Rand's gender hierarchy

[tjohnson]

Human sacrifice has been practiced in various times and places in history. Victims were ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or whatever. Do you really believe all the victims were exchanging a lesser value for a higher value?

Wait a sec, who said the victims had any choice?? If the victim volunteers then they aren't victims. If they willingly let themselves be killed to appease the gods or whatever then they are indeed valuing the belief in gods above their own lives. It's not unlike gambling, you take hard earned cash and you "sacrifice" it in the belief that you may get a lot more by your action.

[Selene]

GS:

"If the victim volunteers then they aren't victims."

Really, so if the woman continues to permit physical abuse because of her lack of options, fear or ignorance, she is not a victim?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

"If the victim volunteers then they aren't victims."

Really, so if the woman continues to permit physical abuse because of her lack of options, fear or ignorance, she is not a victim?

Permitting abuse because of lack of options, fear or ignorance isn't exactly the same as "volunteering".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

This human sacrifice thing is a theme that runs through Rand's works. The following thought isn't axiomatic, but it is as close as you can get without actually being an axiom as far as Rand's intellectual and emotional commitment go:

Man is not a sacrificial animal. It is evil to treat people like sacrificial animals. This means it is evil to induce people to sacrifice themselves (through sanction of the victim) to the inducer's ends, and it is evil to actually sacrifice them.

People can argue over meanings, bait-and-switch up a storm, but I know what she meant. And to be frank, those who quibble do, too.

Michael

[Xray]

Human sacrifice has been practiced at various times and places in history. Victims were ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or whatever. Do you really believe all the victims were exchanging a lesser value for a higher value?

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice. EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle. Every sacrifice is a deal in hope to get a greater value in return.

The fallacy is yours. You fail to see or refuse to recognize that when Rand said "sacrifice" she meant in her view. If the perpetrators in the last paragraph believed they were exchanging a lesser value (the victim) for a higher value (pleasing or appeasing), that is completely irrelevant to Rand's value judgment. So please try to demonstrate to us, Xray, that the victim was trading a lower value for a higher value.

Rand's personal value judgement merely makes clear the illusion of objective value. For Rand erroneously believes people can sacrifice higher values for lesser ones, ignoring that the very decision to trade in A in exchange for B is motivated by a subjectively chosen goal.

If a drug addict spends money on dope to get high feels he is exchanging a lower value for a higher value (the dope), that also is completely irrelevant to Rand's value judgment.

The drug addict trading in his last nest egg in exchange for dope, Abraham wanting to trade in his son's life in exchange for god's approval, Debbie Rowe trading in her children for money, these are all deals motivated by the prospect of personal profit.

From the ancient magic rituals appeasing the gods to John Doe not taking that bottle of beer from the fridge because he wants to get rid of his pot belly - it is always a subectively perceived higher value the "sacrificer" has in mind.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Let's xray that Randian prism and do the test by a very simple example:

I value lentils over oysters...

Xray,

Oops.

Just by the start of the example, you show you don't have a clue about what Rand meant here.

Michael

That was precisely the comment I expected from you, Michael. Per Rand, the lentils choice would be a mere "whim", right?

Which is why I then added the far heavier caliber of the Jackson trade as contrast. Rand would not called Debbie Rowe's choice a "whim", would she. What would this choice have been in her eyes then? "Rational" as opposed to subjective = "irrational", "blindly emotional"? (see my 347 post quoting your challenge)

Edited July 29, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

GS,

This human sacrifice thing is a theme that runs through Rand's works. The following thought isn't axiomatic, but it is as close as you can get without actually being an axiom as far as Rand's intellectual and emotional commitment go:

Man is not a sacrificial animal. It is evil to treat people like sacrificial animals. This means it is evil to induce people to sacrifice themselves (through sanction of the victim) to the inducer's ends, and it is evil to actually sacrifice them.

People can argue over meanings, bait-and-switch up a storm, but I know what she meant. And to be frank, those who quibble do, too.

Michael

I see. Well Korzybski would have said it is pathological rather than 'evil', thereby avoiding moralistic, non-scientific terminology. It's pathological to induce and be induced to sacrifice. I don't think these problems will ever be solved by philosophic means, it needs to be addressed by social science which unfortunately lags way behind natural science.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Per Rand, the lentils choice would be a mere "whim", right?

Xray,

Nope.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice. EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle. Every sacrifice is a deal in hope to get a greater value in return.

I do believe you have solved the problem of induction, Xray, but have failed to tell us just how you did it. I do know you didn't investigate "EVERY sacrificer," past, present and future.

I'm afraid you are riding your subjectivism horse into the ground. I intend to contact the ASPCA who will contact its sister organization in Germany. May I suggest you put him out to pasture for a while and saddle up your objectivism horse--I know you've got one--and give him an honest workout. You might call him, Objecto!

--Brant

Edited July 29, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice. EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle. Every sacrifice is a deal in hope to get a greater value in return.

I do believe you have solved the problem of induction, Xray, but have failed to tell us just how you did it. I do know you didn't investigate "EVERY sacrificer," past, present and future.

I'm afraid you are riding your subjectivism horse into the ground. I intend to contact the ASPCA who will contact its sister organization in Germany. May I suggest you put him out to pasture for a while and saddle up your objectivism horse--I know you've got one--and give him an honest workout. You might call him, Objecto!

--Brant

When e. g. desribing the principle of making an omelette and the essential ingredients, I needn't have tasted every omelette out there.

I described the principle of sacrifice, which is essentially a deal from which the sacrificer wants to profit. This statement has nothing to with subjectivity.

If you believe I'm in error, feel free to quote examples proving the contrary.

[Xray]

GS,

This human sacrifice thing is a theme that runs through Rand's works. The following thought isn't axiomatic, but it is as close as you can get without actually being an axiom as far as Rand's intellectual and emotional commitment go:

Man is not a sacrificial animal. It is evil to treat people like sacrificial animals. This means it is evil to induce people to sacrifice themselves (through sanction of the victim) to the inducer's ends, and it is evil to actually sacrifice them.

People can argue over meanings, bait-and-switch up a storm, but I know what she meant. And to be frank, those who quibble do, too.

Michael

Imo Rand's obsession with the "man as sacrificial animal" topic indicates to what extent she must have felt exploited and abused by the powerholders of a political system (Communism in Russia), and associated the feeling of helplessness this produced in her with that of a sacrificial animal.

But not every victim is the victim of a sacrifice act. For a dictator, eliminating by murder those who stand in his way is no sacrifice (unless he subjectively values some of these persons), since sacrifice also implies that the object sacrificed has a certain value to the sacrificer.

Hitler arbitrarily declaring as "vermin" all those who did not agree to his crazy nazist ideology did not feel he was sacrificing anything when killing them.

It is of course often suggested by manipulators that "one must make sacrifices", their intent usually being that they reap the benefit from the other person's sacrifice without sacrifing anything themselves.

"If you want to be my friend, then you must give me (i. e. sacrifice) your matchbox car" says the little sandbox bully to his playmate.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" says the Old Roman proverb. The manipulative principle remains the same.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"Imo Rand's obsession with the "man as sacrificial animal" topic indicates that she in Russia saw herself as a victim of a political system depriving her of undamental rights."

Therefore, xray's obsession with all values as being subjective indicates that she in Germany saw herself as an avenging angel so that the Nazi regime would just be another subjective choice.

Ahh, now I understand.

[merjet]

Human sacrifice has been practiced at various times and places in history. Victims were ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or whatever. Do you really believe all the victims were exchanging a lesser value for a higher value?

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice. EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle. Every sacrifice is a deal in hope to get a greater value in return.

You didn't answer my question, which is no surprise. You arbitrarily stipulate that sacrifice is only about the sacrificer so you can say the victim's or anyone else's value judgment is completely irrelevant. It's another of your word games, which give you the chance to repeat your anti-Objectivist catch phrases. That is your usual modus operandi on this site.

For Rand erroneously believes people can sacrifice higher values for lesser ones ...

Do you mean the "sacrificer" according to his/her own values? If yes, are you a mind reader? Prove your assertion is true by citing Rand's own words and exactly where they are.

If a drug addict spends money on dope to get high feels he is exchanging a lower value for a higher value (the dope), that also is completely irrelevant to Rand's value judgment.

This merely exemplifies your stance, also identified by me. In your subjectivist view only the sacrificer's judgment counts. But, no, it is not irrelevant to Rand's value judgment, because dope was a disvalue to Rand.

By the way, what is your response to my questions in post #336. Is it, to quote a famous author, "Blank out"?

[Selene]

"So, Xray and others who agree with her, let's hear your attacks on rational values. "

[Xray]

Human sacrifice has been practiced at various times and places in history. Victims were ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or whatever. Do you really believe all the victims were exchanging a lesser value for a higher value?

You are shifting the focus on the victim, which is another topic altogether.

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice. EVERY sacrificer trades in a believed lesser value for a believed greater value. There is no exception to this principle. Every sacrifice is a deal in hope to get a greater value in return.

You didn't answer my question, which is no surprise. You arbitrarily stipulate that sacrifice is only about the sacrificer so you can say the victim's or anyone else's value judgment is completely irrelevant.

The topic was about the decision by the sacrificer.

(Xray)For Rand erroneously believes people can sacrifice higher values for lesser ones ...

Do you mean the "sacrificer" according to his/her own values? If yes, are you a mind reader?

Yes, according to his/her own values. No need to be a mind reader since the very term value indicates subjective choice.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

quote name='Merlin Jetton' date='29 July 2009 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1248912049' post='76366']

By the way, what is your response to my questions in post #336. Is it, to quote a famous author, "Blank out"?

I haven't read the complete post yet, but will do so ASAP and answer.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

quote name='Merlin Jetton' date='29 July 2009 - 07:00 PM' timestamp='1248912049' post='76366']

By the way, what is your response to my questions in post #336. Is it, to quote a famous author, "Blank out"?

I haven't read the complete post yet, but will do so ASAP and answer.

Good girl.

[merjet]

Do you really believe all the victims were exchanging a lesser value for a higher value?

You are shifting the focus on the victim, which is another topic altogether.

So what? Why don't you answer my question?

The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice.

That is your arbitrary and subjective opinion. If a sacrificial victim were a friend of yours, would you be so blase about it?

(Xray)For Rand erroneously believes people can sacrifice higher values for lesser ones ...

Do you mean the "sacrificer" according to his/her own values? If yes, are you a mind reader?

Yes, according to his/her own values. No need to be a mind reader since the very term value indicates subjective choice.

You ignored what I said next. All you have done so far is assert Rand had this erroneous belief, but you have not provided an iota of evidence that your assertion is true.

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff,

In Objectivism, all living things have values. Value has a precise definition in Objectivism and you are not using it.

No problem if you disagree. Merely understand that value means something very specific. From "The Objectivist Ethics" in VOS, p. 16.

[eliding the plethora of information for purposes of this post, but thanks very much for providing it--JS]

This should provide pretty good food for thought. As least, if you (or anyone) wish to disagree with Rand, or probe the meaning of her terms, the prerequisite is getting what Rand meant right. This summary should help.

Michael

"value has a precise definition in Objectivism..."

which means it is therefore a good example of what I was complaining of earlier. In this instance, because I've been using the word in a different way than you have, the discussion has been more complicated than it need be. I use value, in the context of morality, to mean only a moral value--a concept which is held to be morally valuable or morally good (for instance, telling the truth). Rand's definition includes also material values (that is, an object or concept which is useful in some way to humans). In fact, that would be my criticism of her usage of the word "Value": it seems to me she is in danger of conflating moral value and material value. The fact that that rock was materially valuable to the caveman does not mean it is necessarily also morally valuable. (There might be instances where something is both, of course.) Providing himself and his fellow tribe members with rocks, and using them (the rocks, not the tribe members ) to provide food, are actions which are morally valuable--but that is something different from deciding the material value of the rock, and Objectivist ethics does not sufficiently guard against conflating the two (material value of the object as distinct from moral value of producing, possessing, or using the object).

Edited July 30, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"value has a precise definition in Objectivism..."

which means it is therefore a good example of what I was complaining of earlier. In this instance, because I've been using the word in a different way than you have, the discussion has been more complicated than it need be.

Jeff,

I don't understand the complaint. We are not on a board called Smithist Living.

Lot's of Objectivist literature written ages ago is available...

The Objectivist meanings are given clearly...

Nothing is hidden...

So?...

(Please don't say you want me to think for you. Just joking... )

(Please don't say you want me to or do your homework for you. Not joking... )

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

You ignored what I said next. All you have done so far is assert Rand had this erroneous belief, but you have not provided an iota of evidence that your assertion is true.

There is already evidence in this thread, in the form of the quote I posted from Branden which specifically defines sacrifice as giving up a higher value for a lower one.

[Selene]

Jeff:

Is Nathanial infallible?

I know he is not the Pope, something about the Jewish thing.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(sigh)

Before making assertions, something free and simple like the Ayn Rand Lexicon is the easiest thing in the world to use.

Lets' look at Sacrifice. (You have to look under letter "s".)

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

This is from Rand's essay, "The Ethics of Emergencies" in VOS.

There are other similar quotes.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

"s" as in psychology?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0_BQ9a1Ro

"p" as in pneumonia which is one of the funniest lines ever!

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

"value has a precise definition in Objectivism..."

which means it is therefore a good example of what I was complaining of earlier. In this instance, because I've been using the word in a different way than you have, the discussion has been more complicated than it need be.

Jeff,

I don't understand the complaint. We are not on a board called Smithist Living.

Lot's of Objectivist literature written ages ago is available...

The Objectivist meanings are given clearly...

Nothing is hidden...

So?...

(Please don't say you want me to think for you. Just joking... )

(Please don't say you want me to or do your homework for you. Not joking... )

Michael

We are using the form of human language known as English, not Objectivish. Therefore when a non Objectivist sees a word such as value, he will assume that the word has the meaning which is generally has in English, not "Objectivish", until an Objectivist jumps up and say, "that's not what the word means!".

I will, for example, try from now on to use the word value in the Objectivish sense, and flag any instances where I mean it in the Smithish sense. But I think it was entirely appropriate for me to assume that the word had the general meaning it has in the English vernacular, and not the special sense it has in Objectivism. Unless you intend that reading Ayn Rand's writings in extenso is a necessary pre-requisite to membership here, which I don't think you do.

As for you doing my homework for me--well, that would ruin the whole purpose, wouldn't it?