DonWatkins

How is one to avoid bromides and cliches yet still wish you well? I suppose a simple congratulations will have to do. To many years of happiness together!

Nothing is anything outside of a context. An absolute is an absolute within the appropriate context. What is the context for honesty? Don't fake reality in order to gain a value that you aren't entitled to. Lying is wrong when it violates that principles, but when that context doesn't apply (when you aren't trying to gain a value illegitimately), then lying isn't necessarily wrong (as in the Hitler example).

I think it's a valid concept. A rough definition would be, "A print or film genre characterized by explicitly sexually displays intended to induce arousal in the viewer."

I am pleased to announce that I’m currently developing an online magazine, Axiomatic. Since The Intellectual Activist became almost exclusively a current events publication, there has been no place for Objectivists to publish or read articles that analyze Objectivism, apply Objectivist principles to other fields of study, or help readers integrate Objectivism into daily lives. I’ve decide to create such a forum. Axiomatic is a publication for Objectivists who wish to write seriously about Objectivist topics that are inappropriate for mainstream publications, and who do not wish to write for anti-Objectivist publications. (We will also welcome authors who wish to publish anonymously in order to protect their identity – especially individuals pursuing careers in academia, a world often be hostile to Objectivists.) As this project moves forward, I will keep you all informed of its progress. For people who are interested in receiving regular updates by email, please sent me an email with the subject line, “Axiomatic: Reader.” To those interested in writing for us: Axiomatic is not affiliated with any other organization or publication, but it is committed to Objectivism and therefore will not publish works by enemies of Objectivism or of Ayn Rand – this includes but is not limited to libertarians, anarchists, "tolerationists," people Ayn Rand condemned or who've condemned Ayn Rand, and anyone who sanctions members of the aforementioned groups. Additionally, Axiomatic will only publish works that demonstrate a thorough, sophisticated understanding of Objectivism. Anyone may subscribe to and read Axiomatic, but in order to adhere to the highest standards of quality, we ask that those best described as “students of Objectivism” not submit anything for publication. That said, if you are interested in writing for us, send me an email with the subject line “Axiomatic: Writer,” and I will send you a copy of our submission guidelines. I am also looking for one or two advanced Objectivists who would be interested in a role either as a senior editor or as consulting editor (this latter position would involve intellectual consultation rather than copy editing), so if that interests you, let me know as well. This is a for-profit venture, so all participants will be paid for their efforts. One final note: no one is authorized to speak for Ayn Rand or Objectivism – certainly not I. Every author will speak only for himself, and although it is our policy not to publish anything that isn’t congruent with Objectivist principles, each reader will have to judge for himself whether we’ve succeeded at that task. Thank you all! Don Watkins egoist(at)gmail.com

I was re-reading The Virtue of Selfishness yesterday and came upon a sentence from the Introduction (page X) that perplexed me: My question is, what is the distinction between the latter two clauses: ( 1 ) "that concern with his own interests is the essence of a moral existence" and ( 2 ) "that man must be the beneficiary of his own moral actions"? As far as I can tell they say basically the same thing, which is unusual since Rand is not in the habit of repeating herself unnecessarily.

Ouch. I try to clarify my previous post and make yet another error. This should read, "I was answering the question, is knowing you're in love with someone sufficient reason to determine that you wish to spend your entire life with that person? It's that question to which I said no." When I said "But it's not," in my last response to Inspector, what I meant was that romantic love is not a sufficient condition for the desire to be life-long partners, as Inspector believes. My apologies for any confusion. Don Watkins

NO! I was answering the question, is knowing you're in love without someone sufficient reason to determine that you wish to spend your entire life with that person? It's that question to which I said no. Personally, I think there are cases where a sexual relationship can be proper even without romantic love, although I'm not prepared to defend that proposition at the moment. Don Watkins

Don Watkins

This does not jibe with my experience nor the experience of most of the people I've discussed this subject with. I don't regret any of my past romantic encounters even though, with the exception of my current girlfriend, all of them ended for various reasons. On the contrary, they were legitimate sources of pleasure and left me better off. When I think of my past loves, I think of them fondly. Don Watkins

Sure, all else being equal. So long as a romantic relationship is based on values and not mutual neurosis, sex is proper even if you aren't certain it is the person you want to be with the rest of your life. In fact, I think it's difficult to determine if you want to be with one person the rest of your life without sleeping with him or her. Don Watkins

I realize this is posted in the form of a question, but it is a great point nonetheless. Much harm is done by jumping from Rand's identification of the nature of an ideal romance to what EVERY romantic encounter must consist of. I have been in several relationships which I KNEW weren't representative of my highest values, but they were proper given the circumstances. Had I NOT enjoyed those relationships to the fullest, I would not be the position to be able to make my current romance, which DOES represent my highest value, as fulfilling as it is. But more than that, I would have missed out on an unestimatable amount of pleasure. I worry that many Objectivists HAVE missed out on that due to an pseudo-Kantian view that they should search for an ideal rather than romantic happiness (keeping in mind that I don't draw a strict dichotomy between the two). Have you, or as anyone else, seen this happen? In my experience it's very common. Don Watkins

Right, which is why I was complimenting you. I posted for about fiveyears before I stopped posting stuff that utterly embarasses me!!! Don Watkins Don Watkins

True enough, but again, it's beside the point as no one here has advocated lying to one's partner. By the way, Oakes, I remember your first posts on OO some time back. I'm VERY impressed with how far you've come in so short a time. You remind me very much of me. I started throwing down with the big boys at the age of 15, made lots of mistakes, and said things that now make me cringe...but learned A LOT in the process. Anyway, you should be proud of yourself. I'm sure you already are! Don Watkins

I agree with Burgess here. Moral principles are formed within a context where long-range action by a rational being in pursuit of his values is possible. The aforementioned case is, in my view, outside of that sphere: it requires immediate action to defend a value from a threat, i.e., to return to a normal state of affairs. It is an EMERGENCY situation and thus the application of moral principles, such as honesty, is going to be different than it otherwise would be (e.g., it permits lying). Don Watkins

Because there might be other cases where it wouldn't be. To make a generalization like that you would have to do more than put aside exceptions. You would have to specify the context in which the generalization necessarily holds. I don't think that's possible in this case, nor do I think such an undertaking would be worth the effort. Don Watkins