Capitalism Forever

You mean the "worms" which crawl into your computer while you are connected to the Internet? Of course they are a violation. While technically they are different from viruses, morally they are the same.

Funny, I don't want a man, any man, but I know why. There are many men I find handsome; I can imagine being petted by a man, and I know that if I discarded my value-judgments on this matter, I would even enjoy it. (As we know, emotions are a reflection of one's value-judgments; if I removed my negative value-judgments with regard to being petted by a man, my revulsion would go away, but the sensual pleasure would stay--that is, I would enjoy it.) However, after enough petting, one would want to get more intimate--and then I would find that I and that other man do not have compatible body parts. It would be impossible to do with him that which I can do with a woman. I know there are substitutes for it--but the REAL thing would be impossible. Dating a girl will not in itself help you become straight, I can guarantee you that. You need to look at your value-judgments and see which of them is rational and which of them is not. (And I do not mean just the ones regarding sexual behavior, but also the ones regarding men and women in general ... And while you're at it, it's a good idea to periodically revisit all your value-judgments, regarding all aspects of life, and place them on a rational basis!) Another important thing to note is that a romantic relationship can only be REALLY satisfying if you love the body as well as the mind of your chosen one--if you think she is the best woman you can marry, in all possible ways. Contradictions are not conducive to happiness; caressing, kissing, and the higher forms of intimacy are an expression of love ; therefore, they only make sense if you indeed love (i.e. value) the person in question.

A man who earns much less than his wife, lives in a house owned by her, drives a car paid for by her money, etc., is a miserable failure and can never really be proud of himself, as to live qua man involves the creation of wealth--material wealth--and by accepting wealth he hasn't earned, he admits that he is incapable of creating wealth himself. On the other hand, a woman who needs to buy herself a husband is also a failure, as she admits that she is incapable of winning a man's admiration qua woman--i.e. by being beautiful and lovely. But if both the wife and husband are billionaires--remember, we are talking about ideal cases--then it doesn't matter much which of them has more billions; they are both successful. In summary, I would say that if a woman marries a man for his money, that means success for both, but if a man marries a woman for her money, that means failure for both.

Hah, I caused quite a stir with my "sexist" remarks, didn't I! There seems to be a strong and widespread conviction that "sexism" is something irrational. But what exactly is the meaning of this "sexism" that I am being accused of here? It is the recoginition of the fact that men and women have different natures, and that consequently the life of an ideal man will in some ways be different from the life of an ideal woman. Where IS the irrationality here? Where AM I not being objective? Yes, the notion that "sexism" is an irrational relic of the Victorian age has gained a lot of influence in the 20th century (in America, apparently even more than in Hungary). But that notion certainly didn't come from Ayn Rand---it came from the feminists ! The fact that some angry, embittered women stridently proclaim that an idea is irrational doesn't make that idea irrational. Just like we shouldn't reject capitalism because "it exploits the poor" ; just like we shouldn't surrender to terrorists for fear of being "intolerant," we shouldn't tell women to deny their natures and be like men for fear of being "sexist." And, while I hate to disagree with Ash, especially when he's defending me, I also reject the notion of separating "gender" from "sex." Just like your mind and your body are inseparable aspects of the same thing--you--and ought to act harmoniously, your bodily identity (sex) ought to mesh with your mental identity (gender). The body of a woman is delicate; its attraction is its beauty; it requires protection and care; it invites decoration--therefore, a woman will long for a man to protect her, to appreciate her beauty, to buy her clothes and jewels...and so on. Now try to read the last sentence substituting "man" for "woman" and vice versa. I suppose one of the reasons why the feminist rhetoric has been successful is the insinuation that in the "sexist" view, femininity equals submission. My mention of "The Reagans" seems to have flown right past my friend Capleton's consciousness. You must have heard of that controversial miniseries, but in case you haven't, it's a smear of the Reagan presidency based on the invented "fact" that for 8 years the policy of the United States was shaped by the whims of a woman whom her husband needed so much that he unquestioningly submitted to her every command. A romantic relationship between a man and a woman is a trade, where the man gives the woman something she needs and the woman gives the man something he needs. Trading is not about submission; it's about giving value for value. When the woman finds that her man is no good, she can--and she should--leave him. Finally, let me tell you that while I definitely accept the possibility that Ayn Rand could have been mistaken on a number of minor points that are not essential to her philosophy, I think we can safely rule out the idea that she was fundamentally in error regarding a woman's nature--i.e. her own nature. As a man, I am perfectly capable of determining what kind of a life I find proper for myself, and as it happens, I'm in complete agreement with what Miss Rand wrote on living qua man. From my experiences, I have induced what it means to live qua woman--and, by some strange coincidence, in this regard too I agree with Miss Rand.

They have different minds to the extent that they have different bodies. You get your sense of identity from the signals your body delivers to you via your nervous system; it is from these signals that you induce who you are and what kind of life is proper for you. Since the body of a man is partly different from the body of a woman--in fundamental ways--some of these signals will be different for the two sexes, in fundamental ways. And thus, the ideas about a proper life will be different too. As you see, there are no "innate ideas" involved, but still, there are some inevitable differences between men and women with regard to their sense of identity, which are consequences of their bodily differences. I haven't given that much thought, but one thing I can tell you for sure is that I would very much hate to see any woman named Hillary become POTUS in the near future! On a more serious note, I think it's perfectly OK for a woman to be a moral leader, but I have some doubts about how well a woman would do as a commander. Perhaps this is why I find it so natural to imagine a woman as Prime Minister of Great Britain (or the Queen of the same country), but not as the President of the United States. (You will say that this has to do with the concrete examples I have seen in my life and in history books, but I do encourage you to try to grasp the difference between the concept of a moral leader and that of a commander.) Look, I'm not much of a movie guy myself, but don't tell me you haven't heard of "The Reagans" ! Not that I actually believe that President Reagan was "totally under Nancy's control." I think their marriage was actually a rather good example of what the relationship between a man and a woman should be like: they have a common philosophy; they have common goals in life; they work together to achieve them, with the woman encouraging the man with her love and inspiring him with her beauty, and the man protecting the woman and sharing the fruits of his achievements with her. When the woman delivers her part of the deal, she is acting as a "subordinate" of the man; when the man delivers his part, he is a "subordinate" of the woman. Just like your mechanic is your subordinate when he fixes your car, but you are his subordinate when you pay for his services. If sometime you re-watch "The Spy Who Loved Me," you'll get quite a good impression of what I think a perfect romantic relationship is like. Imagining away all the other women Bond sleeps with, that is! And, as it should go without saying, also imagining away the fact that the KGB is an evil agency that is often portrayed in a way too positive light in Bond movies. If you simply substitute two rival capitalist companies for the MI6 and the KGB, you'll be able to appreciate the excitement of the extra amount of "barrier breaking" that the plot adds to the romance.

Matt, I believe the fundamental error you are making is that you don't account for the different natures of men and women. The two sexes have different bodies (to a certain extent) and also different minds (to a certain extent). An ideal man lives qua man; an ideal woman lives qua woman. If I were to sum up the difference in a nutshell, I would say that the primary difference is that masculinity means strength, while femininity means beauty. You will note that this is very much in direct correspondence with the physical differences between the sexes. (Not that a woman ought to have a very weak body, of course--and she very certainly needs moral strength--nor should a man be ugly.) If you think I am sexist, consider some of Ayn Rand's ideas regarding this matter. In her "infamous" essay "About a Woman President," she wrote: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero worship--the desire to look up to man." (Come to think of it, Ayn Rand's entire philosophy grew out of hero worship, didn't it?) Also consider the character of The Golden One in Anthem. It is something even I considered a bit over the line--me, your resident sexist on the Objectivism Online Forum! If it had been up to me, I would have made her at least read some of the books together with her man in that house from the Unmentionable Times! One interesting way of approaching the matter is to consider the various Bond girls and pick the one you like best. Is it Miss Goodnight from The Man With the Golden Gun, the dumb blonde who adores Bond but just gets into the way when they're chasing the bad guys? Or is it one of those modern Bond "girls" who seek to prove with their every action that they're at least as man as Bond is? My favorite is definitely Agent Triple X, from The Spy Who Loved Me: she is immaculately beautiful and at the same time an excellent agent; she knows how to tease a man--she's a woman who deserves the admiration of a man in every possible way, and knows what kind of a man to admire. "Nobody does it better ... baby, you're the best!"

You should emigrate to a place where you can get a better job as soon as possible, Gabriel. Resolve to do this, and act every day to achieve it. When you do that, it'll be much easier to survive your days in your current job, because you will know that there is a better future awaiting you, and you're getting closer and closer to it day by day. It might help to sing some optimistic and inspiring songs to yourself from time to time. For example:

I am surprised by the lack of moral clarity on this thread. "Heterosexuality might be a bit better because you can have children" is about the farthest anyone dared to go in making a rational value-judgment with regard to heterosexuality versus homosexuality. (Do I sense an influence of the "non-judgmentalist" rhetoric here?) Compare this with the following unequivocal statement from Ayn Rand during a Q&A in 1971: (from http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.5) It is perhaps because the homosexual lobby was not yet so aggressive in her time that Miss Rand never took the time to elaborate on those "psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises." But now that it is (the lobby, aggressive), the matter deserves some thought. The following is what I posted on another forum: "Human sexual behavior is influenced by a number of needs: the need for love and friendship, the need for tenderness, the need for the excitement of discovery, the need for self-respect--and, of course, the need for sexual satisfaction. (Is there anything I left out?) The more of these needs a relationship can satisfy, the more complete the experience is. And a rational person will not settle for anything but the best possible choice. You could satisfy one or two of the needs to some extent by buying Playboy magazine or visiting a whorehouse--but you agree, don't you, that it's a rather poor substitute for the real thing. A homosexual relationship might also satisfy one or two of the needs to some extent--but can it ever be the real thing? Let's see: Love & friendship: No problem with that, it is perfectly possible for people of the same sex to be best friends. Sexual satisfaction: Don't ask me, I never tried it. :-) But I suppose it must be possible, otherwise people wouldn't do it. Tenderness: This is where the problems start. There is a difference between petting and being petted. When somebody pets his child or his dog, or when a husband pets his wife, it means: "I love you and I appreciate you for being the way you are. I care for your well-being." When the child or wife pets back, it essentially means: "Thank you." In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real. Excitement of discovery: In a heterosexual relationship, you discover what the mind and body of a person of the other sex is like. As a homosexual, you will only encounter a mind and body similar to yours. You completely forgo the experience of learning to know the secrets of the other sex. Self-respect: A self-respecting person will strive to earn the love of another by being as attractive as possible, spiritually as well as physically. If you happen to be a woman, this means being beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way. If you are a man, it means being strong, brave, resolute, and handsome in a manly way. Trying to defy the reality of your sex and attempting to put a man into a woman's body, or a woman into a man's body, is bound to turn you into a pitiable creature that is neither attractive as a man nor as a woman. Is there anything I left out? Yes, there is. A heterosexual relationship has to offer something tremendously exciting and satisfying that I still haven't covered. There is a barrier you have to break through when building a relationship with a person of the other sex. It is easy for a man to become friends with a man; it is easy, if both are so inclined, for them to become intimate. They know each other; they're buddies; they have similar interests, similar ways of thinking, similar bodies; it is easy for one to predict whether the other will accept or reject an offer--once they see that both are interested in a relationship and don't mind if it's homosexual, they can simply just go ahead. No barrier there. But if a man wants to have a relationship with a woman, he has to face the challenge of dealing with someone different from himself; he has to overcome her resistance; he has to brave the possibility of being rejected; he has to have the self-confidence to try again despite having been rejected before. This is a formidable challenge, a tough barrier--and it requires courage to break it through. Homosexuality is a coward's way out."

Yeah--he thinks one should be "self-interested" but "also consider the social context" etc. Typical liberal obfuscation. His trichotomy of "selfless" (bad) / "self-interested" (good) / "too selfish" (bad) is also a cunning trick to negate the Objectivist approach. (Either that, or he simply doesn't get it.) Objectivism recognizes that being dishonest is self-destructive, and therefore the pursuit of honor is a selfish act, so there is no trichotomy, just a dichotomy between rational self-interest and the lack thereof. King's trichotomy implies that you forgo something by being honest, and as all such "you must forgo this-n-that" philosophies, has the effect of making people secretly wish to get that which they forgo by their "moral" behavior. The results of such suppressed secret wishes can be disastrous.

I think it is very important to evaluate the kind of person we are dealing with. Evil often puts on an appearance of good in order to lure unsuspecting people to itself. Remember that "liberalism" used to be a positive term in the 18th century; it meant the love of liberty. But by now it has been completely hijacked and perverted by people who appear to care for liberty but in fact hate it and want to destroy it. We wouldn't want the same to happen to Objectivism. The need for a government to protect the rights of individuals is an inexorable derivative of Ayn Rand's basic philosophical tenets, and the derivation can be found in OPAR and in Ayn Rand's works. King's entire case for anarchism is based on the assertion that the establishment of government necessarily involves the initiation of force against innocents. The premise underlying this assertion is that a number of innocent (i.e. moral, rational) people will necessarily be against the proposed government, even if the proposed government is one that will fully respect and protect the rights of all innocent individuals. I hope I needn't elaborate on why this is an utterly cynical contradiction. He wants to "escape" from them. As I see it, that term pretty much implies condemnation. But if that isn't evidence enough, consider that this "escape" is an essential part of what he calls "shrugging." In AS, that term refers to getting rid of the parasites who immorally drain you and live off you!

I'm curious to see which of his arguments you found stimulating. If the passages you post are ones where he agrees with Objectivism (= Ayn Rand's philosophy), expect me to just say that I don't disagree with those. OTOH, if you post his punkish rantings, I and my fellow posters will rip them to shreds within minutes. ("Minutes" not to be taken literally, of course.)

You mean I completely misunderstood Chapter 13? King has no problem with investors who lend people money to buy a home and charge interest for it? He doesn't advocate living in an automobile just to "escape from the moneylenders" ? He doesn't think that the wisest way to invest your earnings is to "acquire a lifetime supply of" socks and cans of beans etc. ? IF Chapter 13 was written in English, then King DOES believe and advocate all these things. And I don't think he defines a whole new language in the previous chapters that looks just like English but has a different meaning. Again, what possible context can the following quote from Chapter 6 be interpreted in as anything but anarchism? (emphasis mine) These are King's own words; he isn't quoting anyone in disapproval. He thinks that terrorism and government are identical. So EITHER he thinks that government is just as evil as terrorism, and therefore he thinks government is evil, and is therefore an anarchist--OR he doesn't think terrorism is evil, and is therefore an anarchist. A little below the previous sentence is the following paragraph, which is again King's own words: Government is an impediment; anarchism is a "dream"--something you yearn for--and it isn't utopian. Again, what context can there possibly be that makes the author of such a paragraph a non-anarchist?

I think it's always a good idea to keep your theory closely tied to your practice, so I would have them in Ethics and Aesthetics. When we discuss films etc., we judge them by the standard of the moral perspective they present (as did Ayn Rand)--so these threads have both an ethical and an aesthetic element in them. Besides, when people look for discussion of artistic works, I suppose they will look under "Aesthetics," won't they!

I don't think I need to read all of Mein Kampf before I start criticizing Hitler's ideology. I read parts of the book out of curiosity though, and what I read confirmed the conclusions I had arrived at after seeing the front page. The author is an anarchist who agrees with certain portions of Ayn Rand's philosophy and disagrees with others--and calls his, rather than Ayn Rand's, philosophy Objectivism. In other words, he attempts to steal the name "Objectivism." Chapter 13 is the most revealing one. The author himself admits that Ayn Rand never advocated the kind of "shrugging" he wants us to do. Miss Rand called her novel Atlas Shrugged for a reason: you need to become an Atlas before you can do an "Atlas Shrugged" on anyone. Nobody cares much when an insignificant person "shrugs" by adopting an "alternative lifestyle." "Shrugging" only makes sense when they need you more than you need them. In Atlas Shrugged, the idea is to obtain the full plenitude of our freedom to make money by taking the lack of it to its logical conclusion. In Chapter 13 of this anarchist's book, the idea is "let's all be poor together." In addition to seeing my initial conclusions confirmed, from Chapter 13 I obtained new information about the author's ideology: not only is he an anarchist, he's also an environmentalist and someone who condemns the "moneylenders" for allowing people to borrow money for buying a home! Some Objectivist.

We've already had a thread on this: Greens vs Humanity (It's still in the Metaphysics forum ... I suppose GC will move it sometime.)

Yes, but that does not detract from the fact that the guy is an anarchist libertarian tolerationist pseudo-objectivist. Need I continue?

Those guys are not Atlas Shrugged readers, and there are far fewer than 5 million of them.

I would say that a temporary forum is better than no forum--so I'm glad you decided to put it live now.

I would say that a temporary forum is better than no forum--so I'm glad you decided to put it live now.

I think what we're lacking here is a definition of the term "deduce." For the purposes of Godel's theorem, it means applying a set of deduction rules to a set of formalized premises (called "axioms") to yield other formalized statements that are logical consequences of the premises. For example, you could formalize the premises in my earlier example (1, "John is a friend of mine" 2, "I don't have any Canadian friends") somehow like this: John element-of Friends not (exists f such that f element-of Canadians and f element-of Friends) Then you (or a computer program, or an assistant you've hired) could take these formalized premises and follow a list of instructions which are the rules of deduction. This process would result in a number of formalized statements, such as: John not-element-of Canadians For every resulting statement, you can be certain that it is implied in the premises (provided that no error was made while you followed the rules of deduction). This, and only this, is the process we call deduction when discussing Godel's theorem: a foolproof, completely automatable way of finding out whether a proposition is implied in a set of premises. Essentially, it is the sort of thing mathematicians do when they say they prove things. Now, one might wonder, after we have followed the rules of deduction and listed all the statements those rules told us to list, do we know that we have listed all statements that are implied in the premises? Godel proved that, if the premises ("axioms") are sophisticated enough to allow self-referential statements, as well as statements that reference the set of statements that can be deduced from the axioms using the rules of deduction, and if the axioms don't contradict themselves, then we know that we have not listed all implied statements. Objectivism's EIC axioms are not formalized statements from which you (or a computer, or assistant) deduce things by following predefined instructions. They are simply a statement of common sense; a concise summary of the basis of objectivism, which is the rejection of mysticism, skepticism, determinism, materialism, the primacy of consciousness, and all the other irrational approaches to life.

That's right; moreover, even if Godel's theorem applied and all knowledge were decuded from those axioms, all that knowledge would still be perfectly valid. Godel's theorem only means that omniscience (knowing everything) would be impossible--but of course omniscience is impossible anyway.

You deduce things from axioms (or, more generally, from premises). For example, given the two premises: John is a friend of mine. I don't have any Canadian friends. you can deduce that John is not Canadian. Clearly, we don't form all our knowledge by taking the three axioms and applying the rules of decution. That really wouldn't get us very far. We use our senses to observe things; then we induce, integrate, evaluate, and deduce.

I know, I just found it a rather remarkable juxtaposition of statements by people who are trying to make the same point.

Skeptics use Godel's theorem to attack Objectivism in two ways: They claim that the theorem invalidates logic; therefore, they say, Objectivism is wrong in advocating reason as the means of achieving one's goals. The truth is, of course, that Godel's theorem doesn't invalidate any method of reasoning at all; it just shows a limitation of the deductive method of reasoning (namely, that you can't deductively enumerate all the logical consequences of a set of axioms that are similar to the axioms of number theory--only most of them). In fact, Godel used logic quite extensively to prove his theorem! They point to the axioms of Objectivism, postulate that Godel's theorem applies to those axioms, and declare that this invalidates all the conclusions that Objectivism reaches from the axioms. Again, they base their "argument" on the frivolous idea that Godel's theorem invalidates everything it comes into contact with.

Hmm, so does Islam empower women, or did Saddam liberate women from the shackles of Islam? The nice thing about irrational people is their unbounded willingness to refute themselves.