Eiuol

I imagine any one would be hostile about doing something they do not like and disvalue. Why must it be one of those? True, asexuality is unusual and extremely extremely rare, but I see no reason to suggest it is necessarily a problem.

That's not the case at all. Or just to clarify I didn't mean to imply subjects must be tightly controlled, only that the chat isn't a place for, say, some Christian trying to prove to everyone god exists and that's it. It would, however, be fine for them to ask questions about Objectivism, or just speak of more casual things like some movie released recently.

True, though I should say I am referring to when there is discussion on topics relating Objectivism. It's different if you wanted to argue about everything in order to say how wrong Objectivist thought is on a particular topic.

I see no reason to think asexuality is immoral. I've never heard any Objectivist say anything about whether a person *should* have sex. Rand in particular only said that it is good and is proper when involving important values. If a person doesn't want sex, that's their own loss, but in your case, it's not even a loss at all. If it is hormonal as you speculate, the way to decide what you should do is whether or not fixing the imbalance or whatever will ultimately improve your life, say, improving the relationship with your boyfriend. Still, you wouldn't want to change anything for his sake. Does being asexual harm YOUR life? You wouldn't want to go changing things because it bothers other people, or if other people don't quite understand.

You should first identify what you feel you are weak in understanding. If for instance you read all of Rand's fiction, I think it'd be safe to say you have a decent understanding of Objectivist ethics, in which case you could read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal first to better grasp the relation between ethics and individual rights. Your order of reading material should really should focus on your interests, since that would better reflect and take advantage of the knowledge that you do have. Personally I like aesthetics a lot, so the first Objectivist nonfiction I read was Romantic Manifesto. I read Virtue of Selfishness second. If you think you understand ethics well with a decent understanding of rights in general, you could read ITOE first even. Personally I don't think starting with OPAR is a great idea, because I think of it more as a tool of integration and elaboration of all the nonfiction works of Rand rather than primarily understanding.

Yes, that is basically the sort of thing I meant by "is it really sex?" I was looking for more specifics about when a person displaying themselves in a certain way is degrading towards sex. I think the whole sex vs sexual innuendo thing is the sole reason there is any disagreement about Gaga's aesthetic or worthiness as an artist. This makes a whole lot more sense in explaining why some people (I don't mean kainscalia specifically, I mean people in general) don't simply say "nah, that's not my style" but rather would prefer to go a step further and make a strong negative moral judgment.

Right, you can call that sexually suggestive maybe if displayed in a certain way, but is it sex? Showing more skin in a performance does not necessarily mean anything negative for example. When does showing your body in a certain way become complete degradation of the actual act of sex? I think the only time that would be reached is if sex is actually engaged in with onlookers. I get the sense here most of the really really negative comments are really more about saying some people dislike Gaga's style and would like to then say it must be because it's a response to something really depraved. As I said earlier, maybe "admirable" is not the best adjective to use, but I think it's still safe to say that she's at least neutral in good and bad qualities (although to me the positive is a bit stronger).

I'm not sure why class is necessarily important. It's just one way of behaving that isn't inherently superior to any other way of behaving. I do not think shock is the intention as I said before, since I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that. A grand number of plagiarized ideas is also a stretch to claim. The outfits she wears she gives credit to who designed it (as in the person she found to make it). Sometimes there is an obvious heavy influence from another designer in those outfits, but that happens often when designing anything. The same would apply to music. As time goes on, influence from others usually decreases as a personal style is perfected. Plagiarism would be outright taking what a person has produced and claiming it to be your own. I'm not even sure how sex is a metaphorical calling card of Gaga's. Does she show too much skin? Clothing too tight? Sexually suggestive in lyrics a lot of the time? Explain what you mean. None of that is bad, since really it isn't even sex at all. Your quote is fine, but are we really even talking about sex here?

Based on what you sound, seeking psychiatric help is going way overboard here. Have you had a romantic relationship with anyone, ever? Even if you have, the desire of yours might actually be a desire to have a meaningful romantic relationship which absolutely includes sex as part of that. (Quoted from the first post) Are any of those friends someone who you might be interested in? And if so, have you mentioned it? If you haven't mentioned interest, why not? All I'm really pointing out here is that you might be taking absolutely no steps in even pursuing a relationship with someone.

Can you explain what you mean by "having sexuality on display"? I can't really respond to the post until I know what you mean.

Maybe a better way to think of Gaga is quite a mixed bag, but at least still better than many other musicians out there. I have not read The Fountainhead in a while, but as I recall, Wynand was a mixed bag. There were admirable qualities in Wynand, which is basically why Roark became friends with him at all. With such people, they will either give up on ideals, or through success come to realize what is necessary to maintain one's productivity and flourishing. I do think the positive outweighs the negative in the case of Gaga, and I think money making is specifically an indicator of a strong positive. There is no overbearing amount of altruism, certainly not at a level beyond the average American. As far as shock value is concerned, I do not think there is evidence that's the intention. The simple fact is that often the most self-expressive people garner the most attention whether or not they want it. Some ideas that Gaga has expressed regarding gay rights or god do irritate me, however, I think in general what she says is something many would agree with as a positive such as individuality [i don't quite want to say independence here]. I do not think any talent was wasted by going into pop music, but maybe my tastes are generally in bad taste and low-brow, if you want to phrase it that way. Again, the reason I emphasize the money making part is that it requires productivity, and productivity requires some amount of every other virtue. Even if you disagree on using the word 'admirable', I think it's safe to at least say Gaga is "a woman who still might be" rather than "a woman who could have been."

The reason I point out moneymaking here as opposed to musicmaking is that I would want to understand better how to judge producing value in producers of art. In some cases there are indeed people who make money purely by conforming to a fan base's expectations rather than one's own. I have seen it claimed before that Gaga only gets any success by being ultimately second-handed and that her success only reflects that the average consumer has just about zero taste in music. Generally the point I want to make is that such money-making DOES make a person admirable, though maybe not admirable in every single regard. SapereAude seems to be saying exactly the sort of think I wanted to address in my OP. I agree that supporting "social justice" causes is a non-admirable quality, but couldn't Gaga still be a very admirable person in regards to primarily productivity? To what extent can we say a person is admirable for their money making ability before a flaw overrides that?

What I want to discuss here is how I think Lady Gaga is admirable in regards to the virtue of productivity, particularly in regards to money making. Regardless of what you may think of her music, I think it is safe to say that she is indeed a productive person capable of making music that a whole lot of people love. The fact that Gaga does make a lot of money is indicative of being able to produce something of value to a substantial amount of people. I am not suggesting money is the literal measure of success and virtue, but that it is a very important measure to use when judging a person’s productivity. Since Gaga essentially began with nothing as far as notoriety is concerned - she did at least have a good education in performance art - and little monetary support early on in her career, it only means that much more that she is capable of making so much money. To become someone who is easily one of the most famous people in the world for something produced, or at least in the US, demonstrates an ability to recognize how to distribute music while simultaneously being able to create elaborate performances. Certainly, that is nothing easy to do and could not be accomplished by a mindless and second-handed person. She’d have to figure out how to get her music out to as many people as possible, figure out which people provide the most value in helping produce her particular style of music and performances, and figure out exactly what is needed to produce music in the first place. If it isn’t obvious by now, I am a huge fan of Gaga, and because I love her music, I gladly pay for any albums or a concert ticket. There is a very real value provided to me, and I imagine a great deal of her fans feel the same way. An important value of music is being created for many many people at a level few artists are able to attain. I think many around here easily understand the role of making money and it’s relation to morality, especially with regards to utilitarian type goods such as computers, iPods, fiber optic networks, homes, etc. The amount of money made from these products has a whole lot to do with how much demand there is, and more money made indicates the importance of the value in question in making life better for the buyer. I think oftentimes with art, popularity is equated with second-handedness because there may be an assumption that one can only become popular by giving into the demands of the masses. To me, Gaga demonstrates exactly in what way a rich artist too can be just as admirable as any rich industrialist or businessperson or whatever. It’s not about specifically in what way *you* value the product in question, but rather, that making money requires a forward-thinking and focused mind. Whatever else she may lack in regards to virtue, I am certain that the amount of money Gaga has made is at least one thing any person should admire. And since the virtue of productivity is mutually dependent upon other virtues like independence and pride, showing an admirable quality would imply being a generally good and admirable person if such qualities are shown consistently over time. If you think Lady Gaga’s success is not a sign of productivity, I would love to hear your thoughts on why not. If you agree with me, I’d be interested in hearing if I provoked any thoughts about art and money making. (I was unsure what forum to put this in, but since this is about virtue and productivity, I'll put it under 'Ethics')

Can you think of any examples of art that you would consider buying because it is art, but you know that the creator supports ideas explicitly against ideas you support? Otherwise, this is purely an abstract discussion without any referent. Really unless you know the artist gives monetary support to evil organizations, you shouldn't concern yourself with how moral the artist is. If you value some piece of art at the price it's being sold, you should buy it, because chances are the money will only be spent on producing art like that in the future.

I think the only question that really needs to be asked is where the money goes and why you value the painting in question. If the money I gave for a painting would go towards some skinhead group, I would not buy it, even if the painting is indeed beautiful. Still, I wouldn't even ask about how moral the artist is, since the trade in question is about a painting.

What exactly would be the extent you should stick to familiar manners? I agree that convenient habits of interaction based on mutual understanding is for the most part smart and useful, but when would following various customs become just operating on the evaluations of others? I suppose it's not exactly a complicated thing to figure out, all you'd have to do is evaluate whether or not following some expectation is going out of your way to do something. As far as etiquette in communication is concerned, I would imagine most of the time you should just do things your own way, but of course still consider where you are and the purpose anyone would be in that location.

Yes. Probably, but then supporting the principles of communism requires putting yourself second and ultimately putting the group - the collective - first. I don't really think this is a serious topic at all. You defined none of your terms.

What I've been wondering about is about the rational basis for manners and ideas relating to it. The main idea here is similar to another recent thread on conforming to social expectations, but I want to discuss manners in general for everyday interactions. By manners I mean behavior that is about following customs or ways of living. Oftentimes, it is usually a matter of appearing civil. Obvious examples would include eating food with utensils, or not talking to someone with food in your mouth, or just saying thank you. Now I think it would be clear how some saying thank you is beneficial to yourself, because it is acknowledging that someone has provided some kind of value to you. In the case of not talking with food in your mouth, there really isn't much of a basis to say that following that custom is beneficial to yourself other than saying acting against the custom is strange or against tradition. It would seem like following most standards of manners is just second-handed and you're doing something only because you're “supposed to,” with a few exceptions like mentioned above. Would it be proper to always show manners unless there is some harm in doing so? Or would it be better to not focus on showing them unless you have something in particular to gain (say, it is often easier to eat pasta with a fork than with your hands anyway)? To me, there isn't very often any rational basis for manners and are just some sort of informally agreed upon convention, so the latter choice is what I go with. I'm particularly interested in people's thoughts on manners in general in addition to whether there is much of a rational basis. Would anyone disagree that most kinds of customs of manners are arbitrary? For me I'd only want to follow a custom because it'd be a different way of doing things, but I'd typically only focus on doing whatever is easiest. If I don't have a fork by me and there's a food that could easily be eaten with my hands, I wouldn't bother waiting to get the fork.

I use the word "desperation" because I would think in the cases where there is a very real chance you are going to lose a value by another person, there is probably little reason to call it a value to your life anymore. As I was explaining in my first post, I would say other people will only enhance the values you hold, unless that other person is destructive or irrational (in which case you probably would feel angry or hateful rather than jealous). Your track-star example really points out something important. Why would glory really be a rational value? What should matter is doing the best you can do, not working to be the best. Jealousy seems to only arise out of a situation where there can only be one, Highlander style. Would any rational person feel nothing in your track-star example? Probably not. I think a good response would be to feel happy or excited at the prospects of a great new runner and how his success can benefit you in some way. Of course, that's not jealousy, though. I don't think any value can legitimately be straight out taken (as in, without violating rights) that is not to some degree either an irrational value or a value that you probably should re-evaluate. Just because I think it's fitting to exactly what I want to express in this post, here's a related quote by Robert Heinlein: "A competent and self-confident person is incapable of jealousy in anything. Jealousy is invariably a symptom of neurotic insecurity."

You responded while I was typing up the other response. I am not exactly even sure if a lover's eye wandering would really be a worth a reaction, since there is not necessarily any decrease of valuing on their end. I guess I can't recall a time I have been jealous, so that example is way too abstract for me. I understand what you're saying about the potential of losing a high value, but to me that would only indicate desperation to hold on to something you aren't worthy of such as an inheritance, or desperation to hold onto something that should not matter such as fame. I would even suggest the mentality of both reactions to jealousy you gave are improper. Not that the first reaction is exactly destructive, but it changes the focus from what sort of person you are to what other people evaluate you to be.

Well, in your promotion example, that would involve something not already in your exclusive interest or possession. I think that would be an example of an envious type of feeling, and also a feeling which can be perfectly proper, though what you explain is a case where the emotion is applied in an irrational way. Jealousy would be a case where you already have the value in question (recognition or a relationship) and another person is a threat that may take that value away from you. Sometimes jealousy is equated to envy, which I think only confuses things. Also, I'm still curious about thoughts on sort of causes there would be to implicitly having a concrete-bound, short-term view on values. That is, if it is agreed that jealousy could never be proper.

I would hope it's just a matter of self-expression as would be the point of anything else you wear that might be unique.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN *** Could jealousy possibly be a rational response in certain circumstances? (Just so it's clear, I have a good understanding that emotions are automatic evaluations. Emotions themselves are neither rational or irrational, but the ideas that originated the emotion may be rational or irrational. Sorry for any vagueness in my phrasing) Supposing jealousy is defined as “seeing another person as someone who may take away a value of yours,” I do not think there are any circumstances where feeling jealousy would be rational. I am not suggesting that emotions can be wrong, but if this particular emotion could be a result of a rational evaluation of a situation. Note that I'm distinguishing from envy, which would be desiring some type of value another person has. One obvious example of jealousy would be seeing another person as someone who can take away recognition of a position, say the teacher of an up and coming painter who may be overtaken by their student in ability and achievement. A historical example of jealousy involving achievement is Baroque-style architects Borromini and Bernini, who had a sort of rivalry like that seen in The Fountainhead, though with neither of the two being as rational as Roark (spoiler alert: Borromini commits suicide). I do not think in those two examples many would argue that jealousy would be the result of a rational evaluation of the context. A teacher's job is to provide their students with knowledge, so the student bettering the teacher is only a sign of just how great the teacher is. What I'm wondering about here is if there are any contexts where jealousy is the result of a rational evaluation. The reason I do not think that jealousy is ever an appropriate response is because no one can “take” a value of yours away without violating your rights. Other people are not a threat to any of your values. As soon as other people come into the picture, you would not be operating in a rationally self-interested way because keeping values would then become a matter of making sure others stay away from your values. I'm sure many will think of romantic relationships and to a lesser extent friendships when it comes to jealousy. In those cases, I think jealousy would demonstrate particularly strong underlying misunderstanding about values and self-esteem. A friend of yours that make new friends would more than likely have their happiness enhanced, so if you have a proper understanding of values you should feel happy that a value of yours has been improved. Going off of that sort of reasoning, how could any other person by a threat to your values? Other people are a force for improving what is most important to you. Jealousy could only be the result of an opposite idea: other people are a force for taking away what is most important to you. Does anyone disagree with my analysis? If so, can you provide some concrete examples of when jealousy is a proper response? If you agree with my analysis, why do you think people develop feelings of jealousy at all? In other words, what would lead to a misunderstanding of how values are improved?

Supposing wage is negotiable, how would demanding more necessarily make you less likely to get the job? I mean, by saying wage is negotiable, it is to be expected that you'd try to demand as high of a wage as possible. If negotiating a higher wage made me less likely to get the job after my interview and the negotiation was just a game to see what I'd do, well, I wouldn't want a job at a place where everyone is expected to accept automatically whatever is offered. It would be entirely irrational, though, to demand a wage that is completely unreasonable due to factors such as simplicity of the job you are applying for. I see you like to focus on the word "immoral" but the fact of the matter is that the irrational is the immoral. Yeah. Still, there may be some things that are advisable to do to get a job, as in take a shower before you go out and at least comb your hair. Usually, not showering would reflect that you don't give a damn about your health and your level of self-esteem is questionable, meaning that an employer has less of a reason to hire you. So, usually it would be irrational to not take a shower before a job interview.

I'm not sure why you would say there's any kind of collective impulse. Your survival is pretty much always under threat from starvation, other animals and potentially other human tribes. However, the issue only really comes in when either formal or informal rules are introduced. What do you do when the other guy (or group) has a giant rock and threatens to kill you with it if you don't do what he says? Your options would be to conform, die, or form a bigger group with even bigger and badder rules. Since we're speaking of a time when intellectual development of humans was quite primitive certainly absent of any concept of rights, it's highly likely that you'd go with conforming, however it would be interesting to figure out why bigger and badder groups are formed. As time goes on, certain standards are taught from generation to generation, perpetuating collectivism from a time before rights were ever understood. It becomes normal or "common sense" to believe many ideas probably because without the support of a group - which is generally more intimidating than a single individual - it is harder to get what you need to survive. Consider for example the Athenian practice of ostracism, where a vote was held and the person who received the majority votes was expelled from the city for 10 years. While this is an extreme example, losing some benefits when removed from a group may be harmful. For a non-thinking person, it is a little safer to just conform, and hopefully maintain some individuality in secret.