Eiuol

I think you are missing a crucial understanding of self-esteem here and its relation to love. Do you agree with what whYNOT said? "Love is the expression - the greatest one - of self-worth, not a cause."

Why should you love at all? (That's not a sarcastic remark, I'm asking, just in case it seemed otherwise) This is an important question. Why couldn't you be really happy without a long-term romantic partner? What I would say is that you would not be able to really love someone until you have at least somewhat established what you want to do in life, becoming a really long-range and goal-oriented thinker. The more established, the better. That's why a career would come first, not that a career must be ABOVE love on a hierarchy of value, the two values can be equal. I think you are equivocating career with a job. The two are not the same. Being productive and having a career (I assume you agree with how I defined it earlier) isn't just about how much money you make.

Right, that fits in with what I said. Why?

Help you survive (by survive I also mean to flourish). The context here is that death is imminent and there's nothing you can do about it, so you are in the process of dying rather than living. There would be no reason to necessarily act virtuous in a certain way if it won't affect you one bit in the last week of your life. It would not be wrong to continue to act the way you have been for decades, though you probably will have automatized your values to such a degree that you would feel sad or upset to do anything else. Nor would it be wrong to do anything else. Really if you were on the verge of death, you may as well kill yourself the preferred way, whether it be hedonism or euthanasia. I'm unsure if Hairnet is speaking of only the context of "in the process of dying" or of "near death because the person is 93 years old."

It may be better for me to use an example than argue the specific word choice. To put your own life first, as the standard of value, means that you must put your own values and goals above anyone else's values and goals. A career, your long-range goal of your productive work ("I'm a novelist who currently works as a waiter," "I'm a chef who currently works as a cashier at a local gas station"), is a means of sustaining your life. Career here is the end that comes first, another person could not be more important than *your* productivity. Sometimes, other people can have a profound impact on your goals in life - like in the case of Dagny and Hank. The trade of value may not be similarly material, but it would probably consist of the exchange of ideas. If that happens, the other person is likely to become inseparable from your career goals, and you would feel love because of the degree of value they provide to your life. That is what I mean about how love can be equal in importance to a career as such. If you have a strong passion for your work, your career, imagine what sort of love you could feel if the other person was capable of helping you work towards that passion. How does one support oneself? Through productive work. Writing a novel in your spare time on your days off from working at Applebees, a job you really don't like, is still productive work, too. Note having a job isn't the same as a career, so sometimes it is necessary to have a job you do not like, but a proper goal for anyone with self-esteem would be working towards being able to eventually do the job they want. I have not suggested that any certain jobs are necessarily more productive for one's own life, nor does the quote you referenced. Low-paying jobs like those provided by retail stores are usually just a means to an end for a person who has long-range goals of say becoming an engineer or becoming a doctor. The work of those people is essentially about what they do to achieve their goals as an engineer or a doctor, not about loving whatever your current job as an employee is. The person who says "I hate this job but I'll stick at it anyway until I retire" is *probably* not very productive. It is also an outlook that I'm sure plenty of Wall Street bankers have. Would you think such a person has high self-esteem?

Your own life comes first and the valuing of other people only has to do with what sort of value they provide you. That doesn't mean things like a career or romantic love could not be equal in value. The idea still remains that the ability to feel profound love is strongly connected to self-esteem, and self-esteem can only be realized through productive work. Do you disagree with anything in post #20?

Human relationships aren't a *primary*, your own life is. The usage of "first" here is more about how your own work and your own goals are not less important than putting another person's work and goals first. That's because you are then capable of a high degree of self-esteem. I mean, this is specifically saying that one reward for a person whose driving passion is their work is the ability to feel profound romantic love.

At best you could say the purpose of ethics is to help figure out how to lead a flourishing life, which causes happiness. You cannot separate happiness from life, true, but if you are dying, the whole life part disappears. Since it then becomes unnecessary to think long-range, you may as well think *only* short-range. I'm not even sure if my happiness would be negatively affected if, a week before I knew I would die, I took a loan I wouldn't be able to repay before I died even if it was a lie that it could be repaid, since I could then be able to at least pursue what gives me the most pleasure. Remember, in this context the person is dying, so there isn't any reason to suggest hedonism is a bad option. At this point, any choice is completely amoral, similar to how suicide is neither moral nor immoral. I mean, why shouldn't I lie if it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get into trouble with the law? I'd be dead long before the repayment deadline.

Where did you get that impression? As far as love and friendship is concerned, love (I assume you mean the romantic kind) is by definition above friendship and unchosen family. I've never heard it suggested in any of Rand's writing that career should come *first*, above love. A career is a central and integrated set of goals relating to the productive work you do. That does not mean it comes first in a hierarchy of value, other values can be equally important. I agree that it really doesn't matter what career the other person has, still, wouldn't career goals that coincide only further increase the level of shared value? To use a fictional example, Dagny and Hank had differing careers, though success in their respective careers only benefited the other. Dagny provided the trains and railroad system, Hank provided the metal for the rails so the railroad could run trains at higher speed. Such a trade of value only further enhanced the love the two felt for each other. Neither career nor love is thought of as more important, the two values can be equally important and beneficial.

I wouldn't usually do this, but here's a podcast by Peikoff that I think is pretty close to supporting what Hairnet is saying. The psychological aspect of happiness does apply, but happiness isn't the purpose of ethics. The purpose of ethics is to help you survive and flourish. link One line from the podcast: "Ethics is not for the dying."

Probably the book OPAR. (I can't tell if this is a serious question or not, I really doubt it is).

I love anything dystopian, adding fantasy to that sounds interesting. I don't have anything posted here, but I can PM you stuff I've done.

What sort of genre is your writing, generally speaking? The writing I do is usually sci-fi oriented, though that is quite a broad category there... In any case, personally, I always love to see the fiction writing of anyone who is Objectivist-minded. Maybe check out the chat sometime as well. Oh, and welcome.

Well, do you at least agree with specifically what Jake said about what sex is? "The satisfaction of eating something tasty, be it a gourmet meal or fast food, is purely a physical reaction to the taste of an inanimate object: the food. Sex is not, it is an emotional and physical interaction between two people." Any other idea of sex would be focusing on it as something purely physical and primarily about sensation, making it literally just a rubbing of skin together. That taken alone does not make seeking prostitution immoral, though. The disagreement here is primarily about you trying to make a distinction between spiritual sex and regular sex that I think is unnecessary. I understand your massage example, but obviously there is a world of difference when a sexual act is involved. Now the context may be entirely different if talking about people you actually value but maybe yet quite romantically, but the context here is a prostitute, meaning you don't know the person at all. Really I'd think seeking prostitution is only immoral to the extent that it is ignoring that sex is about the emotional connection. Most simply put, you'd be seeking one value - sex - rather than what makes that experience more meaningful, which would be another person of some high degree of valuing. In other words, hierarchy of value would be, at the very least, lopsided. In some extreme cases prostitution may be moral, but probably only in cases when a person is near death. 1 is immoral because of what I explained above. 2 is another case of taking the emotional element out and focusing on the physical part only. For 3, aesthetic preference is again focusing on the physical. You wouldn't be able to figure out 4 anyway, unless you define sexual orientation to be about what kind of sex you like to have rather than who you are attracted to. In which case the immorality would be for different reasons. 5 is silly, there is still sex involved. If you hired a prostitute just to talk though, that wouldn't be prostitution. 6 if you REALLY want to figure out better techniques, just watch pornography (here's one point that may put this thread a little bit more on track). 7 just goes back to the main part of my post. 8 we both agree is immoral anyway.

You see, I did not see any evidence that Cobb and Saito got out of the dream sequence at the end. Right before cutting to Cobb waking up in the jet, all you see is Saito touching the gun. All you can really say is "they made it so far, of COURSE the two of them actually woke up." The limbo dream ends so suddenly and progresses so abruptly that it is difficult to say that Cobb actually managed to save Saito. Could you address specific points made in that post you were referencing?

I have to second that mention. In fact, the earlier essays in the book are fantastic even for people who have never heard of Objectivism, that is, if they are open to the ideas. The essay mentioned here is particularly valuable to show how a person can be rationally selfish even with a job that is mainly about caring for another person even in the most extreme cases.

Two problems I noticed on her end: Thinking Rand suggested selfishness is natural. That would be psychological egoism, which is not supported by Rand. All people are, deep down, good people. This is not supported by Rand as is made clear that there are plenty of bad people in the world in her fiction works. Those misconceptions about Rand absolutely do lead to the conclusions she is arriving at. All I think you really can do is emphasize that Objectivist ethics advocates putting YOUR life first and then doing all the things that further YOUR interests. This means that your own interests aren't seen in a self-evident manner and that since some people have the choice to be bad people, acting against those who initiate force is proper, especially if some people attempt to use money in order to subjugate others.

It would be safe say the context of first concepts is different because you do not require previously formed concepts at that first level. Concretes are self-evident and through good ol' measurement omission, the percepts formed out of those concretes can then be used to form concepts. If you say ALL concepts must come from concepts, that would be blatant rationalism. At the very first level, concepts must be connected directly to percepts if they are to be objective.

Was the original wording with Peter Keating rather than Howard Roark some kind of Freudian slip?

Funny that you not only assumed the girl's character, but now you're assuming you know what she looks like.

I'm glad you posted this 2 months after I made this thread, as this is the sort of answer I was looking for. How, exactly, would those false items be disintegrated, though? The only thing I have come up with is writing down your thought process on a particular topic. Since psycho-epistemology is automatic, what should be involved is the closest thing to reveal any underlying subconscious thoughts, which is writing. This way, it is forcing yourself to analyze and take notice of what is happening. Certainly it will take a long time, but I suspect you could eventually reach the point where you will begin to recognize on an automatic level that you are having thoughts that should not be integrated.

There's barely enough to go on here to think this girl is an emotionalist. Now if this has been going for a long time, that's one thing, but that isn't the case here. I think what Khaight suggested is good advice (and I have nothing to add to his posts), everything else seems to be assuming a lot and almost psychologizing. People can make a mistake without it then labeling them as an emotionalist. A person's character cannot be judged upon a single action or mistake; character is someone's way of acting over a long period of time.

If they start early enough, yes. Genetics would really only apply to sports, but even then, remaining fit requires effort. There is also technique to take into consideration which can only be perfected with practice. Read my comment on volition in my previous post for why motivations or rules set by your family will not necessarily give you an advantage. And if it did give you an advantage, so what? Also, NFL players buying super-mansions may affect housing prices, but who do you think gets money for selling those houses? There is more to an economy than just the immediate and short-term buyer/seller relationship.

See, that's what I mean by not enough context. You can keep adding and adding until you're tired. The important thing to do is focus on some general principle when asking ethical questions, and in this case, all you really need to think about is the trader principle. Lying here would be a violation of rights to the extent that it would be fraud, since you are coercing the other person to act in a particular way that is not related to their own evaluation of reality. If the plumber does honestly think that $100,000 is a fine price, he has done nothing wrong.

There's no such thing as natural talent, as all talent is something you acquire through practice and training. In sports, a person must exercise and eat properly. Whether or not the football players are being paid an amount that you think is worth their value doesn't matter. It does not affect you. Life isn't fair, nor does it need to be. Still, due to volition, just because you happen to be born some place doesn't mean you will automatically succeed or fail in life.