Give an example. an Objectivist has to have strong principles/opinions.

The real point here is that consciously making immoral decisions is immoral and that takes joy out of life. But there are certainly a lot of decisions outside the realm of morality - leaves a lot of flexibility.

There can be no "perfect" Objectivist. Even the most reasonable person has to defer to "feelings" now and again.

Stop your belligerent attacks and misrepresentations. Your statements are false. You lack objectivity and have no credibility. You are a mudslinger. Take your belligerent fantasies somewhere else. They do not belong on this forum.

There also is the quality of life thing. I have lived the philosophy "Eat healthy, exercise, don't drink, don't smoke, still die... There is room for an unhealthy meal, but not on a regular basis. However, to get a better grasp of the world around us, we need to experience what life has to offer.. I didn't try sushi until in my 50s, and while I only eat it sparingly, I appreciate the experience.

Absolutely not. Rand said so herself...to be continued... I hate typing on s phone, but had to start a comment of some kind...

There is a difference between the hard core perfectionist and the Human Realist.
As much as we might like to think otherwise, we do have emotions, they drive us passionately to create value...without which...we might as well be robots or "Vulcan's".

Ed, Once one learns and understands the actual sources of emotional responses and their purposes in the more ancestral areas of our brains, it isn't difficult to apply reason. What eases the struggle between emotional and reasoned decision making is an earlier exercise in reasoned evaluation of personal values.

Emotional and conditioned belief systems rely on influencing the sympathetic nervous system, biological-chemical based. Basing life decisions on that system while denying reasoning is the opposite of Objectivism.

All one must do to receive vituperation at the Gulch is say something close to: "I think Rand erred about [fill in the blank] because [provide justification for the doubt]." The spewing venom is always dogmatic, as distinct from discussion, to the point that I see it as a weird way of bragging that the person is a "truer" Objectivist and anyone who would dare doubt Rand's every word is not a true believer.

All depends on what you consider a lunch that can possibly have any bearing on life span. You will just ruin your life by contemplating such crap.
The comedian Lewis Black in his 2004 "Black on Broadway" had some things to say about such a view of health and linked to the 'snowflakes' by saying: "Everyone of you has a health that is unique and totally different from everybody else. Completely! Because we... are all like snowflakes". And later in his show used snowflakes more like it would fit today's generation snowflakes.
There most likely is no food that will shorten a lifetime but if you want to, say, continue a booze habit for lunch and other meals you may just possibly reduce a lifespan while, for a while, having some extra physical feeling of pleasure.
Of course you can eat dangerous fad foods or tainted foods that may cut life very short if you are unlucky with the preparation of them.

One of the flaws with reason is that it depends on knowledge, and knowledge is acquired drip-by-drip. So as one obtains knowledge, one is more and more able to rely on knowledge and reason to make good decisions. So the real question to ask is whether or not there is a point in a person's life where they gain enough knowledge to not have to rely on emotion to fill in the gaps. If you find it, let me know.

+1. And Roddenberry used the three primary characters to illustrate that very concept. Spock was logical to a fault and his decisions as temporary Captain of the Enterprise usually turned out poorly when he relied solely on logic. Bones was too emotional: his trademark outbursts and interplay with Spock weren't there just for storyplay, but because Roddenberry wanted to emphasize how both could and frequently were too extreme in any given situation. Kirk played the medium between them, but emphasized an emotional tenacity of spirit along with quick decision-making based on intuition. His emotionalism sometimes got him into trouble, but it also triumphed in certain circumstances where logic failed.

No one has said that. Stop misrepresenting people.

"Your emotions are the summations of your ideas. If your ideas are realistic and rational, your emotions will be valid guides. But they are guides only. You must examine your own feelings and thoughts. "Check your premises.""


"(We use these words in both a common and technical sense. We should keep them straight. In common talk "realism" and "rationalism" mean about the same thing. In technical philosophy, they are false alternatives, diametrically opposed. Objectivism holds that the real is rationally explicable and rational conclusions can be empirically validated. No dichotomy exists.)"

Exactly.

Reminds of the conflict between Kirk and Spock for captain of the Enterprise.

The first thought that pops into my mind is, "What else is there?" Irrational decision? No matter what name you give it, anything else would be irrational. Examples: Rational: One can determine the length of an object by measuring it. Irrational: One can determine the length of an object by counting the warts on a dill pickle. Pretty obvious, is it not?

++++++++++++

If that "lust" is based on rational values, isn't rational thought (at some point in time) very much involved? BT

I seem to remember (meaning: I don't have any source other than my faulty memory) that Rand was asked how many Objectivists there were and she said, "One."

It is her name for her philosophy. If you want to have a different philosophy, go ahead, but it might be wise to use some other name if you wish to differ with Rand on anything important. Peikoff once suggested "Gloopism."

Rand's selfish insistence on her own name for her own philosophy may be seen as dogmatism, if you wish. That view does not make one correct.

It should but reading on ARI and many posts here in Gulch, I find there are dogmatic Objectivists. They virtually say "If Rand said it, then it is true and if Rand did not say it, then it is not true."

By definition, you can't if you are dogmatic.

Not every decision. Which flavor ice cream you prefer is not something on which you can be right and me wrong if our likes are different.

+1

you either are an objectivist or in some of your thinking you agree with objectivist thought which means you are not an objectivist.

"If people use methods other than reason to make some decisions, no matter the method, when are they qualified to be an Objectivist?"

They don't. But reason as an exclusive method of cognition is a necessary, not sufficient condition. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a content, it doesn't just say 'use reason'.