whYNOT

You may be pleased to know that Rand agreed - emotions are not tools of cognition, she said. After that, she totally disagreed with you: she acknowledged the potency of emotion. I just checked 'Emotions' out on the AR Lexicon, and recommend you read some very absorbing stuff there, so I don't need to try to do it justice. Not included there, is that philosophically (as much as psychologically) there is a vast importance to emotions. Objectivism rejects the traditional philosophers' stumbling-block: the 'soul/body' dichotomy - more often called the 'mind/body dichotomy'; which should also - if I'm correct - mean rejection of a 'mind/emotion' dichotomy as well. Integration of emotions with and beneath rationality is Rand's answer to that. Not to mention her regular references to "Joy".!! Ultimately, this emotion is the whole point of her philosophy. "Chemical messages", huh?! (You are right in that emotions are not directly relevant to self-esteem. However, (in short) the process from consciousness to sub-conscious self-judgement, -ie, self-esteem - is not that different from emotional formation, I think.)

Yes, the emotional reponse is the telling one - as far as self-esteem is concerned. (The "barometer", as AR called it.) One can't 'will' self-esteem into existence intellectually, or consciously, but it arises from them, eventually and indirectly. It's more a general response to one's view of his or her 'rightness' to life, reinforced by corresponding action, and not necessarily a reflection of past success or failure, I believe. I don't think you mean this, sNerd, but one could deduce that self-esteem is a 'personality type' thing, possessed in quantity by the confident and assertive person, and denied to the quiet, introverted one. There is an element of that - and without being mutually exclusive - but my experience has shown often that those with that 'bounce-back' confidence often prove to have delicate self-esteem (a pseudo one, perhaps). We merit our self-worth, through our reasoning, values and integrity, and, in action - self-affirmation with ourselves and to others.

Hi Andre, There are two errors, by type and by crticality - of ignorance and of evasion. Very simply, the first will not impact on a rational person's self-esteem - since he knows mistakes from 'not knowing better' are often inevitable. Most importantly, he will correct that mistake and learn from it. Owning this capability is of high value, sub-consciously translating to a sense of confidence and effectiveness (self-efficacy) in dealing with existence. IOW, he doesn't fear making mistakes of knowledge, (and I'm over-stating a little), may even take delight in them - as his knowledge increases, and his self-esteem rises to the challenge. So when you say "a mistake should not affect my self-esteem" - in this case, yes. But possessing the knowledge, and knowingly going ahead to commit the error , would have a strong negative impact. This, an 'error of evasion', is Objectively immoral. One might call it a 'sin' against reality and reason - a betrayal of both. That's first. Second, it would not take many instances repeating this mistake for one's self-esteem ("the reputation we have with ourselves") to diminish or degrade.

I think there's a distinction to be made between the ordinary guy's requirements from the philosophy, and the scholar's. Broadly, we're all philosophers - and given that we will never want to stop learning , there comes a point where we have sufficient understanding to apply it to life; that is the "easy" side to Objectivism I mentioned. I maintain any intelligence can grasp it. On a continuum towards the upper realms of philosophy appear the really first-rate minds which have studied the fundaments of all philosophy, and further are able to refine, compare and explore extremely complex concepts. If one needs an instant lesson in - well - humility, one only has to view the contributions of say, S.Boydstun for one. So, I agree with your assessment as a warning against unrealistic 'instant expertise' - which is not contradictory ( imo ) to mine, which is that at primary and applicable levels, Objectivism is easily approachable and comprehended.. A 'philosophy for the people', in fact. We can't all be scholars, nor want to be.

Next to Rand ( for pure intelligence) I've got a third-rate mind - and I won't speak for anyone else! Thing is, all the hard work already has been done. All one has to do is learn, apply, and learn some more, and keep integrating it into one's life. First, you need time, second you need to want philosophy like a fish wants water. Because Objectivism comes in conceptual levels, the rest is easy.

Worthwhile question, I think. I don't know, except that not everything every tycoon does is necessarily for profit motive. What about the individual's sheer pleasure of exploration and knowledge for its own sake? If he can afford it. Even if it won't pay dividends till after his lifetime? I certainly would rather that a bunch of like-minded super wealthy combined resources to accomplish missions in space (or the oceans) than the State decreeing that it should be done - or arbitrarily pulling the plug when it is no longer in 'our interest' - using tax dollars to do so. Fact does remain though, that if it weren't for the government of the USA, we would not have come as far as we have in our understanding of the solar system.

Yes, Anthem is arguably the best intro. Followed by VoS, TF, the rest of her essay collections, and then AS, I'd say. Of course it doesn't happen that way usually. I was recommended The Fountainhead by my girl-friend's uncle - who happened to be a high-rise construction worker - and took it from there.

Where there is no dogma present, it's individuals who introduce it. We are agreed on that, I think. Makes you wonder if and why it is necessary to some people...

Not necessarily. In his book "Driven to Distraction", Dr Hallowell - who I consider the world expert on ADD, ADHD - and who has it himself - identifies what he calls "hyperfocus" in ADD sufferers. This is the one huge plus about ADD. That you can for short periods concentrate to an extreme degree perhaps unknown to most people. (It is speculated that Einstein and Mozart had it, but who can tell?) Interspersed with your general dreaminess and defocus. I was diagnosed with ADD in my 50's. My life from teens onward now make complete sense to me, and I'm not a 'quick-fix', easy answer type of person, so I didn't accept it for a long while. ADD is going to play havoc with your studying, work and relationships, and likely lead to depression and low self-esteem. It is also a lifelong condition. But, to acknowledge it while young is a massive advantage - non-invasive drugs are improving rapidly; these together with behavioral therapy can, I'm certain, help one lead a normal life. I advise strongly not to dismiss it as a phase, or anything else - if you have doubts about yourself or your kids get it checked out by professionals. Please. And get the book.

Good thoughts about Paleoconservatives, determinism, and so on. The analogy with Global Warming has occurred to me, too. Who can say it better than PJ O'Rourke - who's words in a slightly different context, timeously popped up at the top of O.Online's page this second: "Fretting about overpopulation is a perfect guilt-free - indeed sactimonious - way for 'progressives' to be racists."

James, I believe there is a danger here that in zealously seeking out dogma, you become dogmatic yourself. Any dogmatism you can find in Objectivism is occasionally from one or other authority figure - who is right and undogmatic the rest of the time - or in the practical applications of Objectvism, which can be independently considered and discovered false. I've been known to criticize authoritarianism myself - but I'm aware of the distinctions. As philosophy, Objectivism is as far removed as possible from dogma.

I think this is the most reasonable position, and the most rational. The only thing to fear is fear itself - or at least, a major thing. 'Jihad by stealth' is worth keeping a wary eye on, but not getting alarmed about, and I'm also doubtful about guesstimates of Muslim numbers in the future. Anyway, as people assimilate, so they become educated. Not that Europe has much to offer ideologically, but it is relatively more moral than shariah law. Rolling back of Statism is the answer - but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The one bright aspect is that nations will probably be increasingly firm about separation of Church (or mosque) and State, as a result of this perceived threat.

Going by his statement and your 'take' on him, I'd say Joseph is the one being prescriptive, and Rand descriptive (more precisely, definitive.) How does logic become the study of general principles? General principles are derived from logic, deduction and induction, not the other way round. Again, "It tries to line up rules of logic with the rules of human thought" is also back to front, I think. Interesting. Yes coffee helps, I find.

It's fascinating how a reverse in hierarchy can actually lead to collectivism, and to the ethics of altruism. If one takes 'Man's life' as a floating abstraction, then anything goes. In my way of thinking, Life, all life, is of immeasurably high value - because from it evolved the existence of Man, the even higher value. Without the life of Man, the existence of one man (i.e. myself), my supreme value, would not have been possible. Then, and only this way, is the floating abstraction grounded in reality, I believe. With the reversed hierarchy, Life, qua Life, followed by Mankind, become the pinnacles, and every individual subservient to them. As in:- it is one's duty to propogate our species; we are carriers of precious DNA for the sake of future generations: our 'nature' demands this - etc, etc. Slaves to a vague concept of the future. Or, to get back to the implications heard in this debate, homosexuals have made an 'immoral' "lifestyle choice," and 'selfishly' renounced their obligations to Life. Irrational premises derived from a floating abstraction.

Similar to my own experience of "letting go". The precise statement (for myself) I used, was " Now, with no god to curse, credit , or cajole..."

That's it, in a nutshell - honest and true.

Fair 'nuff. Time to drop it. This context may be the wrong one to pick on. Thanks for your time...

Well, this is disturbing. Can it be that one of us does not understand the concept of independence of mind? If it's me, it goes almost without saying that I take full responsibility. If we don't agree on that, then we won't agree on individualism, the ego, or volition - nor authoritarianism.. I cannot dispute that I was anti-authoritarian and unorthodox before I came across Ayn Rand. However unfocused it was then, Objectivism helped me give it focus and make it conscious. Everything within her philosophy encourages reasoning for oneself - even to the extent of being wrong, and making mistakes. These can and will be corrected. Authoritarianism interferes with volition: also, it can lead to dogma. I'd go so far as advising anyone - rather reject Objectivism altogether, than take anyone else's word for its validity and value. (Or who one should, or should not find value in.) Rand might not have stated it exactly this way, but she always advocated 'self-authority' , I think. The rest falls into place after that, I found. ("Bohemian" Now, that's amusing!)

Simply, because you continue to miss my point. (I started all this with my mini-rant, after all.) My position is not the practical aspects of running a forum, nor the property rights, etc. These are self-evident. It is the moral principle that concerns me. Which is : Does Objectivism need authoritarianism? See, the home page of 'Ohomo' does not state - Dr Kelly and Dr Branden, you will not be accepted as members, here. (Ha!) Or, Dr Kelly's and Dr Branden's ideas are not acceptable, here. Or, You have the complete right to think for yourself and honestly discuss DrK and DrB but we would prefer that you do not engage in long troll-like debates on the issue, and may be moderated. No, it states as categorical imperative - "You are NOT an Objectivist if you...[follow? accept?] ...the false advocates of Objectivism - Kelly, Branden, Sciabarra." Here, I think it is important to distinguish between authority, authoritarianism , and respect. My conviction is that one can and should have high respect for those who have superior knowledge, (Dr Hsieh, in this instance, I'm told), and should recognise their authority - but only within certain contexts. Granting anything more is authoritarianism. To wrap up my side of this, a final note: I can only observe (and imagine) the particular pressures of society upon gays; but whether they are advanced O'ists or novices, do they 'need' additional prescriptions and regulations on a forum dedicated to them?

bluecherry, I would disbelieve anybody who claimed to have grasped - but further - had integrated, Objectivism inside of , say, one year. I think the integration is a process, within which, at every step towards the goal, one should be aware and informed about all options and alternatives. In other words, there is no one point early on, where the novice can state with conviction : I am an Objectivist. It has to be completely incorporated into one's life, first. Without full and open knowledge of 'options and alternatives', (and those I'm referring to aren't major, imo) one's volition is impaired, one's conclusion, compromised. Objectivism is not a college examination that must be passed; also it is not an 'Organisation'. (Although the various organisations - including forums - within it are doing fine work.) It is a body of knowledge made physical by the actions of each individual who is integrating it in themselves. To be told at this early stage that "You are not an Objectivist, if...", is at the least superfluous, and at the most, authoritarian, I think. Objectivism possesses its own inherent authority. It will stand and survive, and flourish - I believe - on its own merits. Additionally, it is a philosophy of egoism. Therefore, how can it need or justify authoritarians?

Stephen, Heh, plenty to think about here. And those NBI days must have been a real roller-coaster ride! Some of this has been on my mind already, but you offer a unique slant. To be as condensed as I can - The thing is, I have no understanding of how it is possible for any Objectivist to lose objectivity about, or vilify, other Objectivists. Or, to suspend his independence of thought.. My take is that all our present intellectuals are, primarily, doing a magnificent job. Although I sometimes disagree with one or another. Now, to Nathaniel Branden, who's work I'm quite familiar with, he filled what I perceived as a 'gap' between philosophy and psychology that nobody else would or could. Although this is over-simplifying, his books were invaluable for me, personally. I've read a few of Kelly's essays which deserve to treated with deep consideration, too, I think. Whatever the past, these men are doubtlessly men of integrity. To sidetrack prolonged debate on them or their work, I want to stick to the point of how can such productive, self-proclaimed Objectivist academics (OK, NB calls himself, neo-), be called evil? immoral? or, Enemies of Objectivism, False Advocates, etc. I mean, if they are 'evil', where does Josef Stalin fit on the scale? For one of thousands. (To say nothing of a bunch of contemptibly immoral politicians existing in my country?) This 'us' and 'them' grouping and disregard for fellow O'ists is not rational - in fact, it is tribalist, I think. Also, for a person new to an Objectivist forum, to be met with such stringent conditions of entry, is unreasonable too. (Which was my criticism of the gay forum's rules.) Mostly, he has read one of Rand's books, and knows nothing of the internal politics. These forums represent to me islands of sanity (well, mostly) in a pretty insane world. Objectivists should greet newcomers with openness, and confidence - not with distrust. Others are also seeking reason, reality and good sense, more and more often today. Even those who leave will take something with them. btw, not for the first time it occurs to me that I am closer, ideologically, to the average O'ist here - and to Drs Peikoff , Branden, Kelly, Hsieh, Brook - all academics and other 'end-users' (like myself) who I'm never going to meet - than I am to most of my own friends. (Bitter differences, or "rivalries" as you put it, aside.) I'm sure I am not the only one. . Thanks for your considered and considerate reply. Tony [Edit: I only now read the link you provided of Trey Peden's article, and yes I was unfair; he does seem a thoughtful and independent guy. Which makes the rules of the forum he is managing all the more contradictory...]

Quite apart from the public/private aspect of road ownership, driver licences are 100% rational. As a driver I want to know that at least some rigorously objective standard of driver skill has been applied to other drivers by an independent agency - it's in my self-interest, ie, my life and property. Whether it's conducted by State, limited government, or a private company, the testers should be paid. Obviously, that the State uses it as another revenue collection device is not acceptable. Parents knowing best (in this context) is a slippery-slope, and possibly subjective.. Who 'tested' them? Their parents? And so on.

*** Mod's note: Split from a thread that mentioned theOHomos list. - sn *** I looked the site over. What might be an otherwise useful/valuable forum for gays has GOT to lay down the law and refuse access to any who relate to the Brandens and David Kelly. What irony. The intellectual gays I've known are independent-minded people, which makes a gay Objectivist triply so, by definition. "You are not an Objectivist if..." "The false advocates of Objectivism". Excuse me, man, but they can make up their own minds on if they're O'ist or not, and N.Branden and D.Kelly know as much about Objectivism as anyone presently alive. Heavy-handed BS that contradicts a core tenet of Objectivism - think for yourself.

Ah, a reasonable view. It's too easy to get stuck on genre, but I'd classify the piece as Gothic erotica. Which can either be written badly or well, like everything. In my view (' psychologizing' removed), this passage is written very well. An author I found quite enjoyable was Erica Jong - an excellent writer in a fairly Classic Romanticist style - who incorporated all the theme, characterization and plot of good novels, with steamy erotica. For example. Porn? C'mon - "porn" in literature, is what happens between our ears.

WDNG Well, if your purpose with the passage was as 'teaser', you got that right! As reader I'd expect to see your characters develop and explain themselves, and if it were me, become more comprehensible. I'm not insisting on heroes, understand, only thinking persons who fight their circumstances, in their own darkly brooding way. But I'm being too prescriptive. You know what you are doing and have your own voice. I agree with Dragon that numbers or popularity is no criterion. Some writers have lost their individuality because of that. Putting oneself in the readers' minds, I have mixed feelings about. That's one way of becoming stifled, creatively. Usually, if you can write, and you care about your subject, the reader will understand and care, too.