Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4

Post 80

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Thanks, guys.

Y'all have given me much food for thought.  ;)

Post 81

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 8:32amSanction this postReply
I want also to lend my support via agreement in general with Jennifer and in particular with Jason's corollary about physical fitness.  I always chuckle at people who want a "hard body" lover while themselves manifesting the typical obese American slug.  Ha!  They want the benefit without paying the commensurate price.

I also support David's reiteration about the importance of an explicit values list being even more important for defining one's ideal self than in simply discovering one's ideal lover.  This explains why I keep hyping the Franklin Covey approach at the SOLO Florida page -- the system provides a methodical process of discovery, validation and actualization of one's own unique values.

Post 82

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 10:21pmSanction this postReply
While our rational evaluation of a potential partner is very important, it also seems that there is a biochemical response component, if recent results in the scientific study of sexuality are right.  We might find someone who is a great match in our rational evaluation who is not so good at the biochemical response level.  The strength of a given person's biochemical compatibility requirement is not something they can expect to exercise control over.  When someone says the chemistry is not right, they may be literally correct.  Thus, rejection in such a case may not be due to any fault in the potential partner.  In competition with this biochemical factor, our rational evaluation may weigh very heavily or not so heavily.  As Objectivists, we would like to have the rational evaluation be all important, but the nature of some individuals may allow them much less room to exercise their choices.  Telling such a person that they fall short morally in how they choose a partner may be like telling a homosexual male that he must think his way into loving a woman.

Post 83

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply




“I take this to mean that in such a case you are led to negative conclusions about yourself -- that you do not really accept the "fundamentals" you tell yourself you accept.”


Actually it does make me reevaluate whether the fundamentals are there on their part (and my part) and if I might be selectively focusing on inessentials negatives (if that is the case).


I am coming to the conclusion that if I met a woman that is truly objective then it would be highly unusual that I would have no attraction for her. The degree to the attraction would vary (mainly because of her and my sense of life) but it “should” definitely be there to some extent. This does not mean that we are matched for a long-term relationship. I also have to admit that I have met very few women in person that I would consider truly objective or making a serious effort to be.



“For instance, Leonard Peikoff and I share a certain metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics (loosely), but the chemistry sure ain't there!”

Besides the fact that you two are related I was under the impression that you don’t think well of him at all, nor the way he interprets Rand’s philosophy so I don’t think it strange that you would not be attracted to him.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4

User ID Password or create a free account.