jfortun

It boils down to this: Man's essential tool for survival is His reasoning mind. Man living qua man, means living by the full use of His rational faculty. It is the exercise of this faculty that makes Man heroic. Men and women are equally capable of exercising this faculty and equally capable of being heroic. If I grant that hero-worship plays a large role in romantic love and that hero worship is, as Ayn Rand puts it "an intense kind of admiration" then I don't see why this need be a one-way street. Miss Rand limits hero-worship to one object, masculinity, which, to my knowledge she never completely defines, but as Stephen points out she viewed as "the proper symbol of the species..." The question I have to ask myself is it the proper symbol and the only symbol worthy of hero-worship. Given that the essential element of Man's heroism is His rational mind I have to say no. Artistically speaking it may be easier to portray a heroic figure as a tall, strong and in command man, but in reality that figure it not any more heroic than a tired and hunched Marie Curie laboring in her basment on a scientific discovery. Put another way, the image of the Empire State Building may be more majestic, but the achievement of the English Channel Tunnel is no less heroic. I say the symbol of one's hero-worship comes down to one's values and perhaps, biological imperatives. As long as those values are rational, than the resulting emotion, romantic love, the response to one’s highest values in another, is fully proper.

I can't see this at all. But (though I doubt it wasMiss Rand's intention) I can almost see Francisco taking comfort in Galt's arms. I can more easiliy see Gayle Wynand taking comfort in Roark's arms. There were moments in the Fountainhead were that relationship seemed only one step removed from a romance.

I believe that you did.

I'm glad you went there first.

I watched the BBC mini-series Gorhmenghast and it left a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Still, ever the optimist, I did go out and buy the 3 books, thinking I would find that experience better but the first few chapters were so dense with description and adjectives that found myself a bored. It's on my "second chance" list, right next to Umberto Eco's The Island of the Day Before.

Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead take place in a discreet universes. If Howard Roark had existed in a world with John Galt and Fransisco, then perhaps Gail Wynand would not have been a friend as better alternatives existed. Perhaps in that same world Gail Wynand could have become a man whose actions and values were fully consistant and they would remain friends after all. As it is, I understand Roark's desire to have a friendship with someone who at least in part shares his values especially in world devoid of John Galt. There may be other ways in determining who was the better man, but I don't think rating their friendships is one of them. From a literary perspective, I find Howard Roark to be a more appealing personality than John Galt.

I think sexual experimentation between minors is one thing, but I can't shake the feeling that a long term romantic relationship between siblings would be unhealthy for both parties.

Parent-child is clearly wrong. Parents are trustees of their children's rights which means protecting the rights of a child and not violating them. I’m not sure what else needs to be said regarding this kind of incest. I don't know of any research but incest between siblings it would seem to guarantee psychological damage as well. If reproduction is the goal (or perhaps just because there is the potential) I think it is clearly immoral to take the risk of producing a child in circumstances where genetic abnormalities are common. I think incest between cousins is a grey area. I don't know what the science is about the potential risks (genetic or otherwise), but if the risks are low then I don't see a problem with it.

I have read the Diamond Age, Quicksilver and The Confusion. I never really got into Cyrptonomicon. He tends wander off a bit too frequently, as khaight indicated.

Brent, Growing up, my parents paid me for work that was outside the normal upkeep of the house. For example, my parents chose to burn wood to heat the house so while I did not get paid for cleaning my room, I did get paid for help cut down trees and split wood. I was paid a very very good wage for this work. This was great for me as a kid, but the result was that I always had however much money I wanted and it didn't teach me much about the value of a dollar. As a parent I believe that paying for clothing, food, even entertainment is part of the what I signed up for, but paying for everything isn't going to teach my children any money mangement skills. I think your example of giving a teenager a monthly spend makes some sense. I have a 4 year old and we have started giving him 2 dollars a week that he can choose how to spend (with a bit of guidence). For a 4 year old I think this is fine but as he grows older the issue becomes more complicated. I was wondering what other Objectivist parents think on the issue.

I suspect there are a few parents on the board and for them I have a question: How do you handle (if at all) allowance for your children? At what age do you start, what are the conditions of recieving allowance, do you guide their use of it?

I think this needs to be moved to a separate thread but I will comment anyway: Outward beauty has very little to do with inward beauty. I will agree that a person with self-esteem will prevent themselves from becoming a train-wreck, but that does not mean they seek a glamorous look. That's as far as the relationship between values and beauty go. I know far too many people (women and men) who look great on the outside but crumble when you break the surface. Except in extreme circumstances looking at someone will tell you virtually nothing about their values.

Every time I see a bad piece of science fiction I need to purge the memory by reading something good. Any recommendations? I am currently reading Edding's Belgariad based on Stephen's (I think) recommendation and am trying to track down local copies of the The Golden Age trilogy. Any other recommendations? I have read all the standards (Orson Scott Card, Tolkien, Herbert, Simmons, Asimov, Anthony) and am looking to branch out. Thanks! (also any worthwhile mystery recommendations would be appreciated)

No disrespect to Ayn Rand was intended but can someone explain to me how Ms. is less respectful than Miss? While it may have associations with the feminist movement the title originally was suggested by business writing organizations before it was coopted. The title itself is merely a feminine form of Mr.- that is it does not indicate marital status. "Miss" indicates a girl or an unmarried woman- Ayn Rand was neither; "Mrs." indicates a married woman but to my knowledge that title has never been used in assocation with her name. Grammatically, "Ms." is appropriate. Why let the feminists have their way with our words? Edited to add: If Ayn Rand expressed a preference for Miss I am happy to use it.

17.

First- I didn't think you were actually being patronizing, I was just giving you a hard time. I don't believe there is a dichotomy either, but I also don't believe that your set of qualities requires my set. Too many exceptions for that to prove true!

9 years. Been living together for 13. I wouldn't say that either thinks of each other as the "leader". In some areas I take a lead role and in others she takes the lead role. The fact is our shared values are such that we don't disagree very often on major issues. When we do, we have a rational conversation and come to a conclusion. No "leader" required. As far as our children are a concern (we have 2) we present a unified front- they see us as two leaders with like minds. You are certainly correct in that 2 cases do not prove the point, however I am not intersted in how most relationships work, but how a rational relationship should and could work. I believe there are more rational options than you or Capitalism Forever believe there to be.

No, but I would say it is representative of a rational relationship and isn't that the issue at hand? I had thought you were commenting on the (almost) necessity of a man taking the lead for a successful rational relationship. My mileage does vary. My wife and I have each made major decisions within our relationship and it has worked very well for us.

Ms. Rand makes some interesting (though short) comments on Mises' Human Action and Bureaucracy in the book Ayn Rand's Marginalia.

First, do you suppose this was the case in Ayn Rand's marriage? Second, bunkum. Where is the evidence for this?

Gosh, thanks for not being patronizing. This is where you lose me. Beauty, grace, loveliness and charm take second fiddle to intellect, wit and sense of life. For me at least. Protected from what?

That is a much different answer than "It must be the man." Which is where this dicussion seemed to be going.

It would actually be both.

You could also make a concrete example of your point by asking them disprove all sorts of arbitrary assertions you create on the spot. Point out that the pixie always sitting on your shoulder has the same epistemilogical status as their god. If they indicate that the pixie might be actually be there, then walk away.

This just isn't a complete enough answer for me. Looking up to my wife as an extremely competent parent fills me with romantic desire. It is true that being looked up at by my wife for being a good provider is also personally romantically fullfilling, but this door is clearly swinging both ways. I will grant than perhaps in general men and women seek to be looked up to for different reasons, but I think each sex desires both admiration and someone to admire. In short I still don't see how this is essential to masculine or feminine identity- it seems only essential to the identity of a rational individual.