Eiuol

I may have thought you meant 'sexuality determines gender', though you seem to mean one's genitalia (their sex) then implies their gender. For me that sounds redundant, gender-identity is probably a better way to phrase the term 'gender' (and if that is precisely what gender is supposed to mean, then I just used the term incorrectly as I suspect). If you mean it that way, as I think you do, I'd still say 'sex does not determine gender'. I can elaborate further depending on your response to this.

I think I may have been confused on what you mean by 'sex determining gender'. Can you give a specific example, hypothetical or actual, of how it is true?

Of course it shouldn't be up to whim. Any transgendered person should have rational reasons to have a sex change operation. I would suspect many of those who are transgendered that have sex change operations do it for irrational reasons. Any elaboration on that point would be essentially what Jackethan posted. Your point seems to be just that one would be a "broken unit," and at this point I'm inclined to agree with that, but does that mean it is bad for an individual? Not always. Who really cares if they can't function as a male anymore, in the sense they can no longer fertilize eggs, the only characteristic that would defines a person as male? What would that even change, besides the single thing I already mentioned? I'm curious as to why you think sex determines gender (I don't agree).

Welcome. To expand on that, Objectivism is, first and foremost, a philosophy of living life. I find it disappointing that there are people out there who think they understand Objectivism merely by reading Atlas Shrugged. It takes a whole lot more effort and study than that. I hope you stick around and learn as much as you can. You may want to join the chat once and a while as well.

I'm sure it is cultural. If more men were in the fashion industry, I am sure there would be much better clothing choices for men out there. It is silly that fashion is viewed as something "feminine" and that the only males who get into fashion *design* are gay (or at least biased that way for a reason, as in, "it's really feminine"). Why would it be bad? Why should they? I think an androgynous look can be pretty cool, for example, even if it's not a style I'd like to wear. All that really matters is body shape and what values a person wants to be expressed in figuring out what would look good to wear. Recently I've begun to care about what clothing I wear, and the number one issue for me is a lack of color. Even women's clothing lacks color, but it's worse for male clothing. All I see is black and white and sometimes muted colors. I'm not speaking of just fancy clothing, but also casual clothing. Casual clothing need not be boring, but unfortunately, it is boring.

Given my knowledge of languages, Japanese is probably the most eloquent and precise of languages, certainly on the level of English. I would argue that Japanese may even be more precise. This is especially evident to me when discussing gifts or actions regarding for whose sake you are doing it. If the receiving of a particular action is oriented towards the self, the helping verb you use is kureru. An example would be "I got a present from my friend." If it is oriented towards another, you use ageru. An example of this "I gave my friend a present." Such verbs make one define and think about who is receiving the tangible benefits of an action in a more explicit way than English. A related thing is the word for 'we' in Japanese cannot be written without 'I'. In English, clearly you can write 'we' without even thinking about the word 'I'. In Japanese, the word for 'I' is 'watashi'; the word for 'we' is 'watashitachi'. This is nothing more than making a plural 'I', but notice that it is much more explicit in Japanese that a collective 'we' is simply multiple individuals.

This is very similar what happened to me, regarding the reaction anyway. I really do like her singing voice, her piano playing, and especially her outfits. That's why these are such a great videos in my opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CUYvWTd6oA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3R3KqrJAI4

I am uncertain if I am willing to call beauty a moral concept. But I would label it as something similar to moral concepts. Beauty is something that can only be evaluated. It does not exist as an attribute of something. Beauty is a judgment of a particular aesthetic in a positive way, whatever that aesthetic may be. A positive judgment would be to say that whatever is you are judging is something valuable in a visual way. It is valuing something about the object. I think this is where any disagreement occurs. Some seem to be suggesting that beauty is something more than just a value judgment, that beauty is is an attribute of some entity much like green is an attribute of leaves. I don't think about it in that way one bit. Establishing what is beautiful varies for whatever it is you are evaluating. Beauty in art is one thing, in people it is another. And in sunsets it is different still. No one can apply "principles of beauty" in the same way to all those categories. It is probably easiest to judge beauty in things not produced by humans: the things found in nature. Why *should* anyone care and value something unchosen about a person? It is in the nature of humans to have volition. One should make judgments about a person based on choices and nothing else. It is *only* in this way my idea of beauty is a "moral concept". To say something is beautiful, you are saying that object is a positive value. Just as one should not say something unchosen is immoral, neither can one say something unchosen is ugly. Even still, if a person is ugly by the standard I've made very clear, they are not necessarily immoral. Why should I value or not value something visual about a person if they never chose it? Why say any humans are beautiful? If something simply is beautiful or is not, I would rather say all people are ugly and tigers are beautiful. The reason I do not judge beauty in tigers the same way I judge beauty in people is because volition is part of the nature of humans.

I have to say, I had no idea what Inkling was at first. Now that I see the closeup, I absolutely love it. I'm sure it would be even better if I saw it in person.

The "meaning" one gets is entirely irrelevant to what art is. This is why I would buy a Mondrian piece but not call it art. I truly like balanced and calculated placement of color to produce a particular aesthetic effect. I can get emotional meaning from a rainstorm, but that does not mean a rainstorm is art. The question is, is there any meaning as far as a metaphysical value judgment is concerned? As I was trying to explain before, "abstract art" is too broad a term to use when you're questioning if certain pieces of work should be considered art. Kandinsky and Pollock are so different that I honestly hate categorizing them *both* as abstract art. If your point is simply that some people do get meaning out of the works of painters you mentioned, then I agree with you. I should re-read I think the 3rd essay where music is discussed, but I should be able to give an answer here. In music it is a recreation of reality as sound, emotion cannot be a part of reality that can be recreated. Emotion is only an aspect of reality to the extent that it is "felt". Emotions don't exist the way sound and light waves do, which both can be recreated. An emotion cannot be directly created, it entirely depends upon an evaluation of something. In art, this would mean an evaluation of something that had been recreated. Feeling or not feeling an emotion is not sufficient for something to be art, though. If Rand specifically claimed that emotions are the things being recreated in music, please point it out. Sandwiches as such, definitely not. This is assuming we're talking about things like two foot long subs, not sandwiches used as a medium for a sculpture. I do wonder if it could be possible to convey a metaphysical value judgment through taste, though.

By no means am I trying to suggest that it is a moral concept. I am suggesting that since choice is such an important and defining aspect of people that it ought to be the (only) way in which you judge if a person is beautiful. There is no choice involving sunsets, but the color seen is an important and defining aspects of sunsets; that color is what you'd use to judge if the sunset was beautiful or not. So even things without any ability to choose can be judged for beauty. I am not trying to redefine beauty as anything other than aesthetic quality. One's physical features are merely what you take into account when trying to "look good", as in, "beautiful". I think bluecherry's previous post explained well anything else I would have said in this post.

I certainly would say that beauty is the aesthetic evaluation of something. When it comes to actual people, I do not think physical features taken alone should be part of an objective evaluation of their beauty. I understand your point, but judging the beauty of people in art is different than the evaluation of beauty in real people. A clubfooted person may indeed be considered ugly in a piece of artwork, but that is only declaring such physical abnormality (since the examples you gave are actually not good for one's body) is not a good thing. It is declaring in some manner that it is not something one should want to have. It is not something to celebrate. In art, all aspects of a person are created, everything is up to choice. But as soon as something leaves the realm of choice, it should not be considered part of beauty when we are talking about people. To expand on that a little more, why should it be that what you happen to be born with should be taken into account of beauty? As you said, when judging a person's beauty, you take into account everything, but that doesn't mean each of those aspects must be used as something that is marked down on the "beautiful" or "ugly" column. I would think of the body you are born with like a blank canvas. It is what it is, neither ugly nor beautiful. It certainly affects what you put onto the canvas, but the canvas itself is not part of the judgment on the overall finished piece of artwork. You may not want to use watercolors on a typical canvas, though. The work can *become* ugly. This is only an analogy, so don't overanalyze what I am saying. Bottom line, one's physical features are neither ugly nor beautiful, they just are. But if one wants to be beautiful, they must realize what their body type/skin tone is before going out to buy clothes/etc.

I'd have to say yes, based on what I've said earlier. It would just be different than what you're used to. It would probably be difficult to look beautiful due to the extent of their physical disadvantages, though. Megan Fox isn't beautiful by default due to her genetically determined features, and I'm not exactly sure if I'd call her beautiful in the first place, at least not based on her physical features alone.

What I'm saying is that I don't think physical features that are determined by genetics should be taken into account in an objective judgment about a person's beauty. Physical features are not irrelevant though, since they can help determine what sorts of clothing to wear.

I agree that plastic surgery for reconstruction is entirely rational, since you are fixing damage to your body. I'm just not so sure if wanting to change the nose you were born with is a rational thing. If one's face isn't deformed due to disease or accident, I do not know what rational reason one would want to have a certain physical feature changed. It's not really the plastic surgery I have issue with, because I don't see any physical feature that ought to be considered necessarily ugly. But then again, isn't changing hair color the same thing, just less risky? That may suggest a contradiction in my thinking. I suppose I should say that having been born a certain way is perfectly fine. Cosmetic surgery is merely alteration like changing hair color, but that it alone won't make you beautiful. Do most people who get cosmetic surgery get it for rational reasons? Probably not.

To clarify, when I said I agree good looks are a rational value, I am *not* referring to physical features which are determined by genetics. Romance is good sure, but I don't see how this is relevant to the topic of good looks. I think that's a pretty bad analogy. IQ *could* have an impact on your ability to build particle accelerators (probably arguable, but that's offtopic). Physical features have literally no impact on anything you are capable of doing. Unfortunately, many people conform to a particular method of judgment for no other reason than most people do it. In this case, judging the quality of the physical features one possesses. There is no rational reason to value a person more or even differently because of their physical features. ( I expand more in this further down; if you're like me, you probably respond to only certain paragraphs at a time ). I would agree with the first things you've said, as all that is a matter of choice and declaring what about yourself (in a spiritual way, like art) that you like. That isn't to say it is a must have value to all people, just that it can be entirely rational. But would you suggest that having a certain kind of physical feature makes one good looking or beautiful? I see no usefulness in plastic surgery other than saying there is a *wrong* way for unchosen features to appear. Would you consider physical features as such, rather than how physical features relate to what goes well with your body type, add or create beauty?

This may be any reason for disagreement. One can be nihilistic and be neither egoistic nor altruistic. I would say a second-hander can be nihilistic or altruistic. If a person has no moral code, how could they possibly be altruistic?

This is why I wanted you to point out what you mean by abstract art. Kandinsky's paintings (and I would say what he made is art) are so different than Pollock's paintings (which I would say is not art) that I don't even think they can be categorized together. And even Mondrian is worth categorizing as something entirely different (but not as art) as well. I guess I should say that yes such things can be understood, but for it to be art it must convey a metaphysical value judgment of some kind. It must be able to be understood on that level, not just an understanding of "this is how it was made." Exactly, that *she* didn't know doesn't mean there is no possible way to identify a method.

I'm not even sure what you mean by abstract art. You should give examples of *particular* artists. Music still fits the definition Rand gave of art: a recreation of reality which conveys an artist's metaphysical value judgments. It absolutely concretizes an abstraction. Sound waves exist and can be sensed and therefore can be understood. I think Rand's point about music was that *she* didn't know the best way to measure and judge music. I wish she wrote more on aesthetic theory in general, though. I think you could suggest that if music is to be considered art, then certain types of abstract works should be considered art as well. At best all you're suggesting is abstract works should be given a better evaluation than most Objectivists provide.

Are you evaluating whether or not his work in general is art based on that one painting? I like some of the paintings, and I would say it is art on Rand's definition. 'Liking' has nothing to do with 'is' anyway. Is it Romantic Realism? No. But Romantic Realism isn't the only valid, only good piece of art. I would agree there isn't enough discussion about art. It is too important to ignore.

All altruists are second-handers, but I would not suggest all second-handers are altruistic. I think any disagreement here is due to definitions of altruism. I know any truly selfishly person must be rational, which implies not being second-handed. But I do not doubt some people try to live selfishly and fail because they need extra validation from external sources. Maybe it is best to leave them at having *no standard of value whatsoever*, nihilistic on some level. I don't think that means they are altruistic. It doesn't exactly parallel the discussion, but I would never suggest other egoist-type philosophers in history were altruists just because they were wrong on various other ethical principles. I think second-handedness is a result of morality as a standard in *society* rather than the person accepting the morality of altruism.

Good post, I agree that looking good is a rational value for any individual. I really don't buy that at all (or even suggesting pursued/pursuer applies to all romantic relationships), but I'll just look forward to when you write about that topic. Why should it be more important for either side to look better?

I'd suggest it is the concern of the welfare of others. Being empty of a self is not exactly altruist. Trying to fit in is something a person does to feel better about themselves. It's measuring yourself as compared to other people, but not necessarily concern with the welfare of others. I prefer to differentiate between a second-handed individual and an altruistic individual. True, conformity is not truly selfish (it is irrational), but one still could attempt to put their life as standard of value and fail because of a self-esteem that is dependent on how others see them. That is not about "caring" about anyone else, and easily can be narcissistic.

I think I would want more context. How old are the slaves? Do they have a chance of being free without running away? Things like that. However, you seem to suggest that slave B and C are rationalizing their inaction rather than making a rational evaluation of the situation. In that sense they would be immoral, because they're evading reality. I would not suggest the choice to remain a slave alone would make any of them immoral.

Yes, it's probably the only "true" statement he ever made. I believe he meant it in the sense that given the current state of affairs and ever increasing visibility of individuals, at some point, everyone will be famous for a little while. How that changes a person's desire to be famous, I don't know. I think the majority of what Warhol said and did was an exploitation of fame. He never gave serious answers to interviewers. I don't think he believed the things he said. But based on how people reacted to him, you can see how "worship" of the famous is often irrational. Make a stack of boxes, call it art, and people believe you. Make a picture of Marilyn Monroe funky colors and everybody wants it for no reason other than that it's Marilyn's face.