Objectivist Sexuality: Amber Pawlik's book

JASKN, softwareNerd,
 

 

The following are the quotes I promised. I have numbered them. I included the numbers so I might comment to the quotes if requested. I’m not interested in a debate..
    
(1) The Objectivist—September 1970

  1. The Objectivist Ethics

But while the standard of value operating the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man’s body is automatic and innate, determined by the nature of his body—the standard of value operating his emotional mechanism, is not. Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.
 
But since the work of man’s mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone’s authority, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emotions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer. The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher. If a man desires and pursues contradictions—if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too-he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoherent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the inner state of most people today).

(2) The Journals of Ayn Rand
“13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952”

Another interesting point to be noted here: man is given his entity as clay to be shaped, he is given his body, his tool (the mind) and the mechanism of consciousness (emotions, subconscious, memory) through which his mind will work. But the rest depends on him. His spirit, that is, his own essential character, must be created by him. (In this sense, it is almost as if he were born as an abstraction, with the essence and rules of that abstraction (man) to serve as his guide and standard–—but he must make himself concrete by his own effort, he must create himself.)

(3) Atlas Shrugged
Part Three / Chapter VII
“This Is John Galt Speaking”

Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned—that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character—that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind—that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining—that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice—that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, …

(4) The Letters of Ayn Rand
Return To Hollywood (1944)
To Gerald Loeb
August 5, 1944

I believe that our mind controls everything–—yes, even our sex emotions. Perhaps the sex emotions more than anything else. Although that’s the opposite of what most people believe. Everything we do and are proceeds from our mind. Our mind can be made to control everything. The trouble is only that most of us don’t want our minds to control us–—because it is not an easy job. So they drift and let chance and other people and their own subconscious decide for them. I believe firmly that everything in a man’s life is subject to his mind’s control–and that his greatest tragedies come from the fact that he willfully suspends that control.

(5) The Journals of Ayn Rand, “13-Notes While Writing: 1947-1952”

Man exists for his own happiness, and the definition of happiness proper to a human being is: a man’s happiness must be based on his moral values. It must be the highest expression of his moral values possible to him.

This is the difference between my morality and hedonism. The standard is not: “that is good which gives me pleasure, just because it gives me pleasure”…-but “that is good which is the expression of my moral values, and that gives me pleasure.” Since the proper moral code is based on man’s nature and his survival, and since joy is the expression of his survival, this form of happiness can have no contradiction in it, it is both “short range” and “long range” (as all of man’s life has to be), and it leads to the furtherance of his life, not to his destruction.

(6) The Virtue of Selfishness, “1. The Objectivist Ethics”

“But the relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed. It is only by accepting “man’s life” as one’s primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness—not by taking “happiness” as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. To take “whatever makes one happy” as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one’s emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition; to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one’s stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see.”

(7)“Playboy’s interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, page 6.

“An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man’s reason and his emotions—provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow—then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.”

Ok… So, when did you choose your sense of humor?

Ok… So, when did you choose your sense of humor?

It depends on what you are asking. If you are asking about the ability to appreciate humor, like the ability to appreciate beauty or the ability to reason, it is a natural inborn attribute. One doesn’t choose that, of course. But like all other attributes, you are not born knowing how to use it.

What one will find funny depends on all they have chosen to learn, how well they have developed their ability to reason making them capable to discerning irony, understanding subtle ideas, recognizing humorous situations, but mostly how they view of reality in light of their values . Someone with shallow values and little knowledge will find the crude and crass funny, and will be incapable of appreciating the great humor of the satirists, like Twain, Shaw, Swift and Voltaire, for example.

The correct question is not, “When did you or I choose our sense of humor? Sexual preferences? Way in which we walk? Interest in music? Etc.”  but what mental processes did we exercise, or evade, that resulted in what we find funny, what we sexually prefer and what music we love. Even how we walk required us to develop it. Within the scope of our physical abilities we could choose to learn to walk with poise and elegance, or stumble like careless ignorant bums. Every aspect of a human being’s persona, from their character to their desires, is developed by the individual, either intentionally and by means of their best reason and effort or by default and evasion.

That is what I believe Ayn Rand clearly meant and forcefully explained. You and I don’t have to agree with it, but if we are honest, I think we have to agree that is what Rand clearly said and meant.

If I were to decide to change my sense of humor, how would I do that?

If I were to decide to change my sense of humor, how would I do that?

I have no idea why you, or anyone, would want to change their sense of humor. What one finds funny or humorous is determined by what their values are, what they regard as important, their ability to discern irony and contradiction, and their ability to appreciate subtleties, (which all depend on one’s ability to reason), all of which depend on the depth and scope of one’s knowledge.

The ignorant and shallow minded will find humor in the squalid and crass, but will never be able to appreciate the more intellectually demanding humor of the satirists like Swift, Shaw, Voltaire, or even Twain, for example. Our sense of humor does change as we mature and gain knowledge and learn to think and reason better, which is why what children find hilarious only a bores us as adults.

As Ayn Rand said, “Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil,” (or funny), “but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear,” (or make him laugh), “depends on his standard of value,” and his knowledge and ability to think, I might add.

If you know your values and beliefs have been determined by your best objective reason, not allowing feeling, sentiment, or desires to determine them and know your sense of humor derives from a fully integrated set of values and purpose, why would  you change it?

Values are objective, but they can also be optional. To one author, a man with a mustache may symbolize a certain group of men, but to another they may symbolize a different group. One may say: my heroes never have mustaches, which the other may insist his do. This is an example of how both people can be objective, and even be right, while coming to different concrete conclusions.

I have no idea why you, or anyone, would want to change their sense of humor…

My point in this thread is that sexuality, like sense of humor or your personality, isn’t chosen in the same way as choosing to go get a job and support yourself for a living – the latter being an action that has more clear-cut moral implications. In fact, it’s arguable that sexuality is chosen at all, and it’s not really arguable that it’s “chosen” when a person is not old enough to realize what’s happening. It’s also not disputable at this point that sexuality can be changed once you’re an adult.

 

So, Amber Pawlik talking about this and that gender and sexuality trait being rational or not, ie. being moral or not, is rationalistic nonsense which tries to condemn aspects of human sexuality that either have no moral implications, or are not condemnable.

 

What point are you trying to make in this thread?

It’s also not disputable at this point that sexuality can be changed once you’re an adult.

Even if it were, it probably wouldn’t make sense to try.

Even if it were, it probably wouldn’t make sense to try.

Right, unless it were very easy to change somehow, so that both sexes could then potentially be enjoyed sexually. But, it would probably throw a wrench in one’s personality, since so much of your identity is linked to your sexuality.

Right, unless it were very easy to change somehow, so that both sexes could then potentially be enjoyed sexually. But, it would probably throw a wrench in one’s personality, since so much of your identity is linked to your sexuality.

Easy to change, yes; that’s the cost side. And, there also should be some value in doing so. Even if someone invented a pill that I could pop and become homosexual, I don’t see how I would get additional value. Even if it made me bisexual, thus expanding my choices, the benefits would be more theoretical than actual.

What point [is he] trying to make in this thread?

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Firehammer/Homo_Hijackers_%281%29__Response_to_Chris_Sciabarras_In_Praise_of_Hijacking.shtml

 

“Just as our mouths and digestive tracks have a specific nature which determines how they are to be used, the genitals have a specific nature which determines how they are to be used. Just as eating is our method of nourishment but can be used, and usually is, for pleasure, the genitals are our means for procreation but can be used, and usually are, for pleasure. Because our mouths and digestive systems have a specific nature, how they may be used for pleasure is limited and determined by that nature. Pica is abnormal because it violates that nature. Because our genitals have a specific nature, how they may be used for pleasure is limited and determined by that nature. Homosexual practices are abnormal because they violate that nature.”

 

Choice or not, Firehammer clearly finds homosexuality immoral - and is very simple-minded about that view.

Even if it made me bisexual, thus expanding my choices, the benefits would be more theoretical than actual.

I guess the only thing I really had in mind was, “Ooo, sexy lady! Oo, sexy man!” Nothing much more than getting a little more pleasure out of the visual sight of a whole additional sex.

 

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Firehammer/Homo_Hijackers_%281%29__Response_to_Chris_Sciabarras_In_Praise_of_Hijacking.shtml

Thanks.

 

Also from that link:

The ironic thing is, many Objectivists, who are among the few who do understand the nature of their minds and take great care to insure they do not abuse or misuse them, seem to have the same kind of ignorance about their body’s nature and requirements non-Objectivists have about their minds. They treat the body and it’s organs as though they have no “specific identity or specific requirements,” implying they therefore have, "no needs, no rules for being properly or improperly used.

 

He later lists a bunch of stats about anal cancer and the like. So, anal sex = cancer = improper use of body = homosexuality is improper.

The good news is that Regi is not a homosexual.

 


On the serious side, one thing about me that seemed to be rather strongly determined was my monogamy. It was simply what was natural to me. I didn't go around preaching it or thumping my chest for being that way, and I could see that a lot of other men are not that way. It seems that there were factors deeper in my personality than I know that somehow incline me that way; presumably such factors incline other men the other way. I don't think psychology has gotten very far on this. Certainly Rand's and Branden's lines of thought on this were not entirely correct nor nearly complete.

My point in this thread is that sexuality, like sense of humor or your personality, isn’t chosen in the same way as choosing to go get a job and support yourself for a living – the latter being an action that has more clear-cut moral implications. In fact, it’s arguable that sexuality is chosen at all, and it’s not really arguable that it’s “chosen” when a person is not old enough to realize what’s happening. It’s also not disputable at this point that sexuality can be changed once you’re an adult.

 

So, Amber Pawlik talking about this and that gender and sexuality trait being rational or not, ie. being moral or not, is rationalistic nonsense which tries to condemn aspects of human sexuality that either have no moral implications, or are not condemnable.

 

What point are you trying to make in this thread?

I’m not really trying to make a point. I’m only suggesting that your point is in contradiction to Rand’s Objectivism.

The Journals of Ayn Rand

“13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952”

“His first desires are given to him by nature; they are the ones that he needs directly for his body, such as food, warmth, etc. Only these desires are provided by nature and they teach him the concept of desire. Everything else from then on proceeds from his mind, from the standards and conclusions accepted by his mind and it goes to satisfy his mind—for example, his first toys. (Perhaps sex is the one field that unites the needs of mind and body, with the mind determining the desire and the body providing the means of expressing it. But the sex act itself is only that—an expression. The essence is mental, or spiritual.)”

I am not making a judgment about which view is the correct one, but for the sake of this thread, it seems to me, Amber Pawlik’s view is consistent with everything Rand said and wrote, (e.g. my quotes on the previous thread) and the majority view on this thread does not. That does not mean anyone has to agree with Rand, but if not, why is it called Objectivism?

Is an unpublished journal entry by Rand the best evidence you have of homosexuality being contradictory to the core principles of her published philosophic works? Or, do you think every word written and spoken by Rand is part of her philosophic system?

Edit: The entire concepts of “masculine” and “feminine” are ripe for rationalistic interpretation, as is evident all over this forum.

I’m not really trying to make a point. I’m only suggesting that your point is in contradiction to Rand’s Objectivism.

The Journals of Ayn Rand

“13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952”

“His first desires are given to him by nature; they are the ones that he needs directly for his body, such as food, warmth, etc. Only these desires are provided by nature and they teach him the concept of desire. Everything else from then on proceeds from his mind, from the standards and conclusions accepted by his mind and it goes to satisfy his mind—for example, his first toys. (Perhaps sex is the one field that unites the needs of mind and body, with the mind determining the desire and the body providing the means of expressing it. But the sex act itself is only that—an expression. The essence is mental, or spiritual.)”

I am not making a judgment about which view is the correct one, but for the sake of this thread, it seems to me, Amber Pawlik’s view is consistent with everything Rand said and wrote, (e.g. my quotes on the previous thread) and the majority view on this thread does not. That does not mean anyone has to agree with Rand, but if not, why is it called Objectivism?

I don’t fully agree with JASKN (i’ll explain), but that paragraph you’re quoting doesn’t state that sexual orientation is a choice. In fact it leaves the door open to it not being a choice, and so does everything else in Rand’s philosophy.

Furthermore, Rand offers no philosophical argument against homosexuality, be it chosen or otherwise. So, to answer your question, Ayn Rand’s unsubstantiated views on gay people are not called Objectivism. And neither is your interpretation of the paragraph you quoted. Her philosophy, as written in her published works, is what’s called Objectivism.

 

My point in this thread is that sexuality, like sense of humor or your personality, isn’t chosen in the same way as choosing to go get a job and support yourself for a living – the latter being an action that has more clear-cut moral implications. In fact, it’s arguable that sexuality is chosen at all, and it’s not really arguable that it’s “chosen” when a person is not old enough to realize what’s happening. It’s also not disputable at this point that sexuality can be changed once you’re an adult.

 

So, Amber Pawlik talking about this and that gender and sexuality trait being rational or not, ie. being moral or not, is rationalistic nonsense which tries to condemn aspects of human sexuality that either have no moral implications, or are not condemnable.

 

What point are you trying to make in this thread?

The question isn’t whether most of the things on your list are chosen, it’s merely by whom they are chosen.

Clearly, everything not determined by one’s genetic makeup is chosen, by someone: parents, teachers, peers, talking heads on TV, or the individual himself. Individuals DO have the capacity to make many of those choices, or reverse choices made by others at an early age.

People (be it adults, teenagers or even older children) should not just accept that their personality, sense of humor (or lackthereof), bad sexual impulses, etc. are a given, and beyond their ability to choose. They should not be told that, and they should not believe it if told that.

Obviously, none of this has anything to do with sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a bad sexual impulse. Whether sexual orientation is something we are born with, it is chosen for us early on, or can be chosen by us at least to some extent, doesn’t change the fact that there is no rational argument against homosexuality or same sex intimacy of any kind. “it’s natural” is not a valid argument. Ayn Rand’s concept of identity (including her concept of masculinity and femininity) has nothing to do with the simple minded, poorly defined “it’s good because it’s natural, and evil because it’s unnatural” argument. Ayn Rand’s views on sexuality (as expressed in AS and The FH) are in fact fully compatible with both homosexuality and the concept of gender identity (which aims to differentiate gender from sex).

There is no reason to tie the question of how much choice children and teenagers have, to sexual orientation, because even if they did have the capacity to shape their sexual orientation, children should not be taught to struggle with something that’s perfectly fine( from both a moral and psychological standpoint).

Right, I didn’t mean to imply that you can’t change aspects of your person. Although, for some things like personality, I think it can only be changed to a certain point – how would you even know where to begin? Until we’ve got the human mind all figured out, we’re at a guess-and-see stage. Rand identified some excellent things – being productive leads to self-esteem, for example. But say I think the macabre is funny – what to do to change that? And so many more concrete examples. And as both you and sNerd pointed out, why would you even want to change it?

 

In this thread, it has been presented as though the human mind is 100% programmable, like a computer, and furthermore that only certain kinds of programs should be run. I think it’s rationalistic nonsense.

 I think it’s rationalistic nonsense.

You are right, there is rationalization going on.

 

“[a man’s] emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow… he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction—his own and that of others.”

 

Ayn Rand, “Playboy’s interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, page 6.

As usual, a quote alone isn’t an argument.

Are you arguing that Objectivism condemns homosexuality because it is an emotion that reflects false premises which can be changed by more rational thinking?

As usual, a quote alone isn’t an argument.

Are you arguing that Objectivism condemns homosexuality because it is an emotion that reflects false premises which can be changed by more rational thinking?

A quote is evidence if what is being questioned is what someone said, in this case, what Rand said.

My original point was about your question: “When did I choose my sense of humor? Sexual preferences? Way in which I walk? Interest in music? Etc.” [which I said sounds] as though you did not know the source of such things, or have any intention of discovering them. If that is the case it would seem to be in direct contradiction to Rand’s views.

I had no point to make about homosexuality, only that Pawlik’s views, however imperfect, seemed to reflect Rand’s veiws better than those who disagreed with her.

I do not think it is likely that anyone can change anything about themselves that is a consequence of years of bad thinking or choices. Habitualized thinking and behavior is extremely difficult to change, or even to recognize. Personally, I have no interest in whether anyone changes their life in any way. How anyone lives their life is no else’s business (unless a direct physical threat). I would like for everyone to live happily and successfully, but it’s none of my business that most don’t.

I do think Objectivism regards any belief or practice based on feelings, desires, or emotions resulting from false premises, irrationality, or evasions as self-destructive and therefore immoral? Do you think that is incorrect?