For DJs who follow Objectivism

[whistler]

I've never met a heroine from a Rand novel... to the point where I've almost suppressed my desire to find one.

The biggest problem is one of independence. Women are socially-dependent by nature.

I can aspire to be FD or HR, but I've never met a woman who has even considered it.

 

[Nocturnal]

How did I miss this thread?

As far as Objectivism goes, I do not consider myself to be one, because I think to do so would require years of study. The roots of Objectivism go very deep philosophically, and I could never expect to understand them after reading one or two fictitious novels. The philosophy itself is based on understanding that EVERYTHING has an objective answer or explanation, particularly as it pertains to morality, and for anything to be logically Objective, it has to have roots of a very fundamental nature -- axioms that are self evident truths and do not need to be determined by scientific query, but by observation. Connecting the dots between these fundamental truths and the abstract concepts that we deal with on a day to day basis is not an easy process, for me at least. Without doing so, I could never call myself an Objectivist, and I still have a lot of books to read before I can expect to connect those dots. However, from reality as I understand it so far, Objectivism seems to fit the bill. I believed in, or at least had a strong sense of, many of the principles held by Objectivism before I knew it existed, and many of the ones that I didn't know about made sense to me when I learned about them, and now I follow those as well. If I ever have a complex issue or principle to consider, I usually start with Objectivism and evaluate the results; so far it has worked very well for me.

One of the problems with "Objectivism" is that it is often misused or misunderstood. "Objectivism" does not mean "Ayn Rand's beliefs." It is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. Quoting from Wikipedia:

Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality, that individuals are in contact with this reality through sensory perception, that they gain knowledge by processing the data of perception using reason or "non-contradictory identification", that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest", and that the only social system consistent with such a morality is laissez-faire capitalism.

For anyone seriously interested in Objectivism, feel free to ask questions in this thread, but I would urge you to go to http://forum.objectivismonline.net, which is full of very intelligent Objectivists who will be able to help you as much as anyone. Be wary of organizations like The Objectivist Center and The Ayn Rand Institute.

So being a DJ (or possibly a player for that matter) could be considered morally sound since the DJ is supplying something in exchange for the woman/women. The exchange could be as simple as his company, his presence. Given that, it would seem that forgoing the established societal moralities may instill a greater personal power to the individual.

At this point, Francisco, I'm not going to tell you whether Objectivism would agree with you, but I will tell you that Ayn Rand would disagree with you, so that might be something to consider as an Objectivist. If you feel like you still have a reasonable argument, then maybe we have something to talk about.

I'll leave you with a few quotes from The Ayn Rand Lexicon:

"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another--an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire. Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values [meaningless sex]"

"Just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love--and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool's self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one's code of values...Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love."

"A man's sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself...He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience--or to fake--a sense of self-esteem."
*Note she says sexual choice, which would include the activities of a "player"

"Sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therfore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important."

 

[RedPill]

Francisco,

Funny you bump this up, after recently suggesting in another thread that we all take a look back at our first threads here. Check out my very first thread after starting to actively post on sosuave.

Thanks for replying to that, it was very enlightening for me at the time. I haven't read Rand, but I did start checking out Objectivism after you pointed out to me that my views are objectivist. When I joined here was shortly after a very sh!tty period of my life, and I was looking for some answers at the time. It was nice to know there was a name for my outlook on life, and a lot of info out there about it.

And I'll beat you to it by saying that yeah, I'll read her books when I get a chance. Atlas has to go to the back of the line though, I'm buried in a stack of books right now related to building my business.

 

[Phyzzle]

I'm an ex-Objectivist. I realized that it's view of the human mind is way, way too simple.

It is moral to look after our individual desires? But where do our individual desires come from?

They come from the basest human desire of all: the desire to feel important to OTHER PEOPLE. That's what "achievement" is.

The human mind does not exist without other people. Deaf children who are not taught sign language basically become animals without goals, ambitions, or self-conciousness.

Objectivists think that there is some litte person named Francisco running around in Francisco's brain checking out all of his thoughts. But Francisco is not some unified thing distinct from the environment like that.

I remeber saying "I love you" to a woman, and then thinking "My God, what have I just said??", and then thinking, "Yeah, I guess I really do love her." Has anyone had that experience?

The Objectivist theory of love is threadbare and unrealistic.

 

[Nocturnal]

It is moral to look after our individual desires? But where do our individual desires come from?

They come from the basest human desire of all: the desire to feel important to OTHER PEOPLE. That's what "achievement" is.

In other words, Objectivism fails because it is impossible to grow beyond being insecure and needing the approval of others? Or, is it that insecure people who seek the approval of others and can't learn to respect themselves enough to take control of their lives can't live up to a philosophy based on living for themself?

And about the mind not existing without other people, that's a ridiculous statement that doesn't really mean anything. Of course the mind exists without other people, and Objectivism doesn't deny that there are benefits to living in a productive, free society.

 

[Phyzzle]

In other words, Objectivism fails because it is impossible to grow beyond [. . .] needing the approval of others?

Exactly. A great genius (scientific or artistic) needs to judge his work by some standard. Even if he's sitting alone judging himself, the standard of "great work" comes from somewhere outside of his head.

He can't just redefine "great achivement" as "whatever I just did." Greatness requires interaction with others.

Even a great religious sage seeks the approval of God.

And about the mind not existing without other people, that's a ridiculous statement that doesn't really mean anything.

Hmm. . . . Maybe I should say that identity and self-esteem don't exist without other people.

Ayn Rand always considered self-esteem to be precious. But for an individual to have it without other people is like a clam having a secret. It just doesn't make any sense.

(What would a clam do with a secret? Lay in the sand chuckling?)

 

[Nocturnal]

A great genius (scientific or artistic) needs to judge his work by some standard. Even if he's sitting alone judging himself, the standard of "great work" comes from somewhere outside of his head.

He can't just redefine "great achivement" as "whatever I just did." Greatness requires interaction with others.

Even a great religious sage seeks the approval of God.

The whole point of Objectivism is that you judge your actions by your OWN, objectively determined standards. That "somewhere outside of his head" is reality. Objectivism holds that morality is objective (according to reality), that there are true "rights" and "wrongs' that are valid independent of the individual. One of those moral "rights" is that it is right to live according to one's self interest. This is a standard, and it does not rely on the subjective collaboration of a group of people. Using this example, a man could develop a medicine, and by the objective standard that it is right to further one's self interest, it would be a "great achievement."

Hmm. . . . Maybe I should say that identity and self-esteem don't exist without other people.

Ayn Rand always considered self-esteem to be precious. But for an individual to have it without other people is like a clam having a secret. It just doesn't make any sense.

(What would a clam do with a secret? Lay in the sand chuckling?)

What you are really referring to is not self-esteem, but narcissism. The difference is that self-esteem is based on one's own opinion of himself, and narcissism is based on opinions of others. You are essentially saying that self-esteem cannot exist. All I have to say to that is that it is a very sad way to live, and that you can have no way of knowing or proving that self-esteem does not exist.

If you were the sole survivor of a catastrophic event that wiped out civilization, would you commit suicide because you would have no reason to live without other people?

 

[Phyzzle]

The whole point of Objectivism is that you judge your actions by your OWN, objectively determined standards. That "somewhere outside of his head" is reality.

Ah, but that's the crux. Reality is out there, but it contains no standards.

I can look around, listen to sounds, etc., but nowhere can I detect a "standard" using my 5 senses.

People do things because . . . they want to do them! And, yes, people are made to want things in their own self-interest.

And yet self-interest is being important to other people! More powerful than our desire for food and safety! "Self-interest" and "other people's opinions" are inseperable.

Basically, Objectivists seem to be saying that the successful businessman is objectively happier than the Bhuddist monk who sacrifices to serve others and meditates a lot. (I think that's the position.)

But I just don't see any way to state one way or another who is objectively happer.

self-interest = happiness = being important in the opinion of others = being altruistic (on a regular basis).

If you were the sole survivor of a catastrophic event that wiped out civilization, would you commit suicide because you would have no reason to live without other people?

Yes, I think I eventually would.

 

[Nocturnal]

Ah, but that's the crux. Reality is out there, but it contains no standards.

I can look around, listen to sounds, etc., but nowhere can I detect a "standard" using my 5 senses.

Standards are not found in reality, they are developed from it, as is every concept. You don't "find" standards in the same way that you don't "find' geographic coordinates. Standards are points of reference which are used to determine, quantitatively or qualitatively, the nature of something. In the case of morality, standards tell us whether something is moral or immoral, and to what extent (qualitatively).

People do things because . . . they want to do them! And, yes, people are made to want things in their own self-interest.

First of all, there is a difference between doing what you want, and acting in your self interest. Sometimes I want to sleep in and skip class, but I know that that is not in my self interest.

Objectivism holds that it is not moral to act contrary to your self interest if you have just made an error in your logic or could not have accounted for something. When you blatantly ignore or avoid reality, however, then you might say or think that you're acting in yourself interest on the surface, but that is or could be based on one or more false assumptions, which means you have acted irrationally, and against your self interest, so, immorally.

Here's a quote from one of my posts from a discussion I had with Visceral a while back:

If, for some reason, you irrationally think that murder is in your self interest, then if you, based on that premise, use logic to determine that you should murder as many people as you can, are you moral because you're acting in what you believe to be your self interest? No, because you never properly rationalized whether murder was good or bad in the first place.

And yet self-interest is being important to other people! More powerful than our desire for food and safety! "Self-interest" and "other people's opinions" are inseperable.

You haven't given any argument for this except your opinion. To say that reaching this conclusion is what turned you away from Objectivism means that you had to have somehow reached this conclusion... well, where's your evidence? And just because a few million people rely on other people's opinions to keep going, does not prove that it is required. I would try to tell you that my self esteem does not come from other people, but of course you'll tell me I'm wrong.

Basically, Objectivists seem to be saying that the successful businessman is objectively happier than the Bhuddist monk who sacrifices to serve others and meditates a lot. (I think that's the position.)

You say you were an Objectivist and you "think" that's the position? This is what I find most disappointing about Objectivism, that it is so easily misunderstood.

Being a successful businessman does not mean you're happy. If I love art, and I chose to go to business school to become a businessman, which I hate, it doesn't matter how successful I am, I'm not going to be happy. How happy Buddhist monks are, I can't say. What I can say is that in Objectivism, if I had the choice between becoming a businessman a Buddhist monk, I would be happier as a business man and so I should become a businessman, instead of accepting altruism as an ideal and sacrificing myself for the benefit of others as a moral action.

But I just don't see any way to state one way or another who is objectively happer.

Objectivism doesn't try to quantify happiness. It qualifies it. Happiness is the goal, self interest is the means. Beyond that, it doesn't matter who is happier than who, it matters whether you are living up to yourself.

self-interest = happiness = being important in the opinion of others = being altruistic (on a regular basis).

You should check your math, as I've said, happiness does not necessarily result from the high opinions of others.

Yes, I think I eventually would [commit suicide].

Well then I guess you're an example of someone who believes happiness to come from people's opinions, but I can assure you that I do not and I don't see how anyone can accept it as a universal rule until there's substantial reasoning behind it.

 

[Phyzzle]

Well then I guess you're an example of someone who believes happiness to come from people's opinions, but I can assure you that I do not and I don't see how anyone can accept it as a universal rule until there's substantial reasoning behind it.

My substantial reasoning is that the people around you can change your goals in life.

As you say, if you wanted to be an monk you would be a monk. If you wanted to be a businessman, you would be a businessman.

But WHY would you want to be a businessman? Or a monk? The answer is, the influence of the people around you.

If you grew up in Thailand, you would likely want to be a monk. In fact you wouldn't be "you" anymore. "You" are largely created by those around you. That's why you don't have the same goals as an average Thai.

Look, Objectivism is CONSISTENT. I'll give it that. My complaint was that it LACKS a a philosophy of mind.

Rand once admitted to her favorite student, Dr. Branden, that she had no understanding of psychology.

This lack results in absurd statements like:

Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself...He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself

I mean, come on. Was your last girlfriend a vision of yourself? Were any of them?

Or try this one, from Objectivistcenter.org

Emotions are instant (albeit non-objective) estimates of the value-significance of something. When you don't have time to reason out what to do, your subconscious judgments are essential to making adequate rough-and ready choices. This is necessary for proper social interaction, for example. You don't have to reason out whether to shake the hand of a visitor to your house, normally.

They are confusing "unconcious habit" with "emotion".

Furthermore, they draw a sharp dividing line between subconcious and concious. In fact, it is a difference of degree.

Basically, all those quotes about sex/love are unrealistic, because their idea of mind is unrealistic.

 

[Phyzzle]

"Romantic love, in the full sense of the term, is an emotion possible only to the man (or woman) of unbreached self-esteem: ... Such a man (or woman) is incapable of experiencing a sexual desire divorced from spiritual values [meaningless sex]"

So a man with "unbreached self esteem" is incapable of experiencing sexual desire when he looks at some ditzy freshman chick's butt?

Where the hell does she get this?

She knows nada about minds.

 

[Nocturnal]

My substantial reasoning is that the people around you can change your goals in life.

That is hardly the same as saying that the ONLY source of self-esteem is the opinions of other people.

As you say, if you wanted to be an monk you would be a monk. If you wanted to be a businessman, you would be a businessman.

But WHY would you want to be a businessman? Or a monk? The answer is, the influence of the people around you.

If you grew up in Thailand, you would likely want to be a monk. In fact you wouldn't be "you" anymore. "You" are largely created by those around you. That's why you don't have the same goals as an average Thai.

First of all, I want to point out that you say, "'You' are largely created by those around you." This implies that you are not completely created by those around you. Which implies that you have at least some element of control over who you are, that you are at least PARTIALLY motivated by your own opinions, independent of the people around you, meaning that you can have at least some element of self-esteem without others. Earlier you said that self-esteem doesn't exist without other people. Which is it?

I'm not going to deny that living in America has influenced me. People have influence over eachother. But again, that is NOT the same as saying that the ONLY source of self-esteem is the opinions of other people. I can be completely self motivated, and then talk to a swimmer who convinces me to try swimming. Maybe I like it, and I decide to swim. He's influenced me. But he can leave the country and I will still like it, it has nothing to do with the fact that he will like me more if I swim. He is not feeding my self esteem and controlling my actions.

Look, Objectivism is CONSISTENT. I'll give it that. My complaint was that it lacks a a philosophy of mind.

A "philosophy of mind?" What is that supposed to mean? One of the developed areas of Objectivism is epistemology, which is the study of knowledge. Another is metaphysics, the study of existence. How much closer can you get to a "study of mind?" And saying that it lacks something is different than saying it has the wrong one. If you're referring to psychology, psychology is NOT a philosophy, it is a science.

Rand once admitted to her favorite student, Dr. Branden, that she had no understanding of psychology.

This lack results in absurd statements like:

"Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself...He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself"

I mean, come on. Was your last girlfriend a vision of yourself? Were any of them?

Rand was very idealistic, as is any Objectivist; she had ideals. What are ideals? Quoted from answers.com: "A conception of something in its absolute perfection." Objectivism is based on absolutes. If you honesty is a valid principle, then it is valid ALWAYS. If you want an honest spouse, then the IDEAL spouse would be COMPLETELY honest. That is the ultimate goal. That is not to say one should be unrealistic and not marry unless the person is absolutely perfect. It comes with the understanding that people are not perfect. But what Rand says when she says that the person you are with is a reflection of yourself, it means that you have standards for yourself, which carries over to the standards you have for your romantic interest. The person with high standards for his girlfriend will have high standards for himself. Don't confuse metaphors for their literals meanings. Is my girlfriend a vision of myself? To the extent that she can be, metaphorically speaking? Yes.

Or try this one, from Objectivistcenter.org

"Emotions are instant (albeit non-objective) estimates of the value-significance of something. When you don't have time to reason out what to do, your subconscious judgments are essential to making adequate rough-and ready choices. This is necessary for proper social interaction, for example. You don't have to reason out whether to shake the hand of a visitor to your house, normally."

They are confusing "unconcious habit" with "emotion".

Furthermore, they draw a sharp dividing line between subconcious and concious. In fact, it is a difference of degree.

Basically, all those quotes about sex/love are unrealistic, because their idea of mind is unrealistic.

I said in an earlier post to be wary of The Objectivist Center. However, I agree with them on this point. A habit, conscious or unconscious, cannot be a judgement. A habit is an action, a judgement is a reaction, as are emotions.

What is this "degree of difference" between subconscious and conscious? And in what context are you talking about them in? When it comes to making choices, there is a HUGE difference between the conscious and subconscious. In most cases, my subconscious would choose for me to sleep in, while consciously I would choose not to.

Don't feel like you have to reply to this if you don't want to, but I'll warn you ahead of time that there's a good chance I won't reply to your post if you do. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

 

[Nocturnal]

So a man with "unbreached self esteem" is incapable of experiencing sexual desire when he looks at some ditzy freshman chick's butt?

Where the hell does she get this?

She knows nada about minds.

Your definition of self esteem is different from hers.

 

[Phyzzle]

there's a good chance I won't reply to your post if you do. I don't see the point of continuing this discussion.

Yeah, this is pretty vague stuff, and we could go on forever.

But Ontology aside, back to DJing, Ayn Rand had an overly idelalistic view of male-female relations.

She said that a sex life is a result of high self-esteem, and that people foolishly try to use a sex life to make themselves happy, thereby confusing cause with effect.

It's just not cut and dry like that. Yeah, happiness can lead to good sex, but good sex causes happiness, too.

Cause and effect are all blurred together in real human minds. Ever notice that smiling can CAUSE happiness? Objectivist philosophers are thrown for a loop by wierd phenomena like that.

What is this "degree of difference" between subconscious and conscious?

Simplest example: blinking. Is it concious or unconcious? It's in-betweenish.

Look up Nathanial Branden's critiques of Objectivism. Thanks for getting me thinking about this stuff again.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Francisco,

Funny you bump this up, after recently suggesting in another thread that we all take a look back at our first threads here. Check out my very first thread after starting to actively post on sosuave.

Thanks for replying to that, it was very enlightening for me at the time. I haven't read Rand, but I did start checking out Objectivism after you pointed out to me that my views are objectivist. When I joined here was shortly after a very sh!tty period of my life, and I was looking for some answers at the time. It was nice to know there was a name for my outlook on life, and a lot of info out there about it.

And I'll beat you to it by saying that yeah, I'll read her books when I get a chance. Atlas has to go to the back of the line though, I'm buried in a stack of books right now related to building my business.

Glad to hear that it's working out for 'ya. Another word of advice, read Atlas because you are building your business. Even if you don't have time for it (it is a long read), see if you can find an abridged audio copy of the book. It will help you though any challenging times you may have with your business.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

I'm an ex-Objectivist. I realized that it's view of the human mind is way, way too simple.

It is moral to look after our individual desires? But where do our individual desires come from?

They come from the basest human desire of all: the desire to feel important to OTHER PEOPLE. That's what "achievement" is. ...

I think this is the crux of your problem with Objectivism, your misunderstanding of what are a person's basic desires or needs. The medically accepted list is "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" based on his paper "A Theory of Human Motivation."

Physiological needs are the most basic need of all people. Your belief that the need of feeling important to other people goes completely against what Objectivist stand for. Probably the most famous quote from Atlas Shrugged says "I swear on my life and my love of it, I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask him to live for mine." THAT is the essence of Objectivism.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Exactly. A great genius (scientific or artistic) needs to judge his work by some standard. Even if he's sitting alone judging himself, the standard of "great work" comes from somewhere outside of his head.

Actually the stand is whatever s/he makes it, not based on anyone or anything else. It's based on his definition, not by what someone else says it should be. It's like the threads which ask to define what a DJ should be. Being a DJ is what you make of it, not what the next guy does.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

The whole point of Objectivism is that you judge your actions by your OWN, objectively determined standards. That "somewhere outside of his head" is reality. Objectivism holds that morality is objective (according to reality), that there are true "rights" and "wrongs' that are valid independent of the individual. One of those moral "rights" is that it is right to live according to one's self interest. This is a standard, and it does not rely on the subjective collaboration of a group of people. Using this example, a man could develop a medicine, and by the objective standard that it is right to further one's self interest, it would be a "great achievement."

D@MN I love this thread! Nocturnal, I wish I knew this stuff when I was your age. You sir have the opportunity to do great things with this knowledge!

 

[Phyzzle]

Actually the standard is whatever s/he makes it, not based on anyone or anything else. It's based on his definition, not by what someone else says it should be.

No, your standards are NOT whatever you want them to be.

Don't believe me? Fine. Try making your life goal to be really good at Tetris. You will fail. You won't be able to feel proud of that, even if you really try.

Thus it is proven: You cannot choose your own goals. The Objectivist position here is demonstrably false.

Similarly, the whole view of sex is demonstrably false. Is self-esteem really necessary for a good sex life? Well, have you ever had sex with a woman who has low self-esteem? Whoah nelly! Nobody has more fun in bed than the LSE girls.

Ayn Rand believes in clear-cut distinctions between cause and effect in human thought. This is also demonstrably false, though more complicated.

Does your gf do nice things for you because she likes you - or does she like you BECAUSE she does nice things for you? This is called cognative dissonance. The effect (action) can change the cause (inner state) after the fact.

This is why getting a girl to do favors for you pumps her interest more than getting her gifts. It doesn't make sense, it's just the way human minds work.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

No, your standards are NOT whatever you want them to be.

Don't believe me? Fine. Try making your life goal to be really good at Tetris. You will fail. You won't be able to feel proud of that, even if you really try.

I know that you were making an example but it was still a really bad one if you believe that your life is as random as a video game. Alll it says is that you have no control over yourself and you have turned over your life to fate. That sounds as if you are following some type of reli... (nope, I'm not going to say it).

The issue here is not Objectivism, it's your lack of understanding or your unwillingness to. That's your choice, or perhaps you will leave that up to fate too.