When a man loves a woman, she actually is the most beautiful woman on Earth, in the most real of senses. It's the love that makes her beautiful. — Agustino

My belief is that only through self-reflection and the attainment of an authentic, moral consciousness are we able to understand how to love. You quoted Kierkegaard in a previous post; people are capable of thwarting, ignoring or turning their backs on love because they sacrifice their feelings for the sake of other, perhaps more social or economic benefits. I want to know what compels a person to do that and why self-reflection and virtue will break that barrier.

You read my posts too fast :P slow down, that way you may see the edits which actually sketch an answer for what you're asking for :P haha (joking :D )

I want to know what compels a person to do that — TimeLine

Lust very often manifests in the desire to possess what others want to possess, by virtue of mimesis - you want it for the sole reason that others want it. Hence the trophy wife. Or the guy with lots of money, driving a fast car, and carrying big muscles. — Agustino

Sylar;

I realize that this thread is a couple of years old, and I understand your interest in Ayn Rand's philosophy has probably pasted you by since. I discovered her ideas over 30 years ago and view myself as an Objectivist. I'm not going to moralize or attempt to proselytize, but I came here to this forum looking for something not related to your subject and felt compelled to answer you as a man who has lived and studied Objectivism all of his life...even before I knew who Ayn Rand was or that her ideas were actually "out there" in the world. I thought maybe it might be useful for you to learn my story; how I lived before learning Ayn's ideas, and the life I've lived after becoming aware of Objectivism.
I grew up on a farm in a backwater of Oregon, USA. I could tell you the name of the township, but it wouldn't get you any closer to knowing where I grew up than if I didn't. Take a map of Oregon, find the emptiest space and put your finger right square in the middle of it. That's where I'm from. : ) I think its important to mention this, because out there in this backwater there was no organized religion. There were Baptists and Catholics and Mormans who were neighbors, but the nearest church for any of them was roughly 35 miles away. If there were churches for them at all. I couldn't tell you what my mother or my father thought about the subject of religion, but my personal experience with those who outwardly professed religious beliefs was not entirely good. Without going into much detail, I'll simply say that I grew up in an environment void of that kind of indoctrination.If you've studied Ayn's non-fiction writings you will know that the indoctrination I'm talking about is that of Original Sin, delivered as a righteous moral standard. I attended a church service once, when I was in my early teens, but the experience shook my confidence in my fellow man as being...predictable. That was strike one against religion! There were other experiences, mostly disputes about property boundaries and money, that provided additional feelings of distrust and caution in my judgement toward them. Keep in mind, my judgement was about the people, not the ideas, that religion produced. This, my disappointment in these people, along with a burning desire to see the world, prompted me to go immediately to college after high school. I left the farm with no desire to go back.
At the time (mid-1980's) college was a sink or swim proposition. I look back at my experience in college from the prospective of a college professor now: it certainly was a different environment back then! BTW, I do not profess philosophy; I teach the sciences of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, other kinematic theories and some technologies based on these sciences.
OK, back to college and the experience that led me to Ayn Rand's ideas. Spring of '87 in an anthropology class (it was an elective that I though was interesting) I was shocked to hear the professor confess that he thought perhaps Reason was not able to solve the major societal problems we view as responsible for the demise of past cultures. That Reason might be impotent in guiding us out of the current crisis, which at the time was Peak Oil and the depletion of natural resources, and I think global Cooling was being bandied about as a threat, too. It was predicted that earths natural resources would be depleted in about 20 years and we would be freezing in a global ice age by guys who - obviously - had no idea what they were talking about. I say obviously because...well, take a look out of your window or at the crude oil market. :)
My reaction to this proclamation was genuine shock. I asked him: if not Reason, then what? His answer was a shrug. At this point in my life I had completely given up on religion and its shameful lack of answers, so I headed to the campus library. It was a technical college, so the tiny philosophy section was soon depleted of useful resources. :) I then headed for one of the downtown book stores looking for the author of a book that I had read for a literature class during my freshman year: the book was "The Last Days of Socrates," by Plato. I had enjoyed the book and thought Socrates to be a rather interesting character. Personally, I think Plato took some "artistic" liberties regarding the charges leveled against Socrates, and I suspect the vote to seal his fate was not unanimous! Of course, Socrates didn't do himself any favors by representing himself, and the horse analogy probably earned him his sentence. Anyway, I found a nice copy of The Republic in the philosophy section of the bookstore...right next to "Philosophy: Who Needs It", by Ayn Rand. A good question...one I hadn't thought to ask during my frantic search for the answer to the question my teacher shrugged at. That's were it started...my relationship with the ideas of Ayn Rand. Ideas which are based on the ideas of Aristotle, whom I've also studied during the last 30 years.
Before this becomes a rambling life story, I'll leave you with a single thought: if you don't appreciate Aristotle - his "passionate pursuit of passionless truth" - you haven't a chance of appreciating Ayn Rand. For me, Rand was an introduction to Aristotle and a testimony to the power of his thoughts, of his views, and of his humor...that is, what little humor comes out in the fragments of his writings that survive today.
Yes, I admire Ayn Rand and what she's done for mankind in this day in age, and I am confident to my core that the seeds that are her ideas have yet to bear fruit. But she is standing on the shoulders of a giant...perhaps the greatest mind to have ever lived. The man who taught Mankind how to think...the FIRST man to ever think about thinking: Aristotle.
I hope you find what you're looking for, and I'm genuinely sorry Ayn Rand failed to help you find it. My only advise is to keep your mind clear, and keep it active.

Sincerely,
TS Phillis

I'm anxious to discover other answers to life's questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me. — Sylar

Maybe the science can help...

We will be hard pressed to remember what we had for lunch last Monday - unless that was an emotional event or completely habitual - i.e. we can reconstruct what we had for lunch. Emotions enhance the transition from short-term memory into long-term memory. (Some will admit that and then turn to weed out all emotions from their speculations...)

Intelligence without emotions is not possible either. We now speak of emotional intelligence.

So, get rid of "Objectivism" and enjoy life...

Hearty,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL6XGejCt-w

just had to :) its a Rush song called resist. I think it might(somehow) be about this subject,...

took this sentence from the article from wiki about objectivism:
"the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness" and I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it dosent cause harm to other in anyway.

I think the problem isn't objectivism per se - though I myself am not keen on the subject - but rather your absolutist need to follow the philosophy. — TimeLine

I'd like to cast a vote for this suggestion.

It doesn't seem wise to get too wound up in any philosophy. It's perhaps helpful to recall that all philosophy, any philosophy, is just a pile of symbols which point to the real world, and not the real world itself. Consider the relationship between your name and you. The name is a useful convention, but because it is merely a symbol it will always be incurably limited in nature. So it is with all philosophies.

Except for this one, which is THE ONE TRUE WAY!!!! :smile:

has ayn rand ever said or written anything about satanism? I cant help but see a connection there..

has ayn rand ever said or written anything about satanism? I cant help but see a connection there.. — Aleksander Kvam

The founder of LaVeyan Satanism did say that his Satanism was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added".

yeah, I just read about Ayn and I have also read a bit about satanism, but im not interested in politics, im not religious and im not a satanist, still I must admit that I agree with most of it..

Objectivism isn’t real.

Everything is subjective.

Yes, I admire Ayn Rand and what she's done for mankind in this day in age — TS Phillis

Yeah environmental devastation and global warming, Paul Ryan tax cuts, worker exploitation and wage stagnation, etc. etc. have totally been a blessing for the world.

Well, if reading Ayn Rand led you to read Aristotle, I suppose her work may have done something for you, but I find it difficult to think of anything she did for mankind. In fact, it would seem that if you accept her philosophy, such as it is, you wouldn't admire her for doing anything for mankind. More likely you'd admire for not doing anything for mankind. After all, according to Rand, we each should act in such a manner as to maximize our own self-interest and live for our own sake, regardless of others.

It's unfortunate that someone whose thought was so derivative of Aristotle so entirely misunderstood or disregarded his ethics. The good man, according to Aristotle, would be one who would do many things for the sake of his friends or country, even die for them, and throw away money and all other "good things" for which men compete in order to do so. His good man is noble and virtuous. Rand's good man is not, necessarily (I can't help but think of John Oliver's show where it was once said, if I recall correctly, that Rand's ideal person was "an asshole").

The question is: Does the object out there have our emotions?

Hearty,

Ayn Rand never stated that her purpose was to benefit mankind, so recognizing such a thing would be difficult for those who do not live objectively or understand what that means. I would say that even if she labeled her ideas as such it would not make it any easier.

Aristotle never made that claim, either. You seem to recognize his influence as beneficial; would it trouble you to know that Ayn Rand was a huge admirer of him, too? In fact, she stated herself that she considered Aristotle the greatest of all minds and had the most influence on her ideas.

Personally, I have grown deeply suspicious of people who explicitly state that their goal is to benefit others, either as individuals or as groups. This isn't so much my ethical or political view, or my knowledge of history, as it is my personal experience. My admiration for Ayn Rand's contributions to mankind's advancement are deeply personal and radiate from my own recognition of people who share her view of life WITHOUT explicitly stating so. Because I share her views, and because I do not wear my heart on my sleeve, I have an advantage over you in recognizing her influence in this world. I'm not sure how to communicate this to you as anything other than the ability to sense a person's "sense of life." I will say that it pleases me more to recognize her influence in other people if those values are not stilted statements recited from memory. Honest and impassioned expressions of truths derived from reasoned and principled thought ARE objective. Lately I've noticed that the process - reasoned and principled thought - is making its way into popular political thought. That's an extraordinary thing to see...and something I will admit isn't entirely Ayn Rand's doing. Some are being expressed out of necessity without the influence of Objectivism. I recognize such things as victories for mankind, not for Objectivism or for Ayn Rand. In either case, those victories are leading man toward the Objectivist goals of political and economic Liberty.

I will say that its a life-giving thing to experience...kind of like what a cool drink of water does for a thirsty body. To hear someone speak in such a manner that leaves no doubt in my mind that they are speaking honestly, truthfully, objectively. The modern vernacular is called being "Red Pilled." Taking the "Red Pill" reveals the truths hidden to a mind clouded by lies and undisciplined emotions. I got "Red Pilled" 30 years ago. 30 years of conscious contact with my surroundings; thinking, building relationships, exploring the world, living life...and drawing conclusions about it that are constantly being tested, adjusted or abandoned *by me* with input from this world, and from other people. Life is a process...thinking is a process...both are things that I wish - for me - would never end. That's kind of selfish, isn't it! :)

Ah. I see. You admire Ayn Rand for her contributions to mankind because you believe other people share her views, although they don't say they do. That seems a less than well-founded inference. But, it doesn't explain why you admire Ayn Rand for her contributions to mankind. If she made contributions to mankind without saying she wanted to do so, or even without intending to do so, she nonetheless made contributions to mankind and you think her admirable because she did. Why is contributing to mankind admirable?

As to Aristotle, I'm well aware of Rand's admiration for him, and also that she does little more than parrot him for the most part (i.e. her work is derivative of Aristotle, as I said). Except, I think, she fails to understand, or disregards, his ethics. See Books VIII and IX of the Nicomachean Ethics.

Not surprised that in less than 10 years the renewed hype among conservatives around Ayn Rand has been replaced by hype around Julius Evola.

No, I think you misunderstood my meaning. What I meant to say was that an act that is natural, or appears to be more natural, is more genuine. It's not often that I see or hear someone act or speak in a manner that is genuinely objective, or genuinely reflects Objectivist values. Something worth admiring is a rare thing for me to see, but that's not why I came here and certainly not what I found. My point about my advantage over you in this respect should be obvious, but maybe not. It doesn't matter anyway; I'm not sensing that you understand much about Objectivism, nor do you care to. As strange at it may seem to you, I respect that.

Ayn Rand did not ignore Aristotle's ethics, nor did she ignore his politics. She rejected them. If you're familiar with Aristotle, you should know of his association with Plato. Plato's influence went deep and my thoughts are that Aristotle began doubting his mentor's ideas during the last part of his stay at the Academy. Aristotle's main contributions to Objectivism are in epistemology and metaphysics, in that order, and stand diametrically opposed to Plato. His ethics are a muddle, his politics even more so. I think that if he had lived longer he would have revised these, too. Perhaps he became too distracted with other things to get to it, there's no way for us to know. Whatever the reason, both his ethics and his politics reveal a heavy Platonic influence...and if you knew anything at all about Ayn's motives you would know that she viewed Plato in a very dim light.

Anyway, its been a nice little distraction chatting with you. I did mention in my first post to Sylar that I came to these forums for an entirely different reason, which was not to chat it up with those uninterested in my reason. I need to get back to the task at hand. Good luck to you.

It seems a rather long way to go to avoid explaining why you admire what you say Rand's done for mankind, or why doing anything for mankind may be admirable. Is evasion admirable as well? It's at least unsurprising, in this case.

For me, Aristotle's views on ethics are far more sophisticated than Rand's. She took a much too doctrinaire and simple-minded approach to morality.

Ah, ha...I now know what you are.

You're right in a sense that I'm being evasive, but the purpose is honest and its a tactic that I've seen excellent results with when teaching. Someone both capable of and interested in learning will focus their mental efforts on finding the conclusions I speak "around", not the fact that I'm speaking around them. This is how thinkers own knowledge; they draw the conclusions on their own with the help of a guide. You've chosen to focus on the object, not the subject...which tells me you're not interested in the subject. I'm not interested in "telling" you anything...you get to think for yourself. I teach people to think, and this is how I do it.

As to what you are: its now obvious and I'm going to speak plainly and directly since inference doesn't work with you. You are a poser as evidenced by two facts: one that shows itself to everyone who reads your posts, and one that shows up in your thoughts about Objectivism and Aristotle.

That which shows up to everyone is your name; one you've chosen probably for the same two reasons other people choose pseudonyms. Anonymity and self-identity. The former is perfectly rational, given the threats we all face online. The latter, if pursued as a pseudo-self, can lead to problems, both personal and public. You pursue your online self-identity as a pseudo-self, not as who you really are.

You are not what you want me (or others) to think you are. This fact - the one only me or another Objectivist or student of Aristotle would recognize - is evidenced by your surface familiarity on both subjects. So far you've demonstrated that you know Ayn Rand formulated the Objectivist ethics, and you know that she called it Selfishness. That, apparently, is all you think you need to know to draw all necessary conclusions and argue any point. What you know can be found quickly using Google.

Regarding Aristotle, your conclusion that his ethics are "far more sophisticated" than Objectivist ethics is laughable, mostly for the above reason. Aristotle's primary contribution to mankind's knowledge in general lays exclusively with the disciplines of metaphysics and epistemology. His ethics are a combination of Platonic precepts and colloquial values...there's nothing remarkable about this because the same thing can be said about almost EVERY philosopher since Plato. You can't compare the two ethos because you know nothing useful about one, and know only what's common about the other.

There's some saying about teaching and doing...I can't quite remember it, but it came to mind when you mentioned you teach people to think. You should consider teaching them evasion as well. But if one teaches by example, perhaps you already do.

Tit for tat; ad hominem for ad hominem.

But there's no need to manufacture an elaborate and self-serving rationale for avoiding what seems a simple enough question. If you prefer not to answer it, so be it.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Stop wasting your time on the Randroids.

Over the past 5 days I have lost my entire philosophical framework — Sylar

Anyone who takes on the pretence of doing philosophy, but has not felt this, is no philosopher.

Welcome to the fraternity.

I teach people to think, and this is how I do it. — TS Phillis

By writing long empty posts full of nothing but ad homs, generalizations and your boring autobiography, apparently. You're not going to get away with that here. You're nothing to anyone unless you can show at least a basic level of knowledge and analysis. And make it concise. Or try reddit.