THANK YOU.

Reason does not follow emotional desires. That is rationalization, not reason and not rationality. Reason is the faculty of the human mind which identifies and integrates the material provided by the sense organs. The human mode of cognition is conceptual, in accordance with logic -- non contradiction -- and based on perception of the world. Rationality, in Ayn Rand's philosophy, is the primary virtue: "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's own source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Emotions are automatic responses based on values. They are not a source of knowledge (other than knowledge observing how you are reacting). Feelings and desires are not the basis of either knowledge or values, they are results.

Whether or not reason precedes emotions depends on how a person got his values. If he reached them rationally, his reason preceded his emotional reactions when he sees them supported or threatened. If he absorbed them from others as he found them there was no reason preceding his emotions.

Emotions are not tools of cognition no matter where someone establishes his values from. No one can talk himself out of an emotion but he can examine it to see if it is appropriate and choose whether or not to act on it. If he corrects his values where necessary, more appropriate emotional reactions will follow.

I am who I am.
I am someone who will study a philosophy and embrace what is personally meaningful and discard what is not.
I am a free thinker.
A free spirit.
I am also an old dog.

It's interesting that you were there.

You seem to have misunderstood. Of course you have a political right to do what you want with your life, but that is not the meaning of independence, which she defined as taking responsibility for your own rational thought and using it to live. Independent rational thought means taking responsibility for figuring out what is right, regardless of who thought of it first, not emotional defiance.

Ayn Rand did not drop the context when entering a political arena. She rarely engaged in specific political battles at all in her public speaking and writing. On the few occasions when she did, she gave her reasons for her positions in terms of the damage she was fighting against and the value of the specific kind of freedom she was fighting for -- which did not coincide with conservatives, especially the Buckley religious types. Most of the time she was speaking out on fundamental trends where it was imperative to name the issues, and she did -- to anyone willing to listen.

When I have to engage in political activism, which has been extensively and much more than I ever wanted to, I ally with people who remain intelligently ifocused on the issue at hand and who don't try to turn it into a religion or a side political issue. I don't confuse this kind of activism seeking to change specific government policy with fundamental change and I don't need to be lectured on it by bystanders.

I have no interest in trying to convince the irrational that they are irrational or anything else. They are irrational, cannot be reached, and accomplish nothing positive. But when someone is attracted to the world of Atlas Shrugged for proper reasons and is interested in the broader cultural trends and what must be done, it is imperative to explain the philosophy that makes it possible and what is destroying it, and not pander to the irrational or ignore the destructive premises driving the culture as if they doesn't exist.

Perhaps the best we can ask of our children is to emulate us---equal or surpass us.

I found my daughters to be much smarter than myself also.

Humans can not "reason through" their emotions.

One can not say, "It makes sense or it is reasonable for me to feel happy during this particular event; therefore I will be happy.

If that were the case, how much easier it would be to manipulate people! It's easy enough as it is.

As I said, emotions precede reason, they do not follow it.

Hoffman's idea is self-evident.
Because of DNA coding and evolution the chances of 2 individuals with the same DNA are astronomical. Interestingly, even identical twins are never exactly alike. They have yet to explain that phenomenon.

2. As far as my use of "certain topics" I leave that to the individual to discern for himself.

What do you mean by this statement?

Very few people throw everything out and start fresh with new ideas, and build their personal value system from a foundation of reality and reason.

I'm still not sure you get it. Convictions are based on values, which one cannot have unless one knows, simply put, his own desires---emotions. Reason follows; it does not precede.

I meant, children NEED time to themselves...

Parent says: I want you sit there for awhile and think not only about what you have done, but why you have done it. The beginning of a value system.

Without that response to your environment, you cannot possibly originate your value system.

Remember, children time to themselves in order to internalize right, wrong and individual values.

A value system begins long before a child has learned to reason.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged I was constantly grinning, because I had finally found a person who articulated the thoughts I had been struggling with.

When the Collective around Ayn Rand formed a city league softball team, they called themselves the Barbarians.

I am Caucasian, but at least I am a women. You males from Europe must find it tiring to be always 'angry'...at least according to the media.

Jan

I love calling myself a Randroid. The irony is fantastic.

Brilliant!

We have innate responses to life/social situations. They are shaped by our thinking and bootstrap themselves into values, which we articulate into principles and morals.

I am, therefore I'll think.

That's how local talk becomes a separate language. We called them Randroids because they were like androids, and lacking something human... you know, like free will...

Thanks for the corrections to my faulty memory on the details (Life not Saturday Evening Post and the correction to the title). And yes, it was a 'hit piece'.

Yes, you are free to do what you want..

EWV: Wonderfully stated and I concur in full! My point, summarily stated, is this: If you are choosing to engage in POLITICAL discourse, with the purpose of winning to your arguments, supporters who will help enact/elect laws/people that move the “ball” toward freedom, you must not allow yourself to become “unfocused” into getting into other, more fundamental issues. Issues that YOU know are PHILOSOPHICALLY rationally relevant, but that you also understand, within the context of philosophy as it exists at present, are POLITICAL losers.

YOU MUST KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and a key aspect of that is knowing your audience! Stop your POLITICAL arguments at the point of agreement and not wade into that with which you KNOW going in, you have “irresolvable” disagreements.

Rand nudged the seemingly inert and “dead” philosophical ball with an irresistible force resulting in ever-increasing momentum that is ultimately unstoppable. She did so by ALWAYS integrating her ideas using reason, thereby MAKING them unstoppable. However, she did little to move the POLITICAL ball (except as it will inevitably move concurrent with the philosophical one). I am not faulting her just recognizing reality.

Most on the conservative political Right, admittedly in an inconsistent fashion, endorse the idea of individual rights. While you and I both understand said rights emanate from facts – from reality, they believe they come from their creator – in most cases “God.”

When I have chosen to engage one of these many, many people, I always direct the discussion in a manner that appeals to their sense of said rights, leading them to the point where the political issue becomes a MORAL discussion – tied to their fundamental belief in morality – that Man is an autonomous moral agent – with which I demonstrate we agree. I never let it progress more deeply, and will cordially end the discussion ( in most cases) if I am unable to prevent it from doing so

If as an Objectivist, possessing the rational understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, morality, and politics – and their inextricable relationship, you decide you do not wish to engage in such a waste of your time as current political discourse demonstrates, fine. You get no quarrel from me. But if conversely, you choose to enter the political arena, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING! In my judgment, Rand, no doubt in part owing to the power and focus of her mind, seemed to “drop context” when entering said arena.

If you rationally (?!) think you are going to convince someone that they should not be (politically) concerned with how someone else chooses (morality) to live their life, by convincing them that they are irrational and evil (epistemology and morality) because they believe God (metaphysics) told them to be concerned with same, we simply disagree.