Whenever I went on Objectivist sites, I got this eerie feeling of Christian apologetics sites: very short and trite answers to complex issues, a religious zeal for its figureheads, and a bunch of links to buy things.

Also, good luck finding answers, cause we humans have only been trying since the dawn of our times.

Yeah. Even as someone who would have identified as 90% Objectivist, I could not get along with them. It can feel like a secular religion for sure. Internal schizms. Excommunications.

Over the past 5 days I have lost my entire philosophical framework which was Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. — Sylar

I think becoming disillusioned with Ayn Rand is probably a healthy thing. I haven't taken the time to study her, but her reputation is terrible on philosophy forums, and I don't think she is (or ought to be) taken seriously in academia. The problem I have with Rand is that it seems totally materialist and ego-centred.

Myself, I have always had a kind of spiritual yearning, but I turned away from 'Churchianity' at a young age and then focused more on philosophy (Eastern and traditional), comparative religion and anthropology. I have come to the view that there is a real domain of values, which is expressed in various ways by different philosophical and religious traditions. This is not to say that 'all religions are the same' or anything of that kind, but I believe the convergences and similarities between them are indicative of a domain of real values. So if that is something of interest, more than happy to discuss.

And welcome to the Forum.

I haven't taken the time to study her, but her reputation is terrible on philosophy forums, and I don't think she is (or ought to be) taken seriously in academia — Wayfarer

I have not read anything in terms of full tracts beyond an excerpt about her arguing against having to pay for public schools. All I can think about is how when discussing epistemological systems, every single short summary acts as if it is some cutting insight that we should base our epistemological systems and collection of knowledge on reason. Because, you know, no philosopher thought of that one before.

Flannery O'Connor said,

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.

I read a couple of Rands novels a long time ago... they were OK -- not great, like a lot of things.

Don't beat yourself over the head too long for having a love affair with Ms. Rand. Quite a few people have patronized her establishment. And others of us have patronized other establishments which we heartily regret. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.

I feel human again, it's hard to explain. — Sylar

Of course you feel better. It always feels good to shed the filthy clothing of a recent enthusiasm, take a long hot shower, and get into something new and different. It sometimes happens that we hearken back to our former enthusiasms, like the Children of Israel, wandering around in the desert, hearkened back to the flesh pots of Egypt. Again, normal human behavior. Don't feel guilty about it. Just resist the temptation to crawl back to whatever it was.

And welcome to THE Philosophy Forum.

The humanity restoration goes deep. I would not even pursue sex due to feelings of gulit. I kind of crushed all of my desires. Self moralizing and such was common. At times I wondered to myself if I was not pure evil. It's absolutely messed up now I think of it. I feel so free and excited at the idea of enjoying myself. It almost brings me to tears thinking about all the fun I can have now. It's so messed up.

I'm forming concrete goals that actually excite and inspire me for the first time in years. It is amazing.

Hi welcome to PF, changing your paradigm of thinking when you're stuck in a cult takes a lot of honesty and courage so there's a lot of potential ahead of you once you succeed in independently developing your intuitions. This just from my perspective from the side lines.

Thanks ^_^

But in a sense, it has stolen years of my youth with its moralization. — Sylar

I wouldn't look at it that way. It was just part of a journey that you're on. You're continuing the journey, moving on to another destination now.

Yeah. Even as someone who would have identified as 90% Objectivist, I could not get along with them. It can feel like a secular religion for sure. Internal schizms. Excommunications. — Sylar

Yeah, it definitely strikes me as cult-like. I don't do well with anything that has that mentality. At least not unless I'm the cult leader. ;-) I'm not following anyone else, conforming to someone else's whims, etc. People can form a cult around me if they want to, though.

I'm compelled to repeat this every time Rand is mentioned:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion.

I'm compelled to repeat this every time Rand is mentioned:

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus the White

An every time Rand is mentioned, I expect slurs and misrepresentations, and am never disappointed.

You're a Rand fan? Rand and Deutsch seems like an odd combination.

An every time Rand is mentioned, I expect slurs and misrepresentations, and am never disappointed — tom

Well, come now. How is the comparison a slur or misrepresentation? Both were writers of preposterous fiction and little-known screenplays, both were contributors to pulp magazines, both sought and achieved cult status and founded what may be called cults, one by creating a hodgepodge called Objectivism by paraphrasing Aristotle, Mencken, Hazlitt, classical liberalism, with a dash of Nietzsche and the Stoics thrown in for good measure; the other by combining occult views derived primarily from Aleister Crowley with various psychological theories to create something called Dianetics, later transformed into a religion.

Regardless of whether you agree with those characterizations of Objectivism and Dianetics/Scientology, Rand was a writer of screenplays and fiction who created a supposedly "new" philosophy, and Hubbard was a writer of screenplays and fiction who created a supposedly new "religion."

Enough about Rant.

Sylar, some of my favourite books dealing with ethics is On Justice by Rawls and Nozick's reply to that.

I have spent hundreds of hours studying Objectivism. I feel I know it inside and out. And now, I am on the other side, so I can at least critique with a deep knowledge. Perhaps that is the only good thing about this. Objectivism gave me the vision of happiness being important, for which I will forever be grateful, and it also made me interested in deep questions, which is a gift as well. But in a sense, it has stolen years of my youth with its moralization. A deep sense of guilt whenever I could not identify a reason behind a desire, and a stiffling of any natural ambition, natural pleasures of life, in the name of reason and not living irrationally. Whim worship, I feared it like the plague. — Sylar

I think the problem isn't objectivism per se - though I myself am not keen on the subject - but rather your absolutist need to follow the philosophy. Though admirable, such inflexibility is paradoxically devoid of the very thing that you sought; reason, since it is unreasonable to ignore qualities that may well perhaps be subjective or elusive but nevertheless real and what makes us human. There may be aspects of Satre' philosophy that I appreciate, for instance, but if he partially makes sense it does not suddenly mean I am required to adhere to all that he writes. I think the best way to approach life and philosophy itself is through experience and that is what you have done. You now understand the subject intellectually, but you are applying the 'you' in the algorithm - that is, initially you used the philosophy, just like how others use beliefs in general from religion to even atheism, as a structure to hold the edifice of your identity because you were perhaps too afraid to think independently. Now you can appreciate what is sensible based on both reason and intuition.

The way that I see it, you have transcended to become the very individual you initially sought and in my opinion it is only when we reach this capacity to use our free-will independent of any beliefs that we truly become capable of moral consciousness; it is in this consciousness that we become happy because, as you say, we start to allow natural pleasures and ambitions rather than artificial ones. It is the difference between genuine love and artificial love; the former I am sure we would all agree would feel a great deal better, whilst the latter - though it will suffice sexually and materially - will never attain the same depth of feeling. Why would you opt for latter?

Ayn Rand is to philosophy what L. Ron Hubbard is to religion. — Ciceronianus the White

I second that. L Ron was more successful, though. But I hadn't noticed the resemblances before, thanks for pointing those out.

I would say I do still appreciate and agree with many aspects of it. The need for a personal morality to me makes sense. The Greek's virtue ethics is of interest to me now. The pursuit of excellence in your function as a human sounds interesting. I'm looking to positive psychology research about happiness, and it's fascinating.

Most people only discuss social aspects of what we do in life, with no real discussion of how to live well yourself, and that's a mistake to me. I still agree with a base of egoism in a sense, but exactly how one does that I'm now uncertain. I've swung over to a sort of enlightened hedonism à la Mill's qualitative hedonism (but egoistic not collective), but with my own thoughts on the matter, and in terms of social morality I suppose I am on the fence about it. I'm somewhat ethical nihilist at the moment, or emotivist, in a meta-ethical stance, but it's clear that we need some pro-social behaviours to hold our society together which is in the end good for me.

Doing good for others has always been something I looked down on, but now I'm more open to the idea, but it has to be a luxury, ultimately. I'm reading widely on ethical theories so I may change my mind radically in the future. My current views are clearly very influenced by Objectivism, but the idea that all our values can be decided on by reason is just not cogent. I'm not exactly throwing out Objectivist ethics, but I reject it as the whole story, and I reject it as a motive force in my life. My life's value comes from the enjoyment of things in it, and I do not think what I enjoy was chosen, or chould be chosen, by reason. Given that there is some objective standard for that which is pro-survival for me, and that which is against it, if I decide I want to live, then any principles that help in that endeveour are useful, but they are not mroal obligations in my mind anymore. I can basically do whatever the hell I want, and at root all desires are biological and sometimes arbitrary artifacts of our individual natures. Some people dont like music, and it has nothing to do with their view of reality or their subconscious beliefs as Rand would assert. It's because their brains work that way.

It's hard to explain why I am harping on about what we like by nature if you haven't come from the Objectivist ethics that completely denies any human nature and asserts that we like what we value and we choose our values by reason. But as David Hume pointed out:

Nothing is more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason, to give the preference to reason, and assert that men are only so far virtuous as they conform themselves to [reason's] dictates. Every rational creature, it is said, is obliged to regulate his actions by reason; and if any other motive or principle challenge the direction of his conduct, he ought to oppose it, till it be entirely subdued, or at least brought to a conformity with that superior principle. On this method of thinking the greatest part of moral philosophy, antient and modern, seems to be founded; nor is there an ampler field, as well for metaphysical arguments, as popular declamations, than this supposed pre-eminence of reason above passion....

It is from the prospect of pain or pleasure that the aversion or propensity arises towards any object: And these emotions extend themselves to the causes and effects of that object, as they are pointed out to us by reason and experience. It can never in the least concern us to know, that such objects are causes, and such others effects, if both the causes and effects be indifferent to us. Where the objects themselves do not affect us, their connexion can never give them any influence; and it is plain, that as reason is nothing but the discovery of this connexion, it cannot be by its means that the objects are able to affect us.

Since reason alone can never produce any action, or give rise to volition, I infer, that the same faculty is as incapable of preventing volition, or of disputing the preference with any passion or emotion. This consequence is necessary. It is impossible reason could have the latter effect of preventing volition, but by giving an impulse in a contrary direction to our passion.... Nothing can oppose or retard the impulse of passion, but a contrary impulse.... We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them
- David Hume

Well I initially believed it to be entirely correct, and so if I found difficulties in my own life, it was a moral failing, my fault, nothing to do with my nature. In this sense, it was a sort of trap. I didn't think, "this part doesn't make sense" but then decided to follow it. No, I actually thought it was spot on.

Over time, my own frustrations and discussions with a friend who is an effective altruist, lead me to accept pleasure as inherently good. He then pointed out some inconsistencies in what Rand said, and the threads started to unravel very quickly. Everything came to a crisis point in my mind and I could almost feel my belief system rewiring. Since I have always held truth and my own judgement as supreme over any particular belief, I will ruthlessly discard any idea, however strongly held in the past, as soon as I see clear reason to do so. Reason is the ultimate arbiter of my beliefs, and I am proud to have proven to myself once again that given evidence and reason, I will change my mind. Though it was somewhat psychologically uncomfortable, truth prevails.

Well I initially believed it to be entirely correct, and so if I found difficulties in my own life, it was a moral failing, my fault, nothing to do with my nature. In this sense, it was a sort of trap. I didn't think, "this part doesn't make sense" but then decided to follow it. No, I actually thought it was spot on.

Over time, my own frustrations and discussions with a friend who is an effective altruist, lead me to accept pleasure as inherently good. He then pointed out some inconsistencies in what Rand said, and the threads started to unravel very quickly. Everything came to a crisis point in my mind and I could almost feel my belief system rewiring. Since I have always held truth and my own judgement as supreme over any particular belief, I will ruthlessly discard any idea, however strongly held in the past, as soon as I see clear reason to do so. Reason is the ultimate arbiter of my beliefs, and I am proud to have proven to myself once again that given evidence and reason, I will change my mind. Though it was somewhat psychologically uncomfortable, truth prevails. — Sylar

I understand that you initially thought it was spot-on but an Islamic fundamentalist believes it is spot-on to kill in the name of religion so that he can get shacked up with a bunch of ladies in heaven and what gives life to the hatred that ultranationalists promote. The point being is that now that you are aware that objectivism is flawed in some ways, what you should question is why you had believed it to be entirely correct in the first place; the flaw must be in you since you believed it. What I think you will causally find is that your decision may have stemmed from your doubts in yourself, of being capable of undertaking philosophical and moral decisions independently. The risk here is that if you don't abandon the idea that any system of belief - be it religious, cultural or philosophical - can ever adequately explain existence, all you will be doing is simply rearranging your prejudices, adopting and changing.

I understand that you initially thought it was spot-on but an Islamic fundamentalist believes it is spot-on to kill in the name of religion so that he can get shacked up with a bunch of ladies in heaven and what gives life to the hatred that ultranationalists promote. The point being is that now that you are aware that objectivism is flawed in some ways, what you should question is why you had believed it to be entirely correct in the first place; the flaw must be in you since you believed it. — TimeLine

Good question. I don't think believing a philosophy or a claim in its entirety is prima facie always wrong, but I do agree that if I was convinced by faulty arguments or convinced with insufficient evidence, the problem is within me for doing so, and I can learn from that mistake in future.

What I think you will causally find is that your decision may have stemmed from your doubts in yourself, of being capable of undertaking philosophical and moral decisions independently. — TimeLine

Perhaps, but I do not attempt to determine everything in any field, philosophy or otherwise, entirely on my own. I listen to a view and evaluate the reasoning and evidence.

The risk here is that if you don't abandon the idea that any system of belief - be it religious, cultural or philosophical - can ever adequately explain existence, all you will be doing is simply rearranging your prejudices, adopting and changing. — TimeLine

I think it's possible that someone has it all correct, but I do not expect it. I was never 100% convinced of everything Ayn Rand said. I disagreed on points, so it was not as you may have thought, me simply taking everything Objectivism said as undeniable truth.

Furthermore, my moral system, if I have one, is no doubt going to be influenced by my readings. I don't consider it prudent to just introspect and expect what comes to my mind to be truth. More than likely, I will find a great deal of wisdom from others.

In the past, I had been an ethical nihilist, until I found Rand. I suppose I was excited to find what I thought was an objective realist morality. The argument is quite convincing if you do not spot the linguistic slight of hand which I simply failed to spot.

In fact, up to a point, the ethics makes only reasonable statements of facts. The is-ought gap is by passed by the following:

Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.

Her ethics is technically not a non-categorical imperative since it merely states:

If you choose to live
then you must adopt and practice these values
because these values are required for your survival

Now, most of her claims about what man needs for survival have some merit. Certainly, rationality, I agree with. Keeping your mind in contact with reality.

But you are left pondering what you should actually do in life. It's merely a guide to surivval, and it also doesn't tell why you shoudl want to live. or what the point of living is. The values of her ethics are egoist survival values. Some of which are valid as such, but that is all.

But to exist to exist... what's the point?

There is a scene in the movie "Equilibrium" that perfectly illustrates this point:



Also there's just the problem of 'values are chosen'. It's true in the abstract, but we never chose to enjoy chocolate, or to enjoy music, or to enjoy snowboarding, etc. We discover these values, because they give us pleasure, and why they give us pleasure is not chosen by reason.

I also realize now my failing to investigate evidence of human nature. Even though I sort of always had a belief that we had a nature, I still considered it reasonable that our desires are the result of our premises. What I failed realize was that I had already rejected Rand's view of sex for this reason, and that is a contradiction. I didn't spot that contradiction in my own thought. I didn't make the connection there in my belief. I suppose I am only human.

It was, in the end, me who spotted my own errors. It just took a long time, and a fair bit of mental suffering.

There's also the absurdity that I didn't grasp that if Objectivist ethics are necessary to be happy, then no one in history, except for Ayn Rand and those who accept her ethics, has ever been happy.

"Not really"

As she states:

Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind’s fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

and then

Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless “kicks,” like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment’s relief from their chronic state of terror.

It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment’s relief from their chronic state of terror.

So apparently Gengis Khan who had all the women and the power in the world, with no consequences ever for the killing and raping he did... was not really happy. Not really.

So apparently Gengis Khan who had all the women and the power in the world, with no consequences ever for the killing and raping he did... was not really happy. Not really. — Sylar

So your definition of happiness is killing and raping without consequence?

No. I'm saying that I'm sure he felt happy. I do not think he would have ever felt any shred of guilt.

I don't know you. How can I tell whether you decided to pursue objectivism because you met someone that had decided the same thing and you liked this person enough to trust that they must be thinking correctly that you would need to do the same; that, when you met someone else and they told you not to trust that you changed your mind because you now trust another person. And, when you meet someone else, and someone else... Where is the you in your decisions?

In a reciprocal fashion to your previous post, one of my favourite movies V for Vendetta perfectly illustrates this when Evie reaches the point where she says 'no'. I can't really show you a clip of it, you just have to watch the movie, but the process is clear and something Heidegger discusses in his phenomenology; fear distracts our capacity to genuinely love and only the idea of our own deaths eliminates the very angst that initially compels us to conform.

Without love, without anger, without passion there is nothing to our existence; but love, anger and passion without authenticity is the same thing, nothing. It is the same emptiness and we find some sense of unity and wholeness because others are doing the same thing and so that must make it real. Consciousness is this very authenticity.

So, comparatively, it is like being in a romantic relationship with someone that you do not genuinely love, but you 'love' because of the utility and pleasure that it gives you; you have regular sex, you save money, you are socially accepted into a group, perhaps even your partner is attractive enough which would be good for sex over the long-term, perhaps wealthy, perhaps you can get away with things because he/she in intellectually idiotic etc. There is no feeling; the actions are merely an example of this attempt to alleviate the angst.

"To judge by their lives, the masses and the most vulgar seem - not unreasonably - to believe that the good or happiness is pleasure. Accordingly, they ask for nothing better than the life of enjoyment (broadly speaking, there are three main types of life: the one just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the contemplative)." Aristotle also describes three types of friendship, which essentially fall under the same broader categories and I believe friendship - our capacity to be a friend and thus our capacity to give love - is the most important step towards a good life.

So apparently Gengis Khan who had all the women and the power in the world, with no consequences ever for the killing and raping he did... was not really happy. Not really. — Sylar

There are some that believe the picture of Genghis Khan as a brutal and ruthless leader is historically inaccurate. Vlad the Impaler developed an image of himself as a sadistic, blood-drinking Drăculea as a strategy to keep the Ottomans away when he probably drank prune juice before bed to keep himself regular. :-O

In the pursuit of happiness, there is no need to compare yourself to others since you will never find satisfaction that way; our imagination is rather infinite and though we may initially require a mirror in philosophy, religion, politics, even people to bounce our identity off, ultimately one needs to transcend and find the will to consciousness independently. In the end, the pursuit of virtue by finding the mean toward the highest good will lead to happiness; happiness is personal, individual. Objectivism failed to understand the importance of virtue and the interconnection of all things in consciousness.

I don't know you. How can I tell whether you decided to pursue objectivism because you met someone that had decided the same thing and you liked this person enough to trust that they must be thinking correctly that you would need to do the same; that, when you met someone else and they told you not to trust that you changed your mind because you now trust another person. And, when you meet someone else, and someone else... Where is the you in your decisions? — TimeLine

If I don't know someone I just assume they are generally rational and are thinking honestly for themselves. Why do you entertain a strange story about how I might be an irrational dope who can't think for himself? :P

There are some that believe the picture of Genghis Khan as a brutal and ruthless leader is historically inaccurate. — TimeLine

Really? He took over half the world by force. I don't think you do that by being a nice guy. Rape and pillage was their modus operandi. The mongols were stone cold savages on horse back. Some people gave into them rather than fighting that's how feared they were.

In the end, the pursuit of virtue by finding the mean toward the highest good will lead to happiness; happiness is personal, individual. Objectivism failed to understand the importance of virtue and the interconnection of all things in consciousness. — TimeLine

What is virtue and how do you prove it to be good? Objectivism has virtues.

What is the highest good? How do you prove it? Why will it make me happy?

I have looked into some virue ethics, but I'm interested to know your version. So far, I find it unconvincing.

If I don't know someone I just assume they are generally rational and are thinking honestly for themselves. Why do you entertain a strange story about how I might be an irrational dope who can't think for himself? :P — Sylar

Probably because I have been entertained by so many irrational dopes as you call them :D and though the predictability of such characters eventually leaves me rather bored since traits like genuine honesty and perhaps a ‘masculine’ [by masculine, I do not mean the sex of a person but rather gendered nouns that describe a firm dedication to principles - I am a woman and have intellectually masculine qualities] commitment to honour are really what I admire. I nonetheless find concepts like gas-lighting, cowardice or projection rather fascinating, more so from a phenomenological point of view rather than a sociological one.

To say that generally most people are rational and think honestly is no different to saying that philosophers know the ‘truth’ but because I am focused rather intently on authenticity since I myself want to reach that state – even I admit that I failed as I was dishonest to myself without being aware of it and it took a breakdown to find the courage to face it, hence Evie from V for Vendetta – I screen the behaviours of others for the purpose of mirroring my own flaws. There is no hatred involved though I can beat people with a rod of iron [with my words] but really I am only doing this as a way of encouraging myself to never fail myself again; experience has taught me that any attempt to help people is futile unless someone wants to better themselves, so it’s just me talking out loud as though my subjective self is developing a language that I can understand at conscious level; not that I am a solipsist. :P

What is virtue and how do you prove it to be good? Objectivism has virtues.

What is the highest good? How do you prove it? Why will it make me happy?

I have looked into some virue ethics, but I'm interested to know your version. So far, I find it unconvincing. — Sylar

As I work rather hard and often spend free time reading at the beach or the park until my eyes are on fire, and since I am rather enjoying your approachable tone, how about I explain – albeit briefly – my personal view on the subject; I am aware of some of the gaps that I am still searching for so your input would be interesting.

I often use pieces from philosophers such as Heidegger, Nietzsche, Plato, Schopenhauer, Satre and Kant as well as Jesus to justify my own interpretation of virtue; and that is the way that it should be, so whilst I wont get into geworfenheit or dasein etc, I believe that we should learn and study as much as we can and as broadly as possible. I have read the Bible and the Qu’ran but I do not identify myself as either a Jew, Christian or Muslim; I read in order to increase my vocabulary for the sole purpose of improving my understanding of myself, using intuition [subjective knowledge we cannot articulate] to feel whether I agree or not without belonging to a theory or institution or anything. I follow me. I simply pursue a study of myself with the sole desire of improving and improving implies consciousness and consciousness implies authenticity. When I become aware or conscious of a flaw, I improve and experience authentic happiness because the experience is both beneficial – and thus good for me – as well as real or genuine. This purpose provides an eternal cycle of happiness because we never stop learning, whereby we can never stop improving. As the aim is happiness and that our aim of improvement is Good [in the Platonic sense], this purpose or eternal cycle of self-improvement is love; love is moral consciousness and consciousness is authentic awareness, so the pursuit of morality or virtue is the step toward this transcendence.

So, we need to understand the reasons why we overlook or never achieve this. Existentially, we need to confront our separateness, or our free-will, by transcending the preconditioned structure of a shared social history and articulate a conscious discourse authentically about the state of our existence or being. This very separateness produces an angst that compels conformity; it is the emptiness we feel that Aristophanes conveys as being filled when we find our other half [romantic love]. Fromm’ approach on love is great in that – utilising Spinoza – states that while there are various forms of love, our ultimate aim should be the love of God. God is infinite, Good and aspiring toward him is finding that cycle and purpose [hence why God is not a figure, or Jesus, or something worldly] but rather singular and unknown, just as we are. It is finding the Aristophanes’ wholeness but within ourselves. A life of pleasure or utility fails to attain this eternal arrangement due to the fleeting, material and artificial approach that confronts the separateness irrationally, the objectivist take on existence.

We alienate ourselves from our genuine state of mind and by inflating our egos [to hide our cowardice] or abandon feeling, overcome any exposure that may enable us to be self-reflective; we deceive ourselves into believing in an artificial happiness and use one another solidify the emptiness. This initial anxiety is an emotional response caused by the realisation that one is drawing away from everything that they assumed was real and where their sense of significance becomes thoroughly unfamiliar. Fear in the material world is usually directed to something in particular, however this anxiety is produced within the person and thus the person encounters the ‘nothingness’ of freedom. The come face to face with the dark 'sphere' within. I believe that to overcome this is only possible when we confront our own death or the finitude of our existence and by acknowledging our individual death, we come to terms with our individuality. The structure of our existence changes where we no longer care about the dictates of society or following people for approval because we are no longer afraid.

Only those who have attained this are capable of understanding authentic love or moral consciousness and it is only between people who have achieved this are able to love one another genuinely.

One of my good friends is very similar to me in that he really challenges himself by challenging society; his girlfriend of many years is twice his size, unattractive by social standards and has not achieved much professionally or academically while he is attractive and a successful artist because – just like me – he believes in genuine love, that the concept of beauty is a social construct and so he chooses to follow his heart and not the herd.

In the end it is not about what we do and how the world responds to this but rather who we are and how we respond to the world. It is not a competition between people or society and I constantly push myself to challenge my own perceptions until I realise that the discomfort that I feel for breaking the rules is false, a type of subjective fear or coercion and each step I take I find myself more and more empowered because I care less for the false things that I have been trained to care for. I am un-doctrinating – deconstructing – myself piece by piece of all the bullshit.

Step by step.

Forgive me; I don't really understand what you're saying. I really do not follow. Are you essentially saying virtue means self improvement?

One of my good friends is very similar to me in that he really challenges himself by challenging society; his girlfriend of many years is twice his size, unattractive by social standards and has not achieved much professionally or academically while he is attractive and a successful artist because – just like me – he believes in genuine love, that the concept of beauty is a social construct and so he chooses to follow his heart and not the herd. — TimeLine

To be honest, that sort of thing makes me sick. If he loves her genuinely, that's cool, but if he's dating someone just to go against mainstream expectations, he's still a slave to their expectations but in the reverse. He shouldn't even consider what others will think, that'd be genuine independence.

I do not think that beauty is a social construct, even if it is personally subjective. If I had to guess, I'd say it's 80% biologically innate, and 20% influenced by environment with in constraints. In my view, beauty is generally based on some kind of perceived harmony.

In my own case, I've always found certain things beautiful in a girl, even though oftentimes my friends disagree

Forgive me; I don't really understand what you're saying. I really do not follow. Are you essentially saying virtue means self improvement? — Sylar

Yes. It was pretty clear.

To be honest, that sort of thing makes me sick. If he loves her genuinely, that's cool, but if he's dating someone just to go against mainstream expectations, he's still a slave to their expectations but in the reverse. He shouldn't even consider what others will think, that'd be genuine independence.

I do not think that beauty is a social construct, even if it is personally subjective. If I had to guess, I'd say it's 80% biologically innate, and 20% influenced by environment with in constraints. In my view, beauty is generally based on some kind of perceived harmony.

In my own case, I've always found certain things beautiful in a girl, even though oftentimes my friends disagree — Sylar

He loves her genuinely, that was the point. He defies the "80% biological and 20% environmental" insipidness by following his heart. Ah well, I thought you were interesting but clearly you just touch the surface.

the concept of beauty is a social construct — TimeLine

I do not think that beauty is a social construct, even if it is personally subjective — Sylar

When a man loves a woman, she actually is the most beautiful woman on Earth, in the most real of senses. It's the love that makes her beautiful. I think you two shouldn't confuse beauty for "hotness", or the "ooh what I'd do to grab that" kind of second-rate copy of it. That's lust, not beauty. Lust very often manifests in the desire to possess what others want to possess, by virtue of mimesis - you want it for the sole reason that others want it. Hence the trophy wife. Or the guy with lots of money, driving a fast car, and carrying big muscles.