Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Zeus

  1. Oh, I agree with this. I made this integration early on. I knew by the time I was 17 that I was far more attracted to women who were comfortable with abstraction; so, I vowed to marry a PhD (that was my way of concretizing the standard, the top-of-the-line). That hasn't yet come to pass, but over the years I've moved closer and closer to it. I've dated some really interesting and very intelligent women, and a few of them were more honest than I was - at the time. (I don't now believe that she has to have a PhD., but I only mentioned that to convey my state of mind at the time.) I rarely "got physical" without some fairly good reason for why I was doing it (good looks, very smart, good carriage, charm, vivacity, style, solid decision-making skills, etc.). But, there were exceptions though, some of which would be too vulgar to discuss here. Even those exceptions had some value, however -- even if only to broaden one's horizon in such a way as to be of value, in extraordinary contexts, to the woman I do settle down with. I realize that now, with the benefit of experience and hindsight. The difficulty in making these choices is in judging a woman's value to you in the context of your entire life. As a younger man with a subjectivist bent, I didn't have the sense of direction that I have now.
  2. Whoa, J. Megan.... I have no quarrel with what you've written here, if I understand you correctly. Still, I'll need some more context on what you mean by "rationally attractive" women. Please expatiate.
  3. You're doing it again: I wasn't "competing" with him. But, don't worry, you won't have this opportunity in future. This is a bit of rationalism here: I know many, many quiet men who are sharp with women. I would even say that you're more likely to succeed in this context the more quiet you are. I wouldn't necessarily lump "quiet" with "thinking" either: that's a package-deal. The truth is, there are individuals across many more personality types than many people realize.
  4. On this thread, it was obvious that my posts were not even about the topic of the thread: I never wrote about my own view of porn. What I did was to go after argive99's contradictions, which I had suspected for a while now, reading his posts. My posts were largely - essentially - about argive99's sanction of the TOC-Branden-Sciabarra types. In the course of that discussion, I wrote, in response to argive99's attempt to justify his hedonist take on sex as anti-rationalism, one or two sentences in allusion to my sexual history. This was done only as an objective exercise: the provision of evidence in support of my claims. My words were carefully-chosen and I did not dwell on sex qua sex. So, to now take the least essential aspect of my position on this thread and use it to summarize my contribution is a misrepresentation indeed. I don't know if you realize that your post reads that way, but it does. And I'm way beyond taking pride in being characterized as a playboy. And to top it off, you placed me side by side, in moral terms no less, with the person I was tackling. Do you see the problem with your post?
  5. I strongly resent this characterization; and if you had taken the trouble to read my posts properly, you wouldn't have made this snide remark. I demand an immediate retraction. I have already spoken to Felipe about his own earlier remark.
  6. Well, if you read my posts closely, you'd see that I am not so interested in "showing off" as trying to knock the modern-day "empiricist" argument that one can divorce the moral from the practical. There is nothing gratituitous about my posts, and by labelling them so, you are morally equating me with argive99, which is absurd. I don't know if you can see this issue from the standpoint I do, so perhaps there is a problem there. I only have one or two lines about sex, and they are merely allusions not descriptions. Do not sour the good faith I've held you in.
  7. No problem, Felipe. Always glad to be useful.
  8. Then why do you grant them sanction? There are many other respectable places where ideas opposed to Objectivism are raised. Why not go to these places? Why is it those who deny basic philosophic facts with the most brazen dishonesty that you bring here? those who denigrate Ayn Rand? Surely, if you know anything about fact and value, i.e. metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, in Objectivism, you must know that such behavior is despicable. This old expression is directly opposed to the Objectivist ethics at root: to keep one's enemies close is to grant them sanction. Responding to ideational contestants is a different matter. You cannot lump the two together into any subjectivist package-deal. it won't work here. If you know you are sincere, master the methodology thoroughly. Ask questions of leading Objectivist intellectuals and stay away from confirmed vermin. Anything else would be disingenuous.
  9. Well, I've never been in porn, but if that's what you do for a living.... You mean you've been familiar with Ayn Rand's work for a decade. Don't give yourself a label unless it fits. I have enough experience to know that anyone who hasn't pursued a long-term relationship in some way (even if just for a year), if such a path has been somewhat available, and is having a lot of sex, is dropping standards. It just can't be done otherwise. I've dated graduate degree holders with rather rational approaches to life and even they still ultimately revealed some trait that either made me catch a contradiction in my own behavior or see one in theirs. The truth is, one can't sleep with a large number of women without overlooking character flaws. It's impossible. I've never seen it done because it can't be done. I'm not even American. I'm black African, over 6 feet tall, and have lived on three continents, so you go and do the math. For everything you saw in Brazil, I'll double it. And I haven't been inactive in the States, mind you. But, this is neither here nor there. The fact is, bad company and bad ideas cannot be defended. There you go again. Rather than master the philosophy to its roots in epistemology, you delight in pointing out how rationalistic some young Objectivists can be and how the mainstream folks ain't bad. You tell me, when you were 20, did you know all that you now know sexually? If not, why attack these young people instead of benevolently advising them? I suspect that you may have great potential but you're trying to justify a life on the edge. That can be the only reason why the SOLO folks have any appeal.
  10. Absolutely! I don't do SOLO - I've got better things to do with my time. You are sooo wrong, you wouldn't even believe it. But, like I said, anyone who dines with the misguided will certainly lose his way.
  11. Since you've never dated an Objectivist woman, what evidence do you have that the scenario you have described above is truly the case? (And mind you, even with your list above, your sexual experience does not compare with mine. Very few men my age can. I am 31 and have only been in Objectivism for 5 years. I had "achieved notoriety" before returning to the proper human height.)
  12. You mean errors of knowledge. Good. This satisfies me. We must be careful not to grant the enemy any ground.
  13. This is precisely what I am talking about: you're quick to defend the indefensible. But quicker to cut down the best young Objectivists who are trying their best to act morally, even if they have to try-and-err before getting it right. Your venom is not for the enemies of reason but for it's most loyal, idealistic defenders. Is this moral? And Mount Olympus is a nice place, man. You ought to visit sometime! Ah, a conveniently obscure reference which cannot easily be verified. Very high scholarship, buddy. Perhaps, this is the SOLO standard?
  14. I don't have enough time to explain who is an Objectivist; but I know enough to say that you are not an Objectivist. So, if you're looking for some validation, there it is - or it isn't. You must know what I mean, that's the world you live in.
  15. And what errors were these? While you're at it, could you please define "error" and "perfection" in this context? Thanks.
  16. Where does he tell this "story"? Please provide evidence for this claim. I have noticed over time that you have a strong tendency to drag the Brandens or David Kelley or Chris Sciabarra or the SOLO scum onto this forum (via a link or a reference) while always extending some weak caveat that you disagree with all these sad types. Perhaps some problems with conscience and hedonism? Just a thought.
  17. Moose is right here. Racism, viewed in a certain context, is the attempt, even by a so-called scientific or academic racist (one who claims his racism is based on "the facts"), to take Aristotle's, Einstein's, or Newton's achievements and claim them for himself by attributing them to some factor that will allow him to do so: in this case, race. So, Moose's statement holds: the emphasis on ancestry is racism's essence. In other words, racism is a form of theft, because it is the attempt to confer upon oneself the glory for what one could never achieve. "White men" did not gather around Aristotle to say "do this, do that, write this, write that" when he came up with his marvellous ideas. Observe that a proper statement of the essence of racism does not put the non-white on the defensive, which is what simply saying "racism is the statement that people of some race are, by dint of their race, better able to... usually something cognitive" would do. That statement still leaves the onus of proof on the "minority" or "non-white." A proper understanding of racism, which as Moose writes and as Ayn Rand wrote in 'Racism" (see The Virtue of Selfishness), silences the racist - or anyone sympathetic to him - completely because it ensures that he evaluate himself as an individual, i.e., by the standard of reality. What has he himself accomplished? Note that this shuts the door of racial grandstanding to any unaccomplished wretch whose visceral hatred of Condoleeza Rice leads him to attack her based on race. He would now have to ask: "can I do what she's done?" Not, "can the blacks do what the whites have done?" Although I have not thoroughly read Moose's essay, another point that jumped to my attention was his claim that While David Odden's remarks are very useful still, I am tackling the issue from another angle. Now, Affirmative Action is Evil; every rational person wants its demise. In education, it does cause some imbalance, as demonstrated by the cases of deserving, sacrificed individuals that come before the court in this respect. However, I am not aware of whites being turned down for non-governmental jobs because a black was selected in their place. I have never seen it before. But it may very well be the case. What is more important is that the illusion is created that this is what is in fact going on. Thus, racial resentment and antagonism are heightened. What actually happens in societies where race is amplified is that individuals begin to identify more and more with "their" racial group and, thus, more and more of a vicious type of "nepotism" (for want of a better word) ensues until people eventually take to arms. For evidence, see Hitler's Germany and the Third World. So, Affirmative Action actually, overall, increases hiring for the "majority" group (in this case, whites) and decreases it for the "minorities" (non-whites), unless there is a skillset required (thanks to egoistic private employers) where race must be overlooked (observe Indian software engineers in America). Which is why Miss Rand uses the words she does at the end of her essay. She is telling her admirers, the most rational members of the majority population, to not allow the bitterness engendered by Affirmative Action engulf them.
  18. Well, while I abhor any kind of racial bean-counting, allow me to present this site, which will provide more context regarding a few "minority" individuals who overcame obstacles [intra-racial and inter-racial] to achieve great things.
  19. I mentioned Danneskjold because he didn't get caught. David Odden had alluded to Roark and Rearden, both ending up in court, as symbols of the consequence of breaking the law.
  20. But, there was also Ragnar Danneskjold. So, in his case, who was faking? The law-breakers, or the law-makers? The instances in which one may choose to break the law are contextual. I would break the law if my life - or my child's - depended on it. I do not think it wise to break just any law one disagrees with, but I do not consider it immoral to do so. I have no sympathy for immoral laws, their ratifiers, or their enforcers; as Ayn Rand wrote, pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent. Anyone who would condemn a creator for disobeying unjust laws is being immoral.
  21. My God, this was a joy to read. How long did it take you to write it, if I may ask?
  22. You don't understand the argument -- and are deducing from abstraction to abstraction. You'll be very embarrassed when/if you find out how utterly off-the-mark you are. Well, if Mr. Swig cares to answer you, fine. I don't appreciate your dishonest attitude and certainly won't sanction it.
  23. This is a load of crock. I have given you the essence of my argument (in regard to my use of "morality ends where a gun begins" against Oakes) in my post on the armed robber context. But you've, very conveniently, chosen to overlook it. Instead of facing facts, you're hoping you can bluff your way through this by asking me to do precisely what I had asked Oakes to do on the "Ending Islamic Immigration" thread. You callowly chose the wrong target - and the wrong approach. And I am not an altruist.
  24. In the way you and Oakes have prescribed it, yes, it does; and this is the fact of the case that cannot be wished away.
  • Create New...