whYNOT

Yes, but you can't be your teacher's pet.

I don't know. These are such disparate concepts. Two principles are held implicitly by the 'socialist' (however he is defined.): that the weight of numbers (the collective) is of highest value - the false principle of Utopianism; and that the good is accomplished by duty to others. To switch such thinking around would have to include convincing arguments that all groups begin and end with the individual, instead of the masses downwards; that men can only deal together from mutual respect, the opposite of coercion and obligation; and that, almost ironically, it's the entire society that benefits from freeing the market (which socialists are mainly ignorant of.) Combining moral and practical arguments just may have an effect with a few. Essentially, it is all about exposing and demolishing their self-sacrificial mindset, and that's not easy. I go with Featherfall's remarks - be gentle!

Yeah - turned down all the sweet Norwegian ladies to stem for Onar.

This is one I'll stay out of, I think! All the more reason, aequalsa, that I am appreciative you've insisted that facts and rationality prevail (and for putting in a good word for me.)

I guess it's first a moral question of the virtues of justice, respect and benevolence coming into play - followed by those odd occasions when their individual rights should be upheld over your own. The 'objectivity' is in consciously recognizing and identifying those hierarchical situations.

Sure. Whether one knows it or not, all relationships are 'negotiated' - on many levels. The more conscious you are about what you are doing, the less conformist it will be, so the more rewarding. There should be no such thing as a 'model' relationship.

"Most people begin practising self-sacrifice almost from the day they are born. With each year they give away more and motr of their desires and ambitions in order to "belong". Predictably, the result of this self-sacrifice, is that, in a kind of perverted rebellion, they often end up being petty, narrow-minded, and "selfish" over trivia. Trivia are all they have left to fight for, after they have surrendered their souls. "Do you mean it's NOT immoral to be selfish?" is a way of asking, "Do you mean I don't belong to others?Do you mean my first obligation is NOT to live up to someone else's expectations?" Such a thought is both exhilarating and frightening." [N. Branden, Honoring the Self.] Yes, I think that your examples are of 'trivial' selfishness, which I call the self-indulgent kind. (Not to say however one must always give up one's seat on the bus, as an imperative.) When one has largely absconded on one's own self, all that's left becomes extremely critical to hold on to, I see Branden as meaning. If it's all one has left, one will feel fear and anger - asserting one's "petty" priviliges to the 'nth' degree. This is not the confident self-assertion of a rationally selfish person, but a last remnant of it. Essentially it denotes counterfeit self-esteem. "Subjective selfishness", maybe. (I'm thinking of the OWS bunch, and other "we want-ers" round the world.)

This is a seriously worthwhile (and unheated) discussion. To the is/ought question: again, Objectivism supplies the answer. Without contradiction, I think: Is/ought begins at species level, and resolves down to individual level. It is - as much important O'ist stuff is - hierarchical. I was never comfortable with Ayn Rand's views on gender and homosexuality. As hetero myself, there was some identification with the dominant male role - but also, some departures. For a while, I'd ask of friends "Why should one specific man, and one specific woman, be any different?" (Well, apart from the obvious, sure). However, I was of the unsubstantiated opinion through observation, that there were often more similarities between a given woman and a given man, than between a random two of the same gender. An independent mind, and free-will, should trump sex and upbringing, ultimately - no? I'm glad to see FeatherFall say there is now empirical evidence for exactly this.

James, Though you haven't reduced many gaps in my knowledge, this honest, introspective and rational post is more valuable than information. A selective array of rationalistic argumentation, aimed at a moralistic conclusion, is never going to match it. Your last sentence alone is a terrifically important reminder to us. Thanks.

JASKN, i gather your questions are rhetorical. I would however appreciate your answers, since I - and several here - may be lacking in knowledge on the topic. Not to anticipate you, but I've long been of the understanding that AR had insufficient information concerning homosexuality - understandably, given her era. Choice, or not choice? A predisposition towards something, anything, can naturally *appear* as though one made a conscious choice for it, I find. But I'm guessing. In all justice, can we make an effort to clear this up, once and for all?

There is no evidence of a corollary between intelligence and success/respect/happiness, that I know of. I'm less certain about lucky circumstances of birth, but I'd suspect the same. What I find interesting here is the egalitarian premise, applied in the political arena. Progressives essentially place all success at the door of luck: rich parents, high intelligence, etc. What is anathema to them is the idea that certain individuals can and will out-strip their fellow men and women, by motivation, ability and creative thought and energy. "That's not fair! We are born equal, and must stay that way, by force if necessary." People who strive independently for any gain are a living reproach and indictment of their collectivist impotence.

No problem. You sometimes find a few people around Objectivism who don't get it that egoism and narcissism are total opposites. Stroke my 'ego' - or else!

Now, now, Dreamspirit: you received a perfectly valid and benevolent response there - from somebody who apparently has more experience than you. Is it reasonable or rational to ask questions and reject the answers you don't like? Always check your own premises, first - I advise.

Of course you can value your mother's advice. However, and only you can know this, to what degree does she control you - or want to control you? A choice of career (not simply a "job" btw) is one of your greatest steps towards the virtues of independence and productivity. Nobody can, or should, know better than you what your values are, and these define your subsequent choice. A truly considerate parent understands this, and encourages your volition and independence, but many allow their possessiveness to over-rule them. (It's quite common for a young man or woman to have not established their values regarding themselves and a career, I find - as long as you apply yourself to knowing yourself and seeking value, you will get there.)

I think none of us was really as mature as we thought we were back then (waayyy back then!). Possibly the best growth one can get is being independent for a long while after moving out of home. Every decision is made for oneself: you can't get more exciting then that, I believe. Sharing with someone brings its own pleasure later on. In general, an interim period before you cohabit, get married, whatever - is valuable.

Well, not quite yet. South Africa is becoming gradually more unpleasant for lighter-skinned people. Whites have been leaving, but various factors keep many here still. I experienced similar when my family left Rhodesia - for South Africa, thinking it was stable here. Oh, well, that didn't last. I also know Israel pretty well, and find your analogy interesting, but not completely accurate. There is a difference between your own government turning on your racial group, and the entire world condemning one. I notice that you do not underestimate Israel's will to exist, but you have to see it as a combination of things to fully realise it: the "Never again!" of the Jews who survived the camps; the pride of self-sovereignty they have for the first time in history; the distrust for a growing swell of anti-Semitism in the world; the incredible investment of ability and energy to create a modern country from nothing; and, the lesser factor of historic return to 'God-given' land by the minority of Orthodox Jews. (There is a large number of secular Jews.) Make no mistake, Israel will not go down easily. (Population at a recent census: 7.8 million, including 1.6 million Israeli Muslims.)

Generally, I thought the author is being a little too "half-clever". Nobody can doubt that Iran would like the world to know is at the very least playing with the idea; or, may be 'forced' to go that route to 'defend' itself from its enemies. If this is all a bluff, it is a very dangerous one. Having already established itself as a nuclear player, why not go the whole hog? The self-justification and motive is there, all that remains is the capability. The 'mays' have it right, I think.

Not worth paying for (and fighting for), not worth continuing to exist. I see EC already covered that. Voluntarism would function perfectly in this case, I think. Assuming there were already in place an efficient professional military - which a responsible, minimalist g-ment would have - the added expense (and volunteers) might not be so great. I'm not so sure about the wealthy potentially having more to lose, though: slavery is slavery, and a life is a life.

Quite so, and since the religious expect a reward in the afterlife (ie, nobody can consistently practice selflessness) it would be fascinating to imagine how quickly they'd become selfsame "egotists" if the concept of heaven were convincingly eradicated.

What I mean by the mistake of a "floating abstraction" of love, is falling in love with love itself, instead of a physical being; or, admiring the ideal, more than the reality of the person. Looked at objectively, and with what we as O'ists view as romantic love, how can it be remotely conceivable for a man and a woman to see each other - and fall in love? That isn't realistic romanticism, it is sentimentalism, I believe. How can the mere sight of a physical being impart all his values, virtues, and character? His personality - maybe. Yes, I might see a woman with all the grace, poise and beauty I admire - and briefly it may flit through my mind "I could fall for that one!" And if I somehow met her, it just may be that her voice immediately disappoints me - or, that she seems silly and shallow (or, whatever.) Then there's what she perceives in me! OK, I've run ahead of initial "first sight". My observations are that it's not ever possible - given that we agree on what love is. The premise of the OP's question strikes me as somewhat mystical. Which is why I believe in 'attraction at first sight' - and no more. Well said about love in fiction. I agree with it, though as an expansion to what I earlier wrote. It is certainly insightful and inspirational, but one should bear in mind that the author is by necessity "fast-forwarding" the relationship - you don't read about the number of 'failures' before our two hero-lovers meet. About the number of frogs that he kissed before the princess. (Although, by no means am I discounting the importance of some simple, warm, but short-lived relationships, that never made it all the way.) Which is another topic...

Going to basics, I think it's a mistake to make a 'floating abstraction' of love. The obvious question first, is what do you mean by 'love'? Immediate attraction, isn't love. "Love" at first sight, is an age-old euphemism for describing initial attraction, I think. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny, which we are doing. When Objectivists talk of romantic love, we talk of a highest value that does not happen every day. Essentially, I believe love is a hierarchy of everything about a loved one - from bottom up, all things physical, emotional and rational, right through to their mind and ideals.Their 'spirit', if you like. Plus, of course, adding your own hierarchy into the mix. When the object of love is connected this way given time, then love is not a floating abstraction . Sure, there is inspiration in the beauty of love in fiction and movies, for us all. But one has to bear in mind that it's not a "format" for love; that the artist has had to abbreviate, or select; that he has employed poetic licence for emphasis; that every act of love (even fictional love) is unique and individual, like we are; and lastly and crucially, that it is reality we seek in love , as in everything else. Or else we risk the mistake of trivializing the concept of love - or compromising our Self - or of severe disappointment.

Trebor, That was a sensible (if not, wise) assessment. I was going to say a flat "no" to the proposition, but you have explored it well enough to motivate me to expand some more. I believe in 'reciprocal attraction' at first sight. Usually, I think because she (he) has observed you an instant or so earlier, and is already reacting favorably to your presence in subtle ways. Your response to this, in turn, is subconscious - and assuming she's physically attractive to you - you sense that powerful rush. The interesting thing is that she might not even be looking at you - just laughing with friends, say. That's my theory,(and sometime experience) though I'm interested to hear others' thoughts . (But love? now that takes time.)

The domino stops here.

Then the first question to ask is "Why do you instantly reject the title of the book?"Get them to reveal their own premises, before you explain yours.Good luck.Heh.

"Death didn't happen to Steve, he achieved it." Oh, wow.