I think he is clearly arguing though that it is possible for reason and emotion to conflict. And that the right answer is not to always reject emotion in favor of reason.

He goes on to talk about repression.

"A clash between mind and emotions is a clash between two assessments, one of which is conscious, the other might not be. It is not invariably the case that the conscious assessment is superior to the subconscious one; that needs to be checked out. The point is not that we follow the voice of emotion or feeling blindly, it means only that we don't dismiss our feelings and emotions so quickly; we try to understand what they may be telling us; we don't simply repress, rather we try to resolve the conflict between reason and feeling. We strive for harmony, for integration. We don't simply slash away the pieces of ourselves that don't fit our notion of the good or the right or the rational."

My thought is that it would seem that it ought to be but that I do not believe that it is for several reasons. Obviously I could be wrong. This is a fascinating topic though that I wish I had more time to study and explore. But clearly some people that want to live do not have a fear of falling. And in fact, their lack of this fear might even make them less likely to fall.

Here is a quote from NB in the Benefits and Hazards article. I think that he agrees that emotions proceed from value judgments but I need to go back to his books to see what he says about it. I'm not convinced that he means exactly the same thing by that statement that AR did.

"Now let's turn to another very important issue in the Randian philosophy: the relationship between reason and emotion. Emotions, Rand said again and again, are not tools of cognition. True enough, they are not. Emotions, she said, proceed from value judgments, conscious or subconscious, which they do in the sense that I wrote about in The Psychology of Self-Esteem and The Disowned Self. Emotions always reflect assessments of one kind or another, as others besides Rand and myself have pointed out."

Sure, but isn't the phobia of falling a value response to a desire to live?

I'm not an expert in that field either but I've had discussions about this with psychologists and have read about it and would respectfully disagree.

While one could have emotional responses concerning the value premises one has accepted and/or chosen, many emotional responses are not even fully about the event that triggered them but are magnified by and contain emotional content from earlier life events. It seems to me that this is clearly demonstrated in phobias. While a rational person values their life and not falling from a height, the fear of falling is present in people to various degrees (in the case of a phobia to an extreme and debilitating degree) and in some people seemingly not at all. This emotional response does not seem to correlate very well or at all to the value premise of not dying in a fall.

I think there are probably even far better examples. In meditation for example, people often find that all sorts of emotional responses begin to come up even though there is no triggering event - merely because the mind is relaxed.

I am not an expert on psychology, but to say the least I am skeptical. Most people I know have emotional responses that are a result of one of their value premises. However, many people have contradictory value premises, so that can make it difficult to discern.

Ok. I was just confused. My pride is not hurt easily in these conversations though as I've increasingly realized that I'm not a one-stop shop for "all the right answers". It's only taken me 47 years. :)

You believe what is true? the above quote?

My pride isn't hurt. The actual psychologist in the Collective has said repeatedly that AR did not understand psychology or know much about it. And he has stated that that is a potential flaw in the way her thinking is presented.

You had emotions way before you were even capable of having a "value premise" or a premise of any sort.

The original Objectivists even called themselves the "Collective". It may have started in humor but the accounts I've read suggest (ok - they outright make the case - I'm being weaselly with "suggest") that the core group became very Collectivist in style if not in content.

I've always wondered why Ayrn Rand so vehemently reacted to the philosophy, politics, and economics of the Communism of her youth but accepted its theology.

I don't know where I am with the "God" question. That said, clearly there is room for general benevolence. NB talked about that in his hazards and benefits article. He argued that AR accepted that idea but never really let it get to the forefront in her books.

I would argue that when the "Gulch gang" jumped on aircraft and risked their lives to rescue John Galt, they were doing so because they valued him as a friend and for his contribution. I don't think there is anything incompatible in that idea and objectivism but I think it is given scant attention in AR's works. Your example seems to be of a similar kind. If I were walking down the street, and a man was raping a woman that I did not know, and I could stop it - I would. I think even at risk to myself. Is that altruism? I don't think so. I would rather help her at risk to myself than to live in a society where a rapist got away with his crime right in front of me.

AR I think touches this in her Philosophy: Who Needs It? speech which was to the 1974 graduating class at West Point. She honors them and says that they are not sacrificing. They are potentially risking their lives for the values they hold dear.

Ironiically, on the religious question, CS Lewis argued vehemently that Christianity, at its heart was not about altruism. That the ultimate motive was to gain the ultimate prize for oneself. And it was that prize that made all others pale in comparison. Of course, one has to believe in that prize first but he actually went so far as to argue that Kant created the idea of altruism and self-sacrifice (that the ONLY moral action is one in which you do not personally benefit) and that it was actually contrary to Christian teaching.

"An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises. An effect, not a cause."

That is just not true. Ayn Rand unfortunately did not know a lot about psychology. Emotions may or may not have anything whatever at all to do with your value premises. Because of this, it is very easy to have a clash between your emotions and your reason.

No, I did not take your comment wrongly; I just did not see it when you made it. It must have arrived on one of those Email strings the board sends. LOL

I think it depends on how someone adopts Objectivism in their lives. I think some see it as the end all philosophy, basically the truth of the entire universe. Others take pieces and parts of it and compose their own hybrid philosophy, combining it with their own religious beliefs.

I find that the world is so full of altruism and the belief in the virtue of need that these two sects of Objectivists waste time and energy when they argue with each other. Debate is fine, and even good, but Objectivists and Religious Objectivists have far more pressing enemies than each other imo.

I admire you for putting yourself out there. To answer your original post, it depends on what concept you mean by objectivist.

If what you mean by objectivist is someone who agrees with most of the philosophy, then sure.

If you mean someone that agrees and adheres to that philosophy's fundamentals consistently, then no. Christians believe and require faith (believing without observation) which contradicts a major fundamental in objectivist philosophy -- reason (belief based on observation among other things) as man's only absolute.

Or if none of those concepts fit what you're trying to say, feel free to define what you mean when you use the term objectivist.

For a good series of books on Objectivism's complete answer to the question of the super natural I recommend:
1. Introduction to objectivist epistemology (as a foundation)
2. Atheism: a case against god (as an application of #1 to the question of god's existence)
3. First few chapters of OPAR (as a rough outlined sketch of essentials)

I think about so many things in a day, I often wish I had more time. I would benefit greatly from being able to talk to someone who thinks like me. I could also apply my thoughts to actions easier, instead of bickering about why, I could start working with someone on the how.

Of course I didn't really mean any of that when I first made my statement. I only meant that after 23 years I haven't met anyone who thinks like me, so if I discovered them I would be pretty dam interested in how they wound up like me.

I mean really, if you met a clone of yourself you wouldn't be interested in it?

yes, those things are true. However, the philosophy of Objectivism is logically consistent throughout. You may choose to reject some or all of the philosophy but it has axioms, corollaries, logical ends. The parts of Objectivism you appreciate come from philosophical foundations. To ignore those foundations is to ignore the logical conclusions you appreciate.

point to a specific comment or post on this site, please r. that's the best way to start.

I appreciate your points. Respectfully, we will disagree on this. While we argue concepts and issues, we also appreciate what we agree on. We are posting in this site for a reason and we share many of those reasons.