mean, if none of us here has the means of judging who is right and who is wrong (you or Luise Little) since we lack the required scientific knowledge - how does one decide on any side at all? Why should someone take your side, if by your own statement, no one here really has the means to judge anyway (not the value of the book, and also not the value of your criticism)? This is why I don't understand how people here easily take your side. It doesn't make sense to me. What if the author of the book came here and said you are the crackpot and gave some scientific explanations - would they believe him then? You've stated your opinion, and by itself I think it is fine. But what you do further is present yourself, in a way, as the only legitimate authority. This is before people here can even have enough knowledge to hold such a reputation. I think such reputation should be earned and built over time, while giving people with enough understanding the ability to witness your expertise first hand. Declaring that "I am an expert and I see a lot of junk physics all the time, I know one when I see it" is not something anyone can validate from this statement alone. To add and clarify: I actually think it is OK to present yourself as an authority. But to expect people to act on the basis of that (while they don't have the means to properly "trust you") is expecting an act of faith from someone.

I think you are focusing too much on the actions. Instead, I think you should be focusing on your own psychology. Having more or less friends is not, in my opinion, what's going to make a difference for you (for your happiness). You have identified what you don't like in other people (and perhaps in yourself) - good. That's a great first step. Next, you need to act on it. In regard to other people - don't cooperate with this kind of behavior. You obviously don't like it - well, express it! When it comes to you, if you think you have similar psychology to some degree (which in my opinion, takes a giant to admit this), you need to think about it, a lot, until you understand this aspect of yourself, where it's coming from, what need it serves... Once you fully understand it, I think the way to the solution is short. Your main tool here is introspection (<--see link). I think a personal diary or talking about it (with the right person) can help. I think you have a consistent error in your method of thinking things over. See, you look at one instance of a motive behind an action, and then decide - this is the only possible motive associated with that action. "People use facebook in a bad way - this must make the action of posting on facebook bad", or "Roark has no friends really... this must means having friends is bad". You need to really ask why - understand the motive for an action.

Perhaps you're being too hard on yourself? It seems odd that someone can admit something like this and yet actually have it. From seeing what you dislike about facebook, you really don't sound like the type I described. No, you misunderstood. I find it very rational to want others to see who you are. Especially people you value. Remember Dagny's reaction when people in the valley told her she did a good job? It was one of the most exciting moments in her life. Heck, think how a romantic relationship would look like if the two people did not take pleasure in sharing who they are with the other. There is great pleasure to be had in being seen, understood and appreciated by people you like. I think you're taking the action as indicating of only one possible motive. That's not true. I agree that someone (or maybe even a lot of people) can try to define who they are by what others think of them, but it could also be the opposite case, that someone knows exactly who one is, and enjoys showing it to others and being appreciated for it. I think posts and photos can show a lot about a person. However, if you try to capture yourself in a certain way because of how it would appear to others, it is definitely a problem to look into. If left unsolved, it can really dump on your self esteem, so this requires 100% honesty to solve. Side from that - it is great that you have the willingness to even consider such an option. Many people would not dare to even consider this. When you "broadcast" yourself to people it expresses a certain need of psychological visibility, which is normal and good. If you don't like your friends enough, you can try looking for others? But by itself "broadcasting" yourself can be good (so long as it is used for self expression, not for self-definition by others, which still doesn't make the action bad but indicates a problem nonetheless).

Maybe others will have a better answer for this, but here is my own - I think you've raised a good question about the distinction of a rational choice and a good choice ("right choice"). Rational choices means choices arrived at by a process of rational thought, which means a process of considering everything relevant one knows, and logically deciding on the best course of action. If a person gets this process right, he will be making a good choice (what you called "right choice") - good for him, for his life and happiness. As a parent, you have more experience than your child, and so sometimes your kid can make choices which you'd prefer he did not make, even though he may have considered everything to the best of his ability. Just the fact that you'd prefer him to make a different choice still does not make it an irrational choice on his part. It could be bad, in which case you can try to explain to him why it's bad. It could be that the parent is making a mistake. For example, some parents want their kids to have a certain profession, but the kid prefers a different profession. This, of course, does not make the child's choice a bad one... in this case the problem is with the parents (if they insist on pressuring the child to do what they want him to do rather than what he is interested in). Also, if a parent wants to learn if his kid is making rational choices he needs to ask the kid why and how he made that choice. Because rationality is about how one thinks, not about the content of the choice.

I think there are two problems here. First of all, why do you think that there are only these two extremes - either Roark style or pathetic style (what you describe as social acceptance) in regard to facebook? What about your own style, which is neither? I have seen exactly what you describe about people using facebook as well, and I thought it was pathetic too. Not just the marketing of one's "success", but also the stalking, obsession over who said what and who's friends with whom... Things that by themselves sound alright, but when you look at a person going about it, I swear, it's like looking at a dog happily running around in a pack, sniffing other dog's behinds, trying to see where it stands in the social hierarchy of the tribe, begging to get some pat on the back. It is a pathetic and ugly display of selflessness. But I don't think this is inherit in facebook. It is who the person is that determines what they make facebook be for them. It can be social obsessing for a social obsesser or a place to enjoy the company of friends for a rational person. The second problem, is how you seem to use Roark in your life. Roark as a character has his own style. you need to distinguish between principles of Objectivism (like individualism) and personal style when it comes to Roark's behavior. For example, Roark has integrity - this is a principle of Objectivism. But also, Roark doesn't talk much - this is not a principle of Objectivism, just a matter of style. If you're using Roark as means to illustrate a principle it is good. If you use him as a club to bash your head with when you deviate from a "Roark style" then it is bad.

That's true, but the meaning of "intellectual superior" is not that an adult could never be wrong and that a child is always wrong. It's simply that an adult is more trained in thinking, and has more knowledge. It applies to children in relation to other children or adults, but not in relation to parents taking actions to protect and bring up their kids. So long as a parent is taking actions restricting the child's decisions, but that are objectively for the child's well being - it is a necessary and justified part of parenting. For example, young children are unaware of physical dangers and often parents have to limit their movements (like say, if they want to touch a hot stove or go walking in a driveway). Or suppose a child does not yet understand the concept of theft, and he decides to take something from another child/adult - it is proper that the parent not allow him to act on his decision. This is something I know for a fact Ayn Rand supported too (from listening to her intellectual heir - Leonard Peikoff's course). Other than that, to answer your question, she considered children to have a developing rational faculty, in need of guidance and training in proper thinking. You can read her article "the comprachico of the mind" that softwarenerd quoted from to get a better idea.

Children need guidance and training from an adult. Training in proper methods of thinking, living and learning. In that sense, they are not equal. Children ask a lot of question, they look up to their parents for answers. They themselves justly consider adults to be their intellectual superiors. I think that if a parent tries to treat a child as equal, and instead of supplying answers just leave the child to develop on his own, it will only leave the child with questions and confusions, rather than contributing to the child's development. I think a child's self esteem comes from being able to achieve things, and feel he has the right tools to live, and not from being treated as an equal. A parent can make a child feel loved and still be his intellectual superior and provide him guidance and I think this is the best for a child.

I think that feeling of "faith" you're taking about can come from subconscious understanding you have that you are not yet aware of. Like, say you hear the statement: "Reason is man's basic means of survival". Subconsciously, I think this can connect to several examples you have, like various actions you do to survive that require thinking (like driving, holding a job etc'). You don't yet see this principle in ALL the actions you do, that reason is the basic means of survival, but you see it enough examples to produce a feeling of "this sounds right, though I can't completely justify it yet". So this produces the "feeling" that there is something here worth examining, something true.

To everybody: thanks for the encouragement. Negroid?

That's a good question. I think the right thing to do is to judge every situation best you can do, to try to understand, using whatever principles you have, how something is or is not to your best interest, and then act on that. What is not good to do, in my opinion, is to follow principles out of faith. "Faith" here means, that because Ayn Rand is a powerful thinker, that someone tries to follow the principles she presents without understanding them. Suppose, for example, you're making a decision about taking a job with the government. You make a list of pluses and minuses, at the end the plus side is stronger. And yet you think, "but it seems like something Ayn Rand would not approve of". I don't think someone should use that as something to make a decision with. This is definitely a reason to think more of the topic and to analyze why one thinks Ayn Rand would disagree, but it does not justify, in my opinion, putting aside one's current understanding and judgement of what to do in that situation. I think taking the job and working out the missing details is the right way to go about it.

The question is - committement to what? Committement to focus, analyze the situation - great! A principle well understood hits you like a 5 tons brick in its clarity when you analyze a situation, and therefore it is easy to use it. Committement to a principle you do not understand and yet accept as good? no way this can consistently be to one's advantage. BTW, you quoted my sentence "Furthermore, any "commitment" to the principle is a form of dogma, and as such requires repression of one's desires to follow it." Out of context. I do not think that any committement to a principle is dogma (like I explained in the preceding post). Just a note, to avoid confusion.

It is possible. I saw a few people who, in the name of the virtue of productivity choose a career that brings them no enjoyment, make themselves occupied with work and studies or beat themselves on the head for playing too many video games (regardless of the reason for playing - just for the action itself, which is "not productive"). In these examples, the virtues are ends to "being good" - not to life or happiness. I guess you have to see it for yourself to come to the conclusion whether such a thing is possible or not. Yes. This is the right way to go about things. (But even taking on this approach of using emotions as "sanity check" requires that one treats one's emotions as significant to begin with (and unfortunately, a rationalist tries to eliminate his feelings as the first step toward objectivity) ). I agree. In fact, this is how I started to realize something is wrong with my decision not to go dancing (because of paying a business that steals music). I noticed that it was a source of bad feelings, not even of feeling good about what I'm doing, but rather more like avoiding being bad. So this feeling got me questioning if I applied the principles I hold correctly or not, and whether or not I understood the principles well enough. Because I knew that the reward and purpose of those principles is my happiness and well being. In the way you describe above - yes. Though I would not say this is the sole role of emotions in relation to ethics. I would add an emphasis that ethics is actually a servant for achievement of happiness, pleasure, love and all the pleasant (or "positive") emotions. Not that emotions are servant of ethics. Not that you said otherwise, but I see this as an important emphasis just in case.

I think you mean something else by "commitment" than I was talking about. What I was describing is not a case of someone who understands the principle and consistently applies it to his life and uses the principle to guide him in concrete cases. This sort of "commitment" to a principle is psychologically healthy. Because a person actually sees a good reason to use the principle in his life. But if someone does not understand a principle (as would be the case if it is held in a rationalist manner) - then it is not possible to use a principle to one's advantage if one does not have an understanding of the principle. Furthermore, any "commitment" to the principle is a form of dogma, and as such requires repression of one's desires to follow it. For example, suppose you did not understand why it is important to eat. Yet, someone forced you to eat the right amount of food (throughout the day). Every few hours this person would come and shove a cake down your throat. You would want to work? well too bad, it's time to eat. You want to take a walk in the park? Well, too bad, time to chug on that chicken sandwich. Even though eating is good for your physical well being, it would still mean repression (or restriction) of personal desires in favor of the principle. Eating is a very simple example, but the more abstract a principle is, the more difficult it is to apply it to your life. Imagine the horror of someone who is "committed" to the principle of productivity, and uses it to choose a profession which is not personally interesting to him at all. Unlike eating, this will not do him any good at all. Only damage. Maybe you could say, that working would keep him alive, sure. But what's the point of living if you don't enjoy your central purpose in life? This is not a simple accidental "misapplication" of a principle to a concrete case by someone who otherwise understands the principle. This is much bigger - in the case of rationalism a correct application is just as coincidental as an incorrect one. And following the moral code takes the form of obeying a god, not using a servant. Repression of personal desires is not an accidental consequence - it is bound to happen. When someone actually understands a principle, they do not need to "hold themselves" up to it (not in the sense of repressing personal desires). They use the principle to analyze what is the best thing to do in a situation. The principle is a familiar friend, not a god from above. The committement itself, in this case, is wrong. Committement to something you do not understand, and don't see as good for you - is self-defeating and therefore wrong. And more than that - I don't see how it is possible to use an abstract idea to one's advantage when one has no understanding what the priciple really is. It's like a loaded gun that shoots in random directions. To give you one example from my own life - in my last year in Israel I did not go salsa dancing, because every club or dancing school reachable to me was using stolen music. I did not fully understand the principles involved in the situation. To me it seemed like I was accomplice to crime. But in fact, I was denying myself of pleasure for no good reason. It is not my fault that the culture in Israel does not respect individual rights. By not going I am not making any difference, only punishing myself for the moral problem of others. Because some principles were not clear to me, they were just like a gun shooting randomly. In this case, the gun shot me in the leg. 'nyways, I'm out of examples. The end.

Rationalism does not have to be all-pervasive. As I see it, someone can think perfectly well usually, but when coming to a new topic, just try to grab on to ideas and connect them (try to deduce them) from other ideas, instead of from observations. I think to some degree, this is what I do when I still do not see enough observation to fully understand something - I connect it to other ideas I have. And to that extent it is rationalistic thinking (until I actually collect enough observations to make an idea "concrete"). If someone holds ethics in a rationalistic form (or if they are thoroughly rationalistic), they can only follow moral principles out of duty - not out of full understanding how this serves their self interest. If you look at how Ayn Rand phrases all the virtues: each one is essentially recognition of some fact of reality. "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value" "Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness" "Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it" The virtues are always recognitions of something. The actions of honesty, independence etc' follow from the recognition of the relevant fact. It is never an action following from an idea, but action following one's first hand understanding of something. And I think only to the extent a person really understands moral principles that they can actually serve his happiness if he chooses to follow them. Otherwise, they can only be a form of religion. i.e. "I don't lie because god will reward me for it". (not because the person himself sees it as good) Wow, I'm sorry to hear that. I had the same thing with college, gradually eroding any pleasure in studying that I had at the beginning. I hope you manage to find what you enjoy doing, pursue that, and restore your positive feeling about life.

Yes, I agree. Nice observation. One thing though - even though both motivation from duty and overcoming some temporary instance of bordom with a particular task at work use will to redirect one's focus, they still have a difference in the emotional state as they do it. The man who loves his job does not have to look so far ahead to get a positive boost. He just needs to visualize the moment after completing this small task. A man acting from duty, however, will have to look into some distant, abstract idea, somewhere far in the future (maybe beyond the grave?). And mostly be motivated by avoiding the fear of being unworthy. When he looks at the what he achieves, he gets a form of relief, of the form "I've escaped self-worthless-ness". When it comes to actual concrete tasks associated with this duty, he will not actually get pleasure (that's the meaning of duty), and it is not pleasure that will be motivating him. Yes, I agree. But more than that - I don't think one needs to constantly lift one's focus to some distant future as a normal way to pursue values. If one does - I consider that by itself a warning sign. You gave an example of a runner. Suppose he trains every day, does not enjoy it one bit - all for the sake of that moment when he wins the world Olympics. Well, what would be the value of a medal? It is the enjoyment in the actual career that one ought to enjoy. If he does not enjoy running, getting up early and all that stuff, I don't think this is good for him to pursue it. Suppose though, that you're a programmer (hard for you to imagine, I know). You love what you're doing, but as you begin coding some project in an unfamiliar environment, things don't make sense much. You then need to remind yourself of further context to bring back the positive motivation, or even, focus on the future of completing this task. This last is normal part of every work, I think. (In contrast to the runner from my above example). By the way, your point about the use of will made me think of the relation of will and reasoning to emotional motivation. Thanks.

This form of thinking is pure rationalism - ideas connected to ideas, not connected to or based on observations in reality. I'm not sure how to help you with this... except to recommend Leonard Peikoff's audio course "Objectivism through induction" - where he shows the proper way to reach knowledge - as essentially looking at reality and grouping together into abstractions concepts and principles, then followed by integration with the rest of your knowledge. Philosophy is not about deriving statements from one another, rather to summarize observations in reality. It is a process of induction, not of deduction.

Say, why go through all this trouble - why not just tell her the truth? No human being will stay around you if you tell them straight to their face "I hate spending time with you". What justifies someone going through all this selfless acts just to avoid honesty? Buying T-shirts, writing text messages, talking about sex or even - dating someone - just for the sake of avoiding telling the truth. FYI, I'm seriously asking, if you think this is a selfish way to act - if it actually serves your self interest. I understand it can be unpleasant or difficult to tell someone a painful truth (if you value them) - but the right way to go about it is to develop courage, not to run away from the right thing to do.

I think you have a bigger problem than this person. You cannot stop being nice. This is why this sponge of a person keeps sticking around you. My suggestion is - practice honesty and develop courage in following this principle; the solution to this problem will follow. One way to do it is to remind yourself of how you are being used. How you suffer, while she exploits you for her pleasure and you put up with all her crap. And then ask yourself if you are willing to be used like a donkey in exchange for a "nice guy" image. If you have enough self-esteem, you will not put up with being used like this, and it will be your primary motivation to tell her the truth. And one last thing: what the hell is the value of a "nice guy" image? If "nice guy" means putting up with obnoxious people, then it's a turn off. No woman likes a wuss. Edit: Removed bitter "edge" from the post and made the advice more practical.