Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

When She Wants to Rush Things In Romance

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Again and again (and again . . . and again) you can witness my critics taking an anti-principled approach. "People have a huge variety of sex and people are all different in their preferences" — therefore no general conclusions can ever be arrived at. To say otherwise is to believe that you have intimate knowledge about every person on the planet.

 

Nonsense. Of course general conclusions can, and have been, arrived at. It is upon those conclusions that your claims are rejected, taken along with those personal experiences people claim to have had, time and time again, which run contrary to your views (though you apparently do not take those as being particularly meaningful for some reason):

 

[Racism claims] that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

 

This is principled. It is based on understanding that a man fashions his own convictions, values and character, through his choices.

"As man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul."

 

Perhaps the entire science of psychology is invalid, and possibly even ethics. After all, "everyone is an individual."

 

Certainly any approach to psychology or ethics or anything else that denies the truth of the individuality of man is invalid, and yes, that does look a lot like you.

Or, if you think I'm wrong, then why do you seek to draw a distinction between your process and any other form of bigotry? Why can't we start talking about the "psychology" that must come with dark skin, or a particular shape of nose, or slant of eye? And since I know that you have no credentials such that 2046 is asking for -- you've said as much in another thread, though I don't feel like tracking it down at the moment (iirc "If I had credentials, don't you think I'd say so??" or something typically petulant and snarky like that) -- do you think that the proper way to approach this is for people to just start, oh, speculating on what having dark skin must mean for the psychology of the black man?

Do you think that what you do is reasonable at all? In another thread that you bailed on, Dante said "Serious claims should be backed up by serious, objective evidence."

So do you have it? Do you have "serious, objective evidence" to back up your views? If so, let's see it.  If not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's psychological. Can't you understand that?

 

 

I do have such a hard time understanding things...
 

 

Again and again (and again . . . and again) you can witness my critics taking an anti-principled approach. "People have a huge variety of sex and people are all different in their preferences" — therefore no general conclusions can ever be arrived at. To say otherwise is to believe that you have intimate knowledge about every person on the planet.

 

 

I see... Either Kevin is right or the entire science of psychology is invalid. (!)
 
I guess I'll just state it plainly again: It's your claims that people in this thread are disputing. You get belligerent when people question you instead of trying to back up what you say. If you want people to believe you, it's your job to answer their criticisms. Just because you announce a principle doesn't mean it's true.
 
I think the strongest argument against you is plain old personal experience. Basically everyone at this point has considered alternative sexuality that doesn't fit longstanding social norms -- and big surprise, nothing outrageous happened and that experience was just like any other, to be cataloged in the brain. What you claim in these posts, compared to experience, comes across as nonsense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kevin's advice - in #8 - is still very good advice. For a woman or a man. Trouble is he seems to have

evolved a philosophy, which is where he digs himself into a hole.

His principle is derived from biology, I think: 'Naturalism', as it might be called. i.e. "The nature of man and woman is such and such, and so they must act accordingly".

How far is it from stating that men and women are "created" with sexual equipment, which makes it a categorical imperative that they procreate?

(In general, as Objectivist, sexuality is my one real departure from Rand; there are too many levels of genetics, psychology, experience and volitional self-interest - to be neatly subsumed under a single objective principle, I feel.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, as Objectivist, sexuality is my one real departure from Rand; there are too many levels of genetics, psychology, experience and volitional self-interest - to be neatly subsumed under a single objective principle, I feel.

 

Once again, the anti-principled approach.

 

"The field is simply too complex for a principle — any kind of principle — to be established."

 

Principles are man's means of dealing with complexity. They reduce, in effect, what could otherwise be a bewildering heap of concretes, down to something much more mentally manageable.

 

This doesn't prove that any particular principle which anyone chooses to advance is true. But when you begin your thinking on a given subject by saying, "There is no principle here; there cannot be one," that's when thinking stops.

 

Every process of investigation & inquiry is a quest to establish generalizations. A generalization is not a rule, a commandment, or a "categorical imperative." It's the means of helping you to achieve clarity on a topic; it doesn't make you omniscient.

 

His principle is derived from biology, I think: 'Naturalism', as it might be called. i.e. "The nature of man and woman is such and such, and so they must act accordingly".

 

The ideas I discuss have their roots in the biological/anatomical nature of men and women, which is necessary to examine, and can be helpful to bear in mind when attempting to understand this subject. Man is an integrated being; his physical nature cannot possibly have no bearing on his emotions, particularly in an area which so combines the physical and emotional as sex.

 

To say my ideas are "derived from biology" — as if I observed certain biological facts, then extrapolated "rules" for how men and women must necessarily behave as a result of them — is a horrific misinterpretation of my position. That would be rationalism, and utterly, stupidly wrong.

 

I often get the impression that people sort of half-read what I write.

Edited by Kevin Delaney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ideas I discuss have their roots in the biological/anatomical nature of men and women, which is necessary to examine, and can be helpful to bear in mind when attempting to understand this subject. Man is an integrated being; his physical nature cannot possibly have no bearing on his emotions, particularly in an area which so combines the physical and emotional as sex.

 

To say my ideas are "derived from biology" — as if I observed certain biological facts, then extrapolated "rules" for how men and women must necessarily behave as a result of them — is a horrific misinterpretation of my position. That would be rationalism, and utterly, stupidly wrong.

 

Anyone else here see South Park's underpants gnomes? Delaney's... claims remind me of that.

Step 1: Biology

Step 2: ???????????

Step 3: Delaney's Beliefs

Will anyone else note that Delaney does anything, in this thread or in any other, so long as he does not have to try to explain the case for the claims he makes. (Psst... there is no case.) As he has said before:

 

For the record, I'm not interested in advancing "arguments" on this topic, nor in logically proving or demonstrating anything.

My writings can be taken, left, considered or ignored as each individual reader sees fit.

 

I often get the impression that people sort of half-read what I write.

 

Well, on that, I think he's right. Anyone who thinks that Delaney will eventually participate in a sincere discussion of his views, answering criticisms, presenting evidence and the like -- they haven't been paying attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't prove that any particular principle which anyone chooses to advance is true. But when you begin your thinking on a given subject by saying, "There is no principle here; there cannot be one," that's when thinking stops.

 

Every process of investigation & inquiry is a quest to establish generalizations. A generalization is not a rule, a commandment, or a "categorical imperative." It's the means of helping you to achieve clarity on a topic; it doesn't make you omniscient.

 

The ideas I discuss have their roots in the biological/anatomical nature of men and women, which is necessary to examine, and can be helpful to bear in mind when attempting to understand this subject. Man is an integrated being; his physical nature cannot possibly have no bearing on his emotions, particularly in an area which so combines the physical and emotional as sex.

 

To say my ideas are "derived from biology" — as if I observed certain biological facts, then extrapolated "rules" for how men and women must necessarily behave as a result of them — is a horrific misinterpretation of my position. That would be rationalism, and utterly, stupidly wrong.

 

I often get the impression that people sort of half-read what I write.

I get the impression that you half-write, and then people read it! Seriously, it's like you don't want to explain yourself. 

 

You're presenting false alternatives. What about, "I'm not sure about this right now. Some evidence seems to suggest one thing, but other evidence seems to suggest something different. I may have to wait until I can figure it out further."?

 

Why is "derived from biology" "horrific"? All human behavior is derived from biology. Rationalism occurs only when the biological elements at play aren't provably linked -- which, since we know little about our brains, can occur a lot.

 

On principles: it would be easy to argue that you are the one being rationalistic by giving generalizations but providing no facts to back them up, and that alternatively your opponents here are being principled by relentlessly asking you to back up your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every process of investigation & inquiry is a quest to establish generalizations. A generalization is not a rule, a commandment, or a "categorical imperative." It's the means of helping you to achieve clarity on a topic; it doesn't make you omniscient.

Indeed, that's why I asked about personal anecdotes of yours, or personal experience, that is, how you figured out what you say works. By asking that, it's not even an argument. I'm just honestly curious about your experiences, to see how this all works out for you that helps you clarify the topic of romance.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...