Lindsay you state that "she should at least have the honesty not to claim that Rand...." Perhaps Deborah had her own Objectivist based reasons for her actions (e.g possible lack of honesty) in the best interests of her right to self determination.

Moreover is it (or is it not) indeed consistent with Objectivism for an Objectivist to command that someone else "should at least have the honesty not to do something (whatever that may be)..."? E.g does Objectivism require 100% honesty in all actions?

Burnsy -

FYI: Objectivism and objectivity are unrelated. You will encounter less abuse if you use a spellchecker.

Thanks Kyrel. The outcomes you claim that accrue as a result of promoting Objectivism are often the same outcomes (e.g fulfillment, pleasure, social milieu) that Christians claim to experience when they themselves promote Christianity. I have yet to see any evidence that Christianity is smehow world destroying. I am also intrigued by your subjective label of scumbag appended to the term Chrisitianity. Is there any chance of putting aside any prejudice or bias you may (or may not) have by not distorting the possible interpretation your arguement with such subjective adjectives. Thanks again.

We are effectively helping to defeat the world-destroying and self-destroying philosophy of scumbag Christianity, for instance.

SOLO drove me to it.

You describe yourself as "someone seeking the truth."

And you came to SOLO?

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

Burnsy -- Welcome to Solo Passion. And good question.

A handful of Objectivists -- such as Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, Yaron Brook, etc. -- actually made/make good money in promoting the philosophy of Objectivism. Many others selfishly and reasonably hope for this. But more to your point...

There's real pleasure in stating the truth and in advocating for one's own intellectual position. Both somewhat create the world one prefers to live in. And you also have the possibility of persuading others, and thus making them and your immediate social milieu more to your liking. Moreover, discussing intellectual issues can be fun in itself, while also sharpening your knowledge of reality, which also helps you live with more excitement, enjoyment, and general happiness.

So while most of current Objectivist advocacy seems altruistic -- to me and you, at least-- a great deal is not. Don't forget: We are effectively helping to defeat the world-destroying and self-destroying philosophy of scumbag Christianity, for instance.

Just how can it be that the postings, opinions, answers and objectivist aims contained on this website and those by Ayn Rand herself (e.g to save the world from so called erroneous Christianity) not be considered altruistic acts in their own right? Afterall is it not self evident that such contributions by objectivists and Ayn Rand herself are the product of sacrificing themselves for the benefit of someone else's enlightenment?

Here's to another year of selffulness and kicking the ass out of sacrificialism!

"Speak to any carpenter and he'll tell you it's the hammer driving the nail that counts."

The true secret is that it is not length that matters most, but girth

That what everyone gets wrong in pop culture.

From an anatomical point of view, several inches more in length or thrust will not increase pleasure.

... today with Deborah. We talked so hard we even forgot a radio interview she was supposed to do at 5.10! Sorry about that, Newstalk ZB!

Thanks for the birthday lunch, Deborah. Great food, great wine, great company. More often. It. We must do.

... most of the chicks in this room rock (Rosie, take a lesson in ballsy brevity FFS).

"will drop their principles right along with their pants" ... woohoo.

"mumbling, game-playing, cunt-numbing, cynicism" ... phwaw.

Deb, I have no homo in me, so to speak. However, is there a chance your velvety offspring can be turned, so to speak?

that Rand did not conjure up her own meaning for altruism.

7) I will get a room with Glenn ..... and introduce him to my three daughters. Also, I have a son, if Glenn has latent faggot tendencies. Though I think my son does not. And one of my daughters tips the velvet, Glenn, so no joy there. For you anyway.

If I'm permitted, as a newcomer, and (in my dotage) to comment, I like your new words. In particular, the word selffulness - it has none of the connotations of self denial, abnegation, shame, etc. Also, because I can keep using the word selfish as an insult. Like hurling lily-livered liberal at tossers on the left.

And you're right Linz, size doesn't really matter, that's actually a weapon men foolishly gave to women in a moment of their insecurity, so now we torture the poor dears when we're feeling vengeful. Speak to any carpenter and he'll tell you it's the hammer driving the nail that counts. So long as that hammer has a good brain and can make us laugh. So pax on that?

Happy Birthday, my darling, and I'll see you in a couple of hours, I'm taking the Akatarawa route, so to speak.

The women on this thread absolutely rock.

Thank you Olivia and Deborah for making me laugh aloud in your takedowns of Doug.

I must confess to having been infected with a fair amount of genetic determinism. I try to fight it but it gets the better of me. It heavily influences my views of gender and race. This does come into conflict with Objectivism's views of free-will and individualism. I am an individualist but its just that it seems to me that social metaphysics is very likely mankind's default psychology. This means that being fully rational and being an individualist in psychological orientation is *not easy*.

I also confess that whereas reading Rand fills me with great joy, reading anything related to evolutionary psychology and neurology fills me with great dread. These fields do nothing but point in the direction of determinism and the diminution of humanity. Reading them is worse than reading Kant.

I think there is an important point in all this regarding altruism. Rand's identification of the evil of the ethics of self-sacrifice is one of her greatest contributions to philosophy. Understanding the evil of sacrificial ethics and how it must lead to collectivist politics is an extremely powerful thing. It allows you to predict with remarkable effectiveness so much of human behavior especially at the political level.

But Rand's definition of altruism (borrowing from Comte) is a tough one to use in the modern cultural context. So is the term selfishness. Both terms are loaded with connotations that are at odds with the way Objectivsim defines them.

Lindsay is making the argument that it may be time for Objectivists to adopt a new terminology. I think he may be right. I also think that the more orthodox O'ists will not agree but that's to be expected. I suggest that SOLOers use these terms in their dealings and report back if it makes conveying Objectivist ethical theory to non-Objectivists harder or easier. I for one have experienced far too many times the knee-jerk anti-selfish reaction that I get immediately when I use that word.

... Bandler isn't a sycophant — but he is a rabid misogynist dog.

Self-respect and self-esteem are *aspects* of selffulness, not synonyms for it.

Selffulness is the overarching term we need to replace selfishness. Folk will learn to spell it soon enough. Even young folk. And just think of the wallop it will pack, as the knockout blow to sacrificialism!

...not only is it annoying to pronounce and ingratiating to spell, I think the more established terms of "self esteem" and "self respect" would be better taken up by Objectivists. That way people know what we're talking about, it doesn't seem contradictory to goodwill and kindness, and suddenly makes our position all the more respectable in the eyes of onlookers who gasp at any mention of "selfishness" or "self interest".

"Sacrificialism" (as opposed to "sacrifism", which I still say as "sacrificism"), on the other hand, rolls off the tongue and is a term we should all adopt.

Here's my summation of where we're at:

1) Deborah should acknowledge that Rand didn't "conjure up" her definition of "altruism."

2) All Objectivists should acknowledge that the Comte/Rand definition has been superseded and that we need a new term to be defined by that definition. I have suggested and will be using "sacrificialism." (And, arising from this thread, "selffulness" as its antidote.)

3) Those who've repaired in the past to this longstanding semantic confusion in their efforts to be non-committal should now tell us whether they support sacrificialism or selffulness.

4) Everyone should now acknowledge that the gender warfare that has overtaken this debate is a separate issue. To me, incidentally, an utterly tedious one. Yes, I know I kicked it off with the opening para of this article—but that's why I didn't send it out as an op-ed. I wanted to engage in some typical tongue-in-cheek Linz-mischief without having a bunch of earnest, worthy and boring morons coming back at me with how offensive they found my comments.

5) Doug should acknowledge that, while everything he says about women is true, it's also equally true of men.

6) Glenn should acknowledge that he was egregiously unjust in calling Doug a sycophant.

7) Glenn and Deborah should get a room. Failing that, Glenn and Doug should get a room. Failing that, Doug and I should get a room. I don't mind a small penis. Doug has magnificent balls. So does Deborah. That's the pity here—that they can't both be ballsy in the same cause.

I think that covers most of the bases Deborah

OT: with Fran and Debra Hill Cone putting out softer (perhaps vague a better word), more state-centric opinion pieces on NZ Herald over this year - is that just me or is anyone else finding that? - your piece over this weekend was refreshingly good: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opin...

Okay, back to philosophy and Doug's penis.

Excuse me, I seem to have strayed into the wrong room. I thought this was where philosophy was discussed, but everyone seems to be arguing over whether men are more rational than women, a pretty irrational conversation, I would have thought.

And what is it with Perigo and me, I wonder, when we get together, that we foment such mischief, from leaving men comatose in lavatories at Italian restaurants, to causing captains of industry to declare there is a "viper in our midst"? Ah, sweet mystery of life.

But it is this fellow Doug, who intrigues me, and his hang-up with women d'un certain age. He says, "Marital law is a big disincentive to getting married..."

Men! I love them so much when they have a good brain, when they are smart. They are so goddam sexy, and hot, and (since I am allowed to say it on this site) fuckable. I have been married three times now, and my first two husbands took all my stuff when we split up, but I still love brainy men, and I still marry them even though they let me down and break the contract. You see, that is the funny thing about men, they *only view the Property Relationship Act* (as it is called in New Zealand) as legislation that is used by women to strip men of their property.

Somehow, men who are not smart, like Doug, don't seem to see it the other way round.

Why, you might say, am I a sucker for punishment? Because, despite Doug's cynicism about my being "too old" to "get" Rand, I am a true lover of life, and I pursue the right to freedom and happiness and I bloody well refuse to become a cynic, and a sneerer, and turn my back on this glorious world, and the smart men in it.

Doug you say giving women the vote has led the the "hastening of the fall of the West". This is an example of the snickering, psycho-babble I've come to despair of. Something I see in young journalists. It is meaningless, not backed up by any empirical evidence, as meaningful as saying: "paedophiles have milk in their fridges, therefore having milk in your fridge leads to molesting under-age children."

You are perfectly at liberty to attack me for being old, too old to understand, or comprehend, or apply objectivism, and I am not at all offended by that. It may be true, it may not be, I only have to read up in my library to correct that, because I know I'm smart enough. But save your anger for something that matters, don't rear up on your hind legs at Glenn for his chivalrous and spirited defence, accusing him of joining "leftish girlie men".

Even if Glenn was a "leftish, girlie" man (and he's not), I'd rather 100 of him, with his fire, and spirit, and look-you-straight-in-the-eye and yes, if I was 20 years younger - fuckability - than your mumbling, game-playing, cunt-numbing, cynicism. One man's Lothario, Doug, is a real woman's dud root.

And you know what? In this whole debate over altruism and sacrifice over my Mother dilemma, Glenn put me straight with one text message, something no one on this thread could manage to do with all their verbiage.

Which brings me to my final point, Doug, on using too many words.

Why don't you use six words to say what you really mean.

"I have a really small penis."

There, that wasn't so difficult now, was it?"

An 85-year old man is having his annual checkup. The Doctor asks him how he is feeling.

"I've got an eighteen-year old bride who's pregnant with my child. What do you think about that?"

The Doctor considers this for a moment, and then says, "Well, let me tell you a story. I know of a guy who's an avid hunter. He never misses a season.

But one day he's in a bit of a hurry and he accidentally grabs his umbrella instead of his gun.

So he's walking in the woods near a creek and suddenly spots a beaver in some brush in front of him! He raises up his umbrella, points it at the beaver and squeezed the handle. BAM !

The beaver drops dead in front of him.

"That's impossible!", says the old man in disbelief, "Someone else must have shot that beaver."

The Doctor says, "My point exactly."

Doug's become the object of all sorts of shameless psychologising & moralising. It's unseemenly.

(Olivia, where did he actually say he 'got hurt'?)

What part of "For a hetero, Doug" did you miss? I'm pointing out his sycophancy.

Doug is not being sycophantic for calling Lindsay the Best. I'm with him on that. He obviously has lousy taste in women, but excellent taste in homos.

[ OT: I don't mind many of Rosie's longer posts; as I'm sure Doug will agree, size can certainly sometimes add to the enjoyment of a ... well, longer post. Gotta go now, as I'm working on my scuba diving stories: Pauline has been utterly unimpressed so far, but I'm sure I'll get the hang of this womanising thing shortly - although, given the bullet with my name on it, my womanising for now has to be restricted to Pauline, so it all seems a bit furtive. Perhaps I'm just too old for all this, there certainly seems to be some sort of age agenda coming through the thread also. ]

And yes, I have been disappointed, even by O'ist (allegedly) women. But in the end I blame myself, I'm a Lothario. Rand's view of romantic love still hasn't penetrated to the emotional level.

And it probably never will, so far be it from me to stand between you and your sexual neurosis (you know you’re onto one when you start mythologizing your hard-on-antics Lothario). So you got your heart lacerated? Happens to all of us at some point when our choices collide indelicately with reality – otherwise known as consequences. Some take their medicine like men and bounce back better, wiser, stronger, whereas others just bounce their penises raw in and out of the orifices on offer from Hydra Headed Drooling Beast Land.

Bottom line: women are potentially dangerous creatures. Unless you have the ability to keep a woman mesmerized with your I-could-give-a-damn aloofness and your devil-may-care charm, its probably better to be gay. Especially with divorce laws being what they are.

Damn right we’re potentially dangerous creatures – that is why we're irresistible to men with a taste for adventure and balls big enough to know we're a risk which could go either way - therefore worth a little due diligence. Yes, we might cut your hearts out with our callous self-absorption and emotional fickleness, then again we might be one of the best things that happens to you, but if the highest return on a pierced hymen is your practiced and lofty aloofness, a pierced heart is probably the best thing to jolt you into giving a shit and playing a better game for a better prize.

Not necessary. Just act like a super-aloof charismatic wise-ass. Throw in a few well timed "negs" (disguised insults - "I saw you here a few weeks ago. You were wearing the same shirt. Its a nice shirt. Say, did you see the fight outside...) Tell a few NLP stories about the time you went scuba-diving and you came face to face with a shark and you never felt so alive yet so terrified. "Have you ever felt anything like that?...

Never ceases to amaze me how many Objectivists will drop their principles right along with their pants when it would probably behoove them to uphold them the most. Laying claim to elaborate rationalizations in order to compensate for failing to wear a principle belt... i.e biological programming, evolutionary hard-wiring, man's super-sonic sex drive which women can't understand... ra ra ra. It's nothing short of puerile, but who’s going to notice when you’re routinely screwing similarly puerile women who take their moral code from Sex and the City?

Here’s a clue for you Dougy Dearest when you’re hot and horny and out on the game; if you find yourself acting and practicing deceit in order to maintain a beautiful slut’s attention, ask yourself what Rand meant when she said, “Show me the woman a man sleeps with and I’ll give you his entire estimation of himself?”

Anyway you sound like a fine woman Olivia. But you're a little too old for me and then of course there is the fact that you are married and have children. Also, I think you live in New Zealand. Long distance relationship indeed. Do you have a 22 year old sister?

Yes, fine indeed - too fine to be the marrying kind, but I am these days happily spoken for. I do have two beautiful daughters, but you'd be of no use to them whatsoever owing to the fact that they both have a relentless expectation for men to treat them with decency.... especially when said men find them attractive and want to sleep with them. Weird huh.

It’s nice to see some sense being made in this nonsensical discussion. I, too, like to engage in some chauvinistic humor especially at the expense of humorless feminazis. However, witnessing generalizations based upon “surveys” that dismiss the intellect of half the world's population is tiresomely moronic. Doug ought to pull his head in and take his women issues elsewhere, IMO.

Rosie: Please learn the virtue of brevity. For one thing it might ensure your posts get read

... but it looks to me like the trollop Bandler is grouting the gaps in his plasterwork with compliments.

How do you get "sycophancy" out of a compliment for a line he enjoyed? If Objectivists of all people cannot praise each other when they think the occasion merits it, without being accused of "kissing a homo's ass," then we're in serious trouble indeed. And as the "homo" in question in this instance, be assured I've adjusted my estimate of you accordingly!

"It only (rather loosely) argues a case for one reason why men need morals..."

And that's as far as I read. Jesus H Christ, woman, your posts are fucking sermons — 2,247 words according to my word counter. It's insane. You're wasting your time and ours with these deserts of white noise that we have to scroll past to get to the next salient point. Are you that deluded that you think people actually read this shit?

...are you really saying what I think you're saying?

That you wish there were more people like Doug Bandler?

What part of "For a hetero, Doug" did you miss? I'm pointing out his sycophancy.

Although very interesting to read, Doug, this does not provide evidence to support your assertion that women are less moral than men.

It only (rather loosely) argues a case for one reason why men need morals.

The "fact" of men being expendable to maintain a population (which is then supposed to explain why they have a wider range of intellligence, take risks and build civilisations which latter fact is then supposed to explain why men need to develop moral qualities for group strength in so building them) does not justify the sudden leap in logic to the conclusion that women are less moral than men!

And I do not agree with you that women do not have, or need, morals any less than men. Even if we examine the men who are out there in the world building civilisations, morality was not suddenly discovered at this point nor was it created by men for this purpose - in fact men have built civilisations on and using immoral means and have built civilisations that practice immorality. Some men have chosen to build civilisations from moral means, to have laws and a system that preserves morality, at one time the church to teach it, music and art to celebrate and honour it, and to build safeguards in to that civilisation to maintain it because these men decided that man's adherence to morality was necessary for the civilisation to flourish and for men to live peacefully together.

This type of civilisation requires that women appreciate, honour and respect morality also. In their traditional role of raising children - the next generation of civilisation builders - morality is central to the success of the mothering role. (Why you think a Christian would think otherwise is a mystery. Christian ethics do not distinguish either sex in their application. )

For as you have pointed out, while men are doing all that civilisation building, the large statistic you provided indicates that women are doing a whole lot of child raising. And raising children requires the application of and respect for morality at all times. Let me explain just a little of what I mean with a brief insight into the moral requirements for child rearing:

To have a child requires the following moral requirements from a mother in terms of her commitment to, and creation of, an appropriate (and moral) environment for the child and, in terms of a time commitment, well, for the rest of her life with not a single day off:

Unwavering and unceasing commitment, loyalty, patience, love, forgiveness, devotion, justice, stoicism, philosophy of mind and government of temper in giving up (a) her independence, (b) all alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and lots of yummy foods during pregnancy and breast feeding, and then remaining sober and sensible most of the time thereafter while you remain ever present and available for your children's needs for about the next 50 years (c) the immediate gratification of doing what you want when you want because you have children to look after and often you will not find it easy to leave the home , (d) conversation of any depth or length (children or adult) until the youngest child is at least 10, all male company since your life is now largely confined to women , (e) the time and application required to improve and develop your skills, talents since you will be interrupted, or your children will wish to take over (e.g., playing the piano) (f)guaranteed uninterrupted time alone to think or dream (g) fulfillment of your own emotional and physical needs, desires and wants while you give and give and give of yourself to your children - love, cuddles, affection, laughter, organising games and fun, educating them, playing sport and teaching gross and fine motor skills, responsibility for ensuring their developmental tasks are completed, attending to their health, attending to their comforts when they are sick which means they want you with them always, food preparation, keeping them clothed and clean and creating routines for practical tasks that must not be forgotten (e.g.) cleaning teeth.

And all these things you must commit to giving up, and all these things you must do for your children to give them a loving and stable environment, you must do with a cheerful spirit, a good grace, without any resentment, frustration or anger, and you must do it and be this way every day without a day off or a holiday; you must do it and be cheerful (and at all times physically attractive) even though you have had hardly any sleep because your baby needs feeding and won't sleep at the hours you want it to and your toddlers are constantly ill with temperatures, sore heads and tummies and can't sleep unless you are sitting beside them singing sweetly.

oh! at the same time you must keep that house tidy and clean and be ready with a clean face, tidy hair and be dressed nicely (even though you hate shopping and even moreso shopping with children because you can't concentrate on what you are wanting to achieve for longer than 2 minutes or your child will wander off and get lost - unless it is a toy shop - and you think this is what women like to do, Doug- shop?!), and because father and his fellow civilisation building friends will arrive unexpectedly, just when you are feeding the children or putting them to bed, for some morality-building and talk about the civilisation - you will be expected to have anticipated and prepared for this possibility in your role as wife and have food and alcohol in the house suitable for the occasion, wait on them, amuse them, cook and tidy up after they have gone and throughout the evening to also discretely attend to the task that only you can perform - the baby and the other toddlers who need food, love, guidance to get them to sleep and who just always want your attention.

If your respect for morality were not so high, you might at this stage consider an escape from the demands being made of you that offer no reward. Did you know that mothers get no rewards? and very little praise from anyone? But morality and your commitment to it requires a peaceful, stable environment for your family and so you practise self-discipline and stoical endurance for the greater good and stay.

When you are a mother with children you also need to have a very highly developed understanding, appreciation and application of morality to live peaceably, if not entirely happily, in the community; dealing, on a daily basis, with people whom you would not have encountered at all in your life and particularly while you were working in your world of educated, civilised people - these people you encounter daily are, especially, other mothers and children. You need to be moral in your dealings with these people for they are unpredictable. You have only one thing in common that you met at all -your children - and, if sufficiently offended, they might get men from their gang to lodge a secret attack on your property, slash your car tyres, graffiti your house, etc. and can cause trouble for your children. They may even hurt your animals.

Living in a community not only requires practical applications of careful morality from you to others but, since you are responsible for your children, you have to teach them every nuance of right and wrong and the consequences so they know how to behave in the community.

When they do wrong, you have to point out how and why they have gone wrong and explain, explain, and explain again the power of choice and living with the consequences of your choices. Since morals are the tools by which we make most of our choices, we need to teach our children how and when to use them, how to weigh up their different worths, and other considerations . Mothers must ensure that their child is clear about and well versed in the moral code.

Do you see, Doug, that mothers are actually teaching children morality 80-90% of the time. Some of the teaching is spoken, theoretical or by using analysis, most of it is in observing the way the mother behaves, the way she thinks, and the entire way she operates. It is a kind of "moral osmosis". And the moral osmosis kind of learning is the most powerful of all - you aren't even aware what you are teaching half the time - and it is VERY difficult to later unlearn because it has translated in to neural connections! So the more highly developed sense of morality (and other virtues) a mother possesses, the more advantaged the child is - particularly her sons when they go off building civilisations.

Give me the child and I will show you the man. A true little saying.

And who is almost entirely responsible for the child in the early years? The mother. Although the father is too of course but usually moreso when they are a bit older.

For where is the father?

He is out every day in civilisation. He is exercising his intellect and developing himself, in terms of his skills and training, and contribution to the civilisation. I am not sure that he is working on developing his morals so much as his reputation and relationships.

Note that his self worth, respect from others and his income earning potential all increase with each year of work (and that these things are lost with equal measure with each year a woman is a mother) . When a woman stops work and becomes a full time mother - the worldly respect and prestige that she acquired ends. Society has lost its respect for motherhood with the women's rights movement and motherhood is treated about as equivalently as unemployment except that mothers are criticised more.

Faced with all that she has rather a trying time of it. But if a mother can create an unshakeable morality and set it in stone in her child, she has given him the most powerful of all attributes for his future role in contributing to and leading the building of civilisation.

For an observation about men and morals is that some men who have received high rank in the responsibilty for building civilisation can become vulnerable, and then morally corruptible, if their position and power is threatened. These men, otherwise seemingly very moral, possess an essential flaw in their morality that they are able to act immorally - against their usual moral principles - when faced with certain particular circumstances. These circumstances are rare of course but when they do occur it is often when faced with a decision that would cost them their power or reputation they will yield to the temptation to act immorally in order to protect their position and retain their power/reputation.

Men whose character is such that they would only ever act with righteousness - even if the consequences are to lose their position and power- are rare. Rarer still is the man who makes this choice when, to do so, the righteousness is not recognised as such and so he receives no grudging admiration but, instead, social disapproval. This happens, usually, when the consequence of the immoral (or less moral) decision is considered by others to so outweigh the consequence of the moral decision to justify it as the moral decision. A consequence weighted so highly in this way, is in avoiding hardship and suffering to family or others who ought not to suffer as they have no direct connection with the decision. If the moral decision will bring that consequence of suffering and hardship and the immoral decision will avoid it, the less morally refined - or pragmatists - will consider it immoral to allow it.

To choose the moral act with the undeserved negative consequences to family/others in these circumstances, where the moral decision is too refined for most to see it, is to be the lone wolf. It is not possible or morally permissible by his own standards and integrity for him to act otherwise. He is the man who is the true and righteous leader for the greatest of civilisations. He is the philosopher ruler as described in Plato's Republic. He is the morally incorruptible Jesus and the passionate builder of moral civilisation, St Paul. He is the teacher whose methods influenced the basis of morality in men's hearts and minds, Martin Luther King.

These are the morally pure, humble men, whose enormous influence over kings, nations and Western Civilisation is both paradoxical and miraculous, who have inspired, restored and taught the significance of morality and our need to obey it. Through their own obedience to, deep understanding of and respect for morality they teach morally - gentle yet with uncompromising conviction but offering choice, making unusual efforts to teach those people who do not understand the value of morality, or live in accordance with it, in so many different ways and until the lesson is grasped by both the hearts and minds so that when the change from immorality to morality is understood it is also felt in each man and thereby becomes fixed and permanent. These men, and some others like them, who have made the greatest practical contributions to building a moral civilisation all believed in, and attributed their actions to, the moral authority of the Christian/Judaeo God.

"That's the whole lets-use-evolutionary-psychology-to-sleep-with-as-many-women-as-possible-phenomenon."

And the amusing thing here is that you describe yourself in such lofty terms (Game guy, Lothario) and describe the women you are sleeping with as sluts because they 'fall' for it.

Let me posit you an alternate hypothesis. One that doesn't involve dismissing the intellect and integrity of ~3 billion individuals that haven't participated in the 'survey' upon which you base your dubious conclusions.

(As an aside, I've rarely seen such conceited tribalism emanating from a well read objectivist, but that aspect of your pathology is for others to dissect.)

You are, in fact, a male slut. Only you don't debase yourself with the term because you think that you alone in the singles sea have a plan and a talent for manipulation.

Which is laughable.

Do you think that the women you sleep with aren't playing the same game, just from a different side of the ball (so to speak.) Defense as opposed to offense?

The thing you don't realize is that your conquests have already pegged you for a walking gland and don't give a crap - probably because they just out for some fun and nothing more. I used to share a house with two sexually permissive ladies. And they were every bit as scheming as you think you are. Mostly they flirted to get free drinks on a Friday night.

You see what you believe to be a fool proof plan, is for them, a free night out on the turps. Sure, if they think you are cute and athletic they'll let you have a crack; but only if they want to.

Here is the thing that you've forgotten: they decide. Not you. Them.

Maybe you're are successful because you should be carved in stone. Or maybe you're exaggerating hugely. Frankly, I don't care. I just wanted to point out that your conclusion that you can control women (and therefore all women are idiots) is a farce.

You are, in fact, sleeping with the female version of yourself. Unless you are banging non-worldly 15 year olds; your 'conquests' know exactly what you are and why you are there because they are there for the same reason. Barring some psychological misfortune, the ladies are there out of a conscious choice.

Yes, females have volition too. And some of them choose to sleep around, just like you have. I'm sure that they don't celebrate it with the high-minded phony scientific clap-trap that you use.

What you don't see are the billions of women who wouldn't let you touch them even in your wet dreams. You probably dismiss them as being 'too old' for you.

Let me translate that statement for you: those individuals have matured to the point where they realize (either from experience or by the application of a modicum of reason or by observing others) that emotion-free sex gets boring real fast. Which brings me to the third glaring flaw in your hypothesis: you think that all women, from conception to death, are incapable of learning.

You allow nothing for the lessons provided by the indiscretions of youth (perhaps you are the indiscretion! Has that ever occurred to you Lothario?) You seem to believe that only men are capable of moral and ethical improvement.

I also love how you've skipped over the entire entire economic edifice that is contemporary commercial fiction publishing & TV production to conclude that the lack of heroic tales written by females is solely due to a sex-linked intellectual deficit.

Name me your top 50 authors, TV shows and Movies of all time and then tell me how many of them are contemporary (last 5 years). And if you are as smart as you think you are, an alternate hypothesis should suggest itself.

I can only conclude that you are a conceited collectivist wind-bag over stuffed with the terminology and customs of objectivism, but seemingly ignorant of its simplest tenet: check your premises.

For myself, I wish I could have back the hour that I spent reading and responding to this thread. But sadly...

...are you really saying what I think you're saying?

That because Doug likes Linz he must be gay?

That's just as stupid a statement as saying that all women are the same.

I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but I admire Doug's honesty.

I wish that there were more people like him.

"Lindsay, you are the best. I really wish it were possible to make you king of the Objectivist movement. Give me an army of Lindsay Perigos and I could conquer the world."

... you're doing an awesome job of kissing a homo's ass. Do womankind a favour and start batting for the other team, Buttercup.

She has a 22 year old daughter... Not sure if she's up for sale.... How much are offering?

...you have given some fascinating insights into evolution regarding women and men.

I was wondering, did you string this together in your own head, or is it based on what you have read?

If your conclusions are original, this would make a good non-fiction book. I'm sure it would be a best-seller. (BTW I'm not taking the piss. I genuinely think some of Doug's points are valid).

It took me a surprisingly long time to realise that women are individuals.

You do get hyper-rational women like Rand. You also get air-heads, conservatives, Marxists, radicals, sluts, prudes...etc...just as you do with men.

Strangely enough, the group most convinced that women are not individuals are feminists. They like nothing better than to categorize women as being all one thing. If a woman falls outside the feminist's remit, they will not accept it. A happy housewife or prostitute, for example, cannot have free will. She must be under the influence of a man.

Probably it is as easy to angle a woman, as you say. After all, sexual urges are instinct driven.

However a woman could make exactly the same claim and many do.

She could say: "I just need to wear a low-cut top, laugh at all his jokes, give him a lot of attention at first and then make him work for it.

He jumps in bed with me every time."

Of course if a woman operates on the philosophic level, she can overcome her biological "programming" to be a slut. ... Just act like a super-aloof charismatic wise-ass. ... and then let female hypergamy do all the rest.

Doug, you've done some wonderful posts on SOLO, but on this topic, you're one fucked up set of nuts mate. Get a grip, re-read some of the nonsense you've written on this thread; and it really is utter shite, which you'll see if you can get past the sunshine enamating from your nether regions, given the God you are so obviously to women (Snort).

So many times I see people who sound sane and intelligent, good company and I think, yeah, a night with a few convival drinks would be great with that bloke or blokess, then some thread comes along and bang, they're a nut job. Good goblin.

I'm just back from a two day business trip and I'm looking seriously at 'Drunken Sweet and Sour Fish with Peaches' - http://www.jamieoliver.com/foo... - so, well you know, take a chill pill and man-down a bit. The heat coming from your cod-piece: it's just too much at this hour on a Friday night.

(It is not possible for an Objectivist to be such a shallow and collectivist minded women-hater: examine your premises (seriously). I can only assume your evidence is anedotal, but mine own is very different. Where the hell do you meet women?)

Or save me, this was humour, right, and I'm one Friday night Pinot beyond comprehension?

Oh, for the lack of androgen in your mother's amniotic fluid Doug.

Eggs (or their paucity relative to sperm) don't make women manipulative; they make them silly, but we can live with that.

Lindsay, you are the best. I really wish it were possible to make you king of the Objectivist movement. Give me an army of Lindsay Perigos and I could conquer the world.

why do you want to put your cock in so many of them?

Here I think there is a large genetic component to libido but of course values play into it. The male sex drive is a powerful thing. I don't think a woman can ever understand it. I will say this, marital law is a big disincentive to getting married as well as the fact that women are wired to lose interest in a man after 4 years when their hormone cycle starts to change. (Four years is the time evolution gave for children getting old enough for the mother to pursue another alpha male - god-damn hypergamy.)

Of course if a woman operates on the philosophic level, she can overcome her biological "programming" to be a slut. However, such women are rare. And yes, I have been disappointed, even by O'ist (allegedly) women. But in the end I blame myself, I'm a Lothario. Rand's view of romantic love still hasn't penetrated to the emotional level.

I think when men feel that way about women intensely and still want sex, they'd be wiser to go to Bordellos and just trade for it.

Not necessary. Just act like a super-aloof charismatic wise-ass. Throw in a few well timed "negs" (disguised insults - "I saw you here a few weeks ago. You were wearing the same shirt. Its a nice shirt. Say, did you see the fight outside...) Tell a few NLP stories about the time you went scuba-diving and you came face to face with a shark and you never felt so alive yet so terrified. "Have you ever felt anything like that?..." Flirt with her friend and create jealousy plot-lines and then let female hypergamy do all the rest.

Hit on the necessary number of girls and the results are as predictable as clock-work. I can see why many of these Game/EvPsych guys think humans are deterministic. Women are extremely predictable. Sometimes I can't even believe how you girls fall for this bullshit. A desire of mine would be to test this in a room full of Objectivist women. Imagine hitting on Diana Hsieh with a routine straight out of Ross Jeffries or the Mystery Method! Wow, I think she would hand me my ass. But I'd love to try!

Anyway you sound like a fine woman Oliva. But you're a little too old for me and then of course there is the fact that you are married and have children. Also, I think you live in New Zealand. Long distance relationship indeed. Do you have a 22 year old sister?

I get Doug, that you've had your guts ripped out and that feels just awful.

Dude, I'm as hetero as they come and besides I'm a Game guy. That's the whole lets-use-evolutionary-psychology-to-sleep-with-as-many-women-as-possible-phenomenon.

This is what I don't get... if women are as you say, spoiled, cruel and dishonorable - and I have no doubt the majority are, why do you want to put your cock in so many of them? Is it worth the hassle? And don't go all evolutionary-psycho on me - that lot are just the Drooling Beast.

I think when men feel that way about women intensely and still want sex, they'd be wiser to go to Bordellos and just trade for it.

"Valor, honor, integrity, staunchness, nobleness ... where are they to be found among men, any more than women? They exist, of course, but they are rarer than rare, and gender-neutral."

Most of these more or less died out at the end of the Enlightenment; especially given the fact that they were heavily tied in with middle-age ideas of upper-class chivalry (note that "valour" is often represented as a knight), so they were seen as antithetical to democracy and liberalism. Nevertheless, the idea of honour existed right until the 1960s or thereabouts, during which it was completely wiped out as a moral ideal.

Far be it from me to rain on a good misogynistic parade, but leaving aside all humor and tongue-in-cheek, while I agree with what you say, and love the fizz with which you say it, I regret to report that it's more or less equally applicable to men. Valor, honor, integrity, staunchness, nobleness ... where are they to be found among men, any more than women? They exist, of course, but they are rarer than rare, and gender-neutral. You write eloquently and accurately of the Machiavellian world unleashed by the pomowanking left; I'd suggest to you that in this world the likes of Neil Parille, whom you have so well taped, are the norm among males as much as comparable termites are among females. If there is a difference, caused by evolution, then it's insignificant. Smarm, snideness, cruelty, height-hating, intrigue-loving, ignobleness, etc. ... women have no monopoly on them. I fear, for all that I do indeed admonish Objectivists not to overlook the animality in "the rational animal," these vices come down in decisive measure to good old-fashioned choice.

Eggs (or their paucity relative to sperm) don't make women manipulative; they make them silly, but we can live with that.

what is your rational basis for thinking women are less moral than men?

80% of women throughout history have procreated. Only 40% of men have. 4/5ths of women were able to extend their evolutionary line. Only 2/5ths of men. Its alot harder being a man. Evolution (anthropomorphizing here) is alot more careful with women then it is with men. There is a greater variance for male intelligence then women's - women's intelligence is only .87% of the variance as that found for men. This means that men have more geniuses and more idiots. This, incidentally, is another reason why Rand is so fucking rare and amazing. She was a woman who excelled in abstract reasoning greater than any man before her. Wow.

Nature takes chances with men because men are EXPENDABLE in the eyes of evolution. Women are far less so. If in any given society you kill half the men, that society can go on. If you kill half of the women? You basically kill that society as the competition for mates alone will bring that society to a halt. Another incidentally, this is a big problem with China. They have been killing their baby girls such that they have a deficit of about 30-40 million women. Where are they going to get all those women to satisfy the sexual desires of all those frustrated men? If you guessed invasion of bordering countries you get to go to the head of the class.

Being that men are more expendable, men take more risks. This makes for a hardier, hardened creature. A creature that understands the importance of securing relationships and bonds with like minded men in ventures designed to secure resources and advantages. MEN HAVE BUILT CIVILIZATION. In fact there is an old saying that goes: "civilization is man's way of impressing women." Think about it.

Translate that into culture and its not hard to see why men are the ones that focus on honor and courage and strength and loyalty, etc.. Women are interested in... shopping. Take a look at today's movies and TV shows and novels written by women. What do you see. Twighlight - a super powered vampire and a super powered warewolf fighting over the love of a woman. Desperate Housewives, True Diaries, Mad Men, Sex and the City, etc, etc, etc.. All superficial bullshit about men fighting over women (and ugly women too!). Show me the women that writes about honor, fighting for values, courage, loyalty, integrity, etc. and is mainstream. Yes, Ayn Rand. But Rand is such an exception she might as well be an alien. (And yet, even Rand couldn't resist her fuck-at-first-sight and love triangle elements to her stories. Rand after all was a WOMAN. It actually might have been better if Objectivism had been discovered by a man but that is not the way history has taken form.)

Anyway, I think I have given you enough to ponder the subject. Besides, why are you disagreeing with me. You're a CHRISTIAN. What was it that EVE was made of? Oh, that's right. Adam's rib. Heh.

Usually its only Leftist girly men that pull that crap.

That "crap" is called honour and justice and is employed from one man to another only when the other man acts without it to such a degree that he requires pulling up. It is only considered to be from "girly men" by uncivilised, crude mannered men who do not understand the importance of it - the sort that get pulled up .

The funny thing, Doug, is that until you possess those qualities to a high degree yourself, you certainly won't attract or get women with them.

I mean this in the nicest way, Possum.

women are far less rational then men (far less moral also IMO)

And does this mean there is a causal connection between being less moral and being less rational, do you think?!

Other than your hilarious assertion that women are "potentially dangerous creatures" only restrained by mesmerising with "I-could-give-a-damn aloofness and devil-may-care charm" (LOL - sounds like a Greek myth!), what is your rational basis for thinking women are less moral than men? I am interested because that would not be the average Joe's opinion.

Yours is entirely humourless, and your tongue appears firmly wedged between Lindsay's nether-cheeks.

Heh.

Dude, I'm as hetero as they come and besides I'm a Game guy. That's the whole lets-use-evolutionary-psychology-to-sleep-with-as-many-women-as-possible-phenomenon. Not exactly Objectivist, but I'm so soured on modern women that I'm temporarily looking past Rand's view of romantic love (which I agree with for the most part). Women when they do not act on reason are social animals (and even Linz is one to remind us of the ANIMALITY in 'rational animal') and they are easily manipulated once you know how. They are not interested in honor, valor, integrity or even productivity (money on the other hand they like). Today's corrupted women (Air America women which by now have gone global) are almost an excuse to be gay. (If you want to know the evolutionary reason for why women on average are ALOT less honorable than men I'll tell you but the crux of it is that there are an infinite amount of sperm and relatively few eggs.)

As for being gay, its been my experience that the modern Western woman is so spoiled and so fickle and so CRUEL that unless you are good in the Venusian arts (seducing women and KEEPING them seduced), you might as well be gay because women will cut you to pieces. We live in a Machiavellian world (unleashed by the PomoWanking Left) but there it is.

As for this lady, I don't know her. But her tripe is annoying. "Rand's philosophy is unrealistic" yada, yada, yada. Isn't that garbage like 50 years old?

And lastly what's up with all the white knighting stuff? Usually its only Leftist girly men that pull that crap.

... your tongue appears firmly wedged between Lindsay's nether-cheeks.

Clearly I'm missing something I wouldn't want to miss, which is most irritating.

Why, the boy turned down my marriage proposal. Perhaps now that he is belatedly awakening to the advantages of the fortunate and optimal, I should revive my proposal.

In the meantime, La Coddington is to visit me next week, on my birthday as it happens. Kapiti civil emergency staff will be on red alert.

Your unrestrained, unsubstantiated sexism and unkind agism is ugly as sin. I know just as many men who are irrational, and though Deb's age is quite irrelevant to the topic, it hasn't stopped you from your shallow and malevolent slight. Whatever crisis our *friend* is going through right now, it would be better served if you applied an ounce of empathy to your logic. Lindsay's misogyny has its tongue firmly planted in his cheek. Yours is entirely humourless, and your tongue appears firmly wedged between Lindsay's nether-cheeks.

All women are irrational, of course, and notoriously regard it as their birthright to have "minds" as changeable as the weather or the identity of those for whom they are prepared to position their legs behind their ears. Not for nothing is "Woman Is Fickle" the most famous aria in the operatic repertoire.

BTW, this is awesome and sadly true. I hate to say it but the more I read about evolutionary psychology, the more I see that women do have a different brain chemistry and different thinking patterns. This is not to say they can't be rational. The syllogism is the same for a woman as a man. But on average, women are far less rational then men (far less moral also IMO).

Even though it was the right thing to do by an individual rights philosophy, it still can be argued that giving women the vote is one of the things that is *hastening* the fall of the West (it would have happened anyway). Read up on the statistics of all those single white Leftist women who vote Democrat exclusively. Will these females ever vote for Tea Party candidates? Doubtful.

Bottom line: women are potentially dangerous creatures. Unless you have the ability to keep a woman mesmerized with your I-could-give-a-damn aloofness and your devil-may-care charm, its probably better to be gay. Especially with divorce laws being what they are.

The problem, as I see it, with Rand's philosophy is that it's all very well in theory, but when it comes to life, it's too difficult to apply it.

Oh goodness. Couldn't she come up with something a little more original than this. Its pure, simplistic bullshit.

If a woman her age can't see the validity of Rand's arguments after being exposed to them for years, and if she is still coming up with pathetic bullshit like the above quote, then there is a 99% probability that she will never get Rand. You've got to get people before the age of 28 (even better - 25). This woman is too damn old. Altruism and the rest of today's rot has infested her soul. Its tough to change when that happens.

Bottom line: Rand has to get to you when you're YOUNG. Once the Left or religion gets you its basically lights out.

It’s so nice to have you here.

I think it should be noted that you will encounter many objectivists who utilize the philosophy to justify their self-absorbed, adolescent-like lives. As Linz put in one of his articles way back; there’s a world of difference between believing that your life is the most important thing to you and believing your life to be the only thing of importance.

The latter is a form of brute-like solipsism and, the former, a rational form of selfishness. The solipsist, who you may have been dealing with, cannot get passed the immediate, consciously held burden that you experience when looking after mummy. The rationally selfish person looks a little beyond that and takes into consideration the whole scope of your values, loyalties and world view.

The recognition that life is about the pursuit and acquisition of values requires the understanding that effort is often required in attaining them. Mum’s welfare, dignity and quality of life, I’d imagine, would be somewhat important to you? The fact that you proceed to look after her shouldn't really present such a conundrum, in my mind.

Now, what is so terribly complicated about that?

As deconstruction mortifies the will
To live, believers sacrifice their skill.

Musicians such as these have mortified their reason.

None of us could know this.

Yeah yeah. None of us could. But, like the black swan philosophical argument, until I have evidence that opposes my only experience I will say that all swans are white.

I should have said that my statement is based on extensive experiences and time spent in old people's homes during different periods of my life in a variety of capacities and despite all that time and all that talking, never one criticism or rebuke did I ever hear for the family's decision to place them in a home rather than live with the family. There was criticism of family for lots of other reasons and especially for not visiting as much as they would like but even this was always qualified by an understanding that people get busy in their own affairs. There was a bit of criticism of the home itself but predominantly the conversation was about their lives. The main critcisms and complaints centred around the other residents and the staff but never ever was there a complaint that the family had not taken them in to the family home. I don't believe it was ever an expectation.

(It is possible of course that the reason for this was that those who did have that expectation, that expectation was met and the people left in the retirement homes actually did have dysfunctional relationships with their children and they knew it so did not expect otherwise but to go in to a home.)

None of us could know this:

"Having said that, every elderly person in a retirement home has always been understanding, uncritical and respectful of their family's decision to put them in a home."

?

Rand opposed altruism as it is synonymous with Marxism. From Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks, Chapter 5, The Crisis of Socialism:

"First formulated in the mid-nineteenth century, classical Marxist
socialism made two related pairs of claims, one pair economic and
one pair moral. Economically, it argued that capitalism was driven
by a logic of competitive exploitation that would cause its eventual
collapse; socialism’s communal form of production, by contrast,
would prove to be economically superior. Morally, it argued,
capitalism was evil both because of the self-interested motives of
those engaged in capitalist competition and because of the exploitation
and alienation that competition caused; socialism, by contrast,
would be based on selfless sacrifice and communal sharing."

Never take any notice of Rosie: she's a mad Goblian, who, which is worse, takes far too long.

How do you know how long I take?

Or if you are referring to the length of my posts, or the stories I tell, to preface, recite and then explain my point, remember that I am an enthusiastic and appreciative scholar of history, literature and philosophy.

Those who practice self-sacrifice should be styled "mortifiers," who suffer or glory in "mortification."

Mortification, uncoincidentally, is renowned as the world's first Christian death metal band. You can suffer or glory in them here.

Objectivism could really go places with all this new, unambiguous terminology.

That's the analogy with Rand's philosophy and (hush my mouth) I put it down to the fact that she never really had to apply it. Did she have a family? No.

I think people have raised similar complaints about Jesus and His philosophy.

I have heard men complain that it was all very well for Him to say that you are better to pluck out your eyes than have lustful thoughts about women when he hadn't had sex to get a taste for it or been married for ten years to an increasingly bad tempered woman.

I have heard women complain that it was all very well for Him to say love the neighbour as thyself when He was a nomad and didn't have any neighbours - let alone ones with loud stereo systems and drunken guests who vomit in your garden in the early hours of the morning.

And because He didn't have children it was all very well for Him to say suffer ye the little children when He didn't understand that having little children has been compared to being pecked to death by chickens and would we be asked to suffer that?

I think that the point is, instead of looking for difficulties in the application and giving up because your situation isn't exactly the same as the philosopher's, to isolate the important from the unimportant, and find the way that works with the principle. For example, take your mother living with you and your thinking the philosophy can't be applied because it is not just you and your mother but many others you have to consider in making this decision.....Answer: Noone else needs to be considered other than the people who live in your home. Of these people, unless they are family members, own a share in your home or provide consideration that you can't live without then I don't think they rise above you and your mother for consideration. If your husband feels the same way about your mother as Reginald Perrin felt about his mother-in-law, clearly his opinion needs to be taken in to account but if he can be persuaded that he might experience similar LSD-type hallucinations, and he likes the idea, he might be very happy for her to move in.

It is just a matter of sifting through the extraneous stuff to find the nitty gritty of what is important and then weighing it all up.

Never take any notice of Rosie: she's a mad Goblian, who, which is worse, takes far too long.

You've introduced an important new element to your real-life scenario in this new post: that the time spent with your mother is time spent "being tortured." Is this torture intentional on her part? If so, you don't need Objectivism to tell you what to do.

Complexity is always invoked to justify uncertainty-worship. To your cooking analogy I'd simply say: no, Objectivism doesn't offer detailed recipes for every occasion, and doesn't (and shouldn't) claim to; it does tell you to avoid poison. There's no entry in the Objectivist Lexicon on Vexatious Mothers, but there's a clue or two as to the principles that should guide you in dealing with them, or anyone else.

You should know that in the time you've studiously avoided/disdained all things Objectivist, Babs Branden has been shown to be a ruthless, smearing liar and gold-digger, a sub-dreg. To get the true picture of Rand the person I'd suggest reading my review of the Valliant book, the Valliant book itself, Facets of Ayn Rand (free online at http://facetsofaynrand.com/), and the review of Jennifer Burns's book just linked to by William. Far from its being the case that she never had to apply her principles (!!—applying them was the point of having them!!), I'd say she applied them every waking hour, or at the very least conscientiously tried to. I constantly challenge the Brandroids to give me a case of where she breached them. No go thus far.

The problem, as I see it, with Rand's philosophy is that it's all very well in theory, but when it comes to life, it's too difficult to apply it.

And no, I don't think those who sacrifice should be called mortifiers. I don't glorify in shame at sacrificing any part of my life to be tortured by my mother. Far from it. The only pleasure I get from it is the copious amounts of red wine I get to drink when I get home again.

A classic example is Rosie's advice. It's so seductive. It's all perfect. It fits. I read it, and if I lay it over the quote Mark gives, it is perfect. But then if you take it and try and apply it to life, in practice, well, it just does not work that way. Because when one is making decisions about oneself and another person, there is always a much wider circle of people to consider - how will it affect all those other people?

It's like this: I'm a good cook. I can cook Elizabeth David standard. But give me complicated recipes from, say, five-star Michelin chef where 10 things are happening at once and it all looks great but I'm sorry, there'd be tears in the kitchen before the eggs were even separated.

That's the analogy with Rand's philosophy and (hush my mouth) I put it down to the fact that she never really had to apply it. Did she have a family? No. She only had poor old p-whipped Frank. She had Nathaniel where she wanted him until that went toxic, but up until then she was always in command. And no, I haven't read the latest book where she's supposed to have kept a bell on Frank.

You see Rand was in the privileged position of only having to consider herself. Whom else was affected by the decisions she made? She told Frank about her affair with Nathaniel, and that was admirable, yes, and we can only surmise what she would have done if Frank had objected. Did she hurt people? Did she care if she hurt people?

I'd really like to know, folks?

The unquestioned social convention for two thousand years (and spin off from the Biblical commandment to honour thy parents) that the family will assume the full time care of their elderly parents has been cast aside over the last fifty years in favour of the government who now assumes this responsibility in the absence of the family. Even if the family chooses to look after its elderly, the government will pay them to do so on application. It also will provide financial assistance for home help (cleaning, cooking and nursing care) if the elderly are still in their own home. Businesses have sprung up capitalising on the need for elderly care in the absence of family and offering a substituted care, arranging the entertainment and catering for progressive ill health in expensive "retirement villages" (and I believe that taxpayer funds are also available to meet these costs if certain criteria are met). And so the decision of whether, or how much, you want to be involved with your elderly parents' care is an option for individual choice based on your values, your circumstances and a realistic assessment of how much responsibility you want to take all things considered (and the happiness of both you and your mother is a top consideration - however I believe this is always possible provided one sets one's goals in the pursuit of happiness to goals that can be achieved from the experience in question and not from something else you are not experiencing for that can only lead to frustration).

There is no doubt in my mind, from both observation and questioning, that an elderly person is infinitely happier living in the familiarity and throes of family life than with strangers in a clinical, regulated atmosphere of a retirement home. Having said that, every elderly person in a retirement home has always been understanding, uncritical and respectful of their family's decision to put them in a home.

But if you make the commitment to look after your mother and to use the experience to get to know her well, enjoy her company, learn her talents and the details of her life and your ancestry, and keep any negative emotions like frustration about what you would otherwise be doing if she wasn't staying in check, it can be the most wonderful experience for both of you. To experience the reversal of roles, to let her depend on you and to enjoy and encourage this new aspect in your relationship - these are some of the unexpected and inexplicably rewarding emotions you discover about yourself in caring for your parents during this final stage of life. It can refine your character and give depth and maturity to attributes like love and patience for example. In these circumstances, the final reward is at your parent's death which becomes an experience that has no bitter sting to it because you have no regrets and there is actually quite a wonderful sense of fulfillment and completion attached to it. This remark was made often to me by friends surprised at my calm acceptance of my father's death knowing how close we were. This was my experience after two years of looking after him before he died. The willing sacrifice I made in so doing was to leave behind a glittering legal career in a top London firm with all the accompanying symbols of worldly success. At the time it did not seem much of a sacrifice because my values were so weighted that these worldly things were insignificant compared to my father's ill health, happiness and need for me.

But if the practicalities of your lifestyle mean that your mother would be more often left alone than with company or if you are more than likely to feel ill-will, resentment or irritation by her presence if her stay were permanent or there exists an unavoidable clash of personalities between you then it is probably better to share the responsibility of her care between you and either the home help or retirement home option. In these circumstances you could reduce her tears with reassurances that you will have her to stay regularly but for set periods of time only due to your lifestyle. (Where there is a set departure date, the visit is almost always enjoyable and a success for all parties.)

There is no virtue in any sacrifice for any purpose (in your case to look after your mother) unless that sacrifice is made willingly and with love. A sacrifice made for another unwillingly lacks virtue because it lacks integrity. It lacks integrity because you are asking the other person to accept your sacrifice knowing that it is the reason for their joy but is also the reason for your suffering. And so their joy is necessarily tainted and diminished by your sacrifice and suffering for them. And even if you were to keep silent about your suffering, the lack of integrity remains because their joy is based on a pretence.

(I have just reread this and it sounds like one of those advice columns from a 1950s women's magazine!)

Those who practice self-sacrifice should be styled "mortifiers," who suffer or glory in "mortification."

So this sacrificialism, I've been having this discussion over the past week with another Objectivist. I say, why can't I sacrifice myself a bit, to, say, look after my mother, even though I don't want to. Even though I know it's my duty, because nobody else will, and if I don't, if I tell her I don't want to, it will upset her and make her cry. She's 89, and I don't want to do that to her. I don't want to hurt an old lady. This other O'ist says, a little bit of sacrifice is a bad thing, it's evil, it's the top of the slippery slope.I say, no. You can take one aspirin for a headache, doesn't mean you can take the whole packet. So what do you say to that?

If the other Objectivist to whom you refer is who I think it is ... he hasn't even read Atlas Shrugged!

What say I? I'm fairly sure you can look after your mother without being on a slippery slope. Of course, you can do anything you like ... or don't like—it goes without saying that you don't have to justify yourself to me, the other Objectivist or anyone else (unless you've entered a deal to that effect). That said, you say you don't want to look after her, yet it's clear you also don't want the vicarious pain that would come from not looking after her. Seems to me you actually want to look after her more than you don't. And inconveniencing yourself for something/someone of great value to you is scarcely sacrificialism. See the Rand quote Mark just posted.

But the decision is yours, by the standard of your own life and purpose of your own happiness. There are no canned answers for these dilemmas.

I say, why can't I sacrifice myself a bit, to, say, look after my mother, even though I don't want to. Even though I know it's my duty, because nobody else will, and if I don't, if I tell her I don't want to, it will upset her and make her cry. She's 89, and I don't want to do that to her. I don't want to hurt an old lady.

To which I will simply copy and paste directly from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, and via that, from 'The Virtue of Selfishness':

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one’s selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a “sacrifice” for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies.

Any action that a man undertakes for the benefit of those he loves is not a sacrifice if, in the hierarchy of his values, in the total context of the choices open to him, it achieves that which is of greatest personal (and rational) importance to him. In the above example, his wife’s survival is of greater value to the husband than anything else that his money could buy, it is of greatest importance to his own happiness and, therefore, his action is not a sacrifice.

But suppose he let her die in order to spend his money on saving the lives of ten other women, none of whom meant anything to him—as the ethics of altruism would require. That would be a sacrifice. Here the difference between Objectivism and altruism can be seen most clearly: if sacrifice is the moral principle of action, then that husband should sacrifice his wife for the sake of ten other women. What distinguishes the wife from the ten others? Nothing but her value to the husband who has to make the choice—nothing but the fact that his happiness requires her survival.

The Objectivist ethics would tell him: your highest moral purpose is the achievement of your own happiness, your money is yours, use it to save your wife, that is your moral right and your rational, moral choice.

I'll let others argue the finer details, indeed, I may not be the best to argue this at all, given I have said on another thread - http://www.solopassion.com/nod... - quote:

By the way, having clearly given the point, if it came down to testing animals to find a cure for a specific thing in me individually - no one else - then I would be immensely conflicted over that, and may well choose the quality of lives of such animals over my own. I am only talking about the instance which it is solely my personal choice.

So, yes, from time to time I find myself in the camp of the hobgoblins, although in the essentials I would consider myself an Objectivist, or at least certainly a Libertarian (and the two aren't necessarily the same thing, though they probably should be ). And if you didn't look after your mother then you would be some kind of monster: a Libertarian (for me, founded on Objectivism) society is one in which the bonds of natural love and affection would be much stronger, as children wouldn't be born for the income, and I, as an unrelated stranger, wouldn't be forced by the State to sacrfice myself via a tax on my income to pay for them.

Shivers, sorry for spelling Comte incorrectly, disgraceful of me. And hell no, it wasn't you, I'll tell you privately, though I'm amazed if you can remember that lunch with Michael, you can't guess why I turned my back on Objectivism. Though it wasn't exactly an Objectivist who caused it all. It was someone who had sworn to keep their word, uphold contract, etc. Is that enough clues?

I guess 'warmth' is the wrong word, because it's definitely not kumbaya I'm talking about (if you could see my face, you'd know I'm laughing like hell typing this). The best comfort, if that's a better word, is the truth. A = A. The law of identity. Anything else is just delaying the inevitable. We see that writ large now with what's happening in the mental health sector - all these do-gooders who thought it would be 'caring and sharing' to let the seriously ill out into the community with bugger-all support. Pretend they are normal.

So this sacrificialism, I've been having this discussion over the past week with another Objectivist. I say, why can't I sacrifice myself a bit, to, say, look after my mother, even though I don't want to. Even though I know it's my duty, because nobody else will, and if I don't, if I tell her I don't want to, it will upset her and make her cry. She's 89, and I don't want to do that to her. I don't want to hurt an old lady. This other O'ist says, a little bit of sacrifice is a bad thing, it's evil, it's the top of the slippery slope.

I say, no. You can take one aspirin for a headache, doesn't mean you can take the whole packet.

So what do you say to that?

It's in For the New Intellectual that Rand cites Comte (note spelling!) by name. And the point is (which is the point at issue here), she is entirely correct in the way she depicts what he taught (and called altruism) as I showed by quoting her and him in my article. She did not conjure it up.

It's true that the term has come to mean something different, something incompatible with Comte's own meaning, in fact—as Rand also pointed out. In hindsight perhaps we can see that she should have opted for another term. The "kindness/benevolence" interpretation, if not already entrenched in her time, certainly is now, so I'm opting for "sacrificialism." By whatever name we call it, sacrificialism is destroying the world.

By the same token, if it's "warmth" you're after, I'd suggest you'll only get authentic warmth from a passionate valuer, which is what Objectivists ought to be (I freely admit many are not, which is why we have SOLO). THe other kind of "warmth"—the kumbaya touchy-feely psychobabble kind—you can get from any garden-variety dreg, but you'll both know it's absolutely meaningless, token and insincere. (I'm sure you'll recall, Deborah, the occasion when you and I were having lunch with a friend of yours who is a psychotherapist by profession and he brazenly admitted that when listening to his patients droning on he'd be thinking about what he'd be having for dinner that night.)

I'm curious as to what led up to all this? Did you have a bad experience with an Objectivist? Was it me??

for the lovely welcome.

Apparently I did make an attempt to appear on these pages some time ago, if only to ask Linz a question, but it was fraught with difficulty. I had to provide so much blimmin information - inside leg measurement, how many children I'd produced, etc etc - it was as bad as entering the United States, I gave up in disgust! But here I am at last. Suffice to say, I hate providing biographical information, so 'journalist' will do.

Now - Compte. Agreed, it is nonsense. A stupid man. One cannot find the source of one's own stability outside oneself, without coming hopelessly unstuck. I can not disagree with that.

But there is a false dichotomy there (if that is the correct term). Because one cannot live totally by oneself alone also, because one must trade (to eat). It could also be argued, in the years since Compte lived, that one must love and be loved in order to survive, if you take the experience of the Ukranian orphans which have been left in cots without human love. Some have, despite adequate nourishment in terms of food and drink, simply died of 'broken hearts'.

(Though I have to wickedly add, as an aside, Compte's suggestion of uncontrolled excitement sounds quite attractive. ) ((That's enough naughtiness. Ed.))

Rand. In Philosophy - Who Needs It? she talks of altruism, and asks, What is the moral code of altruism? "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."

She doesn't credit Compte here. In fact, Compte is not mentioned in the index. She continues - "The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice - which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction - which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good."

Now, in my column, I actually took from Rand my description, that most New Zealanders consider altruism to be 'kindness, good will and respect for the rights of others', because when I ran that past a few people, without saying where I got that from, they agreed with that definition.

So, a column by me is just that. It is my opinion. In my opinion, Rand's definition of altruism is a conjure. It is lame. When I volunteer my assistance for someone, help someone, go out of my way to do something for someone, when all else fails and I'm stuck down a hole - even though I know all the tools of capitalism will be working like navvies to get me out - I will pray to whatever might work the powers of 'kindness, good will and respect' to save my life.

I don't think in doing so I am 'self-destructing, denying myself, surrendering myself to evil'. My point was not that we should jettison capitalism in favour of hobgoblins, but quit mocking those who pray because they too, also embrace capitalism every day. Polarising the debate gets everybody nowhere.

And this brings me to an important issue with Objectivism - the missing. Rand is so staunchly opposed to psychology. Why is she? Why do some Objectivists get toxic over psychology? It's just shut down and wheel out the firing squad. So when some of us need warmth? A vacuum.

I respect Rand's philosophy, and I've often said once you learn it, you can't unlearn it, but I am not a slave to it, and in this instance, I think she's open to questioning.

And Lindsay no, I'm not going to take up the gauntlet because you and I both know you'd wipe the floor with me.

She certainly brightens up this place!

So good to see you appear and post! Please do come back and see us... and the bawdier the better as far as I'm concerned, but then I'm Lady Slapper.

What an utter delight to see you here, you delinquent!

And yes, we like "bold" around here. Positively bawdy, even.

You shall return? You'd better!

That would not attract a very high number of viewers, I'm afraid.

I shall answer the serious challenges when I have finished writing this week's column, Lindsay.

However, I cannot let pass your teasing in the first paragraph. How delicious, my darling, your reference to that aria. It takes me back to that radio documentary we made on Political Correctness, which almost stopped the traffic in Auckland. But hey! Why pick on women's right to be promiscuous? I've known more than a few gay men who think it is their Galt-given right to have a smorgasbord approach to sex (am allowed to be so bold on this website?). Oh well, delete me if you must, but just don't accuse me of losing my cojones.

Now that I have mastered the art of entering this site, I shall return.

Rand's definition of "sacrifice" is upside down to the typical meaning

So, Linz, what term are you going to use instead of 'sacrifice'? Looks like you set off a chain reaction. LOL.

Linz: 'I, as an Objectivist, have begun to make a point of using the term "sacrificialism" instead of "altruism."'

I like that gambit. A potential problem I see with it, though, is that Rand's definition of "sacrifice" is upside down to the typical meaning -- which is giving up something valued (and difficult to give up) for something valued more. I once heard a woman explain the typical meaning thus: "Suppose I want to take a trip to Europe but I want to help my daughter with her college expenses more, so I give up the trip to Europe. That's a sacrifice." Rand would say of this example that it *isn't* a sacrifice.

So there remains a potential for misunderstanding, but I think that at least "sacrificialism" would make the issue clearer for people who don't know Comte's original meaning of "altruism" -- and that it would help with getting past the confusion with the evolutionists' usage of "altruism."

Ellen

Pernicious redefinition, as a prelude to equivocation, is a common theme in Rand's writing.

In the particular case of 'altruism', one can defend Rand on the grounds that that her definition is not a redefinition but a return to an earlier sense of the word, in this case the meaning intended by the man who coined the term. It's a poor defence, nonetheless. As Linz points out, "very few people now know what the term actually meant to the man who introduced it."

I, as an Objectivist, have begun to make a point of using the term "sacrificialism" instead of "altruism."

Now, this is a commendable move! It's bold, honest and overdue.

Objectivism could be individualism.

Selfishness could be self-interest. (This has been adopted by most Objectivists anyway).

Altruism could be sacrificialism or self-negation perhaps?

Second-hander could be a free-loader, lackey or parasite.

...that people misunderstand Rand when she praises "selfishness".

Most people believe "selfishness" means being unkind, greedy and miserly towards others for its own sake. Of course Rand would never advocate that.

I do similarly admit that some, but not all, also misconstrue the meaning of the word "altruism".

This can seen by the often-used expression "reciprocal altruism" in biology and economics for example, which essentially means trading value for value.

Hardly something that Rand would object to.

... I hereby challenge Deborah to debate this matter with me on the new TV show!

... it were so. But Rand herself acknowledged that altruism was commonly taken to mean kindness and benevolence.

Kindness, respect for others' rights, goodwill - that is altruism as we know it,...

No, she's fudging. That is not what people commonly understand altruism to mean, they understand it to mean; doing things for other people, being others centered, putting others first.

Love this piece Linz. Especially the concluding paragraph. I'm tired of having the 'hard greedy capitalist' bullshit, and the 'oh but the sick will be dying in the streets' bullshit, thrown at me, normally by people living off my taxes, and it happens so often I'm at the point I often can't be bothered arguing the details. 'Sacrificisalism' vs 'altruism' provides a rather nice solution.