Is Being Self-Interested the Same as Being Egoistic?

[Xray]

quote name='Michael Stuart Kelly' date='May 31 2009, 12:21 PM' post='71580']

Xray,

I was sincerely hoping you would not make that mistake, but suspected you would.

There is a Chinese symbol for the CONCEPT of truth (and a verbal utterance that likewise corresponds to the concept), but the WORD "truth" as written in English does not appear in the Chinese language.

They do have an icon representing the meaning "truth". The Chinese language is iconographic, so there can't be alphabetic "words" for anything.

But the sound chain produced by the Chinese speaker may well be called a "word" in common language usage.

Aside from that - why yes indeed, the English audio/visual symbol "truth" does not only not appear in the Chinese language but not in other languages either. It's Wahrheit, veritas, verité, verdad, verdade etc.

But the varying symbols are irrelevant

Relevant is that in communication, the audiovisual symbol has to be used unambiguously.

As for Rand's terminology (to which we'll get in detail soon), simply listing "what Rand meant" does not qualify as proof of anything.

The same goes for her subjectively labeleing as "irrational" the things she happened to disapprove of.

But again, putting labels on something is no proof of the veracity of a claim.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Aside from that - why yes indeed, the English audio/visual symbol "truth" does not only not appear in the Chinese language but not in other languages either. It's Wahrheit, veritas, verité, verdad, verdade etc.

Xray,

This is correct.

But the varying symbols are irrelevant

This is incorrect, as any poet will tell you (for a superficial example).

Relevant is that in communication, the audiovisual symbol has to be used unambiguously.

Not only "used" correctly by the speaker/writer, but "understood" correctly by the listener/reader. Communication is not a oneway street where "I'm right and you're wrong" is the governing standard.

It is easy to point at others and say, "You're wrong" because you refuse to check your own premises. Apropos, check your own premises and see what you find. You might be surprised. It is much harder to actually understand what another person is saying conceptually than to point a finger at a word and misfire.

Only after that conceptual understanding has taken place—and let me repeat that—only after that conceptual understanding has taken place is it valid to criticize a person's concepts.

If you don't know what the correct concept is that a person is promoting, how can you validly claim that such concept is right or wrong? You can't. All you can do is make a baseless opinion.

So let's just take it slow for now. Get the thinking sequence in proper order.

This part is critical to good intellectual discussion that actually means something (for or against Rand).

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Amen brother.

"I believe the world would be far better off if people started thinking and communicating conceptually and stopped hiding their true intentions behind words that sound similar. I believe this because I believe that the goodness in people outweighs the bad (in the original meaning of 'bad').

When faced with clear concepts, people usually do the right thing. The problem is being faced with clear concepts. I once mentioned an excellent example of this as I believe it.

Rand's thought ties in with a gem of wisdom that has stayed with me for years from a movie called The Confession. Ben Kingsley's character, Harry Fertig, says it (and it was originally written by Sol Yurick).

'It's not hard to do the right thing. It's hard to know what the right thing is. But once you know what the right thing is, it's hard not to do it.

This is an example of thinking in concepts, not just words.'"

It is like the Judy Collin's song - "You who are so good with words, and at keeping things vague."

A conceptual language works.

Adam

Edited May 31, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

[Michael Stuart Kelly:

This is incorrect, as any poet will tell you (for a superficial example).

The specific discussion is not about poetry. It is about languages using different (arbitrary) audiovisual symbols to convey meaning.

Relevant is that in communication, the audiovisual symbol has to be used unambiguously.

[MSK]:

Not only "used" correctly by the speaker/writer, but "understood" correctly by the listener/reader. Communication is not a oneway street where "I'm right and you're wrong" is the governing standard.

I don't recall anybody here saying or implying that communication is a oneway street.

As for "I'm right and you are wrong" as a "governing standard" - doesn't this fit Rand's claims and allegations to a T?

It is easy to point at others and say, "You're wrong" because you refuse to check your own premises.

See above. Has anyone, in a direct public discussion/interview with Rand, ever challenged her on this and given her a bit of her own medicine? I can't see any evidence of it, but if you should have material, TIA for posting it here.

For all I have seen/heard/read in interviews so far are mostly deferential questions asked of her, basically accepting her view without challenging her on her premises.

Apropos, check your own premises and see what you find. You might be surprised. It is much harder to actually understand what another person is saying conceptually than to point a finger at a word and misfire.

My premise is that when a person claims something to be objective, it is claimed to be a FACT. Facts are subject to proof and disproof. Ayn Rand's claim of "objective values" existing does not pass the test since values can't be anything but subjective.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

This has been another paid and repetitive and boring political announcement for the National Association of Gals' Teutonic Division [NAGS] where either you follow what I believe....

or else.

[Xray]

This has been another paid and repetitive and boring political announcement for the National Association of Gals' Teutonic Division [NAGS] where either you follow what I believe....

or else.

It looks like "brontolare" is all you have.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

We don't think much of the Teutonic Division since they got stuck in North Africa, Stalingrad and I still think there are some really dumb old Germans waiting at Pas de Calais for Patton since D-Day.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Poetry does not convey meaning?

Please...

After reading the rest of your post, I see it is too soon.

Do carry on.

Sorry to have interrupted your discussions...

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Poetry does not convey meaning?

Where did I say did I it doesn't?

After reading the rest of your post, I see it is too soon.

Too soon for what?

Do carry on.

Sorry to have interrupted your discussions...

Michael

You have not interrupted. Selene was merely getting a bit testy again, that's all, calling me a "nag" for the umpteenth time.

But I have the impression that not even a sworn affidavit from my husband testifying to the contrary would have an effect on Signor

Selene, who seems to firmly believe that I'm a "battleax".

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Have you met Daniel Barnes? When the paranoia strikes, I think you are he in drag on a prank...

(No offense to your femininity intended...)

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Have you met Daniel Barnes? When the paranoia strikes, I think you are he in drag on a prank...

(No offense to your femininity intended...)

Michael

I have no idea who this Daniel Barnes is. Please enlighten me. Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Your soulmate...

(But I like him and I like you...)

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Your soulmate...

(But I like him and I like you...)

Michael

Soulmate in respect to what?

Could you give a link to a site which makes clear whom you mean? For "Daniel Barnes" is not exactly a rare name - so how am I to pick out the one you mean from the parade of Daniel Barnes' pictures I get from Google?

Therefore I need from you D. Barnes's entiyt identity by limitation and a differing set of characteristics, so to speak (remember that entity identity is our pivotal discussion theme )

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How's that for a subjective value?

[Xray]

Michael,

My premise is that when a person claims something to be objective, it is claimed to be a FACT. Facts are subject to proof and disproof. Imo Ayn Rand's claim of "objective values" existing does not pass the test since values can't be anything but subjective.

Agree? Disagree?

If you disagree - please quote the passage and explain why you disagree. TIA.

This is an example of thinking in concepts, not just words.

Michael

I have never seen an example of not thinking in concepts.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[thomtg]

Of course, if a word does have two meanings that are complete inversions of each other, then the two meanings cannot both be true. That is, at least one must be false.

Thom,

This had escaped me.

This is incorrect. Once concept cannot be the opposite concept, but the same word can legitimately stand for both, depending on how and where it is used.

Here is a very good example. The word "bad."

It normally has a negative meaning until Michael Jackson uses it.

[...]

Michael,

Thanks for taking a closer look at my post. I appreciate your concern for precision.

You and I are actually in agreement. I was trying to raise the issue of discerning two meanings in the process of using the same visual-auditory symbol. "Meaning" in this sense designates the mental abstraction which, when mentally imposed on a v-a symbol, turns the former into a concept and the latter into a word. Of course we can impose multiple meanings to a v-a symbol, even completely inverted meanings.

Outside of the psycho-epistemological context just mentioned, Ayn Rand takes "meaning" epistemologically to designate a relationship, relating a mental concept to its units of existents--the referents. This is how she distinguishes her theory from the nominalists, who reject the existence of concepts; from the conceptualists, who take the relation "meaning" to point to inner mental ideas (e.g., John Locke's); from the extreme realists, who point to objects of another realm; and from moderate realists, who point to intrinsic existents with a common metaphysical essence.

So yes, I agree with you that "the same word can legitimately stand for both [concepts (or meanings)], depending on how and where it is used." And when a word so used has opposite meanings, it is equally the writer's responsibility as well as the reader's to discern which one among the meanings that the word is to be imposed and understood. A crucial v-a symbol in the writings of Ayn Rand, for example, is "selflessness." It has two meanings. One is commonly and conventionally accepted, which is false; and the other is newly discovered by AR and is a correction to the old. (For a definition of each concept, see the encoded portion of Post #61.) Thus, it would be irresponsible for a reader to affix to a word an opposite meaning unintended by the writer and then to find spurious faults in the writings. This irresponsibility is captured in the usual advice to heed the principle of charity. Unfortunately for some, the meaning of that advice has also been completely misunderstood. (See, for example, Post #66.)

Edited June 2, 2009 by Thom T G

[Xray]

, depending on how and where it is used." And when a word so used has opposite meanings, it is equally the writer's responsibility as well as the reader's to discern which one among the meanings that the word is to be imposed and understood. A crucial v-a symbol in the writings of Ayn Rand, for example, is "selflessness." It has two meanings. One is commonly and conventionally accepted, which is false; and the other is newly discovered by AR and is a correction to the old. (For a definition of each concept, see the encoded portion of Post #61.) Thus, it would be irresponsible for a reader to affix to a word an opposite meaning unintended by the writer and then to find spurious faults in the writings. This irresponsibility is captured in the usual advice to heed the principle of charity.

Important in that context is to note that "selfless" Keating does NOT fit the profile which Rand herself outlined for "selflessness" in Atlas Shrugged, p. 323:

Ivy Starnes to Dagny.

"That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness [i. e. "altruism"]. It required men to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." (end quote)

Now with Keating being identified as "selfless" [i e. an "altruist"], it logically follows that (again, according to Rand's definition) that he is motivated not by personal gain, but by love for his brothers. Right?

Now no one would believe Keating was motivated by love of his "brother" (= fellow human being) Howard Roark and not by personal gain, when he asked him to do his work for him.

He was motivated by personal gain.

So we have a definition, and an example (Keating) allegedly illustrating the definition, but which blatantly contradicts it 100 percent. That's what I meant when speaking about rejecting the idea of multiple definitions: when they lead to such contradictions. Something can't be A and its opposite B.

This is like saying, when asked to describe the taste of salty popcorn: "it is sugary".

A for the Michel Jackson example, iti s important to distinguish between denotation and connotation of a term. As for "bad", it is a subjective value The definitive denotation of "good" or "bad" is not a fixed universal. Rather, it is infinitely variable due to individual infinitely variable purposes.

In the real world, each individual seeks to reach a goal, which in turn, requires the selection and application of the appropriate means. The

objective evaluation is of means as suited or unsuited to a subjectively chosen purpose. Since purpose is subjective, the same actions involving the

same entities with the same end result may please one person while not pleasing the other (suited, unsuited).

Example: terrorists planning an attack will evaluate it as "good" if their bombs hit the target, and as "bad" if the target is missed. For the targeted victims, it is the opposite.

If you wish to substitute the terms, "good" and "bad" for "suited" and "unsuited" respectively, it's still the same principle of definition.

In the Michael Jackson phrase, "I'm bad", if applied definitively, it would be Jackson saying he is not suited to some purpose. This, of course, is not the case, since in this case, no purpose exists.

For in this usage, there is no denotation and definition. It's actually slang. There is only connotation of emotional content. Since it is only connotation of emotional content, it's "meaning" (= the feeling evoked) is infinitely variable from one individual to the next.

The objective definition is still one with good and bad as variables as determined in the context of means objectively evaluated in respect of individual purpose.

When you get into connotation, "meaning" (based on subjective value judgment) has no limit. Upon receiving some news, John may say "great" in a manner indicating much joy; or he might say "great" with a different tone and voice inflection in sarcasm and "mean" the exact opposite.

Leaving aside the pheomenon of genuine homography/homophony, where a chain of letters/sound chain happens to be identical but refers to different etymological sources, (as e. g. in "rose" (flower) and "rose" past tense of rise) - can you think of word with "multiple definitions" that does not contain a value judgement? We'll go from there.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

I quite possible for words to have opposite meanings at different times, but not at the same time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I quite possible for words to have opposite meanings at different times, but not at the same time.

GS,

For almost all of mankind throughout all recorded history, yes. But apparently not for Xray.

Michael

[Xray]

I quite possible for words to have opposite meanings at different times, but not at the same time.

When creating her own linguistic universe, imo Rand did not have in mind what the linguist calls connotation of terms.

The principle of irony for example is using a word while conveying its opposite meaning.

As the "Great!" example shows, it can joyful, or ironically to the opposite. It has nothing to do with definition, for you won't find "great" in the ironic (opposite) sense listed in any dictionary.

Those connotations were not Rand's agenda, for clearly irony, humor, playing with language was not her cup of tea at all.

Her (explictily called) "selfless" character Keating does not meet the the definiton she gave of "selflessness" in Atlas Shrugged .

So there's clearly a contradiction within her own writings.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Xray

[thomtg]

[...] [with new bolding emphasis]

[...]

On Rand's conception, a rational man acts selfishly. An irrational man acts unselfishly [or selflessly].

So per Rand, Keating asking Roark to do his work for him was an "unselfish" act?

[...]

Two points:

1. Since ideas are thought by human beings, and while an idea may have been taught down through the ages, there must have been an individual who independently discovered it the first time. (This is not to say that many individuals could not have independently arrived at the same idea.) "2+2=4" as an idea had to be discovered, but since everybody knows it and uses it nowadays, no one remembers who first discovered it. I am crediting Ayn Rand for being the first to discover the cited ideas. But now that I have independently assessed them for myself that they are true, I have adopted them, integrated them, used them, and made them my own--as I have made "2+2=4" mine.

2. So, yes, I think that Keating's asking Roark to design the Cortlandt Homes for him was an unselfish act. Why? Because Keating well knew that a man's achievement is his own, and that any fame that follows is always derivative of that which one has achieved. Keating knew he could not achieve, but he wanted the fame. He desired a consequence contra to its cause. It was a desire for unreality that motivated him--the knowledge of the facts be damned. Since the act was motivated by this irrational desire, against the consent of his mind's rational judgments of causality; therefore, his asking Roark to do the work was an unselfish act.

[...]

Going by this definition, every thief, and robber and murderer would be unselfish too. But I suppose not even their defense lawyer would refer to them as unselfish, even if the lawyer were a Randist.

[...]

Precisely. Going by this definition [of the new concept], every thief, robber, and murderer would be considered unselfish. Observe the complete inversion of this conception of selfishness in contrast to the conventional view--as you say, it is "in complete contradiction to the accepted" meaning of the word. By the conventional view, one often hears that it is the thief or robber or murderer who was selfish and who did not think of anyone else but him. Not if one understands Ayn Rand's alternate conception.

[...]

[...]

What about Roark blowing up the building, potentially endangering other people's lives? Isn't that an act of ruthless egotism too? How can he, from a breach of contract, feel entilted to such an act of destruction? What does this say about the psychological make-up of this "hero" whom Rand created "as man should be"? And how does this act of violence gel with the Randian dogma of non-initiation of violence?

[...]

Great questions! Really great and penetrating. But I cannot answer your questions in the current context because [...]

Tying up some loose ends strictly for myself from Post #26 to get them straight in my mind,

My interpretation of Ayn Rand's new conception of egoism: (For a comparison to an earlier rendering, see Post #61, encoded portion.)

• moral code: [code of values:] a set of abstract principles serving as a system of teleological measurement which grades the choices and actions open to man, according to the degree to which they achieve or frustrate the code's standard of value--whether that standard be life qua man, life qua brute, or pleasure, or death.
  
• egoism: the moral code that a man's existence is his to live and enjoy and that rationality is his highest virtue.
  
• altruism: the moral code that a man's existence is to serve other men and that sacrifice is his highest virtue.
  
• rationality: the use of reason as the only means for acquiring knowledge and guiding one's actions.
  
• sacrifice: the giving up of a higher value for the sake of a lower value.
  
• volition: a capacity of man for choosing to think or not.
  
• reason: the faculty of consciousness that a human must choose volitionally to activate in order to think.
  
• self: the faculty of reason in the context of choosing to evaluate.
  
• mind: the faculty of reason in the context of choosing to act.
  
• nonvolitional action: an animalistic nonrational action.
  
• volitionless action: a man's action without volition in the presence of coercion or interference from other men.
  
• volitional action: a human action with volition in the absence of coercion and interference from other men.
  
• freedom: the absence of coercion and interference from other men (a.k.a. liberty:).
  
• A reflex action is nonmotivated by any conscious self (e.g., digestion, hiccup).
  
• An animal action is motivated 100 percent by self-interest.
  
  • In a situation without freedom,
    • A coerced man has no choice but to act nonselfishly (without the self).
      
    • A tyrant acts selflessly or unselfishly (against the self).
      

    [*]In a situation with freedom,

    • A rational man acts selfishly (pro self, with the assent of the conceptual mind).
      
    • An irrational man acts selflessly or unselfishly (against the self).
      
    • A rational but erroneous man acts selflessly (mistakenly against the self).
      

  [*]self-interest: that which relates to the means for gaining or keeping one's values.

  • selfishness: a concern for one's volitional rational self-interest.
    
  • selflessness: a concern for one's volitional irrational self-interest (a.k.a. unselfishness:).
    
  • nonselfishness: a concern for one's volitionless nonrational self-interest.
    

  [*]egoist: one who values his mind, respects its judgments, and respects its nature (e.g., fragility).

  [*]non-egoist: one who disvalues his mind, disrespects its volitional nature, and elevates irrational emotions and desires above rational judgments.

  • hedonist: a non-egoist who takes pleasure as the standard of value.
    
  • altruist: a non-egoist who takes selflessness as the standard of value.
    
    • second-hander: an altruist who depends on the minds of others and sacrifices his life to them.
      
    • power-luster: an altruist who depends on the minds of others and sacrifices their lives to him.
      

"On Rand's conception, a rational man acts selfishly. An irrational man acts unselfishly [or selflessly]."

- - -

Peter Keating asked Howard Roark to design Cortlandt Homes for him. Roark dynamited the Cortlandt-Homes constructions. Why is the former's action irrational, and why is the latter's action rational?

In order to judge a volitional action as rational or irrational, one has to judge the human actor [1] by what he knows and values, and [2] by how he comes to take the action. If he knows that "2+2=4" and chooses to write "4" when the question "what is the sum of 2 and 2?" is posed; then he is acting rationally--and therefore, he is acting selfishly. On the other hand, if, knowing what he knows, he chooses to write any number other than "4" when the same question is asked; then he is acting irrationally, betraying his "self," betraying his own judgments, i.e., his knowledge and values"--and therefore, he is acting selflessly.

Evaluating Keating's action:

Keating's action was irrational.

Why?

Because Keating well

knew

that a man's achievement is his own, and that any fame that follows is always derivative of that which one has achieved. Keating knew he could not achieve, but he wanted the fame. He desired a consequence contra to its cause. It was a desire for unreality that motivated him--the knowledge of the facts be damned. Since the act was motivated by this irrational desire, against the consent of his mind's rational judgments of causality; therefore, his asking Roark to do the work was an unselfish act.

He knew the facts of reality, but he evaded the evidence and disregarded reason. He bypassed his mind's rational judgments; he dismissed his reasoning self and went with his irrational desires--the desires that were never filtered through reason. He chose to act on this basis. Thus, he acted irrationally. Since a man who acts irrationally, acts unselfishly (or selflessly); therefore, Keating acted against himself in the long run.

Keating was a second-hander, and every one of his actions was motivated by his self-interest toward fame and praise of others. But he was not acting toward his rational self-interest. He never thought whether becoming an architect to please his mother was

really

to his self-interest. Even if he did, he deferred whatever thought he had to hers and to her emotions. Every decision and action was motivated for himself, for what's best for him. But was it motivated selfishly if that self was denied of its judgments? He never knew himself, that budding artist that never was. Motivated, yes, by definition, but second-handedly and without a self, he acted selflessly. He was not acting selfishly.

Evaluating Roark's action:

Now, what about Howard Roark's action? I am imagining Howard Roark's contractual agreements and his underlying decision process to be as follows:

1. Everyone has the right to benefit from his own action.
   
2. A man's action is a product of his thoughts and purposes (or lack thereof).
   
3. If I design it, then I expect it to be built exactly as designed.
   
4. If [3] is falsified, then by [1] I have the right to withdraw my design from the world.
   
5. If my design is withdrawn from the world, then by [2] nothing dependent on it can or shall exist.
   
6. If by [4] I have right to withdraw my design from the world and by [5] nothing dependent on it can or shall exist, then I have the right to demolish that which is dependent on my design.
   
7. To work productively, a man must exercise his rights.
   
8. A willful, deliberate breach of contract is an initiation of force.
   

Since Roark was a man of integrity and since he truly esteemed himself and his thoughts, he would act on his judgments; that is to say, he would act rationally.

When the design to Cortlandt Homes was delivered to Peter Keating, Roark expected that the former was to honor the contract by building it exactly as he had designed it. It was not honored. [3] was falsified. His reasoning mind judged that by [6] he gained the right to demolish the Cortlandt-Homes constructions. His mind also judged that by [7] he must do so.

Roark chose to act on that judgment. Not to have acted, not to have demolished the Cortlandt Homes would have been to betray the very faculty of consciousness that gave rise to his architectural creations, i.e., to betray himself, to betray his mind, his fountainhead. Thus, in dynamiting Cortlandt Homes, Roark acted selfishly. Not to do so would have been an act of selflessness.

Before dynamiting the Cortlandt Homes, Roark planned carefully and sought Dominique's help to lure the lone night watchman away from harm's way. Thus no one was intentionally hurt by his action. Dominique got hurt only because she was too good at being an alibi for him. The demolition was an effect of a prior, intentional breach of contract, which by [8] was the initiation of violence. Dynamiting Cortlandt Homes therefore was both an act of self-defense and an act of selfishness.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Thom T G

[Xray]

I quite possible for words to have opposite meanings at different times, but not at the same time.

GS,

For almost all of mankind throughout all recorded history, yes. But apparently not for Xray.

Michael

You miss the point.

When creating her own linguistic universe, imo Rand did not have in mind what the linguist calls "connotation" of terms.

The principle of irony for example is using a word while conveying its opposite meaning.

As shown in the "Great!" example, it can mean joyful, or (ironically) the opposite. It has nothing to do with definition, for you won't find "great" in the ironic (opposite) sense listed in any dictionary.

Do you believe those connotations were Rand's agenda? Do you believe irony, humor, playing with language was her cup of tea?

Her (explictly called) "selfless" character Keating does not meet the profile according to the definition she gave of "selflessness" in Atlas Shrugged .

So there's clearly a contradiction within her own writings.

How do you explain this? Please elaborate.

Or do you believe Rand used the word "selfless" ironically when calling Keating that?

Please answer with a clear "yes" or "no", followed by explanations and we'll take it from there.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

You know xray, it is hard to believe that anyone as intelligent as you are can be so wrong when asserting her categorical blindness.

"As the "Great!" example shows, it can joyful, or ironically to the opposite. It has nothing to do with definition, for you won't find "great" in the ironic (opposite) sense listed in any dictionary."

IMO, to quote you, I think this qualifies as "any dictionary" >>>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/

1. great

A very sarcastic way of saying NOT GOOD.

"Well, that was just f*cking GREAT!"

by Gr8Samurai May 4, 2005 share this

2. Great 73 up, 21 down love it hate it

good exagerated

wow, that was great!

by not Luke Oliver Baker Feb 16, 2003 share this

3. Great 45 up, 19 down love it hate it

1. Relatively large in size or number or extent; larger than others of its kind.

2. More than usual.

3. (used of persons) standing above others in character or attainment or reputation.

4. Of major significance or importance.

5. Remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect.

6. (informal) very good.

7. Uppercase.

8. Marked by active interest and enthusiasm.

7. In an advanced stage of pregnancy.

Arnab Roy chowdhury is great

by Arnab Roy chowdhury Oct 29, 2003 share this

4. Great 15 up, 8 down love it hate it

Any movie that is better then Notting Hill.

Hellraiser is Great.

nottig hill great sex fuck stupid

by Zdravkovich Jan 7, 2008 share this

5. great 23 up, 16 down love it hate it

A word that if, you spend enough time, will fine about 1000 synonyms for.

What does great mean? Maybe we shouldn't go there...

by jimbobjoeshmoecheese Jan 24, 2004 share this

6. great 16 up, 11 down love it hate it

1. (adjective) describes something better than good

2. (adjective) when used with sarcasm, describes something that sucks.

3. (noun) an accuracy value assigned in Konami's music simulation game Dance Dance Revolution. Better than "Good", not as good as "Perfect".

4. (verb) the act of getting greats, whether deliberately or not.

1. "Sure, pizza sounds great!"

2. "Oh look, I got parking ticket! Great. I'm glad to see cops are keeping the peace around here!"

3. "Whoa, you FC'ed Trip Machine Survivor? How many Greats?"

4. "I greated the shite out of Murmur Twins on Supernova! Something's wrong with that song."

aaa bemaniac perfect ddr fc marvelous

by second tuesday Oct 19, 2006 share this

7. great 28 up, 27 down love it hate it

YOU IDIOTS!!

great is a word used to describe a very attractive member of the opposite sex. (at least it does in NORN IRN)

dya see that guy hes grreat

All my "love" lol

Adam

[Xray]

You know xray, it is hard to believe that anyone as intelligent as you are can be so wrong when asserting her categorical blindness.

"As the "Great!" example shows, it can joyful, or ironically to the opposite. It has nothing to do with definition, for you won't find "great" in the ironic (opposite) sense listed in any dictionary."

IMO, to quote you, I think this qualifies as "any dictionary" >>>>http://www.urbandictionary.com/

1. great

A very sarcastic way of saying NOT GOOD.

"Well, that was just f*cking GREAT!"

by Gr8Samurai May 4, 2005 share this

2. Great 73 up, 21 down love it hate it

good exagerated

wow, that was great!

by not Luke Oliver Baker Feb 16, 2003 share this

3. Great 45 up, 19 down love it hate it

1. Relatively large in size or number or extent; larger than others of its kind.

2. More than usual.

3. (used of persons) standing above others in character or attainment or reputation.

4. Of major significance or importance.

5. Remarkable or out of the ordinary in degree or magnitude or effect.

6. (informal) very good.

7. Uppercase.

8. Marked by active interest and enthusiasm.

7. In an advanced stage of pregnancy.

Arnab Roy chowdhury is great

by Arnab Roy chowdhury Oct 29, 2003 share this

4. Great 15 up, 8 down love it hate it

Any movie that is better then Notting Hill.

Hellraiser is Great.

nottig hill great sex fuck stupid

by Zdravkovich Jan 7, 2008 share this

5. great 23 up, 16 down love it hate it

A word that if, you spend enough time, will fine about 1000 synonyms for.

What does great mean? Maybe we shouldn't go there...

by jimbobjoeshmoecheese Jan 24, 2004 share this

6. great 16 up, 11 down love it hate it

1. (adjective) describes something better than good

2. (adjective) when used with sarcasm, describes something that sucks.

3. (noun) an accuracy value assigned in Konami's music simulation game Dance Dance Revolution. Better than "Good", not as good as "Perfect".

4. (verb) the act of getting greats, whether deliberately or not.

1. "Sure, pizza sounds great!"

2. "Oh look, I got parking ticket! Great. I'm glad to see cops are keeping the peace around here!"

3. "Whoa, you FC'ed Trip Machine Survivor? How many Greats?"

4. "I greated the shite out of Murmur Twins on Supernova! Something's wrong with that song."

aaa bemaniac perfect ddr fc marvelous

by second tuesday Oct 19, 2006 share this

7. great 28 up, 27 down love it hate it

YOU IDIOTS!!

great is a word used to describe a very attractive member of the opposite sex. (at least it does in NORN IRN)

dya see that guy hes grreat

All my "love" lol

Adam

Great, Selene - just great! ("great" clearly indicates an emotional subjective value judgement referring only to connotation of emotional content, its "meaning" (= the feeling evoked) being infinitely variable from one individual to the next.

Hearfelt thanks for proving my point. The Urban Dictionary is a slang dictionary, and I refer you to what I said about slang in my post about Michael Jackson.

Seriously, can you imagine Rand even remotely considering using slang figures of speech in her writings? Or humor and irony in her language?

If you think her calling Keating "selfless" was meant to be ironic, please elaborate.

Now that would be great if we got to discuss this.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

It's a game and Xray writes the rules at whim. Here is the play sequence according to Xray's new rules (but with the same old ending). How you play is you run a word through all these steps and try to discern when and how Xray decides the step applies. If you agree with her, you win.

1. When a word "denotes" something, it stands for the concept.

2. When a word "connotes" something, this is a distorted meaning given to a word in different situations.

3. "Denote" is valid meaning, and "connote" is not valid meaning.

4. A word is allowed to "denote" one thing and one thing only forever and ever amen.

5. When in doubt and for all cases anyway, Xray decides when a word "denotes" something or "connotes" something.

6. Ditto for Ayn Rand. Xray decides when Rand is denoting or connoting.

7. This proves that Ayn Rand was wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and contradicted herself over and over.

8. And this proves that Objectivism falls apart at the root.

Xray has spoken.

Michael