whYNOT

Been there (many times) - chatted, ate well, drank, danced.
Celebrated a special day in the lives of special people.
Seems like the priest had no 'evil' effect on me.
When I left, I had the same morality I arrived with.

Regarding the discussion between softwareNerd and Trebor... for myself, the basic issue is this:

I believe in reason and reality, and I believe in them deeply. I believed in those things prior to reading Ayn Rand, though I did not recognize all of their consequences in branches of philosophy such as ethics or politics until reading Rand. I've come to believe that it was precisely this -- my committment to reason and reality -- which made Rand so compelling; when I established that she was arguing contra to some of my beliefs and that her arguments were correct, then I was undone in my opposition, and only too happy to concede on those points. This took place one argument at a time; I never reached a stage where I said, "Ayn Rand was right on X" and therefore took her word on Y. I challenged and fought on every topic, and was as happy to lose as anything else, so long as my "loss" was to the best argument.

When I say that "I am an Objectivist," what I mean is that I believe that the specifics with regards to Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, and etc., are consonant with reason and reality, in my experience, and according to the best application of my mind that I can muster. I believe that Objectivism is true. And in that way, I do hold Objectivism to be an indivisible whole -- not one that can "stand or fall," but only one that stands.

However. Should I ever become convinced that Objectivism was in any way wrong -- and as an Objectivist, I'm not very well disposed to speculate on how that might happen -- it would be through that mechanism and no other; I would have to be convinced. And that means: it would only be because it was demonstrated to my satisfaction that Objectivism was inconsistent with reason and reality. While rejecting Objectivism would mean that I would simultaneously reject Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, etc., as such, I would never reject reason and reality, nor would I reject any aspect of Objectivism which I believed continued to meet my experience of reality according to my best use of reason.

I would leave Objectivism in the exact same fashion in which I had come to it -- not as some undifferentiated mass to be swallowed whole or rejected -- but one argument at a time, with each given thought and weight and its proper accord.

An honest question, but seriously, how could it be measured? In a poll?
My default position is, rather be unhappy and be intimate with reality, than be happy and be disconnected.
At the next level, of course, it doesn't work this way; with on-going evasion of reality, one's anxiety and guilt grow
stronger. It is the indisputable nature of the "rational animal". (Spiritual suicide, AR called it.)
So don't be fooled by the stereotypical 'joyful Christian'. He has an addiction as powerful as any drug. It needs increasing doses, and it gives the same 'downers'.

I don't think happiness is any single given moment of our lives.
This is rather, joy, or, exultation - which we can all experience (and should) at our peaks.
Happiness is more an averaged-out state over a long period. It contains the normal 'lows' that are reminders
of reality - but, critically, these are the anomalies by which a rational person doesn't define himself.

Life is long, and as Aristotle put it : "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then, is not an act but a habit."

I admit to not reading through this thoroughly, but just wanted to mention this.
MarcT, you seem to apply consequentialism to the question of happiness:- if one is happy,
then the philosophy one lives by is obviously best.
Any philosophy, I feel, that guarantees happiness, is self-evidently deceitful.
Objectivism - in all my readings - does not specify "Do this, and you will find eternal joy."
The pursuit of it is assumed as a given; so is happiness (flourishing) viewed as Man's rightful state.
But then you are on your own, with a 'launching pad' of knowledge and methodology - and a way to find your
own pride and self-esteem. A good start, that's all.
Objectivism is not a charismatic religion which glories in faith and unreality - producing a semblance
of "Joy" in unthinking, accepting faces.
Here is where the problem of propagation arises: people drawn to O'ism, are the ones who will not
compromise truth and their minds, for any easy 'happiness'. And they are the minority, apparently.

A salient point that doesn't seem to have been addressed here, and I think is necessary to the discussion

There is a difference between (A)theist and (Anti)theist and I believe that many people who claim to be atheist are actually behaving as antitheists. I don't believe that is productive. I don't necessarily mean people here... I mean people in general. The kind of people who can't allow a cross to exist in a military cemetary, the kind who can't allow the existence of religious imagery... I think they protest too much. They expect tolerance for their atheism while wanting to strip others of their rights to belief. I think this kind of rabid anti-theism fuels some of the more irrational behaviors in the neo-Christian movement.

Also, much has been made of tax money being wasted on religious displays. Because these are generally local I'm sure that it is done differently all over. But most of the ones I've known of and have heard about are privately funded.

Now, this is not to be an apologist for Christians. Simply put, I just don't believe that being an atheist automatically makes one more rational than if one is Christian. Most of the atheists I know outside of the Objectivist community are socialists and anarchists.

Rand was quoted multiple times as saying that religion had a valid function as an early and primitive form of philosophy. That Christianity is not entirely rational does not automatically make the person that rejects it rational- they can just as soon pick up something else equally irrational. We must define ourselves by positives, not negatives.

You know, until I came on the O'ist lists a few years ago I only had a vague idea that there were other Objectivists 'out there', and didn't think too much about it. For almost 30 years I met a few people here who had heard of Rand - but not another Objectivist. Only on the forums did I first come across this weird notion of a "cult".
What did that make me all that time? A cult of one?
How many people comprise a cult?
I suppose any and every group of individuals with a common purpose and understanding could be called one.
I'd suggest, when the accusation is made, to laugh it off.

"Most people begin practising self-sacrifice almost from the day they are born. With each year they give away more and motr of their desires and ambitions in order to "belong".
Predictably, the result of this self-sacrifice, is that, in a kind of perverted rebellion, they often end up being petty, narrow-minded, and "selfish" over trivia. Trivia are all they have left to fight for, after they have surrendered their souls.
"Do you mean it's NOT immoral to be selfish?" is a way of asking, "Do you mean I don't belong to others?Do you mean my first obligation is NOT to live up to someone else's expectations?"
Such a thought is both exhilarating and frightening." [N. Branden, Honoring the Self.]

Yes, I think that your examples are of 'trivial' selfishness, which I call the self-indulgent kind. (Not to say however one must always give up one's seat on the bus, as an imperative.)
When one has largely absconded on one's own self, all that's left becomes extremely critical to hold on to, I see Branden as meaning.
If it's all one has left, one will feel fear and anger - asserting one's "petty" priviliges to the 'nth' degree.
This is not the confident self-assertion of a rationally selfish person, but a last remnant of it.
Essentially it denotes counterfeit self-esteem. "Subjective selfishness", maybe.
(I'm thinking of the OWS bunch, and other "we want-ers" round the world.)

What I mean by the mistake of a "floating abstraction" of love, is falling in love with love itself, instead of a physical being; or, admiring the ideal, more than the reality of the person.

Looked at objectively, and with what we as O'ists view as romantic love, how can it be remotely conceivable for a man and a woman to see each other - and fall in love? That isn't realistic romanticism, it is sentimentalism, I believe.
How can the mere sight of a physical being impart all his values, virtues, and character? His personality - maybe.
Yes, I might see a woman with all the grace, poise and beauty I admire - and briefly it may flit through my mind "I could fall for that one!"
And if I somehow met her, it just may be that her voice immediately disappoints me - or, that she seems silly and shallow (or, whatever.) Then there's what she perceives in me!
OK, I've run ahead of initial "first sight". My observations are that it's not ever possible - given that we agree on what love is.
The premise of the OP's question strikes me as somewhat mystical. Which is why I believe in 'attraction at first sight' - and no more.

Well said about love in fiction. I agree with it, though as an expansion to what I earlier wrote. It is certainly insightful and inspirational, but one should bear in mind that the author is by necessity "fast-forwarding" the relationship - you don't read about the number of 'failures' before our two hero-lovers meet. About the number of frogs that he kissed before the princess.
(Although, by no means am I discounting the importance of some simple, warm, but short-lived relationships, that never made it all the way.)

Which is another topic...

"Death didn't happen to Steve, he achieved it."
Oh, wow.

You may be pleased to know that Rand agreed - emotions are not tools of cognition, she said.
After that, she totally disagreed with you: she acknowledged the potency of emotion. I just checked 'Emotions' out on the AR Lexicon, and recommend you read some very absorbing stuff there, so I don't need to try to do it justice.

Not included there, is that philosophically (as much as psychologically) there is a vast importance to emotions.
Objectivism rejects the traditional philosophers' stumbling-block: the 'soul/body' dichotomy - more often called the 'mind/body dichotomy'; which should also - if I'm correct - mean rejection of a 'mind/emotion' dichotomy as well.
Integration of emotions with and beneath rationality is Rand's answer to that. Not to mention her regular references to "Joy".!!
Ultimately, this emotion is the whole point of her philosophy.
"Chemical messages", huh?!

(You are right in that emotions are not directly relevant to self-esteem.
However, (in short) the process from consciousness to sub-conscious self-judgement, -ie, self-esteem - is not that different from emotional formation, I think.)

Tony, This is where I really struggle with this.
I cannot see that emotions can be a 'barometer'. My past experience have been that emosions lie to you. I always find it better to rely on what I *know* is correct and reflect reality.

e.g. I when I *feel* worthless I say *NO* I have inherent worth as being a human been. I force myself to acknowledge what the reality actualy is.

I suppose I will have to look into the articles relating AR and emotions.
But I cannot think that my emotions have anything to do with my self-esteem. They are merely chemical messages from my brain.

Yes, lots of easy sex that doesn't hurt anybody, and is so cool.
Been there, done that, ... and wish to this day I hadn't.
A couple of my quick thoughts on a very deep and wide subject:

The previous posters were right in questioning your 'madness' at promiscuous people; rather aim for a quiet confidence and certainty in your morally independent self discipline about sex.

Mostly these people have very low self-esteem, which requires constant validation from a string of sexual conquests - they are not as happy as you think.

There is nothing like the power of sexual intimacy to set one on a slippery slope that leads to full-blown hedonism - about as anti-Objectivist as one can go.

The resulting entanglements from what seems a 'harmless' affair, can haunt you for years later.

Sex (and love) are like a currency - the more partners one has, the more one devalues that currency.

To stand alone against the collectivist customs of your time, is one of the hardest things a young man or woman can do - but it is rewarding, now, and in the long haul.

"We are living in a time of terrible emotional shallowness. There is a lack of depth and passion in young people." Dr. Nathaniel Branden. His books on self-esteem and romantic love, are a must for any young(ish) Objectivists. I believe.

Several people have already mentioned to me that there is no point in replying to you unless and until you actually read what Rand wrote, but I do want to make one more minor point here. Objectivism does NOT agree with the doctrine known as psychological egoism, whereby "acting in one's self-interest" becomes a tautology. Psychological egoism is basically like saying "Why did you do that? You chose this, therefore you wanted this, therefore people want whatever it is they end up choosing to do." Objectivists hold that not only is it POSSIBLE to act against your self-interest (in contrast to psychological egoism where it is not), people do it ALL THE TIME, to their ultimate detriment. Don't confuse psychological egoism with ETHICAL egoism (the Oist position). Because people are able to act against their interests, it is all the more important that they think carefully about the course of their whole lives and avoid doing so.

Last time, Objectivism is NOT a pleasure-maximizing philosophy. We are not hedonists. We are not all about getting a feel-good on in the range of the moment. Is the pleasure-pain mechanism useful and good? Hell yeah it is. It tells you not to touch a hot stove or let anyone jam pointy objects in you. More seriously, your body does let you know when you are pushing yourself too hard or something is wrong, and if you are in serious emotional turmoil there's probably a good reason why, and you should look into that. But being in a state of pleasure or pain in any given moment, devoid of context, is likely to say NOTHING about the state of your life overall. That, specifically, is why I gave you the heroin example.

I'll give you a personal example. I had surgery on a joint recently. Rehab exercises and deep tissue massage often hurt like hell. Would it be better for me to avoid this (admittedly pretty bad) pain, baby the joint, and ultimately keep it from recovering as well as it might? Damn, I suddenly made my body sound like the economy just then. Funny that...

Re: #19

Tony,

I gather that the talented young man who manages that site-sector of Olist (the sector's name is offensive to some older folks like me) is very much one who thinks for himself, as seen here. The rule about excluding posting privileges to persons who “associate with” Dr. Kelley, Dr. Sciabarra, or the Brandens is a rule set by site owner Diana Hsieh. Dr. Hsieh had sharp personal and intellectual conflicts with those first two a few years ago. I did not follow the particulars. It was anyway their problem, and I had my own work to do, as ever.

As I understand from a recent talk by Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, Nathaniel Branden is held in contempt, as an institutional doctrine, because of his horrible deception of his lover Ayn Rand. David Kelley is singled out for public repudiation by ARI officials because of his alleged failure to understand some basic principle(s) of Objectivism, as expressed in an essayed exchange between him and Leonard Peikoff concerning “open” and “closed” Objectivism. I was glad when Dr. Peikoff declared he was not going to continue further in the essay debate of the issue; he too had more important work to do. As I recall, those seemed to be good essays on both sides. However, I have not studied them carefully, and anyway, like everyone else, I was familiar with the important heuristic at work in the conflict: don’t pull rank.

Competitors will run down their competitors. I imagine some good has come of the rivalries. I recall a page in Marvin Minsky’s The Society of Mind, in which he spoke of how enormously powerful is the motivation Beat Professor X. I’m pretty sure humanity is greatly benefitted by that supplementary spur to thinkers and researchers at the frontiers of knowledge. Certainly the scholars associated with ARI have produced excellent work concerning the literature and philosophy of Ayn Rand. To be clear, that is mainly due to dedication of the individual scholars and to some extent due to financial support from generous rich people who support ARI in its support of Rand scholarship.

I was a young man when the break between Miss Rand and Dr. Branden occurred. I was a little pissed off at them at first because they had blown up the organization NBI. That proved really not so important. Further writings and lectures streamed forth. They were important. Personal partisans, now in their 70’s and 80’s, who knew Ayn Rand, continue to throw punches at each other and will continue those punches so long as they breathe. The conflicts (personally rooted) between well-known Objectivist thinkers were not my problems, and I had my own work to do, as ever.

I did grasp upon the split between Rand and Branden that she aimed to destroy him. What he had done was a serious moral failing (and one did not need to know a blessed thing about Objectivist morality to see that), but that was not all: I had learned about their affair of the heart shortly after the break and had some inkling of how extra full of hurt and rage Rand would have to be from such an experience. I was pleased to see Branden’s first book a couple years later. He had survived psychologically and continued a vigorous producer. Rand produced also, and for her days, I wished only she be “watched by every human love.” (At Peace)

Blue sat on the cold ground, propped up by a tombstone that was streaked with greenish grey mold. His expressionless face stared out past the cemetery. Still dark clouds were smeared low across the sky, blurring the lines between everything. The cemetery spread out down a hill and lead into the city below. Blue couldn’t tell the difference between the graveyard and the city in the fog.The skyline stood as a graveyard, with each building a tombstone to a stillborn idea.

“Is there a difference?” he stood up and walked slowly among the rows of headstones. He paused at one that had lived and died some hundred years before he had even been born. The name and dates told him nothing beyond that fact. The person had lived to be seventy two years old. A whole life, he thought. This person had been born, gone to school, had lovers, owned houses and cars. He had been loved and hated. A whole life time worth of memories and events, and people. Now it was all forgotten and unknown to anyone. All that remained of an entire life is this stone, with a name and date.

Blue’s long ears drooped. He suddenly thought how beautiful the old grey stone would look with his bloody brains splashed across it. He stood staring into the distance with that vision in his head, then abruptly moved on. He stopped when he reached a small, plain, black, marble tombstone. It belonged to a boy who was born dead on the same day that Blue had been born. Blue felt a sort of twisted kinship with the stillborn and thought they were very much alike. He thought how lucky it is to die without ever having had the pain of living.

Blue continued on past tombstone after tombstone. He looked at how random the ages were. Sixteen, 73, 35, 3 months. No matter what you do, what kind of person you are, what kind of life you live, this is how everyone ends up. How can anything matter when natures goal for you is to to be rotting underground in a wooden box. All of mans aspirations and aims are futile in light of natures ultimate destiny. People spend millions on makeup, gyms and diets, but in the end they succumb to wrinkles, hair loss, sagging flesh, bulging veins. You lose your sight, your hearing and you die alone in the dark, silence.

People spend decades on school, college and work place education to reach the point where they can’t remember their children’s names or how to take a shit by themselves. What’s the use in falling in love only to watch everything you loved about the person drain away with the years and leave you alone in the end anyways. Why go through the trouble, he thought. “What is the point of struggling and fighting when there is nothing to gain?”

There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. All of man knowledge and ability, science, medicine and technology are powerless before entropy and death. People call life a rat race, like it is a game. What is the purpose of a game you can never win? Frustration and disappointment and a sense of helplessness.

That is what Blue was thinking when it started to rain. He shivered as the small, cold drops rolled down his ears. He sighed in bitter resignation as he turned and walked with his head hung low toward a mausoleum.

Cassius was laying flat on her back on top of a huge marble slab, one bare foot hanging lazily over the edge. She had pushed the skeleton from its rightful spot and was now resting her black haired head on the grinning skull. You have a lot to be happy about, she thought.

This mousoleum belonged to a young couple who had been burned alive in a car wreck on their wedding day. Cassius stared at the looming stone ceiling, half dazed while she idy fingered herself. She had been trying to get off, but she had grown bored and was quickly losing interest. Besides, she kept thinking of being burned alive and whether or not that would be worse than drowning to death. It depends on what you drown in, she concluded.

That is what Cassius was thinking of when Blue walked into the cold tomb, soaking wet. He smiled warily when he saw her and sat on the edge of her not-so-final resting place, his legs dangling off the side. Cassius’s ears perked up and she laid he head in Blue’s lap. He slowly ran his long fingers through her short black hair and over her ears. He did this absently, his mind preoccupied. At that moment he was thinking of when a baby bird tries to fly for the first time and it falls to the unforgiving earth, breaking every bone it its fragile little body. While he thought of that, Cassius unbuttoned and unzipped his pants.

When Blue finally realized what the rabbit was doing he sighed, “Cassius, I really don’t feel like doing anything,”

“So?” she said, sitting up and stuck out her bottom lip in a pouty frown, the next moment she smiled mischievously.

She pushed him onto his back and hopped on top of him, straddling his body. Blue looked away and sighed, but put his hands on her thin hips. Cassius looked at his distant, lifeless expression and wondered for a moment as she felt her cunt grow wet, why she liked to do this so much with Blue when it was obvious that he didn’t want to. Well, she thought – that is the reason, I guess.

The rabbit leaned down, putting her face close to his and rested her two fingers on his lips. They still smelled of her – to Blue it was a warm and familiar, like a tattered stuffed animal that manged to survive pass childhood. Cassius slid her finger’s into his mouth and began slowly pushing them in and out while breathing heavily into his ear.

“You like that, don’t you little boy?” she said slyly.

Blue had closed his eyes, resigned to his fate as a living masturbation toy. He slid his hands up her thin shirt onto her flat stomach and then onto her small breasts. She laughed at the mixed look on his face of torture and pleasure as she felt him grow hard beneath her ass, despite his protests. She began to rock her eager body against his hard cock and traced long pink lines down his chest with her sharp nails. Blue bit down on his bottom lip and opened his eyes. She took her fingers out of his mouth.

“That always works, you little slut,” she said, Blue smiled sheepishly and shrugged as she pulled off her pants and threw them, rattling some dusty bones nearby. An expression of horror dominated Blue’s face as he noticed the grinning skull of the doomed bride and remembered what this place was.

He was speechless, but he tried to fight his way from underneath the insane rabbit. She grinned from ear to long pointed ear at the look on his face and she pushed down on him, forcing his still hard cock inside of her dripping hole. She shuddered as it slid in easily, touching ever part. Blue closed his eyes again and tried to focus on the warm, wet, slippery sensation between his legs. Cassius started to rock against him, sliding him all the way in her and all the way out, over and over. She licked his closed mouth then bit down viciously on his lip, filling her mouth with the taste of old pennies.

Blue moaned along and help her hips as she moved up and down. He looked up at Cassius’s face, she had her head leaned back and she was smiling – the kind of grin one gets from destroying something you love. He felt her body tense, the muscles contracting around his dick, felt like a million snakes coiled around it. She pulled a handful of his messy light brown hair and shoved her body down as hard as she could as she came on him. Blue laid back expectantly while she laid still for a moment. Then she sat up smiling maliciously as she pulled herself off his glistening, unsatisfied cock.

“You didn’t want to do it anyways, right?” she said spitefully. Blue started to object as she pulled her pants on but knew it was useless to try and fight her. Besides he was thinking of how a parasite numbs you when it bites.

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.)

From all your public statements, it is clear that you always were on the ARI/LP side of this argument rather than on the McCaskey side. So, I assume the published statements were not addressed primarily to people like you, but to ARI supporters and donors who had expressed displeasure about this particular episode.
The real proof of the pudding then, will be the effect the statements have on those other folk. There was a little new information in the statements, but not much; so, while they might have some impact, but I doubt they have changed anyone's view in any important way. If someone were to tell me that they were a little cross at ARI or LP about this particular incident, but now feel that ARI and LP acquitted themselves with great justice and skill, I'd be surprised .

The ARI and LP have always had a set of detractors who seem obsessively focussed on being "anti" something. However, most who disagreed with ARI's handling of this incident were not like that; and, what I see now is not so much an change of heart as much as a tiredness over focusing on "what went wrong". Since ARI is the only decent Objectivist activist organization with a very broad reach across various US-based activities, the lack of a decent alternative means that many will support it rather than make perfection the enemy of the good. I see an attitude of "let's let the semi-apology from ARI be the thing that let's us close this and move on, continuing to support ARI with the understanding that it is flawed in ways we did not previously consider."

A.G. :
Sounds like the growing pains of a potentially fine individual, to me.
It doesn't happen in one year, and at times your reach may exceed your grasp, but stay true to your values.
And resist comparing yourself to others, hard as that might be. That you have higher awareness than many of them, is a virtue you cannot compromise.

The state of the world? No, it's basically as it's always been, and you must design it around you.

(I hope that wasn't any more paternalistic than it needed to be, by the way.)

Was that Nathaniel Brandon?

I just find this whole idea of dogmatism silly. If someone believes something of course they are going to think they are right. Especially if they happened to be the originator of a whole new system of beliefs. It would be dishonest for someone to say "Oh I have only been working on this and preaching this for the last four decades, but of course I may be wrong". I don't think anyone who writes books and speaks about their ideas all the time can't rightfully claim uncertantity. That sort of claim is cowardly in my opinion because it is just a way of attempting to assert one's conclusions without taking responsibility for them.


In addition to this Ayn Rand never said anything along the lines of "I am right because I am right", or "If you do not already know, you will not understand". She often asserted things without providing all the concievable evidence that could be provided, but I understand that she was relying on the reader's honest review of experience to maker her point for her.

In addition to this, many of her comments were just that, comments. They were not meant to be taken in the same way as he non-fiction books. So comments about homosexuals, all contemperary composers being terrible, and so forth are just things she honestly thought but had no intnetion of going about proving it for others.

If someone wanted to prove that Ayn Rand was dogmatic they would have to find an example of her clearly loosing an argument but refusing to admit it.

I am and always was a supporter of Israel, but also a harsh critic of her. I hold her to the highest standards, and am dismayed at any errors she commits.
I particularly am against the power that the religious Jewish extremists wield there - it is imperative to keep separation of "church" and State, anywhere, for that matter - and am very glad when those extremists are forcibly removed from settlements.

I am, iow, no knee-jerk apologist for Israel.

However, one thing emerges every time one enters a debate with nice, reasonable people who only want to tell you that the poor Palestinians are being treated unjustly:
They infrequently apply double standards.
They hold Israel to one set, and Hamas/ PLO to another.
It is a bit of a reverse compliment, in a way; what they're really saying is "we know Israel is better, but why don't they treat their neighbours nicely - the poor Palestinians can't think for themselves, or hold any morality."

This is condemning the better, for being the better.

That's why I consider this debate as futile.
'Facts' are raised - apartheid, starvation, land grabs - which are at best disingenuous, at worst, lies.
'Principles' are invoked, on the basis of these false premises.
The principle involved goes beyond International Law, or IOF, or any libertarian principles. It's the principle of altruism that applies here.
When, and if, Hamas is overthrown by Gazan citizens, who commit themselves to lasting peace, Israel will respond with good-will; that is certain.
Israel is being held to hostage by its superior morality, and desperately wants peace. Not at all long- term costs, though.
But the Palestinians will, for once, have to begin thinking rationally, and SELFISHLY, for that peace to result.
As long as Hamas holds in its Charter the destruction of Israel, Israel will rightly treat it as the enemy.

A nation has to demonstrate self-respect, before it can be treated with respect.

People with schizophrenia show certain level of consistency in their behaviour, related to irreal goals. For example, if I have a paranoid delusion about being observed by extraterrestrial beings who can see through brick walls but not through metal, I might build for me a room with iron walls to secure my privacy. My behaviour would be consistent to my goals and beliefs, but not consistent to reality as a whole.
The Rationality of values and actions, therefore, has to be judged all things considered.

Now, regarding values higher than life, it is worth remembering that in Objectivist ethics, life does not refer merely to biological life (keep breathing and metabolically active) but to the rich, lucid, flourishing life characteristic of beings with volitional conciousness who use their minds to understand and command nature and shape their own character. We call this life "life qua man" and it is this life what constitutes the standard of value. It presuposes biological life, but not ANY kind or level of biological life. Life deprived from the possibility of rational choices is no more precious than the value of the life of a chimpanzee, or a tree.

Therefore, in those unusual circumstances where a person cannot make rational choices or pursue rational values any longer, biological life loses its role as source of life qua man and hence loses much of its value.
A man could then say: "Give me a life qua man or give me death."

It is up to any man to recognize whether a big loss represents an irreversable deterioration of the buman quality of his life.
Not all persons who lose a spouse would have to commit suicide for the sake of consistency.
Each person has his own hierarchy of values and will have to asses his own circumstances.

Whether or not you want to live is in a way subjective in the sense that there isn't exactly a reason for you to choose to live. Of course, if you don't choose to live, death would come soon enough. That's why it can't be said that morality is subjective, since the only way to define what a person should do is the requirements of life, as you say at the end of your post.

Rationality is about making choices in the context of a person's whole life and their various goals. Now if we're talking about specific goals in a more limited and short-term context, the means to reach a goal may be logical, but not necessarily rational. If I want to rob a bank without getting caught, there are a variety of ways I can do this, and I can use logic to figure out how to do it. My goal in robbing the bank might be to get a lot of money in order to buy a house, a goal which might be rational. In the context of my whole life, robbery is an irrational course of action because it overall hinders my pursuit of life in the long-term. Goals are ends, but ends are also means to more ends; in other, words the goal of robbing would be the means of buying a home. So I would disagree with Hume, when talking about humans, that all goals are non-rational. Hume would only be right if there were no ultimate value.


There is nothing I hold above life. I wouldn't die for anything, but I'd risk my life for some things. I would prefer to rephrase that as what would I live for.

Great! Excellent! This is exciting to see. All of it, the increasing rate of lampoons, derision, or vicious attacks (on Objectivism) - indicates that it is being taken seriously by the mainstream in the US, and some intellectuals are getting nervous.
I'd advise that you fellows start getting used to the spotlight, because Oism is apparently going to get what it always deserved.
Bring it on.