Leonid

She also said that only life is an end in itself

Ayn Rand made a clear distinction between absolute and commercial value. A value of loaf of bread is far less than gold of the same weight. However for the starving person bread is much more valuable than gold and he will gladly and voluntary make such an exchange which is proper and moral.One biblical character even sold his birthright for the lentil soup.

Kira Argounova is a recreation of Ayn Rand and represents what is metaphysically important to her, that is-man's worship, a reverence for physical beauty and heroic character in both statues and Leo. Hence is an analogy between them. Kiss could be an expression of reverence as well as a sexual desire. A believers who kiss the cross with Jesus or icon of saints don't necessary sexually attracted to them, in spite they repeatedly do that every time they visit church. For Kira to visit statutes is almost religious experience of exaltation. Ayn Rand wanted to remove the exclusive ownership of religion on this emotion. Your theory doesn't hold water.

"It is unclear exactly why she kisses statues in parks,"-she didn't. She is a fiction. That was Ayn Rand's way to demonstrate admiration akin to the religious exaltation. "“Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man. “Reverence” means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one’s knees. “Sacred” means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions...It is this highest level of man’s emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man...The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth." The Objectivist, March 1968, 4 Kira is a man-worshiper. She kisses statutes of Gods because for her they are an embodiment of the man's highest values, not because she is sexually attracted to them. After all nobody accuses a believer in fetishism when he kisses the cross.

Nevertheless Leo is not a statue and kissing him represents different type of emotion altogether. Have you even heard about Pygmalion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_(mythology)

" Ah - that 'eating food' metaphor again"-or rather drinking glass of water. “You must be aware of the famous theory that in communist society the satisfaction of sexual desire, of love, will be as simple and unimportant as drinking a glass of water. The glass of water theory has made our young people mad, quite mad…I think this glass of water theory is completely un-Marxist, and moreover, anti-social. In sexual life there is not only simple nature to be considered, but also cultural characteristics, whether they are of a high or low order…Of course, thirst must be satisfied. But will the normal man in normal circumstances lie down in the gutter and drink out of a puddle, or out of a glass with a rim greasy from many lips? But the social aspect is the most important of all. Drinking water is of course an individual affair. But in love two lives are concerned, and a third, a new life, arises. It is that which gives it its social interest, which gives rise to a duty towards the community.” (Clara Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin, p. 49)" So what really wrong with this theory and how people went askew by misinterpretation of Ayn Rand? In both cases we deal with the fallacy of dropping context. The glass of water theory is a pure empiricism-it brings sex to the animal level. It ignores the fact that people act on conceptual level and their emotions are driven by internalized premises. Of course people could be attracted by physical look or by some "chemistry" but they cannot completely put aside all other personal features-even for the sake of one single round. From the other hand, it's a mistake to approach Objectivist theory of sex as a pure rationalism. From the Objectivist point of view love is response to values and the highest romantic love is response to the highest values-in Ayn Rand words : "The total passion for the total height." ( Fountainhead). Obviously it has nothing to do as communists suggest with the " duty to society". However Ayn Rand never claimed that this is the only form of love or sexual attraction. There is a huge amount of different possibilities between total passion and " drinking in the gutter out of a puddle". Sex is always a celebration of self-esteem, and based on values but the range of values which one could respond to is huge. Physical beauty for example is one of them. Not all relationships are based on the total passion. As Ayn Rand mentioned " But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper". Moreover, a person could respond to different values in different people. Ayn Rand affair with Nataniel Branden is a shining example. She dearly loved her husband, Frank O'Connor for his values and Branden for his.

She kissed cold lips of Greek Gods because they are a concrete expression of everything she admired-a physical beauty, a great work of art, endless abilities which these Gods allegedly possessed and most importantly- the life of bliss and joy, that is -a supreme happiness. You see, Kira was a great believer in happiness, she thought that life is worth living. haven't you notice another quotation from this book " I know what i want, and to know how to want-isn't it life itself?"

Dear thinker! Stop worry. You are undergoing very normal process which each and every perfectly normal teenager has to go through. Nothing is wrong with you and with your self-esteem, otherwise you wouldn't expose yourself in public like that. You are growing, you body is changing and your hormones work overtime. That's will soon over and your impeccable mind will take over again. You are smart and honest and that what counts.

In order to go to the Moon which is a moral choice you need to establish few scientific facts-that is, identity of objects and cause-effect connections between them which determine their interaction. The fire of the rocket engine is determined event. The will to fire it-not. But will has nothing to do with science.

cancel.

Science cannot answer moral questions since science deals with determined event and morality belongs to the realm of choice. Determined choice is a contradiction in terms. Science, however, can explain certain threads of human behavior.

They quited and started from the scratch.

In my view-her ethical system

Not right now. They just debate Capitalism versus socialism. Yaron Brook brings this discussion to deep philosophical level. The main question he asks " Who owns your life and what are the basic requirement of man's existence?" You can guess his answer.

Actions and motives-yes. But the reason beyond is similar-the power of state which crushed mind and freedom.

This is another ethical principle which has a metaphysical and epistemic foundation. Its metaphysical basis is a Law of identity and causality. Man is what he is, a rational being. This is his defining identity. He cannot survive like a bird or polar bear. In order to live he has to use his mind. Epistemologically, in order to use his mind man needs freedom of choice. Mind doesn't work under coercion. Ethically, life is standard of value. Whatever is detrimental for life is bad. Since freedom of action is a necessary requirement for man's survival, freedom and individual rights are good. Eventually man cannot escape a need for freedom of choice and action. Even in the most oppressive totalitarian slave society there are people who make choice and give orders to others. The only problem is that their choices are not rational and such a society is doomed.

He made a tons of money already decades ago but nevertheless continued to produce until he was pushed out of business by USA and European courts who punished him for been productive. Eventually he went on strike and now he's busy to eliminate his wealth by giving it up , distributing it to the different charity projects-pretty much like Francisco d'Anconia in AS.

I think that the best point in defense of Objectivism would be to argue that Objectivism is a philosophy of mind and mind is the only tool of man's survival.

Faking reality is never selfish.

What is happening to the people who try to produce in society " determined by the political majority who happen to be parasites" and endorsed by the coercive " friendly" government has been amply demonstrated by Ayn Rand in " Atlas Shrugged" via characters of Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden. If you don't accept fictional examples, think about what happened to Bill Gates.

Be very careful when you use such words. Rand's philosophy, poorly understood made unhappy many people. You need to learn a difference between breach of knowledge and moral breach. If Superman123 has difficulties with his understanding of Objectivism, he needs help, not moral condemnation.

I doubt very much that Attila was a happy man. The existence was a frightening mystery for him. Unable to understand the world without help of witch doctor he was completely depended on him in alleviation of his fears. The causes for his success or failure had no rational explanations. He was a blind leaded by blind.

You don't have choice not to pay taxes including a tax on roads. It's taken from you by force and your sanction is not required. Independent capitalist by government permission is a contradiction in terms.

You don't. But government owns roads and it does. Without government permission your scheme becomes a fantasy. And government IS a political power.