Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Daniel Barnes]

Death is fine if you subjectively choose it.

Adam, I hate to break it to you, but the above is the standard Objectivist position.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Selene]

Death is fine if you subjectively choose it.

Adam, I hate to break it to you, but the above is the standard Objectivist position.

If that is true, why would that be of interest to me?

Adam

[merjet]

Death is fine if you subjectively choose it.

Adam, I hate to break it to you, but the above is the standard Objectivist position.

Barnes, you really are a low-life. You pick a short phrase, distort it until it no longer recognizable as Objectivism, even contrary to it, and then try to present it as Objectivism.

Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death. (AS, 932)

A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. (AS, 932)

Altruism holds death as its ultimate goal and standard of value—and it is logical that renunciation, resignation, self-denial, and every other form of suffering, including self- destruction, are the virtues it advocates. (VOS, 38)

There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value.(AS, 932)

An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. (VOS, 17)

The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man. (VOS, 27)

[Daniel Barnes]

Barnes, you really are a low-life. You pick a short phrase, distort it until it no longer recognizable as Objectivism, even contrary to it, and then try to present it as Objectivism.

Merlin,

"If life is what you want, you must pay for *it*, by accepting and practicing a code of rational behavior. Morality, too, is a must - *if*; it is the price of the choice to live. That choice itself, therefore, is not a moral choice; it precedes morality; it is the decision of consciousness that underlies the need of morality." -Leonard Peikoff, OPAR, (emphasis DB).

In Objectivism, the choice to live or die is pre-moral. You can't judge it right or wrong. It's like...whatever. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

If this seemingly makes no sense when compared to things Rand wrote elsewhere, that's hardly my problem! In fact it's entirely typical of her.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[merjet]

In Objectivism, the choice to live or die is pre-moral. You can't judge it right or wrong. It's like...whatever. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

I don't need you to explain Peikoff's point; I was already aware of it. What you might explain -- but I don't expect you will -- is why you did such a hatchet job on Objectivism with your cryptic remark here and how you expected a reader to understand that it had anything to do with Peikoff's point.

[Selene]

In Objectivism, the choice to live or die is pre-moral. You can't judge it right or wrong. It's like...whatever. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

I don't need you to explain Peikoff's point; I was already aware of it. What you might explain -- but I don't expect you will -- is why you did such a hatchet job on Objectivism with your cryptic remark here and how you expected a reader to understand that it had anything to do with Peikoff's point.

Merlin:

Basically because he is weak and insecure, which is why I answered the pitiful statement as I did.

Notice he did not respond.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

In Objectivism, the choice to live or die is pre-moral. You can't judge it right or wrong. It's like...whatever. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

I don't need you to explain Peikoff's point; I was already aware of it. What you might explain -- but I don't expect you will -- is why you did such a hatchet job on Objectivism with your cryptic remark here and how you expected a reader to understand that it had anything to do with Peikoff's point.

How does Peikoff's point differ from what Adam wrote, except Adam clearly was passing judgment on this choice as a bad thing? Which I corrected him on.

How is this a "hatchet job"? Please explain.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

If that is true, why would that be of interest to me?

I presume you are interested in Objectivist doctrine.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Selene]

If that is true, why would that be of interest to me?

I presume you are interested in Objectivist doctrine.

Your presumption is incorrect.

[Xray]

If this seemingly makes no sense when compared to things Rand wrote elsewhere, that's hardly my problem! In fact it's entirely typical of her.

Indeed it is typical for Rand to often go against her own premises by contradicting herself.

View PostSelene, on 03 December 2009 - 12:07 PM, said:

If that is true, why would that be of interest to me?

D. Barnes to Selene: "I presume you are interested in Objectivist doctrine".

Selene: "Your presumption is incorrect".

So you are not interested in Objectivist doctrine? How can someone who claims to have read Atlas Shrugged more than fifty (!) times be not interested in the doctrine?

[Selene]

If this seemingly makes no sense when compared to things Rand wrote elsewhere, that's hardly my problem! In fact it's entirely typical of her.

Indeed it is typical for Rand to often go against her own premises by contradicting herself.

View PostSelene, on 03 December 2009 - 12:07 PM, said:

If that is true, why would that be of interest to me?

D. Barnes to Selene: "I presume you are interested in Objectivist doctrine".

Selene: "Your presumption is incorrect".

So you are not interested in Objectivist doctrine? How can someone who claims to have read Atlas Shrugged more than fifty (!) times be not interested in the doctrine?

Ms. Xray:

Must be a subjective value choice.

Can you give me some examples of how you break children's mental wings with your educational philosophy?

Adam

Dreaming of Dresden

[Brendan Hutching]

In Objectivism, the choice to live or die is pre-moral. You can't judge it right or wrong. It's like...whatever. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

I don't need you to explain Peikoff's point; I was already aware of it. What you might explain -- but I don't expect you will -- is why you did such a hatchet job on Objectivism with your cryptic remark here and how you expected a reader to understand that it had anything to do with Peikoff's point.

It’s not just Peikoff’s point. It’s a logical outcome of the understanding that if the choice to live is a pre-moral one, no standard applies in the choosing. In that case, any choice is permissible. Choose life, death, ice-cream, it makes no difference.

So: “Death is fine if you subjectively choose it.”

[merjet]

How does Peikoff's point differ from what Adam wrote, except Adam clearly was passing judgment on this choice as a bad thing. Which I corrected him on.

Adam wrote about Xray's moral views, which are way different from Peikoff's. You did not even mention Peikoff when replying to Adam. Lastly, where does Peikoff say "death is fine" without qualification or anything similar? Peikoff did say suicide is justified in special circumstances, like a person with a painful terminal illness or a prisoner in a concentration camp who sees no chance of escape. Those are huge qualifications.

How is this a "hatchet job"? Please explain.

Compare your cryptic remark to the quotes by Rand that I cited, especially the third one and last one (post #353). The third one says altruism -- the antithesis of Objectivism -- holds death as its standard of value. The last one says the Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value, whereas your cryptic remark doesn't even mention life.

If this seemingly makes no sense when compared to things Rand wrote elsewhere, that's hardly my problem! In fact it's entirely typical of her.

Indeed it is typical for Rand to often go against her own premises by contradicting herself.

What a parade of nonsense! Barnes takes something Peikoff wrote many years after Rand died and uses it as if Rand herself wrote it. Xray fails to notice Barnes' blunder. Xray asserts the existence of a contradiction that she does not even identify, making it is simply a pretense.

[merjet]

Choose life, death, ice-cream, it makes no difference.

So: “Death is fine if you subjectively choose it.”

Speak for yourself.

[Xray]

What a parade of nonsense! Barnes takes something Peikoff wrote many years after Rand died and uses it as if Rand herself wrote it. Xray fails to notice Barnes' blunder. Xray asserts the existence of a contradiction that she does not even identify, making it is simply a pretense.

The blunder is Rand's who collapses her own premise of 'objective values' by acknowledging the subjectivity of values without even realizing that she contradicts herself.

Surely you will remember her actually demonstrating the subjectivity of values in the "hat" example, where she outlined a situation in which a mother can either choose to buy milk for her hungry (or starving, I don't have the time to look it up now) children, or choose to buy a hat instead. If she prefers the hat, but 'grudgingly' buys milk for the children, the mother has, per Rand betrayed her 'higher value' (the hat).

Note that Rand does NOT say that either the hat or the children constitute a superior or objective value, and that the mother "ought to" prefer one or the other.

In John Galt's speech we can read verbatim: AS, p. 1010:

"I showed them to live by another moratiliy - mine. It is mine they chose to follow."

What a gem of a statement making the case for morality being subjective.

He even speaks of "my morality", but here comes the tyranny of the must:

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self esteem." (1018)

Ah, yes. Here he lets the cat jump out of the bag, claws exposed: "You MUST follow my values since they are 'objectively the best'". The well-kown credo of ideologists trying to present and shove down other people's throats their subjective preferences as alleged 'objective values'.

Note also the factual contradiction. He says:

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self Esteem. (Galt)

Well, these don't happen to be my supreme and ruling values, but still I live.

Merlin, how is this possible, since per Galt I must have these as supreme and ruling values to "live" ?

Something must be wrong with Galt's premise.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, yes. Here he lets the cat jump out of the bag, claws exposed: "You MUST follow my values since they are 'objectively the best'". The well-kown credo of ideologists trying to present and shove down other people's throats their subjective preferences as alleged 'objective values'.

Xray, since you aren't actually quoting Galt here you MUST not use quotation marks.

--Brant

[Selene]

What a parade of nonsense! Barnes takes something Peikoff wrote many years after Rand died and uses it as if Rand herself wrote it. Xray fails to notice Barnes' blunder. Xray asserts the existence of a contradiction that she does not even identify, making it is simply a pretense.

The blunder is Rand's who collapses her own premise of 'objective values' by acknowledging the subjectivity of values without even realizing that she contradicts herself.

Surely you will remember her actually demonstrating the subjectivity of values in the "hat" example, where she outlined a situation in which a mother can either choose to buy milk for her hungry (or starving, I don't have the time to look it up now) children, or choose to buy a hat instead. If she prefers the hat, but 'grudgingly' buys milk for the children, the mother has, per Rand betrayed her 'higher value' (the hat).

Note that Rand does NOT say that either the hat or the children constitute a superior or objective value, and that the mother "ought to" prefer one or the other.

In John Galt's speech we can read verbatim: AS, p. 1010:

"I showed them to live by another moratiliy - mine. It is mine they chose to follow."

What a gem of a statement making the case for morality being subjective.

He even speaks of "my morality", but here comes the tyranny of the must:

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason - Purpose - Self esteem." (1018)

Ah, yes. Here he lets the cat jump out of the bag, claws exposed: "You MUST follow my values since they are 'objectively the best'". The well-kown credo of ideologists trying to present and shove down other people's throats their subjective preferences as alleged 'objective values'.

Note also the factual contradiction. He says:

"To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self Esteem. (Galt)

Well, these don't happen to be my supreme and ruling values, but still I live.

Merlin, how is this possible, since per Galt I must have these as supreme and ruling values to "live" ?

Something must be wrong with Galt's premise.

Ms. Xray:

Still having those throat issues!

"...shove down other people's throats...

"'To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason, Purpose, Self Esteem.' (Galt)"

"Well, these don't happen to be my supreme and ruling values, but still I live.

Merlin, how is this possible, since per Galt I must have these as supreme and ruling values to 'live'?"

Ms. Xray, can you see the italicized in the light of "to live a full life that is proper to man engaged in understanding reality with all that that implies."

In other words, and I even believe that you are semi intelligent enough to grasp this concept, you can exist without dedicating yourself to living by reason, with purpose and self esteem.

However, your survival, which is your continued existence, is directly due to the productive efforts of those superior persons who do live fully, dedicated to reason, purpose and self-esteem.

This does not mean that those productive persons are perfect, have no psychological or emotional issues, but that they are able to live at a level that approaches that fullness.

To the extent that they can reduce the emotional issues and focus on that fullness is the extent that they achieve happiness.

It is that simple.

All your convoluted, intellectually dishonest gyrations will not bring you forward from your subjective mysticism.

Adam

enjoying life and thinking of Xray pinned to a balsa wood display exhibit of irrational teachers I have known

[tjohnson]

Merlin, how is this possible, since per Galt I must have these as supreme and ruling values to "live" ?

Something must be wrong with Galt's premise.

She obviously means something different by 'live'. For example, someone might say "you call that living?" Obviously, Rand et al don't consider much of the world's population is "truly" living, at least according to how they view it. The thing is, I agree with that but I don't agree with their idea of how man should "truly live".

[tjohnson]

However, your survival, which is your continued existence, is directly due to the productive efforts of those superior persons who do live fully, dedicated to reason, purpose and self-esteem.

Who are these superior people? X-ray apparently is a teacher, don't people rely on teachers for their continued existence? Or are we speaking only about absolute necessities like food, shelter, and clothing? So are farmers superior because they produce our food? Just wondering how this works.

[Xray]

Ah, yes. Here he lets the cat jump out of the bag, claws exposed: "You MUST follow my values since they are 'objectively the best'". The well-kown credo of ideologists trying to present and shove down other people's throats their subjective preferences as alleged 'objective values'.

Xray, since you aren't actually quoting Galt here you MUST not use quotation marks.

--Brant

Imo the way I phrased it was quite clear; but for preciseness's sake, I'll rephrase it:

Ah, yes. Here he lets the cat jump out of the bag, claws exposed - translated: You MUST follow my values since they are 'objectively the best'.

General Semanticist: She obviously means something different by 'live'. For example, someone might say "you call that living?" Obviously, Rand et al don't consider much of the world's population is "truly" living, at least according to how they view it. The thing is, I agree with that but I don't agree with their idea of how man should "truly live".

Indeed, Rand's use of "to live" here was not denotative, but connotative.

Using language conntotatively indicates personal preference, emotional coloration, subjective value judgement.

So again, it is about Rand's personal values only. So basically everyone could do the same and announce their values as a one set for all ("Life proper to man").

Edited December 4, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

However, your survival, which is your continued existence, is directly due to the productive efforts of those superior persons who do live fully, dedicated to reason, purpose and self-esteem.

Who are these superior people? X-ray apparently is a teacher, don't people rely on teachers for their continued existence? Or are we speaking only about absolute necessities like food, shelter, and clothing? So are farmers superior because they produce our food? Just wondering how this works.

GS:

Great question. Let's look at Taggart Transcontinental. I believe that an Eddie Willers is a superior person. As I was growing up, there was a local businessman who ran a "candy store".

He was a widower. He kept his store open seven days a week. On Friday Saturday nights he kept his "candy store" open till 11 or 12 PM. He served food, newspapers and sundries. He had a jukebox. He also was a "parent" to those who did not have one or both parents. He was a safe place for us kids to hang out. He was a mentor to all of us. He did more to keep us from getting into trouble than all the school and government efforts.

He was a superior person. So is Bill Gates. So was Henry Ford, Jonas Salk, Hank Aaron, Dwight David Eisenhower and Eric Liddle.

Liddle explains "how to run a straight race...". if you substitute reason for faith in this clip, you can acquire insight. As he points out, I have no formula for winning the race, everyone runs in their own way, quite a statement to individualism. He continues, explaining that the power comes from within. He concludes with Jesus said, the kingdom of God is within you. My kind of theist.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

You did not even mention Peikoff when replying to Adam.

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.

Everything important in OPAR comes from Rand, by Peikoff's own testimony.

Surely you know that, Merlin. Yet you do not even mention it. I wonder why.

Compare your cryptic remark to the quotes by Rand that I cited, especially the third one and last one (post #353). The third one says altruism -- the antithesis of Objectivism -- holds death as its standard of value. The last one says the Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value, whereas your cryptic remark doesn't even mention life.

Compare it yourself. Merlin: Is it, or is it not, the Objectivist position that the choice to live is pre-moral? That is, if you choose death, there is no moral judgment associated with this, either by yourself and others. It's like fine, like whatever, dude! Death, life...whatever you want.*

Further, this is exactly the attitude Adam is attributing to what is presumably a schoolteacher in his nasty, nutty, post. He didn't seem to know that this was his own philosophy's Rand's position.

You can quote Rand singing as many hosannas on the moral virtues of life and the living as you like. You can quote Peikoff making the moral judgment that a man who would choose death deserves to be on the lowest rung of hell! All you'd be doing is further demonstrating that Objectivism is confused and contradictory on most important issues and this is no exception. Which of course I've said all along.

But like I also say, none of these contradictions are my problems; they're yours.

Feel free to fulminate against me for pointing this out, however...;-)

*Why? Because by doing so Objectivism attempts to avoid having any kind of duty to live.

Edited December 4, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Selene]

Barney:

"He didn't seem to know that this was his own philosophy's position."

Perhaps you should refrain from attempting to impute another individual's philosophy to them.

That is the second time you have attempted to mislead.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

Barney:

"He didn't seem to know that this was his own philosophy's position."

Perhaps you should refrain from attempting to impute another individual's philosophy to them.

That is the second time you have attempted to mislead.

Adam

Oh, so you're not an Objectivist?

[Selene]

Barney:

"He didn't seem to know that this was his own philosophy's position."

Perhaps you should refrain from attempting to impute another individual's philosophy to them.

That is the second time you have attempted to mislead.

Adam

Oh, so you're not an Objectivist?

Three times is a charm.