avgleandt

lol. Well imagine your in an infinite forrest. YOu shoot an arrow that allways flys foward, kinda like a beam of light. Eventually that arrow is going to hit a tree. Even if you take the trees, and spread them apart really really far, eventually that arrow would hit a tree. When you look up at the sky, you see stars, but you also see vast dark areas in between the stars. That vast dark areas would not be possible if the universe was infinite. Every part of the sky would be filled with light. Taken that there has also been an infinite amount of time for the light to reach us. Anywhere in the sky you would look there would be a star or a source of light, the whole sky would be as bright as the sun.

If the universe was infinite in size and in time then the sky would be just as bright during the night as it is during the day.

'Who's your father?' the teacher asked Vovo. 'Comrade Stalin!' 'And who's your mother?' 'The Soviet native land!' 'And what do you want to become?' 'An orphan!'

Ivanov applied to the Communist Party. The party committee conducts an interview. "Comrade Ivanov, do you smoke?" "Yes, I do a little." "Do you know that comrade Lenin did not smoke and advised other communists not to smoke?" "If comrade Lenin said so, I shall cease smoking." "Do you drink?" "Yes, a little." "Comrade Lenin strongly condemned drunkenness." "Then I shall cease drinking." "Comrade Ivanov, what about women?" "A little...." "Do you know that comrade Lenin strongly condemned amoral behavior?" "If comrade Lenin condemned, I shall not love them any longer." "Comrade Ivanov, will you be ready to sacrifice your life for the Party?" "Of course. Who needs such life?"

Thats a good question. For the person who has lost his wife or husband and doesn't want anyone else as a partner would they be acting rationaly? Or more generally is there a context in which a person can still be acting rationally? For instance what if person is in love with the prostitute bc the prositute has other values that the person admires and finds more important. I am begining to think that a context like that does exsist, which would conclude that within that context it is moral. However, I am having a trouble imagining a context in which the prositute can still be considered as acting rationally and thus morally. On the other hand, philosophy of objectivism describes a proper life a person should live, and as result shows what the proper role of sex should be in that life. When a person losses his loved one, they might not see a point why they should keep living any life. So if seeking out a prositute eases the suffering, just bc of sex or mabye bc the prostitute does have something that reminds them of their loved one can now be rational. Still i am having hard time to see how that can apply to the prostitute. A person's actions in this matter would deffently have to be judged in their context. These actions would probably raise a red flag about the person's character that would need further investigation.

Yeah it deffently would not vanish. The business model you describe is very well possible.

I agree, not a moral imperative. I like your comparison of sex for pure physical pleasure to masterbation. If it is possible for a person the complety seperate sex from value judgments then this comparison should be 100% accurate. Lets say person A, could be either male or female, is able to do this. Completely seperate value judgments from their sexual choices, and just seeks sex to gain pleasure. Would you agree that this person would now have no preference wether they sleep with Howard Roark or Ellsworth Toohey, Dominique Francon or Catherine Halsey(Toohey's niece), or any other physically compariable people with stark differences in their character? Do you think it is possible to be so devoide of any preference? I like your evolutionary explanation of sex and reproduction, and I agree with the fact that current male and female behaviours can be dervived from circumstances during evolution. You said that it would be rational for a man to be active sexually with a woman if he is willing to support her if she becomes pregnant. Well how does a man decide that, doesn't he decide that through value judgements? I think the argument basically boils down to wether sex can be seperated from value judgments or not. My whole arugment is based on that it can't. Thus a person seeking sex just for pleasure is evading this fact, thus acting irrationally, thus acting immorally. However if it is possible to seperate then this person is still acting rationally and still acting morally. So what is your view on the questions I asked above?

What is in bold I will try to answer in more detail. Apart from bold part, i agree masterbation is moral. But masterbation is not sex. Seperating sex from values would be a dichotomy of mind and body. I think sex as an act to proliferate the species is a good example of what sex is to animals but not to humans. I wish I had more proof at this moment but i currently do not. I am saying that this is sex's nature, and your asking me to explain logically why it is its nature, which would require me to have some expertise in psychology, or physiology which i do not. I do however believe that through introspection and observation my point can be proven. Just from a little observation I think it is evident that a person's sex life is shaped by their conclusions and value-judgments. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Saying that a person only wants sex for pleasure because his body creates a desire for him and makes a choice is a very good exapmle of body and mind dichotomy. I really don't know how I can explain it much further. I think if you follow the logical conclusion that sex is purely for pleasure you come to results that are contradictory to reality. If sex was just for pleasure, every man would desire every woman, and vise versa. This is obviously not the reality of our exsistence.

I saw speed racer yesterday. If you know the Wachowski brothers, the directors of this movie. You would know that they like to add a lot of philosophy to their movies. But sometimes the end up jumbling togethore many different philosophies and then adding their own view on top. I think when they made V for Vendetta, that was pretty awsome. However here they seem to jumble things togethore again like they did in the Matrix reloaded and revolution. I don't like that fact that the dad makes the speech about money. However,the speech that the mother makes about art is an excellent discription of objectivist view on art. When i heard that, I thought right away, they must of read Ayn Rand. I think that both speed racer and Iron man are objectivist friendly movies. I enjoyed speed racer more though. Apart from other characters in the movie Speed and Racer X where awsome heroes, with clear goal to rid of corruption in the proffesion that they love. Speed is kinda like Howard Roark, knowing what he wants to be since a very young age. And Racer X is all about justice. Though in Iron man business is portrayed much better, the actuall hero comes of as not serious. There was one scene where he talks with Iron man voice instead of his real voice. That was cool, he sounded very seriouis.

Ok so one of the premises is that you can determine objectively what is a value and what is not. In objectivism everything depends on reality and on nature, man's nature in this case, because the concept of values is useless with out man. What I mean is that values are only important to man, values are not important to rocks, tree, or animals. "Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. I assume you agree with this. So what does a man that goes to a prostitute seeks to gain through sex? You would probably say pleasure. And you would ask, whats wrong with trying to gain pleasure? I would answer, there is nothing wrong with trying to gain pleasure. If for instance this man went to get a massage from a massous to gain pleasure there would be nothing wrong or immoral with that. But what is the point or purpose of a massage? The point or purpose of a massage is pleasure. Therefore a man seeking pleasure from a massage is not faking anything. However, the point and purpose of sex is much deeper then just pleasure. The purpose of sex is to celebrate the love between two people in a physical form. Love is a response to to values, the response of the man's highest values that he finds in the other person. When two people in love have sex, they know that the other person is having sex with them because they find their high values in them. When a person seeks a prositute he is trying not only to gain pleasure, but to gain this feeling of self worth, self-esteem, and of value. Since in reality he is not really gaining any of these values he is faking them. Faking is what is immoral about this process. There is nothing wrong with seeking sex just for pleasure, but its impossible to seperate these other things from sex, because such is the nature of sex. Observe that some girls without self-esteem tend to become promiscuous, but being promiscuous doesn't ever solve their problem of low self-esteem.

"In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings.". This is a correct deffenition of truth, wether you think it is or not, wether wiki changes it in the future or not. I hope that clearifies things for you. Offcourse values are choosen by individuals, but wether what they choose as a value is actually a value in reality is objectivily determined. Example: I value life, in reality life is a value. Therefore life is to be valued and I have made a correct choice. Example 2: I value you death, in reality death is not a value. Therefore death is not to be valued and I have made the incorrect choice. There is no such thing as automatic values. It is true that rational people value life and liberty. But these values do not come automatically to them, they are rationally choosen by using reason. All the the things you mention here are values. They are the value of productivity. No one is saying that people cannot choose different professions, or have a different combination of values. What is being said is that values can be objectevily judged to determine if they are in actually a value. We have described hedonism many times now, all decently correct deffinitions. Objectivism rejects hedonism so lets just stop talking about it. They can, if you would like to do that and be a prostitute in an objectivist society no one would stop you, and no one would stop your customers either. But your profession would be considered immoral. Why? Because sex is not a value in its self. To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem, a celebration of himself and of existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion. Honesty is one of the most important virtues in objectivism. Honesty is defined as not faking reality in anyway. Trying to fake self-esteem would be a breach of honesty. But before we can discuss any of this, we must first discuss values. If you believe values are subjective then talking about anything else is pointless. Your arguments will always lead to the same premise that values are subjective.

what do you call the government putting you in jail if you don't pay the amount of taxes they abritary decided that you should pay. Socialism can only be achieved through coercion, at the point of a gun.

Its not that the Dutch or the Canadians are stupid. That would be a racist comment. Its just that the smart ones, or at least the ones want to be achievers which requieres individualism move to a more free country such as United States where they are able to undertake their accomplishments.

yes I agree with you. we do not live in a nightmare view of existence, we are not trapped in a universe where disasters are the constant and primary concern of our lives. Actually the wiki deffenition was pretty good.

Exactly, productiveness remains a value wether you think it is or not. Different people can have a different combination of values. However, what is a value and what is not still remains the same. Anti-life is not a value even if you value you it. This would mean that you value death, and death is the exact opposite of value. In fact in objectivism the standard for all values is a mans life. Yes this is hedonism which objetivism rejects I explained in my orignal post how that matter would be resolved. I said that the only grey area in this matter arises because different individuals can become congnitivly competent at different ages. The government can then pass a law as a guide rule, ex: person becomes an adult at the age of 18. However the cases would still be handled in individual manner, bc it still remains possible for a 16 year old to be more aware then a different 20 year old. Also the government would have a process by which an individual younger then 18 could become an adult through some judiciary process, and evaluation.

I will address one of your statements because its is there that our whole disagreement lies. You said. "Who is anyone to determine another's values? Values are subjective. Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response. " Your philosophy that values are subjective is where the main problem lies. Values are not subjective but objective. That is one of the main principles of objectivism. You say " Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response. " This is a doctorine of Hedonism. Objectivism is profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral. Pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality.

Why? What if one person wants sexual gratification - just sexual gratification - and another person enjoys sex and is willing to trade sex for money? Why would that free exchange of values be immoral, objectively? Free exchange of values would not be immoral. But can sexual gratification be considered a value? Or more concreatly can sex be considered a value? Sex in it self is not a value but an expression to of a persons sense of his own value. For a person who lacks his own value sex then becomes an attempt to fake it, or gain an illusion of value. Further would you consider prostitution equally moral an industry as for example medicine? I would not. Personaly I do not find pornagraphy or prositution very immoral. Here is a quote from what Ayn Rand said about sex. "Sex is one of the most important aspects of man’s life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important." -Ayn Rand-

Things like Prostitution, pornagraphy, ect, would be judged as immoral but objectivism I believe. However, the government would have no role in regulating these industries. The governments role would only be to protect the individual rights. If an individual decides by his/her own volition to participate in such and exchange there would be no law prohibiting them from doing so, however it would be looked down upon. In the case of child pornography, it can be argued that the child is being forced to enter this exchange and his/her rights are being broken. In this case the government would step in. So at what age does a person become able to make their own choices? This question is the only gray area in this matter, because different individuals can gain cognitive competence at different ages. The government can then pass a law as a guide rule, ex: person becomes an adult at the age of 18. However the cases would still be handled in individual manner, bc it still remains possible for a 16 year old to be more aware then a different 20 year old. Also the government would have a process by which an individual younger then 18 could become an adult through some judiciary process, and evaluation.

I find that envy is an emotion found in in a lot of people who believe in the following statement, "someones gain is my loss." The statment is wrong and holding it as true bring out a negative envious emotion.

In addition this is a fantasy situation that would never accure in reality. In reality a person in any given situation does not only have 2 choices and concrete outcomes for those choices. Why not difuse the bomb in a way that doesn't kill the baby?