Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

themadkat

Regulars
  • Posts

    714
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by themadkat

  1. Did the green-eyed monster evolve before we did?

    Fair play: Monkeys share our sense of injustice

    • 11 November 2009 by Frans de Waal

    • Magazine issue 2734. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

    • For similar stories, visit the The Big Idea and Human Evolution Topic Guides

    It's not fair! Gimme that food (Image: Pete Oxford/Minden Pictures/FLPA)

    HOW often have you seen rich people take to the streets, shouting that they're earning too much? No, I thought not. Protesters are typically blue-collar workers yelling that the minimum wage has to go up, or that their jobs shouldn't go overseas. Lately, however, we have been hearing a new chorus, exclaiming that none of those fat cats on Wall Street or the City should be compensated for bad behaviour. No golden parachutes for those greedy bloodsuckers!

    Concern about fairness is always asymmetrical (stronger in the poor than the rich), and the underlying emotions aren't half as lofty as the ideal itself. It is true to say that our sense of fairness seldom transcends self-interest, that it is seldom concerned with something larger than ourselves. Look at how it starts in life. Children react to the slightest discrepancy in the size of their slice of pizza compared to their sibling's. Their shouts of "That's not fair!" never transcend their own desires.

    We're all for fair play so long as it helps us. There's even a biblical parable about this, in which the owner of a vineyard rounded up labourers at different times of the day. Early in the morning, he went out to find labourers, offering each 1 denarius. But he offered the same to those hired later in the day. The workers hired first thing in the morning expected to get more since they had worked through the heat of the day, yet the owner didn't feel he owed them any more than he had originally promised.

    That this sense of unfairness may turn out to be quite ancient in evolutionary terms as well became clear when graduate student Sarah Brosnan and I discovered it in monkeys. While testing pairs of capuchin monkeys, we noticed how much they disliked seeing their partner get a better deal. At first, this was just an impression based on their refusal to participate in our tests. But then we realised that economists had given these reactions the fancy label of "inequity aversion," which they had turned into a topic of academic debate. This debate revolved entirely around human behaviour, but what if monkeys showed the same aversion?

    We would offer a pebble to one of the pair and then hold out a hand so that the monkey could give it back in exchange for a cucumber slice. Alternating between them, both monkeys would happily barter 25 times in a row. The atmosphere turned sour, however, as soon as we introduced inequity. One monkey would still receive cucumber, while its partner now enjoyed grapes, a favourite food with monkeys. While that monkey had no problem, the one still working for cucumber would lose interest. Worse, seeing its partner with juicy grapes, this monkey would get agitated, hurl the pebbles out of the test chamber, sometimes even those measly cucumber slices. A food normally devoured with gusto had become distasteful.

    Discarding perfectly fine food simply because someone else is getting something better resembles the way we reject an unfair share of money or grumble about an agreed-upon rate of pay. Where do these reactions come from? They probably evolved in the service of cooperation. Caring about what others get may seem petty and irrational, but in the long run it keeps one from being taken advantage of.

    Had we merely mentioned emotions, such as "resentment" or "envy," our findings might have gone unnoticed. But since we saw no reason not to invoke the principle of inequity aversion, thought to relate to a sense of fairness, we drew the keen, somewhat baffled interest of philosophers, anthropologists and economists, who almost choked on the monkey comparison.

    As it happened, our study came out around the time that there was public outcry about the multimillion dollar pay packages that are occasionally given out on Wall Street and elsewhere. Commentators couldn't resist contrasting human society with our monkeys, suggesting that we could learn a thing or two from them.

    Our monkeys have not reached the point at which their sense of fairness stretches beyond egocentric interests - for example, the one who gets the grape never levels the outcome by giving it to the other - but in cooperative human societies, such as those in which men hunt large game, anthropologists have found great sensitivity to equal distribution. Sometimes, successful hunters aren't even allowed to carve up their own kill to prevent them from favouring their family. Without ever having heard calls for equality, these cultures are nevertheless keenly aware of the risk that inequity poses to the social fabric of their society.

    The 17th-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted in his Philosophical Rudiments that humanity is interested in justice "only for Peace's sake". Apes, as opposed to monkeys, may have an inkling of this connection. High-ranking male chimpanzees, for example, sometimes break up fights over food without taking any for themselves. There's even one observation of a bonobo who worried about getting too much. During tests, a female received large amounts of milk and raisins, but could hardly miss the eyes of her friends on her, who were watching her from a short distance. After a while, she refused all rewards. Looking at the experimenter, she kept gesturing to the others until they were given a share of the goodies. Only then did she finish her stash.

    This bonobo was doing the smart thing. Apes think ahead, and if she had eaten her fill right in front of the rest, there might have been repercussions when she rejoined them later in the day, not unlike the nasty notes scribbled on the portrait of Richard Fuld, the final chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers.

    Inequity aversion will no doubt prove a rich research area, all the more so since there is no reason to think it is limited to the primates. I expect it to be found in all social animals. One entertaining account concerns psychologist Irene Pepperberg's typical dinner conversation with two squabbling African grey parrots, the late Alex, and his junior colleague, Griffin. "I ...had dinner, with Alex and Griffin as company. Dining company, really, because they insisted on sharing my food. They loved green beans and broccoli. My job was to make sure it was equal shares, otherwise there would be loud complaints. 'Green bean,' Alex would yell if he thought Griffin had one too many. Same with Griffin."

    Another species in which to expect such reactions is the dog, which descends from cooperative hunters used to dividing up their prey.At the Clever Dog Lab at the University of Vienna, Austria, Friederike Range found that dogs refuse to lift a paw for a "shake" with a human if they get nothing in return while their companion is rewarded. Disobedient dogs show signs of tension, such as scratching and looking away. The reward itself isn't the issue, because the same dogs are perfectly willing to obey if neither one receives food. So, dogs too, may be sensitive to injustice.

    All of this shows that our hostility to conspicuous consumption and excess at the top is only natural. It is part of a long evolutionary history in which cooperation and equity go hand in hand, even though it is undeniable that we have also a hierarchical streak. This is equally true for other primates, not to mention for canines, but no species accepts these vertical arrangements 100 per cent of the time.

    Our hostility to conspicuous consumption and excess at the top is only natural

    Robin Hood had it right. Humanity's deepest wish is to spread the wealth.

    Profile

    Frans de Waal is Charles Howard Candler professor of primate behaviour in the Emory University psychology department, Atlanta, Georgia, and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. His latest book is The Age of Empathy (Harmony, 2009)

  2. I guess i'm more inclined to trust my first impression of people. I agree of course that it's important not to jump to conclusions and discard that first impression if it proves to be wrong. But I tend to be able to rather quickly form an accurate impression of people(I think it might be something i've learned from being more of a quiet and observing type).

    That makes sense. I totally get that then. In contrast to you, I tend to be sort of an in-your-face type that attracts a lot of attention without even trying. I get a lot of, "Oh, of course I've heard of you." LOL And random people tend to just come my way (not that this is a bad thing, I have my lovely mate and two fantastic friends because of this). For better or for worse, I have a weird brand of charisma, a sort of anti-popular notoriety.

    For women there's also the risk of getting beaten and raped if they attract the wrong guy. Therefore I think it's also wiser for women to require a higher degree of trust before sleeping with a man.

    I can't say for sure how I would feel about that situation as it has never happened, but I don't think i'd have any problems with it. My actions would be in response to the values I see. But, I don't act by giving anything away. I don't regard it as a gift or anything like that, it's more like obtaining a value. If it turns out she doesn't actually live up to that, that would be disappointing but i'll just make sure to find someone better next time. Whatever she got from it must be as gratifying as having sex with a person who's thinking of someone else(besides, that someone else would eventually get what she couldn't).

    I see what you're saying now. I admit I wasn't thinking about that, but I certainly do know enough women who've had that sort of thing happen, usually when alcohol is involved. It's not as big of a concern for me because I rarely drink and almost never get drunk, and I'm sort of big and scary for a woman so most guys would know better than to pull that crap with me. :D In contrast to you, I do feel like I give someone something when I sleep with him. It's a concretization of a kind of ownership over me. And I take something for myself in return. I take ownership of him too, take everything I want from him and leave him in a heap. I guess that's why it's a bigger deal for me. I understand that not everyone feels that way and there's nothing wrong with people who don't.

    I also operate from the somewhat unusual context of only having been with one person, but for years and years now. So that probably affects my perspective. Your take on things makes good sense from your POV.

  3. But does it matter(I mean from a more general philosophical perspective, obsviously it matters to you personally)? What I mean is that sometimes you make errors when judging people, but unless you have reasons to doubt your judgement then why not act on the one you have(granted of course that the person has proven him/herself)?

    Personally i'm very good at picking up when someone is lying, hiding something or trying to fake anything so I tend not to worry much about it at all. But then there's also alot less risk involved for a man.

    I think it matters, at least if being more certain is important to you. I guess as a scientist it's sort of ingrained in me not to jump to conclusions about the facts and apply that attitude to people too. For example, I frequently discard my first impression of someone and tend to rely far more on continued interaction with them. But I know that I am anomalous in this regard.

    I admit that I am not always good at picking up on someone's intentions. Being deliberately deceived is one thing - that's not hard to catch. It's the people who don't know what they want themselves and tell me one thing but then do another, not maliciously but more just out of a general personality-fail, that really dick me over. And I am also naturally mistrustful of people in general. These factors all probably contribute to me being a bit more cautious.

    I don't agree that there's less risk involved for a man, unless you don't have access to birth control and/or abortion services. Maybe in some sense there is but I generally don't see it that way. I mean, sex is a response to one's highest values when it is done for the right reason. Wouldn't you feel terribly cheated if you thought you were showing, honestly and openly, your affirmation of someone, your high regard for them, only to find that they never deserved it? I can't imagine what it must feel like to wake up next to someone one morning and realize they're nothing like what you thought they were, that they didn't earn you. It's something I hope to never find out about.

  4. One thing that continues to amaze me, and was borne out recently in some books I was reading for research, is how many contradictions the average person holds without giving it a second thought and how their replies to a question can be changed just by asking it differently. Most people just don't have a cohesive philosophy of any kind, period. I for one am not sure what to do about that. What good is it to point out to people that they're holding a contradiction if they just don't care?

  5. ^^That's a novel, and that was done for dramatic effect...I don't disagree with you guys, I just think that not everyone can be ready to have sex after a couple of dates.

    I'm going to second this. I definitely couldn't after a couple of dates. Maybe some of you folks are capable of knowing a person enough during that time, but I'm not. Of course it also matters if you knew someone before the aforementioned "dates" - if it's someone you've been acquainted with for awhile and are starting to get to know much better, then I can see it. But a total stranger? For me at least, it's way too easy for someone to hide behind a facade for a period of something like three dates.

    On the other hand, I do agree that one can tell after a short time if there is going to be "chemistry" or "spark". Rarely I think does one warm to someone one is not initially attracted to (though it can happen).

  6. In this context, the president is not your murderer, he is your defender against murderers. I would like to be defended by someone who is more "strong, fit and competent," yes.

    The President is only your defender against murderers insofar as he acts in that capacity. I think the previous administration turned enough guns not only on innocent folks in other countries but back on us as well that your assertion is not on as stable of footing as you might like.

    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Obama is bad but he's not worse than Bush/Cheney, although he still has plenty of time to prove me wrong.

  7. Be realistic. Choices have to be made for survival.

    Some presidents are much stronger than others. You're not going to be led by John Galt any time soon.

    Bush/Cheney may hug/kiss a person who is evil, which is bad; but they won't bow to anyone - symbolically or literally - which is much worse.

    Would you prefer your would-be murderer to be strong, fit, and competent, or a sluggish cripple?

    Strength is only good when it is not in the service of evil.

  8. Wouldn't irrationality be the more primal sin? You can be irrational without evading, after all. The opposite is not true, as you are always irrational if you do evade knowledge. I'd agree that evasion is a very important enabler of irrationality in practice, but it only covers a subset of life-destroying actions and as such I think is a derivative sin (even if very important).

    Not really, no. In the absence of evasion, irrationality is always a temporary and fleeting state. Evasion prevents the correction of irrationality.

  9. Fact checking and objectivity are learned skills, they don't come in a package deal with a copy of Atlas Shrugged. It is part of the justification of this website to discuss and help the interested learn how to 'do' Objectivism. It is not a failure of the website or Objectivism if there are people here who are not yet consistent practitioners. You made a good comment because you provided facts and then you linked to the methodological issue. I wish could give you a gold star or a cookie for that. :)

    I like this game a lot. I seem to be doing better at the multiplayer than I was doing on the first Modern Warfare LOL (PS3 handle themadkat). I admit I'm not too good at it.

    As for the scene with the Russians, I mean, it's horrible but it's not. It's just a damn game. It's an excellent point that you do way worse in a game like GTA. And you do have the option to opt out of the mission, like 3 times (I had to select the option "never ask me again" to get it to leave me alone). Yes, you're mowing down civilians, and then guess what? You get executed by your own scumbag leader. It's very fitting. I think it goes with the game's storyline and theme very well.

  10. If this guy was mentally unhinged it is probably just as likely that he could have shouted something about Cylons, or had he been a Christian he could have screamed that Lucifer made him do it. It's entirely possible that his religion was nothing more than a convenient excuse.

    That's the thing about religion. It's so easy to become a hater when your "god" tells you that everyone else is wrong or evil. Religion is a horribly divisive institution.

    One of my fellow graduate students in anthropology was scheduled to be on the base that day (she studies the military), and she always hangs out in the general area of the shootings. Fortunately she didn't happen to be there because something changed her scheduling. But I'm certain she knows some of the people affected by this tragedy.

    Muslim or no, it does sound like this guy was just unhinged. But it's worth a thorough investigation.

  11. I discovered this in the news this morning from Rueters:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleas...2009+BW20091104

    The son of Ron Paul is out in front early in the Republican primary and leading all Republican and Democratic candidates in recent polling. Can this be considered a postitive development?

    I think so. Rand Paul has some of the more desirable positions of his father but is not pro-life, I believe. And seriously, what non-crap candidates have we seen from the Repugs in awhile? If someone like Rand Paul can win as a Republican the party may not be completely worthless after all.

  12. The logic in this sentence is the equivalent of stating, "All sheep are white. This sheep is black."

    Killing is not wrong in all contexts. Killing is only wrong if it is an initiation of force, or if it is an unnecessarily strong retaliation against the initiation of force. Wrongful killing is called murder. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense is not murder (because it is not wrong).

    I think you missed his point. It sounded like he was saying neither lying nor killing in self defense is wrong.

  13. Totality is just things as they are. Things exist as something, and totality is just what they are. You could say identity, but totality is important for this line of argumentation. I just mean it in contrast to perceiving certain aspects.

    You may think a table is hard. You cannot be sure parts of it are not soft. You cannot perceive the totality of this object. You cannot even be 100% sure that parts of it are, since you cannot perceive the totality of the parts. This continues to the level to which we cannot perceive.

    My definition of Objective isn't arbitrary, how do you figure it is. When I use objective, I mean it in relation to Objective reality. We all know what is meant by Objective reality right?

    I dot seek to reject objective reality, just knowledge of it.

    Clearly, we don't all know what is meant by objective reality or we wouldn't be using it differently as we seem to be here. I am still not clear on where you are getting this totality business from. Is totality equivalent to identity or different? I and I think most of the other posters are explicitly rejecting your claim that you have to know everything about an entity to know anything about it. You are the one making that claim so you have to defend it, you have to give us some reason to accept it. I CAN be sure parts of a table are not soft, because I've observed them to be hard. Now if there's gum under the table and it's still soft and I don't see it at first I could be wrong, but amazingly enough I can look under the table with those imperfect senses and see there's gum there. And even if there is gum under the table, that's really not in any way relevant to my initial assessment the table is hard. The gum is an incidental rather than an essential characteristic.

    I dispute that reality is anything like the way you are presenting it, composed of discrete totalities that are either known or unknown. That's a very static and idealized way of interpreting reality. I'm much more certain you are operating from an intrincisist view of knowledge now. That's not how knowledge works. Knowledge is both contextual and hierarchical - that is to say, it nests in itself at various levels of scale and derivation. But most importantly, no knowledge contradicts any other knowledge, or else one of those two propositions is not knowledge.

  14. Contracts have a definite term. If you have a contract with an insurance company to the effect that they will pay to repair broken arms, and you break your arm, then they are obligated to pay to repair your arm. Once the contract is renegotiated, that right to coverage goes away.That, I think, is not a reasonable expectation. You are only defraying the covered costs within the terms of the contract.They do. I think the problem is that people also accept contracts that can be unilaterally changed. The best-known example of that, I think, is the interest rate clauses of credit card contracts. It is explicitly stated that the credit card company can change interest rates and minimum payment. The same is true with insurance: if a benefit can be unilaterally canceled by the insurance company within the period of the contract, then it will say so in the contract. Then if you are not happy with that possibility -- if you want a guarantee that bone-breaking coverage can't be canceled within the period of the contract, you should either negotiate for better insurance that doesn't have that clause (or any other "at companies discretion" clause), or you should get specific insurance that covers the problem in question.

    I was not aware that health insurance contracts have a definite term. I guess that is why you have to renew benefits with your employer every year. God the employer-based system is a mess. You have no actual dealings with the insurance company itself, only your employer's benefits administrator and who knows whose interests they're actually working for.

    I think if people had the choice not to agree to unilateral contracts they wouldn't. Some company with guts could make a lot of money offering people regular contracts. Credit card companies are a good example too. I just had my APR jacked up to 30% for no reason, same as the default rate. Isn't that some kind of perverse incentive for me to default almost? ;) That's OK, they shot themselves in the foot though. That's one less paying customer they'll have and a company in this bad of trouble (it's Citi) can't afford that right now.

  15. If there is an objective reality, it must exist in totality, whatever that totality consists of this. How could it not?

    Not knowledge, but objective knowledge. If you are to know a thing objectively, you must know it as it exists in Objective reality. Things in objective reality exist as they are, in totality. If we do not know the totality, we do not know the thing objectively.

    Claiming reality is objective is imposing a concept on reality. Mine is derived from reality the same as yours.

    Why must it exist in totality? What is a totality? Here is, I think, where you are running into problems. What does this MEAN? Is this some kind of holistic argument? Things in reality are separate from each other. They have identities and act according to their nature. You can know, for certain, parts of that nature without having to know ALL of it. I can know, for certain, that a wood table is hard, without knowing the grain composition of wood and how the molecules cohere and all that good stuff. I can be 100% sure that this table is hard. If I choose to ignore that the table is hard and mash my head against it, I do so to my detriment.

    Your definition of objective is arbitrary. I think you are arguing for some kind of intrinsicism, not objectivity. What definition of objective are you operating from, such that objective knowledge is separate from "plain" knowledge? And when you say you are deriving your concepts from the same reality as we are, understand that you are making an appeal to the very objectivity you seek to reject, which is what a few different posters have been trying to tell you for a while now.

  16. It's not about not being able to know everything, it is about not being able to know everything about anything. If I cannot perceive the totality of something, I am not perceiving that thing as it is in objective reality. You will probably reply with "No, but you can see aspects as they are in objective reality." This is untrue, the same problem of absolute detail arises in relation to any physical objects we perceive down to the smallest part we are capable of perceiving.

    All right, I think I see where you're going with this, but I do have this question - what is a totality? How did you arrive at this concept? What work does it do? Most importantly, how did you decide that having knowledge about a thing requires having ALL knowledge about that thing?

  17. When the terms of the insurance contract change, so that a particular benefit is no longer covered, then the insured no longer has a right to that benefit, even if he has paid for it in the past. As of the moment that a new contract exists, the conditions of the old contract are past history and not relevant to present claims.

    If that is the case though, why would an insurance company ever have to pay for anything? They can just change the terms of the contract in order not to have to.

    I do think that if someone is paying for a certain kind of coverage there is some reasonable expectation on their part that the terms will continue as agreed, because you're necessarily paying to defray the risks of potential future, not current events. Perhaps the solution is for health insurance plans to run for a set time where the terms are agreed not to change, and then every time that period ends the terms get reevaluated, sort of like car insurance. Of course if either party breaches the contract, say if a payment is not made on time, then all bets are off.

  18. I have also never been to a place where such a large misunderstanding of both the concepts of free will and determinism have abounded, but still rather than deal with the probelm of Volition as causation, a lot of you choose to attempt to provide arguments against beliefs you do not even know if I hold or not.

    It may not be as much of a misunderstanding as you think. I've had college philosophy courses (enough for a minor actually) and I'm quite familiar with the way that the analytical philosophical tradition deals with the idea of free will and determinism. But there is a reason why Objectivists do not discuss this and many other traditional philosophical problems the same way the analytical philosophers do. Many of the questions in philosophy have been debated for so long (thousands of years in fact) because in their typical formulation they are NOT SOLVABLE, even on their own terms. Why in the world continue to tackle a problem in such a way as to be guaranteed no resolution or conclusion from the start?

    I have a question for you, though. If there is no truly objective position to be had on anything, and we are all operating from a subjective stance as valid as anyone else's subjective stance, is there any way to discriminate among all of these subjective claims and statements such that some are better or worse than others? If so, how do we do this? If we can't, how do we function day-to-day?

  19. But anyway, if living a certain kind of live is to be your highest value, then sacrificing yourself for someoneelses life is still contradictory to it.

    You're missing the point. Yes, sacrificing yourself for someone else's life, literally living for another, is contradictory to it. Dying to save a loved one or defend a deeply held value is NOT A SACRIFICE. Let's take the spouse example again. If you value your spouse so much that you cannot possibly go on living (keep in mind again what exactly we mean by living) without them, risking your life to save them is entirely rational. I'm not sure exactly what love is other than a passionate, reverent valuation of that regard. Assuming your love is deep and genuine why would you even hesitate to give everything you have to give (understanding that some things can and must never be given by a person of self-esteem)? When you act on your love you are acting FOR YOUR VALUES, you are truly living even if it happens to result in your death.

    Dying for someone can be rational. Living for someone never is. But in dying for someone else you can be living for yourself.

  20. If you sacrifice your life for a value, you are holding that value as a higher value than your life. This contradicts holding your own life/existence as your highest value.

    I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by holding life as the standard of value or as your ultimate value. This is understandable because Objectivism does not use these terms in the way they are commonly understood. To live, to exist, implies to live or exist AS something, to have an identity. Objectivism is talking about a certain KIND of life, not just survival. So before you continue along this line of argument you should understand that in Objectivism life =/= survival. This is why it can be rational to commit suicide in certain instances. For example, I would commit suicide before I would allow myself to exist in a permanently vegetative state. Can you understand why this is rational in an Objectivist value hierarchy and why merely continuing as a shell of marginally functioning biological reactions is not really living in the sense it is meant here?

  21. Now as for the later part, I'm not sure, have I mentioned yet in this thread my position on that? In case I haven't, in short: I never felt any sexual attraction of any sort until one point at around puberty I sat down and thought about it and decided I didn't see anything about what sex a person was that really would make somebody necessarily better for me, so ever since I just pay attention to personality and values and such and on that basis will become attracted to somebody and it is the fact of who the body belongs to that then makes it appealing as a consequence. So, I contend that I quite consciously made my choice about sexuality. Having spoken in threads on another forum about sexuality, I've found many people really didn't like hearing this. It went against their whole thing about defending not being straight as something that must not be a choice because nobody would want to choose it if they could. I think there's too many people out there really just not wanting to consider that sexuality could be a choice because then they might have to ask why they should have the sexuality that they do. Especially it is sad to see such a thing applied to non-heterosexuals so much as it is because I think it sounds like to be so insistent on this these people must have accepted the idea that there is something wrong with wanting be with somebody of the same sex if you could have possibly avoided it. Rather than trying to defend there being nothing bad about being with somebody of the same sex, instead they just want to fall back on assuming it isn't good, but they shouldn't be looked down upon for being in a less good sexual situation because "they just couldn't help it."

    I think this is a very important point. To me, the whole discussion about whether choosing to be some stripe of queer (here defined as anything other than straight) is really ancillary and misses the point. I don't really care whether someone is gay because they are "wired" that way, because they chose to be with someone of the same sex out of love, or something in between. All I care about is whether there is anything wrong with doing so, and it seems to me the answer is clearly no unless it goes against one of your other values - in other words, if you are someone who absolutely must have a child biologically with your life partner you should not choose to be with someone of the same sex. Other than that, what exactly is wrong with it? Nothing I can see. So what does it matter if it's a choice?

    I understand that this is not the majority position on this board and that many people on here who are perfectly OK with gay people because they feel it is not a choice would still say that an ideal romance would be between a man and a woman. I also think that at least some aspects of sexuality are not particularly volitional or we would not see such cross-cultural agreement on the attractiveness of certain traits among the rational and irrational alike. Consider this - the vast majority of societies all around the world, and arguably even here in the US as well, still see the basic unit of society as the family, not the individual. I would say most if not all Objectivists rebel strongly against this point of view, but when you consider that is how most of the world operates suddenly it makes a lot more sense why everyone is compelled to be in everyone else's sexual business. If you are a parent and you feel you are owed grandchildren, and that you should have control over these grandchildren and other relatives and such because your family is a political and economic unit geared towards the consolidation of power, of COURSE you are going to want to control the sexuality of others.

    Methinks perhaps this is one reason Rand never had a terribly positive view of the family as such. Though I know that family can be a loving, positive force in someone's life I find it is frequently the opposite and Rand was probably seeing a similar pattern. The Reardens much?

×
×
  • Create New...