jfortun
-
Posts
185 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jfortun
-
-
I'm glad we're in agreement. First on the list of "debased acts" is having sex with a woman regardless of her character.
The woman in your fantasy doesn't actually exist, you know that..right?
-
Fancy that, being accused of rationalism because I refuse to sexually please myself with a fantasy of anything less than the heroine I deserve. You just revealed more about yourself than I think you would've wished to. It's been a pleasure. Have fun selectively recreating a fantasy that is empty of values and ideas, one where "a beautiful woman" is sufficient. I'm done with this thread.
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.
-
I have already explained why it is: it dichotomizes the body from the mind. If you believe that sex is nothing more than physical, your philosophy is something other than Objectivism. I suggest reading Dr. Peikoff's discussion on sex in chapter nine ("Happiness") in OPAR.
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?
-
Masturbation is a form of sexual pleasure, sexual pleasure is of a specific nature, a nature consisting of congitive aspects. Sure, sexual pleasure is the goal, but what does "sexual pleasure" consist of?
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.
-
But your mistake is claiming that "the physical pleasure" is the goal. The pleasure consists of much more than just the feeling in your gentiles.
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.
-
Ah, "pure pleasure" disconnected from the mind, as if such a thing exists. Even something as simple as taking pleasure from the food you eat involves a value judgement. Thanksgiving, for example, is one of the most enjoyable eating events because we celebrate the value of productivity, the pride we take in being able to provide this bounty. The pleasure from the feast is directly tied to ideas.
As I said, though, all pleasures involve a physical aspect to it in varying degrees. Therefore, nothing stops men from trying to act solely on this "pure physical pleasure" you speak of. Try and fail, as their life will no doubt be hell by disregarding value judgements and acting solely for "physical pleasure."
Take, for example, the Big Mac junky. He's attempting to ignore the value judgement in the act of eating and instead living for the sake of that "pure physical pleasure." But what is actually happening? In acting solely for the "physical pleasure," the junky is making a value judgement, the value judgement that his life's not worth the effort of taking action to sustain and further it; no, only that elusive "pure physical pleasure" is worth acting for.
Sure, men try all the time to live is a disintegrated monster, but they fail, because man's identity is unchanging, and trying to act in contradiction to it will only destroy him.
Sexual pleasure is at the top of a hierarchy of values ordered by degree of complexity. The cognitive aspects of sexual pleasure are profound. Living life, as with the Big Mac junky, trying to base your actions for the sake of that "pure physical pleasure," while disregarding the profound value judgement involved, is a terribly sad life to live.
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:
-
Two things Bush needs to do right away, and both involve some serious house-cleaning. The needs to clean out Foggy Bottom and the CIA, both entities which have activily worked against him.
Powell definitely needs to go. I never jumped on his particular bandwagon. I didn't like him when he worked for Bush Sr. and, while I understood W's "need" of him when he was running the first time, I've always thought he was a huge mistake. It was Powell who convinced President Bush to waltz with the UN over Iraq.
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?
-
CNN and AP exit-polling both show that the most important issue with voters was (religious) moral values. Basically, Bush is moral, Kerry is not. It appears that Bush's popular victory has given him a moral mandate to continue his religious agenda. Witness, for example, the support for anti-gay marriage amendments in 11 states, Bush's very strong evangelical support, and the grass-roots movement to ban abortion, cloning, and stem-cell research. The question now is: How do we combat this mandate?
I think it is crucial that we do everything in our power to slow down the government funding of religion. This means that we actively oppose the Faith-Based Initiatives and ideas like school vouchers, which would forcibly transfer your money into the hands of religious education. Simultaneously, we of course need to promote Objectivism as a moral system that is superior to religion.
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.
-
Once again, I saw nothing in Kerry's campaign program that suggests appeasement, nor that he hates America. Such appears in the Conservative agenda to paint Kerry as a pacifist. Apparently, this strategy has worked and it helped get Bush re-elected.
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.
Porn - Why all the hate?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
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?