21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
In case it wasn’t clear, that’s a position that I’m criticizing…
No, the nature of your critique was not clear to me.
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
You do realize I was describing the proper form of happiness? My whole point is that there is something more substantive than just the emotion, something that underlies it, produces it and justifies it. That is our real moral purpose, not just the emotion.
And actually, it still isn’t. Whatever it is you are arguing centrally is not completely clear to me (even as I recognize clear errors along the way).
What do we care about “the proper form of happiness”? Is the reason why we care about such a thing because… we want to achieve happiness? If so, then I agree, and I think that you’re wrong to criticize Rand’s identification of happiness as man’s highest moral purpose. It is that we wish to be happy that we care about the “proper form” to achieve it, or what underlies it or produces it. (Happiness is its own justification; we do not need a justification to seek out/pursue our own happiness; it is an end in itself.)
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
You’re telling me the emotional reward is the most important issue, but the proper form of that emotion isn’t; if getting your emotional happiness conflicts with your nature, then damn your nature. Well this is exactly what I’m criticizing as subjectivism.
Perhaps that’s what you’re criticizing, and the manner in which you’re attempting it, but you are mistaken to do so.
The only reason why “proper form” matters at all is because the emotional reward (which is, again, happiness; “man’s highest moral purpose”) is the most important issue. In fact, we may call a given form “proper” only because it results in happiness.
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
That’s exactly the position of the man who is after casual sex, for example. It doesn’t matter to him how fake and corrupt the act is, he’s still getting the emotional result, the feeling of self-esteem, no matter that it’s counterfeit, that it’s not what he really wants as a man, that it’s not actually fulfilling.
Central errors will radiate outwards, and yes, you’re also wrong to critique the fact that Rand’s fictional heroes enjoy sexual relationships (if that is in fact your critique; as I say, it is still unclear to me…).
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
That’s a pretty good description of the concept of a “black box”. In this psychological black box, the only referent is an emotion - an emotion whose “source, nature and meaning one does not know” - free from any objective, metaphysical grounding.
But I provided you with some real life examples of the very sorts of phenomena I meant, including “sense of life,” “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” So put some meat on those bones. I’d asked whether you know how to will yourself to be gay, if you are straight, or straight, if you are gay. Do you?
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
Nevermind the countless objective references to the physical and psychological basis of the male vs. female sexual distinction, nevermind the genetically, hormonally, anatomically, and psychologically distinctive male and female forms, nevermind the complementary and unifying physiological and psychological functions that males and females serve, nevermind the nature of the sexual intercourse from which you came into existence in the first place, and for that matter the entire historical existence of homo sapiens sapiens as a sexually reproducing species, and ultimately EVERY organism on Earth that has ever lived in the last billion years as a member of a sexually reproducing species. Nevermind all of that…
Yes. Exactly. Never mind all of that.
If we do not have the technology to change from straight to gay, or gay to straight, male-identifying to female-identifying, or back, then it does not matter about “the entire historical existence of Homo sapiens sapiens as a sexually reproducing species” (with respect to those issues, at least). It further doesn’t matter whether you believe that such technology – in medicinal form, or psychotherapeutic form, or what-have-you – theoretically could (or should) exist.
What matters is that individuals must make actual choices, in their actual, specific context, for the sake of their own happiness. And thus far it seems as though straight people cannot will themselves gay, and gay people cannot will themselves straight. Thus, a gay man or woman must act as a gay man or woman, and damn whatever you think their “nature” to otherwise be.
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
This is doing exactly what Rand says should never be done, and it’s taken so much further that she could have ever imagined. It’s not just taking “whatever makes one happy” as a guide to action, but as an entire epistemology, as a metaphysics.
Your method isn’t to question the origin of your emotions in your prior thinking and value judgments, identifying if your views are consistent with metaphysically given reality and therefore if your feelings make sense, and changing your views and ultimately your feelings if not – you’re instead taking the emotional end-result as the metaphysically given and unchangeable, rationalizing your value judgments from which they originally came in the first place, and then attempting to redefine reality, especially the nature of man, based on your feelings.
Don’t settle for empty verbiage. Go ahead and provide some practical examples: demonstrate what you mean, for the sake of clarity, if nothing else.
Yes, in some cases, I would advise taking the “emotional end-result” (though this seems a poor label for the sorts of things I’ve mentioned) as the metaphysically given and unchangeable; homosexuality is my running example, so I would like to see you address it directly:
I presume* that you take homosexuality as being against “man’s nature.” So in such a case… you would recommend “changing your views and ultimately your feelings,” rather than seeking happiness in same-sex relationships, etc.? Is that your sort of meaning? Cards on the table, please.
__________________________________
* It is the nature of such presumptions, of course, that I may be mistaken. And please advise me if I am. But given “the genetically, hormonally, anatomically, and psychologically distinctive male and female forms” to which you’ve referred, your cryptic reference to how marriage/procreation “completes” a person, and etc., I think my errant presumption – if indeed I am in error – is at least understandable.
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
All suicidal feelings must be following from some wrong belief about themselves or the world.
This is incorrect.
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
I gave my argument as to why: they are a living being, is implies ought, and that life is therefore the standard of value, and thus suicide, an act which cannot be supportive of life but rather flatly contradicts it, is categorically wrong.
Yes, I understand your argument. I’m deeply familiar with it. This sort of math depends upon a misunderstanding/equivocation of “life as the standard of value,” which is, unfortunately, endemic throughout the Objectivist community. It is replacing “life” in the full sense Rand intended (“qua man”) with “survival,” which is a misinterpretation supported (again unfortunately) by some of Rand’s writings, and developed at length, explicitly, by David Kelley.
It is mistaken.
21 minutes ago, intrinsicist said:
You’re asserting the opposite, but I’m not seeing any counter-argument here. Which part do you disagree with? That they are living beings? That is implies ought? That life is the standard of value? That suicide flatly contradicts that standard? Whichever option you pick, you’re going to be leaving Objectivism for subjectivism.
LOL, oh you! 
Well, when I leave Objectivism for subjectivism, I suppose I will be welcomed by Rand, Peikoff, et al., who have also endorsed suicide under certain conditions. But you’re right that you don’t see any counterargument here. I don’t intend on arguing suicide again, or not for awhile, at least. Yet my arguments on this topic – and the many rebuttals they’ve drawn – are strewn all across the forum:
Choosing to Live, Choosing to Die
Spies Who Commit Suicide
Reification and Suicide
I’m certain there are others…