[The Infinite and the Finite]

:confused:

Explain the physics please.

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.

[The Infinite and the Finite]

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.

[Objectivist Jokes]

'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!'

[Objectivist Jokes]

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?"

[It's a messed up world out there.]

So - in the context described - would it be moral?

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.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

AH! NOW I think I begin to see your point, and you begin to persuade me! WELL done! I'm a stubborn mule sometimes.

No, I think a rational person would seek out physical companions whom they could respect.

Rationally, absolutely through value judgments - but don't forget that the willingness to support a woman is necessary because of the accepted responsibility of the risk of her becoming pregnant. If the risk of pregnancy is non existent - whether through natural means (menopause) or artificial (birth control or surgery), then the question of ongoing support no longer exists.

And still, one would expect a rational person who enjoys sexual pleasure simply for sexual pleasures sake to seek out like minded people with similar values on more than just the sexual front. Otherwise, such encounters would be unpleasant - as Dominque illustrated with her marriage to Peter as her own punishment.

I am somewhat persuaded, however at the same time, am not convinced that sex as an industry would vanish. It would, I think, change.

I think it would change into something like the Companions of Firefly (fiction - TV - Josh Wheedon - I've mentioned it before). In Firefly, a Companion was a highly trained, highly skilled artist who provided companionship, including sexual companionship, to her (or presumably his) clients. They carefully selected their clients, who had to meet their personal approval, and genuinely valued the time they shared with their clients.

Now imagine a widower, who has no desire to replace his wife in his life, but still desires companionship from time to time, sometimes sexual perhaps, sometimes just intimate in other ways, without a lifelong arrangement. If he found a Companion who could provide such closeness, whom he valued for more than just sexual pleasure, and in exchange for that fulfillment he gave financial compensation as well as enjoyment to the Companion, would that be the same thing as just seeking out sex for sexes sake?

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

[It's a messed up world out there.]

Perhaps someone else can step in here?

While we wait for some more definitive input, let me try to explain the counterpoint from the foundation.

Mankind reproduces sexually.

The purpose of reproduction is to continue the species and the genetic makeup of the man and woman involved in reproduction.

The act of sex yields a pleasurable response, which serves to encourage reproduction.

Reproduction results in young which require extensive care and feeding in the earliest years.

Care and feeding of young is most efficiently accomplished when the mother's nurturing is supported by others - primarily the male mate - as the mother is hindered in her own ability to support herself by the need to care for the child.

Thus, some kind of long term relationship between parents is desirable, although in some cultures, this relationship was not 1 man 1 woman, but 1 man many woman, depending of course on the males ability to support many mothers of young children and infants.

Thus, as long as sexual activity had significant chances of producing offspring, it was rational for women to only be sexually active when a suitable supportive partner was found, and for a man only to be sexually active with a woman he was willing to support if she became pregnant.

Therefore, while reproduction was a likely result, resisting the sexual urge was rational.

Modern advances have made it possible to completely remove reproduction from the equation. The context has changed.

Now it is possible for sex to be engaged in with no risk of conception, and with proper protection, no risk of disease.

With reproduction no longer a consequence (provided adequate measures are taken), sex is now just an act which yields a pleasurable response.

Therefore, engaging in safe, protected sex with multiple partners can be a source of pleasure as valid and moral as masturbation.

Therefore, if one wishes to earn a living by providing others with pleasure, or one wishes to seek out pleasure by hiring such a professional, with no risk of disease or pregnancy, such an act is mutual trade to mutual benefit in pursuit of the interests of each, and therefore a moral act.

Now I acknowledge whole heartedly that some people feel a deep personal sense of connection to their sexuality, and as such, great intimacy is, for them, a requirement to sex. However, I don't see that, for those who simply find sex enjoyable (men AND women), any indication that justifies assumption of a "low self esteem" is justified.

Thus I conclude that Ms. Rand was expressing a personal opinion - or her personal value - of sex, and not stating a moral imperative.

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?

[It's a messed up world out there.]

You were fine up till this point, and until this point, I was in total agreement with you.

Ok, sorry, but I have to stop you there on logical grounds. You have jumped to a conclusion here. You have not explained WHY the purpose of sex is so much deeper, you have simply assumed/asserted that it is, and then gone on from there.

That sex is a higher moral value than just pleasure seeking is not axiomatic to Objectivists, therefore, it must be rationally proven to be asserted as true.

I'm looking for the rational argument that shows that sex, indeed, is more than a pleasurable act that serves to proliferate the species.

There is another thread here that goes through why masturbation, regardless of marital status, is moral, on the basis that one finds pleasure in it simply for the sake of physical pleasure.

Why, therefore, could not two consenting adults seek mutual physical pleasure, simply for the sake of such pleasure, without the claimed pre-requisite of low self esteem, provided that (if they are of opposite gender) they take adequate precaution against pregnancy?

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.

[Speed Racer]

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.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

No, I think you've convinced me.

BTW: By automatic value, what I meant was, if you are rational, the only rational choice for you between choosing life and choosing death is to choose life, so a rational person will choose life by nature of their volitional choice to be rational.

Ok, lets talk more about sex.

This is a conclusion.

Please outline the premises and postulates that lead to that conclusion?

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.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

Ok, so I don't see an incongruity between objective as Objectivists define it and objective as the wiki description defined it.

For the record, having done some Wiki editing myself, wiki descriptions can change rapidly, and anyone CAN change them, but they do tend to be pretty much on the mark.

As for dictionary definitions - if we can't rely on a dictionary definition, then on what? Language changes, but generally speaking the meanings of words *are* objective.

"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.

So - back to values: If Values are objective, then what I think I'm hearing is that for something to be a value to someone it has to be a value, universally.

Yes your hearing correctly.

That seems self-evidently false. I am not convinced that values are not subjective. I still think values are chosen by individuals.

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.

I will say I think *some* values are automatic to rational people. Our own lives and liberty are values, naturally. Respect for others lives and liberty is also a common value among the rational.

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.

But other values are, I think, most definitely subjective. The things which one acts to gain or keep are determined by the individual. One person may value operating a railroad, another programming computers, and a third digging for oil. The railroad operator may run trains of coal, and not need oil, and use manual switches, and not need computers. The programmer may live in a self-imposed dungeon, running on solar and wind power. The oil digger may ship all of his oil to a refinery using a pipeline built by hand. Each, in that case, has values neither of the others share, but may derive deep personal satisfaction from pursuing their own values. One may even say they find pleasure in their chosen tasks.

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.

Hedonism certainly is doing what feels good, but its doing what feels good regardless of the affect it has on others, or ones self. Drink, drugs, overindulgence to excess, as long as it feels good, no matter whether its in a destructive way in the long haul.

We have described hedonism many times now, all decently correct deffinitions. Objectivism rejects hedonism so lets just stop talking about it.

But to go back to prostitution, and sexual indulgences - what determines that engaging in sexual activity for the sake of sex is hedonistic, or for money is immoral? For Ayn Rand, clearly, sex was deeply personal, and so naturally, her statements about sex are true *for her*. But does that mean that nobody can consider sex simply as recreational? Does that mean that *nobody* can enjoy sex and enjoy giving sexual pleasure to others, and thus provide it as a service for a fee? I don't think so.

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.

[Socialism is the Key to Happiness...]

Socialism can work, its just that everyone needs to believe in the system, it cant be achieved through coercion. Sweden is a fine example: their people are healthy, they have a prominent scientific community, and it works because they all want to be there. They resisted the EU and its commie constitution longer than most other europeen countries, because they didnt want to be coerced.

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.

[Socialism is the Key to Happiness...]

Cartoons, a

that nobody including themselves can understand, a model of physics, the first scientific work on Indo-European, the company Møller-Mærsk, Legos, Vitus Bering, Hans Christian Andersen, and The Yeast. I don't think "the advancement of mankind" is a good basis for judging the merit of a nation of people people. What have the Dutch done for mankind? Or the Canadians?

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.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

This, I disagree with completely. This is not what we live in and that's why the stories are so sensational...because the average person (most people) can't fathom it. These are a small minority of people doing extraordinarily awful things that sell newspapers and get television stations big ratings.

Since the media is constantly putting stuff like this in our face, it becomes hard to keep it in perspective. I found myself starting to feel very bitter towards society in general, so I have stopped watching televised news altogether. I usually get my daily dose of current events from the internet, and even then I'm largely looking for sports and weather...news I can actually use. But when I do come across stuff like this, I remind myself to keep it in perspective...this is certainly not how most people treat children.

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.

Ok, then what is the objectivist definition of objective? I'm finding the idea that objectivists have to redefine the language to make it work somewhat disturbing, if thats what you're implying.

Actually the wiki deffenition was pretty good.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

See, I don't think that's what Rand was saying. If Values are objective, philosophically, then a value is always a value, everywhere. To quote wiki on objectivity: "In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings."..

Exactly, productiveness remains a value wether you think it is or not.

For values, Rand says:

If the question "of value to whom and for what?" is a valid question, and I believe it is, then values can differ between individuals. One may value building railroads, another motors, another building majestic new buildings, and yet another may value anti-life (tho that conflict must be resolved, obviously).

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.

Hedonism is the doctrine of "if it feels good, do it" - that pleasure is the ONLY value that matters, and that is not the same thing as "and it harm none, do as thou wilt", or in Objectivist terms, "rational self interest".

I am by no means advocating following irrational whims as a standard of behavior, but that one *may*, quite rationally, conclude that they wish to experience pleasure with another person for a brief period, be it physical or social or the like, without wishing to establish a long term connection to that other person, and that another also may find great value in bringing those moments of pleasure to others. I'm thinking, to bring an example, of the "Companions", as illustrated in Josh Whedon's series, "Firefly".

Yes this is hedonism which objetivism rejects

In any event, my real point in the question was one not of the morality of prostitution, but the complex issue about age of adulthood and when can a person be considered old enough to engage in consensual sexual activities.

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.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

Free exchange of values would not be immoral. But can sexual gratification be considered a value?

Who is anyone to determine another's values? Values are subjective.

Pleasure is of value. It's part of the pain-pleasure response.

Sex is different things to different people. The question of comparing values - comparing medicine to prostitution - is as invalid a question as comparing the morality of making cars vs. making airplanes. Values are subjective.

And Ms. Rand is absolutely entitled to form and state her own views on sex, but if taken as anything OTHER than a statement of her own personal belief about sex, such a statement would instantly become an attempt to infringe another's liberty to make their own choices regarding value.

The morality of prostitution argument is an old one, and I don't think we'll cover any new ground here rehashing it, but beneath the morality of prostitution is a deeper moral issue: Does anyone have the right to tell another what their values are? As an Objectivist, I think the answer should immediately be clear.

I believe that Objectively, one may ONLY judge a things morality by one standard: Does it infringe upon the right of another to live as they see fit. I'm pretty certain I've never seen anything in Rand's work that contradicts that core principle.

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.

[It's a messed up world out there.]

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-

[It's a messed up world out there.]

If I may move to an ethical question for a moment, as the quoted link points to a recent example of sexual exploitation of a child. This may be a tough one, it's certainly putting a bad taste in my mouth in asking it:

What is the ethical position in Objectivism regarding child pornography?

I think (or better stated, I HOPE) it's pretty much understood, that exploiting a child who has no awareness of the act (an infant or toddler, and yes there are sickos like that out there) is morally reprehensible. Where the question begins to get hazy in Objectivism, I think, is when a minor is old enough to be aware of the nature of sexuality.

To be quite frank, I can contemplate several scenarios involving children from oh, say, age 10 or so to 17 where, if the child agreed to the acts, the principle of individual liberty and mutual exchange of value would seem, under objectivism, to say that engaging in such behavior (on the part of the adult in the situation) would be morally just. Contemplating that, it causes me to question the entire premise and wonder if there *are* cases where other constraints other than "thou shalt not infringe upon another's right to live by their own choice" are necessary.

I really hope I'm missing something fundamental here.

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.

[Does envy arise naturally from failure?]

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.

[An ethical dilemma]

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?