Leonid

Don't know what forever means, but ten years is a bit too long to be called a temporary situation. Imagine that you have a temporary power failure for ten years. Besides, AS protagonists didn't read AS to the end. They didn't know how long their strike will last. It could fail as well. For them it was forever. ". . romantic love is an action . . ."Nope. It's one species of passion." So you disagree with Rand. Your right.

And why one has to do anything in this regard? If somebody WANT to be treated as a sacrificial animal it is his right.

You quote refers to the last part of the post, which deals with military. Yes, people have Free Will and they may behave irrationally, not to pay for their own protection from the criminals and aggressors. There are many possible case scenarios, but one thing is clear-reality is a final argument and if people contradict objective reality, they will eventually pay with their lives, prosperity and happiness till they learn to pay with money.

Dear Steve. Who gave to you an idea that I think Ayn Rand is wrong? Not me, anyway.I think you missed the whole point by 5 miles. I don't even discuss here the nature of Free Will to which your post and quotations refer. My inquiry is not what Free Will is but how it came to be. In other words its origin and evolution. If you have anything to contribute to this topic, please do it. Your input is welcomed. "Leonard Peikoff in the Philosophy of Objectivism Lecture Series, Lecture 3: "'Volitional means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstance, the difference being made by the individuals decision, which could've been otherwise." Animals evidently able to select from two or more alternatives and therefore possess some equivalent of human volition. Since I have have no term for that I call it animal volition, but you can call it as you wish, say animolition. My claim that this faculty which exist in all living beings expresses itself on the cognitive level of self-awareness as Free Will. The difference between animolition and Free Will is that self-awareness makes this ability to select really free, not determined by the ultimate life-death alternative. Man could make any choices he wishes including choice not to live or just random choices. The experiment I quoted demonstrates a huge evolutionary advantage of Free Will compared with animolition. This is in my view is the reason why we developed Free Will. Now if you have any objections or criticism in regard to subject matter I'd like to hear it. But please stop your straw man beating exercises, it's boring.

Everything could be known by comparison. if one compares Mandela with Zuma, Mugabe or other African " leaders" it becomes clear why Mandela was so revered. The fact that he never allowed his personal feelings towards whites to define his position as a statesman, speaks a lot in his favor.

I think that prototype of Richard Halley was Rachmaninov

Basically the reason I started this thread is that I was puzzled by the obvious discrepancy between Ayn Rand's statement which I quoted and love story in AS. My understanding is that Ayn Rand changed her position on romantic love or simply ignored it while writing AS for sake of the story. She took literally license. Passion of course is a feeling but romantic love is an action driven by such a feeling. At least according to Ayn Rand without romantic action, that is-sex, such a feeling is meaningless and even worse, a contemptible hypocrisy, a mind-body dichotomy. Only sex ,as she observed, is an act which can unite mind and body and give an expression to the romantic passion. If you disagree, you have a quarrel not with me but with Ayn Rand. I myself wholly support this idea. That why I don't understand Francisco who professed his love over decade and even after that he understood he has no chance. According to Rand definition it is not love, just a passion unexpressed in action, mind-body dichotomy per excellence. The same could be said about Galt, whose passion for Dagny went unexpressed for many years. Call it temporary if you wish, but for me 10 years is quite a permanent state. It is true that we are dealing here with a piece of fiction, but it's a romantic fiction, a description of life as it could and should be. Since Ayn Rand set the bar that high, she shouldn't have allowed any collisions between her philosophy and her literature. Now who gave you an idea that looters wanted to kill Galt? They wanted him to be an economical dictator, they saw in him their last chance to survive. In any case Rearden was the only one who forfeited the most precious thing he ever had-his metal. And if Francisco and Galt could give up Dagny for sake of the strike, then strike was their highest passion for the highest values, not Dagny.

I'm quite sure that transformation will start on the grass root level. it will be a bottom up, not a top down process. And the reason for it is obvious. The statist government took upon itself functions which it cannot perform simply because these functions are incompatible with the nature of government. Distribution of wealth, schooling, health service, industrial actions, nature preservation etc...all belong to the realm of mind. But government is a tool of coercion. Therefore government inherently cannot handle these issues. But it's trying, and as in economy when the fiat money drive the real money out of the market, so government inappropriate actions drive out the appropriate ones-protection of rights. Thus the statist government is doomed to fail and that what we observe today everywhere. But people still need all these services and they will look for alternatives, be it private hospitals, private roads or private security. They will start to develop private infrastructures to substitute the failing government. Also the economical decline caused by the government's intervention in the market forces will reduce government revenue which in turn will make the government even less effective. Hence the private services including law enforcement will start to grow. Does it mean competitive governments? No! The whole idea is an anarchist fiction. Free market cannot allow competitive governments which compete on the basic principles of individual rights' protection. As private roads couldn't be arbitrary right and left sided in the same country so private law enforcement agencies ( LEA) cannot function under different subjective voluntary laws. For the simple reason-they will lose their client base. Nobody will pay them for the privilege to be abused. In additional a fight between different LEA would mean waste of resources and negligence of their clients. So LEA are in the dire need for the objective legal framework. The institution which can provide it is a government and this in fact the only proper government function. "If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws." “The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 109 So who is going to pay government for the performance of this vital function? Those who need it most-LEA. They will use a small part of their revenue to fund small effective government, so they could function and make money. For the same reason they will fund independent courts. Who is going to fund military? The people who live in the just and free society have vested interest to protect their way of life and their property from the threat of external aggression and they will voluntary contribute for this protection. But they will not pay for the costly overseas military expeditions which have nothing to do with their well being. One may ask, and what if people don't pay? My answer is simple-if people don't pay for protection of their country, don't volunteer to serve in the Army, then such a country has no right to exist.

"Romantic love *is* a feeling"-it's much more than just feeling .According to Ayn Rand it is a passion that unites mind and body in the sexual act. Toothache demonstrates that your feelings are only yours and have nothing to do with the other person. Only action can connect, not just feelings. Suppose you feel love to somebody, but you know it's hopeless and you even never told to that person or to anybody else about your feelings. Does it make romantic relationships? Not in Ayn Rand's sense. "temporary"-the first definition doesn't define time, it simply says that temporary is not permanent. the second, more defining says it's a short period. Francisco maybe had a good chance against Rearden but not against Galt. So he lost his case anyway. "Reardan at that time wasn't in the strike"-in other words he didn't have to repress his love as strikers did. True "those things still weren't as big of stakes as what the people in the strike were dealing with." From the Rearden's point of view they were. They were in fact all his life. "The tunnel thing"- is a literally license. I already mentioned, that Dagny would look for Galt anyway. And I'm pretty sure that Dagny, been very smart woman could find him without to get him arrested. But that would destroy the plot and the climax of the story. Don't forget we are discussing here the work of fiction. And you are quite right. Galt was wrong too. He was wrong in the Galt Gulch as well when he submitted Dagny to the physical and emotional torture. Re-read this scene and you can also feel her pain. it's a master piece.

"How is this relevant exactly to the nature of what one person feels in regard to another?" Feelings are not relevant to anything. It's a first person experience. If you feel say toothache how it's relevant to me? I could be sympathetic to your suffering and advice you to see a dentist. But I cannot feel your pain. Feeling is not an action and feeling alone cannot be a solid foundation of romantic love. It requires an action. In Ayn Rand words "Man is an end in himself. Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act—is the living testimony to that principle." (Of Living Death,”The Voice of Reason, 55–56) "Every definition I've seen for that word doesn't say it has to be a short time" "temporary [ˈtɛmpərərɪ ˈtɛmprərɪ] adj 1. not permanent; provisional temporary accommodation 2. lasting only a short time; transitory temporary relief from pain http://www.thefreedictionary.com/temporary "What I'm looking for is how you think this mindset should be changed and changed to what exactly?" The rational person would understand that he doesn't possesses the values of his rival and therefore cannot compete with him. In spite all the pain and frustration he would withdraw. Francisco who forfeited his love for sake of his struggle nevertheless failed to do just that and that was a cause of his fight with Rearden. Now by withdrawal I don't mean complete disappearance or termination of all relations. There is a place for non-romantic, that is-non-sexual relations. "Exactly what did end up happening: people caught Galt because they were watching Dagny." What that has to do with relations between Dagny and Rearden? And I don't agree that Dagny and Galt short love making in the tunnel was a reason for Galt's arrest. Dagny would be looking for Galt in any case after she saw him at terminal, even if they weren't consummate their love. She was madly in love and didn't have to repress it. As for the gift certificate, that was solely Rearden's fault. And Ayn Rand goes on the long and detailed explanation how Rearden's failure to acknowledge the source of his love to Dagny, his variant of mind-body dichotomy ended up in forfeiting the most important thing in his life.

Yes, I know that Ayn Rand used volition and Free Will interchangeably. However animals clearly demonstrate the ability to choose.I use "volition" to describe this faculty for the want of better term as opposed to Free Will, that is-volition on the level of self-awareness. I view animal volition as a precursor of human Free Will. There is a lot misunderstanding about quotes . Theestevearnold first says "I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL" #41 than he says "I never said Miss Rand defined volition as pre-conceptual." #44. Maybe you can make any sense out of this.

I already mentioned that if love is a highest passion for the highest value, it requires action. In this sense unrequited love is not love at all. There no active interaction, no exchange of values. Rape as Platonic love is a rupture between mind and body and by no means could be considered as an act of love. The difference between love and rape is a difference between a trader and a robber. The difference between romantic lover and rejected lover is a difference between a creator and street beggar, You invoke unrelated categories. Yes, there are situations when sex is temporary impossible, due to disease for example. But this is an exclusion, not a rule. And temporary situation cannot last for decades. Moreover, in case of Francisco, the situation is permanent, and not because the strike, but because Dagny fell for Galt. Yet he proclaims that he loves and always will love her. What he's going to do then? Become a monk? And if situation is as such that life became almost impossible, then there is no place for love at all. Love is celebration of life, not death.

For sure. You have to know the history of Israel and Israeli-Arab conflict. You have to be well orientated in the current political situation in Israel and in the Middle East. You have to know a lot about Israeli social and political structures. It would help if you have a personal first hand knowledge.

Intention is not an action. Facial expression, words, touch, embrace and even kiss are not specific actions of romantic love. They could be part of any friendly relationships or expression of non-romantic love. Love, even non-romantic is a exchange of values, a trade. Romantic love, as Rand observed is a profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites mind and body in the sexual act. So unrequited love is in a sense an oxymoron.Rand wouldn't describe an intention as "contemptible hypocrisy" as long as person recognizes his position as rejected lover and lets it go. However, love doesn't have always to be romantic. Such a person could maintain a friendly, close relationships without to be romantically involved. In such a case all the actions you described above are appropriate. The same applies to the lovers who due to different circumstances couldn't maintain romantic relationships.

Rape is a terrible violation of physical and mental integrity and has nothing to do with love. So I don't understand why you are keeping to bring it up. It's not a union of mind and body but just a violent sexual action. It is simply another form of mind-body dichotomy when the mind is utterly ignored. Unrequited love is possible but useless. Love is a trade in spiritual values.One can date a person till he has enough evidence that such a person has no intention whatsoever to engage in a trade. As for Rand's intentions, she wrote this line long after she finished AS. Apparently her views on romantic love changed. As a philosopher she developed explicit view on sex. But as a writer she was influenced by classical Russian literature in which the unrequited love plays a very significant role. Hence a collision. You analogy with capitalism is irrelevant, has no connection to the subject matter.

We need to define our terms. First, we don't discuss rape, lust, or even amorous affair. We are talking about romantic love, that is " the highest passion for the highest value". Remember that value is that what one has to act in order to gain and/or keep. Action is a key word. Ayn Rand regarded Platonic love, that is-the love, unexpressed in physical action as a kind of mind-body dichotomy., which by itself is very Platonic concept. If one decided to forfeit his love relationships as Francisco did, that leave us with two possibilities: or his love is not a passion for the highest value, and he has some higher value to pursue, like his struggle for example. Or he commits a sacrifice, by exchange of his highest value, Dagny to the lesser value, his struggle. In the former case, the whole love story of the novel is collapsing, in the latter-Francisco acts against his own principles and in fact undermines his struggle. But if Francisco's actions could be at least rationalized, the abstinence of Galt just on the grounds that Dagny is a scab cannot be justified in any way. Just think for a moment about that- the fact that Dagny is a scab didn't prevent Galt to fall in love with her and to deeply love her for years, but prevented him from having sex with her. This is an epitome of mind-body dichotomy. I repeat the quote I posted above "Man is an end in himself. Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act—is the living testimony to that principle." (Of Living Death,”The Voice of Reason, 55–56). If this is true, then both Francisco and Galt failed to provide this testimony.

There are many ways to skin the cat. Insurance could pay to law enforcement agencies which in turn will pay for legislation process, Or people could pay directly and voluntary for different government projects. If government managed to collect enough for the certain project, it will go ahead with it, if not-not. people also could directly subscribe with law enforcement companies which will pay part of their income to government as a payment for providing legal framework. as for the proposal above, i don't think that government can really compete on this with insurance companies.

This is true. Mandela didn't denounce MK. He simply dissolved it and integrated it with SA Defense Forces. Yesterday enemies became comrades in arms. Typical Mandelian way to resolve problems through reconciliation.

Nicky, you are simply wrong. Mandela was asked once what is freedom and he answered that it is an opposite of oppression. Mandela wasn't philosopher and was living by mixed premises but never violated individual rights on principle, never promoted any collectivist social system. He even disregarded ANC basic principles which called for nationalization of industries and land. 20 years after Mandela came to power SA is a mixed economy with strong private sector and land is not redistributed without compensation. Individual rights are preserved maybe even better than in America. You apparently mistook Mandela for Mugabe which is quite excusable for a person who is not familiar with African realities.

Eiuol "But, I did say there are other ways to express love besides sex." -I already answered that. I remind you that Ayn Rand is talking here about physical action. There are many actions which can express love, but only one which is specifically expresses romantic sexual love and this is of course sex. Any other action which comes to substitute it would be worse then hypocrisy. "Man is an end in himself. Romantic love—the profound, exalted, lifelong passion that unites his mind and body in the sexual act—is the living testimony to that principle." (Of Living Death,”The Voice of Reason, 55–56)

Because Ayn Rand didn't refer to love in particular. She referred to an idea unexpressed in physical action in general, and this is a very broad context. This one sentence is a high degree abstraction and says volumes about connection of mind and body. She used Platonic love as one of many examples of mind-body dichotomy which she considered as a cardinal philosophical sin. This is a real context and this is why it's strange that both Galt and Francisco act against this principle. Even Rearden did it for a while, but in his case his error had been properly exposed, explained and corrected.

"I said Miss Rand said FREE WILL IS PRE CONCEPTUAL."- but it's simply wrong. Ayn Rand claimed exactly the opposite. She said "The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is non-volitional". See the quotation above. it's from Lexicon. Of course there is a difference between volition and Free Will. Volition is simply an ability to choose. All living organisms have such an ability on different levels. The mechanism of such a choice is or inherent or acquired from the experience and training. Such a mechanism doesn't allow choices which are detrimental to life or random choices. This is the reason that an animal is unable to make any selection in the case where no alternative good-bad/life-death exists. Free Will however is a conscious choice. It requires an existence of self-awareness. It is a person who makes choices and he's aware of the fact he makes them. That why man can select randomly from two or more equal items or situations. His choice is really free, not bounded by any condition. Free will requires explicit awareness of desire.. More than that, Free Will allows a projection of the such a desire into the future which become a source of self-initiated action, that is-self causation. For example a person's desire to be a doctor drives him to study medicine for 6 years.

That is true. Only Mandela wasn't tyrant. And not only tyrants praised freedom and justice. American Founder Fathers did the same. Mandela did all what he could to prevent tyranny and he succeeded. One can say many negative things about SA today, but it's not a dictatorship.

Oh I see. You just used to talk about knight or troubadour and fair princess in the castle far away. Of course love could be expressed in many different ways, like taking care on the loved one etc...However it wouldn't be different in the case of love toward family members or friends. But sex is an ultimate expression of romantic love. "Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love" Observe that here Ayn Rand is talking about physical action. Which physical action would specifically express romantic love if not sex?