Dingbat

Since people can survive in many different ways, so would each individual's concept of beauty differentiate to go along with the "survival method". Some people might like the cold sore in the painting. Rand didn't but that's her preference.

I was referring to Peikoff's hypothesis that our general interest comes from some initial focus from early childhood, like his example of a child's first impressions being about something structural leading to an eventual career in architecture. I wonder then, if this is true, if we can categorize people into what constituted their defining, first impressions? Interesting sociological study?

Thank you for the replies, they have been helpful. Marc K., I did listen to that podcast and found that pretty much answered my question. Peikoff says it could just be arbitrary, which is kind of an odd thing to consider. I guess this is true since our entering into existence (a.k.a. being born) is itself arbitrary to each individual. I'm 22. I've decided to pursue sociology but as an Objectivist. I don't know how it will turn out, but I do have a passion for that 'big picture' perspective characteristic of sociology at least, haha.

I assume that in a situation where one's survival was at stake, like lost in the wilderness, those values necessary for your survival, like hunting food or building shelter, would most occupy your consciousness. But, in a modern civilization where achieving these basic needs are more efficient and considerably safe, we have the mental time to consider other values. These take the shape of careers, skills, expressions, and hobbies. I just wonder, where does the interest for these things come from? Why did Hank Rearden pursue metallurgy? Why does Howard Roark like architecture? Why is Dagny Taggart into trains? What makes them select these as modes of engaging reality?

This is interesting stuff. Do you happen to have any sources or books I can read up on this?

I see, then I'm arguing that it is possible to be involved in selling illegal drugs (in today's context) and be moral at the same time. I say this is moral because I think one could possibly benefit from drugs in some manner, whether it's for responsible fun (celebration of life) or to open awareness and perception of things in some way that may be beneficial to you, perhaps therapeutic in some sense. On the contrary, it is possible to sell illegal drugs immorally, in a way that is destructive in a reason-neglecting, long-term sense. I didn't read this thread from the beginning. I pounced on this topic assuming most of the members here have an unfavorable view of drugs in the first place.

I'm arguing that drugs are not necessarily immoral, that they can provide a good to someone's life. (I'm using Objectivist morality as I understand it. If I'm in error than correct me.) Our laws ought to recognize this and punish only those who use them and profit from them immorally. Our laws should not put both the moral and immoral users/providers in the same bag. Our laws should not regard somebody who uses LSD to come up with the structure of DNA as the equivalent to a bank robber. No, I'm not telling all scientists to take LSD. I'm merely saying that if somebody can use/provide drugs responsibly and in a beneficial manner then he ought to be allowed to. And with substances forced by the government to be underground and taboo, like drugs, it's no wonder that bad people can readily get a hold of them, and it's no wonder bad people give it a bad name. I've seen my fair share of nasty drug dealers. It's dirty business, and the people are the largest scum. But, that doesn't mean those moral drug dealers don't exist. I wonder, as a law enforcer working with our current laws (under our current cultural perspective on drugs), do they ever show you that there can be a distinction or are they more interested in arresting anybody caught with drugs indiscriminately? I respect law enforcers, and I'm on your side when you bust those bad drug dealers. Law enforcers are essential to civilization, but they are only as good as the laws they enforce. Which is why I say we should be overriding any rules, laws, or regulations with rational morality. (Man, you guys broke up the last rave I was at )

JeffS, You are blaming somebody for merely living a life "under threat of punishment" as irrational. I provided a counter example of somebody living under threat of punishment that was rational. Why can't you do both? Why can't you sell/provide a supply of drugs if he sees it to be in his own interest, if he weighs out the pros and cons for himself? Danneskjold had to evade capture but his actions were moral. It seems you can only accept an activity if it is legally sanction by a given society. But why do you legitimize society's irrational sanctions? Why can't a human being want to sell/provide drugs if that's what he wants to do? I meant illegal because I don't believe the laws we have concerning drug use are justifiable, so the morality of the dealer's decisions has always been based upon the dealer. The legal status of an activity doesn't alter if people think about it or not. The law doesn't necessarily make people think. Thinking for oneself is dependant on the individual. Sorry, I'm mistaken to assume you had an anti-drug stance. The law is built to protect people's rights, which all should reflect rational morality (from rational philosophy: Objectivism). These concepts are all related, and since it's all related you can reread my quoted paragraph and substitute my use of the word "right" for "morally sanctioned action" and it would still have the same effect. RationalBiker, Exactly, so should anybody enter the 'business,' they must acknowledge these risks. The choice is up to them. I don't think I understand. Are you comparing the illegal business to the legal business? There are many forms of illegal businesses, and, in the case of drug dealing, that comes in many forms as well. I don't think casually smoking pot for the weekend is a terrible travesty to humanity. But, of course, there are some illegal businesses which deserve to be acted against like human trafficking. It would be wrong to generalize all illegal businesses as the same, and being equally illegal. Depends on the context. Are we talking ideals? Then the laws should reflect rational morality. Are we talking about today? Well, since the laws do not accurately reflect rational morality, we shouldn't pretend that they do. We should still be thinking about what is rationally moral, and allowing that to override any irrational law that we confront. But, since law is connected with punishment, this is tricky because it means that we must be careful not to get caught. I know that there are a lot of stereotypes about drug dealers being big, macho, gangster guys out to degrade people and be a menace to society. They are clearly immoral. But, there are more responsible drug dealers too that care about what they sell, want to make sure it is good quality, check up on whether somebody has been doing too much, and just generally want to provide something so that people can have a good time. I see nothing immoral about this. Ever been to an outdoor rave party? Ever danced under the stars, had intellectual and philosophical discussions with people around a campfire while smoking "the stuff"? These are not activities worthy to be labeled immoral nor criminal. Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA under the influence of LSD. Think about it.

Living life under threat of capture doesn't imply immorality; otherwise, you would be saying resistance fighters in Nazi Germany are immoral. Fighting against such evils is a very rational way to live. Besides, that kind of lifestyle is because of the laws put in place by our irrational government systems. You should be blaming them. I don't see how it would be any different if they were illegal. In an ideal world, the laws should reflect rational morality. Our world, unfortunately, is not the case. We cannot always guarantee that if something is illegal in our society, it is, therefore, immoral, and vice versa. So, we have many strange laws that are based on irrational moral thinking (which is usually rooted in the self-denying Judeo-Christian heritage of Western Civilization). This is the assumption that drug use always leads to addiction and becomes ruinous to your life, which is false. A man's life is an egoistic one. For example, if one makes the choice to indulge in the pleasures of smoking casually then that is his right. If he weighs out the pros and cons and still thinks smoking casually is something in his self-interest then he may do so. You speak of actions like smoking as if they are destructive to life because it is merely unhealthy. I think if you are going to take that puritanical of a view of life, then you might as well say merely being alive is destructive to life, since we are all going to die anyways. With this view, of course you cannot make any distinctions for many activities. In this view, getting stoned every now and then is equivalent to a bank robbery, which is silly. Of course, I'm not telling anybody to just jump in and do drugs. That would be just as irrational. I'm talking about responsible, enjoyable use.

Perhaps it is wrong to say that volition is stochastic, or like a random variable. Perhaps it just is its own entity that should not be identified as randomness. As an analogy, people often think of evolution as a random process, but I don't that statement truely captures it. It is a specific process: natural selection. Saying that evolution is a random, chance process is overlooking its identity.

To create something is to bring into actuality what was not originally there. If something brings you happiness or enjoyment then I think it is legitimate to say that it was created. I think you are meaning for material answers to that question, like writing a novel. Instead, I think the correct answer should be spiritual: happiness. If you can rationally prove that your actions promote your own happiness then I would consider you productive. Somebody can create something bad, like creating a deadly virus that harms others, but I wouldn't consider that person productive because that act would not promote his happiness. Or, suppose a religious person works very hard to safeguard his ignorance by deny objective reality. I wouldn't consider that to be legitimately productive because it is not an activity that promotes rational happiness. Ask yourself: why am I creating these material things? If you create things without purpose, like a machine, I don't think you can consider yourself being productive. If a slave was ordered to do something that he didn't find meaning in then I don't think that slave would consider his actions as being productive. Productivity only makes sense to humans because they are able to value things, and humans value because they can experience happiness.

I'm not sure if you can have a dichotomy between material value and spiritual value. Isn't our value in material things because it relates to us spiritually? Isn't the nature of value something spiritual? In the end, I guess what I'm trying to say is that all values, or what you should be getting from anything, is something spiritual. And thus, the purpose of productivity is to satisfy our "spiritual ambitions". Therefor, relaxation can be considered an aspect of productivity.

If productivity is to profit, that is it brings you value, then can relaxation be seen as part of that process too since it is essential for humans?

It is not true that using mind altering substances directly imply the Primacy of Consciousness. It depends on how you use it and the motivation for it. I'm talking about those who use it to celebrate one's existence (i.e. for fun). Those people who use it in this context would naturally limit their consumption to an appropriate level. I'm not talking about people who deliberately evading reality with every hit because they are so deprived. Used in the appropriate way, there are no repercussions. You ought to determine this is by analyzing your own life and weighing the pros and cons. For example, weed does not kill brain cells. It stimulates brain cells (http://www.worldhealth.net/news/university_of_saskatchewan_research_sugg) and fights cancerous cells (http://blog.naturalstandard.com/natural_standard_blog/2009/04/marijuana-may-help-kill-brain-cancer-cells.html). There is no link between any cancer and weed. To imply that all 50 year old stoners are alike is a gross generalization. Likewise, I doubt taking a few hits of acid or MDMA would do any harm, as long as you do it responsibly knowing what you are getting into. Despite the propoganda that kids are taught (which I think stems from self-denying Judeo-Christian moral tradition), you won't lose your mind. Leonard Peikoff spoke against 'puritanicalism' in Objectivism. On the Q & A section of his website (http://www.peikoff.com/q&a.html) you can find a question concerning this. Even though it talks about smoking and drinking, I would like to highlight its references to harming your health and dulling your mind since that seems to be your position: So, it is possible to do this activities without causing harm. It is possible to enjoy your life more with these substances. I'm not saying that everybody can or should. I'm just saying that it is possible.

I don´t see why doing that kind of activity necessarily implies you must believe in the primacy of consciousness. Drunks don´t necessarily believe in it, so do people who smoke weed, and we can extend this to dreams, which also are unrelated to direct perception of reality since having dreams doesn´t imply that you believe in the primacy of consciousness.

I don´t have "Kant vs Sullivan" available, so I don´t know what you mean exactly by how reading a book or watching a movie focuses the mind "outward". I think the experience of being engrossed in a book or movie is something happening internally. I think it is introspective. Regardless of if it is, I don´t see if whether an activity is introspective is relevant here. I´m saying that maybe "fun" can be defined as celebrating one´s existence, and that is a morally justifiable thing. If I´m incorrect here then please correct me. It does come from outside. It is simply distorted. That´s the fun. We each get our kicks in different ways, but I´m saying that if it is done recreationally, as a celebration of existence, and not an evasion or as a means to attempt to solve a psychological deficiency, AND if it is done responsibly, then it is morally justified. We may not agree or understand why certain people choose to enjoy themselves in particular ways, but that is still something up to the individual´s choice. I think Objectivism recognizes our right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that path may be, as long as it does not infringe upon the other rights.

I don´t see how that criticizes what I said before. If Rand can advocate sex, for the purpose of celebrating one´s existence instead of reproduction, and I believe Rand said drinking was fine, as long as you didn´t overdo it of course, then using drugs for fun, or for the purpose of celebrating one´s existence (if we take that to be synonymous with "fun"), is morally justifiable. Couldn´t you say the same for reading a book or being engrossed in a movie? They are all experiences people choose to aquire. I think drugs are no exception. I think the habitual use of a drug is a sign of the user´s psychological problems. He uses the drug as a means to solve some esteem issue, perhaps. For example, I have known people who have poor self-esteem and have taken ecstasy, and it means a lot to them. For others who already are quite confident, ecstasy is something fun, but they can move on easily. Blaming the drug is missing the point.

How about we relate recreational drug use with recreational sex. It seems like Rand advocated sex under the pretense that it is to celebrate one´s existence. She did not say that the only justification for sex is reproduction. It seems like drugs, or any powerful stimulation, can be used similarily. The orgasm, afterall, can be considered a drug in a way, and it is completely moral to use it just as a means to celebrate existence.

You need to be careful about the distinction between 'female' and 'woman.' Female relates to the biological being and woman as a social construct. Rand didn't say the essence of being a female was hero-worship, she said that femininity was about hero-worship. And, the degree of femininity and masculinity varies between individuals. For example, there are effeminate women as there are more masculine women, and other cultures might have different standards of what roles a male and female plays. Rand, in her lexicon under femininity (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/femininity.html), explains that a woman can have femininity in different degrees of strength, and the stronger her femininity, the more demanding her standards for masculinity in her partner. (An inverse relationship.) I'm not an expert on Objectivism, so correct my mistakes, but I think that to understand what those heroic qualities could be for a woman, we can say that it is a value. And, a woman will have different standards for heroic qualities depending on her values. These values come from analyzing reality and determining her best course of action that will satisfy her. Therefore, a woman's heroic taste depends on what she wants and her surroundings, like who is, or could be, available to her. Ideally, she, or anybody, would choose the partner that is considered to be the most virtuous choice. I think this can be easily understood if we look at the case of femininity but in reverse. Hope that wasn't too confusing, and that someone will correct my errors. So, in context to your romance story, I think you need to think about what your characters value and then maybe extrapolate how they would interact from that?

My knowledge of the bible, Israelites, and much of history is very flimsy. I think you are correct. To elaborate more: Since property rights require a government, or a commonly acknowledged authority of somekind, that maintains the property agreements, in the biblical context, there are two possibilities for this authority: either the leaders of the Israelite tribes or God. In the first case, when the Israelites left their promised land and were enslaved in Egypt, their property was lost because their property authority, the tribe leaders, were compromised. If it is God, then yes it is their property still since it's God and what God says goes. But, in reality, there is no God so you cannot make a claim on property based on this. (If there is a God then he did a bad job living up to his promise.) And, I don't even think there ever was any mass enslavement of Jews in Eygpt. The formation of Israel is justified on matters unrelated to religion. I believe the Jewish settlers that moved into Palestine did so by legitimately buying land. Even then, comparatively speaking, the Israeli government is a more rational authority than the Palestinian social order prior, and the property rights are legitimized under that Israeli government.

Interesting, I did not know that promoting Objectivism was a secondary role in Rand's fiction. It would be best if you could find a source for that, but agree with you. I guess non-Objectivists will have a harder time noticing the aesthetic side of her fiction because they will be confronted with trying to understand the philosophy (like me). Objectivists that are familiar Objectivist ethics will not be bothered by decyphering the philosophy and can focus on the literature itself. I don't really understand this. I guess I just need to read The Romantic Manifesto and then I will. Thanks for the clarifications anyways, tito.

Maybe it depends on how you look at it? Atlas Shrugged could be analyzed as a work promoting Objectivist philosophy, or it could be analyzed as art, but not both at the same time. I haven't read the essay mentioned by tito, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it is maybe referring to the act of analysing something either in a utilitarian manner or artistically as mutually exclusive, not the thing being analyzed?

You’re right, maybe ’defending’ is improper wording. I guess I mean that Rand was putting forth a case for rational egoism, and since that is counter-intuitive or against the social norm, she would have to defend it. I want to make sure that my commitment to Objectivism is done legitamitely. I come here to cross-check this idea that a rational egoism is all that’s needed. Personally, I’ve always come back to Objectivism time and time again, learning more about various Objectivist positions on certain topic, even about egoism, and I felt I was capable of understanding the philosophy, however the actions of the various characters in Rand’s fiction frequently seemed counter-intuitive to me. What’s more, they probably know less about Objectivism than I do. Finally, thanks to The Fountainhead, it finally clicked, and thanks to passages like the one I’ve cited, I’ve come to understand how to be a rational egoist, how to be concerned with only your own values, and how to ignore anything unrelated to your values. I know that maybe to a lot on this forum, you have already made this realization and are confused when I argue for something obvious, but I just wanted to make sure I was on the right track. I felt like I was a weak Objectivist, or a fake basically (I used to be a Libertarian even, but lets not go there), but now I want to change that, and I greatly appreciate the input from this forum. I want to avoid misinterpreting Rand's philosophy as much as possible.

If the individual is rational but mistaken, then that would have to be an ‘honest mistake’ derived from insufficient information. But, given the correct information, if one is honest to his reasoning, using reality as his framework, there should be no mistakes. Not automatically. Hypothetically, using reason, one could come to figure out all the other things in Objectivism, as Ayn Rand did. But, you’d have to be a very dedicated philosopher to attempt that. At the least, being a rational egoist would make you automatically agree with Objectivist concepts should you discover them on your own or through others. Maybe I’m taking this too far, but I wonder if it can be said that Objectivism is primarily set up to defend reason and egoism in this world of altruists, mystics, and subjectivists. Objectivist epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and politics all draw centrally from this idea of an egoism which is also rational. I don't think you can argue that it was set up to defend or promote anything like Laissez-Faire Capitalism or Aesthetics at the front because those depend on the concept of human nature as being capable of using reason and only being concerned with their own values. Perhaps you can argue that everything in Objectivism draws from its epistemology or metaphysics, such as 'existence exists' or 'A is A,' but one can know these things and still not be an Objectivist if you don't act on it. Alternatively, if you behave in a manner consistent with 'existence exists' or 'A is A' but are not familiar with any deep philosophy, like Howard Roark or the main characters in Anthem near the end, I will still say that you fit the definition of an Objectivist.

You’re maybe right that one probably cannot simply rely on their concept of rational egoism. My falacy in this argument will probably be found here. I wasn't very rationally egoistic prior to reading The Fountainhead, so this is a new thing to me. My assumption is that there are many ways of being an egoist (and human nature is always some form of egoism by default), but only one way of being a rational egoist, and this form is Objectivism. But, I'm using ‘rational’ here to describe a mental process that works according to the laws of reality, yet I don’t know if the use of that word necessarily attributes to reality, so maybe I’m overstepping and I should be even clearer. But, if I’m right, or maybe my mistake is here, then I argue that being a rational egoist consistently necessarily implies that your conclusions to given situations will always be the proper ones. It follows that you will come to accept the Objectivist position on politics, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, integrity…etc should you discover them. So, those 'rational egoists' you think you know probably aren't really rational. There is an argument against Libertarians here. Libertarians may borrow Rand’s thoughts and spout them in convenience, but if they are not rational egoists then there is no connection between Objectivism and Libertarians.