Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Ellen Stuttle]

Daniel, I think you're almost amazingly mixed up in your reply.

I did read it. I probably won't have time for a response during the coming week. Today starts a conference which has the potential of producing rather disastrous real-world results of false definitions. (Even though probably nothing which is passed in Copenhagen, if anything is, will end up being adhered to, still, the amount of false referents of concepts employed in the predictions of man-made climate disaster couldn't be a better case in point demonstrating the correctness of Rand's statement that "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions [of concepts]." (ITOE p65))

Of course she was "perfectly happy to accept multiple definitions (ie multiple concepts) of [substitute "referred to by"] words. [bold added]" Do you really think, for instance, that she would have said that the word "run," which has several columns of meanings defined in any standard English dictionary, should be limited to one-only meaning? Or, for instance, a zany for instance which popped into my thoughts, that the English word "love" shouldn't mean both intense positive affection and "O" in tennis? Or...so many examples? The woman couldn't possibly have been anything remotely near the great writer she was (instead, she'd have been pen-tied) if she were so silly as to think that any given word could have only one true meaning.

Puppies, indeed. I can't imagine any Objectivist I've personally read and/or heard talk, even the most confused re the "true" meaning of "selfishness" or a few other Randian special definitions, being so misled as to argue over the true meaning of "puppy."

Later for further, if I can get back to it.

Ellen

[merjet]

If you "don't know what 'the Objectivist position' means" coming from me, how about you look in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" from whence I took it?

While indeed it is a book by Leonard Peikoff, you don't seem to have noticed the title.

You did get the title and author (not Ayn Rand) of the book correct. Did you notice the following?

Since she did not live to see it, however, she is not responsible for any misstatements of her views it may contain, nor can the book be properly described as "official Objectivist doctrine." (OPAR, xv)

Yes, what a "hatchet" job it is for me to dare to present a position from a book called "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" and make the claim that it represents the views of Objectivism and Ayn Rand! The temerity!

Well, at least now everyone can see exactly the type of shocking "misrepresentations and distortions" Merlin likes to accuse me of....;-)

How about that? I agree with something you said! You did a hatchet job and your misrepresentations and distortions show your temerity. Thanks for your confession.

Apparently it is a shocking "blunder" to attribute to Rand and Objectivism views put forward in "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand."

...

Surely no serious academic would consider such a ridiculous claim as authentic?

It wasn't merely the blunder. You used Peikoff's mere assertion like Rand herself made it, to make a straw woman you could slur. I wasn't shocked. Were you shocked at getting caught?

If you believe the choice to live being pre-moral is so authentically Rand's position, then try finding Rand herself saying so. Tara Smith is an Objectivist professor of philosophy. I searched her Viable Values, which has quite a bit about the choice to live. Smith did not say the choice is pre-moral nor attribute that position to Rand. She did not even mention Peikoff's assertion in OPAR. (I wonder why.) Searching Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics gave the same result.

Is there no depth of dishonesty that critics of Rand will not stoop too?

Good question, one that has occurred to me, too. Did you misfire again?

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel, I think you're almost amazingly mixed up in your reply.

Ditto!

Puppies, indeed. I can't imagine any Objectivist I've personally read and/or heard talk, even the most confused re the "true" meaning of "selfishness" or a few other Randian special definitions, being so misled as to argue over the true meaning of "puppy."

Please re-read this part. Bold added.

I wrote:

"Who says any different? The example was intended to be exactly the common problem you describe below, but with the referents deliberately markedly different (not to mention trivial) to try and throw the underlying issue into sharp relief. (Imagine your two Objectivists arguing over the "true" definition of a "puppy")."

I thought I was making it simple. Perhaps I went too simple....;-)

[Daniel Barnes]

post deleted

Edited December 7, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

You did get the title and author (not Ayn Rand) of the book correct. Did you notice the following?

Since she did not live to see it, however, she is not responsible for any misstatements of her views it may contain, nor can the book be properly described as "official Objectivist doctrine." (OPAR, xv)

Of course I did. See below.

That's true, but Peikoff goes to great pains in the intro of OPAR to state that nothing in it, except perhaps any mistakes, is original to him.

As for whether it should be described as "official Objectivist doctrine", it is clearly deceptive packaging for Peikoff to both add a disclaimer, and yet still call the book "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." But this contradiction is hardly my problem. Perhaps you'll change the title to something less misleading when the M. Jetton Revised Edition comes out...;-)

As for your...

How about that? I agree with something you said! You did a hatchet job and your misrepresentations and distortions show your temerity. Thanks for your confession.

...this is just juvenile. "I know you are, but what am I?" I do encounter this argument from time to time, and have now dubbed it

When it appears, it's a reliable indicator that the discussion is pretty much over.

It wasn't merely the blunder. You used Peikoff's mere assertion like Rand herself made it, to make a straw woman you could slur. I wasn't shocked. Were you shocked at getting caught?

Well, here's the statement in question again, and my followup that has got Merlin so incensed.

I've aready cited Robert Campbell, the editor of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, saying he considers the position authentically Randian. Brave readers can assess for themselves the hideous depths of my intellectual depravity.

Good question, one that has occurred to me, too. Did you misfire again?

More "I know you are, but what am i?" Merlin, you seem so incredibly desperate to score a point against me, no matter how trivial, that I can't help thinking you're taking this way too personally.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[9thdoctor]

Why refer to Peikoff on a thread dedicated to Kelley’s Logical Structure of Objectivism? The draft of the Kelley is freely available, and easy to cite, just cut and paste. To pull out OPAR would take some excavating, and besides it looks like we’re being treated to Barnesciting ®. Notice the Barnesquoating ® practitioner doesn’t provide a page number or chapter, what are we to do, reread the whole thing to look up his cite? He’s already demonstrated that he’s utterly unreliable for accurate quotes. He deliberately distorts information. And his defense when called out is puerile name-calling. Oh, unless you count his Pross defence, which runs like so: I was once a witness in a murder trial that resulted in a conviction, therefore I can’ t possibly ever be guilty of rape.

There are plenty of other forums where Peikoff is looked to as THE authority, this one isn’t among them. I’m not going to bother with DB’s sophistry and equivocations, they’ve been amply exposed above.

[Daniel Barnes]

Why refer to Peikoff on a thread dedicated to Kelley’s Logical Structure of Objectivism? The draft of the Kelley is freely available, and easy to cite, just cut and paste. To pull out OPAR would take some excavating, and besides it looks like we’re being treated to Barnesciting ®. Notice the Barnesquoating ® practitioner doesn’t provide a page number or chapter, what are we to do, reread the whole thing to look up his cite? He’s already demonstrated that he’s utterly unreliable for accurate quotes. He deliberately distorts information. And his defense when called out is puerile name-calling. Oh, unless you count his Pross defence, which runs like so: I was once a witness in a murder trial that resulted in a conviction, therefore I can’ t possibly ever be guilty of rape.

There are plenty of other forums where Peikoff is looked to as THE authority, this one isn’t among them. I’m not going to bother with DB’s sophistry and equivocations, they’ve been amply exposed above.

More hysterical fulmination. Is this some kind of competition?..;-)

[Xray]

I think the "Dagny being tortured" scene is not exactly relevant. It would be relevant if Galt was talking in terms of himself being forced to torture Dagny. As it stands, I think it's more connected to something Rand wrote in the "Ethics of Emergencies" (in VOS): If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her--for the selfish reason that life without the loved person would be unbearable.

Again, we have an example where Rand acknowledges the primacy of subjective values. ("if it is the man or woman one loves"), and also points out the aspect of self-interest ("life without the loved person would be unbearable"). Strictly speaking, there exists no such thing as selflessness (altruism), even in actions which may appear altruistic at first sight.

Selfishness is neither a virtue or a vice - it just IS. I would use the term self-interest though, since it sounds more neutral than 'selfishness', which has a too negative connotation.

Ninth Doctor: There are plenty of other forums where Peikoff is looked to as THE authority

Could you name some of those forums?

[Brant Gaede]

I think the "Dagny being tortured" scene is not exactly relevant. It would be relevant if Galt was talking in terms of himself being forced to torture Dagny. As it stands, I think it's more connected to something Rand wrote in the "Ethics of Emergencies" (in VOS): If it is the man or woman one loves, then one can be willing to give one's own life to save him or her--for the selfish reason that life without the loved person would be unbearable.

Again, we have an example where Rand acknowledges the primacy of subjective values. ("if it is the man or woman one loves"), and also points out the aspect of self-interest ("life without the loved person would be unbearable"). Strictly speaking, there exists no such thing as selflessness (altruism), even in actions which may appear altruistic at first sight.

Selfishness is neither a virtue or a vice - it just IS. I would use the term self-interest though, since it sounds more neutral than 'selfishness', which has a too negative connotation.

Ninth Doctor: There are plenty of other forums where Peikoff is looked to as THE authority

Could you name some of those forums?

It's not the "primacy" of subjective values but of the existence of subjective values. Your formulation also implicitly acknowledges the existence of objective values. If all values are subjective then they are just values. To keep saying "subjective values" is to keep attacking "objective values." You are attacking, according to you, that which doesn't exist. Well, there are objective truths, as you acknowledge, but no "subjective" ones. Truth is truth. All subjective values are objective truths and are identified as such. That's a fact. You can only demonstrate that objective values do not exist at all by referencing objectivity: so right or wrong about that you are still basically an objectivist. Such is why you can only repeat yourself about subjectivity for an argument for subjectivity cannot be used to effectively attack objectivity in any respect, fact or value.

Now I have to disagree with Rand because her formulation does lend itself to your criticism. I'm saying her formulation is wrong. It's not the unbearable absence but one's unbearable cowardice. The other person doesn't fit properly into the Objectivist Ethics. Rational self-interest is one thing--one basic thing--but off that base it's not the only thing. Humans are social animals and it's more than "me," "me," "me." Rand knew this on some level for one of her Fountainhead characters speaks of protecting the entirety of New York City unto death if necessary. The basis of individualism is the single, rational reasoning mind, which is why Objectivism needs its metaphysics and epistemology. But once you get into the ethics, things start to broaden out considerably.

--Brant

Edited December 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

Daniel, would you agree that given that we are using the word the same, for example, puppy means the young dog, then it possible to conclude that one definition is better than another?

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel, would you agree that given that we are using the word the same, for example, puppy means the young dog, then it possible to conclude that one definition is better than another?

It's a simple question of using the same language. So yes, if you want to have a discussion it would indeed be better to speak the same language...;-)

This of course is nothing like the proposition that my language is "true" and your language is somehow "false."

[tjohnson]

Daniel, would you agree that given that we are using the word the same, for example, puppy means the young dog, then it possible to conclude that one definition is better than another?

It's a simple question of using the same language. So yes, if you want to have a discussion it would indeed be better to speak the same language...;-)

This of course is nothing like the proposition that my language is "true" and your language is somehow "false."

So, there is a more or less correct way to define a word, based on what the word is supposed to represent. I believe this is all Rand is saying. It seems trivial when we speak about 'puppies' but maybe not when we speak about 'selfishness'?

[9thdoctor]

Ninth Doctor: There are plenty of other forums where Peikoff is looked to as THE authority

Could you name some of those forums?

Now that your participation here has a cap on it you need extra outlets for your Rand discussion compulsion? Why not, here you go, compare the discussion of the same (narrow) subject here vs. an “Orthodox” site:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7631

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=10895

Here’s a link to the blog of the so-called “Comrade Sonia” of the Orthodox:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/index.shtml

From the links she provides you’ll find plenty of sites that practice Peikoff reverence. You might find some friends, go to it! Tell ‘em what you think and why! They’ll love you.

SLOP isn’t an Orthodox site, but while your spreading out, stop in and wish Linz a happy St. Ambrose’s Feast Day. I wonder if he’ll get the significance. The freaking snob.

http://www.solopassion.com/tracker

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel, would you agree that given that we are using the word the same, for example, puppy means the young dog, then it possible to conclude that one definition is better than another?

It's a simple question of using the same language. So yes, if you want to have a discussion it would indeed be better to speak the same language...;-)

This of course is nothing like the proposition that my language is "true" and your language is somehow "false."

So, there is a more or less correct way to define a word, based on what the word is supposed to represent. I believe this is all Rand is saying. It seems trivial when we speak about 'puppies' but maybe not when we speak about 'selfishness'?

I disagree with you that all that Rand is saying is simply "we should agree on our terms, more or less." If that was the case, there would be no issue. Further, as I recall in the ITOE she outlines one of the roles of philosophers is to tell people such as scientists what the proper meanings of their terms are.( cite and page ref later when I get home). So I don't think your interpretation is correct.

You are quite right, however: I chose the "puppy" example precisely because it was trivial, and more concrete than something like "selfishness" or "democracy". I was trying to illustrate how foolish it is to speak of a "true" puppy or a "real" puppy, whereas people (not just Objectivists) often seriously argue over what is "true" democracy or "true" selfishness. I am trying to show how fundamentally wrong this is.

[Dragonfly]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7631

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=10895

On the latter forum I found a telling remark by a certain Joe Zoch:

On matters of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, I steer clear of any literature NOT endorsed by ARI.

That's the right spirit!

[Xray]

Again, we have an example where Rand acknowledges the primacy of subjective values. ("if it is the man or woman one loves"), and also points out the aspect of self-interest ("life without the loved person would be unbearable"). Strictly speaking, there exists no such thing as selflessness (altruism), even in actions which may appear altruistic at first sight.

Selfishness is neither a virtue or a vice - it just IS. I would use the term self-interest though, since it sounds more neutral than 'selfishness', which has a too negative connotation.

It's not the "primacy" of subjective values but of the existence of subjective values. Your formulation also implicitly acknowledges the existence of objective values. If all values are subjective then they are just values. To keep saying "subjective values" is to keep attacking "objective values." You are attacking, according to you, that which doesn't exist.

Brant,

I realize that the way I phrased it led to misunderstading. I meant to say that Rand, in her example, acknowledged the subjectivity of values without calling (like so often) that which she did to prefer a mere "whim".

If you imagine a scene where both Howard Roark (Randian hero) and Peter Keating (Randian 'bad guy') are struggling in the water for life, and Keating's girlfriend (willing to give her life for the man she loves), saves him instead of Roark, per Rand's reasoning in the example she gave, she would have to approve of the girfriend's decision.

But when you think of the many times where Rand lambasted the Keatings of the world as unworthy of existence, frankly, if one had asked Rand if it was okay to save Keating instead of Roark, I have the feeling that she would have packpedaled, bringing "objective value" into play again ...

You are correct in stating that if all values are subjective then they are just values. This is exactly the case.

It is not about attacking objective values, for that indeed would be attacking something which does not exist; it is about attacking the fallacious idea of "objective value". For that erroneous belief does exist.

Well, there are objective truths, as you acknowledge, but no "subjective" ones. Truth is truth.

Correct.

All subjective values are objective truths and are identified as such. That's a fact.

What precisely do you mean by that sentence? That it is true (a fact) that subjective values exist?

You can only demonstrate that objective values do not exist at all by referencing objectivity:

Referencing objectivity in that I can demonstrate this objectively, yes.

so right or wrong about that you are still basically an objectivist.

Certainly not, since the claim that objective values exist is an integral part of Objectivism.

Wherereas my position is: it is a fact that values can only be subjective.

Such is why you can only repeat yourself about subjectivity for an argument for subjectivity cannot be used to effectively attack objectivity in any respect, fact or value.

Your premise is wrong. For how is disproving the claim of objective value an attack on objectivity in every respect?

Now I have to disagree with Rand because her formulation does lend itself to your criticism. I'm saying her formulation is wrong. It's not the unbearable absence but one's unbearable cowardice.

What do "unbearable absence" and "unbearable cowardice" refer to here? Would you illustrate with an example?

The other person doesn't fit properly into the Objectivist Ethics. Rational self-interest is one thing--one basic thing--but off that base it's not the only thing. Humans are social animals and it's more than "me," "me," "me."

You are correct about the social animals. But when you look at e. g. so-called acts of 'grooming', you will see that the 'groomer' draws personal satisfaction from the action as much as the 'groomed' - just watch the baboons in the zoo.

Now and then it happens in my class that a child has forgotten to bring his/her snack from home. Every time this happens, other kids will volunteer to share their snack with the kid who has none. They derive as much pleasure from giving as the kid derives pleasure from receiving.

They are not altruistically "denying their self" or anything - on the contrary, their self is enjoying what they are doing. It makes them feel good about themselves, simple as that.

In Galt's Gulch, the children would probably have had to charge the other kid 10 cents for every bite taken from their bread. Remember that no service without monetary exchange was the rule there.

Rand knew this on some level for one of her Fountainhead characters speaks of protecting the entirety of New York City unto death if necessary.

Why? Because the city is of so much personal value to them that they would protect it at all costs. They would not do the same for any other city. Again, the integral element 'self-interest' factors in as the motor behind such acts

Edited December 8, 2009 by Xray

[Daniel Barnes]

On matters of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, I steer clear of any literature NOT endorsed by ARI.

That's the right spirit!

You can't make this stuff up...;-)

[9thdoctor]

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7631

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=10895

On the latter forum I found a telling remark by a certain Joe Zoch:

On matters of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, I steer clear of any literature NOT endorsed by ARI.

That's the right spirit!

I really don’t need to say this, I’m sure I don’t, but here goes: Note that my recommending other Rand sites to Xray does not qualify as an endorsement from yours truly. Duh.

The Doctor

[Xray]

Now that your participation here has a cap on it you need extra outlets for your Rand discussion compulsion? Why not, here you go, compare the discussion of the same (narrow) subject here vs. an “Orthodox” site:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7631

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=10895

Here’s a link to the blog of the so-called “Comrade Sonia” of the Orthodox:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/index.shtml

From the links she provides you’ll find plenty of sites that practice Peikoff reverence. You might find some friends, go to it! Tell ‘em what you think and why! They’ll love you.

I'm not interested in posting at orthodox sites ("Forum for Ayn Rand fans", fan being short for fanatic - pretty much says it all, see also DF's quote from Joe Zoch: "On matters of Objectivism and Ayn Rand, I steer clear of any literature NOT endorsed by ARI.").

I wanted information about the degree of Peikoff worship among Randists. I'll never forget that shocking TV interview where he yelled and screamed hysterically, advocating the bombing of the enemy.

SLOP isn’t an Orthodox site, but while your spreading out, stop in and wish Linz a happy St. Ambrose’s Feast Day. I wonder if he’ll get the significance. The freaking snob.

http://www.solopassion.com/tracker

I'm a member there, thanks. Don't post often at that site though, and have zero interest in getting into any personal fights.

But there are some interesting posters over there, like e. g. Mindy (die-hard Objectivist, but challenging and very knowledgeable on certain subjects).

I regret that she seems to have stopped posting here at OL.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

I'll never forget that shocking TV interview where he yelled and screamed hysterically, advocating the bombing of the enemy.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[anonrobt]

I'll never forget that shocking TV interview where he yelled and screamed hysterically, advocating the bombing of the enemy.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

WOW - had heard he said such, but to see/hear it is something else...

[merjet]

As for whether it should be described as "official Objectivist doctrine", it is clearly deceptive packaging then for Peikoff to both add a disclaimer, and yet still call the book "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." But this contradiction is hardly my problem.

If you believe there was "clearly deceptive packaging", then why did you rely on Peikoff's assertion to be "the Objectivist position"? You strongly rely on Peikoff's assertion and then say it is hardly your problem. LOL.

Well, here's the statement in question again, and my followup that has got Merlin so incensed.

Readers can judge for themselves the extent of your misrepresentation and distortion that I have already identified. Ninth Doctor did so.

I've aready cited Robert Campbell, the editor of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, saying he considers the position authentically Randian. Brave readers can assess for themselves the hideous depths of my intellectual depravity.

Per the link you gave, Robert Campbell's lack of doubt relies only on Peikoff's assertion. Again, if you believe the choice to live being pre-moral is so authentically Rand's position, then try citing Rand herself saying so and tell us why you think Tara Smith does not even mention it.

Merlin, you seem so incredibly desperate to score a point against me, no matter how trivial, that I can't help thinking you're taking this way too personally.

The pot calls the kettle black.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

He seems to be developing his own philosophically challenged comedic dance team...

Edited December 8, 2009 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

Don't post often at that site though, and have zero interest in getting into any personal fights.

I have a rare feeling of solidarity with you. The St. Ambrose thing has to do with a subject he claims to be an expert on, but where I suspect he’s a poseur. But unmasking him wouldn’t be worth taking the trip to Bad Karma. Filthy water there.

[Daniel Barnes]

If you believe there was "clearly deceptive packaging", then why did you rely on Peikoff's assertion to be "the Objectivist position"? You strongly rely on Peikoff's assertion and then say it is hardly your problem. LOL.

What is genuinely LOL is your hopeless efforts to accuse me of some supposedly shocking misrepresentation of Objectivist doctrine when it is a position that even the editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies believes to be authentically Randian.

I am also currently unable to read Tara Smith's mind...;-)