whYNOT

That's OK by my reckoning, but don't you think you've got the cart before the horse, in a sense? What I'm getting at is that (as you infer), we were not "given" anything. Man's consciousness just is. Where happiness enters, in my opinion, is that by understanding ourselves and reality, through utilizing consciousness to its max - we are better equipped to make choices towards happiness - and also, to feel efficacious (confident and effective) about our relation to the world. There is a further aspect of 'spirituality' that I'm interested in, but it is probably more psychological, and this is the drive in many (O'ists in particular) to unflinchingly seek the truth - if only for the sake of being 'right', in ones own esteem. After all this, little wonder that Rand identified consciousness as "man's self-made soul."

Leonid, So, could one conclude that the 'order' is first - life, then - choice to life, then - morality? Therefore, for a 'justified' suicide, a moral person would have to reverse the process - relinquish morality, choose death, and, death. Interesting...

"...it's asked because people use it as a vehicle to promote skepticism." (Dante) Well rounded off. If you added "Primacy of Consciousness" to skepticism, that'd be my experience.

Exactly. It is after all, a trick question to impress one's buddies in the bar. They answer "yes", you can invoke definition 'b', and 'prove' they are wrong. They say "no", you tell them the definition is 'c' - and likewise they're wrong. So while I agree that it's a silly viewpoint, we are stuck with the ambiguity.

I've never played the "age card" before, but I think being older does change one's perspective on long, or prolonged, life. (Anyway, according to Nanite's time-line assessment, I'm going to miss the 25-year cut - oh well, too bad.) However; opportunity and choice is paramount, and if this comes to pass in your lifetimes, and you can take advantage of it, and want to - great! Me, I'm all for overcoming nature wherever possible. Just a reminder, there's no free lunch - not that I believe you guys are incapable of meeting the challenge. SapereAude said it well, and I reckon that's my position, also.

I don't get why two separate issues have been 'conflated'. What is transhumanism witthout life prolongation? What is life extension, without transhumanism? If the OP had only advocated man doing his utmost to prolong life through biology and medicine, I can't see a single moral objection. As it is, one thing has been smuggled in with the other. btw, if there is any cult in the making - and this might be unfair - transhumanism, with its borrowed premises and principles, could be it.

Surely you must know that every one here will have SOME idea what you felt. At a pre-cognitive level, Objectivists are also feeling, empathetic, humans. But why on earth should you stop having those feelings? Objectivism should not be confused with stoicism, I think. O'ism states that emotions are not tools of cognition, so they should not be acted upon. With that, deep introspection can and does show where feelings originate, whether triggered by a sight or a memory (as with your ex), or mostly by faulty premises you hold subconsciously (such as "my ex-girl-friend is still my property"). I'm not meaning to be harsh - for one thing, I think I know much of what you are going through, and it isn't easy. On the contrary, and this may be 'off the chart' as far as O'ism is concerned, but I have learned what a good friend to me my feelings are. They help me be more aware, and make me think even further than normal. Rand herself gave them value as our 'barometer.' "Sense of reality" is an interesting one. I think everyone has the tools (perception and rationality) to have the same fundamental sense of reality; also, that our 'equipment' is perfectly capable of handling life. What goes wrong is one's evasions of reality, in a multitude of ways. I'd like to hear what other posters say on that. (I notice you addressed this to Maken - oh well, I chimed in first. )

Good input from everyone, and I'd like to add - not to take Rand's heroes literally. Not easy, as they are powerfuI and quite intimidating, figures. I have several literary heroes (Roark, a big one) and they were all invaluable to me - one or another will spring to mind at some difficult time with the fleeting thought "What would xxx do?" (Notice, not - what would he think? what would he feel?) This may or may not, influence what I decide to do. To state the obvious, your hero embodies values and virtues that you recognize and wish to emulate, and his name alone brings them to mind in an instant. The values are what count, primarily, not the character who symbolises them. It's a little like a young artist who starts off in the footsteps of great artists he intensely admires, but looks forward to the time he finds his own unique 'voice' and achieves his own greatness.

I haven't made up my mind on this, and see validity on both sides of the discussion. In the interim, couldn't one view prolonging one's life in the same vein as suicide? One is an artificial, volitional extension of a life, the other a voluntary cessation of it. In many contexts, I would consider suicide as rational and moral. Anyhow. Where nature can be defeated, so it must, I believe. Some random queries : is it death we fear most, or deterioration of mind and body? before the life-extension becomes an attainable, affordable, fact, is one not merely fantasizing and evading? does lengthening life automatically mean extending value? and yes, do you want to live forever? btw, I get very nervous when I hear any group or person talking about "improving life". I want to say > start with your own, chum, and leave me alone.

Brave New World? Now I know 99% more about the subject than I did before, and while it has some parallels - possibly influenced by Objectivism? - and raises some challenging thoughts, I've gotta go with my original impression of unrealistic utopianism.

Oh, yes . He distilled everything you've been saying into one line. Now, are you ignoring the rest of my post above, or would you like to debate the essential difference between our views of Man's nature? Is dignity to be given to one at the cost of another? Or is dignity the hard-won result of an individual's freedom of choice and productivity?

Somebody had to cut through all that verbiage to find its point. Well done, Alexandros - it's a tough gig, but someone had to do it. One thing more, liberal, the 'dignity' you speak of (as in "roof over their own heads") is core to Objectivism's view of Man's nature. But, Oists know the real value of pride and dignity is a self-made one - not one given by any arbitrary authority, re-distributed from others. Capitalism is an extension of this morality.

Wryly amusing that: - if I read you right, socialism hasn't been given a chance because of "political and socio-economic restraints". (!) You must be aware that firstly, socialism goes hand-in- hand with such restraints and controls - in fact that is a partial definition of socialism. Second, that free-market advocates and Objectivists say exactly the same as you do, (that it has rarely existed in its pure form) only about capitalism. And, as such, will not accept the mixed economies prevalent today, as capitalistic. That you laud mixed socialism/capitalism is most pragmatic of you. Without the input from capitalism, socialism cannot last a year.

Interesting. That's the first I've heard sound being defined as both wave AND receptor. This puts a different spin on the tree and forest thing. So, if a recording device is in the forest, it qualifies as a 'sound' - but if not, it's only a vibration? Can this be right? It seems to flirt very close to Primacy of Consciousness.

Thank you Dante. You don't know how much good that does me to see. (But, of course you do.)

I think capitalists have sold out, given up, and are laying low. They have never proudly defended themselves from a moral base, but only on a pragmatic one, and are getting what they deserve as a result. Salsman's closing is very good: "Unless rational selfishness is understood as the one moral code consistent with genuine humanity, and the moral estimate of capitalism improves, socialism will keep making comebacks..."

Why not spread your net even farther afield, outside Lapland and Hawaii, to, say, an advanced civilization out in Alpha Centauri. (I'm not being facetious. ) Wherever consciousness meets reality, there will be philosophy - the best of which, Objectivists would instantly recognise.

Yes, hard to swallow. I read somewhere that even deep space is at 3 degrees Kelvin - which has reinforced The Big Bang Theory to many scientists. Artificially so far, the closest temperature reached is a billionth of a degree above zero K. It seems achieving negative temperature involves halting all movement of atomic nucleii inside a magnetic field. The theory makes sense ...

'Space?' What space? Our neighborhood is getting overcrowded. 300, I can get my head around. But a sextillion.........?

This collective, 'the poor', are the most picked upon group, ever - often exalted, sometimes despised. Thanks for reminding me of the context::- that they are individuals. What such altruistic-groupists as Zinn will have us forget is that nothing is frozen in time, and that every individual has the potential to not be poor any further. (Given sufficient liberty to determine his own life, and hands off from the State.) Funny, come to think of it, there was a time I was next to broke - compared to my friends and peers - but I never once considered myself poor. I genuinely saw myself as a capitalist without capital, for the time being. To extrapolate from my experience, and contradicting my previous remark, the proud poor ( as you call them), merit far better than my compassion. Very well thought, and expressed, SapereAude.

RussK outlined well how poverty can have multiple causes - amoral choices get the justice they deserve, for one. The writer seems to view poverty only one way, as something society causes and must alleviate - redistribution of wealth = 'justice.' One could in many instances feel compassion for the poor, but how can they possibly further our understanding about justice?

No, rather tell them that their God 'called him early', just so He could have someone intelligent to talk to, for a change. (Then punch them.)

JayR, I agree that it is not possible to blackmail a virtuous man. However, the INTENT is to blackmail, by 'name and shame', which exposes the kind of morality these attempted blackmailers have. What will be interesting, is if any one of their intended 'victims' laughs in their faces instead of bowing to pressure - but don't hold your breath, for that.

Yeah, you got it: blackmail - wrong because it denies freedom of choice, independence of mind, etc, to others, and is initiation of force. Essentially, collectivist, I'd reckon. Someone else might identify this better than I did.

Sure, that is inarguable. You can't take it with you, so burn it if you choose. There is a principle (and a psychological mindset) that these zillionaires adhere to, that is disturbing, though. By action and words, they are anti-capitalist, "capitalists". What they are saying is: Please don't fault me for making so much; don't think I'm any better than you are; it was all a game, and I got lucky, that's all; my self-esteem will depend on giving it away, not in being productive, and making it; besides, with my connections, and with special favors from government, it was pretty easy, and I'd feel guilty if I hung on to my wealth. So help me atone for my sins, please. I see these crony-capitalists all around in my country, and I have more respect for the small factory owner or restauranteur, than for any of them.