jfortun

When you create this image of a beautiful woman in your head, an image you find arousing, are you consciously and specifically imagining that she is a capitialist and an egoist and so forth? If you were to see a stripper or someone who posed nude or a porn star and they had a terrific body and you were inclinded to use the image of that person in your head, would it not be possible to strip away thoughts of that real person's values and recreate them in your head? I have said that your fantasies will reflect your values but do they explicity and specifically reflect all of your values during fantasy?

The woman in your fantasy doesn't actually exist, you know that..right?

I accused you of rationalism because you are clearly attempting to deduce the values that sex/fantasy/masterbation provide from rather sparce commentary from Ms. Rand and Dr. Peikoff rather than inducing them from your own sensory experience and introspecting about your own values.

More rationalists posing as Objectivists. Certainly fantasy is a reflection of values. You'll note I did not say anything goes as I specificially excluded debased acts. But your assertion would mean that a fantasy figure used for masturbation would have to be fully consistant with reality- that is, it would would have to be a fully realized person with values, goals, history etc. It would not be moral to fantasize about a beautiful woman, oh no- she would have to be an objectivist as well. How ridiculous. If you are thinking about Objectivism while rubbing one out you have serious issues... Fantasy is a selective recreation of reality in the mind. The key word being selective. You fantasies will reflect your values- but it needn't reflect all of them simultaneously.

Nonsense. Fantasy is not reality. If, in a relationship one attempted to live according to such a dichotomy, then the point is obvious. We are not talking about a romantic relationship. We are talking about masturbation- a completely solitary activity (usually) and fantasy, something most of us don't confuse with reality. (and I am very familar with OPAR, thanks and with Dr. Peikoff's lecture on Love, SEx and Romance)

So for masturbation to be moral one must fantasize about a complete and fully realized human with their own values and so on? What about just envisioning a nice body, or hell, even nice body parts? As long as one does not drop the context of fantasy, how is this immoral? Specifically chosing to fantasize about something that is debased is a different matter and I can't (don't want to) argue that point. As for emotional pleasure- I think you need to explain a bit more. Certainly there is emotional pleasure from sex with a partner- a feeling of intimacy, togetherness, pride, etc. But masturbation?

The onus of proof is on you my friend. You keep asserting it but don't provide details. Also, is all sexual pleasure the same? A solo act is quite different than a team effort.

Technically an orgasm is felt in many more places than the genitals, but that is neither here nor there. If is not physicial pleasure than what is it? What is the goal of masturbation? You seem to be beating around that bush (ha ha ha).

This has descended into rationalism. The pleasure obtained through masturbation is the goal. The implied value is "I deserve pleasure". There is no negating of anything. Any fantasy employed while masturbating serves to enhance the pleasure; the fantasy is not the goal, but the tool. I am assuming you do occasionally masturbate- do you do it for some other reason than pleasure? For world peace? For the advancement of Objectivism? It is you who are dropping context- masturbation is not sex between two people and all that a romatic relationship involves- it is a solo activity that poses no risk of short term or long term damage physically or mentally, does not involve blanking out of reality, the denial of one's nature or any such nonsense.

Assuming that masturbation is not taking the place of a relationship (and even within the context of a relationship it doesn't need to), how is masturbating for the pleasure somehow indicative of poor values?

a few loaded questions: 1) Surely all human actions can be tied to one's values, but isn't it a psychological question as to how sex is tied specifically to self-esteem and not a philsophical one? 2) Assuming the bond exists, how is this bond different from the bond between any other action and a man's self esteem? 3) Is the link inviolate and involuntary? Is it possible to use sex for the achievement of different values than as an expression of or an attempt to gain self-esteem? If not, why is this one act, different from all other acts? 4) Is it immoral to enjoy the performance of a (non-porn) actor who chose his profession because he seeks to gain self-esteem and the adoration of others? 5) Is enjoying pornography as a couple different than using it as visual stimulation for masturbation? 6) Assuming masturbation is not replacing real sex or real relationships, what is its relation to self-esteem? 7) Is there a moral difference between professionally acted porn and amateur porn?

Anyone playing World of Warcraft? Wonderful game.

I finished the book and like OldGrayBob, believe the best value comes from the bibliography. It’s a shame that one has to turn to a work of fiction for such a fine collection of information That said, I was entertained and view the main character (I won't say protagonist) as necessarily wimpy and bumbling. Another character makes a very satisfactory arc and Kenner is kind of like Crichton’s John Galt- central but not the center. I won’t say more lest I spoil the book, but given the Crichton’s perspective on this issue I found State of Fear, just like Clancy’s Rainbow Six, quite cathartic.

Half-life. You play a physicicst who (in the initial game) is not running into a mess as a self-sacrifical hero, but is trying to escape a government created mess. You end up as a one-man army fighting against a government that sees its citizens as sacrificial lambs. In the second part (Half-Life 2) you are dumped into a totalitarian future where humans are controlled by the mysterious Benefactors (in the name of what's good for the species). I can't say anymore without giving away too much of the mystery. In HL2, understanding and using real world physics is key to being sucessful in the game. Teaming with those with common goals is also required but it is never handled in a self-sacrificial way. Much is left to be revealed about the plot (which will arc over 3 games) but so far so good. did I mention that the protagonist's name is Gordon FREEMAN?

For the record, show creators J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof have actually stated that everything on the show could actually happen, so while certain characters may view the island as having a supernatural nature, I don't believe the writers are taking it that way. I will keep watching to find out.

As a fan of Alias I have been watching Abram's new show, Lost from the beginning. It's taking some interesting turns, the latest of which is that they introduced a new character named "Rousseau". Hmmm... There is already a character named Locke. I wonder where this might be going.

I too saw this in Minority Report. Also note the the pro-gun stance in the movie. I have always found some of Kurosawa's work to be pro-individual. The Seven Samurai, Sanjuro, Yojimbo and especially High and Low. Some of his Shakespearen works (Ran and Throne of Blood) stray from this, by and large his films (and his mastery) are testimony to positive values.

If the exit polls were so flawed that they were unable to even tell us who would win the election, how are they able to tell us the why? Is all of the analysis stating Bush won because of a concern for "values" based on different exit polls? I have been look for an answer from the mainstream press but can't seem to find one.

Just to pile on: I was amazed at how quickly my first child (the second one is still under a year) was able to form and utilize an abstraction. He could see a real table, a picture of a table and a highly stylized (or crude) drawing of a table and properly indentify them all. Physical manipulation of the world is the only way a child can learn some of the fundementals Besty describes above. I believe it continues to be the best way for a child to grasp an abstract concept for the the first few years of life, but even within that timeframe the power of the human mind is such that the child can abstract well enough to not be hindered by real vs. photo vs. drawing.

This video was directed by Michael Gondry, the director of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as well as numerous music videos (including the White Stripes "lego" video). His style tends toward the hyperrealistic and I have always found his work to be creative with a better than average sense-of-life.

I have not seen the Incredibles yet, but I got the opposite impression from this review by Scott Holleran: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=incredibles.htm

I would agree. Powell is an apologist. While we are at it, get his son away from the FCC.

Does anyone have any good links, articles or analysis regarding Europe's economic health?

I too am dismayed that the religious right won so many elections and referendums. So now the hard part really starts: keeping Bush accountable to his own Doctrine and never letting him forget the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps not in his campaign, but his 20+ year voting record clearly indicates an anti-military, anti-self defense agenda. The Conservatives don't pain this picture, Kerry does.