Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

L.O. Gicalman

Regulars
  • Posts

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    Single
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Tennessee
  • Country
    United States
  • Biography/Intro
    I am an absolute Objectivist - I cannot compramise my values,i.e. reason, knwoledge, etc. I have studied objectivism for two years since the moment I discovered a video game entitled "BIOSHOCK". I have devoted my efforts in thoroughly comprehending Rand's philosophy and am the administrator of an Objectivist group at my school.
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Real Name
    Joseph Eddy

L.O. Gicalman's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. First thing's first - homosexuality is not identified or caused [explicitly] by any factors of the endocrine system, i.e., no hormonal influences can non-volitionally "decide" for the person if they have sex with the same gender, e.g., it cannot dictate any injunctive behaviour of giving anal pleasure or recieving anal pleasure. This is associated to the relation of the subject and their intamate partner, but is in no way a causation. I, for example, am a homosexual. I have very few "feminine" characteristics and rarefied "masculine" ones. I am my own individual. My masculinity is identified [by myself] and integrated by the metaphysical factors, i.e., I have the qualifications of a male reproductive organ. This in no way dictates that i will prefer women, or even men. Which brings me to a second point. I am not one to ever negate scientific endeavor. However, in the field of ethics, the cause of homosexuality being supposed as hormanal or environmental is fallacious in that the "researchers" have already decided in their minds that the cause is what they are researching. Now, I understand that there are other studies done in the field of this socialogical matter, but again, the topic of whether homosexuality is ethical or not is an entirely different science -which, Ayn Rand herself stated that ethics is a science in its own. Furthermore, there is an explicit distinction between homophilia, i.e., having a love for the seame sex; and homosexuality, i.e. initiating that love via a sexual action. As far as man is concerned, volition is a prime factor at this point. Does he (the homophile) choose to accept his feelings for the same sex, or does he ignore this and conform to the collective standards of his surroundings? What is the cause of his feelings for the same sex? Are they thereby valid feelings? The causation of homosexuality, I cannot begin to identify due to my ignorance of psychology. But, as far as ethics is concerned, his feelings are at the very least existential, and are not subordinated as a means to knowledge in this particular context. So, back to my very first staement. In regards to all that I have previously said, homosexuality is completely volitional. It is by choice. I choose to be a homosexual, yes. Do not misunderstand me though.... Homophilia is not volitional (at least not in any historical proof it's not). Having attraction and affection for the same sex is, I dare say, in all cases an inocent "intuition". An intuition is an effect of circumstance that is subconsciously calculated as reasonable and true, but frequently cannot be immediately identified, proven, or integrated with reality. So, as an example, (an ironic one) about a year ago, my parents many times forced me to go to [Christian] church with them, and the sermon that the pastor had was in objection to homosexuality. After the message was finished, my family and I started to leave. A very good looking young man around my age passed by and immediately I had an (animalistic) sexual attraction to him as the butterflies teemed throughout my very essancce in that tiny moment. Not his values but his physique. This intuition of apathy for the females around me ( and the fact that I hardly noticed their presence), and the concentration of predilection towards the young males around me as a demonstrative factor, I would say, is an example in case of my intuition that females were undesireable and males were desireable. This was not a choice. Neither was it an injunction learned or given by those in my environment telling me to have such a predilection. But, what I do, what the homophile does with his feelings IS of volition... Not to imply that doing something is wrong, For the choice of productive acheivement is one of the prime standards of Objectivism! Volition is by no means negative. If the homophile choses to fullfill his desire by having sex with another man, then he is a homosexual. I heard a primitive but effective analogy(from a gay, male aquaintence) to this subject, which goes like this: I feel that I need to have sex with men. This want is like the hunger for food. I can choose to not eat food and starve my self, or I can eat and sustain myself. I can lust for men and do nothing, thereby depraiving my mind, or I can initiate sexual intercourse, thereby sustaining my confidence and mind. I now come to this conclusion: It is logically unethical for a homosexual to NOT have sex and achieve his values (while sharing them with his partner). It is also unethical and Highly immoral for someone to initiate a force that hinders or stops the homosexual from achieving this, e.g., neo-conservative legallity dictating that homosexuality should be forbidden, or if one were negatively acted upon because they were a homosexual. Here is an excerpt of a comment I posted in a Facebook debate on this matter which I think should wrap my thoughts up nicely: NO ARGUMENT can lead to homosexuality being wrong. By its very nature, consentual homosexuality cannot be wrong (logically). Homosexuality is not wrong, and never will be. You will never find me at a gay parade. You will never find me trying to initiate a law that gives gays more rights than is necessary. Yes, the epicene and the rude homosexuals are of a disgusting behaviour, but, the stereotype that they are all like that is equally revolting. I say this with pure logic and experience: There is no argument against homosexuality that is without error. I am not saying that the gay paraders are right, thus contradicting myself. But, those against gays, are not only irrational, but seek mindsets as dictators. I can understand a heterosexual's disgust of gays, for I am disgusted by heterosexuality. We all have reasoning minds. We all have the potentiality to reason. We are all human beings. Gays are not equal because being different is fine. Gays are not equal because they are the same. They are equal because they are reasoning human beings. Some are flawed, yes. But who can you claim, regardless of orientation, has not one flaw? The religious call for us to reason and think rationally, but when it comes to the showdown....they won't be there. Of course religion is immaterial; however, sadly, the religious fools enjoy acting childish too much. They would rather you be unhappy than to be proven logically wrong. I say this: Any man who initiates force, vis a vis his religious opinon, upon another is bastard and a parasite to society. If you hinder a person from achieving a same-sex relationship or marrital status, you are less than a man. You are a slave to your irrationality and whims. And continue on by making everyone else a slave according to your subjctive errors.
  2. I have played BIOSHOCk since it came out. I've played it through about 3 or 4 times now. Just as a prelude to what I'm about to say: I suppose this will be boring and many times superfluous, but I feel that the context is important to where I'm coming from and to the purpose of honesty. I was an evangelical Christian for the majority of my life - very intellectual though. I only had one friend (who is still my only friend) for many years (since the 6th grade). In my freshman year of high school, my friend and I were almost parallel in our current studies of Biblical contradictions (which if not for that leap, I would not be here writing this). This to say that I was more "active-minded" in this point in my life, and continue one from there still. One day we were conversing about video games and he mentioned a new game (BIOSHOCK) that the next weekend I should get together with him and check it out. His reason was that I was well experienced in a variety of video game generes, and that I had an imperviance to "horror" themes, in which case, he wanted me to get throught the first level of BIOSHOCk be cause he was tacitly inexperienced and too frightened at the time. So I came over to his house that weekend and gave it a looksee. Blah blah blah, "new game", loading screen.... BAM!!!!! ANDREW RYAN!!!! "A city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small!" Such bold words struck me with an awe that changed my life forever. What was this man's method of reasoning that he is so "arrogant", yet, deep in my rational subconscious, I agreed with it all. I was not atheist at the time, but I did in fact revere them as more intelligent than I since I agnowledged that my thread of a belief in god was illogical. After playing throught to the second level - all the propoganda, all the diaries, all the dialogue, ALL THE ACTION! I went home and devoted about a weeks worth of study to where in the HELL these developers got their fundamentals for the plot to this fascinating work. After discovering the link from Andrew Ryan to Ayn Rand - after doing a small (but sufficient) amount of research on Objectivist philosophy... I came to the conclusion, or more so the discovery that the game developers had created something grander than they knew. BIOSHOCK is extremely close to perfection in desrcibing and expressing Objectivist premises. Now please don't misrepresent me. Of course the game designers made some flaws in the gameplay and plot, but... the presentation of human application and (ironicly) misrepresentation of correct ideal can play out. Now, I'm am going to presuppose that bu now you have played through the game because I honestly don't care about spoilers (for they are irrelevant) - here are my annotations on why my claims above or such in my perception: Rapture- the perfect utopia, with imperfect people. Rapture is objectively the ideal society. Based in rational thought, i.e. anti-mysticism, anti-altruism, pro-capitalism, pro-aesthetic freedom and appreciation. Andrew Ryan is obviously a man with amny ideal parallel to Objectivism. Rapture was perfect. What he created was perfect. But, by the volition of the inhabitance of the coty, that perfection was tainted. The awsome display of human achievement and technological advancement is proof to the fact that Rapture was the epidomy of (fictional) example of how objectivism affects societies, and what effects that brings. But just as a post script to that one point, what about Ryan's previous achievements, before Rapture. It was his philosophy that allowed him to be so successfull. yet another example of how the application is quite a rational means of survivng on earth wouldn't you say! Now, here's the deal - If you have not read any of Rand's works on compramising values, then I understand why you do not think BIOSHOCK is a pleasant example. But, it is not merited. I don't have much time so I'll give you my thought's in a nut shell for now and give further annotation later if nescessary. 1. Fontaine was a cynic. He was amoral. His irrational selfishness and application of such via force led to Rapture's despoil. His diregard for the ideals that kept the city in order were what inevitably led to him destroying any fuirther posibillity of leeching off of RYAN"S creation, because he was destroying it! 2. Ryan compramised his values. He did not follow his reason for the entire time. But with pardon - Fontain created a situation so that Ryan did not have many other choices. Ryan should have planned for men like him before-hand. Secondly, Ryan should have enforced law in a more effective and swift manner. His perfect usage of the term "parasite" was an important aspect that should not be taken on face value of its supposed "derogatory" nature. His incompetance to deal with the parasites led to his downfall. These bring me to these conclusions: BIOSHOCK displays both why Objectivism is so great and why it is important to not compramise your values - it shows perfectly well what happens if the irrational men, i.e. the parasites, take charge of society. Lastly, it displays a potential to analyze things in a deeper fashion - what is the effect of extremism? Is the extremism what is the actual problem? Are there different sources of a similar problem? Even if the developers where out to get Objectivism, BIOSHOCK did not allow me to be subverted to any lesser comprehension. It did not force the player into believing anything. If gives us reason to THINK. I learned tree things basically from it: 1. that extremism is not at all bad when you are a radical for logic and truth. 2. The demagogues of irrational collectives are a great danger that should not ever be underestimated. 3. When your values are metaphysically rational and are compramised, you get nasty results.
×
×
  • Create New...