Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Zeus

Regulars
  • Posts

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zeus

  1. Attractive by a rationally-arrived-at standard, of course.  It is much the same as rational self-interest . . . not whatever you happen to think is in your self interest based on whatever whim enters into your head, but what is ACTUALLY in your self-interest and which you have rationally identified via a process of thought. 

    In evaluating women, it means identifying those traits that are ACTUALLY of value to you and then discovering some method for determining whether a woman has them or not.

    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. Indeed . . . and which women?  How do you rate "success" with women?  If you are a rational man, you rate success with the opposite sex by your attainment of women that you find rationally attractive in a manner appropriate to the situation.  If this amounts to a two-week relationship, fine and dandy.  I don't think simply attaining women that you DON'T find rationally attractive can be considered "success".

    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. I still think it's damned funny how you two were competing about who had conquered more women, and on how many continents  :)

    You're doing it again: I wasn't "competing" with him. But, don't worry, you won't have this opportunity in future.

    [...]

    Many people who get into philosophy come from the quiet, thinking type, and that type is rarely known for a propensity for large numbers of female conquests. Certainly they will bring that mindset with them to the philosophy, and Ayn Rand didn't really want to write much about this issue, pros and cons thereof.

    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. Zeus, I wasn't referring to you now as a playboy, only that you were one before. Do you disagree with that?

    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. Folks this is a really funny thread, especially the last two pages. Two playboys playing poker is one hilarious image - "I match your Brazilian orgy and raise you two American girls".

    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. This thread has gotten insane, I suggest you guys stop comparing the size of each other's you know what, grab onto a worthy topic and stick to it.  Gratuitous discussion of your sexual escapades adds nothing in philosophical substance to, and in fact devalues, this forum.  I ask you to knock it off.

    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. Great point.  Yes, of course, errors of knowledge.  I should know better than to be ambiguous with regard to that topic.  Thanks for pushing me for clarification.  I hate it when people use things like errors of knowledge as claims to immorality, especially when it involves our teacher.

    No problem, Felipe. Always glad to be useful.

  8. And the funny thing is that I don't like SoloHQ.

    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.

    There's an old experession, "keep your enemies close and your friends even closer." I think you get the point. Or maybe you don't, I dont know.

    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. This is probably something we shouldn't talk about on this forum, but unless you are a porno star yourself, I'd say the best you could hope for is a tie.

    Well, I've never been in porn, but if that's what you do for a living....

    I'm 30 and despite being an Objectivist for a decade, I have never pursued a true long term relationship for my own reasons.

    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 have lived in Japan and the Phillipines for two years. If you know anything about those countries then you'll know that having sex with two or three girls every night is relatively easy and inexpensive (especially if you're a decent looking American with money not to mention good looking). Not only that, I have lived in Brazil for eight months and vacation there frequently. Brazilian women are sexually insane. If you're not in shape, having sex with a Brazilian woman could be dangerous.

    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.

    This puritanical element to certain Objectivists view of sex bothers me. And I find that most ironically, it comes from the young. Older Objectivists that I have met at conferrences and seminars usually don't have any "hang-ups" with sex. And I'd remind everyone that Dagny Taggert herself had sex with three men in Atlas Shrugged. And that was the 50's. Imagine how scandelous that must have been. My point, Ayn Rand herself was not a prude. I don't think she would be so quick to dismiss someone based soley on their social life.

    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. But this is pointless. You're Zeus almighty! And one with such high standards of scholarship.

    Absolutely! I don't do SOLO - I've got better things to do with my time.

    Right, another role playing young Objectivist with a John Galt complex.

    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. [..]Well porn has given me these ideas. So to me it has contributed greatly to my sexuality and thus my enjoyment on this earth. If a girl wanted me to abandon that, I would resent her (and at this point in my life, I'd tell her to take a hike).

    This is my fear with Objectivist women and why I have not dated one. That I will suggest that she wear such and such an outfit and have sex with me in such and such position just like I saw in a porno film and then have her lecture me that I am "an immoral value betraying pervert" and not a true Objectivist.

    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. Errors which, as far as I can tell, weren't related to morality, but to the fact that no one is omniscient.  These include: misjudging the character of someone.  These are the only errors I refer to.

    By moral perfection I mean the act of consistently acting on principle.  This does not presuppose omniscience, but it does presuppose an immense capacity to keep your mind in focus.

    You mean errors of knowledge. Good.

    This satisfies me. We must be careful not to grant the enemy any ground.

  13. Or perhaps instead of dismissing them with the word "scum", I'd like arguments against their assertions. But you Mr. Zeus are so high and mighty living on Mt. Olympus and all that you can just fling a lightning bolt and lie back with a bear. It must be good to be you.

    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! :D

    And, oh by the way, its been a while since I heard it, but Peikoff's story either came from his radio show (which would be my first guess - during a segment called the "philosopher's couch") or from a Q and A of one of his lectures (I believe the Memories of Ayn Rand one).

    Ah, a conveniently obscure reference which cannot easily be verified. Very high scholarship, buddy. Perhaps, this is the SOLO standard?

  14. Sparked by other  threads, I want to ask in all seriousness: who is an Objectivist and who is not?

    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. Peikoff tells a story where someone in Ayn Rand's apartment one night said that they were interested in having sex with another person, but not a relationship. Ayn Rand basically said, "so there's nothing wrong with that." The young Peikoff was shocked but what he learned was that Rand knew that peoples lives existed in a context and romantic love was not possible to all people at all times. In a word, she was mature.

    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. :angry:

  16. Racism is the notion that one’s self-worth or the worth of one’s ideas is somehow connected to his/her ancestry.

    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

    In a world where Affirmative Action is the law of the land, many blacks are hired, not because they are the best qualified for the job, but precisely because of their ancestry. Whites are denied employment, not because they are unqualified, but because of their ancestry.

    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.

  17. Since Ragnar was in open defiance, I suppose his actions could come under the category of disobedience.

    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.

  18. Rand's two most influential novels contain trials scenes which explain what the point is. Laws have consequences, and faking reality is not rational.

    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.

  19. Wherever Eyes Of Lover

    Wherever eyes of lover gaze up into eyes

    of lover taking, all time's hours stop.

    And Falsehood's hands may cover no bare fact

    nor any modest innocense whip passion back,

    But he, lead chutist, soars freely

    down to rushing earth, to feign no more of fear

    And dream no more of Fate.

    [....]

    All over eyes of flowers the lover's eye devours,

    devours all Time's hours, devours Space and Light;

    And where Love's breath flows sighing

    the soul of Death goes dying,

    The Final Fate is flying,

    and burning Day is bright!

    My God, this was a joy to read.

    How long did it take you to write it, if I may ask?

  20. [...]

    Thus: looking at reality; and using reason; a certain ethics (selfishness/rational self-interest) is necessary; so as to inform how we should act in a social context; and how we should judge art.

    [...]

    Thus in order to determine (or derive) what is right one must first know what is good. What is good for an individual is right for him in society.

    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.

  21. The only thing history will bear witness to is your evasion of the issue and that you answer logical argument and rational questions with bomb throwing and personal attacks.

    [....]

    It is quickly becoming apparent however that rational discussion with you (on this issue at least) is not possible (this is my third try). I implore you, end the personal attacks and evasionary tactics and answer logical questions with principled argument.

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...