BrandonMV

I was going to wait until it was about to launch to announce anything, but the website is well under construction.

softwareNerd, I agree and that's a good way of putting the problem. I won't push for the website without being able to establish that control. Currently, I'm researching different options. I'm still waiting for a response concerning StackExchange and whether a person who proposes a website there becomes its administrator, though I think the answer will be no. Shapado.com is another option, which allows for an administrator, moderators, and question/answer moderation, but I don't see a way to ban users, which I don't like. I'm looking into that. OSQA.net is yet another option, which is an open-source engine built using Python and seems to have all the features I'm looking for. It requires separate hosting, so I'm setting up a virtual server to play with it. There are other possibilities as well. I'll post my findings (including whether a host will be necessary). Thanks.

Mindy, let me put this in your terms: The consensus of a good community on the usefulness of an answer is valuable information that should not and need not be equated with a claim to expertise. So please stop asserting that there is no distinction. That was the point of my paragraph from which you quoted. (How to establish a good community, then, is a different question.) As for my paragraph on disagreements, I was addressing your question of who would decide what the final answer should be. To summarize myself again, in essence, there would be no "final" answer. A voting system would allow for conflicting answers (that don't violate the rules) to co-exist for each person to judge for himself. That's why that comment was needed. And we are considering the consumers of the project. For example, contrary to what you imply, the questioners need not all be newbies. Individuals with all levels of knowledge ask questions. Moreover, newsbies are qualified to say for themselves which answers are most useful for them and other contributors can vote on the quality too. And what do we do with this information? We don't claim that answerers are thereby experts. We take that information for what it is and nothing more. The consensus of quality is one way of organizing answers as opposed to chronology, and can be a very helpful form of organization among a good community. Maybe you prefer to sift through tens of pages of chronically organized answers (which are not all independent attempts at answering the question, they often depend on a context interwoven in the previous answers). Then you are free to use whatever forums you wish. I can discuss other advantages, but I'm done repeating myself.

Bill, no problem. I would very much like to use the StackExchange engine, but based on my reading of the FAQ, moderation control is based entirely on one's reputation. That is, the person(s) who proposed the website do not necessarily have any control to establish rules of conduct or enforce them. With the right community, maybe it could work, but there's no guarantee that it wouldn't be overrun or corrupted. I posted a question on the StackExchange website to confirm this. If that's correct, then I think it would be best to use another engine. I'm looking into a few others in the meantime.

David, thank you for your post. That's very helpful and well put. Mindy, no post has mentioned that contributors may attain expert status through voting. Contributors themselves would receive no votes. Rather, contributions may be voted as good, which then will accumulatively build the contributor's reputation. And having a good reputation means only that one is largely considered good at something among a community. As in other contexts, that information is often useful. It is not a claim to expertise, especially not on Objectivism, which is Ayn Rand's philosophy. Contributors will speak only for themselves, as I would be sure to note on the website. Moreover, reputation is only as good as the community that gives rise to it. And I believe that attracting the best community possible would be the result of pursuing a valuable purpose, such as David Odden described. As for disagreements, that's one reason I'm strongly leaning towards a voting system over a Wiki system. A voting system allows for multiple highly rated answers and retains answers that have are not highly rated (provided they don't violate the rules), so each user has all of the information there for him to judge, even when there's controversy. And I've already mentioned several ways, multiple times, in which this website (not "blog-site") could more effectively serve the function of question-answering.

CapitalistSwine, I agree. After considering it, I think there definitely needs to be some rules in place about what's fair game (for etiquette and beyond) and moderators to enforce that. Right now, I'm exploring all of the options, including Shapado. I'll post an update when I've come to some firm conclusions about what the best options are and have worked out more of the important details. I appreciate all of the input.

Mindy, I'm not sure how what you said relates to the project I've described. Forums in part serve the same function of answering questions, and they seem to do fine. My goal is to establish a website which is designed exclusively for that function and to perform it as effectively as possible. I've described several features and explained how they could help do that. Such a site doesn't require cut-and-dried, non-controversial answers from experts alone. Anyone can contribute and everyone can judge what answers are the most useful. The purpose isn't to make a definitive set of answers to any and all questions of philosophy, but to make good answers and leads more accessible. I think that's very valuable. And as softwareNerd pointed out, working out answers to questions is a good learning exercise for philosophically-minded people.

Eioul, that's fair. I put this document together which I think covers everything discussed so far and should be a good starting point. Please let me know if anyone has any suggestions or would like to help edit it.

Here is a list of open-source alternatives to StackExchange. Shapado appears to be the most promising, as it allows for administrators and is customizable (for example, the boring theme can be changed), so I reserved http://objectivism.shapado.com/ . If a host can be found, then the other open-source engines may work too, but I don't know much about that.

That's right, but I'd like to clarify that people aren't directly voted to be moderators. My understanding is that degrees of moderator status are achieved once one has achieved a strong reputation by answering questions well. The system seems to have worked very well for other websites, but then again, I haven't seen websites use it for a Q & A concerning a system of philosophy or ideology. That's why I'm asking for thoughts, and I'm still looking into other options.

softwareNerd, I hadn't considered a forum-centric solution since I thought the idea was sort of a departure from forums, and forums seem to lack most of the features that I had in mind, but maybe it could be workable. I had similar concerns about control over the StackExchange, since the only way to obtain control (that is, moderation power) is by earning reputation. That could be a good or bad thing. But I don't think it would be a problem if we get it started with the right community, which is what I will work quickly to establish if we decide on that option. And as far as I can see, it is the most workable solution in that it has most of the desired features. Also, I think what you mention is a good idea for finding contributors. JASKN, since the website would share the same community or parts of it, I'm throwing out ideas here to see what people think of them and to help figure out what the best solution might be. Then to the extent that I can I'd like to help implement it.

CapitalistSwine, I'm starting to think that using the StackExchange engine might be a good way to go about it. It uses points, awards, and reputation to reward and encourage participation. It has a great tagging system for categorizing and organizing questions. It has a voting system that can be used to select the best answers (and questions). And as I mentioned, Stack Overflow seems to use the same engine, which has been very successful. And so, unless anyone has any objections or better ideas, I can start publicizing the Objectivism proposal so it can start moving forward.

I currently don't know of anyone with the interest, ability, and time to put the site itself together. If there is anyone out there, please speak up! I have been looking for free and/or open source solutions. So far, the best potential solution I've found is http://area51.stackexchange.com/ , which offers free websites that use an engine that either is or is based on Stack Overflow's engine (which is an extremely useful and successful Q & A oriented website). See the FAQ at http://area51.stackexchange.com/faq for an explanation of the whole process. I created a proposal for Objectivism here. If you like the idea, please Follow this proposal (it needs 60 followers) or add example questions (it needs 5 that are on-topic and 5 that are off-topic) to help move it into the next stage of production. I will keep looking for alternatives as well.

softwareNerd, I strongly agree that participating in such a Q & A would be a good learning exercise. One reason that this idea excites me is that it would give me an opportunity to tackle philosophical questions and work them out for myself. (I can explain why a forum, at least for me, is significantly different.) Others, then, could edit, supplement, or replace my answer. I'm no longer a newbie, but I'm far from an expert. Still, I think I have sufficient knowledge of Objectivism and the reasoning skills to participate. In doing so, I could learn a great deal and I would be helping others learn in the process. JASKN, I do think that there are several important questions that remain about implementation. But before all the details need to be worked out, I think we need to see that there is enough interest and ability to start, use, and maintain such a project. Of course, I would be happy to volunteer to help make it happen however possible.

Since my third year of high school, I have been studying Objectivism and philosophy through books, articles, lectures, courses, and to a significant extent, the Internet. After reading my first books by Ayn Rand, I had many questions and went on the Internet to find answers. I found that forums were a great place to ask these questions, as they already held an enormous breadth of thorough answers. And I found that Objectivism Online (OO.net) was the best forum to discuss Objectivism, because it seemed to be the most civilized, most closely aligned with the right ideas, and moderated by intelligent and rational people. Much later, I discovered the site One Minute Cases (OMC). OMC is great because it tackles broad issues of philosophy clearly and concisely. OO.net is great because users can ask any question, including those which may come from a personal context or may be very narrow or technical. However, between these, I think there is room for another great website. I think it would be great for there to be a website that allows users to ask any question concerning Objectivism, like OO.net, that only contains answers which are clear and concise, like OMC. In other words, something like a moderated Q & A Wiki. I think that there would be several advantages. For example: 1) On OO.net, a thread with a question often expands into several tens of pages with only a handful of responses that contain useful answers but may require the context of those previous pages to be fully understood. In other words, one may have to spend an enormous time to find that nugget of gold. With a website such as the one I describe, there would essentially be one answer that can be constantly improved. 2) With the Wiki format, even questions can be improved and made more objectively clear. As a result, it would be easier to avoid duplicate questions and avoid answers that are based on a misunderstanding of the original question. 3) Questions often concern more than one branch of philosophy and do not fit neatly into a single topic such as "Metaphysics" or "Ethics". The Wiki category system can be used to tag questions with all of the relevant topics, which means that they can be better organized and therefore be found more easily. Moreover, questions can be phrased in several ways. And so, searching in a forum, you might not find that your question already answered. But using the category system, you can easily scan the relevant questions. 4) Relevant resources can easily be associated with each question. ~ And I'm sure there are others. Another possibility is using a voting system or points system to reward participation. (See websites such as http://wiki.answers.com/ and http://stackoverflow.com/ .) Obviously, this would not be a replacement for a forum or discussion, but a helpful supplement for question-answering. Please let me know what you think. Good idea? Bad idea? What else could improve it? Would anyone like to help make this a reality?

Hello. I'm looking to buy or borrow a copy of Dr. Peikoff's lecture "Principles of Grammar". If you can help, please contact me. Thank you!

If I understand you correctly, your view is that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are arbitrary constructs of which the only value is to help form reasonable expectations about the way a person of a specific sex will act or appear. The corresponding method to determine what qualifies as such, then, as you describe, is to form generalizations about the way men and women tend to be. And so, I would disagree that our methods are the same for determining what qualifies as masculine and feminine, because I start with a different view of the concepts in which they have a basis in anatomy and serve an important psychological function in sexuality. Once again, I have to say that I need to give it more careful thought before I would try to argue those points, and that's what I will do before I comment any further.

You may not share my observations, but I do not think it makes you right to jump to the conclusion that I'm therefore making [over]generalizations and assumptions and "hiding" them. I say that you're jumping to that conclusion because you stated it as a fact, rather than suggesting it as a possibility, without knowing the relevant observations that led me to my conclusions on this issue. I do need to give some of them more thought before I'd be willing to articulate them fully. That's why I offered that caveat, "questions have been raised that I need to reflect on before I can move ahead." And that's why for the past few posts I've been responding to clarify what I think, but not the full reasoning for why I think it. When I tried to describe masculinity, I was trying to identify the principle that unifies all of its characteristics, what in reality determines what qualifies as masculine. And so, based on my observations of men and women in a romantic context, I suggested that the principle consists of the implications sex characteristics have for the desire to be loved by a woman. That's not to say that in order to be masculine at all, a person must love a woman, just that that is a part of the standard by which one determines what is masculine in general -- which any particular person regardless of sexual orientation can exhibit, even significantly so. And so, I am not assuming that a male homosexual must be effeminate, if that means that their behavior and appearence must be overall feminine. I'm only saying that homosexuality, by definition, insofar as it manifests their psychology, is at least not masculine using my definition (which is based on observation). I'm reluctant to say it's feminine because the circumstances involved might make it something else altogether. I've heard a lot about what others think masculinity is not, but if you have another idea about what it is, please feel free to suggest it. If you would really define it as just being virtuous, I definitely disagree that its that simple. Otherwise, what's the difference between masculinity and femininity? Does it really have nothing to do with a person's sex? Or are those terms exclusive to outward behavior and appearance? I don't think so.

I never said or meant to imply that homosexuality inherently has no value or that it's some arbitrarily constructed concept. I've only said that, in another person, it has no sexual value to me. I've also said that I have no problem if others do obtain such a value. As for the man who has a girlfriend but told me he is or was homosexual, my reaction would depend on the context. If he is really homosexual, why is he with the girl? Is he deceiving her? If he was homosexual and only "got with this girl because she is a special case", is it true that he really is no longer a homosexual? What is the current state of his psychology? It's his psychology that I care about, and I believe that sexuality affects a person's psychological approach in a fundamental way. Even if I am unable to perceive it immediately, I know that it will be visible with any form of intimacy. And so, that realization turns me off. I think there's a great value in looking good. I'm not sure what you're responding to there. What audience are you referring to when you say, "Why does the particular audience bother you?" If someone thinks I look good, I don't care who it is. Again, what turns me off is not primarily any given appearance or action, but what they reveal about a person's psychology. Take for example a man who sleeps with men. The act only turns me off insofar as it reveals the romantic nature of the person's psychology. And when I say turns me off, I just mean that I lose interest, not that I'm disgusted by it. How exactly sexuality affects a person's psychology I can't fully specify because I'm not a psychologist. But I do perceive differences in my own psychology and in the psychology of others, which is especially evident in the romantic context. And while being virtuous makes a person worthy of admiration, I don't think it is enough to warrant romantic interest. There's definitely something more involving one's sexual identity, i.e, how one views oneself sexually in relation to others. And I think that, to be rational, any effort to change one's sexual identity -- including how one views masculinity/femininity and oneself in relation to others -- must be based on objective facts. At least in terms of masculinity/femininity, I don't see facts suggesting that I have a warped view there. And I definitely do not subscribe to the modern one that you mentioned.

bluecherry, The reason I noted that I'd like to reflect before making additional comments is that I haven't fully digested my thoughts on masculinity, femininity, and how they apply to sexuality and myself. I have definite views, but they're not precise and probably not wholly accurate yet. Also, I don't think you fully understand the views I described and how they apply to me. But rather than trying to clarify those thoughts, I'd rather hear how you would define masculinity and femininity. I'll send you a private message about it, though, because that question is broader than the topic.

Eiuol, That's a good question. In a previous post I wrote, "I am not and do not wish to be feminine," but I was thinking in the context of outward behavior and appearance and that I do not want to be a woman. But I view masculinity and femininity as aspects of both a person's outward behavior and appearence and his or her psychology. And so, as a whole, I do not consider myself feminine (nor do people in general), but I suppose that the homosexual aspect of my psychology is. I wouldn't say that femininity requires desiring only heterosexual men. I think that woman can desire a homosexual man for being physically masculine, for example, or for what she perceives as him having a masculine psychology. Those desires do not conflict with a feminine identity. But I do think that a homosexual man has fundamental aspects of his psychology that are not masculine. And so, if she grasps that, I do not think a feminine woman would be attracted to a homosexual man. The same applies to me, and because I grasp that, I am not attracted to homosexual men. But again, I do not consider myself feminine except for the sexuality aspect of my psychology. I do feel conflicted with my identity, because I don't like describing myself as feminine in any way, so I will give it more thought. That may have something to do with me wanting to be desirable according to my own standard, but because that has no practical implications (since no heterosexual man would view me in that way), I could probably get over it. EDIT: I'll read and might respond to other comments but questions have been raised that I need to reflect on before I can move ahead. I appreciate the comments so far.

bluecherry, A view of masculinity and feminity is something that I've automatized rather than formed explicitly, and I haven't really tried to make it explicit. I think the relevant point is that masculinity and femininity are complements and that all of their characteristics are determined by a single goal: to be loved by a woman or to be loved by a man, respectively. The corresponding anatomies imply all the rest, in terms of dominance and submission, or whatever the appropriate terms are. In my view, homosexuality contradicts both points: it violates the complementary nature and it violates the single goal by which all the other characteristics of masculinity are determined. To allow these violations would be to make masculinity arbitrary and to thereby lose its meaning. And so, this isn't something I can just redefine, it's the result of the sum of my observations over my lifetime. And Dante, to be honest, I would much rather change my orientation (if that's even possible) than I would change my lack of interest in homosexual men. The former deals more with how I view myself in relation to others whereas the latter commits me to the above problem. I have seen a psychologist about my situation before but she just helped me accept my state rather than solve or amend it. I do think others could probably help me, and if I don't figure it out for myself by then, I will seek professional help when I have the time and money. Also, I should have been more careful in reusing that quote. When I said that "real man" was describing a concept of masculinity, I meant just that. It's simply my standard for an object of sexual desire. A man who does not fit that concept is not less of a person morally. Therefore, it has no effect on my self-concept.

Aequalsa, I will keep your point in mind that impossible tasks often spawn from wanting to avoid achievable ones. I don't know that it applies, as of course this is not something I chose, but it could have something to do with how I developed. Kevin Delaney, thank you for the quote and the suggestion that my situation might be more widespread. I do find it odd that my concept of masculinity seems to be so uncommon among homosexuals.

bluecherry, I don't think I'm assuming that certain traits apply to all homosexual males apart from the fact they're homosexual. And I'm not attracted to homosexuals for a similar reason to that provided in the quote from Kevin Delany, "the essence of a real man is that he does not fall in love with people of his own sex." I read this as a perspective on masculinity in which homosexuality is not masculine. That is not to say that homosexuality is feminine, but it is what it is and not what it's not. And I'm not attracted to it. Others might be, and I don't have a problem with that. And I have no problem with other homosexuals. I have friends that are (although honestly I've never knowingly met a homosexual woman or a bisexual), but I'm just not attracted to them. --- While I did say that homosexuality in another man turns me off, I didn't say I find it unattractive, which I take to imply a form of disgust. As for simply not being attracted to homosexuals, that does not impact my self-concept. Consider this similar situation: A heterosexual woman will not be attracted to another heterosexual woman. But this does not mean that she therefore thinks less of herself. Moreover, I don't have any desire to be a woman. Even imagining it bothers me, as it is a seriously departure from my self-concept. I am not and do not wish to be feminine. --- When I said "eliminate the need", I meant to eliminate the desire for romantic relationships because they would not be possible. That way I could focus on other values without perpetual frustration. I didn't mean to eliminate the qualification that a male be heterosexual, which seriously violates my concept of masculinity and I do not think I can change that without evading. However, I would very much like to get a better grasp on my sense of life so I can articulate these issues better. But I'm not sure how to do that. It's difficult. --- I agree with your last paragraph. And that's what I'm trying to do right now: Figure out what my long-term goal and solution should be.

I'm in what seems to be an impossible romantic scenario. That is, a scenario where romantic love is not possible for me (see below). I would appreciate any helpful thoughts and opinions on the matter. --- Most generally, I'm a homosexual. However, I largely lack sexual desires, and the desire I do have is only toward heterosexual men. I believe that these two facts are interrelated. With the understanding that I'm only attracted to heterosexual men comes the understanding that a romance is necessarily impossible. As a result, my desires are significantly stifled. As for why I'm attracted only to heterosexual men -- and very few, at that -- I don't know exactly. But I do know that regardless of physical appearance, as soon as I discover that a man is homosexual, I'm completely turned off sexually. If you've heard Dr. Peikoff's Q&A Love, Sex, and Romance, I believe that my reaction to the thought of having a romance with a homosexual man is similar to Ayn Rand's reaction to Peikoff asking her if she would have liked to be a man (and to therefore be attracted to women); it almost induces a shudder. Psychology is of primary importance to me, and sexuality affects a person's psychology and basic mental framework in a fundamental way that I can't overlook. Obviously, this yields a problem. I think that romance is a basic psychological need -- for the sort of intimate visibility or whatever else it may provide -- but due to the contradictory nature of my desires which I am currently helpless to change, I cannot achieve it. Therefore, I'm left paralyzed and often depressed. My first request, then, is for advice as to what I should do. There seems to be very few options. The only possible option I see is to focus on other values such as career and possibly a child instead, but this doesn't seem to really fix the problem. Eliminating this need or becoming heterosexual seem like they would resolve the problem, but I don't know if that's possible right now. Perhaps there are other options, but I don't see them. (Preemptive Remark: I do not think that changing one's sexuality is a matter of rejecting one's identity any more than is working to change the evaluations that give rise to one's emotional responses in general.) --- My second request for advice is regarding a particular case. I currently have a heterosexual friend for whom I've developed strong feelings. We've been friends for several years and I'd like to continue our friendship but doing so is painful for me because of these feelings. After much deliberation, I decided to tell him (this was not easy) and he said that while it bothered him, it didn't bother him that much. Thus, it seems to bother me more than it does him. And so, I don't know what to do. I've tried staying away from him for awhile. In fact, there was a period where we didn't speak much for a year or so, but as soon as speaking resumed, so did the rest. I could elaborate on why I think I like him, but I don't know if that's necessary for the advice. Here I see three options: end the friendship, end my feelings, or deal with it. The first would be a huge loss, the second I don't know how to do, and the third is painful. If I were to attempt to stop those feelings, understanding their source would be helpful, but it's very complicated and difficult for me to grasp. I do think it's very much a sense of life issue, but I can't articulate what mine is, let alone his and how they relate. However, in addition to that, since many of his friends are away at college, he focuses on me more and asks me to hang out often, and I think my subconscious romanticizes that. Also, I think that my sense of life is sort of in a transition stage. For a time, I was having a sort of music identity crisis and was not able to fully decide on what music I liked. And I knew this was because I didn't know which vibes from the music represented something good and right. Lately, I've been interested in certain pop and hip hop music, largely influenced by him. I caught myself the other day wondering if he would like a song in trying to figure out if I like it. I'm not sure what this means exactly, but I think it might be worth noting. Also, if it's relevant, I'm 19 and will be 20 within a few months. --- To summarize, I would like... 1) advice on my general romantic situation. 2) advice on the particular situation with my friend. 3) advice on how to understand one's sexuality, sense of life, etc. better. --- Thank you.