IRC log started Fri Aug 16 22:06 Honesty is "an unbreached commitment to the facts of reality". In addition to being true to oneself, this means being true to others, particularly those with whom we are intimately involved. Although this applies to friendship in general, we are mainly going to concentrate on how honesty applies to romantic relationships. And while it's obvious to most people that you shouldn't lie, cheat, or steal from others, there are some applications of the principle that aren't always clear in personal relationships. Tonight we are going to try and clarify some of those areas. OK, first a couple of general considerations... Aside from the cardinal fact that dishonesty destroys the virtue of rationality, why should we be honest? ...ESPECIALLY with intimates? Because existence exists. Tom: could you expand on that? Tym:I think that's what psychologists call "visibility". Tym: In particular, you are who you are ans she is who she is... to maintain integrity, self-respect, and being able to deal with people in a straight-forward way without an increasing accumulation of lies that necessitate lies It is in the joy of shared experience and valuing of existence upon which intimacy is based; any attempt to deny the common reality shared, is a denial of the basis for the intimacy. Jay: and what is "psychological visibility"? Eric: but can't you just get away with one lie, if you "had" to? Tym:letting the other person "see" who you are. You're not just hurting yourself, you're also hurting someone you claim to love. Jay: OK, good. We'll come back to that presently. Tym: Since all facts are interrelated, one invented "fact" necessitates manufacturing corrolary "facts" which are consistent with it but inconsistent with reality, until the body of lies grows too lareg to be hidden. EricT, excellent point Isn't that backwards Subetai, you're hurting yourself b/c you're hurting someone you claim to love Eric: very good. Can you think of any typical situation where this doesn't obtain? Clay: I did say "also", not "because", which does not imply a causal relationship. I was pointing out that it's a double whammy. Clay: I would say lies can only primarily hurt the liar, but that in itself is a hurt to the other. I mean: by engaging in self-destructive, irrational behavior, you lose objective value for another. Relationships of all kinds are contracts whose terms must be continuously upheld. Tym: It appears not to apply when dealing with people on a "one deal, never see them again" basis, but it takes a pragmatist to allow this to lead to dishonesty, because in principle, in the long-run, one gets caught even for one-time deals. OK, I think we're clear on the general idea here: faking reality in one small part entails ultimately entails having to fake the rest of reality, since reality is one. So dishonesty is impractical from that standpoint. "Intamacy" means letting the other person know things about you that may be known by few others. To lie is to deny intamacy. ...especially since an intimate will have to get to know you pretty darn well :) OK, next... "Intimacy" that is... oops I want to deal with how we integrate maintaining privacy while still being psychologically visible... Tom: I would say intimacy is more characterized by the values which one is willing to share with another, not so much by what one is willing to reveal. Tym:Maybe there are some things you just don't talk about, even to an intimate. It has been pointed out that it's not necessarily wrong to lie if it means protecting yr privacy from someone who has no business knowing certain facts about you. What sorts of facts can one legitimately conceal from an intimate or prospective intimate, and why? BradA: I think it amounts to the same thing...the ability to reveal oneself is crucial to intimacy. is not answering a question lying? I don't think so Lurch: no, but it could be self-incriminating ;) Tym, on assumes an intimate is exactly that... someone you share the intimate details of your life with. I wouldn't ever lie to someone I was intimate with. Hmm.. let me try that again, is not volunteering information a hinderance to intimacy? hi Objectvst: so they're entitled to know everything there is to know about you, and vice versa? Lurch: That depends on the information the other wants to have. Lurch: it depends on the context Such as Reardon insisting on knowing who Dagny slept with before himself...it's really none of his business. Tom: An intimate person may know little more facts about someone than others, but the other will only share certain values and recognition and experiences. Tom: so there's an element of *expectations* involve, whereon the relationship is conditioned? involved rather Tym, if it's someone I'm spending the rest of my life with, yes. Well, for one thing, it's not good to conceal things that are relevant to the relationship. Tym: One can expect the other to reveal what is most valuable to him/her, otherwise, why bother? Subetai: OK, and what sorts of things are typically relevant? What one did with prior partners, to take the case brought up just now? I have often observed relationships turning into horrible bondages because of an expectation of sharing everything. I am profoundly opposed to that. I will give an example. Tom: makes sense to me. Brad: OK... Sube: If I own a second home, I don't think I have to reveal that right away. If a couple have not made a date, then one member shouldn't need to have to phone the other if he/she is going somewhere. The degree of intimacy in a relationship should be offered as a value, not given freely then demands made for payment after the fact. Tym: That could be relevant. I think it's partly contextual. No two relationships are exactly the same. You recognize what's important to your partner and make sure they have the information they need to make decisions on that basis. For instance, one wouldn't tell a roommate. So why should a romantic context limit one's legitimate freedom? I have never understood this attitude towards romance. I agree Subetai Sube: suppose you knew that "knowing what all of yr weakenesses are" is important to the other. Does that mean yr obligated to tell them? Tym: I would say that of all things, prior romances are not a particularly appropriate subject between romantic partners. I don't want to know about it anyway, and don't want to discuss it. ...and vice versa. Eric: That comes under the heading of trading value for value. I think that is fundamental in any relationship. If one is revealing more than the partner wants to reveal, then there may be a compatibility problem. Objectvst: what do you think of Brad's comments? Tym: Well, if that was important to the other, I'd like to know why. If it wasn't a reason I could share, I'd probably not like that person as much. Point is, each provides the other with a response to what's important to the other. Or else there is no relationship. Brad: I think that is contextual...one should never reveal to anyone, those things which were revealed "in confidence" by the pother partner. -p Sube: so you'd have to know WHY they wanted that information? Tym: Yes, I'd have to know the why for everything that was important to a romantic partner. I'd try to find out. Tym, I can understand his desire to not share those things. I would not volunteer them, nor would I hide them. I certainly would never ask. Tym: I would say that it is not appropriate to try to get someone to catalog their weaknesses. Honesty means not misrepresenting yourself -- it is up to one person to find out if another "measures up" in all those aspects important to them. This might involve inquiry or discovery, but I think this is highly secondary. You also don't want to reveal more than the other wants to know at a certain point in the relationship I don't think it helps to use the example of cataloging weaknesses. The point is, you provide a response to what your partner considers important. If he/she considers something important that you think shouldn't be, you ask questions. Brad: ok. To return to my original question then, are there ANY facts about yrself that you could legitimately conceal about yrself, by lying if necessary? Assuming it didn't bear on the relationship? I agree on important things such as principles guiding your life, but everyone wants some privacy even from one's loved one. Besides, a proper romantic relationship is based upon respect for mutual strengths, not weaknesses. Okay, for simplicity. What about if you snore? Tym: Perhaps something which could either endanger the partner, or bring danger to yourself. I can't think of much in the way of normal circumstances. Tom: well, different sides of the same coin, innit? Tym: It should never be necessary to lie. Just explain that the subject is off limits JayT: I think the next partner will find that out for herself, don't you think? ;) TomM:I hope so. Brad, FB: so in all practicality, lying is a moot issue, then? Because it wouldn't be something they cared about, whereon you knew the relationship was predicated? If I can comment about Tom's point of "confidence". I hold to very strict standards of confidence in intimacy. I believe very strongly that (non-fraudulent) intimacy is sacrosanct, even regardless of any subsequent defaults by a party. Tym: I'm not sure...I don't normally go around listing my weaknesses unless it is someone I really trust--especially not to tell the whole world about it. So, such revelations may be appropriate to a romantic relationship, but start wih the strengths. I've never felt that there was anything I *couldn't* tell a woman I loved. I might be curious to know why she wants to know some specific thing. Brad: Agreed. Tom: I agree. I hold the value in the intimacy when it meant something, and to break that, in my personal view, is treason to one's valuing of intimacy. And if she wanted to know what I considered my weaknesses were, I'd be happy to tell her. Subetai: It's a two way street. Knowing why someone wants to know something, is sharing information too eh? For example, very hypothetical....let's say a woman reveals that if a man offers her chocolate ice cream, she'll do anything (sexually) to get it. Now telling the world would kinda spoil that fact. ;) Phil: Absolutely. Tym: You may just want to wait until the relashionship reaches a certain comfort level Brad: so it's not primarily fidelity to the other person, as much as protecting the value of intimacy? ...to oneself. Brad:If she volunteered that she hated AS, would you let it pass for the moment? If one can believe Devers Branden's tale about visiting Rand, and her comment about Rand being extremely distressed that Branden revealed their relationship to his new wife, then I think this expresses exactly this attitude. Rand said... "a gentlemen would have taken it to his grave." She'd hardly be a romantic partner if she *hated* AS. Brad: dinno that. Interesting. Tym: Yes, very much so. It is supremely selfish to keep the value of intimacy private, because it was *your* intimacy. That the other person may have squandered theirs is irrelevant. Brad: definitely agreed. Brad: agree Brad: Rand has that attitude in her novels...I'm not sure it's a principle per se, though. Except there may be a temptation on the part of the new partner to use it against the current partner? Besides, that was an extra-marital affair. Now, if Rand had marriedd Brandon at some point, gotten a divorce, then asked the former partner not to reveal it, well, that's anothjer story. -j OK, we need to pause and regroup here... Tom: Notice the interesting conflict between Dagny and Rearden. She shared Rand's view, whereas Rearden was obsessed with knowing the identity of anyone who she would let be used as he did her. But that was because of his soul/body split. I would appreciate it if this discussion not get dominated by the hearsay junk repeated by proven dishonest people such as the Brandens Phil: valid request. BradA: Agreed...and that is part of the issue. With no mind/body dichotomy, one would still want to keep it "secret" merely because it is almost impossible to provide enough context that a new partner would understand. phil: Agreed...I was just expanding on a valid dpoint. I'm not being quarrelsome, but I've been married 22 years. I love my wife, and she loves me. BUT there are things we don't ask each other--maybe just out of respect for "privacy" of disinterest. Context is another thing I want to bring up... "or", not "of" Jay: If it is not important, then it is not important...A is A. ;) ...given that integral to honesty is an awareness of what the other person regards as important in knowing about you... But what I'm saying is that "everything" doesn't "have" to be known ...are you obligated to tell them everything right away, even if it meant that they didn't have the context whereby to judge you? Context is the issue. One should wait until one is ready to tell, and the partner is ready to know "I'm human being. I'm from Earth. I love you. Anything else?" No, you're not obligated to tell them. Tym: No, establishing a proper context is crucial, and sometimes impossible to convey. That's why things revealed in confidence should remain that. Sube, Tom: whaat if they say, "you should have let me make that decsion for myself?" I think the question is really: what if he/she asks? Tym: But how could you know with such fidelity all this things about what another person needs to know? Also, I'm skeptical of this assertion of "needing to know" -- I would say "need to know" is all matters which affect the couple jointly. One isn't in a relationship for the sake of the other person .. One is in it _for one's self_ It takes a long time to validate certain levels of intimacy so that you _know_ the person won't betray you Tym: Depends on what is asked. For instance, if a former partner had sofme wierd sexual hang-up that would be demeaning to that former partner, then it is off limits. Tym: That's what I meant by saying that you wait until asked. If they ask, it means it's important to them. In which case you tell (give the context if necessary) or tell them why you won't tell, and let 'em make up their own mind if they want anything more to do with you. Sube: so if they don't ask, you wait until you think the time is right to reveal something, if ever? In a certain context, I can imagine Dagny revealing to the world she had earned sleeping with Francisco, just as she did with Reardon...it just never came up. Tym: Not if you know even without their asking that it's likely to be something important to them. Sube: that's why I asked about context. Suppose they'd have to get to know you better in order to make a balanced assessment? Tym: Then tell them that. you don't want to reveal something without the appropriate context. ie. without the partner's understanding If it's important enough, give them the context quickly. Sube: even if they didn't ask? FB: I don't know what means --"they'll need to love me more before I tell them X"??? It also has to do with the trust built up...if not revealing it will lead to a distrust, then it may be necessary to reveal it. Tym: I would, if I considered it to be something important enough that it might affect her decisions regarding me. Brad: Why not? I think that is the issue. Sube: ok, good. Brad: No. Just that if you want Her to understand, you have to give the appropriate context I hate recriminations. If you love someone, tell them whatever's necesary to make an informed decision. If that takes context, give 'em context. Tom: Even if you know that, say, they were extremely intolerant of drug use, and you had used drugs, you would keep this from them? I woul say that was lying, clearly. Sube: suppose that context is something that can only be acquired over time? Brad: Agreed...unless it was something that occured far in the past, and is no longer relevant to who you are. Brad: good example. If they were intolerant of some mistake some kid made in ignorance, namely drug use, what the hell are you doing w/ them? Tym: Time's relative. How much time? A month? A year? You can pretty much train for a new profession in a year. Tom: Well it would probably be up to the other to make that decision. or more likely stupidity rather than ignorance only if you already have a degree... the point is, unless I've given her the context and the information she needs, I wouldn't think of that relationship as very permanent or intimate. Brad: i don't think so...it's up to you to decide to reveal "incriminating" evidence. but that is not the place to start. Clay: There could be valid reasons. A person may have extremely high standards, and that could tip the balance. Sube: ok. Brad, yes, irrationally so.. Brad: How she reacts will tell you something about her Anybody has as right to their own standards -- so it would be fraud to tell them what they want to hear in order to satisfy those standards And I don't understand "incriminating" in this context. I've done things I'd rather not have done. So what? I don't feel guilty about them. I did whatever seemed right in the context of who I was. Clay: People are an integrated sum of their past. You can change your ideas and behavior, but can't erase the sum of your character. Tym:What about doing something AFTER the intimacy is established--like spending her money without her consent? And it is the integrated sum of a person's character which is *most* germane in romance. Jay: Sounds like a good way to wreck a relationship Jay: that's dishonest Yeah. Subetai: Well, aprt of the point is that it was done long ago and is no longer relevant. Those things are best left in one's own privacy, unless an issue comes up. then it may be appropriate to reveal why one did it, and renouced it. Jay: is there something about that that isn't clear cut? A particular situation? Tom: I don't think about it that way. If she asks, it's relevant to her. I see no reason why I shouldn't tell her. Tym:Say you're on a limited budget and you buy a big TV on a whim? Subetai: I think it's contextual...I usually tell, since I can validate why I changed my mind about such things, and it adds to my character. Jay: you mean because you thought she approve once you got it home? ;) hmmm... I don't care much what it does to my character. She must like me as I am now, or she wouldn't be interested. Hope springs eternal! Jay: such big purcahses are best decided by both persons involved, unless it's your money ;) Clay: Not at all irrational. For instance, a person may just absolutely detest the idea of drugs, and the discovery their partner had done them might be definitive. Sube:Ideally, a fully integrated person doesn't care what anybody knows about them I disagree Totally FB: there's privacy brad: I think that person would have to be irrational... phil: With what? FB: You mean _anybody_ in the world or your wife? anybody Tom: I agree with "the past", insofar as every detail of one's past isn't important. A relationship doesn't form by cataloging each other's pasts. Brad: Sube says that details of the past are important if the other person asks about them. <> ErnestP wonders I wouldn't go around revealing any more than was absolutely necessary to the world at large. Brad: True...what was, was...it mayd not be relevant any longer. and may be another instance where it is impossible to create the apporpriate context. FB: I profoundly disagree with that statement. A rational man values his privacy immensely. It is an exquisite tool of selecting to whom he will bestow the value of his important personal values. Many values ARE values BECAUSE of privacy. Sex is the best example. But I choose to reveal things to a romantic partner. The better she knows me, the more I'll enjoy the relationship. I think one of the most beneficial parts of an intimate relationship is having someone else who knows me completely... or as completely as possible... Tym: I agree with Subetai on the point of matters in the past, assuming it is something the other has legitimate need to know. this doesn't mean I tell her everything on the first date, or the first month...but after a year there shouldn't be anything important she doesn't know The more irrational a political system is, the more necessary it is for a rational man to keep quiet about who he is FB: I tend to agree with you. As long as you are not unwillingly supplying someone with information that will incriminate you. Brad: Why phil: thats a bit different :) ErnestP: Oh, really? Do you live on Mars? Brad: so just because it's important enuf for them to ask doesn't necessarily mean it's legit? "Complete knowledge" is contextual. Take the drug example. If she is intrinsically against drug use, and you don't do it any more, then I dodn't think it would be a lie not to reveal it, unless she asks point blank--then you may be in a jam. Blue: I agree phil: I'm from mars, but I don't live there anymore Tom: As I said, and as Phil pointed out well, people have a right to their standards. Honesty is not trying to fake the standards of others. If you cannot accept the standards of your partner, leave. Don't try to replace them or project an alternative set. That is the point. ther are some things that are simply none of your business (I never did, by the way) ;) There's something I've learned from long hard experience that's worth keeping well mind -- It's a philosophic principle applied to relationships Never equate the potential with the actual Brad: i agree with that. but a past mistake may be difficult to provide a context for...that's the rub. Phil: could you expand on that? If you are not currently up to their standards, and they not to yours, it won't work Okay...well this works out well because it just so happens that I am a reformed drug addict...and if she couldn't except the fact that it was not unreasonable to take that first hit off a joint, I wouldn't really understand her. I don't understand people who are rigidly against experimentation... Tym: Mostly what I just said Tym: If you don't consider it legit, ask her why she wants to know. If her explanation doesn't make you happy, you can always leave. Phil: ok. Tym: The point there, is that if your partner starts asking *illegitimate* questions, then it is time to reassess the relationship. Sube: ok. Tym: i.e. if you "need" a woman who weighs < 120 lbs and she's 20 lbs overweight, you can either change your acceptibility standards or not. But don't do it contingent on the weight loss I don't think that question is illegitimate... Gotta go buy that TV! See you next week. Tom: "A past mistake may be difficult to provide a context for." Uh, with all due respect, this what individual responsibility means. This is why Objectivism teaches an approach to ethics which encompasses a lifetime as context. night Jay JayT; heheh. Good luck with the wife. Ernest, if anybody asks me details about my relationships with previous girlfriends, it's an illegitimate question Brad: It was Rearden (the mistaken one) who was afraid to reveal the affair; not Dagny, (the more integreted one)! Tom: Why do you think criminals lose their rights? Because they have demonstrated in action they are an existent of a certain kind: a rights violator. FB: Dagny would _not_ have revealed it unless coerced to -- by an irrational political system Brad: Well, not everyone (if anyone) was born an Objectivist. I never did drugs, but I would understand someone not telling me if they did it in the past, but no longer do. lurch: you would never tell your partner about previous relationships? ever? Good example, FB. One things for sure... Marx wasn't born an Objectivist hey harper Clay: Marx wasn't born a Marxist either ;) FB: correction: Rearden was not *afraid* to reveal the affair. His action was his profound *sanction* of the value of the affair, per what we've discussed regading the value of privacy. he was born, and died, a tabula rasa. Phil: I'm not suggesting to volunteer it. Just that you don't care to keep it secret Brad: Quite the opposite...he was *embarrased* about the affair with Dagny. FB: Rand said once that civilization is the growth of the personal and private, or words to that effect (vs. collectivism, where one's soul is expected to be bared at all times, by edict) Lurch: If asked about previous relationships I would not have a problem discussing it with anyone I would normally discuss anything of importance with. Not only was he embarrassed, he was morally in conflict b/c he considered sex to be a duty and so he couldn't deal w/ the fact he wanted to have sex w/ her. phil: True, and that is germane to the discussion...even a romantic partner does not have the intimate right to know everything. _Some_ pieces of information are mandantory to share with one's partner: It's not a question of "right to know". Clay: Right...now Dagny didnd't want to reveal her former partner because of respect for him (thje former partner), not out of any embarrasment. The principle is, information which affects that person physically, for example. Such as having, say, herpes Tom: The point is that we are all more-or-less fallen (a premise I reject), but that individuals MUST be responsible for their actions. So what are you saying as compares, say, a super-rational youth who becomes an Objectivist in his early teens? He should accept ex-hippie, ex-liberal goons as his existential equals? Love is much, MUCH more than extant morality. Vastly more. there is no right to knowledge...the only question is how much you should be willing to tell them.... Phil2: I disagree. Nothing is mandatory to discuss with anyone. Yikes! My last comment was phrased wrong.... Bluegreen: If you have a comm. disease which might affect your partner you are absolutely ethically obligated to tell them _before_ they are at risk Brad: I didn't say it was expected. Just that one would not be afraid to divulge what and whom you value, given an appropriate context The "point about being fallen" was intended as a rhetorical question, not a comment phil: I agree. brad: there is no reason to think an ex-hippy or liberal couldn't be his equal...there are more than one paths to knowledge... what's that? Ernest, prove it. Whose equal? Brad: it's not an issue of "being fallen", but of not being able to explain why you did something in the past...that is, maybe you can't explain the premise behind the action, but it's not there anymore...something like that. I don't know how you want to define equal in this sense anyway. He could have just as well an understanding of objectivist principles Something Understanding of Objectivist principles is _not_ the essential characteristic of a good person. There are many good people who have never heard of Rand and who lived before Rand, and there are total scumbags with a lot of knowledge of Objectivism He could be just as rational, he was just presented with different information at a different time in his life Someone who was always rational is certainly superior to someone who came at rationality from irrationality. but there are errors of knowledge that are very difficult to convey, so why even do it, unless you can? Ernest, I believe the term equal was refering to the moral evaluations that one would make of them.. and no drugged hippie is my equal, or ever will be.. Phil: "Never equate the potential with the actual" Excellent point. This means exactly what I said about a contract. One must always BE the proper object of the other's desire, not *might* be, or *could* have been (if I'd bothered)... :) TomM: Embarrassment was *not* the reason Rearden wanted to keep his affair w/Dagny private. His motivation was that he wanted to *protect* her. Brad: Yes The moderated part of this discussion is over. Feel free to continue talking about whatever you like. Thanks, Tym. :) Phil2: I agree, however one must at least be able to accept your views to be compatible Now a reformed drug user, that's another potentiality joe: Sure, protect her from others who would scoff at the affair...those who shared his premise that the affair was dirty. Earnest: I don't really think the concept "addiction" applies to cannabis. Frequent use of something does not mean addiction. I drink coffee almost daily, but am not addicted to it. clay: I was talking about a reformed drug user! I said ex-hippy... Chap: That depends. I think Ernest's term was *ex* hippy, etc. brad:From personal experience I would have to say it does. I used it compusivley, long after it was any fun, went through withdrawal (basically serious anxiety ) without it I *am* a _recovered_ addict :-) My doctor wanted to put me on valium to take care of the marijuana withdrawal... :) Phil2: I disagree. You are legally bound Not to violate the right to life or freedom of action of another human being. You are not ethically bound to reveal everything about yourself which another may find offensive. and I came to O'ism from the left and in the late 60's/early 70's As an example of intimacy. If my partner never had a hang-up with sex, it would be very difficult for me to convey what it was like to be Catholic for so long a time. I would tell her about it, but going further in explanation would be very difficult. Tom: You are saying Rearden was *embarrassed* about his affair with Dagny, at the time he was blackmailed? You need to reread the interior monologue he engaged in just prior to signing the certificate. or, some people used to be very repressed. I have tried to explain to persons never having this problem, and found it to be nearly impossible. Since I'm not that way now, what difference does it may presently? Phil2: Maybe I should clarify... I meant that to be compatible in a relationship your partner must be able to accept your views/philosophy not necessarily (sp?) adopt them. Ernest - sorry for delay.. I said "details", not teh fact of their existance Brad: That was very late into the story. He was very embarrased earlier in the novel. Explaining repression to someone who's not, that could be interesting (Phil2@U) Blue: Hello? I don't think this is a difficult point. If you have the possibility of infecting a potential partner, you must tell them, morally. Do you disagree? (Phil2@U) Chap: Ah. Yes, agreed lurch I no longer know what you were talking about... Bluegreen: In the context of a relationship, there are many things necessary to discuss: namely, anything which has joint bearing. Phil's example was good. Another would be important career decisions which might affect where you lived, etc. Chap: they have to at least implicitly *act* on the virtues that you hold, even if they don't accept them explicitly. Brad: Early in the story, Reardon swa the affair as a breach of his integrity. Tym: I don't think I understand. TomM: I'm not so sure about that. Maybe rearden was embarrassed *for* Dagny, but not embarrassed *of* her. joe: He was embarrased of *himself*. Whioch is why Dagny laughed at him the morning after their first fling. Ernest: regarding your comments about "equal": there is a big difference between knowledge and character. A big difference. Love is about character, not knowledge. It is about the integrated sum of a man's character. Not the resolution to live a clean life now, that he made five minutes ago. Don't make the mistake of losing focus on the facts of relationships. Joe, read the scene after Rearden and Dagny had sex the first time At that point, from what I gather, Rearden was forcing himself to comply to Lilian's moral code, not the one he actually believed in. Chap: for example, a person would have to be rational, independent, productive, honest, etc, *in their daily life*, even if they didn't accept those virtues explicitly, in order for me to be with them. Chap: No, he actually beleived in it...and was breaking it....if "embarrasement" is not the right word, what is? Tom: I have explained the principles several times. Why are you oppose to individual responsibility? Brad: How are you coming to the conclusion that I am against private responsibility? brb, changing servers Ernest: With all due respect, having read your comments about knowledge and relationships, you are committing the fallacy of rationalism. You are completely disconnecting your cognition about romances and intimacy from the facts of reality about them, and substituting abstract knowledge, relevant only to a different context, instead. Tym: I tend to agree with what you are saying. Many people do practice these virtues, yet cling to another philosophy or moral system. Phil2: I have a problem with this point of obligations. I need to chew on this awhile :) Brad: Re my Catholic/repression scenerio. Yes, I was respeonsible, but some persons are so innocent of such acts that they can not understand them at all. TomM: I was drawing on his realization of what he was doing toward the end of the novel... I'll try to locate what I'm thinking of... (Phil2@U) Blue: If you promise delivery of an item to someone and take their $10, do you feel no obligation to deliver? brad: are you referring to my assertion that I would prefer my partner to know as much about me as possible? Chap: Well, near the end her realized he was explicitly accepting a moral code he would have rejected explicitly, if he knew how...Dagny helpted to show him how. Not the same issue Phil2. back in a few BG: You most certainly ARE ethically bound to reveal something to another if in a context, not speaking could be rationally taken as affirming something untrue. Ayn Rand made this point clear in enjoining people to always speak up when their values were attacked. later Sube Brad: Example: A friend of mine royally screwed up a relationship, partially because he was so repressed (and had to seek professional help later). Years afterwardsd, I tried to explaidn it to his foprmer partner, and she couldn't comprehend repression at at all. TomM: I can accept that. I do think however that he had always belived deep down in that moral code but was masking it because guilt had always been forced on him by his mother, Philip, and Lilian. (noone@U) eggdrop bot (noone@U) Hmm <> BradA is behind chap: that may be true...it is a case of implicilty accepting the right code (in some areas) but not making it expilcit until later. TomM: Yes... Chap: REardon ahd a dichotomy of moral standards between professional work and human relationships. Tom: You seem to be against individual responsibility,:"maybe you can't explain the premise behind the action, but it's not there anymore" A person is who they are and *have been*. Your past doesn't go away. Tom: oh heck, I wasn't innocent about my screw-ups. I lacked character and knowledge. It took growth in both to get to the point where I accept responsibility for my past easily--but I don't hold any guilt for it. I made errors of morality--and that's that. TomM: I understand and to tend to agree with your point. I'm admittedly still trying to grasp much of what is put forth in _Atlas Shrugged_ Brad: You misunderstand. Not everyone can make explicit why they did things din the past (I don't have this problem, but I know some who do). In such cases, since it's no longer relevant, who cares? Maybe if I used to be a serial killer, it was because I read "Helter Skelter" too many times. Then I Saw The Light. Am I absolved? Am I not a serial killer? no. Chap: The easiest way to understand _AS_ is to take it literally. once a serial killer always a serial killer :) je parle francais, mais ice je parle anglais--et je suis Canadien Brad: I'm not talking about that sort of thing... A serial killer is a serial killer forever...there is no renouncing it. BlueGreen: Obligations arise because of choices YOU made. You assume obligations all the time, by entering into contractual (whether formal or implied) relationships with others. There are actually laws against failing to fulfil obligations assumed, which result in damage to others. TomM: Well I recently finsihed reading it for the first time ( I am very new to the philosophy of Objectivisim, however Objectivisim does put into the words the beliefs I have always held) I do plan to re-read _AS_ in the very near future. chap: It's not a book you can get the meaning of the fiorst time through, unless you were very nearly an Objectivist when you first read it. Chap: Welcome Brad: You have an obligation to yourself to speak up when your values are being attaked. You have no obligation to anyone else in this situation. ernest: I was referring to your comments implying love was a matter of knowledge, that a person who agreed with certain ideas was *existentially* good or valuable. But this is completely false, and refuted by all fact. Character and intellectual knowledge are not unrelated, but are definitely NOT the same. Brad: Explain, please, since I disagree. brad: I did not mean to imply that. I certainly don't think that. TomM: I did hold many of the ideals of Objectivisim before reading, however I'm trying to understand as many of the concepts as I can. I've also read _The Fountianhead_, and _For the New Intelectual_ this summer. hi TomM: beingembarassed means accepting the *judgement* of other people. Rearden felt bad about sleeping with dagny because he accepted the *code* of other people. I don't think he would care about their opinions of him. Chap: it takes a while to integrate all that knowledge. TomM: So I've noticed. + judgement of other people about onesself brad: in fact I argued against someone who basically asserted that value was associated with knowledge, specifically knowledge (or lack thereof) that had in the past Tom: Are you trying to justify prior lack of existential idealism by reference to being unable to psychologically rationalize to another? You keep seeming to insist on being able to justify to a partner, deficiencies of the past. joe: I see embarrasement as knowing you have broken you own standards (even if unintentionally). brad: i don't know what you are talking about. -that +they Embarassment is the knowledge of having broken one's own accepted standard, plus being witnessed by someone else who would potentially point out the fact of this error. brad: I don't think he means rationalize as much as explain. noone: Est-ce que vous parlez Klingon? Tom: You are still missing the point. Who gives a damn WHY someone was a serial murderer (or less)? DOn't you get it? The FACT doesn't disappear. Don't you get this? I just don't understand you. Brad: i no longer ahve the intellectual context I had when I was Catholic, so it's almost impossible to convey why I thought I was justified (at the time) in doding things I did then that I wouldn't do now. Probably because internal coherence has a certain truth-like quality to it, and in the absence of a better system, it is very tempting to accept the system as the truth. Brad: Why dod you keep talking about serial killers? That is unforgivable. but making and intellectual mistake in the past is "forgivable" in the sense of understandfing why nyou did it, but you may not be able to explaidn it to anyone else. that's the poi point. Tom: Can you, as an intellectual exercise, explain to me please, what is the meaning of a man's character and sense-of-life as being *integrated sums* of his life's experiences and volitional action. Brad: I think he actually said something more like he didn't feel an obligation to justify his past actions to a partner, especially if 1) he felt they would not understand some amount of detail or depth of it, and 2) he is happy with who he _is_ to simply accept that the past ha[ppened and he wasn't all he was going to be. Tom: I'm curious as to why you think no one else could understand. (nonrational philosophical system has a similar relationship to reality as optical illusion to objects) Harper: yes,d thank you. Then, exposit the relationship between character/sense-of-life, and romance. They are synonymous. Tym: I didn't say no one else could, but I know of some who can not understand, like my example of trying to explain why some people repress to someone who never did. <> BradA is seriously behind, as per usual TomM: 95% of humans had or have psychological problems. nayone can relate to that. (noone@U) klinglon? nono joe: Well, I can relate to repression, since I used to be that way. but trying to explain it to someone who never did is very frustrating, so I usually get the point and don't bother. you don't have to relate to something in order to understand it. Joe: I seriously question that! I was an addict and it was a moral error. I lacked knowledge and character. Now I am not an addict--and I may tell a lover I am was an addict but they may not understand why-even with the best of my explanations--and I may feel that continuing _that_ discussion was not valuable, especially if a) my parner was happy enough with the knowledge they had and b) present day living was more useful to both of us. if its frustrating its because you haven't found the proper words or angle yet joe: I disagree. 95% of the people have philosophical problems. If it were psychological problems we would not survive as a species Ernest: That depends. I don't understand why sofmeone would have done drugs in the past. But if they did, and have gotten over it, well, good for them, and I usually dodn't hold it against them. tom: I think its an indication of character that someone got over a drug problem. Most people don't. Harper: Yes, that's the point I am trying to make. Tom: I know :-) Bluegreen: Psychological problems are largely due to philosophical problems. Phsyiological foulups aside, one's psychology is a result of one's philosophy, or the changes in one's philosophy over time. Ernest: True, that's why I dodn't usually hold it against them. I didnd't do drugs, I repressed. Same error, differt means of dealding with it. <> Tym has a problem with a generic catch-all referring to "drugs" as one monolithic baddie :/ I agree with bluegreen. I think most "psychological" problems come from a lack of perspective, which stems from a bad (or even mostly non-existent) philosophy ack, my typos are horrible ;) I psychochological problems *to some degree*. BG: the two are linked (psych and phil.) Tym: Waht subclasses do you propose? Tym: (it had better not be "legal" and "illegal") :) Tym: I don't see them that way. I know people who seem to be able to do any number and types of drugs with little if any ill effect. As for me, though--I'm not one of those people :-) Eric: set and setting, mostly. Dependency figures in highly too. it is almost impossible to tell whats causual, the physiological foul-up, or some external factor that the person was unable to deal with... So using drugs to experiement vs. being addicted? Aren't they mutually reenforcing spirals? Tom: Re the things you did when you were Catholic. Did you do them, or not? that is MY point -- that you did them, is part of you. You can't change that. Mike: You can agree with a bad psychology with out experiencing roblems. Eric: no. Most people don't become addcited. addicted rather. Eric: In general, i am more against the experimentor than the addict. The experimentor didn't tkae his life seriously, the other may ahve, but thought he had no options. (Electra@U) Hi Everyone! hi Electra TomM: That's a good point brad: You don't have to reveal something to someone if you feel there is no chance they wouldn't understand it...but I like I said before, I don't know that I would have a long relationship with someone who couldn't understand me tom: actually the experimentor didn't take society's opinions of drugs seriously... tom: very few people start doing drugs because they don't take life seriously...that comes later Tom: I'm not sure I agree. I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "drug". Brad: It's only a part of me by default...and is no longer an active part of myself, so it is irrelevant. Have to go! Thank you all, good night! Later FB Past moral error is part of one's identity, but not qua moral flaw. One's present moral stature is one's present policy on reality. Others are entitled to assume if you have made moral errors in the past, that you must be continuing to make such errors, but their judgment does not create the fact of present immoral polic. y Tom: in my case, I started off using drugs as an experiment, went through a period where I simply enjoyed them...and continued on loooooong past the time I felt I had any control over them. At some point I wanted my life _back_. Tym: Any mind altering substance. there is a difference between someone who does it for kicks, and someone who does it out of a mis-guided sense of necessity. Well stated EricT. TomM take note. tom: the mis-guided sense of necessity only occurs with the addict EricT: yes. Eric: It was not a moral error on my part...I was fully moral by the code I accepted at the time. Tom: well, sugar and caffeine would qualify then. Or smoking. Tym: No, let's not get into that debate ;) sugar is not a mind-altering substance... <> BradA thinks Tym is perfectly correct in the catch-all characterization of drugs Tom: you are saying--and I can accept that your errors were errors of knowledge. Correct? Harper: yes. Ernest: oh yeah? Try going without it for a month. I have. tym: you can't live without sugar any more than you can live without oxygen Tym: "mind altering" and "addictive" are not the same thing. and a physical need is not an addiction. A healthy psychology requires a great deal of committed rationality on the part of a person, and is helped or hindered by the rationality of their surroundings, since the young cannot be expected to form valid concepts of existence upon irrational, contradictory data. any mood-altering chemical can be habit forming and lead to an unhealthy dependence. Tom: never said they were. You seem to be saying that "mind altering" is inherently bad. Excessive presence of sugar does negatively affect the overall way one feels, and this feeling creates an incentive to have a worse attitude than otherwise (incentive, not necessity). the history of what happened to the Crusaders--who had no refined sugars--when they reached the saracens (who did) is interesting. The Sracens set up *sugar parlours* so to speak :-) Anaesthesia is "mind altering". Tym: That is contextual...but I meant psychodelic drugs, like lsd, cocaine, and such. (fr8@U) true, LSD is not addictive. lsd is habit forming. A healthy psychology is always the *achievement* of the individual, but damaged psychologies are not necessarily indicative of moral, or even serious epistemological problems. (fr8@U) Ernest: LSD is not chemically addicting. just about any activity can become habbitual in certain individuals. cocaine isn't psychodelic anyway...its a stimulant fr8: I know that. The problem, is that one's basic psychology is established rather early, before one's powers of abstract reasoning have been honed and placed under one's fully conscious control. Brad: I agree with your last statements, but that does not mean that such errors are always communicable. I've enjoyed the discussion. But I've got to go... l8r And if they are not, why try to communicate them to an intimate one? Harper: dinno that *laugh* BradA: right. especially since a damaged psychology may have been established in the early stages of conceptual development. There's a moral obligation to make certain that information withheld due to judged irrelevance to a relationship really truly is irrelevant. ok. joe: pre-conceptual even. Tym: yeah...sugar rushed Crusaders is quite an image isn't it tym: sure. (fr8@U) furthermore, the body builds up tolerance many substances such as LSD making even habbitual use not very attractive or affordable for most users. eric: how do you determine if it is irrelevant or not? Eric: True...I wouldn't without such information, I would just make it clear that making it clear to her may be impossible ;) oops...with hold, not without. in fact sexual orientation may be one such psychological charactereistic (formed very early) fr8: depends on who you know. LSD is extremely cheap.. ErnestP: Applying one's knowledge of the situation, and the possible effects of the withheld facts, using one's standrd of certainty. eric:hmmm. So think before you talk? good advice :) Brad: Living something down is a must for a rational man...he doesnd't need to ahve it thrown in hios face. such things may be withheld, so long as they do not recure in the present. EP: Well, plus think before deciding to withhold information Tym: Your comment to Eric re drugs violates your very own principle. You have to specify what drug, before you can make any statement about specific effects, such as addictiveness. For example, cannabis is (arguably) barely addictive (qua drug), whereas crack cocaine is powerfully so. Ernest: "You don't have to reveal something to someone if you feel there is no chance they wouldn't understand it." Brad: eh? WhatdidIsay? Please explain that: does that mean that feelings are to be used to determine when one is obligated to speak? Brad: i agree with that statement. Brad: The earlier statement, not what you just wrote. brada: excuse me. I should have said "if you are reasonably certain..." (fr8@U) hey, what server are you guys on, this Hal stuff is giving me a headache That the possible negative consequences should be the criteria? so, in other words, should one lie, then, if telling the truth would cause one problems? This sounds like raving subjectivism to me, unless I have seriously misunderstood. fr8: irc.hypermall.com Brad: you have seriously misunderstood ;) My addiction is no longer a factor in my life. I have no need to trot it out like a party favour or to go into details about it that others neither want nor need. And...since my feelings are based on my knowledge--I may *feel* that specific others may not understand because my best evidence indicates enough of a pattern that I can act safely enough on that feeling. I may be mistaken, but I need not ask. (fr8@U) Ernest: thanks Smoking is highly addictive, extremely addictive, by any rational meaning of that term. BradA: yup brad:its not always moral to be honest. Suppose you were an alcoholic, and one night when you were drunk you cheated on your wife. After you get sober you want to repair damage done in your life, but by telling your wife about this you will actually create more pain for both of you. Its best to stay silent on this topic. Brad: it is controlable...I don't smoke at work, and most smokers I know would be driven batty by not being able to smoke at work. I've heard many a heroine addict say that smoking is a harder habbit to kick (but maybe they are all just methadone addicts now, hmmmm). Brad: you misunderstood me appparently. I said that 1) potential for addiction and 2) set and setting are relevant considerations. S'all. joe:Sexual orientation "is" formed very early based on your basic premises. It would be interesting to explore the premises of those who differ from the norm. (Male & Female) A person who smokes, or takes other addictive substance, who acknowledges the fact of addiction, and has committed to watching for symptoms and acknoldeging them to himself, is much higher in moral stature than someone who chooses not to think about it, accepting the fact of consuming the substance as a given. An "addiction" is an intensely felt *compulsion* to consume a mind-altering substance. The differentia of addiction is the compulsive aspect. Compulsion is a clinical psychological disorder -- it is a partial loss of ability to control one's focus and one's projected course of action.