Betsy

An ethical-political principle. Yes.

My CyberNet contains a list of movies of interest to Objectivists appearing on cable or satellite each month. There are mini-reviews of "oldies but goodies" that Ayn Rand liked and more modern films suggested by other Objectivists. Some CyberNetters take my movie list to the video store when they are looking for just the right movie to rent. I'll be glad to send a free sample CyberNet on request (see sig).

It is both, which is why you will find Ayn Rand's essay, "Man's Rights," in both The Virtue of Selfishness (her book on ethics) and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (her book on politics). The concept of "rights" is the bridge between ethics and politics. It is "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." It is a moral principle applied to a social (i.e., a political) context. Ethics and politics are not separate domains. Politics is a subset of ethics. It is ethics applied to social interactions.

I agree 100%. Ultimately, the source of reference for definitions is reality which is common to us all, but when it comes to forming concepts and word usage, there are often options. Just to make it clear to yourself and others which things you mean when you use a word, you should be able to define it. Whether you actually do explicitly, depends on the context. Most times, you can assume that people who speak English know what you're talking about. When I am discussing Objectivism with non-Objectivists, I often have to define key terms whose usage in Objectivism differs from the common usage. (For the "Objectivist usage" there are references such as the Binswanger's Lexicon or the Glossary of Objectivist Definitions http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/store/pro...p?number=CK58E) When it becomes apparent that I am using a term differently than someone I am trying to communicate with -- such as our recent issue over the word "opinion" -- I need to make my definition explicit.

She's not alone. A lot of people I know who call themselves Objectivists, support ARI, etc. seem to have trouble understanding what Objectivism is too -- for various reasons ranging from the truly awful to the totally understandable. It really depends on what those reasons are and an individual's context of knowledge. From what I know about Diana, I would say she is at an important turning point in her life. Where she will end up will depend on the choices she is about to make.

Note that Harry writes: If you bristle at the very idea of a "loyalty oath" and declaring certain ideological movements and individuals as "enemies," then my list is probably not for you. To join my list while concealing your sanction or support of these enemies, would be to commit a fraud. Again, if you have any questions on this policy, please let me know. Harry doesn't assume that anyone who is curious about "certain ideological movements" or finds their arguments convincing is necessarily an enemy too. It takes years for people to thoroughly integrate and understand Objectivism. Also, it requires a constant process of observation and evaluation to understand who the Good Guys and the Bad Guys are and why. That's why Harry patiently answers questions about his policy and the reasons for it.

I am not using that definition, since it involves a self-contradiction. You can't have real confidence in a conclusion "not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof." Instead, I began my discussion, as Ayn Rand recommended, by defining my term. To repeat, when I say "opinion" I mean "the statement of an evaluative judgement." It demarcates the area of reality I am discussing and is in the proper form of a definition: genus (statement) and differentia (of an evaluative judgement). I know this is new to you, but Objectivists are sticklers for proper definitions. When you're ready for a really tough (but incredibly enlightening) read, get into Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. After you read the chapter on definitions, you'll have a better understanding of what I just wrote. Actually, it is A IS A. It's identity, not equality. Betsy is living in California, but living in California is not the same thing as Betsy. "Great" is an objective evaluation and evaluations are different from identifications. I can see and identify the letters on my keyboard. I can also evaluate -- i.e., measure the properties of -- my keyboard in various ways after I identify those properties. I can measure the length of my keyboard by comparing it to a standard measure of length like feet or inches. I can measure the weight by reference to a standard unit of weight such as a pound or ounce. Etc. All evaluations involve comparing the thing being evaluated to a standard. Observe as you read Atlas Shrugged that you will encounter the words, "Good? By what standard?" many times. Ayn Rand has done an excellent job defining the standards for evaluating literature (See The Romantic Manifesto) and others have done so for the visual arts. Although we all know that some music is better than other music, we can't yet evaluate it by reference to anything other than our own preferences. That's because objective standards for music haven't been defined yet.

Oh PLEASE get personal. Otherwise Objectivism is just something to talk about and not a guide to living. Taking Objectivism personally is the only way to do it right.

Definitely not! It has nothing to do with inferiority and everything to do with physiology. The man is the one who physically initiates and sustains a sexual relationship. For a woman to look up to a man is an acknowledgement of the fact that HIS choice creates and maintains the romantic relationship. He chooses. She is chosen. If he doesn't desire her, NOTHING HAPPENS. The man is the creator and the driving force of a relationship and it is a woman's admiration for a man that allows him to literally win her over. In a rational relationship, this is a tribute to both of them. Ayn Rand described it thusly: "Man is the Conqueror. Woman is something that needs to BE conquered." I know. I've been married to a Conqueror for 37 years.

It's not the same at all and I have written several (in)famous essays about feminine psychology explaining why. I don't wish to publish them here, but if a forum member e-mails me (mailto:[email protected]) I will be happy to send them.

Ayn Rand did draw a distinction between leaders of lesser countries and the President of the United States. Margaret Thatcher could look up to somebody. (Although Margaret Thatcher came after Ayn Rand, many, many Objectivists admire her tremendously.)

ASK THEM. If you do, you will find out there are many different reasons and they vary from person to person. Some have epistemological problems and can't think straight or in principles. Some lack independence and can't think for themselves. Some are mentally lazy. Some don't want to change. Others may not be that bad. Some may not really understand what Ayn Rand is advocating. Some agree with her in the important areas like reason and productive careers but have accepted ideas in conflict with their more rational ideas. They may reject Objectivism until and unless they have the time to think those matters through. People are individuals and there is no "one size fits all" answer to your question. As with all questions, the answers are to be found by looking at reality. If you want to know why somebody does something, ASK him.

It still depends on what she means by "Objectivism" and "open." One way Kelley bamboozles people is to use the term "Objectivism" to stand for "all correct philosophy." Then he claims that there are important truths yet to be discovered in philosophy, like the ones Diana named. Therefore, he concludes, Objectivism is either open or ARI wants to halt all further philosophical discoveries. The way to answer that is to say that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and nothing can be added or changed in Objectivism without her consent. PHILOSOPHY is open to many new ideas and discoveries, and ARI is all for the development and expansion of philosophical knowledge.

An opinion is the statement of an evaluative judgement. "The Dodgers are a great baseball team." "Bush is the only decent candidate running." "That's a darn pretty dress." etc. Whether an opinion is subjective depends on how the person making the statement judges and evaluates. Some people have arbitrary opinions based on nothing more than how they feel or the first thing that pops into their heads. Those people's opinions are subjective. Objectivists like me have loads and loads of opinions -- Don't get me started! -- and I can justify every single one of them by pointing to the facts and reasoning that led to my evaluation. Try me! My opinions are objective. When it comes to judging and evaluting, Ayn Rand advocated always doing it in accordance with the facts, she always did so herself, and Objectvism provides a great deal of guidance showing how anyone can do it too.

If spaghetti sauce has less than 2% meat in it, they have to call it "meat flavored" sauce. TOC is Objectivism flavored philosophy. If jewelry has a thin layer of gold over a base metal, they have to call it "gold plated." TOC is Objectivism plated libertarianism.

I'm glad to hear that. A normal mentally-active adult has already thought about and reached conclusions about many fundamental issues. He does not abandon them until and unless he has evidence that he is wrong. While he may be attracted to Ayn Rand because of her bold and uncompromising arguments for things he already accepts, all the long-time Objectivists I know, including me, had some disagreements too. Instead of immediately abandoning Ayn Rand OR one's previous conclusions, the ideal thing is to do exactly what you are doing: study further. Take all the time you need. It took me eight years before I had resolved all my doubts and issues and would call myself an Objectivist. Nobody I would consider an Objectivist has done it in less than five, and that was with the help of Leonard Peikoff's wonderful "Understanding Objectivism" course. Good luck. If they do eventually insist on tying you to a desk, you still have the option of working for a private security or private investigation firm. According to the cop on HBL, your patrol experience is needed there.

Welcome! That's how you learn. That sounds likes a noble goal. In addition to this forum, I recommend Harry Binswanger's List <http://www.hblist.com> also known as HBL. Funny, but we were just discussing that on HBL in the past week. A list member was attracted to a career in law enforcement and several list members, including me and another HBLer who IS a policeman, encouraged him to go for it. Being a cop is a fascinating career, isn't it? If you want to see what Objectivism thinks of your job, read the title essay of Ayn Rand's book, _Philosophy: Who Needs It_. It is an address to cadets at West Point in which she explains why a military career is extremely moral. A lot of what she said there very much applies to Law Enforcement Officers.

Although I agree with much of what you wrote, I was in New York during the NBI days and I must take issue with this. Some people were intimidated by Ayn Rand, but that had more to do with who they were than with what she was. I thought she was delightful! Anyone who wants to know the Ayn Rand I knew has only to read _Letters of Ayn Rand_ or _Facets of Ayn Rand_. Cultishness was a problem in the NBI days, but that was Branden's doing, not Ayn Rand's. I had my run-ins with Branden and his followers, but I am not easily intimidated. I'm sure some of them would like to have "excommunicated" me, but how can you excommunicate an Objectivist? Confiscate his brain? Here it is four decades later and Branden and his followers are long gone. So are Kelley and his minions. Most of the people I have known from Objectivism have abandoned Objectivism. I'm still here. Rationalization and other undesirable things are not just Objectivist problems. They are human problems you will find everywhere. The problem with certain Objectivists is that before they were Objectivists they were people.

I disagree. It is the chosen value which needs to be judged and, in order to do that properly, you need to first correctly identify what it is and its application in the context which gave rise to the emotion. The proper epistemological approach to emotions -- or any other aspects of reality -- is to first identify and then evaluate. Sad to say, most people are poor introspectors who rush to judgment without understanding what they are judging. They usually end up unjustly condemning themselves and others and not really understanding their emotions. There isn't really any such thing as as a "severely malformed emotion" any more than there is a "severely malformed perception." Both emotions and perceptions are automatic, mechanical, unchosen functions of consciousness. Indeed! If someone felt that way, he should definitely find out where that emotion is coming from. Especially if he is an Objectivist. Emotions are always estimates of something. I don't think so, but then, you probably never met my Aunt Molly and my Aunt Sue.

It may be true that the values leading to an emotional response may be in error, but the problem may also be that emotions, which operate automatically and often by perceptual association, may have automatically applied good values out of context. He's a true and very personal example. When I first discovered -- and immediately loved -- Ayn Rand's books way back in 1962, I eagerly tuned in when I heard she would be on television. As soon as she began to speak, I had a strong emotional reaction and it was negative! "What am I seeing or hearing which makes me feel this way?" I asked myself. It took just an instant to realize I was reacting to the fact that she was about the same age, similar in appearance, and spoke with exactly the same accent as my value-hating, misery-worshipping, Russian-Jewish immigrant aunts and uncles. The minute I realized that, and also saw that what she was saying was the exact opposite of what I would expect from Aunt Molly or Aunt Sue, the negative reaction vanished. I have always been on the premise of accepting and understanding my own emotions and that helped me deal with the situation, but what if I had handled it differently? What if I had concluded "This emotion is improper. I must have bad values somewhere," instead. A lot of people do. As a result the emotion would have persisted but I would haved tended to suppress (and eventually repress) it, and I would have had the additional burden of unearned guilt.

Observe that while Jews are only about 5% of the population, that Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger, Peter Schwartz, Michael Berliner, Andrew Bernstein and many other leading Objectivists as well as much more than 5% of the Objectivists _you_ know were raised in Jewish families. Why is this so? The reason has less to do with ethnicity than with philosophy. The appeal of rational values among Jews owes little to the Hebrew religion and everything to ancient Greek ideals. At the height of the Hellenistic Age, the Greeks ruled Palestine and brought their culture to the Jews living there. The Jews (especially the young ones) became enamored of the Greek ways, sought to assimilate, and began to abandon their Hebrew traditions. Unfortunately, the Greek conquerors tried to _forcibly_ forbid Jewish practices, and this led to the Maccabeean Rebellion which overthrew the Greeks. When the Jews reasserted their religion, there remained a strong and vital this-earthly, rational streak of Hellenism in their culture. Because the Jews were an isolated minority, they managed to preserve the ancient Greek world-view as the rest of Western Civilization sank into the Dark Ages. Jews were forbidden to own land, so they moved to the towns and cities. When Jews were denied entry into the artisan's guilds, they became merchants and traders. While Christians scorned life on earth, the Jews became physicians. The Church forbids the sin of usury, so Jews became the money-lenders and financiers. Like the Greeks who named their greatest city for the Goddess of Wisdom, the Jews revered learning and the "practical wisdom" that creates material prosperity. The man who is generally considered the greatest Jewish sage, Maimonides (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon), was an avowed Aristotelian. In his book, _A_Guide_to_the_Perplexed_, he sought to combine Aristotelian epistemology with Jewish religious teachings. Later, Thomas Aquinas (who, it is believed, read Maimonides) was to attempt the same with Christianity and, in so doing, bring the light of Reason to the Dark Ages. Reason, individualism, and this earth have been a crucial part of Jewish culture for over two millennia. It is not surprising that Jews and Objectivists have so much in common. L'Chaim! (To Life!)

Of course. Only indirectly. How much someone hates is an effect and changing emotions is best done on the level of causes -- i.e., by examining our values and the things which, in fact, may promote or threaten them. So would I.

Do you mean that literally or are you combining the emotion of hate and the actions taken in response to it? The reason I ask is that there is no way of "deciding how much to hate" because, as Ayn Rand wrote, "Emotions are the AUTOMATIC results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious" [Emphasis mine.] The only thing you can decide, volitionally, is what to do about an emotion. There are options. You can ignore the emotion and the facts which gave rise to it. Sometimes this is the rational thing to do such as when I ignore my fears and go to the dentist anyway. Usually it is not and you should, instead, examine the emotion, evaluate the events which triggered it, and decide on the best course of action. The constant practice of avoiding emotions and not introspecting and evaluating them leads to the practice becoming automatized -- i.e., repression. Repression, even if instituted as an honest mistake in early childhood, is extremely self-destructive. You can -- and should -- act on the emotion if and when careful reflection leads you to understand what the most reasonable thing to do is. You should NOT act on an emotion you do not understand and/or that conflicts with your thinking. So, you don't literally decide how much to hate. When you do feel the emotion of hate, the rational thing is to evaluate it to see if it is a response to a real threat to an important value, then think about what to do about it, and then, if necessary, do it.

All over the place! Here are a few items from my CyberNet in just the past month: An Objectivist Conference in Europe An Objectivist Conference in Virginia An Objectivist opening a psychotherapy practice 28 books by Objectivists in the Amazon Top 100K books 10 Objectivists in the Amazon Top 10K reviewers Several references to Ayn Rand in the media including a UPI syndicated story 19 publications or references to ARI op-eds in the press Articles and Letters by Objectivists in major publications An Objectivist with a regular radio show on 30 stations 12 lectures by Objectivists Yaron Brook appearing on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News 4/7/04 *** Yaron Brook appearing on Geraldo at Large TONIGHT 4/17/04 *** And THIS ... The University of South Carolina's Moore School of Business just received $1 million from BB&T to set up a faculty position to teach and research the moral foundations of capitalism. In addition to creating the BB&T Chair for the Study of Capitalism, the donation will fund undergraduate and graduate courses to study Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, establish a speaker series on capitalism and add an Ayn Rand reading room to the business school's Springs Library. JOHN ALLISON, CEO and chairman of BB&T, announced the grant yesterday (3/24/04). The news appeared in The State (Columbia, SC) <http://tinyurl.com/yu8e9>, the USC student newspaper <http://tinyurl.com/3ethv>, and syndicated by the Associated Press <http://tinyurl.com/2hqzv>.

We do it because the government has a gun to our heads and it ISN'T voluntary. Morality ends where a gun begins.