Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nyronus

  1. Nyronus


    Which is what I was trying to say. My whole point is that it was silly for dating to have SPECIAL ethics.
  2. This fall I shall be attending Southeastern Louisiana University and am currently planning to major in Creative writing, and then try to slip in Philosophy, History, and German (And possible Physics as well) where I can. I've read Atlas Shrugged, and the Fountainhead, and probably far too many Wikipedia articles to be healthy.
  3. Greetings... Greetings. For those of you who have yet to make the obligatory eye twitch to your left, My name is Michael, but you all can simply call me Nyronus. I am young man, heading to college in the fall. I want to write for a living and now do so in my free time. You can read some of my works here. I was introduced to Objectivism by a teacher who gave me the choice of reading Ayn Rand. Reading Atlas Shrugged spring-boarded my interest in Objectivism and Philosophy as a whole. I joined this forum because I'd like to talk more of Objectivism, and you all seem far less vitriolic then the other Ayn rand forums. I joined a while back, but got sidetracked and only started posting today. You all seem like an interesting bunch, looks like fun.
  4. I actually had an extend discussion on the topic in the chatroom, thanks for the links though.
  5. Nyronus


    I was asked to write an essay on "dating ethics" for my sociology class. This was my reasponse: Maelstrom There is no way to start this. No way to begin what is ultimately a long and painful tangle of this, thats, and the other things. The concept itself is absurd. Dating does not have its own personal ethical system. That makes it sound as if dating throws in special ethical considerations; as if dating allows one to act unethical, or visa versa. "Dating ethics" is a pointless and frivolous term. How does one write rules of engagement for love? The answer is that one doesn't. Love is not something that is bound to a special set of rules, as if one can just say "Alright, if I am in love, I can now do this." Love is both a passionate and logical reaction of ones personal values to another human being. To lift another soul high within the citadel of your own mind and proclaim "This is all that I want!" That is love. Love is not static. It is a maelstrom, like Proteus, rising from sea of the developed human mind and changing its form as it flies from one end of the globe of thought to the other, but, unlike Proteus, love changes with you. Love IS you. What you love, what you hold high in value, is a reflection of that value. Dating is a term we apply to the interaction of those who have begun to lift each other in value. As the scale of value shift in your mind, so does the behavior of the interaction. If you desire a conversationalist for a partner, then so be it. If one does not believe in receiving both sexual and emotional release in the same partner, as is common in some cultures, then so be it. That is a personal philosophy of love. Love is ultimately an overlapping term for all of the emotions that belong to this act of idolizing and enshrining another being as a reflection of your value. Dating is a petty thing to this. Dating is like dancing, moving one's feet is not the important thing, it is the passion and release that the dance brings that is important. What I find acceptable for dating is what I find acceptable for any human interaction. Truly though there are certain activities that some do not condone as "worthy" outside of romance. True, it would be hard for my personal self to engage in a sexual act outside of romance, but this is not because of some personal taboo against the act, but because I associate sexual release with emotional connection and release. Its really just not fun with someone you don't like. There is no empirical reason to avoid sex before "marriage," seeing as marriage is only a symbolic gesture to feelings one already has. Sex has the same consequences before and after your chosen God puts his rubber stamp on a relationship. It is only a emotional and rational drive to keep in a marriage once one removes divine superstition. One that can exist without the introduction of the transcendent in the first place. Not to mention that the so called dangers of sex are horribly misnamed and easily avoided. Dating is an act, love is a journey. There is no ethics special to one act. The ethics of the journey though, those are the ethics of life. Which then is appropriate. For if love is what you are, then love is your life.
  6. Why do Objectivists seem to hate Libertarians? What, exactly, is wrong with them? I remember vaguely a quote from research I did on Rand for a school project referring to them as the "Hippies of the Right," and then attacking them for being involved with anarchist. I also remember reading something else by her claiming that they were plagiarists. I'm not sure if these two attacks really apply any more. Particularly the latter attack. Most libertarians I know often cite Ayn Rand as a huge influence upon themselves personally and on their chosen party, although they often also claim they believe in "some" altruism (Although I think this may be because of a misunderstanding on the way Rand uses the phrase "altruism"). Are there any other reasons to bash libertarians as often as I see it happen?
  • Create New...