About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, August 24, 2002 - 12:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff proposes the following theory: that sensitive and thinking young men may not be able to fit into the cultural stereotype of the macho male and, hence, they remain "fixated" to the point where they "need and want the approval of other males."

I find it interesting that Peikoff identified this as a problem with the "young men" in question rather than with the culture that created the situation.

This is why most "gay rights" are really gender rights, individual rights we all will have, once we demand them.



Post 1

Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff seems to get all of his ideas from the Jungians and post-Jungians. Do you think he really wants to be a Jungian perhaps? Tongue in cheek. I suggest if you are interested in these ideas that you read R. Hopcke's book Jung, Jungians, and Homosexuality. What is very odd I find is that Peikoff seems to be retracing the steps that the pioneers of Jungian psychology made three decades ago!! Get with it dude!! But if he really means that he cam up with the projection hypothesis independently and wants to copyright it or something like that, then I feel sorry, really sorry.

Jung already said at the turn of the century (that's last century) that he "felt" that homosexuality betrays a significant immaturity or under development on the part of the analysand (the puer) His concept of the puer was taken from Ovid "Metamorphosis" and used by his disciple Marie von Franz, who developed the idea in her book Puer Aeternus (Golden Boy). Eventually Jungian psychologists moved away from this hypothesis to the place where Peikoff is now. Observe that both Branden and Peikoff had both been at the original puer stage at an earlier time in their careers (at least Branden was in Romantic Love)

Don't you think that politically that gives straight men and women the upperhand if they can sit and spout stupidities in print and perpetuate mythologies that have been exploded long ago? They would have done better to stick with Aristotle who developed a theory (albeit brief) in the Nicomachean Ethics 1148b 15-19a 20 and at Problemata IV 26 where he distinguishes between the naturally pleasurable from what is pleasurable without being naturally so. I mean really at least the issue of nature is fundamental to the legal practice that continues to dominate the issue.

Again Aristotle would say to these pseudo-psychologists like Peikoff: forget the inside of mens heads, judge them by their actions!! I fing Jung immensly rewarding for one reason: because I am an artist and I like to play around with his ideas because they are interesting and because they shed alot of light on the many directions and variations of human existence. I would not, however, go about telling people that they are suffering from some kind of mental malaise because of their homosexuality. It just doesn't make sense to speak about such things without absolute assurance that you are right.

G.E. Moore developed the "naturalistic fallacy" exactly to counter this kind of thinking. The error of tautological thinking, i.e. "why do the fittest survive?" "because the fittest survive" The same thing goes for Peikoff's idea. You might ask him "why do homosexuals need and want the approval of other males Mr Peifoff?" he might answer "because they do". At least the Jungians upgraded their thought with neat little names.



Post 2

Thursday, August 29, 2002 - 10:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder if a culture can really create a situation Josh, or if it is individuals who have to accept or reject "the sum total of individual accomplishments" that is culture. I wonder how much power we have to invest in resisting "the culture that created the situation" and if it is more or less than the power we have to change ourselves to resist "fixation" on other males, if such a thing exists. Personally I think that theory is bull crap and its explanatory power ends as soon as I encounter someone who is gay and doesn't recognize that kind of experience at all. I think that there is such a thing as looking too hard for the reasons why something is the way it is. For someone who believes in metaphysical pluralism and that only individuals exist, I find it fascinating that Peikoff should be troubling himself with the question "why homosexuals exist" instead of focussing on the more pertinent question of how they exist. As far as a social transformation, I agree with Jung that there is no such possibilty, that personal transformation must precede any change on a higher level. I know that sounds a little drastic kind of like Spencer's "there can be no freedom until all are free", but for sustaining such a cultural ideal, wouldn't it be necessary that all the people be virtuous? How does one make a virtuous society out of people who are not virtuous? Sounds paradoxical? It is. That is why Libertarians can't come up with a satisfactory roadmap either.

Because Peikoff's first question is the wrong one, and really can't be answered, it follows that the second one can never be satisfactorily answered either.



Post 3

Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 3:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm only speaking for myself but I strongly identified with Peikoff's theory.
I'm 18 and I'm undergoing psychotherapy to discover my sexual orientation, right now I'm confused.



Post 4

Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not to be flippant, but why are you going to a shrink to figure out if you like men, women, or both? Wouldn't the best way to figure out one's orientation be to experiment and decide from experience what is most pleasurable?



Post 5

Tuesday, June 3, 2003 - 4:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's amazing how certain articles crop up again on SOLO HQ!

I would only like to say to Marcus that the observations of some (such as Nathaniel Branden) that there are many "homosexualities"---I'd go further and say there are many "sexualities"---is valid insofar as it is simply ~wrong~ to use a "one size fits all" explanation. The constellation of factors that go into any unique individual's expression of sexuality are immensely complex and deeply personal, and I wish you the best of luck in trying to figure out who and what you are. My only (nonprofessional) advice would be ~not~ to get so hung up on the labels. One of the central messages of Objectivism is its commitment to individual authenticity. Be true to yourself. Don't disown what you feel and don't moralize yourself into a spiritual or physical prison.

I should also mention that a separate SOLO monograph, which revises and expands my five-part series on "Objectivism and Homosexuality," is currently being readied. We will post information on this as it becomes available.

If you'd like a simple link to ~all~ five parts of the series, check out:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/homosexuality.htm

Peace,
Chris



Post 6

Wednesday, June 4, 2003 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We each make personal choices based our own value judgments. Our own. Not others. What is of value to one, is perhaps not of value to another, but I have always upheld an individuals right to choose for themselves, (so long as it does nothing to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others). Not to do so would be immoral. I find it hard to believe that personal sexual preference is an objectivist issue or up for debate at all. Would one debate a personal choice of green over blue, apples over oranges, mountain view or seaside? Interesting series sciabarra.



Post 7

Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's funny that Leanard Peikoff, the official commander and chief of Objectivism, can say that objectivism has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. How can a philosophy not have anything to say on any subject? It's philosophy. Ayn Rand taught that philosophy was the groundwork on wich men approach every subject, every subject they may encounter in life.
This is what, I think, reveals Objectivism to be truly a political sect and not what it claims to be.
I've seen this before in other ways. Official objectivism hardy ever has anything new to add, not applying a philosophy to ever broader and broader topics. They stick to the same old stale topics, which true, none of which have been solved and so shouldn't be abandoned, but Objectivism seems to be something like a building that will only cover certain particular territory, and simply stops there, with no explaination.
Well, excuse me, but a philosophy is meant to cover the entirety of man's existence. It's really not a skyscraper built within a few square blocks of life - leaving all the rest of mankind to itself.
Ayn rand taught this herself, at least in words, if not always in her actions (like a true objectivist apparently). I mean didn't she say "The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life."? Well, is that true or not?



Post 8

Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 3:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Newt - remember that SOLO does not represent "official" Objectivism. It *aspires* to represent Objectivism as it might be & ought to be. That includes dragging Objectivist homophobia (including Peikoff's hypocritical condescension on the subject) out of the closet & exposing it to the light of reason. Chris Sciabarra's five-part series on the matter has substantially achieved that. Soon we'll be publishing it, revised with significant additions, as a monograph. Don't hold your breath for "official" Objectivism to applaud. Expect a sheepish silence.



Post 9

Monday, July 21, 2003 - 12:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz - I didn't forget. I was criticizing ideas that have come from the number one "offical Objectivist", the "intellectual heir himself", Peikoff, and my point was how could he possibly not know better?
How could he forget that "objectivism" is supposedly philosophy, and as philosophy there can be nothing in mans life that falls outside it's province. He does know that and he makes it clear he does in the book he wrote covering "objectivism".
Ayn Rand couldn't have been clearer on the idea herself, of that nature of philosophy, and she too, to her credit, DID take a stand on homosexuality, however "unfortunate" it might have been. She at least took it as serious as anything else though.



Post 10

Friday, December 5, 2003 - 10:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand viewed homosexuality as a moral issue, based on her implicit assumption that it was a consciously chosen behavior.

Regardless of chosen or not, how can it be immoral? Who is harmed by two people loving each other, or even just having recreational sex?



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.