Logical Structure of Objectivism

[anthony]

So I am to accept from all this that to commit sacrifice is a moral imperative? Unless I'm missing something critical, the old, distorted definition of that word - losing something lesser, for something greater - is what is being accepted here.

This becomes,then, the rationally selfish thing to do.

Also, what I always viewed as misuse and abuse of the word, like: "Jim sacrificed all his spare time for a year, in order to help his son ..." (the assumption being that Jim loves his son more than his golf.)

is actually correct usage?

But then the whole meaning of "sacrifice" becomes pretty toothless, doesn't it?

If one knows with certainty that the game of chess or baseball, requires a sacrifice at some point to give one a large advantage or victory - well, then we'd do it every time. There's no cost involved. Or God is going to grant herds of cattle in future for the price of one cow, it's not sacrifice, it's just pragmaticism.

I have to go with the Randian definition of subjugating a higher value, to the lesser one - if only to give the word back its 'teeth'.

I know I must be missing something in all this, so help please..?

[Selene]

Folks:

A sacrifice in chess or baseball, is 1) not a certainty and 2) conditional on execution and judgment.

The sacrifice that Ayn railed against is in the moral or ethical realm which has a real result.

The premise is that the state/society/or a higher power can direct the individual, forceably, by law or convention to give up a value for

a greater societal value. At first, the attempt is for the individual to self delude himself into voluntarily sacrificing themselves or their property or their sacred honor.

Then, they are directed to sacrifice for the greater good, or for the children or for the planet or for the snail darter or for the pregnant nuns that want to become transsexual

gender non specific amoebas or maybe just your run of the mill Sally Fields Flying Nun.

It does not matter. If I choose not to sacrifice my value for another interest, no one and no thing can morally force me to sacrifice.

If we wish to use a different definition, then I, for one, am not that interested in the outcome.

Unless I am missing something like Tony referred to...???

Adam

[tjohnson]

Folks:

A sacrifice in chess or baseball, is 1) not a certainty and 2) conditional on execution and judgment.

The sacrifice that Ayn railed against is in the moral or ethical realm which has a real result.

The premise is that the state/society/or a higher power can direct the individual, forceably, by law or convention to give up a value for

a greater societal value. At first, the attempt is for the individual to self delude himself into voluntarily sacrificing themselves or their property or their sacred honor.

Then, they are directed to sacrifice for the greater good, or for the children or for the planet or for the snail darter or for the pregnant nuns that want to become transsexual

gender non specific amoebas or maybe just your run of the mill Sally Fields Flying Nun.

It does not matter. If I choose not to sacrifice my value for another interest, no one and no thing can morally force me to sacrifice.

If we wish to use a different definition, then I, for one, am not that interested in the outcome.

Unless I am missing something like Tony referred to...???

Adam

Very good Adam, forget about all the arguments about definitions and explain what you mean.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't see uses of the word "sacrifice" meaning total renounciation with no benefit to the one who sacrifices.

Bob,

See the Free Online Dictionary for sacrifice. Here are a few quotes:

3.

a. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.

b. Something so relinquished.

c. A loss so sustained.

. . .

To sell or give away at a loss.

. . .

loss entailed by giving up or selling something at less than its value

. . .

the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc.

. . .

something that is lost

. . .

the act of terminating a life

. . .

to give away etc for the sake of something or someone else

These are all commonly used meanings mixed with the others.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

There's no disputing that the definition is all over the place: it can mean no loss, a little loss, or huge loss; all at various levels of gain.

When it's devoid of values, it is kind of floating, and connotative.

But like 'pride', 'greed', 'arrogance', and our favourite, 'Selfishness',I do think there's a strong case for establishing a single definition for philosophical purposes - particularly O'ist ones - once and for all.

Interestingly, not long ago I read of Dr. Peikoff making a case for 'greed' being a virtue. I did think that this was a bit of a stretch, but he made a good argument. How far can one go in reclaiming a definition from its common usage?

"Rational greed", perhaps?

Tony

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel Barnes, if you are lurking, please tell us your answer to your alleged poser about the two people arguing about the "true" definition of "puppy."

A. Both true

B. Both false

C. Only one is true (which one?)

D. None of the above (why?)

Bugger, just lost a reasonably long post in reply!

I hate that. Never mind, will redo in the next day or so.

Till then you wrote:

I said standard #1 is not a "silver bullet".

I quite agree. But it seems to me that Rand made out not only that such bullet existed, but that she was in possession of it.

I also think your remark here is a good one, and touches on the only really interesting aspect of Rand's theory - one that she regrettably did not pursue.

Do you ever think alone and in words?

[Daniel Barnes]

That's the problem in a nutshell: does the first definition refer successfully to reality? In a sense it does refer to "reality" as the word "reality" is part of its definition, but it is meaningless to say that it refers successfully to reality, as there is nothing to confirm or to falsify in that definition, it is in itself a convention.

What Dragonfly said.

Definitions refer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't resist this one. (My bolds.)

That's the problem in a nutshell: does the first definition refer successfully to reality? In a sense it does refer to "reality" as the word "reality" is part of its definition, but it is meaningless to say that it refers successfully to reality, as there is nothing to confirm or to falsify in that definition, it is in itself a convention.

What Dragonfly said.

Definitions refer.

Refer to what and how can one know it?

Meaninglessness? That's the ultimate referent?

This is what happens when you imagine that observation cannot confirm or falsify stuff and that only word games can.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's no disputing that the definition is all over the place: it can mean no loss, a little loss, or huge loss; all at various levels of gain.

Tony,

Interestingly enough, you actually will find people hotly disputing that fact. And it doesn't matter how many times you point to the dictionary, they will ignore it and keep repeating their misguided point. That goes for all sides, too. But when you scratch the surface of it, you find out why. Underneath "Rand was right" or "Rand was wrong" is the point to be proven.

They couldn't give two hoots about the idea of sacrifice. You never see these folks discuss sacrifice outside of the context of Rand bashing or Rand aggrandizing, much less write works about it (like Rand did with her novels and essays). This discussion is only a tool to promote the minuscule partisan war (I should say "spat" since "war" is way too grandiose for this one) surrounding the Ayn Rand love/hate myth.

Michael

[Selene]

Folks:

Is there some self aggrandizing pleasure that some folks get with a "gotcha" on a great person, be it Ayn or Aristotle or Kant or Marx?

I just do not get what they get out of throwing bricks at greatness...

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

X

Refer to what and how can one know it?

Meaninglessness? That's the ultimate referent?

This is what happens when you imagine that observation cannot confirm or falsify stuff and that only word games can.

Michael

By usage. If people understand how you are using words the way you intended that they understand, then you are using the words according to convention, which is to say your usage is correct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Folks:

Is there some self aggrandizing pleasure that some folks get with a "gotcha" on a great person, be it Ayn or Aristotle or Kant or Marx?

I just do not get what they get out of throwing bricks at greatness...

Adam

Defense of worldview. Many people want to be part of a winning team. Sometimes cutting down the tall poppy of the opposing team seems for some to be the easiest path to that goal. To use an old football quote from Al Davis: "The opposing team's quarterback must go down and he must go down hard."

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just to be clear, I am equally against faking reality to pump up Rand's image (like the ARI History-Rewriting project).

I stand for truth and facts.

Truth and facts ground the vision of my world.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

And since when is criticism of ideas the same as throwing bricks?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I'm sorry. You lost me.

I have no idea how your comment ties to what I wrote.

Apropos of what you wrote as a stand-alone statement, I understand convention to be a component of language, but not a component of conceptual integration.

That's why we have many different languages expressing the same concepts.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Bugger, just lost a reasonably long post in reply!

Aways make backups when you're writing posts, especially if they're long!

Just as saving often in computer games...

[Selene]

And since when is criticism of ideas the same as throwing bricks?

DG:

It is an expression. You know full well that it refers to hurling unsubstantial attacks that are not firmly grounded in the basic rules of criticism that I believe has to do with being able to properly articulate and or state the propositions of the source of the communication that you are criticizing.

However, if you enjoy purposefully playing with the words, be my guest...

Adam

[tjohnson]

Apropos of what you wrote as a stand-alone statement, I understand convention to be a component of language, but not a component of conceptual integration.

That's why we have many different languages expressing the same concepts.

Michael

How can you conceptually integrate without language? I asked Merlin this and he mentioned talking to myself while I was alone or something. Well if you talk you are using a language.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Close your eyes, try not to think of any words and imagine you are seeing an orange.

Bingo.

Visual concept.

And it was already there. You merely retrieved it from memory.

What you see internally will apply to all oranges you encounter. And if you think about it, even though it was not consciously explicit, the "idea" (not necessarily the vision) of a tree was in the background as a sort-of genus. In your internal image, you somehow knew the fruit came from trees (which can bear all kinds of fruit).

You can do this with the other senses as well with all kinds of other stuff, including all kinds of mixes and permutations.

Language just makes all this mental stuff easier by putting labels on things that we can manipulate with a great deal of flexibility. Language arises from the mental stuff and adds to it. Language does not replace it.

Michael

[merjet]

How can you conceptually integrate without language? I asked Merlin this and he mentioned talking to myself while I was alone or something. Well if you talk you are using a language.

I said "think", not "talk". Albert Einstein and Temple Grandin (link1, link2) are well known for saying they often think via images rather than words. In the last few days, I have tried to imagine what happened in an auto-pedestrian accident that I didn't witness but I have heard others describe. My thinking has been far more via images than words. How do children think before they are competent enough with language? How do nonhuman animals think to they extent they do?

By the way the following URL is to a page where John Hospers wrote about definitions.

http://tinyurl.com/ykk5k5l

Key distinction: stipulative vs. reportive definitions

Edited November 24, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[tjohnson]

GS,

Close your eyes, try not to think of any words and imagine you are seeing an orange.

Bingo.

Visual concept.

And it was already there. You merely retrieved it from memory.

But you had to use the word 'orange' in order for me to retrieve that image. The word and the concept go together, don't you think?

[tjohnson]

How can you conceptually integrate without language? I asked Merlin this and he mentioned talking to myself while I was alone or something. Well if you talk you are using a language.

I said "think", not "talk".

Yes, I often visualize how I will do something or how something works but I wouldn't call this conceptual thought, I would call this perceptual thought perhaps.

[Selene]

How can you conceptually integrate without language? I asked Merlin this and he mentioned talking to myself while I was alone or something. Well if you talk you are using a language.

I said "think", not "talk". Albert Einstein and Temple Grandin (link1, link2) are well known for saying they often think via images rather than words. In the last few days, I have tried to imagine what happened in an auto-pedestrian accident that I didn't witness but I have heard others describe. My thinking has been far more via images than words. How do children think before they are competent enough with language? How do nonhuman animals think to they extent they do?

By the way the following URL is to a page where John Hospers wrote about definitions.

http://tinyurl.com/ykk5k5l

Excellent Hospers' stuff. We used to get grief from our theatre colleagues in the Rhetoric/Speech/Communication Arts and Sciences Department because we, in the Rhetoric, Argumentation Debate section of the Department's first words would be "define your terms"...

let's see ...define your terms

check your premises

trust but verify

always store beer in a cold place (Heinlein)

Seems I can work with people who "think" that way.

Very clear points Michael. If I ran into your village or town and said. excitedly, I just found esigkwek down by the river, you might pull up some images of something that seemed to represent the signals that the person was sending, visuals, sounds, scents etc.

Or you might literally "see" a question mark in your mind. You would then using either a common language or pantomime or as in Amistad, that famous jail courtyard scene where they draw with a stick in the ground to indicate where the Africans came from which would make them either chattel or free men to be returned to their point of origin.

Since we did not have a common language, but we had a common conceptualization tool that exists within each human being. We would still be able to communicate though with an ability to conceptualize by categorization of similarities and differences. Was it this big? No it was that big. Point to your eyes to inquire whether you "saw" it? or Point to your ears and inquire as to whether you "heard" it?

Does this make sense?

Adam

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

This is what happens when you imagine that observation cannot confirm or falsify stuff and that only word games can.

WTF?

[Selene]

This is what happens when you imagine that observation cannot confirm or falsify stuff and that only word games can.

WTF?

World Trade Farce