Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Xray]

Xray: The "higher values" DF refers to are indeed more problematic than values needed for mere biological survival. Our knowledge of them is more tentative. I value art; I value music. I don't really care if they are objective or subjective values. I'm even willing to accept (edit: no I'm actually not) that all values are subjective except those basic ones: objective values subjectively valued. If I'm hungry food is more valuable to me than when I'm satiated. I consider food an objective value to the human organism valued subjectively. My taste for Mexican food is subjective on all counts. Orthodox Objectivism is anti-individualism because one is supposed to swallow other people's subjective values as objective. This is the curse of Atlas Shrugged: value conformity. The real purpose of the novel is to batter down collectivism, altruism and irrationality so conform to that purpose as soldiers in a war. That was needed in the 1950s and 60s because of an intellectual/cultural blockade, but now something else is needed. The Ayn Rand Institute and such blocks the way, however, still demanding conformity to the catechism, explained for several prices. Try to be rational qua Objectivism while at the same time explaining Leonard Peikoff's rantings pretending to have something to do with Objectivism from on high as the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. That lead sinks the boat.

--Brant

edit: that I'm willing to let slide the question of objective ethics or the possibility of higher objective values generally, it's because I'm not interested in arguing the point. As long as Xray keeps arguing for the absence of any objective values, I'm not interested in a broader discussion. I'm sure those values are there but properly identifying them is difficult. I consider rational self interest to be an objective value, so too a free society. Etc. But when you get down to details devils are everywhere.

Brant, in your posts you have stated a truth very clearly:

Orthodox Objectivism is anti-individualism because one is supposed to swallow other people's subjective values as objective.

But wasn't Ayn Rand herself the very paragon of orthodoxism when it came to her teachings? Would she have allowed anything to be altered, modified? Who says that (from her perspective) she did not chosse the 'right' heir in Peikoff who sees to it guarantees hat te pure doctrine is not 'diluted' by modifiers?

I have read your recent posts with interest. We may disagree on virtually everything, but believe that you are a truth seeker. But will you find it where you seeking?

Your posts address crucial issues. Excuse the length of my reply, but I did not want to skip any point.

(All following quotes by Brant):

To say there are no objective values is to say there is no objective knowledge because everything is subjectively filtered one person to the next.....

Not at all. All knowledge (not all beliefs) are necessarily about knowledge of some existent and/or relationship. The term, “values” as in “value to whom” is about attributing value in regard to what one regards as knowledge in conjunction with personal preference. Two persons, or thousands, may hold the same knowledge, yet attribute value in infinite variations in regard to the knowledge. How do these infinite variations of subjective valuation morph into “objective values” implying “universal?”

An objective value is a value that is universal to the species qua life such as food and water and air. These are subjectively valued always and the further away we get from these basics the more tentative and potentially controversial they become...

“These are subjectively valued always...?” This implies that every volitional individual in past, present and future “always” attributes value to these things. Is that what you’re saying? If so, on what evidence did you reach this conclusion? I see no such evidence.

If one person valued chocolate ice cream, would that make chocolate ice cream an “objective value?” How about ten persons, a thousand, million, billion, etc.? At what magic number does the subjective valuations turn into an “objective value?”

No one is denying the fact that for a person to remain alive, objective means are required. This IS fact. There is no getting away from this. Fact in itself is independent of valuation. Can you name any fact, any existent with intrinsic value independently of a valuer?

Also, life is not a static condition. Life involves a lifestyle and many valuations. If one fact constitutes an “objective value”, what is to exempt any other facts from the same designation? Where is this divided reality in which some valuations are objective, some subjective, some both? What definitive meaning has the term, value, except by volitional individual attributing value?

It is only by the mental action of attributing value that anything is of value. How do you get a fixed (objective) “value” in the presence of infinite subjective valuations? By what rationale do you conclude your subjective valuations and/or the subjective valuations of others constitute an “objective value.” To admit life and lifestyle are a matter of subjective personal choice while still contending “objective value” is self-contradictory. It’s like saying insentient means to an end makes the choice of end desired rather than the volitional valuer.

Xray says these basic values aren't values at all but doesn't or hasn't said that they are not subjective values because, I suspect that would reveal a contradiction.

What Xray says is that she doesn’t accept your “basic values” premise as objective since it is obviously your personal subjective value which you created, not discovered. Of course, I do not say “they are not subjective values” because subjective valuations are exactly what they are: Yours. The contradiction is a already revealed: Presenting your own personal valuations as “basic values” for all without consideration of the choices of others.

If you are breathing and someone tries to smother you with a pillow you will suddenly put great albeit subjective valuing on the objective value relative to your own life to get oxygen to your lungs and expel waste gas. Subjective value means how much value is put on any value, objective or subjective, at any one time. In a real sense it is quantitative. Objective value is never quantitative it just is -- is there for the species generally. An individual can disvalue an objective value as in a suicide

Objective means will cause an objective effect. What you ignore is that the objective effect is not an end unless and until someone subjectively attributes value to it.

To find an objective value a universal human need qua life has to be identified.

Right. The problem is there is no universal goal. The existence of natural individual volition sets the idea of “objective universal goal” in direct contradiction of universal individual choice.

The best ideologists can do is to try to sell the idea of “universal values” to entice the gullible to become followers of an individual’s personal preferences. It’s an indirect pitch soliciting servitude - in the name of individualism at that.

To claim all morality is subjective is to denigrate knowledge of right and wrong....

No. It’s to denounce the illusion of objective value upon which the illusion of universal “right and wrong” depends.

Objective morality requires objective knowledge of human universals, again qua life

Is there subjective knowledge? As for “human universals”, the human universal is individual volition unqualified by an illusory “universal goal.”

This requires very modest knowledge about human being because there are such great cultural differences in the world. It is easy to obtain the non-initiation of force principle, for instance, but to build a skyscraper of morality on top of that foundation is to create a tower of moral babble sustained by facile words if not, ironically, force. Ayn Rand just kicked you out of (her) paradise.

One cannot be kicked out of where one has never been and does not care to go. The dogmatic rigidity of “life proper to man” and the intolerance of any dissension requires a submissive bent which I do not have.

Xray decries the use of force to enforce one's morality on another. Okay, that is wrong as long as it isn't legal/retaliatory. But it is also Objectivism.

But if “Objectivism” is all about individual and non initiation of force, why all the dos and donts in regard to “life proper to man” that have nothing to do with opposing offensive force?

Suppose I refrain from giving instructions as to how one “ought to live” and simply say "to each his own" as long as initiation of force, coercion and dishonesty is verboten. Is this not conducive to individualism, peace, harmony and free market? Does not all of Rand’s edicts of “life proper to man” disturb you a bit?

Xray: if objective value is revealed as a fallacy that's effectively the end of Objectivism -- that would break the bridge between metaphysics/epistemology and ethics....

Quite the contrary, Brant. You are correct in that it would be the end of “Objectivism”, but the real metaphysics/epistemology would not only still be intact, but expose the fraud of the illusion of categorical identity as well. "Man" as in "life proper to man" refers to category only, it is a denial of individual identity, and thereby also a denial of individualism.

This is where the philosophy gets ought from is. Orthodox Objectivism claims way too much ought IMHO, but that doesn't mean it's basically wrong.

Ought from is? Were it that words would create, would we not all have a world to our liking?

It appears that Rand believed this was possible. No, she did not say that, but her wording certainly implied it.

In one instance, she says, “Value to whom, for what.” I take the “whom” to be a sentient, conscious, volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity; namely, a human individual. Individual volitional entity is what ties the word, value, to reality. No problem.

Then she throws in “in this context, this means”, and does a 180 shift from sentient, volitional individual to insentient, non volitional vegetation. “Values” (valuations as in attributing value) are no longer a matter of volition, but “automatic” with “life as a standard” for all “living organism.”

Simple question: If the term, value, is connected to reality by way of the identity of a volitional being, does it not logically follow that the term, value, used independently of volitional being constitutes a severance from reality, a reality disconnect?

Let’s hit it again. Tell me, how do you present truth via audio/visual symbols unless a symbol has an objective referent? If that objective referent is volitional individual and the term (value) is capriciously and verbally tied to a non volitional plant, by what rationale do you accept this contradiction and believe Rand proved “ought from is"?

All right actions are ought from is

See above. Right for whom? What is the use of phrases like "choosing life as a standard of value" for an Objectivst soldier dropping bombs on a country which has not attacked his own country? Is the life of "the enemy" exempt?

Are you not aware that if there is not an objective base for morality anything goes?

Just because I recognize the fact that an individual can choose to take any action within his/her mental/physical capacity, does not mean I approve of every choice; nor does it stop me from choosing to stop an imposing action if I have the wherewithal to do so.

Suppose I subjectively choose peace and harmony. I conclude that initiation of force and coercion is not the means to the end I prefer. So, I, by subjective choice refrain from initiation of force and coercion. How does this come out “anything goes” since my premise of social interaction is anti-initiation force and coercion?

What is your complaint against this if not objecting because I refuse to accept your “objective values”, or sets of other who also tout “objective values?” Where do these “objective values” come from? Surely, they must be from some “superior being”, not some mere mortal. What pray tell is the SOURCE of these “objective values” and “moral obligation?”

Between “moral duty” and “moral permission” what’s left of “I"?

Am I relegated to dutifully accept the “values” of someone other than myself as if I am incapable of deciding for myself?

Contrary to popular opinion, “objective morality” is trying to duck personal responsibility. What “God’s will” if not the abnegation of self responsibility? What’s “life proper to man” except “discovered values” rather than accept the responsibility for personal choices and actions? No, I shall have no part of it. I take full responsibility for my choices and do not pawn them off on “the devil made me do it”, or I thought it was “life proper to man.”

Of all those Rand ostracized, how many were so dispatched because they advocated the initiation of force?

How many simply because they disagreed with Rand on “life proper to man?”

So what is your "ought"? And from what "is"? Brant ought to agree with Xray?

No, Brant. I have no “ought”. I would of course, like anyone else, appreciate it if others agreed with my personal values. But any "ought to" would be trying to impose my personal values on someone else, which I reject.

I merely state which conclusions I have reached and why, what I believe and why I believe it, and welcome questions.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Xray

[tjohnson]

I don't know what 'an objective value' is but, for example, a person needs food to live. If, however, the person does not want to live they may not eat and so they will perish. This is so simple that it numbs the brain to see page after page of arguments.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know what 'an objective value' is but, for example, a person needs food to live. If, however, the person does not want to live they may not eat and so they will perish. This is so simple that it numbs the brain to see page after page of arguments.

We aren't arguing about that.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Rather than reply to Xray point by point now regarding any disagreements I have with her, I'd like to skip over to a more generalized statement about where I stand on human differences reflected in the ideal, to me, social-political situation, which allows for many structural variations.

I think rational self interest is a good basis for morality and allows for both individualism and decent social existence for people generally. From that we naturally get the identification and protection of individual rights. There are police, courts and a military to do this. (I don't want to get into a discussion here about justifications for foreign wars as opposed to purely self defense but will say I was against the Iraq War started with the 2003 invasion if for no other reason than I had personally seen war and knew its bad consequences on all involved and knew that it was very bad strategy regardless.) Out of this context we can all be who we are as long as we don't initiate force and Xray and I can argue about the subjective/objective thing and she doesn't have to worry about being bricked up in my non-existent cellar or being burned at the stake.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand was a moralizer who constantly made strong value judgments. Without them she thought she was nothing. Her strong sense of right and wrong was obviously informed by her experiences with the so called Russian Revolution. She condemned the totalitarian impulse and saw its moral justification as altruism--man should exist for the state--and based on irrationality. She spent her life fighting these things. In some respects she went overboard, but to a great extent that was because she had to blast her way into public consciousness as no one else was doing what she was. Just as an economist over values economics by occupying that particular perspective or a psychologist psychology or sociologist sociology, she over valued philosophy generally and her own particularly especially by claiming too much for it. For instance, there really isn't anything called Objectivist psychology or esthetics or sociology or any hard science. There is no Objectivist rationality. One is either rational or not. Objectivism uses rationality and champions rationality, but just what contributions has "Objectivist epistemology" made to rationality and the scientific method? At the center of it all is man, the volitional, thinking being. He has one foot in epistemology and the other in morality. Morality concerns right and wrong actions of various kinds--choices. This man looks left and he sees rationality with respect to metaphysical reality. He looks right and he sees the need for a certain political reality congruent with the rational, moral base he stands on. What is right or wrong or irrelevant is based on reality and the reality of human being and is objectively true. The trick is finding out just what that truth is and being modest--Rand was never modest about her philosophy--about how well you know that truth. That modesty prevents you from hitting someone over the head with a club, for instance, unless he is threatening to do that to you. Freedom, btw, is the best way I know to minimize social friction.

--Brant

PS: more posts coming right away

Edited January 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

I don't know what 'an objective value' is but, for example, a person needs food to live. If, however, the person does not want to live they may not eat and so they will perish. This is so simple that it numbs the brain to see page after page of arguments.

Indeed, nothing could be more simple or more obvious than the fact that there are no "objective values."

The page after page of arguing "objective values" exist tells of the depth and grip of the psychological problem.

When people refuse to see something so clear and so obvious, what chance has any argument to convince?

[Brant Gaede]

Leonard Peikoff was the right choice for Rand, not that she had much to choose from, but wrong for a non-dogmatic philosophy. When the founder dies the rational thing is a world with no intellectual heirs so interested people can think things through and reconsider this and that.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Subjective valuing is all the valuing there is. I'm not arguing this. I am saying there are certain universal attributes to human beings qua needs and that which can meet those needs are objective values albeit subjectively valued. A particular valuer is not needed save if the species were to go extinct so would those values.

--Brant

not representing Rand

[Brant Gaede]

When I said "subjectively valued always" I made a too broad statement. I only meant all valuing is subjective. Choices are correct if rational based on reality. That's objectivity if you will. That is why just because I prefer something I may not act on that preference. That requires not just rationality, but courage and integrity. This alters my preference through a difficult, willful act.

--Brant

Edited January 3, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Xray doesn't accept my basic (objective) values premise because I created them. Air to breathe? Food to eat? My premise is life itself.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

There simply is no way to get a free society unless we can answer the question of why we ought to have one. To get that "ought" we have to investigate what is.

--Brant

[Xray]

Selene: "I knew Peikoff back in the sixties, not personally, but within the same social and political groups. He was pretty forgettable then and I haven't changed my opinion much.

Additionally, you again assume that I would accept Peikoff's statement of what is right and or wrong because Ayn picked him as her heir which is an

absurd argument which does not apply to me at all."

"Is what Peikoff propagates here the "rational standard of value"? " (Xray)

"...you again assume that I would accept Peikoff's statement..." (Selene)

This does not answer my question. Do you think what Peikoff propagates in the interview is the "rational standard of value"?

If not, why not?

"Argument by association does not work" (Selene)

Indeed it doesn't. Hence my asking you for a direct answer to a direct question. If I assumed you would accept Peikoff's statement, I would not have asked you about it.

Selene: I mean come on Ms. Xray you are a government employed teacher, that ranks below call girl on my list of professions.

Mr. Selene, in your subjective rankings, how does Rand rank being campaigner for someone seeking governmental office?

How about "Objectivist" voters in political elections? How about yourself? Do you vote in governmental, political elections?

A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm not interested in elaborations on Rand's imaginary "voluntary government". I'm talking about the here and now.

I'm just trying to find out if you are consistent about the government thing? Your self-described "ranking" depends on a yes or no answer.

[All following quotes: Brant Gaede].

Brant

"I think rational self interest is a good basis for morality and allows for both individualism and decent social existence for people generally."

Just exactly does one go about differentiating "rational self interest" from non rational self interest? After all, if one is pursue only "rational self interest", isn't is necessary to know rational from rational? How is this done? Examples please.

Imo none can be given because an attempt to do so reveals the alleged objective division of self interest into rational/irrational to be nothing more than division by subjective personal preference.

Parallel question: How does one go about differentiating rational law of gravity from a non rational law of gravity? Silly question? Indeed it is, because the law of gravity is natural law and not subject to division or alteration of any sort. The same is true of self interest in being an

absolute in every volitional entity.

Natural law is not a sometimes thing. It is literally impossible for any action to be motivated by anything other than self interest. The same is true in the fact that nothing has value unless and until someone attributes value to it in correspondence with the natural law of self interest. Presuming a division via "rational self interest" or "selfless altruism" are simply words and feelings that don't conform to reality.

While much lip service is paid to an immutable objective reality, there is refusal to see objective identity as it is. Instead, reality is "seen" as one thinks (feels) it "ought" to be.

When called up to provide specific examples of "rational self interest" or "rational values", the fallacy of subjective personal preference passed off as objective discovery is easily and quickly exposed.

As for the 'morality' bit, every conscious and functioning human individual holds beliefs and attributes value in step with those beliefs. This is what determines any and every particular action.

One may (in self interest) attribute value to eating a piece of chocolate cake. One may attribute value to an action conducive to peace and harmony,

or attribute an action which will result in hostile conflict. It depends on what is the higher valued in regard to self interest.

Two religionists, both trying to "please God" as a means to gain eternal reward may take separate routes. One may go door to door proselyting by

speech and passing out pamphlets. The other may fulfill "moral duty" by slaying all who do not share his/her beliefs. This is the root of an

"anything goes" philosophy. This root is ALWAYS comprised of a "set of values" accompanied by a "moral ought".

Recent illustrative example is the Islamist on the other thread, who offers a typical example of where every illusion of "objective value" will invariably lead to.

The common is the denial of objective individual identity and the reality of subjective value. "Innate evil" is assumed and a "universal moral directive" necessary to keep all on the straight and narrow.

The idea that each individual could potentially choose peace and harmony as end desired, and select means accordingly, in these "moral minds" is not an alternative.

They insist on a one-size-fits-all ideology, then remain blinded by the fact that they are cause of the very violence they ostensibly oppose.

"Objectivists" like to claim they are against initiation of force and coercion while embracing the "objective value" idea that assures the exact opposite.

As long as it's all talk and nothing more, the illusion and sef-delusion is easy to maintain. However, trying to put it into practice is a whole different matter.

When I said "subjectively valued always" I made a too broad statement.

...

.... An objective value is a value that is universal to the species qua life such as food and water and air. These are subjectively valued always

and the further away we get from these basics the more tentative and potentially controversial they become...

...I only meant all valuing is subjective. Choices are correct if rational based on reality. That's objectivity if you will. That is why just because I prefer something I may not act on that preference. That requires not just

rationality, but courage and integrity. This alters my preference through a difficult, willful act.

First, you admit "all valuing is subjective", yet, in contradiction speak of "objective values", which logically implies valuations without a valuer.

No one is denying the fact that for a person to remain alive, objective means are required. This IS fact. But fact per se does not create a valuation.

That is why just because I prefer something I may not act on that preference. That requires not just rationality, but courage and integrity.

This alters my preference through a difficult, willful act.

No. If you do not act upon a particular preference, it's because you conclude acting upon this particular preference would oppose and negate something you prefer (value) more.

If one wishes to have a particular item, yet refrains from stealing it, he/she believes that the subjectively held) lower value (stealing a coveted item) in exchange for a (subjectively held) higher value (wanting to keep out of stress and possible trouble connected with breaking a law; wanting to maintain one's self respect, etc.).

"Xray doesn't accept my basic (objective) values premise because I created them. Air to breathe? Food to eat? My premise is life itself."

It was acknowledged that food and air are objective necessities for life. The issue is that individuals can choose to live or not. See also GS's post on this.

"There simply is no way to get a free society unless we can answer the question of why we ought to have one. To get that "ought" we have to investigate what is."

If a "free society" is dependent on "ought from is", we can say for sure: won't happen.

"Ought" itself is anti freedom. It presumes to set out valuations that others "ought to accept" rather than recognize the natural law of personal preference.

One may objectively point out to another individual that if he/she puts his/her unprotected hand into a fire, then damage to the flesh will be done. The subjective choice is that of the individual.

By the same token, one may point out that the concept, objective value, is fallacy inevitably resulting in interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict.

The subjective choice to examine, evaluate and believe or disbelieve is up to each individual.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Lordy. Rational self interest means trying to be rational in evaluating one's choice of actions in reference to oneself and reality for one's best benefit. Giving away all you own and going to the top of the mountain in expectation of the second coming is not rational. (Leave your goods in self storage.)

Xray, once again you being a school teacher and me being the student is a complete turn off for me. In any case, I've no desire for an old discussion in new bottles. We've gone over your arguments by asseveration time and time again. We know what they are and I'm not going to keep replying.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know what 'an objective value' is but, for example, a person needs food to live. If, however, the person does not want to live they may not eat and so they will perish. This is so simple that it numbs the brain to see page after page of arguments.

Indeed, nothing could be more simple or more obvious than the fact that there are no "objective values."

The page after page of arguing "objective values" exist tells of the depth and grip of the psychological problem.

When people refuse to see something so clear and so obvious, what chance has any argument to convince?

It's the forest and the trees: Trees--no objective values. Forest--objective values. Trees are concrete facts while forest is an abstraction built on trees. This is only metaphorically true for trees lack volition. Actually trees have only objective values because they cannot choose. Humans have both objective and subjective values because they can. Man (forest) has objective values. Men (trees) have subjective and objective values because of volition. If men had no volition they'd have no subjective values. The commonality between men and man is objectivity--objective values.

--Brant

get it?

Edited January 6, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Objective values are passive as they do not concern choice. Subjective values are variable and dynamic and do. The key is volition. Subjectivity makes the human world go round. Objectivity is not the cause of wars and conflict, subjectivity is. If you aspire to peace aspire to be an Objectivist. Subjectivists claiming to be objectivists is only what Xray is really complaining about; she effectively calls them variable subjectivist objectivitists. Here is the problem and contradiction: Xray is an objectivist rejecting objectivity in values because those are passive even though they exist while embracing only the half story of subjective values. She has to do this because essentially she is a determinist rejecting volition. Wait! You may say. Isn't that what subjectivity is all about? Choice? Sure, but determined if not chaotic choice without reference to the basic life-needs of the organism: objective values--the foundation values of all other values.

--Brant

on a roll

Edited January 6, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

--Brant

on a roll

Keep it coming Brant, a rolling stone gathers no moss. Let's see, an objective value...hmm. Why don't we start at the beginning? What are examples of objective values as opposed to subjective values? Is it things we need to live like food, shelter, and clothing as opposed to things we don't need like mp3 players, skis, and nice furniture?

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know if I can, GS, I was pretty well lubricated when I wrote my previous two posts.

--Brant

when does the Viagra kick in?

[tjohnson]

I don't know if I can, GS, I was pretty well lubricated when I wrote my previous two posts.

--Brant

when does the Viagra kick in?

Ah....that explains alot. What poison do you prefer? I like a smoky, peaty scotch when i can afford it.

[Xray]

Objective values are passive as they do not concern choice. Subjective values are variable and dynamic and do. The key is volition. Subjectivity makes the human world go round. Objectivity is not the cause of wars and conflict, subjectivity is. If you aspire to peace aspire to be an Objectivist. Subjectivists claiming to be objectivists is only what Xray is really complaining about; she effectively calls them variable subjectivist objectivitists. Here is the problem and contradiction: Xray is an objectivist rejecting objectivity in values because those are passive even though they exist while embracing only the half story of subjective values. She has to do this because essentially she is a determinist rejecting volition. Wait! You may say. Isn't that what subjectivity is all about? Choice? Sure, but determined if not chaotic choice without reference to the basic life-needs of the organism: objective values--the foundation values of all other values.

--Brant

on a roll

On a roll? Looks like it is going somewhat downhill ...

It's the forest and the trees: Trees--no objective values. Forest--objective values. Trees are concrete facts while forest is an abstraction built on trees. This is only metaphorically true for trees lack volition. Actually trees have only objective values because they cannot choose. Humans have both objective and subjective values because they can. Man (forest) has objective values. Men (trees) have subjective and objective values because of volition. If men had no volition they'd have no subjective values. The commonality between men and man is objectivity--objective values.

--Brant

get it?

Yeah, I think I "got it".

Your recent post confirms what I thought:

View PostBrant Gaede, on 06 January 2010 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't know if I can, GS, I was pretty well lubricated when I wrote my previous two posts.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know if I can, GS, I was pretty well lubricated when I wrote my previous two posts.

--Brant

when does the Viagra kick in?

Ah....that explains alot. What poison do you prefer? I like a smoky, peaty scotch when i can afford it.

I don't much like scotch whiskey. I tried it once and it tasted like scotch. I prefer an intermediately priced whiskey, but overall consumption is down after quitting completely for October and November last year.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I don't much like scotch whiskey. I tried it once and it tasted like scotch. I prefer an intermediately priced whiskey, but overall consumption is down after quitting completely for October and November last year.

--Brant

FYI, there's no 'e' in Scotch Whisky and i think they have a trademark out on that.

Like most other labels, the Scotch whisky label combines law, tradition, marketing, and whim, and may therefore be difficult to understand. Because of variations in language and national law, the following is a rough guide:

Scotch whisky labels contain the exact words “Scotch whisky”; “Whisky” is sometimes capitalised. If the word “Scotch” is missing, the whisky is probably made elsewhere. If it says Scotch “whiskey” or “Scottish” whisky, it might well be counterfeit.

[Alfonso Jones]

I don't know if I can, GS, I was pretty well lubricated when I wrote my previous two posts.

--Brant

when does the Viagra kick in?

Ah....that explains alot. What poison do you prefer? I like a smoky, peaty scotch when i can afford it.

I don't much like scotch whiskey. I tried it once and it tasted like scotch. I prefer an intermediately priced whiskey, but overall consumption is down after quitting completely for October and November last year.

--Brant

Make note to self - - - don't send Brant the bottle of Laphroaig I was planning on sending...

Bill P

[tjohnson]

Make note to self - - - don't send Brant the bottle of Laphroaig I was planning on sending...

Bill P

Do you want my address?

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe Michael should spin this off into a new thread.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Maybe Michael should spin this off into a new thread.

--Brant

What, Scotch Whisky isn't part of the Logical Structure of Objectivism?