whYNOT

...and this I think puts Rand's answers in the Playboy interview, into perspective. Love may come and go, but the 'I', remains. This ego builds steadily (if not linearly) throughout life, with one's productivity, principles, and thinking. So her comment about this being the highest value, above love and anyone else, is logical, rational, and humanly practical.

Just in case it has not already been said here, one doesn't and cannot derive self-esteem from love. (Believing I could gain the one from the other, was one of my own personal errors.What I had, was neither.) Love is the expression - the greatest one - of self worth, not a cause.

I don't mean to sound patronising, but if you people ever mean to set up an Objectivist government somewhere, you can count me in. Those applicants for office, and the ones already there, have been displaying an impressive array of integrity and rationality and principle. And if you can run this forum, a nation should be a breeze.

I recommend finding a master scupltor to start with as your teacher. At least for long enough to absorb most of the technical skills. I studied under an artist who spent quite a while getting his pupils' drawing skills on live models up to a good level, afterwards we worked with blade and a special high-density styrofoam. Molds can be made from that, and casting in bronze - if you can afford it! Otherwise, the finished styrene piece can be coated with a particular type of Spanish clay. I found the subtractive carving method more satisfying (although errors are costly), then shaping out of clay.

Nanite, I was pretty much agreeing with what you were saying in the above posts, but then I realised that you have been getting the hierarchy of legality and morality back to front. You write- "So I say that morality is a subset of legality"... "Legality is NOT a subset of morality." Since the solution to this extended debate lies in the realm of morality, we'd better get this right :- from the nature of Man, is derived his morality; from his morality is derived his rights; from his rights is derived his laws. (As I take it.) I mean, does a rational individualist begin by asking himself, "Is this action I am considering a legal one? And if it is, is it a moral one ?" No. A moral action must or should be a legal one - and not necessarily vice-versa. Do you agree?

To the extent that he was faking reality, yes he was. He treated a financial transaction as a short-term 'loan', and a book shop as a lending library. It's not the 'end of the world' kind of immorality, but just might have long term effects on his integrity, to say nothing of his self-esteem.

Yes I found it disturbing too. But you know what? Forget about 'em. They got their opinions third-hand, and I'll bet not one knee-jerk detractor of O'ism has ever had a single independent thought in his whole life.

Ha! Terrific!

Quoting yourself, you definitely "achieved the broad perspective" there, Mindy. Very well thought out and inspiring.

As a side issue, it's interesting to view this from the bookseller's angle. I mean, why would they have such a policy, anyway? It is apparently in their self-interest - it gives them a competitive edge in the market. They expect increased sales. Which would probably indicate that they build into their pricing any losses from books returned in poor condition, extra work by staff, and so on. Legally, they can do what they wish, and this empowers the buyer to take advantage of the policy - but morally? Can one argue ad absurdum that by allowing the unethical buyer who makes the purchase expressly to return the book, the seller is 'encouraging' immorality, and thus is immoral himself? A morally delicate issue, imo.

Then that's your starting point with her: is she getting any satisfaction of purpose from her career? Selfish. Pride of accomplishment? Selfish. Earning money? Learning, exercising her rationality, and developing her future? All selfish. I'm not saying you haven't tried this before, but keep on affirming these values to her at every opportunity, and its pretty certain her take on rational selfishness will swing round.

All manner of suspect things get passed off as okay under the justification of "it's love!" - and the movie industry is a major culprit of evasion,imo. Their scriptwriters have entrenched the message that love is a fundamental right for all, irrespective of the integrity and self-worth of the characters. The pursuit of love is the right we have. While I do believe that 'sense of life' is highly important in the attraction between lovers, too many movies offer no prime cause of love save he's strong and handsome and makes her laugh/ rescues her/ etc., and she's, well...beautiful. Or else they have in common some destructive weakness like e.g. drug addiction, and have equally low self-esteem. "Love must prevail" - as if love is a separate mystical entity, independent of the participants. That's pure intinsicism. Also, with the increasingly younger film-viewer in mind, I do think that there is a gradual 'dumbing- down' of love, by movie makers, so that every teenager can now pass off his or her immature infatuation, as the real thing. Actually, that's mostly what a lot of movies portray, not love, but infatuation; and the 'loving' couple won't last long in the real world.

Peter Keating? You sure that's what you mean? Keating's easy to do. Just be 'normal' - copy everybody you know.

No Mindy - for the reason I gave above, I don't wish to pursue that line of debate. That's not stopping you from continuing it if you wish. I am more interested in the question of authoritarianism vs. individualism, within Objectivism. Though this may be the wrong thread to be discussing it.

Valid remarks, David. Yes, there will always be someone who has a greater grip on reality - at a particular time, and in a particular area - and what can be done about it? Plenty, I believe. One can only know what one knows at this moment, and continuously apply one self to integrating further knowledge onto that. Without anguishing about the as yet unknown. My observations on independence and individualism still hold water, I think. Without a base point of self-authority, even when at a low level on the knowledge 'totem pole', I see a danger of a dichotomy arising. The best term I can think of right now, is "authority dichotomy." One needs to seek out superior thinkers, and knowledgeable experts to learn,- but at the same time without elevating them to supreme authorities over one's mind. (IMO) To gain and keep knowledge, requires that one reasons constantly, and that one's sense of self-responsibility (ie authority to oneself, ego,) is uncompromised. By no means am I suggesting not acknowledging and respecting that a parent, or a teacher, or an expert in some field has knowledge and expertise and grasp of reality that I don't have - yet - or never will have. Thing is, all of us have the right to be wrong, and to correct our premises as we go along. Having said that I can appreciate a certain amount of "cussedness" given in helpful spirit, whenever I'm wrong!

Marc and Mindy, I have one major concern, it is a selfish interest in seeing Objectivism grow and flourish. To do this it needs a cohesive front that reflects the basic truth of the philosophy - reason, self-esteem, and calm benevolence. (I believe.) We spend too much time uncovering the differences between ourselves, and others imo, perhaps as a result of it being quite a youthful philosophy, still. At what point in time will it stop splintering and regrouping, I wonder. I don't claim to have all the answers, but personally have benefited in my life by discovering the areas where my convictions intersect with another person, engaging on that level, and only then, finding where we diverge, and deciding at that point if there is further value to be had. I would be very bored and lonely if I had waited for only the most rationally moral people to come along! Looked at objectively, all of us, whether quasi-Oists, neo-Oists, or the real Randian Objectivist, have more in common with each other than we think; let's keep in mind those similarities, and moreso, keep in mind the potential for change in other people - something that Rand herself stressed. The differences - as I've proposed before - lie in the 'applications' of (mostly) ethics and rights. From person to person, context to context, this can, and will, vary. Nothing and nobody should challenge each individualist's authority to his own volition. These practical applications lie at the end of a long chain that began with Ayn Rand's epistemology and metaphysics - he, the individualist, is at the pinnacle of a solid hierarchy, and he has to call his own shots. Even the odd irrationality, or inevitable errors of judgement, can't rattle that hierarchy - so well is it structured. This is my personal philosophy, and it's served me well... This is getting circuitous. To get back to the point, I do not believe that Kelley has overturned anything fundamental in his writing. I view his 'additions' as a practical extension (applications, maybe? ) of ethics, specifically on 'judgement' - which I had been already having my own thoughts about. No ways is he the 'appeaser' of evil that the word "toleration" seems to suggest. I also don't agree that he has negated Rand's achievement of refuting the mind/body dichotomy , by interrupting the link between idea and action. To the best of my knowledge, he is a staunch Randian admirer and scholar. But out of deference to the affiliation of this valuable forum, I won't be the one to reopen this long debate. The bigger picture is really what concerns me.

Marc, Interesting, and amusing. The first, because in your response I find nothing to disagree with, and you found little to disagree with me - which goes to prove my original point that no matter our respective introductions and development within Oism, any two Objectivists are overwhelmingly in agreement, most of the time. Most differences revolve round the 'application'. (BTW, sure, politics and economics, Capitalism, derive from the other fundamental principles, and is part of the closed system.) I'm wryly amused because I was defending Ayn Rand against intellectuals ( in those days Existentialists and socialists) since about 40 years ago - before I'd begun to fully grasp the entirety of her philosophy. Now someone else is defending her against me and my supposed insult! It was just some facetious English humour on my part ("two or three life-times of thought," ie, NEVER, for someone apart from Rand to have come up with Objectivism!) Still, reality, the truth, has always been under mankind's nose. It simply took a rare genius to put it together. The "major, major, issue" of moral toleration is definitely a stumbling block - but mainly in the highest academic circles, IMHO. I understand the reason for the face-off between the two distinguished Intellectuals, and have resolved the toleration issue, at least for my own 'consumption'. I have learned much from Peikoff, and from Kelley.. At my own relatively low-brow level - with my first priority being a philosophy for my life - my respect for both is unceasing.

Not sure I understand your question, but to answer with another question : whose philosophy is this anyway? To try to clarify my position. It took a beautiful mind to construct the epistemology (and metaphysics, and ethics) of O'ism, which is a beautiful and efficacious philosophy. But Rand did not just conjure it out of thin air - it was there for the taking, in the sense that it is only, and all, about reality. The reality of the Universe, and the Nature of Man. All it needed was someone to identify, and bring it together. Anyone could have done the same ...given two or three life-times of intense reasoning. (Ha!) There is no way that her epistemology, metaphysics and ethics can be deconstructed, such is the strength of the inter-locking parts; it is an all-or-nothing choice. This is where it is a closed system. However, the application of it - particularly of its ethics - is where I don't agree, and I see other O'ists differ - on occasions. Because it is such an applicable-to-life philosophy, this is important. It might not be entirely resolved, but, at the end of the day, it is our individual choices and independence that must be honored. This, the application and practice, is where I see it as an open system. So what the essentially minor differences in Objectivism, even when concerning its theory? If we honor the basic integrity and independence - and overwhelming agreement - that we all share, these are a mere bagatelle. IMO, the alternative is split after split, and (sadly) losing several good people from our ranks through frustration. (Pardon the lecture - it wasn't meant to be. Probably:) my own frustration . )

The rational egoist has rational values; his children doing well is a long -term selfish value ; a whim or desire that this is happening constitutes evasion and denial - it would only satisfy a hedonist, not an egoist to whom reality is sacrosanct.

Speaking for myself (obviously!) , the question of 'open' or 'closed' is moot. Objectivism is the philosophy of its creator, Ayn Rand. The question that should be asked is this: do you, or I, as individuals, have the right to accept , question, or reject certain parts of Dr Kelley's AND Dr Peikoff's thinking (additions, embellishments, revisions, etc) and STILL CALL OURSELVES OBJECTIVISTS? Well, yes, we certainly have the right to do so - but is it moral? Would it involve any rationalization, or evasion? Each person, ultimately, can only rigorously check his or her premises, and arrive at their own conclusion. This is a philosophy of individualism and reason, not of authoritarianism, I don't need to add.

So my daughter calls today from London where she lives, to tell me about how Greenpeace is bravely taking on the nasty oil giants , (and knowing she's going to rev me up, sigh). I ask her, you care about the oil spill in the Gulf, right? (Of course I do!) And you think that BP spilled the oil on purpose? (Um, well, no I don't.) So it's a regrettable accident that is going to take plenty of cash to clean up, right? (I guess so.) Then how the hell is BP going to do the responsible thing if they go bankrupt because those noble heroes at Greenpeace promoted boycotting and blockading their petrol pumps? (...) -------------- It is very clear that GP and other radical environmentalists care more about political power than they do about the environment, and this latest power play gives their game away, for now, and always.

Well, I think that that is a thoughtful and considered post , too. The admiration and visibility points he made are crucial to a relationship. But... we have to backtrack to an earlier and initial stage. Where I differ firstly is that I don't consider sexual attraction to be an emotion. How much of it that can be integrated with your rational values (like emotions) is debatable - and I notice that Kendall has thought about this with his "stable" sexual chemistry division. It's the other part, the unpredictable - even magical - side, that appears to defy identification. IMO, it is 'pre-sense of life', and pre-character. So there is either attraction, or there isn't, and until an Objectivist gains more maturity, I don't think he or she can tie values and virtues to sexual chemistry. And even then, I am dubious - but could be I just never got it right. Can one reason one's way to sexual chemistry, when it has not been there from the start? Just can't see it, and that's what we are talking about here. There's an amusing- and valid - quote from some Greek philosopher, that "every philosophy should begin with acknowledgement of a man's body" (or something like that). Same with romantic love; desire is the best and only start, but a lot has to happen after that beginning.

Yes. I was knocked out by Dawkin's "The God Delusion" at the time. Then felt greatly disappointed that this fine scientist did not take the next logical step, after setting men free from God, and set men free from men. Apparently all these atheists are trapped by the same false dichotomy - an individual is either duty-bound to a supernatural being; or, to other men. The third 'option' (neither) doesn't occur to them, or it's more likely that they have discarded and evaded it.