Rand's gender hierarchy


Xray

Recommended Posts

Oh? Does one stop being a lady when one no longer attends Sunday School? :lol:

How am I to answer that since I can't know what subjective connotations you associate with the term "lady"?

Feel free to list them here so I can get an idea. :)

I didn't say one should adopt fictional role-models. I said: Dagny Taggart is one of the best role-models for women that you'll find in modern literature

This is a typical subjective value judgement: you are projecting your personal preferences into "women", assuming that your idea of an 'excellent' female role model matches theirs.

This would be like saying jelly beans are among the "best foods" for people just because I happento like them.

You're right. I shouldn't have said "female role model." Dagny Taggart would be a fine role-model for men as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of Rand's work would be left standing if we removed all that is dependent upon the illusion of categorical identity?

I'd say almost all of it.

Rand's gender essentialism conflicts with her technical epistemology on numerous levels. This has been acknowledged repeatedly. Read "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" for more on this. I don't know any Objectivist that would apply a methodologically collectivist form of analysis to gender issues (and if they did, they'd be in error).

You seem to think that you have discovered some "fatal flaw" in Objectivism, and that this invalidates every one of her arguments, and you seem to be jubilant about it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but "disproving Objectivism" requires a lot more than pointing out an instance wherein which a philosoPHER injected her sexual fantasies about being ravished into her philosoPHY (note the emphasis).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

I wouldn't worry too much about Xray. Nobody is being influenced by anything she says. (It's a shame, but she has a "subjective value" that impedes her good mind from actually discussing ideas. So long as her "subjective value" is what she chose, her "objective impact" will be as troll, something to be discarded, person with an agenda, etc.)

Randland usually comes with two types of people. (There are other ways to analyze these people, though. I happen to like this standard because it is one of the ones that gets them all.)

1. Those with a bug up their behinds about Rand, and

2. Those who are interested in her ideas and/or her life.

Among the first kind, you get both sides of Rand fanaticism. There are people who want to conquer the world in the name of Rand and erect shrines to her, and there are people devoted to "finding the fatal flaw" that will invalidate Objectivism as a whole, or trashing her, or any number of ways to prove that her work is worthless.

In terms of human history and in terms of actual impact on human affairs, this category of people is essentially without much value. They tend to be underachievers, but sometimes they are prolific in producing stuff nobody takes seriously.

I try to keep the manifestations of this category to a decent level of balance here on OL so that the people who want to actually discuss the ideas and history are not drowned out.

This place is devoted to serious thinking, not neurosis.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of Rand's work would be left standing if we removed all that is dependent upon the illusion of categorical identity?

I'd say almost all of it.

Rand's gender essentialism conflicts with her technical epistemology on numerous levels. This has been acknowledged repeatedly. Read "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" for more on this. I don't know any Objectivist that would apply a methodologically collectivist form of analysis to gender issues (and if they did, they'd be in error).

You seem to think that you have discovered some "fatal flaw" in Objectivism, and that this invalidates every one of her arguments, and you seem to be jubilant about it.

Sorry to disappoint you, but "disproving Objectivism" requires a lot more than pointing out an instance wherein which a philosoPHER injected her sexual fantasies about being ravished into her philosoPHY (note the emphasis).

Almost everything along the lines of gender or sexuality tends to be spotty for Rand. You'll note her opinions of female presidents and homosexuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

"This would be like saying jelly beans are among the "best foods" for people just because I happento like them."

No, that is not a proper comparison[simile*] as it is disparate as to degree.

Adam

*A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the word "like" or "as".[1] Even though similes and metaphors are both forms of comparison, similes allow the two ideas to remain distinct in spite of their similarities, whereas metaphors compare two things without using "like" or "as". For instance, a simile that compares a person with a bullet would go as follows: "John was a record-setting runner and as fast as a speeding bullet." A metaphor might read something like, "John was a record-setting runner. That speeding bullet could zip past you without you even knowing he was there."

I am not trying to be picky, just giving you some last cover as to your language difficulties.

Not trying to be picky either, but your elaborations on rhetoric have no bearing on what I wrote.

For doing a comparison is by no means limited to using the "simile" as figure of speech.

Example of a simile: "John is stubborn as a mule".

Example of metaphor: "Jim got phone call from his old flame yesterday."

Whereas I pointed out that Michelle erroneously claimed her subjectve preference of a fictional character (Dagny Taggart), to be an objective value judgement ("one of the best role models for women you'll find in literature"). Again, the absence of entity identity can be observed. Role model for which woman? For example, a woman active in the ecologist movement may vehemently disapprove of a character like Dagny who is a figurehead of unbridled capitalism.

It is aways subjectve value to whom and why - the old story.

That's why I added that Michelle's inference is about as valid as if someone inferred from their personal preference of jelly beans that they are among the best foods for people.

You're right. I shouldn't have said "female role model." Dagny Taggart would be a fine role-model for men as well.

For those who share Rand's ideological values and personal peferences maybe. What about those who don't?

"Good", "fine", are mere subjective value judgements. There is no absolute "good" or "fine".

For example, IF a reader approves of a person blowing up buildings because a contract has been breached, THEN what Roark did is "good" in this person's eyes. IF a reader approves of Rand's ideology and other prefercnes, THEN he/she is likely to approve of her fictional heros and heroines too. However you slice it, you'll land at the doorstep of subjective value.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of Rand's work would be left standing if we removed all that is dependent upon the illusion of categorical identity?

I'd say almost all of it.

Rand's gender essentialism conflicts with her technical epistemology on numerous levels. This has been acknowledged repeatedly. Read "Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand" for more on this. I don't know any Objectivist that would apply a methodologically collectivist form of analysis to gender issues (and if they did, they'd be in error).

You seem to think that you have discovered some "fatal flaw" in Objectivism, and that this invalidates every one of her arguments, and you seem to be jubilant about it.

But suppose premises are false and the epistemology is flawed, doesn't it logically follow that all conclusions and beliefs dependent upon the flawed epistemology are likewise in error?

Sorry to disappoint you, but "disproving Objectivism" requires a lot more than pointing out an instance wherein which a philosoPHER injected her sexual fantasies about being ravished into her philosoPHY (note the emphasis).
To refute an argument, always go to the basic premises and examine them. Rand's advice to check one's premises is excellent; it involves of course checking her own premises as well.

As for the philosoPHER Rand, don't forget she had an agenda because she explicitly presented her heros/heroines a role models to illustrate her philosoPHY, as characters to be emulated by the reader.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

"This would be like saying jelly beans are among the "best foods" for people just because I happento like them."

No, that is not a proper comparison[simile*] as it is disparate as to degree.

Adam

*A simile is a figure of speech comparing two unlike things, often introduced with the word "like" or "as".[1] Even though similes and metaphors are both forms of comparison, similes allow the two ideas to remain distinct in spite of their similarities, whereas metaphors compare two things without using "like" or "as". For instance, a simile that compares a person with a bullet would go as follows: "John was a record-setting runner and as fast as a speeding bullet." A metaphor might read something like, "John was a record-setting runner. That speeding bullet could zip past you without you even knowing he was there."

I am not trying to be picky, just giving you some last cover as to your language difficulties.

Not trying to be picky either, but your elaborations on rhetoric have no bearing on what I wrote.

For doing a comparison is by no means limited to using the "simile" as figure of speech.

Example of a simile: "John is stubborn as a mule".

Example of metaphor: "Jim got phone call from his old flame yesterday."

Whereas I pointed out that Michelle erroneously claimed her subjectve preference of a fictional character (Dagny Taggart), to be an objective value judgement ("one of the best role models for women you'll find in literature"). Again, the absence of entity identity can be observed. Role model for which woman? For example, a woman active in the ecologist movement may vehemently disapprove of a character like Dagny who is a figurehead of unbridled capitalism.

It is aways subjectve value to whom and why - the old story.

That's why I added that Michelle's inference is about as valid if someone inferred from their personal preference of jelly beans that they are among the best foods for people.

You're right. I shouldn't have said "female role model." Dagny Taggart would be a fine role-model for men as well.

For those who share Rand's ideological values and personal peferences maybe. What about those who don't?

"Good", "fine", are mere subjective value judgements. There is no absolute "good" or "fine".

For example, IF a reader approves of a person blowing up buildings because a contract has been breached, THEN what Roark did is "good" in this person's eyes. IF a reader approves of Rand's ideology and other prefercnes, THEN he/she is likely to approve of her fictional heros and heroines too. However you slice it, you'll land at the doorstep of subjective value.

The difference is between objective value and subjective tastes. I might say that jelly beans are the best food in the world because they're my favorite-tasting food, and this would, of course, be a purely "subjective" valuation. Taste varies.

However, vegetables are objectively superior as food to jelly beans, and most other "food" products.

So it would not be in error to say that vegetables are among the best food for people.

Moreover, you say that Dagny would not be a great role-model for an environmentalist. However, the existence of a good "role-model" presumes that objective standards exist. You cannot say that any one person is a good example to model yourself after if (as you seem to think) no objective standards exist.

Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles. A role-model is judged by the abstract nature of their personality. To say "Roark is a good role-model" does not mean that "Roark is a good role-model only for aspiring architects." Dagny would probably be a good role-model for anybody, because she embodies the qualities of self-confidence, determination, rationality, independence, and purposefulness. A role-model shouldn't be someone who you emulate in every way down the purely subjective aspects of their life. Let's use a religious example again. How many Christians are carpenters? Some, but probably not the majority. Christ is the Christian role-model. Christians seek to become "like Christ." This does not mean that they seek to become carpenters and eventually get nailed to a piece of wood. It means that they try to apply Christ's values to their own life - values of brotherly love, mercy, and altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everything along the lines of gender or sexuality tends to be spotty for Rand. You'll note her opinions of female presidents and homosexuals.

That's right.

But suppose..............................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everything along the lines of gender or sexuality tends to be spotty for Rand. You'll note her opinions of female presidents and homosexuals.

That's right.

But suppose..............................

But suppose what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everything along the lines of gender or sexuality tends to be spotty for Rand. You'll note her opinions of female presidents and homosexuals.

That's right.

But suppose..............................

But suppose what?

"But suppose premises are false and the epistemology is flawed, doesn't it logically follow that all conclusions and beliefs dependent upon the flawed empistemology are likewise in error?." From post #58.

It is the type of argumentation [for lack of a better word] that xray employs when confronted by conceptual issues.

As you pointed out Michelle:

"Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles."

I was not clear that I was referring to xray's original statement in Post #58.

My error.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you slice it, you'll land at the doorstep of subjective value.

That's Xray speak.

There is no real meaning in Xray-speak for objective other than what objective is not and maybe "consensus of experts."

I believe the advertising concepts of "perceived value" as opposed to "real value" are totally lost on her. (Real value is objective value, of course.)

Just imagine, if the world were made according to Xray-speak, we would not have television because there would be no commercials.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However you slice it, you'll land at the doorstep of subjective value.

That's Xray speak.

There is no real meaning in Xray-speak for objective other than what objective is not and maybe "consensus of experts."

I believe the advertising concepts of "perceived value" as opposed to "real value" are totally lost on her. (Real value is objective value, of course.)

Just imagine, if the world were made according to Xray-speak, we would not have television because there would be no commercials.

:)

Michael

If the world were the way Xray thinks it is, we wouldn't have tools anyway, because we'd have no concept of how they objectively function.

Imagine how the invention of the wheel would've gone:

Inventor: Because all points are an equal distance from the center, it will allow us to effectively increase the speed at which we can pull our loads. It'll save much time and energy!

Xray: Says you.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everything along the lines of gender or sexuality tends to be spotty for Rand. You'll note her opinions of female presidents and homosexuals.

That's right.

But suppose..............................

But suppose what?

"But suppose premises are false and the epistemology is flawed, doesn't it logically follow that all conclusions and beliefs dependent upon the flawed empistemology are likewise in error?." From post #58.

It is the type of argumentation [for lack of a better word] that xray employs when confronted by conceptual issues.

As you pointed out Michelle:

"Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles."

I was not clear that I was referring to xray's original statement in Post #58.

My error.

Adam

Ah. OK.

One thing I really like about Rand is how she explored the relationship between fiction and philosophy. If, as Xray thinks, everything is subjective, then the Humanities would collapse. There is a very specific reason why I can read something written by a Japanese countess one thousand years ago and still relate to it on some level. There is no room for literature or writers in xray's universe either.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost everything along the lines of gender or sexuality tends to be spotty for Rand. You'll note her opinions of female presidents and homosexuals.

That's right.

It's really not just Objectivism Xray is chewing on, it's philosophy itself--that is, that we can take the philosophy already in our heads and make it better. This is because "better" or "not better" is all subjective by her lights (objectively speaking). You can't do this without turning free will into a myth.

Was it really spotty for Rand, BTW? She was consistent after all. We can't say she was wrong in her attitudes unless we say she was objectively wrong. That would be Objectivism, truly.

Time and time and all times again Xray has been claiming her views on ethics and morals are true--which means objectively true--but her valuing of truth is in her world only a subjective preference and so is everyone else's and, frankly, is not to be trusted because for all anyone knows she values lying more than truth.

I have said here more than once that all valuing is subjective and that values themselves are both subjective and objective and why. To claim they are all subjective is to cut them loose from reality itself. It is to look at man--not literally of course for this is only a concept--and only see a man, assuming that is possible based on the supposition that one can contemplate an object without conceptual classification.

(Subjective) valuing and subjective values are only subordinate and derivative to objective values and truth itself. To know an objective value--and this is extremely hard except for the physical basics--means to search first for it and to understand man, not a man (or woman). It's like looking for scientific truth. The truth is out there but it's very difficult to know or find out and frequently tentative. In the world of the subjective we don't have to be concerned with science, especially if that makes us uncomfortable.

Now this is all very ad hominem on my part, but that's the bottom line in subjectivism land. Xray gives no one any other place to go.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Michelle, I fear there is no room for passion and joy in that universe either.

And that is a tragedy, subjectively and objectively.

Excellent point about the countess and the binding that the written word gives us continuously over time.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Michelle, I fear there is no room for passion and joy in that universe either.

And that is a tragedy, subjectively and objectively.

Excellent point about the countess and the binding that the written word gives us continuously over time.

Adam

The binding, specifically, comes from the objective nature of humans. There are certain patterns of human behavior and thought that repeat in all societies and time-periods. A Japanese countess who lived a thousand years ago is needless to say very, very different from a modern American woman. But both will encounter the same things in their lives. Passion, hope, love, fear, anger, sadness, joy-- these aren't merely words, they're the glue that holds the binding of human history together. We have traditions and heritages because of this basic level of interconnectedness between humans. And it is probably why there don't seem to be any generational ties between lower animals.

Literature records this for us.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is between objective value and subjective tastes. I might say that jelly beans are the best food in the world because they're my favorite-tasting food, and this would, of course, be a purely "subjective" valuation. Taste varies.

Attributing value to this or that is always subjective.

Even Rand critics succumb to the illusion of objective value.

For example, in his critique of Rand's ethics, M. Huemer wrote:

He quotes Rand first: "'Value' is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

His comment:

First, just because someone acts to gain something, does not mean it has

value. If an alcoholic acts to get another drink, it does not follow that

the drink is valuable; " (ibid)

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm#N_2_

Same blankout problem. If the alcoholic seeks the drink, of course it is valuable to

him, regardless of the effects it has on his health.

However, vegetables are objectively superior as food to jelly beans, and most other "food" products.

The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice.

Moreover, you say that Dagny would not be a great role-model for an environmentalist. However, the existence of a good "role-model" presumes that objective standards exist.

The exact opposite is the case: for the environmentalist's values are subjectively chosen too.

You cannot say that any one person is a good example to model yourself after if (as you seem to think) no objective standards exist.

My values are subjectively chosen as well. Where is the problem?

Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles. A role-model is judged by the abstract nature of their personality.

Words strung together without anchor. What please is an "anti-conceptual" mindset? What do you mean by "abstract nature" of the personality? Abstracted from what?

To say "Roark is a good role-model" does not mean that "Roark is a good role-model only for aspiring architects."

Who said anything of the sort? It was Rand who said Roark is "as man should be". Well, I'm afraid the opinions differ a bit on that, i. e. not everyone values what Rand subjectively preferred.

Dagny would probably be a good role-model for anybody, because she embodies the qualities of self-confidence, determination, rationality, independence, and purposefulness.

Al Capone may have shared the same qualities. :)

DT also stands for unbridled capitalism. Fictional heros always come in a complete package.

A role-model shouldn't be someone who you emulate in every way down the purely subjective aspects of their life.

"Should", "ought" - again it indicates your subjective preference. Your posts are pretty full of those "shoulds".

And - why would one seek a role model at all?

Let's use a religious example again. How many Christians are carpenters? Some, but probably not the majority. Christ is the Christian role-model. Christians seek to become "like Christ." This does not mean that they seek to become carpenters and eventually get nailed to a piece of wood. It means that they try to apply Christ's values to their own life - values of brotherly love, mercy, and altruism.

In short, they isolate from this figure what suits their individual purpose, blanking out the other words one can read in the Bible where he speaks of destroying his enemies, etc.

Edited by Xray
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It is the "modern" equivalent of oral history, only much more so.

The human brain of the Japanese Countess is close to completely similar, objectively, to a human brain of today.

Processes stimuli in roughly the same manner. Communicates knowledge through the incredibly complex process of

writing.

I write poetry. I wrote my first poem virtually the hour I finished reading Breaking Free. I was on the Long

Island Railroad. The complexity of the process of getting that pen to that piece of paper to express, in a concentrated

way, my thoughts and feelings, would be understood by that Japanese countess because of "...the objective nature of humans..."

that you referred to.

Have you, or anyone else, read The Red Tent?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words strung together without anchor.

What anchor, Xray? Everything is subjective, remember?

You said:

"The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice."

The standard of value is life.

You know this.

You're just being dishonest at this point.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. It is the "modern" equivalent of oral history, only much more so.

The human brain of the Japanese Countess is close to completely similar, objectively, to a human brain of today.

Processes stimuli in roughly the same manner. Communicates knowledge through the incredibly complex process of

writing.

I write poetry. I wrote my first poem virtually the hour I finished reading Breaking Free. I was on the Long

Island Railroad. The complexity of the process of getting that pen to that piece of paper to express, in a concentrated

way, my thoughts and feelings, would be understood by that Japanese countess because of "...the objective nature of humans..."

that you referred to.

Have you, or anyone else, read The Red Tent?

Adam

I've not. Should I? What is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michelle:

Sorry, I was in a rush to go somewhere, I would have included this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Tent

The Red Tent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the film The Red Tent which refers to a North Pole rescue expedition, see the article The Red Tent (film).

The Red Tent

Cover of the first-edition hardcover

Author Anita Diamant

Country United States

Language English

Genre(s) Historical novel

Publisher St. Martin's Press

Publication date October, 1997

Media type print (hardcover, paperback)

Pages 321 p. (hardcover edition)

ISBN 0-312-35376-6

The Red Tent is a novel by Anita Diamant, published in 1997 by St. Martin's Press. It is a first-person narrative which tells the story of Dinah, daughter of Jacob and sister of Joseph, a talented midwife and proto-feminist. The book's title refers to the tent in which women of Jacob's tribe must, according to the ancient law, take refuge while menstruating or giving birth, and in which they find mutual support and encouragement from their mothers, sisters and aunts.

[edit] Plot summary

Dinah opens the story by recounting for readers the union of her mother Leah and father Jacob, as well as the expansion of the family to include Leah's sister Rachel, and Zilpah and Bilhah. Leah is depicted as capable but testy, Rachel something of a belle but kind and creative, Zilpah as mature and serious and Bilhah as the baby of the quartet. The book also downplays the rivalry between Leah and Rachel.

Dinah remembers sitting in the red tent with her mother and aunts, gossiping about local events and taking care of domestic duties between visits to Jacob, the patriarch of the family. A number of other characters not seen in the Biblical account appear here, including Laban's second wife Ruti and her shiftless sons.

According to the Bible's account in Genesis 34, Dinah was "defiled" by a prince of Shechem, although he is described as being genuinely in love with Dinah. He also offers a bride-price fit for royalty. Displeased at how the prince treated their sister, her brothers Simeon (spelled "Simon" in the book) and Levi treacherously tell the Shechemites that all will be forgiven if the prince and his men undergo the Jewish rite of circumcision so as to unite the people of Hamor, king of Shechem, with the tribe of Jacob. The Shechemites agree, and shortly after they go under the knife, while incapacitated by pain, they are murdered by Dinah's brothers and their male servants, who then rescue Dinah.

In The Red Tent, Dinah genuinely loves the prince, and willingly becomes his bride. She is horrified and grief-stricken by her brothers' murderous rampage. After berating her brothers and father she escapes to Egypt where she gives birth to a son. In time she finds another love, and reconciles with her brother Joseph, now prime minister of Egypt. At the death of Jacob, she visits her estranged family. She learns she has been all but forgotten by her other living brothers and father but that her story lives on with the females of Jacob's tribe.

[edit] Reception

The book was a New York Times bestseller, and is a perennial book club favorite. According to the Los Angeles Times review, "By giving a voice to Dinah, one of the silent female characters in Genesis, the novel has struck a chord with women who may have felt left out of biblical history. It celebrates mothers and daughters and the mysteries of the life cycle." The Christian Science Monitor wrote that the novel "vividly conjures up the ancient world of caravans, shepherds, farmers, midwives, slaves, and artisans.... Diamant's is a compelling narrator of a tale that has timeless resonance."

[edit] References

* The Red Tent (1997) ISBN 0-312-16978-7

* Rabbi J. Avram Rothman, The Red Tent - if you knew Dina like I know Dina. Aish.com, June 2001.

* Photos of the first edition of The Red Tent

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Tent"

Categories: American novels | 1997 novels | Novels based on the Bible | Feminist novels | Historical novels

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words strung together without anchor.

What anchor, Xray? Everything is subjective, remember?

Don't evade the question I asked, Michelle. Not everything is subjective, only values are.

Aside from that, your comment was related to epistemology.

You wrote:

"Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles. A role-model is judged by the abstract nature of their personality."

So if you would be so kind to explain to me the "anti- conceptual mindset", the "level of principles" and the "abstract nature of a personality".

"The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice."

The standard of value is life.

You know this.

You're just being dishonest at this point.

I'm not being dishonest.

You are repeating Rand's words, that's all I know. Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life. Nor does it apply to governments sending soldiers out to kill other people. So much for life as an "objective value".

Edited by Xray
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now