Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Brant Gaede]

Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable, ...

Thank you for undercutting your earlier claim "in the common definition sacrifice is gain."

You still don't get it, do you? Let me spell it out then: sacrifice is a deliberate loss to gain something of more value.

This is one type of sacrifice, commonly seen in chess. There is deluded sacrifice whereby one gets hurt. There is the act of being sacrificed (virgin in the volcano). I knew a guy in high school who threw himself on a grenade in Vietnam in 1967. He sacrificed his life and received the Congressional Medal of Honor. It's hard to characterize what he did as gaining a greater value or having intent to gain a greater value because all his gains seemed to come to a dead man. It might be done, of course, if we refer to the short time before the grenade went off, knowing he saved the lives of his fellow Marines. The value would be in the knowing. Peter Keating sacrificed his life to second-handism and ruined himself. It wasn't his intent to ruin himself. The real trick of sacrifice is to preach it so others do as you say and you reap the harvest of such consequences as may accrue. You get 'em and hold 'em with guilt. Self-slavery institutionalized and re-enforced with force. Then there are those who say sacrifice isn't really sacrifice by focusing only on motivation and ignoring consequences. The consequences, of course, are objective.

One more thing off the top of my head: There is sacrifice without conscious awareness of motive as in some suicides. Depression is frequently caused by repressed anger and getting back at the real or imagined people who caused one's anger is expressed by suicide. These suicides need an audience. The body must be found. They frequently aren't aware of this because they are oblivious to their anger. There are other types of depression caused by despair also expressed in suicide. Audience is optional. And these different types can be mixed up too in one person.

--Brant

Edited November 25, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Daniel Barnes]

What do the definitions rest on? Nothing? See the 2nd quote again.

Ok, I'll try to do this on the installment program...;-) Starting with below:

There are two standards about what can make a definition true invoked here.

1. The definition of a word is tied to reality, i.e. it successfully refers, a lot like the correspondence theory of truth.

2. All different users of the word must agree on the definition, a bit like the coherence theory of truth.

I align Ba'al, MSK, Ayn Rand and myself with #1 and Daniel Barnes with #2.

First, do you think your 1. and 2. are mutually exclusive?

Second, do you think that either of our disagreeing duo, each who claim that they have the "true" definition of puppy and that the other's is "false", aren't "tied to reality"?

Do you see the problem?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A true definition is a short-hand description by definition. It is certainly not an extensive roll listing of every single detail of an existent.

The parts mentioned need to correspond to reality and be tied to a priority standard for the definition to be true.

Correspondence to reality makes the description true, but that is not enough to make it a definition. The priority standard does that job.

That's why more than one definition for the same existent can be true, especially when the issue of scope is involved. (Think "broad definition" versus "narrow definition," both of which are true.)

There are 2 elements to a definition, not just one.

Michael

[Xray]

Correct. There exists no act of sacrifice without the expectation on the sacrificer's part to gain something of higher value in return for what he/she gives. This principle applies without exception. Every sacrifice is basically a trade.

Wrong, evasive hogwash repeated for umpteenth time.

It is you who are evading by calling something 'hogwash' without being able to refute it. .

For in fact you can't name one single example where this principle does not apply.

[Brant Gaede]

Correct. There exists no act of sacrifice without the expectation on the sacrificer's part to gain something of higher value in return for what he/she gives. This principle applies without exception. Every sacrifice is basically a trade.

Wrong, evasive hogwash repeated for umpteenth time.

It is you who are evading by calling something 'hogwash' without being able to refute it. .

For in fact you can't name one single example where this principle does not apply.

Xray, how can you know "the principle applies without exception"? You are claiming the search for even a lower value is actually a search for a higher--that any value acquired is worth more than the cost in the mind of the acquirer prior to the aquisition. This fits with your subjectivism but Rand was not a subjectivist, primarily, and considered the objectivity of consequences.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

TF, p. 724, [Roark]: Then he knew it was useless, like all sacrifices."

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

TF, p. 724, [Roark]: Then he knew it was useless, like all sacrifices."

--Brant

I don't think this quote actually works in your favour, Brant.

[Brant Gaede]

TF, p. 724, [Roark]: Then he knew it was useless, like all sacrifices."

--Brant

I don't think this quote actually works in your favour, Brant.

I'm not about that.

--Brant

[merjet]

First, do you think your 1. and 2. are mutually exclusive?

No. Do you think they are very different?

Second, do you think that either of our disagreeing duo, each who claim that they have the "true" definition of puppy and that the other's is "false", aren't "tied to reality"?

Puppy , I have no answers for you about puppies until you answer this post clearly. Also, I hereby add "why?" to A-C in said post.

You could also give a straightforward answer to this. What do you believe definitions rest on per Rand?

Do you see the problem?

I can't read your mind.

[merjet]

It is you who are evading by calling something 'hogwash' without being able to refute it. .

For in fact you can't name one single example where this principle does not apply.

More ...

You also sound like Wile E. Coyote saying, "I wasn't burnt to a crisp or squashed flat in any prior episodes." :D

Edited November 25, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[tjohnson]

The parts mentioned need to correspond to reality and be tied to a priority standard for the definition to be true.

Who decides what the priority standard is?

[merjet]

Who decides what the priority standard is?

You do -- for yourself.

[Selene]

It is you who are evading by calling something 'hogwash' without being able to refute it. .

For in fact you can't name one single example where this principle does not apply.

More ...

You also sound like Wile E. Coyote saying, "I wasn't burnt to a crisp or squashed flat in any prior episodes." :D

And such a ....hit that link!

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1307612941327&id=9dd963174245dea6c51b6144a5e1cb6c&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.illustrationsof.com%2fimages%2fclipart%2fxsmall2%2f6264_motionless_boar.jpg

[tjohnson]

Who decides what the priority standard is?

You do -- for yourself.

What so everyone decides on their own priority standard? Then which one is the true one?

[Xray]

[General Semanticist]

You don't define concepts, you define words.

It is true about defining words. It is also true that a concept can be defined (differentiated) by a sequence or words.

GS: A concept is something you imagine. It can be described with words but what you define is the word representing the concept.

One can have a concept of an entity. The entity (the objective referenet) is not imagination although the idea of it exists in mind as an abstract representation´.The words that describe ARE the linguistic definition. I am moved to add that every concept of "objective value" can be defined only as illusion.

Posted 19 November 2009 - 01:43 PM

GS: Yes, we should try not to take cheap shots. I really am interested in discussing the idea that definitions can be right or wrong, true or false, etc. This seems to be an important idea in Objectivism and I, for one, do not understand it. I am not interested in bashing Rand or anyone else but I am curious about what is meant by this. Hell, there is even controversy about what it means for propositions to be true or false and they are actually asserting something. A definition does not assert anything does it? This seems to be the crux of the issue.

An alleged definition does implicitly assert the existence of an entity and/or a relationship. The question is whether the alleged definition is actually a definition. A fallacy defined as fallacy is a definition. A fallacy explicitly and/or implicitly allegedly defined as something real is not a definition.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Merlin J., to be fair, Dragonfly wrote "Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable"...

But then goes on to specify (in my words) ...for something MORE valuable".

So it's no longer a sacrifice. It then becomes a rationally self-interested action.

But that's what every so-called 'sacrifice' is: a self-interested action. There also exists no "rational" or "irrational", self-intetest, only self-interest which is natural law working 100 per cent of the time.

The German term for sacrifice is "Opfer", (related "offer"), and that offer was originally given to appease a deity. Sacrifice is from Latin "sacra facere", (to perform holy acts; which implied offers to a god or to the gods).

You only need to take a brief look at biblical myths to see at a glance that Abraham wanted to sacrifice Isaac because he expected a higher value (not a lower value) in return: god's approval.

Whether one personally approves of the choices the 'sacrificer' makes plays no role since the issue is about identifying sacrifice as what it is: the giving of a subjectively perceived lower value to get a subjectively perceived higher value in return. It is is no different from a trade.

The chess analogy is a good one, that demonstrates the false duality of meaning of this word; so is the notorious Biblical one of Abraham, preparing to sacrifice his son to God, until he gets a reprieve from the old monster. God was his higher value.

Exactly. See above. No act of sacrifice without the expectation to get a higher value for what one gives.

I believe that Rand was the first to identify,and measure, Value - stripped of all its baggage.

Rand arbitrarily approved or disapproved of people's subjective choices. Those she liked she called values, those she disliked she called "whims".

So her definition, removed from all popular, or religious connotations, is the one that must stand (giving up a higher value,for a lesser one'). It also fits the dictionary definitions.

A while back, one poster was quite baffled to discover a dictionary definition of 'sacfrifice' contradicting Rand's

Rand's definition of sacrifice is no definition all but a subjective value judgement about people's coices.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Correct your spelling since you are so judgmental of others. Lead by example.

I love to follow the woman's movement...great view.

"taht"

originall

coemsof

valuein

Adam

[merjet]

Rand's definition of sacrifice is no definition all but a subjective value judgement about people's coices.

Xray's entire post is mostly and more ...

repeated for the umpteenth time.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Correct your spelling since you are so judgmental of others. Lead by example.

I love to follow the woman's movement...great view.

"taht"

originall

coemsof

valuein

Adam

I just went over my post again but could not find them. Looks like I already corrected them when you wrote your post, unless I overlooked them.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Correct your spelling since you are so judgmental of others. Lead by example.

I love to follow the woman's movement...great view.

"taht"

originall

coemsof

valuein

Adam

I just went over my post again but could not find them. Looks like I already corrected them when you wrote your post, unless I overlooked them.

So this is your formal admission that you do not check your work or your words before you emit a communication.

OK

Now what about the 4th and 5th premises of Ayn that you agree with.

Then I can "analyze" them en toto.

Adam

neither pot nor kettle nor black

[Xray]

So this is your formal admission that you do not check your work or your words before you emit a communication.

I always check the content but am simply a very sloppy typer. You should see my rough drafts.

Now what about the 4th and 5th premises of Ayn that you agree with.

Then I can "analyze" them en toto.

I suppose your promised 'analysis' of them will stay in neverland, and that instead I will get the same deafening silence from you as to this post at Epistemology inviting you to a discussion you had requested:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32&pid=83231&st=0entry83231

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

So this is your formal admission that you do not check your work or your words before you emit a communication.

I always check the content but am simply a very sloppy typer. You should see my rough drafts.

Now what about the 4th and 5th premises of Ayn that you agree with.

Then I can "analyze" them en toto.

I suppose your promised 'analysis' of them will stay in neverland, and that instead I will get the same deafening silence from you as to this post at Epistemology inviting you to a discussion you had requested:

http://www.objectivi...t=0entry83231

Ah, "the so is your mother attack." No thanks.

I told you that I would respond to that which I thought was worthy of response. So far, you have not provided more than a thought or two (2) that engaged me enough to respond since that toothless declaration.

As you remember, this was after you threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to a duel. Moreover, as you are now remembering, there are dueling protocols which state that:

A morally-acceptable duel would start with the challenger issuing a traditional, public, personal grievance, based on an insult, directly to the single person who offended the challenger.

The challenged person had the choice of a public apology or other restitution, or choosing the weapons for the duel.

The challenger would then propose a place for the "field of honour".

The challenged man had to either accept the site or propose an alternative. <<<<We have only gotten that far Ms. Xray

The location had to be a place where the opponents could duel without being arrested. <<<< well that eliminates your bedroom.

It was common for the constables to set aside such places and times and spread the information, so "honest people can avoid unpatrolled places.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Then I can "analyze" them en toto.

Apparently you do not check your words before you emit a communication.

[Selene]

Then I can "analyze" them en toto.

Apparently you do not check your words before you emit a communication.

I am sure I do not.

Adam

[Xray]

Correct. There exists no act of sacrifice without the expectation on the sacrificer's part to gain something of higher value in return for what he/she gives. This principle applies without exception. Every sacrifice is basically a trade.

Wrong, evasive hogwash repeated for umpteenth time.

If could refute it, you would long since have done so. Simply calling something hogwash won't do the trick.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray