whYNOT

Before any discussion about faith versus reason, or, primacy of consciousness (wishful thinking) versus reality - and so on - but there is another valid argument to do with value. If you observe religious people closely, you will see that they value themselves largely on the premise that they have an immortal soul; and that they extend the valuation to you and other people, also. Why strive to earn value in your own eyes, or anyone else's, when you 'know' that your soul is God's, and all will be forgiven anyway? Equally, with every other soul that ever existed. What has more value to you, being judged as equal to everyone else, by God and society, or working towards objective and merited virtue in your self, as your own judge? I think one could be in agreement with Objectivism, and be religious, for a while, but sooner or later, if you are honest, the contradiction will force a choice.

For sure. Great Romanticist art is rare, so I've spent my life more in the company of Naturalist art - particularly literature. There is always something to be gained from a great writer - and artist - whether it's 'teaching' one how to see clearer, challenging one's mind and premises, or as a last resort, in identifying principles that you oppose. I value originality and honesty, and all the best artists achieve this, agree with their premises, or not. Life -affirmation in art is what I seek most, and it sometimes come from unlikely sources. BTW, could anyone have guessed that Ayn Rand could have appreciated Dali's "Hypercubus" (correct title, Jonathan?) - of Christ suffering on the cross!? Or, Mickey Spillane's gritty detective fiction? Without knowing about her opinions in advance? There is more to Romanticism than is immediately apparent , and more to Naturalism, too. 1st rate Naturalism easily tops 3rd rate, imitative, uncreative, one-dimensional, 'Romanticism'. (imo)

I don't think for an instant that Chaser made his choice by deduction as was suggested - no matter, it's terrific that he can make associations between a specific sound, and visuals/smell, 1000 times over. That psychopath murderer/animal- torturer corellation has been well established by now. Thing is, what are you going to lock him up for? Of course, not for being a potential killer. And, Hotua and Grames are spot on: objective rights cannot be applied to animals, leaving only social ostracism, civil law where warranted, etc. I have been also very interested lately in the further aspect Hotua raised, and this is how a rationally moral person perceives life. It is fascinating for me to discover how much greater my respect for ALL life has become. This has plenty to do with my hierarchy of values, and still- growing consciousness. I don't think it's so crazy to conclude that having lived by, and constantly applied (as best I can) rational egoism, my sense of life has heightened - and thereby lifted everything living that's in that hierarchy, up with it too. I've found increased respect for even the lower life-forms. Domestic animals, especially, and all wild ones as well. Obviously, this 'reverence for life' is a natural outcome of egoism ; not that surprising, perhaps - except to haters of egoism.

Yes, I've been thinking on these lines myself. It's been shown, apparently, that the brightest dogs (Poodles and Border Collies) have the intelligence of a 2-3 year old child. How does this correlate with ethical treatment of dogs, and do they merit 'rights'? (I've always tended that way personally . What's interesting is that as a result of being given the right stimulus and attention, my dog has definitely grown in intelligence. Oh, and he is a Border Collie!)

okey-dokey, got it now. But in that case it's a bit ambiguous - for idiots - which weakens the strong conclusion. In my opinion it could be much stronger by editing it something like this: "I'm not sad, my darling, I always knew who your true love was."

Last week in a South African national daily paper, The Citizen, the editorial titled "Better a day's work...", began with: "Ayn Rand once said that having a job as a street-sweeper could make a difference between penury and ...Etc." Quite startling to see her name in a local newspaper, though she has been mentioned in financial mags, sometimes. I wonder how many readers could identify her, since no description of her and her work was given. Encouraging...

..."that your affair was NOT with me, but with the stars." - is the sense you apparently mean? (or, another way, "with the stars, not with me".) I think this anecdotal style of writing is powerful - sometimes. Because it's a super-short piece, it works. It comes over as a combination of straight reportage ("you did this," "I did that..") , and a sort of free verse, ("I was 18, you were 19", "I was 20, you were 21".). That repetition of ages is what holds it together, plus, a good conclusion, that refers back to the intro. As i said, terse, maybe minimalistic, ( it is a technique) but the effect can wear off if done too often, imo.

Yes, strangely affecting, despite its terse, journalistic, delivery. The style won't work every time, though, I think. the last line "that your affair was with me, and not the stars." Is this right? Seems contradictory.

That's an interesting interpretation, Eiuol. Ive always seen 'focus' as the polar opposite of 'blank- out'. You are saying I think, that even blanking- out requires focus, for the rationalizing that follows by necessity. It bears consideration. More generally, I enjoy Rand's "Your ideal as a thinker is to keep the universe with you at all times."

So do we need to have choice to form a morality; or do we need morality in place to make a choice? Surely both, otherwise a false dichotomy can arise.

See, that's what I'm driving at. The fact that it has - of course it has - eventuated in a successful relationship, occasionally, is often, I believe, motivation and rationalization for some men to continue doing it. I have to concede that this is not exclusively true, but the warning signs are when a man keeps seeing the same professional - I mean, what is he looking for, but fake intimacy, and disappointment 99% of the time. You could call this the "Pretty Woman" Syndrome. Nice in movies, but unreal.

ico, That sounds like a recommendation - you have a number for me? But she must be prepared to travel, btw. Seriously though: no, and no, to your queries. An excess of casual sex proved to me eventually what I should have known from the start - not good for me, personally. Thanks anyway.

The "john falling for the professional" happened to a good friend of mine. A stunning Russian named Verushka . I didn't have to be psychic to know that it wouldn't end well. What can one say to friend, but respect his judgment.? In the end, after some heart-ache, his good sense of reality kicked in, and he survived. Because it is a lot to do with reality, I think. In hiring a pro, one is telling oneself that it doesn't mean anything, and all one requires is the physical relief, no involvement, no questions asked, no need to be attractive to her, and no judgment either way - except for her looks. A cash transaction, and value for value. There is a problem, though, and that it is a reversal of romantic love, in which mutual values and intimacy lead to sex. Here, sex often leads to intimacy - whether one wants it or not, it just does - in the 'client'. From what my experience of casual sex, I have realised that it was never quite so casual, in intent, and effect. But that's my experience, and I can only project that it goes for hiring sex as well. I think men with prostitutes are buying, not sex, but intimacy. If I'm right, then it reveals that everything to do with it, is faking reality, and is self-justification. The impact on one's sense of worth is too obvious to mention here.

Anylesca, I was quite touched by your honest appeal, and will respond as best I can. I think I know something of what you are going through, and speak from no special expertise, but more from my own experience and observation. I hope it addresses your particular concerns. It is the utmost criticality that each one of us alive views ourselves as absolutely central to life and the world. ( As a start, without you here, of what use is the world to you, if you see what I mean .) It is not early on in life so important to find happiness, as it is to find awareness, imo. Then, through that to find value. Because no value can be found in life until you have discovered your own value in, and to, yourself. Normally, nobody actually tries to teach us how to do this, explicitly. There is a mistaken assumption that you will "just know", or "just find out for yourself". That parents, teachers, one's religion, etc, will supply the answers. They may try, but ultimately nobody can 'teach' value - the best they can do, is to show it. Then the rest is up to you, alone. Going back to 'awareness', or consciousness , I'd say you should start with small steps - the smaller, the better. (And I'm not being patronizing of your youth, since I personally still go back to this practice.) Look, and listen, at and to, the simple things, only perceptively at first. Often enough, and you will learn to appreciate them for what they are, physically. Next, find out about them, and what 'makes them 'tick'. e.g. How incredible this leaf is - how beautifully perfect; how 'right' it is; and when I consider what it achieves, as well! (You get my drift, I'm sure.) Look at people around you, the same way. How they match you up to a point, but are so singular and unique, too - and each one autonomous, and alone. Eventually, what will arise is a sense of reality - of the outside world, yes, but also the reality of your own self. It is YOU who saw that leaf, YOU, who experienced a feeling about a person, YOU, who thought about life - in a manner maybe no-one else ever has. This unafraid observation and awareness is where all value starts, for each, independent one of us, and we all have to go through it, from the most simple to the highly complex - to begin to understand how it all 'fits'. To repeat, all values stem from value of life, as a whole, and principally, one's value (worthiness) of oneself. That is the basis of romantic love, and the precursor of happiness, and of course it is... (commercial break ) , the foundation of Objectivism. Hoping all goes well with you.

Could be... anyhow, you make a good point. To be fair to the article's author, he didn't advocate anything, he more or less impartially reported the so-called results of the so-called research. He may even be taking a sly dig at both 'sides'! But the motives and integrity of the researcher are suspect - and who is funding her.

I appreciate we're discussing aesthetics here - that is, pertaining to 'beauty' - and not ART, but your's is a view that affirms equal intrinsic value to natural and man-made. Ask yourself if you have ever seen an ugly mountain, and your answer is likely, no. Lacking a designer, nothing in nature is ugly - it just IS. Ask the same about a skyscraper, and I would say, definitely, some. So, if I were asked which was more beautiful, I'd reply Which mountain? which skyscraper?There is a distinction here I think, more to do with integration of rationality and emotion, and relevant to 'sense of life.'

Few men choose not to live, and most like to believe they are moral. Yet, the huge preponderance of humankind that is collectivist/mystic tells us that whatever choices they ever made, were irrational choices. Of-the-moment choices, to satisfy various needs, and fitting in with one's 'tribe'. Logical, when absolutely essential, but rarely rational. So, to choose life, does not necessarily imply a moral choice. (The corollary, that to choose death is not necessarily an immoral choice.) But to choose life fully, is to think and act to live to the full extent of the 'rational animal' that we are. It's a choice that (at the risk of sounding 'New Age-y' ) is closer to a spiritual commitment one makes to oneself, imo.

By your explanation, then, every person alive at this moment, is moral, by reason of being alive. (?) No, I don't think there is a kind of 'sliding-scale' of morality, ranging from just pragmatically, and 'logically', staying alive, avoiding death, etc, - to, choosing to live qua Man, to the full extent of a rational morality.

You've helped me make that distinction. Do you insist that acting to avoid death - or even to only survive - is synonomous with choosing to live a moral life?

I don't know about that. I don't think Rand was much concerned with the natural processes of the human body, which are automatic, (or partially so, when it comes to satisfying hunger, as Leonid said.) In fact, the more I think of it, the more I'm convinced that this interpretation of "choosing not to sustain it, means death" is 'concretist,' or only analogous. We do know she was talking about thought, rational thought, not being automatic, - being volitional - don't we? For the rest - well, I'm surrounded by people who live, breathe, and even make money, who are semi-rational, at best. What was their choice? To avoid death, perhaps. Semantics, no. I believe Leonid's exposition is right on the nail.

...and temples, and mosques, and synagogues Yeah, we live in such a time, don't we? Softwarenerd, I knew when posting the above that I raised more questions, maybe, than answers. When it comes to contexts, it seems that way. For instance, I don't think it's always moral to be the muso for a church, or to design one. Especially if one made one's career out of these. I would be very conscious of any rationalizing, and pragmatism involved - but would not rule out ever doing it. Example: as a photographer, who is also a long-time atheist, would I take up the lucrative wedding photography market, if business was bad? Doing this in the past - taking pictures in church - has never bothered me in the least. Actually, I like and get along with many religious people; I enjoy some hymns and choral music; some places of worship, I find very beautiful . So for me, no contradiction, no sanction of evil, despite my distaste for religion's irrationality. To have a modern tyrant , such as a Robert Mugabe, approach me for my work, however - not for any money would I do it. I realize this speaks of my hierarchy of values. That it also raises more unanswered questions. Only the individual can answer them, I believe.

That's a great analogy. Admittedly, because I use it, too - in a paraphrase of Rand: "No man may be smaller than his [money] philosophy." --- I think this discussion revolves round discovering one's own values, and practically applying them without compromise. Here's where the concept "sanctioning evil" has to be carefully considered. Occasionally, Dr Peikoff, in his useful podcasts, does make a mistake, in my opinion; and one I heard was to do with the immorality of sanctioning mysticism by a musician playing in a church band. If one is an atheist and writes a song extolling God, then that would be a case, imo. This is an obvious contradiction of one's own values. Plus, sanctioning immorality. But, being hired to design a church, and be given full creative licence, will be an opportunity for the Objectivist architect to build a temple to the spirit of Man. I suppose the two criteria are "who is the client?"- and "for what purpose will my work be used?" Ultimately, will my morals be compromised?

I feel these free will debates are usually too heavily loaded to a single, in vacuo, choice. Fair enough, volition should be isolated, to be identified, but the arguments leave out one critical dimension:- time. On-going application and repitition, self-evidently pay off. Like the golfer said, the more I practise, the luckier I get.

Navel-gazing with a telescope, eh? Dingbat, I have the sense that you are struggling with the refuted mind/body dichotomy, as well as primacy of existence. If you've read Dawkins' The God Delusion, you will have got an inkling of not only how huge were the odds against Man existing in the first place; but the vastly higher odds against you personally, 'Dingbat', being alive today. Our minds just cannot fathom the scope of time and causality involved in our coming into being - so we hunt around looking for easy 'reasons' for our life. And 'what-ifs' about having another body in another time, and place. It can be fun, but it is an exercise in frustration when taken further. I'd advise starting from scratch, so to speak, with considering YOUR consciousness that has been developing for x years, and is developing at this very moment.