Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Posts

    3667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    112

Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. Hello NewEdit, There's good advice above, regarding psychology, physiology, sexual experimentation, and honesty, all of which I believe you should consider, if you haven't yet. Honesty is a good place to start this - not honesty so much with your boyfriend - but the honesty you have shown with yourself. I feel it's very creditable that you have faced up to things in this way - to know yourself so deeply. But just one thing, are you sure the label of "asexual", is completely valid? Of course, only you will know, after all the thoughts and feelings you've had, and information you've researched, and past experiences, if this 'self-diagnosis' is really warranted. All I'm pointing out is that sometimes such conclusions concerning oneself can become self-fulfilling, or premature, or self-delimiting. Anyway, there's a lot of info you haven't shared, and if you don't think this is too personal, may I ask: Haven't you, not for a single second in the past, way back to puberty, felt sexual desire? Have you aspired to getting married in the future? Do you imagine having a child? Would you be very happy with the idea of living for the forseeable future, outside of a conventional relationship, and being alone? Do you believe yourself to be capable of romantic love? Why continue with your boyfriend, seeing the pain it causes you both? (BTW, I certainly don't believe at this stage that your premises are faulty, or your universe view is 'malevolent'. Far from it; you portray a very good sense of life, imo.) Here's the way I see it in a nutshell: Will sex enhance your life, or not? If not, and you are finally convinced of it, then I don't believe ever that you should try to force yourself. (Beyond 'experimenting', if you choose that route.) Your ongoing and obvious happiness and self-esteem are all that's important. Because that's the bottom line - enjoying YOUR life via rational selfishness, and volition. Objectivism will never require that one becomes conventionally "normal", sexually, or otherwise. (To be clear, I am not qualified to give psychological advice - this is based on my own observations and thinking.) All the best.
  2. The very aspect that makes for a hero, is, when volition is denied, that which makes for a sacrificial beast. So, definitely - NO.
  3. And an exemplary act of selfishness - on one level, that he could not have lived with himself if he'd run and survived, while his students were shot...on another that his students were a personal value to him... and another level that he was in charge, and the buck stopped with him... also, who knows?, that he'd seen enough evil in his life, and would never stand back for it again. Sure, that's a lot of guess-work, and psychologizing, but a man like that who reacted so quickly to danger, has a lesson (for me at least). I would bet that his action was called "selfless", and "unthinking heroism". At that moment he did not need to think, since he'd been thinking all his life. As for "selfless" - well, Objectivists know better.
  4. Hitch's rationality is unbowed, even though his body is weak. What do those Christian vultures expect - a miracle? or a death-bed conversion?
  5. T. Sowell has got to be one of the clearest thinking Americans around, and this is one of his best articles, imo. I kind of see the post-modernist distortion of words as "language subjectivism." (Hint for an O'ist scholar to write an exposition upon.) He quotes O.Wendell Holmes: "Think things, not words." Beautiful.
  6. That is a good overview, themadkat. I especially appreciated the point about "once a species becomes social, the possibility of receiving aggression from herdmates goes up dramatically." One more reason for individualism - and volition, and Capitalism. Yes, she got it so right: "The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe; civilization is the process of setting man free from men. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy." Of course, with pure Capitalism we can live within a beneficial structure, but simultaneously outside of it, in privacy.
  7. Or to a South African one? I guess this varies from one O'ist to the next. Essentially there should be no conflict between one's philosophy and one's nation... but, with all nations' trend towards collectivism, there has to come that time when an individualist questions his true loyalty. Americans have come from a much more elevated position than anywhere else, and have much further to slide, but I notice are just now asking the question - how much more can I take? Personally, though I have citizenship of three countries, I have for some years recognised that none is worth my patriotism - so Statist have they all become. I have quite comfortably accepted that I have no 'spiritual' home, and owe my allegiance to only myself, my philosophy and my loved ones. A 'sovereign state of one', perhaps, and it feels very liberating. Above all, I do believe that O'ists (no matter how conflicting we may be ) have more in common than variants of simple race and nationality. A timeous and well-framed query, I think, Hotua.
  8. Yes. When a thread goes long enough, you can forget its original purpose. Still, it's been fun. Of course, the islander turned it into a lifeboat scenario by effectively removing any choice for our poor swimmer -"it's you or me, buddy!" I hope our hero fed him to the sharks.
  9. Well, to be exact to the 'brief' by the OP, there is no mention of the island having water and food for only one - which is why it's not a classic lifeboat scenario - which is why this is so interesting. It all gets a bit circular, starting from the premise that the victim has the right to kill the intruder. We just return to : does the intruder have the right to defend himself in return, maybe overpowering the islander, and maybe having to kill him in self defence? Further - is he not morally * obliged * to save his own life, when faced with irrational resistance... to the extent of killing a man? Or is morality trumped by the rights of the owner, to whom he should meekly surrender his own life?
  10. Oh, okay. Wasn't sure about that. But then if you take 'Islam' as genus, the differentiae are many more than is given credit for, generally. I'm sure this has been done to death in this thread, but there is far more disagreement between sect, sub-sect, and sub sub-sect, than we know. According to a friend of mine - a restaurant owner, who is an atheist Israeli Muslim (!) - it can come down to what one's local imam's interpretation of the Q'ran, is. And the Q'ran is contradictory. This is why - holding in mind the many Muslims I've met - I can't paint Islam with a collective brush. The enemy of you and I, are a tiny core - these should be targeted, not the ones dancing in the streets and burning flags. They are simple sheep. Many, the vast majority, are just wanting to get on and live well and feel virtuous by attending mosque. Any difference you see with all religions, there?
  11. Also: it's the political correctness of it all that is so sickening. For decades, 100's of thousands of US flags (the symbol of the achievement and greatness of a Nation) have been burnt on every dirty street in every dirty town with cameras rolling - and not a word of reproof from the world. However, I cannot agree with returning the favour in kind and lowering one's own standards to the same level. Double standards? Yes, and proud of it.
  12. Here is precisely where I differ as well. To my understanding 'Religion' is a concept, as is e.g. 'Capitalism'. Is Coca-Cola - or Hinduism - a concept, also?
  13. "It does not merely embolden the enemy, it demoralizes us." Grames, this is a powerful statement, and something I've been thinking about since 9/11, so I had to react. Some questions: Who is the enemy? (briefly) - Those who do harm to the West; those who support harm to the West; those who wish harm to the West; those who ideologically don't like the West; or, those who just happen to share the same religion as all the above? Who is "us"?- Objectivists; freedom-loving Westerners; or, members of various competitive religions, Statists...etc. I believe "we" should be more careful about fighting others' battles for them. "Embolden": strengthening one's confidence and courage. What do you think is more confidence-building to an enemy - for the US to quietly, and without fanfare, absorb one more religion, and one more mosque, into its vast milieu (business as usual) - OR, to panic, make mistakes, restrict liberties, and surrender its reason and principles to fear and hatred? "Demoralize"; who would be demoralized but those whose morale and morality was lacking, anyway? Those who can only think collectively, who can't see the forest for the trees, and who can't or won't see that it is Individualism that makes the USA great - that Justice demands that every context,( and every Muslim ), has to be viewed as a separate entity. For those of us elsewhere who believe that your nation is still the only hope for any liberty in the world, the reaction to the mosque has been saddening. (And I think it is a terrible idea to build it, even if it's not meant to be provocative; but when is any religion going to be rational?)
  14. This won't be the first or the last time that O'ists are asked to tone down their language. Perhaps we should start using "uncool", and "awesome!" to make ourselves more comprehensible and acceptable. First, in the context of Objectivists debating with each other here, this vocab is necessary to fast communication of concepts. Second, speaking to outsiders on whatever subject - art, economics, politics, ideas, etc - I for one, do adjust my language with similes and synonyms; but without diluting the principles involved. Third, for ourselves, I am sure that each O'ist develops - through ongoing introspection - his own internal structure of 'degrees' of assessment (judgement). For instance, personally I use "evil" very selectively, for extreme applications. Another one, I do not believe that taking a "freebie" is the height of 'evasion' - my argument is centred on the increasing habit of evasion, starting with small things. Last, why should we give a damn for those who are critical of Objectivist words; the people who have seen the truth in the tenets of O'ism will get past the words - those without sincerity and who can't face the truth, will fall away whatever language we couch it in. I don't remember the exact wording of Rand's famous reply when she was asked why she insisted on using (that ugly word) "Selfish". She said, "for the very reason that you hate it." She had a superlative command of English, but refused to equivocate and prevaricate. To refute or create a principle it must first be stated at its most extreme.
  15. Followed by Marc K's, "are you proposing a dichotomy between morality and Rights?" Well, not a simple one, but let's see. a. Just because one has a right, one is not required to always enforce it. (volitional) b. Rights are derived from morality. c. Morality holds Man's life as the highest value. d.Therefore, in certain rare situations, Life, the life of others, takes precedence over one's rights - to a rationally self-interested person. Which means that the islander, or the country, have the right to chase off interlopers - but would be irrational to do so. I don't see this as presenting a dichotomy, but as a hierarchy, with Morality superior to its derivative, Rights. Am I missing something, or rationalizing, with this argument?
  16. Looks like this discussion has been derailed by invoking the Trader Principle. The principle is at most secondary in this context, and has become a red herring. What is primary, as Sophia and others keep insisting, is the principle of rational selfishness - the effects of constantly conducting such transactions on oneself and one's view of reality. Over-consideration of the handout policies of a business should not concern one - how many peanuts, how many books, etc. - we must assume they are acting in their self-interest, and are profiting from the policy in the long run. Another perpective: Anyone has the right to put a huge pile of dollar bills on a pavement and invite passers-by to help themselves; would me grabbing a handful be practising evasion? I think so. Why the guy is doing it is unimportant. (Mad, stolen money, altruistic - what's the difference?) But do I want to live my life hoping (or expecting) for the same thing to happen every day? How many such incidents of taking advantage of freebies does it take to become a reality-faker? I don't believe you know until you become one.
  17. Well, exactly. As you say this is not a conventional life-boat emergency situation... although the debate is drifting that way. What makes it differ is that it's not an either-or, my life-your life, scenario. I don't think that "both parties initiating force" is the way out, though it is worth considering. No, which force comes first? Man A likes living alone on his island and will uphold his property rights; Man B is desperately trying to save his life. The initial force is by A, denying access to his property, then followed by B's opposition to that force. So, DEFENCE of property, can, in some unusual contexts, be deemed to be initiation of force. This improbable context leads to the immorality of placing rights of property ABOVE a man's life. (Come to think of it, there is a very realistic scenario where precisely this has happened - when people are fleeing persecution in their own country, and illegally cross a border into your country; should they be thrown back... or given sanctuary?)
  18. Anyhow, I would fight to survive - to death, if necessary. I don't believe it would be Objectively immoral to do so - not when one's highest value is confronted by irrational force. "Do as you would be done by"- though not Objectivist, is a fairly useful default position, in general, dealing with others. Its corollary is "Insist on being done by, as you would do." IMO
  19. This scenario on an island opens up another absorbing thought: There is not - I infer - a single O'ist who would refuse entry to his island of a helpless castaway. Why is that? After all, we are not altruists, and we staunchly defend property rights. With the shoe on the other foot, so to speak, I could only imagine that the person refusing entry to the castaway would be a collectivist/egalitarian/religionist (pick one), but never an egoist. Interesting, but maybe obvious.
  20. Three things to bear in mind: This is an endless series of transactions with the book store, not just a one-off. (..."keep getting refunds...") One's concern is not primarily that the business is getting sufficient value from one. One has to assume reasonable self-interest or pragmatism on their part. One's major concern is that one is getting something for nothing - continuously - and gleefully planning to always do so.. (Remember that cake, and eating it?) In other words, Who are you trying to fool? Evasion is not about one single instance; it's about escaping reality on a long-term basis - it devolves from an action, a practice that becomes a habit, that becomes one's character, and one's view of reality. And that ain't peanuts.
  21. Then what would you say to the suggestion that the force is initiated by the island-owner - by refusing to let you land, and threatening to kill you?
  22. That's it Dante. How do you think of yourself? is the final arbiter. Only I can know what my motive is when entering into such a transaction with the book vendor: Am I honestly intending to take the books 'on approval', likely keeping some, and returning the others; Or, am I dishonestly intending using the shop as a freebie supplier, while I work my way through their entire Fiction section? At zero cost. (Interesting how this innocuous and boring seeming topic has become a significant 'premise-checker'.) As a parallel, I've heard of a shrewd stratagem by couples living beyond their means, who take advantage of the approval policy of antique furniture shops. Come the weekend, and a planned dinner party, they borrow some expensive pieces from a store to 'see how they match' - to impress their guests - and return them on Monday as unsuitable. Illegal, of course not. Faking it? You bet.
  23. I consider the use of Bacon's quote in this context to be extremely apt. "Subjectivity must be acknowledged before objectivity can be achieved", is excellent. Actually, I woudn't stop at 'acknowledged,' but would go further, to encompass 'respected' - which is exactly what we grant Nature, too. Respecting, to command. Is - ought. I think there is a perception, particularly among new O'ists, that Objectivism and subjectivity are mutually exclusive ... to the detriment of understanding both. What about "Individual subjectivity, to be objectively commanded, must be identified."? Great input from all participants here.
  24. OK, didn't mean to interrupt. I just represent one segment of the O'ist culture, that may be quite common. Interesting, btw, the number of 'formally' trained intellectuals one rubs shoulders with here. (Also, with M. and E. and Logic, I'm sure Ethics, Economics, and Political Science were a breeze for you.)
  25. I admit I'm one of those whom MIndy mentions. I seized upon O'ism so fast that it was many years until I gained an interest in other philosophies - and then only as a comparative, academic excercise. Told by friends back then that with my interest and aptitude, I should take up Philosophy at university, I used to reply, "what for, I've found what I need." Now, I do find that some basic instruction in the methodology and principles of the discipline could have been beneficial.
×
×
  • Create New...