Matus1976

No, one can not willy nilly decide who they love, but one does 'decide' who they love in the way they decide what they find humorous and what they are scared of. That decision is the result of countless choices made throughout ones life and actions perfomed and the implict values that guided those choices and actions becoming integrated. A racist person may be viscerally disgusted by a member of another race and never find themselves falling in love with that person, but if they over time drop their racism and integrate more rational and honest assessments of people they will in fact have changed the way their emotions respond and have changed who they feel the emotional response of 'love' to. Then you are not actually reading anything being written here. Nobody said anything of the sort.

All human behavior is ultimately over ridden by free will, so no it does not 'realistically' go out the window, it is still very real. So do what you want with free will, but empirically it is very clear that genetics influences behavior, social conditioning influences behavior, environmental factors (chemicals, etc) influence behavior. If you think Rand meant human pyschology is *literally* a complete and total blank slate, any rudimentary understanding of evolutionary pyschology and even general pyschology proves that utterly wrong, and I doubt Rand even meant that because even Aristotle suggested this in the Nichomacean Ethics which he explicitly opines that human behavior is the result of a myriad of things. The vehement reaction to statements like mine come from the false dichotomy presented that all human behavior is EITHER the result of free will OR the result of genetic/environmental conditioning (actually the debate is usually just between genetic and environmental conditioning and doesnt even pretend free will exists) The reality is that if someone makes the conscious choice to live an examined life, more and more of their behavior is the result of volitional actions. If they do not choose to live an examined life, more of their behavior is from social / genetic conditioning.

You and Ifat are completely wrong on this point, both philosophically and scientifically. Empirically, habitualizing behavior DOES in fact alter emotional responses, I can provide studies which prove this if you seriously doubt it, but they can be found with only a little googling. Keep in mind I need only provide one single study showing an emotional response can be altered by chosen behavior. Additionally, human behavior is only figuratively a 'blank slate', it is realistically a very complex interaction of chance, genetic predisposition, social indoctrination, and fully informed examined volitional choice, just as emotions are, and this is very well proven empirically as well, where the last over rides each of the former, but only with intentional effort. Even if your values are fully integrated, a remnant genetic predisposition or subtle social indoctrination might give you the inclination to feel something particular, say an attraction to a stranger, but whether you choose to ACT on that impulse is purely volitional. And continually choosing not to act on that impulse will in fact alter your emotional reaction. That attraction may be from the recognition of one's deepest values, but it may be from a genetic or social influence, introspection will determine it's source and one's behavior should act ccordingly. It is important not to confuse mere time spent (sunk costs) with real values and bonds that develop from specific proper actions during that time. While it is true we value 'time spent' irrationally in many areas, we are not talking about the mere mechanical presence of one person in the general vicinity of another, but specific actions, intimate interactions, quality in depth discussions, learning experiences, situations which are intellectually, physically, emotionally stimulating and challenging in a positive way, etc. It appears I can not be explicit enough about the difference between these things, the tendancy seems to be to charachterize my position (and seemingly Sophia's) as though we think that just because we hung out with someone for many years we might want to stay with them. Anyone who has lived with an annoying roomate and extends a little repsectful courtesy in trying to understand this position should know that is not what we are talking about.

Indeed, so the question is can they change in a manner that relates to each other, which actually makes their relationship better and more fulfilling for each? And if so, what facilitates that change? Time spent together, and of course the quality and type of time spent together. If people can change together in a manner that promulgates a rewarding and fulfilling relationship, then it stands that the best kind of relationship an individual can have is the kind cultivated to the greatest degree with the best possible match over the longest possible time with the best types of interactions. The point of contention is not that they are giving up a greater value, it's that they are making a judgement call between the likely value they will derive from their existing partner, which in most circumstances they will have a much more accurate assessment of, and the likely value they would derive from this new partner who 'may' be of greater value, but you can't really be sure of unless you spent alot of time with them. It takes a significant degree of intimate interaction to have an accurate assessment of that kind of thing. Which is why I make my point that the likelyhood of running into someone who so far outpaces your existing partner is related to the depth of the relationship you have formed with them, which is neccessarily in a large part also dependant on time. Again, you are not sacrificing a value, you are prioritizing a value. You value the real achievement of a maximally fulfilling relationship over the (unachievable) platonic ideal of an absolutely 'perfect' relationship. Again this does not pay proper focus to the bond which is cultivated between two people through a lot of intimate quality interaction. Choosing to be monogomous with a person is a tribute to them, but it is also a selfish thing, it is your judgement call when you say, 'ok, this is a tremendous person and I have a reasonable expectation that the relationship can be developed with this person will also be tremendously rewarding for myself and for them, so I choose to focus on developing that with this person' and not spend time searching perpetually for someone else (again, this is not at all what I think typical marriages are) I did not mean to imply that exclusity makes a relationship better automatically, actually I think I have repeatedly said it makes the potential relationship much better. It's up to the individuals to pursue and exploit that potential and actually develop and cultivate the extremely rewarding relationship which choosing to dedicates one's self primarily too will develop. Sitting around and watching TV every night certainly will not cultivate a positive and rewarding relationship, no matter how many decades one spends doing it. This is a qualitative assessment, not a quantitative one. Clearly you can not be as close to 1,000 friends as you can be to 10. The potential level of a eudaemonic relationship is heavily dependant on the time you spend with each other, but of course I must emphasize again that time must be quality time as well. Time alone will not cultivate fulfilling relationships, but time spent doing intimate and mutually rewarding things will.

I made the same comment essentially that mrocktor made here before I noticed he made it, so I wanted to respond to your comment. Your argument holds if the purpose of a relationship is to discover as much as possible about one's partner, but I wouldn't consider a relationship to be like exploring a new territory. You map it out, take notes, discern the essentials, and you're all good. All the things you do in the interim also build up the quality of your relationship, it's not just learning things about someone, but sharing moments with them and the interaction and bond you have developed over the time of all that intimacy and shared adventures. Also, people change with time, and hopefully both of you, with each other's helps, both progress more toward being what you most want to be, so even while learning essentials, new essentials may evolve to be discovered, or old essentials are refined.

I agree with you on this, but it certainly limits the potential of the relationship which can be developed if you are very intimate with multiple people. Your comment seems to imply that once someone is in a state of 'romantic love' it's a pretty steady state there after. A monogomous marriage is a tribute one pays to the quality of the person they choose to being monogomous with and is the start of developing the most profound kind of bond two people can develop (well, at least that's what it ought to be, clearly most marriages are definately not that) I think most people here would share the same sentiment, I certainly would not want anyone with me because of any societal obligation. The point I am trying to make here is that agreeing to be exclusive in tribute to each other makes the potential "best possible thing" you could do, even better. It seems like you are viewing relationships as static quantities where intimacy is only an expression of affection, while that's true and one can certainly healthily have intimate relationships with multiple people, what I think you don't focus enough on is the dynamic and reciprical growth that comes from intimacy, and that the potential of that growth and the bond that develops is related to how much intimacy and quality time you have with someone. The more people you are intimate with the less deep your bond is likely to be.

I definately do not view it as a compromise, but instead the most rational and psychologically beneficial way to achieve the most rewarding intellectually, physically, emotionally relationship possible with another person, and consequently, become the most fulfilled person myself. I think considering any particular marriage as a compromise held up against a different potentially better marriage sways too close to platonic idealism. At some point you must have a 'go no go' moment, so to speak, and choose to pursue this kind of relationship with one and only one person in order to cultivate the most intense kind of bond eventually. If we were omniscient, it would be a comprimise to not pursue that relationship with the best possible person on earth, but since we are not, it is not a compromise to pursue that with the best possible person we meet in our lifetime, or even preferrably early enough in our lifetime to cultivate that kind of relationship. Is it a comprimise to foregoing that relationship with a new potential mate after you have developed one with someone else? You have to be pretty damn sure that the new partner is of such over riding value that it is worth ending the current relationship, and to do that you would really have to spend *alot* of time with them. So I guess in that sense, Dan's suggestion is reasonable, but why would anyone want to spend that much time away from their partner unless it is explicitly to discover if this new potential mate has a higher potential? The amount of time and effort spent looking for other mates of higher potential would necessarily limit the time and quality of relationship that could be developed with one's existing mate. So again, functionally, I do not think focusing on developing a great relationship which necessaties a long term interaction is comprimising, but is instead prioritizing values.

Ok, I don't think I conveyed my idea clearly. The 'threat' is most directly linked to the depth of your current attachment. The depth of your attachment, however, is not necessarily directly related to how much time you spend together. Obviously one could spend a great deal of time with someone they don't particularly like, and it will not necessarily make them like them more. I'm speaking primarily of the potential depth that can be developed by the time spent together, obviously the more time spent together the greater the potential depth of the bond that can be formed. Of course, you can't spend too much time together, lest you are no longer individuals. One could have the most marvelous charachter in the world, but you would not ever know that *unless* you spent time with them. I think Ifat gets too close to emotional whim worshipping here. Unless one has perfectly integrated all values fully, one needs to continually critically examine their emotional responses to things in order to continually put them in line with ones values. I believe such a full integration to be more asymptotic than ever absolute and changing ones emotional responses to things requires, among other things, as Sophia pointed out, habitualizing one's new values into action. I would think in the early phases of a relationship, one would be likely to come across other people of such quality that they might superscede your developed relationship, since the developed relationship is so limited. In that case choosing not to associate with that new person would be reasonable, but if one adopted the mentality of always pursuing that sort of interest then relationships would migrate toward being of zero time and zero depth, and not particularly conducive to a emotionally and intellectually stimulating bond. Early on someone might consider the potential of a multitude of partners, but at some point you have to make the decision to focus on one in order to see if you can cultivate that bond. I don't think that is any more a 'repression' than giving up playing video games in favor of studying for school is a sacrifice. It's a prioritization of values and the focusing on long term eudaemonic growth. Chasing every emotional whim is hedonistic, adopting mentalities most conducive to an examined, rewarding life is eudaemonic. Having completely integrated the focus on the long term relationship rewards, one's emotions would eventually respond in kind anyway and you probably wouldnt be attracted to that other person, even early on in the relationship. I see points on both sides here, I think the picture Ifat is painting is that Dan, or whoever, might feel a very strong attraction to this other person, if that attraction is because he recognizes a greater potential relationship with that person, it might be right to pursue it and indeed wrong to repress it. But I would hope a sufficiently integrated set of rational values would make this kind of swerving affection ever less likely in inverse proportion to the depth of the bond developed anyway. I guess one's proper response should depend on how fully one feels they have integrated their values (?)

I find that to be an extremely powerful argument in favor of exclusivity of intimacy. The potential nature and depth of that intimacy is directly related to the amount of time spent together. We are finite beings living rather short life times, as such recognizing our limited time and choosing to devote it as wisely as possible is extremely important. No, but it does significantly affect the potential depth of the connection that can be cultivated, regardless of the individual in question.

I second complimenting Ifat's comments. I said in response to Dan's original essay that assuming he had developed and cultivated this wonderful long term relationship, how much threat does a new person really pose to his relationship? One is always able, potentially, to come across a better match, which is why so many relationships founded primarily on superficial premises (looks that fade, wealth that changes, etc) find themselves falling in and out of love so frequently. But a relationship founded on the kind of admiration and respect and cherishing we are talking about here, I can hardly imagine feeling it threatened by merely getting to know someone who is also of high quality. I feel the 'threat' a new potential significant other poses in disrupting your current emotional attatcyhment is likely inverse to the depth of the attatchement, and the length of time spend with them and the degree of intimacy developed, that you share with your current lover. The longer and more developed that bond is, the less likely some stranger will be of such high quality that they will superscede the affection you and your current mate have developed. I particularly dislike this assesment of Diana's. If you are forcing yourself to remain attatched to your current lover, this seems applicable, if you have developed a stellar relationship over time I see no major threat, or difficulty in 'self control' (that is lack of actual will) in choosing not to physically express your affection for that new person when it pales so much in comparison to the focus of your life. Conversely, are you suggesting that we always abide by our emotions as the final arbiters? Clearly this is unreasonable as well. assuming emotions to be reactions to our values and our knowledge, we can certainly change our emotional reactions to things through 'choosing' how to act. If every time a lady I fancy drifts into my consciouss thought, perpetually supressing it becomes an ingrained reflexive act not requiring consciouss thought, and eventually I think no more of her. On the other hand, I could embellish the feeling and focus and obsess on that emotion. Which of these actions is healthier? Emotions, even whimsical ones, are not always healthy, nor is acting on them, as they are not always proper or right, but neither is always supressing them. This is where intelligent and critical introspection plays such an important role to pyschological health.

Rand lays out a clear criteria, which I think is completely reasonable, about when armed resistance is justified in an oppressive nation - when people no longer have freedom of speech, as in that case the government has removed any possible peaceful mechanism for changing it. I've heard some people on this forum and others indicate that many productive minds are all ready on strike, or have hinted that they in fact are on strike as well. I certainly am not on strike, so I wonder what objective criteria, like freedom of speech in regards to civil liberties, people might suggest would be a reasonable dividing line in terms of economic freedom or when they themselves compelled to strike, or perhaps when we ought to be morally obligated (if ever) to strike. It seems economic restrictions are so vast and varied that it's hard to pin any large salient curtailment of economic freedom as a dividing line. Perhaps we go by a general rating of economic freedom? Percentage of Taxation?

You disengenously mix different uses of the term 'wake up' if a man is hit by a truck and his neo-cortex is destroyed, there is no possible way in which he can wake up, regardless of medical technology. He is dead. This is clearly different from a man who is hit by a truck and has severe trauma to his torso and is unable to sustain conscioussness because of limited blood flow, his personality remains intact. Making a brain living person brain dead certainly is a crime, you are turning them from a person, into a non-person, you are killing them. Making a brean dead person into a merely dead person is not a crime. Exactly, that is what a fetus is. We do not charge doctors with murder when they euthenize brain dead patients because the patient is all ready dead, and was long ago. A fetus prior to developing the neo-cortex lacks the physiological mechanisms required for concioussness, it is in effect 'brain dead'

If you lack the physiological mechanisms REQUIRED for conscioussness and sentience, then it is not the same thing. It's not a question of not 'waking up' its a question of waking up being physically impossible. If a 'brain dead' person were buried in that coffin, it would be an applicable analogy, and no I wouldnt extend any effort to dig up a brain dead person, as they are no longer a person, but just a body.

A 1st trimester fetus is not a sentient, conscious person, it does not scream, it does not get scared, it does not have dreams and hopes, it lacks the physiological mechanisms required to achieve these things. The analogy of waking up in a buried coffin is not applicable.

Hi Dan, great article. Perhaps you are not giving yourself enough credit here though? As I envision a healthy intellectually, physically, and emotionally stimulating relationship to be, as it is built up, developed and as each partner grows with each other over the years, I would think it less and less likely than any other particular person could so easily sway your emotional attatchment to the person you have developed such a spectacularly close bond with. So my comment is to ask if perhaps you are a little more afraid of your emotions swaying than they are actually likely to do so. Never the less, I think your approach, to limit influences which are not conducive to the long term life and relatiosnhip you would like to cultivate, are rational and eudaemonic, where a flippant embracent of every emotional whim jumping from relationship to relationship every other year is rather hedonistic.

I heard a lengthy Terry Goodkind interview on a scif - fi and fantasy podcast, and he said Sam Raimi is a huge fan of the Sword of Truth Series and is pushing very hard to make a FULL LENGTH TELEVISION SERIES, where essentially each book equates to about 1 season of the show. Goodkind seemed extremely enthusiastic about it and mentioned a few times how Raimi (who did all the spiderman films) is in the position now to make pretty much anything he wants. Raimi is a friend of Goodkinds apparently and is adament that a single movie, or even a trilogy, could never to the series justice. Goodking also went into a good talk on philosophy in general, and specifically how much science fiction today is technological dystopian or nihilistic. Here is the show Adventures in Scifi Publishing http://adventuresinscifipublishing.blogspo...y-goodkind.html

Different cultures have very different attitudes about hair length and whether it is 'masculine' or 'femine' and really our opinions are typically born of the culture we are raised in. Many asian cultures consider long hair on men masculine. In America, musicians often have long hair, and bikers who seek to portray a strong and threatening image often wear long hair, I doubt they would be doing this if they considered long hair objectively feminine. Fabio, one of the most popular international models in the world, has always had long hair. I prefer long beautiful luscious hair on women, even waste length, I find extremely feminine and very sexy. But I would never think a woman was not feminie speifically because she has short hair. I think you'll have a hard time proving that long / short hair is a fundamental psychological component of femininity / masculinity, it's really a matter of culture, tradition, and personal preferences.

I'm considering going as well and would be interested in meetups

I think your mistake here is confusing the root of self interest. Roark is not acting merely to perpetuate life as his mechanical physical existence, but is acting to further a *particular* kind of life, a good life, to him, consistent with his deepest values. When he is not able to perpetuate his mechanical existence while furthering those values, he does not starve to death, but takes a different job (working in the quarry) which does not comprimise his values.

Thanks for the review Sophia, I had some interest in seeing this movie, now I'll definately check it out.

Perhaps this is exactly what would make them an excellent choice to provide to the Iraqi Army, only a stable well run army could constantly keep these weapons in good shape. Should the formal army and government collapse, the relatively intolerant to sand and abuse M16's would be worthless in a few months, and if not, there is certainly no worldwide supply of hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition, like that for the AK-47, to keep them supplied.

I started listening to this show when the guy first started posting it, It's got alot of promise but the host is a relative newbie to objectivism and spent the first few episodes saying "Anne Rhined" (understandably many people pronouce the first name wrong, but he was pronouncing both the first and last name wrong) and, to me anyway, it gave quite a few moments which caused me to cringe. The later episodes he starts getting some regular co-hosts who are on the ball, and the quality has seemed to be steadily increasing. Big kudos to him on starting the podcast though, since it was the only one I could find for a while that was explicitly on objectivism.

In the extended length version of Terminator 2, the T-800 actually says by default that Skynet sets their chips to read only, and Sarah Connor cuts open the T-800 and switches the chip, after that was when the Terminator starter learning other things, like euphemisms, asking why people cry, smiling, etc. It was a great scene that was cut out of the movie. It seems Cameron has thought about this a little bit too.

Well, the spanish flu wiped out 50 million people in about 6 months. What it sounds like you are talking about here is essentially the 'domestication' of bacteria and virus, and while that would probably work very well, it is not at all what people are doing with antibiotics. This would require everyone to essentially use the same antibiotic until it is no longer very useful, then switch to another one, until that is no longer very useful. How would you plan on getting everyone to use the exact same antibiotic? The problem with that is that all kinds of antiobiotics are always being used and many bacteria have been found to absorb free floating DNA from other bacteria which had been killed. Our purification systems are geared toward destroying living bacteria, not breaking up free floating bits of DNA. Farmers use broad scale antibiotics doses to bring calf to viability much quicker (for some unkown reason lots of antibiotics makes cows grow much faster) they doses are broad doses of many kinds of antibiotics. Those antiobiotics are then released back into the environment where bacteria are killed by them, but some survive. The free floating DNA of those survivors once they perish is readily incorporated into other strains. In other words, bacteria can become resistance to antibiotics it has never before actually encountered. Conversely, as a patient I certainly wouldnt want to be admistered an antiobiotic which is dimishing in efficaciousness. Today many doctors prescribe two types of antiobiotics simaltaneously, in dangerous infections in the hospital, they may prescribe three or four. I don't think the answer is an easy one because of the large scale externalities that can come from abusing antiobiotics, I do liken this, like stellavision and Erik to something similiar to quarenteening people or limited the types of weapons people can get.

I highly recommend this book as well, and also purusing some of Hitchen's videos on YouTube, he can be quite an entertaining debater sometimes. Hitchens views appear very similar to Objectivism in many ways, however for some strange reason he despises Rand. In one article I read on his on Slate, he was speaking sincerely of a soldier who was an atheist and decided to join the army and fight in Iraq, citing Hitchens as one of his biggest influences. The article mentions the books the soldier carried with him, one of which was "Atlas Shrugged" to that Hitchens (in this other wise somber article) said 'We'll, nobodies perfect' The dig at Rand was strangely out of place for the context of the article. In another debate I caught he spoke of being offended by flushing a book down a toilet, and made a reference that should he flush Atlas Shrugged down the toilet he should not fear for his life afterward. His basis for morality, like most of the secular materialists, has no philosophical foundation. He seems to push 'the golden rule' and state that morality explicitly existed before religion (usually citing the good semaritan or the jews before seeing the 10 commandments) Obviously I find this to be his biggest weak point. Similarly, frequent charges against his book were that many more people have been killed in the name of communism, whose atheism is seen as a counter, then in the name of the religion. I find his counter arguments weak, which generally center around the predominant psychological attitudes present in post czarist Russia, instead of focusing on religious type thought as the source of these ills, he seems to focus on specific religions. Hitchens usually points to 'enlightement era values' and says show me a society which killed in the name of those values' The lack of a philosophical foundation for morality seems evident to me in Hitchens, but I love his stuff. Shermer stands on stronger ground on this front, and is explicitly a supporter of free markets and individual freedoms, he also seems to like Rand, though certainly does not consider himself an objectivist. Shermer focuses on religious thought as the worse kind of evil, characterizing it as thought which is based on faith explicitly as evidence or despite it, and not faith in a particular god or story. Founding any belief system on anything other than reason is what he considers religious thought, and Soviet Marxism in nearly every form was a cultist like religion by that standard (and I think by any standard of religion which encompasses the worlds religions)