whYNOT

I'll concede the passage did look unresolved, and I'd made the assumption it was a first chapter. To state it's a great plot, was premature - but it would invite me to keep reading futher. Why it's here? Just conjecture, but Objectivists display a myriad of skills on this forum, and opening your private work to your peers for appreciation and criticism is great, I think. The premise might be - who else could understand me? Who else would I want respect from? Only one more thing, the OP could be more explanatory, and less defensively inclined.

Perhaps you are missing that a novel can be simultaneously naturalist and an excellent piece of writing. Ayn Rand alluded to this, and registered her respect for some naturalist writers. If an Objectivist has written this, one should assume he knows the premises of it. Also, let's face it, there is more high-quality naturalist art around than that of Romanticism, and me, - I think I owe it to myself to see all the art I can find, and make my own assessments. Great writing, fine plot, (so far), strong characters; bleak sense of life. One can 'take' something from it all.

That's an excellent question I've been thinking about too. Essentially, yes. You can only know, what you know. But once known - and it is our responsibility to never stop learning - the new knowledge must not be evaded. One can have little justification in the modern Age for not knowing most existing and competing ethical concepts and principles, and selecting those that are the most rational. The application in some unfamiliar scenario (as with slavery for instance) then becomes a 'given'. Thus, Aristotle or the Founding Fathers can be condoned, I believe.

Appears to be a version of argument from authority: only the experts and specialists can know anything for certain. But he experts get published, and anybody, in any scientific field, whatsoever, will be able to understand the results, and draw conclusions. I am opposed to this kind of scientific elitism.

SoftwareNerd, In light of 'Jesus as individualist', his truly true followers would not have ensconsed Christianity as a collectivist ideology, I tend to think. As an altruist ideology, I have to question if JC himself was an altruist (in the Comptean doctrine) at all. Wasn't the "I am my brother's keeper" a later add-on? And I have no memory of Jesus clearly saying he was going to die to save all mankind - who came up with the vicious concept of Original Sin, then? (As I say, my knowledge of theology is sketchy.) This was my meaning in the followers' "distortions". It is as 'cause' or 'movement', that there's no surprise that Christianity sought powerful patronage - and continues to do so. Any 'cause' desires survival, longevity, wealth and influence - nearly all require power and coercion to be sustained. Left to individuals' rationality and volition, I doubt religions would be much more than small sects, today. No: today's "true followers" would have little hesitation in using the biggest patron, the State, to their own ends - exactly as another 'cause', environmentalism, is doing.

Thanks for the link once more, ND. But, no: though I did intersect two separate contexts, the really pertinent AR statement was on some other OL thread. She apparently said (in an interview?) that Christ was primarily an individualist - I'm paraphrasing. At the time it impressed me as another insight into Ayn Rand's unique vision, and that Jesus , as man - with all cant removed - and viewed in a sympathetic way, was quite a rebel in his time. Didn't he criticize the establishment - the 'State' and the power of the rabbis? Who were pragmatically in cahoots with each other? That must have been extraordinarily courageous back then. With his "render unto Caesar...", he would also appear to be an early proponent of separation of Church and State. That's as far as my recollection of high school Divinity classes takes me; I wasn't paying much attention, probably.

I asked the question with conviction that both states are flip-sides of the same altruist/collectivist coin, so I'm glad you guys seem to agree. Put very simply, I believe that altruism devolved from the Christian "You are your brother's keeper", to its corollary, "your brother is your keeper", to the Statist, "You need a keeper, you mindless weakling." Again, over-simply, outside of a theocracy, religion has no coercive bearing on a rational person - the Church wants your immortal soul, but because it doesn't exist, can't get it . However, the Statist wants your mind and body, and seeing as he is primarily concerned with political power, poses a definite threat. For now, anyway, in the West, this is the greater of two dangers. (An interesting btw is that Rand (wish I could find her off-the-cuff quote) had some respect for Jesus' teaching, and as a man. She saw hm as an advocate for individualism who was sacrificed to the State and the mob - the implication for me being that it was his followers that distorted his words and actions to their own ends.)

Yes, Where's the essential distinction between - *You are your brother's keeper*, and- *Big Brother is your keeper* ?

Gayle, Your last thought first: Yes, I completely agree.. It has happened a few times, someone comes up and says - Oh, I hear you're interested in philosophy. So I'm sure you must be smart and logical, but haven't you lost touch with your feelings, your inner self? All I could do is just look at them; I mean, how to convey to a stranger you are not a robot, and it's not just 'philosophy' - it is THE philosophy for life? And that my philosophy has radically increased my awareness of existence and self. (Next time I've decided to reply something like - the more I reason, the more conscious I become; the more conscious I am, the more I value, and feel and care.) A little pretentious, maybe. Your statement is more precise -- "Objectivism heightens the emotions because of the nature of the philosophy ..." Anyhow, the "lightning rod" or "barometer" of your view of reality Rand called them. Emotions can be one's best friend. "A dedicated good friend who can witness my life" is brilliantly put, I think. That 'visibility' in friendship and romantic love is a wonderful statement of confidence, and esteem in oneself, when equally perceived by, and possessed by, one's partner. The tricky bit you bring up is the romantic feelings accompanied by friendship. This has been absorbing me for a long while. I wonder if I'm 'rationalizing' to believe it is completely possible in this unconventional sort of relationship we are discussing. Potential heartbreak vs. supreme fulfilment. High risk and high reward. Is one defying reality, eating your cake and having it? Or, isn't it the true identity of love, to have both...with freedom? I do know this: that there are not many excellent, thinking 'souls', of high integrity around, so I don't ever want to discard those I do know, and simply move on. If you ever find a solution to this conundrum, let me know asap.

Hi again, I wonder ...it's a shot in the dark here, but I'm getting the picture, and if I'm being presumptuous, then I apologize in advance. There is a type of man (and, rarely, a woman) who is what they call 'commitment phobic', as you know. That's only a partial truth, however. Whatever the combination of experiences, psychology, character, and conviction, that make him, he can often be a very good guy . The good one I call an 'honest loner', for want of a better term. It's not that he doesn't see the value in togetherness, marriage, and all that it entails; it's that he also has, intermittently, a higher value in his time alone. The dilemma when he tries to keep a relationship going, and disappears into his own world of work and thought, causes discomfort to his partner, and ultimately pain to both. The HL seldom evades this reality, in himself or to his lady, so he finds it impossible to lie and cheat - but he knows going in, that he will not be able to nurture and sustain his woman and their relationship, long-term. As a result, he makes leaving noises from early on - attempting to soften the blow for her. Yes, he is discriminating, as you say. And no longer promiscuous. If he ever was. He also is often connected to the arts, and of introspective nature. How do I know all this? Let's just say, on behalf of all the HL's out there, to the women who have offered them warmth and intimacy, shared their thoughts and feelings, and even a hint of the promise of love, I pay my ultimate respect and deepest affection. You are unforgettable.. Gayle, I wish you all the best. Tony

As a possible scenario: Not naming names, or referring to any person, but an Objectivist of high profile in academia who came to disagree on one aspect of the philosophy - but not the fundamentals - would of course have the integrity to state his or her difference openly, and publicly stop calling himself "Objectivist". It may be on Rand's theory of art and aesthetics - or on limited government. (Both of these are, after all, central to O'ism, but are derived from the fundamentals.) I wouldn't be surprised if, privately, this person still considered himself an Objectivist, and had not 'left' it. Is this honest? And who could censure him or her for that?

What can be so wrong, to search for someone to appreciate , and be appreciated by, then to take that leap of intimacy, and then discover it's a no-go? The sadness is a rational response to the loss of a potential value in your life, I think. But the real value is already in you. Real self-esteem will bounce back from hurt and disappointment (without negating or denying it), and yours - if I can be so bold - seems healthy underneath its bruising. To the next golden opportunity!

Very well put. We all here start from the premise that once exposed to Objectivism, and having put in the effort to comprehensively grasp it, there must be unusual circumstances to relinquish it. That's fair enough. However, I try to be continually aware of the broader reality as 2046 expressed it. As someone wrote, rationality is only possible where irrationality is possible. (Relevance? I'm not sure...) What I can state with certainty is that, to the best of my knowledge, and right now, Objectivism offers the truest and most comprehensive system and methodology.

Above all, Objectivism is practical; it can make absolute sense on paper, but - and this is taking into account Rand's anything but dry presentation of her philosophy - you've got to add water to see it truly come alive. I mean adding one's life, of course. (To be less metaphorical, and more accurate, O'ism should be integrated into one's life, critically - not the other way round.) The principles ( I believe) are self-reinforcing as you go along, increasing one's understanding of them, the more you see them work. So, yes: education never stops - the bulk done in 'class', and the further refinements through application. My feeling is that both of you are disputing a fine point, but both are right.

This is maybe the best discussion I've seen on this topic. I'm coming in late here, after some excellent argumentation - with one certain poster putting the cherry on top! m082844, I tip my hat to your rationality and perseverance. At the end, it's a deeply personal choice to make, and you appear to be half-way there. Seems like you're doing a great job of clear and independent thinking, and any atheist here can vouch that you will do even better on your own. Just let Him go. (When you are ready.) All the best.

It's becoming apparent that you don't want a relationship. The value in having one can never involve 'sacrifice", "compromise", and 'guilt." I'm sure you realise this yourself, and that all you are doing is creating self-conflict. The value in romance stems from what it adds to your life, while a dutiful relationship, detracts. What's wrong with being alone? I believe it's a completely moral choice.

Thanks. You've supplied the proof for my hypothesis that conspiracy theories are essentially 'primacy of consciousness'.

I have always viewed her statement as a tongue-in-cheek 'hat tip' to primacy of consciousness. It has a certain artistic elegance - and truth, too - that probably appealed to her. After all, she was an artist, as well.

Here that anxiety is showing. Not being tough on you - I've known about anxiety: it's like being at a party, and not enjoying yourself because you might be missing a 'better' party somewhere else. Experience in relationships does not mean one gets better at relationships, whereas it seems that you are enjoying growth and fulfilment outside of them. Maybe there are those of us who just lack that togetherness, nurturing side, that is asked of one in a relationship - call it the 'two-some gene', for want of any better term. Or maybe - and I really dislike that trite "going through a phase" sentiment - it will become more significant in your future. Either way, don't be pressured into anything, and be honest to your self, as you are doing.

The same thing I'd have liked to say to the OP, is what I'll say to you; which is, don't be too hard on yourself. (Incidentally, kudos to whoever revived this thread, it is a valuable one, with some excellent advice from Kendall and JASKN.) 30 is still young! I'm twice that and still see development in my sense of life, and appreciation of existence, and my rationality. Late developer, I guess. You, like the others here, are doing plenty of introspection, which means that you are 'self-identifying' at a high rate. You know yourself, you found the correct philosophical method, and you assess your performance and emotions, too. You are growing all the time. Some things take care of themselves - excellence is a habit, remember? My approach to violent altercations has been to avoid them, by other means - first. If that fails, I think the secret is to tap into that deep sense of justice you possess, and allow yourself to get mad -, instantaneously, and effectively, but coolly. "Who do they think they are to unjustly attack me, and how can they dare presume on my rational benevolence?" kind of thing. End it fast, and walk away. Fights are nasty and unnecessary, but rather hurt an attacker than suffer damage yourself.

In conversation I prefer "Self-determinism", for freedom of the individual, and "Self-determination", for political freedom. "Free will" is a bit sloppy, and "volition" takes some explaining.

Entirely selfishly, I would prefer that this is a terrible movie interpretation of Atlas, instead of a 'safe', and palatable one. Audiences should leave the theatres in a state of shock and hope, as if they'd read the book. But I'm hard to please.

I like your reasoning in this post. I'm not sure, though, how much benevolence is implied, or caused by, paid-for sex. To emphasize, I don't believe such sex should be judged as immoral, but I would feel uncomfortable getting a hug from a stranger in the street, rather than someone I knew, cared about, etc. To be more realistic in your analogy, the hug could as well be a sexual act, right? Paid for, or not. Which just takes this debate in circles. Maybe, this is one of those cases where we can agree that the concept (prostitution) is not immoral - and every individual must make his own choice as to the extent he uses it, declines it.

Leonid, Surely that's a flaw right there? As you first posited, he is actually not indestructible - as nothing can ever be -"major accidents" will bring about his end. Then his life is still connected to reality, and is no longer a floating abstraction. As Marc says. In which case, he can certainly continue gaining pleasure from cognition and exploration for as long as he lives (or chooses to.) Yes?

On a scale from 1-10, loving knowledge must rank higher than hating ignorance. They are not the same thing. Nobody can avoid knowledge completely, although many try. The thing is, having learned, there is no going back to one's previous state of lesser knowledge. Those who attempt it, are the ultimate evaders. But, I agree that dealing with such people, who you know DO know better, is frustrating. Is this what you mean, Apkeeney?