whYNOT

The balif cries, "All rise,"

The Honorable Reader enters.

The balif announces, "The supreme mental court of this human consciousness is now in session. The Honorable Judge Reader presiding."

"You may be seated."

The balif cites, "Docket number 1074, the case of Atlas Shrugged: morality of altruism vs. morality of egoism."

"Is the prosecution ready?"

"I am, your Honor", Miss Rand replies.

"Is the defense ready?"

"I am, you Honor", Miss Rand replies.

"You may proceed."

That could make for a rather novel approach.

Much in this. A significant aspect of reason vis-a-vis religions is that "man cannot live by faith alone", so the longevity
of religion has been dependent upon a large dose of rationality mixed in. It almost seems that the larger the mystical
elements, the harder one has to work at maintaining them with reason.
OK nothing new - the contradiction is all theirs'. However in the interim, believers in the ancient religions individually
gain something important in my eyes: they find character.
I see or seek character before I know a person's explicit convictions.
Let's not forget that Objectivst virtues are not monopolized by O'ism. Character is a direct result of the basic virtues,
prized explicitly and consciously by Obectivists - but gained implicitly by experience and thought by anyone else as well.
Honesty and integrity are the key indicators to me of virtue, followed by productiveness. All exist in spades within the religious.
If rationality is - lets say - 'limited', by the person's over-arching faith, it is still very apparent.
I'm repeating earlier sentiments when I say that in the main, I have often found common ground with those religionists
(not too often extremists) in our reciprocal respect for the truth - which I rarely find with secular 'progressives'.
Where we diverge radically in belief, has somehow not been important.
 
But, as we know, "nobody's watching" in the end. The contradiction is theirs', but for partly the wrong reason, religionists
gain admirable qualities I can't dismiss.
Perhaps I'm going by my own experience, and others have their own contrasting one.

Much in this. A significant aspect of reason vis-a-vis religions is that "man cannot live by faith alone", so the longevity
of religion has been dependent upon a large dose of rationality mixed in. It almost seems that the larger the mystical
elements, the harder one has to work at maintaining them with reason.
OK nothing new - the contradiction is all theirs'. However in the interim, believers in the ancient religions individually
gain something important in my eyes: they find character.
I see or seek character before I know a person's explicit convictions.
Let's not forget that Objectivst virtues are not monopolized by O'ism. Character is a direct result of the basic virtues,
prized explicitly and consciously by Obectivists - but gained implicitly by experience and thought by anyone else as well.
Honesty and integrity are the key indicators to me of virtue, followed by productiveness. All exist in spades within the religious.
If rationality is - lets say - 'limited', by the person's over-arching faith, it is still very apparent.
I'm repeating earlier sentiments when I say that in the main, I have often found common ground with those religionists
(not too often extremists) in our reciprocal respect for the truth - which I rarely find with secular 'progressives'.
Where we diverge radically in belief, has somehow not been important.
 
But, as we know, "nobody's watching" in the end. The contradiction is theirs', but for partly the wrong reason, religionists
gain admirable qualities I can't dismiss.
Perhaps I'm going by my own experience, and others have their own contrasting one.

Much in this. A significant aspect of reason vis-a-vis religions is that "man cannot live by faith alone", so the longevity
of religion has been dependent upon a large dose of rationality mixed in. It almost seems that the larger the mystical
elements, the harder one has to work at maintaining them with reason.
OK nothing new - the contradiction is all theirs'. However in the interim, believers in the ancient religions individually
gain something important in my eyes: they find character.
I see or seek character before I know a person's explicit convictions.
Let's not forget that Objectivst virtues are not monopolized by O'ism. Character is a direct result of the basic virtues,
prized explicitly and consciously by Obectivists - but gained implicitly by experience and thought by anyone else as well.
Honesty and integrity are the key indicators to me of virtue, followed by productiveness. All exist in spades within the religious.
If rationality is - lets say - 'limited', by the person's over-arching faith, it is still very apparent.
I'm repeating earlier sentiments when I say that in the main, I have often found common ground with those religionists
(not too often extremists) in our reciprocal respect for the truth - which I rarely find with secular 'progressives'.
Where we diverge radically in belief, has somehow not been important.
 
But, as we know, "nobody's watching" in the end. The contradiction is theirs', but for partly the wrong reason, religionists
gain admirable qualities I can't dismiss.
Perhaps I'm going by my own experience, and others have their own contrasting one.

I believe that it was because he understood that "neutrals" are totally worthless.

If a person happens to be swayed by the strongest external force of the moment, they can also be swayed the other way when in the presence of another external force. You never want to put yourself in the position of entrusting your life to any person who lacks inner conviction, because you cannot ever count on their loyalty.

Thinking is one aspect of pursuing values: acting is the other. Are you saying it is better to pursue values than it is to think about pursuing them? Or that it is better to pursue some less-than-ideal values rather than to think about what are the best values to pursue (and to stop there)? 
 
Casually, one might say that the way to be happy is to act to pursue values. Ideally, this means thinking: what should I pursue? how should I act? It is usually better to act to achieve some values than to be stuck in  "analysis paralysis".

Hairnet, do you realise that there, in a nutshell, is the entire reason for rational egoism?
Not for the good times (only) but for the roller-coaster ride over a full lifetime?
I'm not coming down on you, since I believe I've experienced similar.
Maybe, we get too casual. Don't always concentrate our senses, and so lose perception of every little thing around. Then as a result our concepts could become to seem fragile and insignificant. Maybe we get caught in that difficault place between having a lot of knowledge, seeing clearly what's going on, and not yet knowing or seeing enough. Maybe, against the background of existence, our lives look puny, at times. "There is an enormous breach of continuity between nature and man's consciousness", Rand wrote.
I think that each person has to bridge that breach for him/herself by acquired virtues and rational egoism.
There is no 'purpose' for one's life, except the purpose one finds (as you know.) Nothing was 'meant to be', until you give it meaning.
Life is very, very long if lived in focus - long enough, actually. Whoever lived previously and whoever comes after us is not our fundamental concern, and must not be - apart from a mental hat-tip of respect and acknowledgment. You are here, now, and can choose.

I've been thinking about what I saw Helen Keller said: "Life is either a daring adventure
or nothing. Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in reality."
Realising it came from someone deaf and blind gave me perpective. Hope it does you.

Thanks for the transcripts, Dennis. Yours, and others above, have been highly balanced readings of the people and events involved, I think. Simply, to me, both Rand and Branden became my heroes, and not so strangely have grown in my esteem the more human I've seen them to be.
Basically, I also don't give a rat's ass. Like others here, they are my heroes because of the peaks of
accomplishment they both reached - together and separately - NOT because of their individual, 100%, moral perfection.
One thing, in the relatively short time since I even learned of the affair and its consequences, it always seemed to me that Branden carried the can (so to speak) for his wrongdoing, while blaming Rand for her part would have been the easiest thing to do - in his self-defence against his detractors. He didn't, mostly. That speaks plenty, in my book. (Especially when his career, his whole future was at stake.) His silence, due to his ongoing respect of her, and his integrity, was taken as one-sided guilt, in certain quarters, I believe.
That a generation or two of Objectivists has pitted one against the other is a crying shame. Partial 'mutual exclusivism', it appears:
to elevate Rand (for god's sake, as if she needs it!) means to degrade Branden. (or vice-versa.)
"We" need to grow up a little, get past this, and we will.

The previous post could have been written by anyone, of almost any ideology, I believe - but that it's by an Objectivist lends it serious weight. An Objectivist, who has renounced automatic authority and blind dutifulness,
(loving thy neighbor) to 'an other' is the one best equipped to extol the high worth of human beings. "To be free, a man must be free of his brothers"- said Ayn Rand. Yes, and after being set free of his brothers (even if by personal conviction - while not politically and socially...) a man then is properly free to choose to embrace them: in fully conscious understanding, shared values and empathy- as David writes.
If - when - such respect isn't reciprocated is certainly sad, but should be considered a small price to pay for living solely by one's own standards, for remaining true to one's integrity and rational consistency, I think.

You weight enormously higher the possibility of your future action, experience, joy, and contentment—however vague your sense of them now—over present pain and loss. The actual explicit decision for ending one's life comes up when there is something very wrong in one or very wrong for one. Even if you can no longer remember what is happiness, you still know what life is. Even if you are too young to have yet experienced the larger struggle and happiness of adult achievement and romance to come, you have had at least some glimpse of them. Remember to love yourself or work on getting to where you can. You have before. You still know what life is, and I urge you to choose it.

You are correct, I think, in supposing there are situations in which the correct decision is to end one’s life. These are situations in which there is prospect only for great pain in the remaining course of a terminal illness or injury. Mostly they are situations for old people. As I recall, Arthur Koestler and his wife committed joint suicide as one or the other of them was dying of cancer in old age. There was nothing wrong in that choice for their life situation. Sometimes one honors one’s life by ending it.

But generally suicide is disrespectful of one’s life and love, and one should hold on tight against all the pain and loss, bracket the despair and work towards its unraveling, as in my first paragraph. I had a brother who worked as a wildcat in the oil fields. One night he went around to where a rope winding on a large spool had become tangled. As he tried to untangle it, he became caught by the winding rope. It carried him around, winding the tight rope over him. Normally, in this type of accident, the rope eventually crushes the man and kills him. But in my brother’s case, it severed one of his arms, and he and it fell off the rotating spool. He picked up his arm with the one remaining, walked around to where the other workers were, and told them to put it in ice. I think of him that night if I need a little courage.

There is something I have seen save the life of a man eighteen years old, who was suicidal. He read The Fountainhead.

Yes, the societal elements are not high in my list, either.
Except - and removing any duty to society - that I'd think a rational person would vastly
prefer a society not in any way 'oiled' by bribery. To what degree does refusing,
or contributing to the status quo, by the individual, bring about a rational society?

A bribe should be the exception and never the rule. It is highly contextual, in my view.
Each, rare, occasion it is considered, one should have a very clear idea of the reason,
its upside and downside.
This debate seems to lie on an axis between rationalism and rationalization, at each extreme.
(Not that anyone has reached either extreme).
I.E.: Ideals detached from reality - or, circumstantial justifications without principle.
Marrying principle and fact is the trick, as always.

It is only each individual who can know when his virtues of pride, honesty and integrity might
become compromized by his actions. (I set a lot of store by Aristotle's "We are what we repeatedly do"). Conversely, he must judge when stubborn idealism is separating him from 'real' life, his
survival and his enjoyment.
Which is a good time for Rand's favorite 'prayer': Grant me the serenity to accept the things I
cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

A generally irrational man would view bribery as completely normal - he would constantly
need to evade the outcome (the 'justice') of his irrationality by subverting it, one way
or other: force on others - or bribery. He could indeed deceive himself into believing
that he is 'successful' in life and business as a result.
This is apparently Leonid's rationale, and I agree, so far. At least it should not be
dismissed out of hand, as a strawman.
My departure from it is based on the fact that in a society that penalizes the moral and
law-abiding, one must not become a martyr to the System. It is rationally egoistic to
protect oneself, and future. Income tax is decreed by State at some ridiculously high
level? Then it is moral to not disclose one's full income: the immorality is the State's.
Pragmatism? maybe. I'd call it practically moral.

That is not what I meant.

First let us unpack the idea of a type of consciousness that is not limited by a single perspective. What exists to which this concept could refer? What does not exist is a consciousness having all possible perspectives, omniscience. Setting aside the case of infinite perspectives, what exists that has even two perspectives?

Most people and many animals have a left and a right eye, each functioning separately to produce its own visual perspective. For that matter there is also a left and right ear, and left and right hand, and several square feet of skin.

But perhaps the level of the sense-perspective is not what we are after, which is "the subjective experience of consciousness". Consciousness is nothing without content, something to be conscious of. The primacy of existence is axiomatic. The remainder of consciousness after subtracting all content, what would be an intrinsic phenomenon of consciousness in itself, does not exist. Consciousness is a relationship not an entity. If we further distinguish consciousness from the sense-perspective level then all that remains that can be consciousness is the integration of several sense perspectives together. The integration of consciousness-as-integration is an integration across space (left and right hands, ears and eyes, the several square feet of skin), integration across sense modalities (hear the phone ring, turn to see it, reach out to grab it), and integration across time (through memory).

The idea then of a consciousness that is not limited by a single perspective is a consciousness of multiple integrations, integrations which remain apart and are not integrated with each other. There is a contradiction involved in settling upon a definition of consciousness as an awareness through integration and then to attempt to refer to what is not integrated as also consciousness. The only examples similar to this I can think of are a person with multiple personality disorder or demonic possession (same thing), but these are failures of consciousness not exceptions to a rule.

For the privacy issue, what would it mean to be a type of consciousness that is not inherently private? Continuing to rely upon the definition of consciousness as awareness through integration, non-privacy implies that what is being integrated is indefinite and not limited to one body linked together by the normal causal links (i.e. what is referred to is ESP or telepathy). Partial violations of the privacy of consciousness are possible by normal causal links that are gestures, speaking and writing too long messages on the internet. These kinds of breaches of privacy are limited to the conceptual level and are not a sharing of sensation or perception. So long as one consciousness is aware of another consciousness only through its own sensation and perception mechanisms there is no problem distinguishing one consciousness from another. For one consciousness to integrate with another consciousness and have direct access to its senses and percepts would mean there are no longer two distinct consciousnesses but one while they remain linked, one consciousness which remains private with respect to other consciousnesses. Privacy is the boundary between what is conscious and what exists to be conscious of, it is the border and finiteness required by the law of identity that everything exists in a particular and definite way.

Both the multiple perspectives and privacy issues turn on the principle of identity. Multiple perspectives implies a contradiction with the identity of consciousness, and loss of privacy implies a loss of identity as a distinct consciousness and is a transformation into something else.

Only want to share an important thing. I used Propecia for years but the best results only came in the last few 2 - 3 months when I included the Nizoral shampoo. I also wash my hair now with a gentle shampoo every day. I have been waiting for Propecia to reduce my sex drive but I am very much disappointed.

Roark makes this point while being a starving architect in The Fountainhead:



Would I be tempted to lie? Absolutely. Would I feel like a piece of shit after I did? Without a doubt. Would I enjoy the steak dinner it bought me? It would lack savour, and fail to nourish my integrity and self-esteem as it would my body.

"Yes but a just a little teeny white lie!? You would feel so bad over a very small compromise of your values and integrity!?"

Indeed I would. Hopefully it would cause me to realize I need to find a career where I can perform my work honestly, and more fruitfully than I have been. Dominique sums it up:



There is no difference between "honest" and "totally honest" or "completely honest". You don't start sentences with "Let me be honest..." because it ought to be a given, and you shouln't have to make that distinction to youself when you realize you're speaking to someone else out loud instead of thinking privately; as if everything you say without that qualifier may or may not represent your true and actual thoughts and opinions, or reality. Either you're honest, or you're not. To yourself and to others. The first step to being honest with yourself is to stop trying to justify your dishonesty, especially with life-or-death scenarios that don't represent day-to-day life.

Mr. Foddis,



To be honest does not mean that you must reveal secrets, or may not have them. If she asked me, I would tell her the truth. If she didn't ask, I would die with that knowledge, hoping for her sake she'd never find out another way, because she would've rather heard it from the man she loves than his lover. Either way, the consequences of my dishonesty in the past are unescapable. I'm a wreck on my deathbed, and instead of a solemn, final goodbye I'm left consumed with guilt or a twice heartbroken soon-to-be-widow on my conscious. If I've lived dishonestly, what else should I expect?

A person doesn't need to be honest 100% of the time. Certainly he can lie his way into a win-win situation, and even rationalize to himself that he did right, given the results. A man only needs to be honest to the extent that he values his integrity. Some men don't, and lie willingly, white or otherwise. And being honest doesn't mean broadcasting every thought in my head out loud for the world to hear. It just means if you ask, you'll get the truth.

Again about the dress: if she asks for my opinion, I'm going to give it to her, because that's what she asked for. It's more important to my integrity to be honest to her than to lie to her, yes. Just because social considerations come into play doesn't mean that principles go out the window.



Is there no other way to postpone a conversation than to lie? If you're saying I tweaked my argument to show that honesty was the only option, then certainly you're tweaking this whole argument to show that lying is the only option that wouldn't lead to a shit-storm. "...with Dude X? No thanks, everytime he's around my girlfiend he tries to get her to leave me for him. I'd rather not." The possibilities are endless. Just tell your buddy the truth. "Why not Dude X?" "Don't worry about it right now man, go enjoy yourselves, we'll catch up later on." Done. Conversation postponed, integrity intact.



That's the nail being hit on the head right there.

Hey, that's my scenario you are tweaking! Only I know what happened!

Seriously, the flaw is in "he has no reason to take John's word..."
Remember, we are in a rational mini-society, in which all inhabitants presume
that all men and women are rational, just like themselves.
It's not a question of "never being wrong" - it is a question of always being
honest - even if one is wrong, one can be honestly wrong.
So yes, he would have every reason to take John's word for it, or any stranger's.
As last resort, he'd allow benefit of the doubt, benevolently.

I haven't read AS for many years, and I am a bit hazy on details, but my theory is that
Rand was showing with Galt's Gulch, not how an ideal government worked (there wasn't one)
nor what a Utopian society could look like - but how individual men can and should live
together. Showing that government, even an exemplary minimal one, would be superfluous when
any man could not in his wildest dreams intrude upon another's 'moral rights', his self-
sovereignty.
If by accident or consciously, he did - he would be the first to take responsibility, acnowledge
it, and make amends.
Out in 'normal' society (with its mixed rationality, and irrationality) moral men would have need of
individual rights, only for their protection from the immoral, and no other reason. Rights will not make for a rationally moral society: only each man can achieve that for himself.

I was baptised as a teenager, but I don't think it took. I've always felt closer to the presumed God(s) of religion outdoors, than kneeling indoors; I feel reverence looking upwards at the stars, and from that perspective, I can't imagine others not feeling something similar, or having some similar aspect of nature that wows them. The more knowledge I gain about stars, the physics, the greater reverence I feel for the universe. Having spend a fair portion of my life working offshore, I developed a respect for the sea, but I think I revered it from the beach before I ever left the shoreline. If I had to be pidgonholed on belief, I suppose Deism is a close approximation, but even that falls short in my estimation. Mostly I'm just insatiably curious.

When man pushes against the world, the world pushes back. Nature is interactive, so I empathize with those who personalize nature into something worthy of their reverence, and that is the context in which I understand Francis Bacon's statement, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." I can accept an Objectivist limiting their reverence to knowledge and those who pursue it, but I'd miss the spray of saltwater on my face, as if coming from a breath of life. So I believe Voltaire was essentially correct, and that we don't possess an ability to understand the nature of the universe simply to calculate our distance from unreachable objects.

I gave the very simple example where one is effectively getting back what has been taken from one. As a society, we will never get back what is taken, because inefficiency is the nature of the beast. If all the voters around you and for the last few decades had allowed the last few generations of your family to be more free, perhaps you'd have started life as a richer brat Has that been taken from you? There's no reasonable way to compute the losses and gains.
Here's a second way to look at it. If you do not take money from some scheme, what then? Does it go away, or does it simply go to someone else? If it goes to someone else, then the robbery is a fact. Consider this: the majority of the victims support the system. In other words if you give up the money, the odds are that it goes to someone who thinks the system is pretty good. How could you justify that?

Here's another way to look at it: we all use government schools, airports, police services, and all sorts of things that are paid for by our taxes. Did you go to public school? If you did, it was "free"... no different from a college scholarship in that sense. So, was that wrong? If you did not, is it wrong for a typical middle-class person to send their kids to publicly-financed school (not speaking of what is taught, but the mechanism of financing) today?

My advice would be: if you do not like the system you find yourself in, go ahead and fight it intellectually in any way you can. However, live in the system, and even try to thrive in it. Of course, you have to honestly ask yourself these questions and be convinced that you are not a hypocrite. Also, if happiness is your goal, your life is probably not going to revolve around fighting the system or complaining about it. Reject the most egregious aspects, refuse to do things that you know will bolster aspects you object to. Then, use the rest to give you the most benefit you can draw from it.

If you want to "atone", commit to giving some percentage of your time or money to causes that will actually change public opinion. In that way, what you draw from the system is also going -- in small part -- to change it.

BTW: The most effective thing you can do to change the world is to become successful in whatever you love doing.

What happens to such people anyway? I don't know whether they get their just desserts - or not.
One way or other, they can't cheat reality, or disvalue life, and not pay - somehow.
We should remember too, that studies found it was children (who tortured animals) who showed some
probability of becoming murderers later; adult animal-torturers, I'd guess, are seldom killers.

Who knows which ones practised cruelty on animals as youngsters, except their families? what could and should those families do about it? and after the fact, it's easy to for someone to say "Ah, I knew Johnny had it in him to be a killer." In another 99 cases, he wouldn't be one.
(And I know you'd oppose social workers visiting homes to find tell-tale signs of psychopathic behaviour.)
We can't say for sure how anybody will turn out: statistics are a dangerous tool to rely on.

What I am sure though, is that pre-emptively restricting people's rights on the basis of what they could be capable of doing under certain circumstances, is a highly suspect, slippery slope, which can only lead to more restrictions for all.
If freedom comes with such a price - that we are never completely without risk, and have
to be aware and self-responsible - wouldn't you still gladly pay it?
Individual rights, essentially, are one's last line of defence against immoral, irrational
and evil people, but they are not a guarantee of security.

There is the very real problem of gay activists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

A great deal of this can be blamed on the pathology all too common in our increasingly collectivist society- the admiration of victimhood.

On the one hand they are protesting being defined by and singled out because of their sexuality and on the other the basis of the gay rights movement is that they are defining themselves by and singling themselves out based on their sexuality.

If they focused on fighting for individual rights instead- equal rights for all- the rights of gays would just be a natural part of that.

Leon,

Your emotion I believe I understand, and I think is fully valid. With me, cruelty gets to me in two parts: Here is a monster who shares with me the existence of "rational being", who has momentarily debased my own value in my life, and of life itself. Then there is the trusting,uncomprehending animal, accepting its owner's cruelty and authority, still - after all it suffers, with no escape, or recourse to law. I reckon your reaction is close to that(?).
So much for 'emotionalism': it's a lightning fast evaluation of reality confronting
our principles and "value judgments"- as AR wrote - after all.
If these are rational, one's emotions are true and dependable.

However, the argument that a vicious animal owner should face criminal charges for what
he 'might' do in future to humans, is definitely invalid or subjective. (Notwithstanding the corollary psychiatrists found in such cases.)
Rand warned, in another context, that the potential cannot be equated with the actual -
which applies here too, I think.

Government intervention? No way!! I wouldn't suggest anything even approaching that.
My point is when and if interposing oneself between animal and brutal owner, one, say,
trespasses - or a fight broke out between you, one would likely be charged with interfering
with his individual rights. Either, as I think, a court would be extremely lenient - or
one would have to prepared to face some gaol time going in.
No, the government must stay out until that point of your infringement.
But it doesn't mean we all have to tip-toe around getting involved ourselves, in something
we find insupportable.
The principle is that the abuser/torturer is acting in a sub-human fashion, and a captive,
non-rights-carrying animal suffers. I'd do my time, if it came to that, and I think
many rational egoists would do the same.

SapereAude,

We well know that occasions arise when doing the legal (under individual rights)thing
may not be the moral; in this case, I think it's the opposite way round.
The moral act would be to do as you would do - to save a (non-rights bearing) animal from its
malicious owner, by force, if necessary
Any objective court would not condone your action - but would also pass a sentence on you
that would amount to nothing more than a slap on the wrist - I believe.
Morality transcends rights, and is derived from value of life. Rights are a social code,
not a guide to morality.

There is a sort of deceitfulness that derives from lack of character,
and dependence and emotional extortion - which is ultimately where
mind games and such come from, actually.
Mind games usually denote immaturity, low self-confidence, and essentially fear,
in my experience. A pseudo-strength, hiding weakness.

A woman doesn't have to know you inside out - and early on, why should she? -
for you still to be honest about yourself with her - within appropriate boundaries.
Genuine honesty is your own selfish virtue, not to be switched on and off for the sake
of power, pretence, or to manipulate her. A woman - a worthwhile one - will ALWAYS pick up on the difference between counterfeit and genuine strength of character, and respect it.

And if it's only bed you have in mind, it's as much reason to remain honest to yourself
and her; for many girls it's a refreshing change!

You are putting way to much thought into what is largely a toss away comment that was a fun jab at those who claim a person who gets a sex change is mutilating their body. She doesn’t look mutilated to me and she certainly doesn’t look like a man.

I have to disagree however with your claim that I’m just mindlessly bound to act through some evolutionary desire; I have free will and can choose to focus on my life at will. I’m not a billiard ball getting hit into the corner pocket of procreation determinism. My wife and I get another version of this all the time from family and friends because we don’t have children. Everyone seems to think that we are supposed to have kids because God or Mother Nature said so. They don’t seem to get the concept of “Because we choose to” as if free will was alien to them.

“Nature”, which is existence, does not have a conscious mind let alone the ability to set goals. Only rational living entities can conceive of values and the goal directed action to achieve them. Evolution is the process of non-rational life conforming to its environment to insure its survival. Man adapts nature to him to survive since he is rational and he uses that tool to alter his environment for his survival. Nature asserts itself on animals, man asserts himself on nature. Mindless animals conform to their environment, a process that is a death sentence to humans. Yes, the universe must be understood according to its nature (i.e. identity) as existence is a primary but beyond conceptual understanding nature is ours to command. Animals reflexively fear and obey nature while man makes nature sit obediently at his side while he reads his Sunday paper and drinks his morning coffee.