Christian Objectivist

[Philip Coates]

Michal if you dismiss what I had to say as "crap", then there's really nothing more to say.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I rarely comment on your statements of support because I do not like to encourage the tribal "us against them" crap the preacher types always try to goad folks into adopting.

But I do see it.

Thank you.

Michael

[Xray]

Oh I am much worse than that

There I have no doubt. Pressure cooker was putting it mildly.

but then again the fabric of the universe is subjective, so just think that I am a cool refreshing summer breeze.

But Selene -

Who whould compare thee to a summer breeze?

No, thou art anything but temperate.

As for the Shakepearean Sonnet starting with

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

....

I was quite surprised to read that Shakespeare had written it for a man. Who was that man?

Maybe Philip can enlighten us here?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I apologize if you are not one, it's hard to keep track of all these posts, but there are an awful lot of people attracted to Oist lists who once you criticize them, even if you don't question their motives or honesty, they remember it forever and bear a grudge and try to find fault with you.

Suddenly the number of times they post criticizing you jumps enormously. And it's not just me - I notice a lot of long-standing 'fights' on these lists - right now: Xray versus her 'enemies', Jonathan vs. Ellen S, etc.

Philip, I can't speak for others, but I never regard debate opponents as my 'enemies'.

[Dragonfly]

Philip, I can't speak for others, but I never regard debate opponents as my 'enemies'.

I think it's the other way around.

[Brant Gaede]

Philip, I can't speak for others, but I never regard debate opponents as my 'enemies'.

I think it's the other way around.

That is correct from my perspective. I don't believe her from hers. Xray is here to attack all philosophy as arbitrary and subjective including Objectivism. Since this is an Objectivist site we naturally keep reminding her her position is not accepted or sanctioned. If we were all posting on a subjectivism site as good subjectivists we would not be enemies. Now one might say: but isn't she speaking the "truth"? The truth is an objective identification. That is Objectivism. Many Objectivists, however, aren't interested in the truth only the catechism of Objectivism supposedly truth incarnate, so let's all get together and spread it around. This makes Objectivism vulnerable to her criticisms regardless of their validity. Xray has her own religion: the truth incarnate of subjectivism which she disguises as the narrow formulation of objective value invaliditis. But if it were truth that's that ole objective truth again and she keeps telling us we're all victims of our little "objectivisms" except her position of subjective value which throws open the gates of Vienna for looting, rapine and subjugation to the Islamic hordes' convert or die "objectivism."

She's the gal who keeps saying "Put down your gun, put down your gun." When you put it down you then get gunned down. This literally happened during an armed robbery--Xray wasn't there--in NY State around 1981. The robbers gunned down an armored car guard at a shopping mall and fled, some in a rental boxed truck. The truck was stopped and the officer had a shotgun. The woman robber in the front seat persuaded the officer to put down his shotgun and the bad guys came out the rear and killed him. This bitch, the daughter of a left-wing lawyer, was trying to get money for more crime. They finally caught her and her father got the best deal she could have gotten and she may now be out of prison. I think she was one of the disappeared survivors of the Greenwich Village bomb-factory town house blow up that killed several of her comrades in 1969 or 70-71. I'm not saying Xray is anything like that bad, but she is effectively telling us all to put down our guns unless we're Islamic terrorists or people who don't think of guns as self-defense but as offensive tools used against fools.

--Brant

Edited October 17, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

I apologize if you are not one, it's hard to keep track of all these posts, but there are an awful lot of people attracted to Oist lists who once you criticize them, even if you don't question their motives or honesty, they remember it forever and bear a grudge and try to find fault with you.

Suddenly the number of times they post criticizing you jumps enormously. And it's not just me - I notice a lot of long-standing 'fights' on these lists - right now: Xray versus her 'enemies', Jonathan vs. Ellen S, etc.

No disagreement or minor point is too small to be pounced on by an opponent seeking to humiliated or make fun of the other party. What strikes me is the - ok I won't use all caps :-)enormous pettiness of people. Christ!!

WTF? I've been very polite in disagreeing with Ellen, and she with me. We've both been sticking to the subject of the conversation without calling each other names or making fun of each other. I just re-read the "Robert Campbell on denunciation in Randland" and I see nothing in my exchange with Ellen for even the most uptight, prissified schoolmarm to get upset about. I mean, seriously, how much more civil do you expect people to be, Phil?

J

[Xray]

Philip, I can't speak for others, but I never regard debate opponents as my 'enemies'.

I think it's the other way around.

That is correct from my perspective. I don't believe her from hers. Xray is here to attack all philosophy as arbitrary and subjective including Objectivism. Since this is an Objectivist site we naturally keep reminding her her position is not accepted or sanctioned. If we were all posting on a subjectivism site as good subjectivists we would not be enemies. Now one might say: but isn't she speaking the "truth"? The truth is an objective identification. That is Objectivism. Many Objectivists, however, aren't interested in the truth only the catechism of Objectivism supposedly truth incarnate, so let's all get together and spread it around. This makes Objectivism vulnerable to her criticisms regardless of their validity. Xray has her own religion: the truth incarnate of subjectivism which she disguises as the narrow formulation of objective value invaliditis. But if it were truth that's that ole objective truth again and she keeps telling us we're all victims of our little "objectivisms" except her position of subjective value which throws open the gates of Vienna for looting, rapine and subjugation to the Islamic hordes' convert or die "objectivism."

She's the gal who keeps saying "Put down your gun, put down your gun." When you put it down you then get gunned down. This literally happened during an armed robbery--Xray wasn't there--in NY State around 1981. The robbers gunned down an armored car guard at a shopping mall and fled, some in a rental boxed truck. The truck was stopped and the officer had a shotgun. The woman robber in the front seat persuaded the officer to put down his shotgun and the bad guys came out the rear and killed him. This bitch, the daughter of a left-wing lawyer, was trying to get money for more crime. They finally caught her and her father got the best deal she could have gotten and she may now be out of prison. I think she was one of the disappeared survivors of the Greenwich Village bomb-factory town house blow up that killed several of her comrades in 1969 or 70-71. I'm not saying Xray is anything like that bad, but she is effectively telling us all to put down our guns unless we're Islamic terrorists or people who don't think of guns as self-defense but as offensive tools used against fools.

--Brant

Another of your Brant rants. You don't have your epistemological ducks in a row, which is why you confuse things, mixing everything up in an indigestible cocktail.

Your confusion is rooted in the basics, since you fail to differentiate a fact from attributing value (or not) to a fact.

Simple example:

"Dogs exist". This is a statement of fact. Whether a person attributes value or not to the fact that dogs exist, is a matter of subjective choice.

That's all there is to it. Whether you or I like/don't like the fact that values are always subjective is irrelevant.

[Selene]

Philip, I can't speak for others, but I never regard debate opponents as my 'enemies'.

I think it's the other way around.

That is correct from my perspective. I don't believe her from hers. Xray is here to attack all philosophy as arbitrary and subjective including Objectivism. Since this is an Objectivist site we naturally keep reminding her her position is not accepted or sanctioned. If we were all posting on a subjectivism site as good subjectivists we would not be enemies. Now one might say: but isn't she speaking the "truth"? The truth is an objective identification. That is Objectivism. Many Objectivists, however, aren't interested in the truth only the catechism of Objectivism supposedly truth incarnate, so let's all get together and spread it around. This makes Objectivism vulnerable to her criticisms regardless of their validity. Xray has her own religion: the truth incarnate of subjectivism which she disguises as the narrow formulation of objective value invaliditis. But if it were truth that's that ole objective truth again and she keeps telling us we're all victims of our little "objectivisms" except her position of subjective value which throws open the gates of Vienna for looting, rapine and subjugation to the Islamic hordes' convert or die "objectivism."

She's the gal who keeps saying "Put down your gun, put down your gun." When you put it down you then get gunned down. This literally happened during an armed robbery--Xray wasn't there--in NY State around 1981. The robbers gunned down an armored car guard at a shopping mall and fled, some in a rental boxed truck. The truck was stopped and the officer had a shotgun. The woman robber in the front seat persuaded the officer to put down his shotgun and the bad guys came out the rear and killed him. This bitch, the daughter of a left-wing lawyer, was trying to get money for more crime. They finally caught her and her father got the best deal she could have gotten and she may now be out of prison. I think she was one of the disappeared survivors of the Greenwich Village bomb-factory town house blow up that killed several of her comrades in 1969 or 70-71. I'm not saying Xray is anything like that bad, but she is effectively telling us all to put down our guns unless we're Islamic terrorists or people who don't think of guns as self-defense but as offensive tools used against fools.

--Brant

Another of your Brant rants. You don't have your epistemological ducks in a row, which is why you confuse things, mixing everything up in an indigestible cocktail.

Your confusion is rooted in the basics, since you fail to differentiate a fact from attributing value (or not) to a fact.

Simple example:

"Dogs exist". This is a statement of fact. Whether a person attributes value or not to the fact that dogs exist, is a matter of subjective choice.

That's all there is to it. Whether you or I like/don't like the fact that values are always subjective is irrelevant.

Ok everybody shut off your minds - The Valkyrie has spoken:

Edited October 18, 2009 by Selene

[Philip Coates]

> WTF? I've been very polite in disagreeing with Ellen . . .

Jonathan, it's not just politeness.

I did say this: "they remember it forever and bear a grudge and try to find fault with you...the number of times they post criticizing you jumps enormously."

An ongoing 'fight' can be very polite and civil, but still out to get the enemy and try to nail them on anything whatsoever. Don't give an inch. And only grudgingly acknowledge when they make a good point. (Like you do with me.)

[Brant Gaede]

Philip, I can't speak for others, but I never regard debate opponents as my 'enemies'.

I think it's the other way around.

That is correct from my perspective. I don't believe her from hers. Xray is here to attack all philosophy as arbitrary and subjective including Objectivism. Since this is an Objectivist site we naturally keep reminding her her position is not accepted or sanctioned. If we were all posting on a subjectivism site as good subjectivists we would not be enemies. Now one might say: but isn't she speaking the "truth"? The truth is an objective identification. That is Objectivism. Many Objectivists, however, aren't interested in the truth only the catechism of Objectivism supposedly truth incarnate, so let's all get together and spread it around. This makes Objectivism vulnerable to her criticisms regardless of their validity. Xray has her own religion: the truth incarnate of subjectivism which she disguises as the narrow formulation of objective value invaliditis. But if it were truth that's that ole objective truth again and she keeps telling us we're all victims of our little "objectivisms" except her position of subjective value which throws open the gates of Vienna for looting, rapine and subjugation to the Islamic hordes' convert or die "objectivism."

She's the gal who keeps saying "Put down your gun, put down your gun." When you put it down you then get gunned down. This literally happened during an armed robbery--Xray wasn't there--in NY State around 1981. The robbers gunned down an armored car guard at a shopping mall and fled, some in a rental boxed truck. The truck was stopped and the officer had a shotgun. The woman robber in the front seat persuaded the officer to put down his shotgun and the bad guys came out the rear and killed him. This bitch, the daughter of a left-wing lawyer, was trying to get money for more crime. They finally caught her and her father got the best deal she could have gotten and she may now be out of prison. I think she was one of the disappeared survivors of the Greenwich Village bomb-factory town house blow up that killed several of her comrades in 1969 or 70-71. I'm not saying Xray is anything like that bad, but she is effectively telling us all to put down our guns unless we're Islamic terrorists or people who don't think of guns as self-defense but as offensive tools used against fools.

--Brant

Another of your Brant rants. You don't have your epistemological ducks in a row, which is why you confuse things, mixing everything up in an indigestible cocktail.

Your confusion is rooted in the basics, since you fail to differentiate a fact from attributing value (or not) to a fact.

Simple example:

"Dogs exist". This is a statement of fact. Whether a person attributes value or not to the fact that dogs exist, is a matter of subjective choice.

That's all there is to it. Whether you or I like/don't like the fact that values are always subjective is irrelevant.

"Attributing value" or, simply, valuing, is always subjective. Some values are subjective, some objective. Objective values appertain to man, subjective to a man (or a woman). While objective values are universal they don't have to be, and aren't, necessarily universally valued. A fact or group of facts don't have to have a particular value component. Facts, however, in the aggregate is an objective value. That an Indian mystic completely disdains facts would be irrelevant. Your "dogs exist" statement is correct. Your conclusion "that values are always subjective" does not follow. You are trying to destroy Objectivism with dogmatic semantics while implicitly claiming to have solved the "problem of induction" too boot. If "all values are subjective" then this proposition of yours must both be an objective truth and objective value albeit not universally valued, but behold, the contradiction! Your subjectivism in toto is only another one of those little "objectivisms" you complain about. It's true, no one will bleed for it, but will because of it. It's the foundation for appeasement.

--Brant

I can keep repeating myself too

[Jonathan]

> WTF? I've been very polite in disagreeing with Ellen . . .

Jonathan, it's not just politeness.

I did say this: "they remember it forever and bear a grudge and try to find fault with you...the number of times they post criticizing you jumps enormously."

An ongoing 'fight' can be very polite and civil, but still out to get the enemy and try to nail them on anything whatsoever. Don't give an inch. And only grudgingly acknowledge when they make a good point. (Like you do with me.)

Phil, you're talking out of your ass, and you're "psychologizing" to boot. Don't pretend that you know what motives I have for participating in any discussions here.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil,

I'm going to avail myself of a convenient opportunity to second good advice -- Dragonfly's -- about why, out of respect for your readers' ease of reading and for their time, you should learn to use the quote function.

Dragonfly wrote:

[...] your method [of quoting other posters] stinks! We see some quote, but we don't see whom you're quoting. We have to read the previous posts to discover that. If we're lucky we don't have to look far and find it just in the previous post. But it's also possible that we have to wade through many long posts before we can find the respective text. Further it's not so easy to see in your posts what is quote and what is original text.

However, when you use the quote option on this forum, you get a quote that is clearly distinguished from your own text. It's easy to indicate from whom the quote is, without interfering with the text itself. And in the left upper side there is a small arrow - when you click on that, you'll get the original quoted post. I suggest that you peruse my posts on this forum to see how the quote function is properly used, and how the results are much clearer (and all on one screen!) than the undecipherable quote mishmash in your posts.

I'll emphasize by repeating it a particular plus of using the quote function:

And in the left upper side there is a small arrow - when you click on that, you'll get the original quoted post.

Please try it. Click on the little arrow and notice that you're then taken directly to the original quoted post. Thus a person who wants to know the context in which a person you've quoted was speaking can find the context easily without having to search back through what might have become a long series of posts intervening between the one you've quoted and your reply.

I'll add another advantage of using the quote function: You thereby retain the original coding -- i.e., for italics, bold, underscoring, etc. -- instead of either losing that coding or having to manually duplicate it.

--

On other point, about Dragonfly's correcting spelling errors, especially (1) spelling errors in French; (2) spelling errors in names, especially in the names of scientists and musicians.

These errors bother him. He's meticulous. He isn't playing "gottcha." He makes those corrections with everyone. He is not singling you out due to an animus against you.

--

And...being a bit of a grammar schoolmarm myself...

Dragonfly, dear:

I don't complain about syntax of posts as English is not my mother tongue and I know the wooden beam in my own eye, but I can't resisting correcting (sometimes atrocious) spelling errors, just while the English spelling is so easy.

Re: "[...] just while the English spelling is so easy." You mean, in correct English: "because," not "while."

--

Phil, note: If you click on the little arrow in the quote above, you will be taken directly to the post of Dragonfly's I'm correcting.

Btw, Phil and all, the only reason I looked at this thread, the topic of which didn't entice me, was because I periodically check to see what Dragonfly has been posting. Who would have thought that a discussion of why using the quote function is a good idea would occur on a thread titled "Christian Objectivist"?

Ellen

[Selene]

Phil,

I'm going to avail myself of a convenient opportunity to second good advice -- Dragonfly's -- about why, out of respect for your readers' ease of reading and for their time, you should learn to use the quote function.

Dragonfly wrote:

[...] your method [of quoting other posters] stinks! We see some quote, but we don't see whom you're quoting. We have to read the previous posts to discover that. If we're lucky we don't have to look far and find it just in the previous post. But it's also possible that we have to wade through many long posts before we can find the respective text. Further it's not so easy to see in your posts what is quote and what is original text.

However, when you use the quote option on this forum, you get a quote that is clearly distinguished from your own text. It's easy to indicate from whom the quote is, without interfering with the text itself. And in the left upper side there is a small arrow - when you click on that, you'll get the original quoted post. I suggest that you peruse my posts on this forum to see how the quote function is properly used, and how the results are much clearer (and all on one screen!) than the undecipherable quote mishmash in your posts.

I'll emphasize by repeating it a particular plus of using the quote function:

And in the left upper side there is a small arrow - when you click on that, you'll get the original quoted post.

Please try it. Click on the little arrow and notice that you're then taken directly to the original quoted post. Thus a person who wants to know the context in which a person you've quoted was speaking can find the context easily without having to search back through what might have become a long series of posts intervening between the one you've quoted and your reply.

I'll add another advantage of using the quote function: You thereby retain the original coding -- i.e., for italics, bold, underscoring, etc. -- instead of either losing that coding or having to manually duplicate it.

--

On other point, about Dragonfly's correcting spelling errors, especially (1) spelling errors in French; (2) spelling errors in names, especially in the names of scientists and musicians.

These errors bother him. He's meticulous. He isn't playing "gottcha." He makes those corrections with everyone. He is not singling you out due to an animus against you.

--

And...being a bit of a grammar schoolmarm myself...

Dragonfly, dear:

I don't complain about syntax of posts as English is not my mother tongue and I know the wooden beam in my own eye, but I can't resisting correcting (sometimes atrocious) spelling errors, just while the English spelling is so easy.

Re: "[...] just while the English spelling is so easy." You mean, in correct English: "because," not "while."

--

Phil, note: If you click on the little arrow in the quote above, you will be taken directly to the post of Dragonfly's I'm correcting.

Btw, Phil and all, the only reason I looked at this thread, the topic of which didn't entice me, was because I periodically check to see what Dragonfly has been posting. Who would have thought that a discussion of why using the quote function is a good idea would occur on a thread titled "Christian Objectivist"?

Ellen

Moreover Ellen:

Your patience and kindness comes through clearly. Furthermore, I am a tad stubborn [Wow there is a no news flash] and not as at ease with some of the tools available to me both here and in other programs, it sometimes takes several different teaching approaches before I "get it".

Therefore, thank you Dragonfly and Ellen for making this crystal clear to me. Now for the trial and error part.

Adam

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil,

Another seconding, on a different issue, that of your presuming motivation.

Jonathan tells you in a post three above regarding your complaint about the discussion he and I are having on Rand on aesthetics, in particular on her views of painters (see the "Robert Campbell on denunciation in Randland" thread - link).

[....] Don't pretend that you know what motives I have [J has] for participating in any discussions here.

Likewise.

I wonder if you've even read the thread and if you know WHAT J and I are talking about, or if you've only registered THAT J and I are disputing and you've leapt to conclusions about motives.

Ellen

[Dragonfly]

Re: "[...] just while the English spelling is so easy." You mean, in correct English: "because," not "while."

I'm no longer sure but I don't think I wanted to say "because", perhaps something like "just when the English spelling is so easy"?

[Xray]

Re: "[...] just while the English spelling is so easy." You mean, in correct English: "because," not "while."

I'm no longer sure but I don't think I wanted to say "because", perhaps something like "just when the English spelling is so easy"?

That's how I understood your post too.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Re: "[...] just while the English spelling is so easy." You mean, in correct English: "because," not "while."

I'm no longer sure but I don't think I wanted to say "because", perhaps something like "just when the English spelling is so easy"?

That's how I understood your post too.

Ok!

So now it is subjectively official, in other words subjectively meaningless, but that is what some folks are all about.

One quart of nihilism to go please!

Adam

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re: "[...] just while the English spelling is so easy." You mean, in correct English: "because," not "while."

I'm no longer sure but I don't think I wanted to say "because", perhaps something like "just when the English spelling is so easy"?

Oh.

I did wonder why you'd have described English spelling as "so easy," since English spelling is a bane even for native English speakers. ; -)

Here's the full original sentence:

I don't complain about syntax of posts as English is not my mother tongue and I know the wooden beam in my own eye, but I can't resisting correcting (sometimes atrocious) spelling errors, just while the English spelling is so easy.

This way of saying it would have been correct English and clear (if I'm now correctly understanding your meaning):

~~ [...] but I can't [resist] correcting (sometimes atrocious) spelling errors, especially when the English spelling is so easy. ~~

Ellen

[Xray]

[All quotes: Brant Gaede]

"Attributing value" or, simply, valuing, is always subjective.

Correct.

Some values are subjective, some objective.

"A value" is merely the noun form of "to value"; just like "a smile", "a laugh" and countless other examples the English language offers of the phenomeoen called 'conversion' in linguistics, which is the creation of a word from an existing word without any change in form.

Since the act of valuing is always subjective, it logically follows that what is valued (and then becomes "a value" in the valuer's eyes) is always the result of a subjective choice too.

Facts, however, in the aggregate is an objective value.

What are you talking about? "Facts in the aggregate is an objective value" Huh?

If "all values are subjective" then this proposition of yours must both be an objective truth and objective value albeit not universally valued, but behold, the contradiction!

You make the same mistake over and over again: assuming that an objective truth about something constitutes an "objective value", ignoring that truth about something exists independently of any personal validation.

You are trying to destroy Objectivism with dogmatic semantics while implicitly claiming to have solved the "problem of induction" too boot.

Would you explain "induction" and give examples?

Edited October 18, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The problem of induction is the problem of the black swan event. The black swan can not be excluded as a possibility without knowledge of all swans. Eventually they found a black swan, albeit a great rarity. Hence, the problem.

--Brant

[Selene]

[Brant Gaede]

[All quotes: Brant Gaede]

"Attributing value" or, simply, valuing, is always subjective.

Correct.

Some values are subjective, some objective.

"A value" is merely the noun form of "to value"; just like "a smile", "a laugh" and countless other examples the English language offers of the phenomeoen called 'conversion' in linguistics, which is the creation of a word from an existing word without any change in form.

Since the act of valuing is always subjective, it logically follows that what is valued (and then becomes "a value" in the valuer's eyes) is always the result of a subjective choice too.

Facts, however, in the aggregate is an objective value.

What are you talking about? "Facts in the aggregate is an objective value" Huh?

If "all values are subjective" then this proposition of yours must both be an objective truth and objective value albeit not universally valued, but behold, the contradiction!

You make the same mistake over and over again: assuming that an objective truth about something constitutes an "objective value", ignoring that truth about something exists independently of any personal validation.

You are trying to destroy Objectivism with dogmatic semantics while implicitly claiming to have solved the "problem of induction" too boot.

Would you explain "induction" and give examples?

When you value an objective value the act of valuing is subjective. You may not even know or care what kind of value it is. Basic human needs are objective values, but the valuing can be all over the map. If someone is trying to smother you with a pillow your valuation of air--your breathing--skyrockets.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Valuing an objective truth is subjective. Knowing it's an objective truth may make you value that objective truth more than you would otherwise.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Brant: "Facts, however, in the aggregate is an objective value."

Xray: "What are you talking about? 'Facts in the aggregate is an objective value' Huh?"

Facts in the aggregate plus thinking about them constitute knowledge. Knowledge is an objective value.

--Brant

Edited October 19, 2009 by Brant Gaede