A question about Roark and Dominique

[Mimpy]

To me a lie is always wrong. Truth should always be valued. To lie means you don't truly value the truth. How is that not wrong?

Yes, honesty is usually the best policy. But we were discussing whether Dominique should apologize to Roark or not. She never lied to him...so why should she apologize to him?

[DragonMaci]

Dominique deeply valued the same 'good' as Roark. Her only error was to think that 'the good' can not possibly 'make it' in the world. This was not a big error to make. It was not an error of content (there is evil arround - as she saw it) but of magnitude (the evil is not as powerful as she thought).

It is true that that is not a big error and not one that would stop me loving a woman, but that is not my complaint about her. My complaint is with her trying to destroy Roark's chance at achievement and lie to do so. That is a big error, especially the lying part.

She tested her premis by taking her best shots at Roark in her column - with no success. THAT made her check her premises. If she could not destroy him (on top of others who were also trying) - no one could. Evil was impotent because Roark did not allow it to have any power - she finally got it.

I understand that, as i thought I made clear countless times by now.

In my opinion, considering everything else, this was a minor flaw.

That is, yes, but trying to destroy a man's chance at achievement is wrong, especially lying to do so. Lying is always wrong.

Yes, honesty is usually the best policy. But we were discussing whether Dominique should apologize to Roark or not. She never lied to him...so why should she apologize to him?

For trying to destroy his chance to achieve.

[KendallJ]

Who we are isn't about our future self, it is about our present self. I am currently only an Objectivist Student. I might be a full Objectivist one day. So should Objectivists love me in even a platonic way because of that? Even though I agree with everything I have read of ayn rand's so far, i would say, no it isn't, because I equally might not become an Objectivist.

The future is not about chance. It is about cause and effect. While there may be external factors to whether the final outcome is that you become an Objectivist. I entirely disagree that anyone might equally not become an Objectivist.

We just don't know yet since the future hasn't happened. That I have the potental to be an Objectivist isn't a part of who I am now. It is an implication to who I might be in the future. Reading Ayn Rand's stuff won't catagorically make me an Objectivist, just as Roark showing Dominique what he did wouldn't catagorically make her see the truth. She could of chosen not to see the truth just as I could yet do (though I doubt it). Therefore Roark was loving what she could become not what she catagorically would become.

This is your mistake. I had once a boss who impressed upon me the difference between those who had insight or vision about future events, say an investor who selected his investment choices wisely, or an entrepreneur who chooses the right venture to be a part of. He used to say, "Only those who see the invisible, can do the impossible." The secret behind that is that some people understand cause and effect better than others. People such as Warren Buffet don't get "lucky" in their investments. They know which ones have better chances of succeeding than others. They choose to favor what they already know about the object of their choices and they succeed as a result of what they know.

So maybe too Roark knew that Dominique had the basic character that one day she would come to see her contradictions. Dom and Wynands reaction to the ideal is totally different and maybe therein lies the solution.

I wonder who would choose you now that you are only a student of Objectivism if you were not a fully formed, fully perfected Objectivist. And even if you were, you still have volition and still might drift away from the philosophy. When do you arrive and your immutable, future self, I wonder? I know I am still a work in progress (see my avatar), but that doesnt' mean that a smart woman can't see what I will become.

Edited January 18, 2007 by KendallJ

[DragonMaci]

The future is not about chance. It is about cause and effect. While there may be external factors to whether the final outcome is that you become an Objectivist. I entirely disagree that anyone might equally not become an Objectivist.

I wasn't speaking of chance. I was speaking of volition. Dominique could of chose not to accept Roark's message just as I could chose to ignore Rand's. The "equally" part is that based on what we know right now about my future decisions, i.e., next to nothing, as far as we know I could equally become an Objectivist or not do so. I am simply saying as far as we know either could happen and we have nothing to go on as to which one is more likely. Hence the "equally".

This is your mistake. I had once a boss who impressed upon me the difference between those who had insight or vision about future events, say an investor who selected his investment choices wisely, or an entrepreneur who chooses the right venture to be a part of. He used to say, "Only those who see the invisible, can do the impossible." The secret behind that is that some people understand cause and effect better than others. People such as Warren Buffet don't get "lucky" in their investments. They know which ones have better chances of succeeding than others. They choose to favor what they already know about the object of their choices and they succeed as a result of what they know.

That word, "choice" that you used is the key to my argument. We choose who we become and until that choice is made there are only potentials for us to choose from. Therefore anything we become is simply a could be until we chose it, at what stage it becomes definate. But until then it is a mere possibility, a potential, a could be. As I said above, it is volition I speak of, not chance.

So maybe too Roark knew that Dominique had the basic character that one day she would come to see her contradictions. Dom and Wynands reaction to the ideal is totally different and maybe therein lies the solution.

she had the ability to chose not to be who she became who she was. Until that decision to be who she become it was a mere possibility not set in stone.

I wonder who would choose you now that you are only a student of Objectivism if you were not a fully formed, fully perfected Objectivist.

What is the point of that? It seems like a straw man argument.

And even if you were, you still have volition and still might drift away from the philosophy.

that word there, volition, is the key to my argument. Dominique could of chose not to be who she become who she did. That she didn't make that choice doesn't mean she couldn't of made it. It means only that she chose not to.

When do you arrive and your immutable, future self, I wonder?

I don't think there is such a stage, as we always have the volitional ability to change.

I know I am still a work in progress (see my avatar), but that doesnt' mean that a smart woman can't see what I will become.

She can see only what you might become, not what you will. You can equally chose either path (hence my equally before). She can guess what you might become, and get it right, but even then that is not the same as seeing it. That is guessing, not seeing. Even you can't yet see what decisions you will make in 2, 5, 10 years time. You can only guess.

This "seeing" you refer to is, in effect, whether you realise it or not, saying that "smart" people can see into the future. That is the providence of prophecy (read; irrational belief).

Edited January 18, 2007 by DragonMaci

[aequalsa]

I was talking about me not Roark. I value human achievement too much to think of it as "a minor fault". I think of it as a major one. So for me it would be settling.

I think what you are not seeing is that her intention was not to destroy human achievment, but rather to protect it from a world which she viewed as dangerouse to values.

Oh, so wanting to do destroy his career for his sake justifies wanting to destroy his career? So taxing people for their sake is justified thenn is it?

Absolutely not. But it is forgivable. It is still wrong of her to do, as I stated before. But it is an error of knowledge not a moral one. She misevaluates the power of evil and this leads her to attempt something irrational. In the same way, the founding fathers misevaluated the probability of a government which is corrosively expansive when they did not explicitly protect private property. They were wrong, but they gave it a pretty damn good shot, considering what they were starting from.

Worth the wait yes, but until then if the mistake was a big as Dominique's I could not love her.

I would not presume to argue what you could or could not love. I only suggest that you reevaluate the size and significance of her mistake on the back drop of her whole character.

By the way, if I am making errors, please bear with me as i am only a student of Objectivism and very early into it at that.

No chance you low-down, value-hating, death-worshipping, muddled-thinking, evasively mystical, subjectivly irrational, herd-following, randroidic, mooching looter! Push me further and I shall beat you about the head and shoulders with a 14lb copy of Atlas Shrugged(not an exaggeration) until you submit to the wisdom of my interpretation of the Fountainhead and kneel before the alter of Ayn Rand's floating head and beg forgiveness!

Nah...just kidding. I'm patient.

Consider me to be...*bearing*...

Lying is always wrong.

Just a clarification.

This is inaccurate. Honesty is always right. Lying is not always wrong. Honesty means not faking reality. To bring up the cliched example...if a man with a gun was at your door asking where he could find your children...Lying to him would be the honest thing to do, since telling him they were in the kitchen would be evading the fact that he intended to harm them. See what I mean?

[KendallJ]

I wasn't speaking of chance. I was speaking of volition. Dominique could of chose not to accept Roark's message just as I could chose to ignore Rand's. The "equally" part is that based on what we know right now about my future decisions, i.e., next to nothing, as far as we know I could equally become an Objectivist or not do so. I am simply saying as far as we know either could happen and we have nothing to go on as to which one is more likely. Hence the "equally".

So which is it.

a. That we do not know anything about your future decisions?

b. Or that we cannot know anything about your future decisions?

Volition is neither deterministic, nor is it a "randomizer" for a persons future actions.

If you think b, then you buy into the "randomizer" concept. If you think a, then the only thing preventing you from making better choices about people is educating yourself about them. Maybe this is what Roark knew about Dominique. Maybe he wasn't just rolling the dice.

So where you simply choose by what a person is, and not by what they are implies about what they may become, he took both into account, and won a woman we'd all envy in the end. Like Buffet and investments.

I know a use some business analogies here, but in a lot of ways it relates. Business is about figuring out where the "puck will be" and skating there rather than skating to where the puck is today. So it is with choosing who you will commit to love.

Edited January 18, 2007 by KendallJ

[DragonMaci]

I think what you are not seeing is that her intention was not to destroy human achievment, but rather to protect it from a world which she viewed as dangerouse to values.

She tried to destroy his career (for his own "good" yes, I know). regardless of what she intended that is an attempt to destroy his achievement. That is why I am not happy with her.

Absolutely not. But it is forgivable.

If she earns it, yes. otherwise, no. Forgiveness has to be earned. She didn't earn it until the end of the book.

It is still wrong of her to do, as I stated before. But it is an error of knowledge not a moral one.

I never mentioned her morality. I said her action was wrong. I meant it in the sense that she shouldn't do it.

She misevaluates the power of evil and this leads her to attempt something irrational. In the same way, the founding fathers misevaluated the probability of a government which is corrosively expansive when they did not explicitly protect private property. They were wrong, but they gave it a pretty damn good shot, considering what they were starting from.

Yes, I understand that.

I would not presume to argue what you could or could not love. I only suggest that you reevaluate the size and significance of her mistake on the back drop of her whole character.

I understand that you wouldn't presume to tell me who I could and could not love. I think highly enough of you to be sure you wouldn't do something silly like that. As for reevaluation, why?

No chance you low-down, value-hating, death-worshipping, muddled-thinking, evasively mystical, subjectivly irrational, herd-following, randroidic, mooching looter! Push me further and I shall beat you about the head and shoulders with a 14lb copy of Atlas Shrugged(not an exaggeration) until you submit to the wisdom of my interpretation of the Fountainhead and kneel before the alter of Ayn Rand's floating head and beg forgiveness!

Nah...just kidding. I'm patient.

Consider me to be...*bearing*...

I figured you were kidding. I may be wrong, but if so it an honest error of knowledge. I am still trying to arise from the darkness that is the crap forced on us by state ruin schools. which are pretty much as bad in New Zealand as in the states. Mind you, aren't they much the same anywhere: teachers of irrational crap.

Just a clarification.

This is inaccurate. Honesty is always right. Lying is not always wrong. Honesty means not faking reality. To bring up the cliched example...if a man with a gun was at your door asking where he could find your children...Lying to him would be the honest thing to do, since telling him they were in the kitchen would be evading the fact that he intended to harm them. See what I mean?

If you know how to do it, which i do, you can get them to believe something that isn't true by telling them the truth. The dictionary definition of lying is, "To tell something that isn't true with the intent to decieve." What I am refering to doesn't count as that. it is telling the truth with the intent to decieve. How do you do that? By telling the truth in a way that takes their beliefs into acount. Use their beliefs against them.

Besides, to me, lying shows htat the lier doesn't fully and truly value the truth. What is not wrong about that? Especially with the above alternative? One can use the above technique without the evasion you mentioned, which I agree is a form of lying (to yourself). However, telling a lie when you have a better alternative (there always is one) is not honest; it is dishonestly valueing the truth.

So which is it.

a. That we do not know anything about your future decisions?

b. Or that we cannot know anything about your future decisions?

Volition is neither deterministic, nor is it a "randomizer" for a persons future actions.

You are misinterpriting me (again). I am simply saying that while we can know what decisions we will make now and in the immediate future, but we can't know which ones we will make in the far future. How can we? We could make a decision at any moment to change who we are, one that we didn't expect until then. That is not to say we can't expect it, only that we didn't. This not the same as determinism or randomiser. I don't believe in volition being either. It is simply saying we cannot know the distant future, only the immediate future.

Maybe he wasn't just rolling the dice.

I know he wasn't. But we can't know 100% (100% being the only knowing) what decisions others make in the distant future. They are even harder to know than our own.

So where you simply choose by what a person is, and not by what they are implies about what they may become, he took both into account, and won a woman we'd all envy in the end. Like Buffet and investments.

"Implies" is the operative word here. Implications are not knowledge. They are similar to guesses. Besides, who cannot love potential. Potential isn't real yet. You can only love the real. Therefore, you cannot love the potential.

[intellectualammo]

Besides, to me, lying shows htat the lier doesn't fully and truly value the truth. What is not wrong about that? Especially with the above alternative? One can use the above technique without the evasion you mentioned, which I agree is a form of lying (to yourself). However, telling a lie when you have a better alternative (there always is one) is not honest; it is dishonestly valueing the truth.

Here is a lesson for said student of Objectivism. I want you to read this from OPAR:

Like all scientific generalizations, therefore, moral principles are absolutes within their conditions. They are absolutes—contextually.

[...]

The same approach applies to the interpretation of honesty. The principle of honesty, in the Objectivist view, is not a divine commandment or a categorical imperative. It does not state that lying is wrong "in itself" and thus under all circumstances, even when a kidnapper asks where one's child is sleeping (the Kantians do interpret honesty in this way). But one may not infer that honesty is therefore "situational," and that every lie must be judged "on its own merits," without reference to principle. This kind of alternative, which we hear everywhere, is false. It is another case of intrinsicism vs. subjectivism preempting the philosophical field.

Lying is absolutely wrong—under certain conditions. It is wrong when a man does it in the attempt to obtain a value. But, to take a different kind of case, lying to protect one's values from criminals is not wrong. If and when a man's honesty becomes a weapon that kidnappers or other wielders of force can use to harm him, then the normal context is reversed; his virtue would then become a means serving the ends of evil. In such a case, the victim has not only the right but also the obligation to lie and to do it proudly. The man who tells a lie in this context is not endorsing any antireality principle. On the contrary, he is now the representative of the good and the true; the kidnapper is the one at war with reality (with the requirements of man's life). Morally, the con man and the lying child-protector are opposites. The difference is the same as that between murder and self-defense.

There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers. An analysis covering such detail belongs, however, in a treatise on ethics.

[aequalsa]

She tried to destroy his career (for his own "good" yes, I know). regardless of what she intended that is an attempt to destroy his achievement. That is why I am not happy with her.

Roark was not happy with here either, but recognized her value to him just the same.

If she earns it, yes. otherwise, no. Forgiveness has to be earned. She didn't earn it until the end of the book.

I never mentioned her morality. I said her action was wrong. I meant it in the sense that she shouldn't do it.

You also said that you could not love her in the way Roark did which implies that the morality of her person is not up to your standards.

Yes, I understand that.

The case with dominique is very similiar. She acted on a mistaken idea. People, even really great ones, have mistaken ideas all the time. So to dimiss someone in total over a single mistaken notion will increase the probability that you would find yourself very much alone, which I don't recommend.

I understand that you wouldn't presume to tell me who I could and could not love. I think highly enough of you to be sure you wouldn't do something silly like that. As for reevaluation, why?

Why, thank you....Reevaluation because to judge her on the basis of her apparent error(wanting to destroy achievement) as opposed to her actual error which is nearly the opposite(over-estimating the power of evil to destroy the achievement she values so very much) does not allow you to predict with accuracy her chances of overcoming her error and decide if she is worth waiting for. By only looking at the surface, you could find yourself walking away from an excellent oppurtunity which could become a source of regret later. In real life, a guy who meets a woman with an understanding and appreciation of values and achievement on Dominque's level is a very lucky man. And to let her go because of a mistake of knowledge would be foolish. So reevaluation because you don't want to miss an oppurtunity to love a Dominique because of a mistake which is so very minor.

I figured you were kidding. I may be wrong, but if so it an honest error of knowledge. I am still trying to arise from the darkness that is the crap forced on us by state ruin schools. which are pretty much as bad in New Zealand as in the states. Mind you, aren't they much the same anywhere: teachers of irrational crap.

Again, I can empathize. For what it's worth, you seem like you're doing alright in spite of it. I did not know that schools were so bad there, as public schools go.

If you know how to do it, which i do, you can get them to believe something that isn't true by telling them the truth. The dictionary definition of lying is, "To tell something that isn't true with the intent to decieve." What I am refering to doesn't count as that. it is telling the truth with the intent to decieve. How do you do that? By telling the truth in a way that takes their beliefs into acount. Use their beliefs against them.

Besides, to me, lying shows htat the lier doesn't fully and truly value the truth. What is not wrong about that? Especially with the above alternative? One can use the above technique without the evasion you mentioned, which I agree is a form of lying (to yourself). However, telling a lie when you have a better alternative (there always is one) is not honest; it is dishonestly valueing the truth.

The existence of a more effectual alternative does not cause the lying to be immoral. For example, the individual in the circumstance might not have thought of a better solution under the pressure. They would be perfectly justified in lying to the criminal and not dishonest in the least.

You are misinterpriting me (again). I am simply saying that while we can know what decisions we will make now and in the immediate future, but we can't know which ones we will make in the far future. How can we? We could make a decision at any moment to change who we are, one that we didn't expect until then. That is not to say we can't expect it, only that we didn't. This not the same as determinism or randomiser. I don't believe in volition being either. It is simply saying we cannot know the distant future, only the immediate future.

You know that 86 years from now, 2+2 will still equal 4. Water will still be composed of 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. With more complex issues, especially those connected to my philosophy, as I find myself becoming more and more certain of the accuracy of those beliefs, I also become more certain that they will not change. I know, for example, that I will not wake up one mornig espousing marxism because I understand so fully the impracticality of that belief.

Predictability certainly gets more difficult the further you project into the future. But I disagree strongly that we cannot predict the distant future with any degree of accuracy above chance. To believe that would interfere significantly with long range thought. Viewing your life as a synoptic whole would be impossible. Why choose to become a doctor?...since there is no more likelihood that you'll wish to be one in 12 years then there is that you'll wish to be a trash collector. Why have children? You have no idea if you'll want them still 15 years from now.

I know he wasn't. But we can't know 100% (100% being the only knowing) what decisions others make in the distant future. They are even harder to know than our own.

They are, but the better you know them and the more rational they are, the more accurately you can predict their behaviour.

[DragonMaci]

intellectualammo, what if an alternative like the one I gave exists? (And I think there always is such an alternative.) As for lying in the context Rand gave, I give it consideration.

However, with the case of snoopers (most of which these days use digital means), simple protection techniques (locks on doors, curtains on windows, and firewalls, virus scanners, adware/spyware scanner, and anti-phising on computers, among others for buildings and computers) are better protection than lies. Not for honesty reasons, but because they work better. If you use them properly anyway.

So to dimiss someone in total over a single mistaken notion will increase the probability that you would find yourself very much alone, which I don't recommend.

I have lived most of my life with just one friend (Prometheus98876) and learned to live with it, so if I must then I will. I don't need friends. Don't get me wrong, I want them. I just don't need them.

By only looking at the surface, you could find yourself walking away from an excellent oppurtunity which could become a source of regret later.

I fail to see where you got the idea of "walking away" from. It certainly wasn't me. I never said I would walk away. I said quite the reverse in fact. I said i would try help her see the truth. That is far from "walking away".

Oh, and by the way, I did see the error of overevaluating evil you mentioned. It is just that I also believed in the other error. (I will explain the past tense in a little bit.)

Again, I can empathize. For what it's worth, you seem like you're doing alright in spite of it. I did not know that schools were so bad there, as public schools go.

Well, I went to couple of particularly bad schools. I know now (though I didn't then) that it wasn't just because of bad management (though that was partly to blame). I know now it was the system, i.e., state run schools.

Oh, and thanks for the compliment.

The existence of a more effectual alternative does not cause the lying to be immoral.

i did not meant to imply that and if I did, I am sorry.

For example, the individual in the circumstance might not have thought of a better solution under the pressure. They would be perfectly justified in lying to the criminal and not dishonest in the least.

Okay, I'll concede the point there. See, I can admit I am wrong. (Just teasing myself now.)

You know that 86 years from now, 2+2 will still equal 4. Water will still be composed of 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.

And?

You know that 86 years from now, 2+2 will still equal 4. Water will still be composed of 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. With more complex issues, especially those connected to my philosophy, as I find myself becoming more and more certain of the accuracy of those beliefs, I also become more certain that they will not change. I know, for example, that I will not wake up one mornig espousing marxism because I understand so fully the impracticality of that belief.

For someone more sure of themselves, like you, yes. But those less sure of themselves, like Dominique was, no. That is the point. Hell, to some extent it is even true of me, due to the fact that since I have big gaps in my knowledge of Objectivism still, I cannot be sure of my sticking to it. You cannot be sure of sticking to what you don't fully know. That is what I am saying.

Predictability certainly gets more difficult the further you project into the future. But I disagree strongly that we cannot predict the distant future with any degree of accuracy above chance.

You are misinterpriting. I didn't mean it was chance. Did I not say I didn't mean randomisation? What I meant was simply that the further we look into the future, the harder it is to predict. I do not support chance being an element. Quite the reverse in fact.

They are, but the better you know them and the more rational they are, the more accurately you can predict their behaviour.

I have never denied that. In fact I support it.

[~Sophia~]

But those less sure of themselves, like Dominique was, no.

Ahh, but Dominique was not unsure about her values, not in the slightest. She was close to the ideal of complete integration. Her values were the same as Roark's: true, consistent, and rational. She saw Roark as the moral ideal, but mistakenly thought that, in her rotten world, the ideal is not practical and thus doomed.

[DragonMaci]

Ops, I forgot to explain the past tense. Sorry about that. Anyway here is the explanation: I done some introspection last night and realised something. My dislike of what Dominique done is actually more a personal matter, not a matter of right and wrong. That is also why I stopped arguing about whether it was wrong for her to do as she did.

Ahh, but Dominique was not unsure about her values, not in the slightest. She was close to the ideal of complete integration. Her values were the same as Roark's: true, consistent, and rational. She saw Roark as the moral ideal, but mistakenly thought that, in her rotten world, the ideal is not practical and thus doomed.

Let me clarify here. I mean less sure than Roark. Noone in the book was as sure of themselves as Roark.

[~Sophia~]

Let me clarify here. I mean less sure than Roark. Noone in the book was as sure of themselves as Roark.

Wasn't the question: To what degree could Roark be sure that she will come arround? What made him so sure?

He knew at least two things:

- what her values were and that she was sure about them (not still in search for them and their validity)

- she, when faced with contradicting facts (contradicting what she mistakenly thought about the potency of evil) - will face them without evasion and try to integrate them

[intellectualammo]

intellectualammo, what if an alternative like the one I gave exists? (And I think there always is such an alternative.) As for lying in the context Rand gave, I give it consideration.

My quote was from OPAR(Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), written by Leonard Peikoff, not by Ayn Rand. That was not Rand's example, it was Peikoff's.

In your example, you are bending over backwards for an absolute, when that absolute is really an absolute contextually, and not in all contexts, as you are trying to make it. Does bending over backwards in front of a gun weilding, knife thrusting person, sound practical, when every second counts? If you can do it and not get stabbed or shot while doing so, so be it. You and I merely have a disagreement on our form of self-defense, then.

Give particular consideration to the part where Peikoff says that it is an "absolute contextually".

[DragonMaci]

My quote was from OPAR(Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), written by Leonard Peikoff, not by Ayn Rand. That was not Rand's example, it was Peikoff's.

Okay, sorry, my mistake.

In your example, you are bending over backwards for an absolute, when that absolute is really an absolute contextually, and not in all contexts, as you are trying to make it. Does bending over backwards in front of a gun weilding, knife thrusting person, sound practical, when every second counts?

I am not talking about bendinmg over backwards for him. You misunderstand. I am talking about the truth, yes, but using it to make him think a mistruth. In other words using the fact that the kids are in lounge make it seem like they are at the park. That is no more a risk than lying. In fact I would argue it is less of one as an intellectually honest man will always beat an intellectually honest man in a battle of wits.

Besides, your talk about context isn't relevant or necessary anymore. You seem to have missed a comment I made that made that clear. I said to aequalsa:

Okay, I'll concede the point there.

That was in response to her saying:

For example, the individual in the circumstance might not have thought of a better solution under the pressure. They would be perfectly justified in lying to the criminal and not dishonest in the least.

I find your missing that rather curious since it was in the same post you replied to. Anyway, that makes it quite clear that I now admit that their is contexual justification.

[intellectualammo]

I am not talking about bendinmg over backwards for him. You misunderstand. I am talking about the truth, yes, but using it to make him think a mistruth. In other words using the fact that the kids are in lounge make it seem like they are at the park. That is no more a risk than lying. In fact I would argue it is less of one as an intellectually honest man will always beat an intellectually honest man in a battle of wits.

I consider that in the very simplistic situation above, that instead of just lying by saying, "No, the kids are at the park." you would rather bend over backwards in trying not to say that, in trying not to lie, risking more. Said another way, one method of self-defense is clearly more effective than the other. Said differently, instead of say...using a gun to stop your attacker, you want a fist fight, or a knife fight, because you don't believe in using the more effective of these, the gun. Said differently: "Are they in the lounge?" "No." <---an answer as effective as using a gun in self-defense, but no, you would rather not lie directly or lie at all, so your answer is a knife fight, or a fist fight, so to speak. Our difference lies in our method of defense and it's associated practicality.

I find your missing that rather curious since it was in the same post you replied to. Anyway, that makes it quite clear that I now admit that their is contexual justification.

I didn't miss that. Mine is the wider point...I don't even have to think of a "better solution" to lying, why do that when I can just lie! Why side step that, why put down my gun to pick up a knife! Why not use the gun in the first place! Why try to use something other than the gun? In my opinion, you are not fully conceding, because you still make it seem that you have to, or should try "better solutions" until you come back to the very gun you've been holding and hesitating on using in the first place for the sake of remaining loyal to some sort of absolute, still stripped of all its context! (in the lounge/park example above)

So again, we are still disagreeing with the method of self-defense here. You can "try to make it seem that they are at the park" without having to lie (however that can be done) all you want to...I'll just simply lie and say, "No. They are at the park." My gun vs. (whatever the heck kind of weapon you'd use) as the best self-defense in that lounge/park situation. Who else here would use anything other than the gun? Who would lie, or "bend over backwards" searching for a "better solution" to the gun you already have!

[DragonMaci]

I didn't miss that. Mine is the wider point...I don't even have to think of a "better solution" to lying, why do that when I can just lie! Why side step that, why put down my gun to pick up a knife! Why not use the gun in the first place! Why try to use something other than the gun? In my opinion, you are not fully conceding, because you still make it seem that you have to, or should try "better solutions" until you come back to the very gun you've been holding and hesitating on using in the first place for the sake of remaining loyal to some sort of absolute, still stripped of all its context! (in the lounge/park example above)

So again, we are still disagreeing with the method of self-defense here. You can "try to make it seem that they are at the park" without having to lie (however that can be done) all you want to...I'll just simply lie and say, "No. They are at the park." My gun vs. (whatever the heck kind of weapon you'd use) as the best self-defense in that lounge/park situation. Who else here would use anything other than the gun? Who would lie, or "bend over backwards" searching for a "better solution" to the gun you already have!

Arg! What do i have to do to convince you that I have changed my mind about lying?!! Blatantly saying it in the last post wasn't even enough to convince you. Between you two, you and aequalsa have changed my mind about lying.

Our disagreement is no longer over whether or not it is wrong to lie. There is no disagreement of absolutes anymore. It is no longer about whether to use a gun or a knife. Our disagreement is now over which is the gun and which is the knife. Both are justified weapons of self-defence, but the debate is which is which and which is more dangerous.

Here is why I think a lie is more dangerous: they will be more angry at you lying than at you manipulating the truth to say what you want to say. Also you can talk your way out the latter easier than the former.

Edited January 19, 2007 by DragonMaci

[intellectualammo]

Here is why I think a lie is more dangerous: they will be more angry at you lying than at you manipulating the truth to say what you want to say. Also you can talk your way out the latter easier than the former.

In the lounge/park example it was, as I said a "very simplistic situation". All that example was, was to show a choice between lying and not lying and the reasons behind them. Lying was the most effective way in that very simplistic situation. I don't think that you can add that angry reaction in now. It sort of rationalizes, because it was not known at the time. We were focused on your "making it seem that they were at the park", instead of just lying by telling them that they were at the park. The motivation behind your decision to do that, when you could have lied first, but chose not to, demonstrated that you had not fully conceded, in my opinion.

Please don't make it more complex now by adding the above.

[DragonMaci]

In the lounge/park example it was, as I said a "very simplistic situation". All that example was, was to show a choice between lying and not lying and the reasons behind them. Lying was the most effective way in that very simplistic situation. I don't think that you can add that angry reaction in now. It sort of rationalizes, because it was not known at the time. We were focused on your "making it seem that they were at the park", instead of just lying by telling them that they were at the park. The motivation behind your decision to do that, when you could have lied first, but chose not to, demonstrated that you had not fully conceded, in my opinion.

I fully conceded the value of lying in the situation. I just don't agree on whether it is the best option. I will admit there may be times when lying is a better option, but I don't think that example is one.

[intellectualammo]

I will admit there may be times when lying is a better option, but I don't think that example is one.

And I'll admit that it is possible that lying is not always the best option in a given situation, but in this situation it is.

[hunterrose]

My dislike of what Dominique done is actually more a personal matter, not a matter of right and wrong. That is also why I stopped arguing about whether it was wrong for her to do as she did.

Gwah! That's what I get for reading the last post last!!

Well, as long as you're not saying that a rational man ought to not love someone like Dom. For myself, Dominique is the closest person (in the literature I've read) to my soulmate ... even moreso than Dagny or Kira. Bar none, she is IMO the most indomitable female character around, which is probably a good part of why Roark would like her so much.

[DragonMaci]

And I'll admit that it is possible that lying is not always the best option in a given situation, but in this situation it is.

Well, then we are mostly in agreement now, then. We just disagree on when each is better.

[intellectualammo]

Well, then we are mostly in agreement now, then. We just disagree on when each is better.

Yes, exactly. And if you were totally consistent and conceded fully, in regards specifically to the lounge/park situation, we would definately be aligned. As a little note, my last response I almost made it sound as if I ruled out not lying in some situations. I never implied nor said anything of the sort in any of my responses. Just clarifying my use of "I'll admit"...

Edited January 20, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DragonMaci]

I realised another problem with Dominique when i done some more introspection about how I felt about her. What she was doing to herself, throughout the book. She done things because they were bad for her. Okay, admittedly that was simply a result of her over evaluating the power of evil. Because it is the cause that over evaluation should be what I base my decision of her on.

Oh, and in case it isn't clear yet: I do love who she became at the end of the book. If I got a woman that was like who she ended up as, I'd be happy.

Edited January 20, 2007 by DragonMaci

[hunterrose]

I realised another problem with Dominique when i done some more introspection about how I felt about her. What she was doing to herself, throughout the book. She done things because they were bad for her.

Such as?