emanon

I agree 100% Never lower your standards. It would be a betrayal to yourself and your values Although, I do think people are missing the point talking about virginity really. It seems to me that virginity is the consequence/result of a lack of valuable partners rather than being some end in itself. To need to have casual sex can only come from two causes: A lack of valuable partners OR A lack of rational, hierarchical values I think you are all smart enough to understand the full implications of the separate subjects of that dichotomy. Don't prove this assumption about your intelligence wrong if you can help it. It is in your interests after all

I was thinking about this exact topic the other day. The only problem I faced was determining how the owners would charge the users for their road usage? There would have to be Zones controlled by each company rather than just individual roads or it will become a nightmare when it comes to smaller side roads. If you used an electronic toll system, it would mean that there would have to be a certain amount of co-operation between companies to ensure that you you could use one device for all the different roads. In fact, you'd have to have, at the minimum, a state-wide use of a single technology. Which would probably have to be operated by an independent company who then distributes the profits as appropriatet. Although, I can imagine quite feasibly that for us, the "consumers", we might simply receive a bill much the same as our phone bill at the end of each month.

Goodkind was were I got my introduction to Objectivism. I have the important Wizard's Rules tucked away in my memory for personal use. They didn't make me an Objectivist, however. I read them, and the later discovered that they were related to this philosophy called "Objectivism". I searched wikipedia and skimmed through the article on Rand's philosophy and didn't really take much from it. Having now read Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, VoS, part of OPAR etc I can say that it's no wonder the guys who come straight from Goodkind are Objectivists in their self-proclamations only. Goodkind hardly scratches the surface of what is a vast well of insight into the human condition and life in general. The only problems I do have with Goodkind's SoT series is that I felt some of the speeches Richard gave seemed possibly a little out of character. When Galt made his speech, it made perfect sense given the total context of the story. Every event had been in some way leading to Galt's speech. Not so much the case with Richard. Also, when you stop and think about the plot of each book... well lets just say it starts to get kind of repetitive after the sixth of seventh book. And according to Goodkind's website, there is a new Richard + Kahlan book to come.

This inspires images in my mind of you as some poor teacher whose spent the last 6 hours listening to kids whine and make a pain of themselves, and you've finally run out of patience. Anyway... The title of this thread does seem a bit troll-ish... "Butt slap"... I mean, you could, if you wanted, read that pseudo-sexually... In which case butt-slapping = molesting = bad. End of story.

Keep going! lol

Every man must live for himself, and as such must do what is necessary to support that life. If that means you need to work at a supermarket for a while, then so be it. However, if there is something you a really keen to do, even if it is a not-so-profitable industry such as Art, it would be good to remember that working at something completely unrelated doesn't mean you wont be able to continue improving your skills in the preferred area until you reach the point that it can become a sustainable occupation. For example, say you wanted to become a musician. Well, working as... a secretary/janitor/whatever... doesn't mean you can't come home and practice and generally keep working towards that outcome. You can still meet other musicians, take lessons etc etc. until you reach that cusp point where you have a choice as to you next move. To summarize, it doesn't matter so much what job you do at the moment, so long as you know where you want to go and keep working towards that ends as much as you can. Think of it like chess... Every move you make is ultimately towards checkmating the opposition, but you can't just jump straight to that end. Sometimes you have to take out a few pawns and bishops first. Surviving long enough to achieve your ends, is obviously important as well.

I think what you have just said is either incorrect, or only part of the whole. Perhaps it helps to use in inversion to understand this idea. ~ Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html So now lets look at Homosexuality based on those grounds. A person who is homosexual, just as with heterosexuals, presumably cannot choose whether or not upon seeing "suitable stimuli" they experience physical attraction. Thus, the attraction is not a choice, and thus, it cannot be considered an aspect of morality. The next step is how one acts upon that attraction. They can 1) Use force to gratify themselves. This is immoral. 2) They can achieve gratification by Consensual means from another adult fully able to understand the choice. This is Moral. - Note that "adult able to understand the choice" necessarily rules out minors and non-consensual means such as date-rape drugs. 3) They can choose not to act upon this attraction... Now point 3 is the area I think you were interested in. That is to say, whether or not it is immoral not to act on ones "nature", which in this situation I am going to interpret to mean "The experiencing of homosexual attractions". To answer this, I will once again turn to the words of Ayn Rand: ~ Ayn Rand.

Agreed.

There used to be a great website with a length FAQ section, but the site recently relaunched and seems to have lost a lot of the answers in the process http://www.atlassociety.org/Objectivism_explained It's a shame, it had scores of Questions and Answers... Maybe they will return with time?

Interestingly, the quote that just came up at the top gave me an answer worth considering: --Ayn Rand

I'm curious, because I found the way Rand wrote about Howard Roark's buildings and their design to mark them as art? Of course, I wasn't after anything like that. Just trying to make sure I'm not overlooking anything critical to my conception and creation of art music. Thanks - Chris

Hah. This made me laugh. --- Anyway, short answer is no, it's not moral to "steal votes" even if it is for the greater good. --- If this is your intent, maybe you should post your own answer and reasoning along with your question. "This is my question: _________. I think __________ because ______. Does my answer make sense in terms of the Objectivist philosophy?" I say this because at least it shows that you are making an attempt to formulate your OWN answers and using your own mind, rather than just asking other people to tell you what you should think. After all, using your own mind and reason is what O'ism is about... Letting other people think for you or give you answers which you don't then rigorously check yourself would be the antithesis. Just a thought.

I guess there was a secondary question implicit in what I asked which is: Can an artist represent what I'm going to call a "negative-value-aesthetic" without compromising the overall sense-of-life of the work? I'm thinking here about the Fountainhead and the way Rand dealt with the contradictory aesthetics in, for example Architecture. If I consider it, there was no instance in which, for example, Peter Keating's architectural values were given any worth, even by the characters who operated under them. Rather, she simply laid completely bare the premises on which it was built and let them effectively annihilate themselves. I'm trying to think how this would relate to (art) music. It is a tricky thing to do, because as Rand says, music is an art which effects directly the sense-of-life without the need for concretizations to first be understood as abstractions. Thanks for the thoughts. I'll need to give them careful consideration. - Chris

I think perhaps the difference in language is impairing our discussion slightly

Also, Thanks Maken, I appreciate your comment. I'm glad I could give you some food for thought

Hi Lasse, The Original Poster asked for ideas about the difference between FRIENDSHIP and LOVE... FROM AN OBJECTIVIST PERSPECTIVE Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work? Pretty much everything I said is straight from her mouth. I was presenting both sides as a way of demonstrating that the concept applies in either situation. My point was, that you must do what YOU need to do to achieve happiness and that only you can answer that. If you honestly have no desire for friendships and you can rationally conclude that not having friendships will make you happy, then that is the right course of action for you. It is the opposite of a psychological fraud. However, was I suggesting that even 999,999 out of 1 million might fit this category? No. I don't know how many, if any, can be categorized into that compartment, but it is conceivable that such a person has at some point existed. And remember that: "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." - Ayn Rand I use the word in the dictionary-sense of the word: "a strong positive emotion of regard and affection..." http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:love&sa=X&ei=_248TMjwJo2uvgOs5OWKDw&ved=0CCAQkAE Thus love is not romantic. Do you love your mother or father? Do you want to have a romantic or sexual relationship with either? Love does not necessitate sexual attraction and when I speak of it, I do not intend for it to encompass lust, attraction or any other synonym. Firstly, I draw your attention to "Healthy intimate, loving relationships". Secondly, yes a LUST/ATTRACTION is generally present from start. This physical reaction, however, is not sufficient to sustain any form of "Healthy intimate, loving relationship". I return here to the word "love" as defined as "A strong positive emotion of regard and affection" which you cannot experience for someone who has conflicting values to yours. Their values would drive them to actions you would thus find repulsive. You cannot have a good relationship with someone if you are completely ignorant of everything about them other than their physical appearance. Also, there is an assumption that you have made about what I wrote. I never said that the friendship had to be developed prior to the initiation of courting. It is quite normal, as I believe was your point, that a couple start dating before fully knowing each other. I don't think that any normal person considers from the very first date to be in a "Healthy, intimate, loving relationship" with the person they've only just met... Why is it off-topic. The Original Poster asked for ideas about the difference between FRIENDSHIP and LOVE... FROM AN OBJECTIVIST PERSPECTIVE. Is what I wrote not related to Friendship or Love in someway? I'm certain it is... What on earth are you talking about? You have just stated that Respect = Physical Attraction. To this I say you are utterly incorrect. They are separate concepts. I do not pickup a copy of playboy and say "I respect these women because they have a great body." The fact that I don't pick up playboy at all is beside the point lol "It is only those values which he regards or grows to regard as “important,” those which represent his implicit view of reality, that remain in a man’s subconscious and form his sense of life." - Ayn Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sense_of_life.html You are confusing opinions based on knowledge with values. You really need to clarify your understanding of the different terms Rand uses. Again, you are confusing VALUES with KNOWLEDGE and consequent opinions. "Values are the motivating power of man’s actions and a necessity of his survival, psychologically as well as physically." Have you read any Ayn Rand at all? Your response makes me think that you haven't, or that you don't understand the objectivist philosophy at all. - Chris

Hi, Okay, so I have been considering aesthetics, particularly in their relationship to music, but the concepts apply similarly to other arts in different ways. Let me take as an example example, one of Rand's better known criticisms from the Art of Fiction on James Joyce: "He is worse than Gertrude Stein. ...He uses words from different languages, makes up some words of his own, and calls that literature." (Taken from the internet, not from the book... I was being lazy.) So let me look at this in a Rand-like way. All art contains intrinsic values, it is unavoidable. Either they are put there by the artist intentionally, or unintentionally, but either way, they are present for better or for worse. Then, by this logic, the work of James Joyce, must represent certain values, albeit ones Ayn Rand considered negative. Correct? Now, lets consider that, for some reason, an author wants to portray the same values as those of James Joyce's works, would it not then make sense to use his techniques etc as a tool to express that value? For example, if one decides the value inherent in an artist's work is destruction, is it appropriate to use the same principal of that artist's work to portray destruction in your own work? (Presumably, destruction is, however, not the supreme value of the art work) The question is whether or not it is aesthetically appropriate to use the techniques or aesthetic results of negative values, as tools of value expression, albeit even if the purpose of using them is to allow their value to be conquered by another which the artist considers superior?

My theory as to why, is that with small things and especially with illegal downloads, it is easy to Blank Out the reality and meaning of what you are doing. It is very, very easy, for example, to just click download and completely ignore the reality of that action. Humanity is not becoming a collective group of four-year-olds but rather monkeys. Specifically, the one that was used to represent the proverb "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" which I believe must lose something in translation as I have been told it was intended to represent the totality of "Do no evil". To my mind, it represents the opposite, but that is another issue... Either way, this is the sort of humanity so many people seem to be content with. If they don't see, hear or talk about their crimes - namely, if they can blank them out - they can pretend to themselves and the world that they are still innocent. If I may quote John Galt's speech: All rights owing to Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged. Published 1957. ---- When it comes to download theft, I must confess that I am guilty to some degree, my reasoning is perhaps a little different. I may download something without paying for it out of curiosity... That is to say, so that I can determine if it is worth purchasing. For example, if I'm looking for new music, I may download an album and listen briefly to a few different tracks. If I find something I like enough that I think I'll want to hear it again, I'll buy it on iTunes. If I happen to get something free that is seriously worth something to me, I will normally endeavor to try and buy it at some future point. One thing that is weighing on my consciences a little is that I did not purchase either the audiobook for Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead (Both read superbly by Christopher Hurt) but was given a copy of them by a friend. If I ever see a copy of the audiobook - Christopher Hurt definitely deserves his cut of the royalties - in a bookstore (neither are on itunes!) I have promised myself I will buy them without hesitation. There are a few other similar cases, but I intend to pay for them in full. It is only by holding firmly to this intention that I can maintain respect for myself. Even still, I feel, perhaps not precisely guilt, but a debt to be paid. Anyway... I didn't think it was right to criticize without admitting my own hypocrisy.

When I first started reading Objectivist literature I at first came to a flawed conclusion that your (my) life should be me working as hard as I can to achieve my goals and that everything else was just a distraction really. What I came to understand not long later is that you happiness can come from different sources, and that three of the central concepts of Objectivism work in synergy and can be applied to pretty much anything in your life to determine its value. 1. What is, is 2. Man's highest moral purpose is the pursuit of his own happiness 3. Rationality Let me demonstrate: You want to achieve goal x, presumably because you think/feel it will make you happy... You first understand/accept that this sensation/craving is part of who you are. Then rationally, you check that it is not just an irrational whim, and thus validate it as a worthwhile goal. Therefore you pursue the goal, and achieve uncontradictory happiness. ... So lets look at the situation of friends... Firstly, depending on who you are - after all, people are necessarily different - you will either feel a need for friendship at whatever level or you wont. What is, is... You either experience the desire for friends or you don't. Either way, it "is". So for you, you determine that having friends is/isn't part of your pursuit towards happiness. Rationally you validate your motive for wanting (or not wanting) friends and determine whether or not your motives are rational or merely whims. If they are rational, you pursue friendship and achieve your own uncontradictory joy. ... Okay, a real friendship in my opinion is necessarily a form of love. From what I've observed, the majority of healthy intimate, loving relationships develop from a friendship of mutual respect and admiration. In sexually-available friends (of reciprocal sexual orientation) intimacy is a natural consequence. The next question which comes to mind for me, is whether or not a husband (assuming a hetrosexual relationship) can, for example, have female friends without risking the development of an affair? The answer I think is two-part: 1. To my mind, and from my interpretation of Dagny's relationships in Atlas Shrugged, a man or woman can have as many friends of the opposite sex as they like without dilemma, so long as rationally, their partner is the highest human abstraction of their values. If rationally this is not the case, then it is possible you are in a relationship with the wrong person. (Eg. Dagny with Hank compared to Dagny with Galt) 2. It is quite possible to lust after someone of the opposite sex regardless of whether you have respect etc for them, but this constitutes an "Irrational whim" Here you have to be careful in your understanding of values. There is a differences between values and opinions. It is quite possible for some to hold an opinion based on flawed knowledge. You can still be friends with that person provided their values are still the same as yours. Values, on the other hand, are something which, if contrary, will make it nearly impossible to achieve a genuine friendship. If they share your values, you will respect them. If they don't, it will be impossible for you to respect them (without compromising your own values) and thus, it will be impossible to have a genuine friendship with them. Does that answer your question with sufficient intelligibility?

Hello. Ciao. Bon Giorno. Namaste. Etc.

haha... Most of those quotes are simply trash. There are very few philosophers who provide "evidence" for the suppositions of their philosophy beyond thought experiments and deductive reasoning etc. Well to begin with, this premise is the basis of entire branches of Psychology... Well, I know that at least two of the main branches of psych therapy are based upon thought and the corollary emotional response (and vice versa). It wouldn't surprise me if they all were, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on all the fields of Therapy.

Ctrl Y: Perhaps you should give it a few days and then read it again with a fresh perspective and no expectations?

Nevermind, Knast said the same thing but far more eloquently. The only thing I'll add, because perhaps it will help is that the "theme" of Atlas Shrugged (as Rand mentions in "The Art of Fiction") is essentially the importance of rationality and everything she wrote was in some way to concertize that idea so that the reader can then understand the abstraction (as in 'concept') that is a rationality and the rational man.

Cool Topic. Why did it stop? If you want to love Beethoven, my advice is to go search out the "Herbet Von Karajan" (conductor) recordings of them. They are probably the best recordings you can get of them. Try listening to Symphony No. 7, Movement II (Allegretto) If you like Rach, I love this excerpt from the "Isle of the Dead" I love a lot of Bach Some Stravinsky (The Firebird suite is a gorgeous summation of the whole ballet) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FWq17CT6Cs Some Debussy & Ravel helps keep the Doctor away (A Ravel a day... lol) Prokofiev is Good Shostakovich wrote some great stuff Mahler had his good moments etc ---- As a young composer I am quite torn about this issue as a result of my musical education. If I'm completely honest, I find a significant amount of modern/post-modern music to be... Schizophrenic. And there is an attitude that surrounds so much contemporary classical music which is that trite formulation that "If you understand it, you don't need it explained and if you don't understand it, then no one can explain it to you." the other pervasive attitude is this idea that "You must do something new" which generally translates to "something neither you, or anyone else really understands the point of". The flip side of this coin is that I understand what modern composers have been trying to do intellectually. They understand that just as combinations of pitches produce a certain sensation/emotion, so too does Timbre (The sound of the instrument/note), whether or not the beginning and ending of phrases is predictable etc.... ie. Trying to expression Tension and Resolution (Conflict and Triumph over it) using different auditory faculties. Impressionistic music, which has some gorgeous music in it (but also some not-so gorgeous music) did a lot of this "blurring" and the effect is that if you can't cognitively predict the start of the next phrase/period etc then the part of your brain which tries to do this goes "to sleep" and you are left processing the music cognitively in a different manner. What I'd like to be able to do with my music eventually, is what a lot of composers, in my opinion, have failed to do... and that is to use all these various "effects" totally consciously and as an integrated part of the music to produce symbolically the values I am trying to express. That said, listen to the Firebird Suite. It is so joyfully triumphant and none of these newly developed techniques would possibly be able to improve it, only detract from it. It is a problem I find I think about everyday. How do I write music which isn't the work of a second hander (the analogy would be the work of Peter Keating in the Fountainhead) but also isn't this stupidly psuedo-intellectual foolery? When I work it out, I'll probably be ostracized by both the public who would rather more of the same, and composers who want the shocking and indefinably new. Oh well, that's their problem to deal with. lol - Chris

I've always felt this cynicism could go two way. Either he is actually cynical himself, or he is playing "devil's advocate" and assuming the cynicism of the average person so that he can point out how absurd their self loathing is. Also, you used "Well I wake up in the morning at 11:47..." as an example, but it never struck me that this was a cynical song because of what it develops into... The overall concept I took from it was effectively "Stop being a whiny moocher thinking that the life you want should just be handed to you. Look around you at the world, all the people whom were born by no fault of their own into third world nations and THEN tell me that you have a right to ask life to just be handed to you on a plate." Also, one of my favorites is his stand-up on "Tony the Fish" or Evolution vs. Religion. The conclusion he draws at the end is just superb. The way he constructs it is great. Enjoy!