Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know why people keep saying "affair". It was a nonmonogamous relationship with the consent of those involved or connected, that ended badly. 

Typically a sexual affair is kept secret from the spouses, but that's not part of the definitions I've seen. There is such a thing as an open affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I don't know why people keep saying "affair". It was a nonmonogamous relationship with the consent of those involved or connected, that ended badly. 

Well, Okay. At that time it would have had a lot of bad consequences for her to admit anything like that. (I don't want to get side tracked on the word "affair" but I do wonder why you have a problem with it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2021 at 7:37 PM, MisterSwig said:

Typically a sexual affair is kept secret from the spouses, but that's not part of the definitions I've seen. There is such a thing as an open affair.

The definition for a moralizing Christian maybe. "Socially unsanctioned romantic relationship with another partner" basically. It's a word used as negative moral judgment. I think more people feel so strong about this whole thing because they freak out about non-monogamy. Let's be honest here: if there was no breakup, and they told everyone when they were happy about their nonmonogamous relationship, someone would have been condemned as Satan reincarnate. And it probably would have been Branden still. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We interviewed Richard Salsman in the latest episode. He is a bit unique in the Objectivist movement, having at some point associated or worked with ARI, TOS as well as TAS now. We go over his long history in the movement, his thoughts on schisms involving Peikoff, Kelley, McCaskey, Brook, Biddle, and Barney. We also discuss his latest book, Where Have All the Capitalists Gone?, and Rand's definition of "capitalism." Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Scott and I have a small debate over the issue of open versus closed Objectivism. Everyone seems to agree that "open" and "closed" are metaphors which need literal explanations. I propose that "open" refers to Objectivism as a common noun, i.e., a class of Objectivist philosophies; while "closed" refers to Objectivism as a proper noun, i.e., the specific philosophy of Ayn Rand. Take a listen!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We had Robert Bidinotto on the podcast. He was an investigative journalist and active in the Objectivist movement for many years. He now writes vigilante thriller novels centered around his hero Dylan Hunter. The first part of this episode focuses on his history in the nonfiction world of journalism and Objectivism, while the second half (52:00) is about his fiction writing and thoughts on justice. Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We welcomed on the show Dave Goodman, a fellow Rand fan from Facebook discussions, to debate Yaron Brook's leadership in the Objectivist movement. We also get into some ideas for spreading Rand's philosophy and working with non-Objectivists like Dennis Prager. Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gennady Stolyarov II, chairman of the Transhumanist Party and an Ayn Rand fan, joined us this time on the podcast. We discussed the life extension movement and his efforts to unite like-minded people in a political party devoted to overcoming the problem of aging and death. Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen, be sure to acknowledge to yourself explicitly what you do know: you each one, just like me (much your senior), are going to die. No ifs, buts, or maybes. Totally end. Be sure to invest your life with that background as absolute and with projects consonant with your rationally expected range of end date. Indefinitely long is not what is going to happen to your duration, and at some level, hopefully explicitly, you know that. 

You will die (and eventually even the species will die). And it can have been worthwhile, indeed entirely complete, to have lived your few or several decades of existence.

Related, from another, recent thread:

Quote

 

There is a most basic and ever-present form of the human fear of death, and that is our animal wire-up to avoid death joined with our distinctive ability to think about the past and future and know that we shall die.

For each individual, ancient to modern, I think their coming end of existence is known to them at the deepest level, and that is directly terrifying left to itself, untied from conscious wider engagement in the stream of life. So when Plato has an old man speaking his terrors, especially at night when trying to sleep, of what awaits in the afterlife, I do not think that Plato and his fellows are being entirely honest with themselves and with others concerning what their fear is really about. Indeed the whole spiel—Egyptian, Greek, Christian/Muslim—about an afterlife is not simply an error of knowledge, but a psychological defense, an attempt to brainwash oneself against a truth one cannot get free of all the way down: one is going to cease to exist. From before Plato to the billboard signs of today that read “Where will you spend eternity?” we have the same self-foolery of the coming full stop.

One common thought from believers in afterlife is that otherwise: life is meaningless. The thought becomes dubious as they think more specifically and fully about their life with their spouse and children and other projects and enjoyments. Rand’s theory of value is the full deliverance from the muddle “otherwise, life would be meaningless.” All meaning and worth and purpose is derivative from our life and life before us. All chanting upon life beyond what arose in nature and ends in nature is primordial human self-foolery, and Rand’s insight brings the completeness of realizing squarely that all value and worth and purpose and problems exist only within the phenomenon of life.

 

Life, finite life, is an end in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 10/10/2021 at 12:28 PM, Boydstun said:

Be sure to invest your life with that background as absolute and with projects consonant with your rationally expected range of end date.

Thank you, Stephen. This is what I try to do. It would be nice to live a few hundred years in good health, but I'll be lucky to make it to 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We interviewed Richard Ebeling, the BB&T Distinguished Professor of Ethics and Free Enterprise Leadership at The Citadel military college. He told us how he was introduced to Objectivism in high school and later how he discovered the lost works of Ludwig von Mises. Then we discussed his latest article on Marxo-Nazism. Check it out!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In this episode Scott interviews me. It was recorded last year, before we started doing the podcast together. We talk about my background coming out of a Protestant worldview and becoming an atheist and Objectivist. Scott also asks me about his favorite subject, life extension.

 

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...