Rand's gender hierarchy


Xray

Recommended Posts

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

That's an example of bad logic, using the ambiguity of language. "The truth is a value" does not mean that "the truth" is a subset or an element of the set "values", it means that someone can attach some value to "the truth", while another person may find no value in "the truth". That's why values are subjective: what is a value to one person may not be a value to another person (as Rand said: "of value to whom and for what?"). The only correct conclusion of your syllogism is that finding value in the truth is subjective, not that truth itself is subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that subjectivity is claiming changes over time and circumstances belong to the subjective context and that objectivity in values freezes everything and is thus invalid. I can't agree with this.

--Brant

sets a trap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

That's an example of bad logic, using the ambiguity of language. "The truth is a value" does not mean that "the truth" is a subset or an element of the set "values", it means that someone can attach some value to "the truth", while another person may find no value in "the truth". That's why values are subjective: what is a value to one person may not be a value to another person (as Rand said: "of value to whom and for what?"). The only correct conclusion of your syllogism is that finding value in the truth is subjective, not that truth itself is subjective.

All values are subjective

The truth is a value

...therefore

Truth is subjective.

That corrects the linguistics confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your error continues as you still refuse to understand Objectivism and persist in misrepresenting it. So let's try simple grammar. The qualifier "exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness," refers to reality, not objectivity. The qualifier "independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears" refers to facts, not not objectivity. You constantly treat objectivity as being independent of the mind. All you have to do is read and parse the grammar to get it right. I find it strange that a teacher makes this kind of mistake.

As a teacher, I happen to have a good portion of patience, which sure comes in handy in this discussion, where I feel I have to explain over and over again points which long since been explained. :)

Michael, I don't treat "objectivity" as independent of the mind, in fact had offered quotes in # 881 where it explicitly says " it [= objectvitiy] is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of

any perceiver's consciousness" - and it goes without saying that the very act of recognizing is a mental activity. We are on the same page here, Michael.

I had asked you if we can agree on what is said in these three quotes, and got no reply. I'll try again:

"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence".

"....., it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of

any perceiver's consciousness."

"Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or

fears."

Can we take it from there? Any objections to the definitions? If yes, what are they? Maybe we can work out together a better, even more precise and comprehensive definition. Definitions listed are not gospel, even if they are from Rand. But she did offer some very useful ones imo.

Selene was bit confused about the word "pertains" - well, Rand was no native speaker (nor am I), but imo "pertains" means 'refers' here (correct me if I'm wrong):

"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence".

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Never assume intent behind a question.

I was attempting to pin you down to a specific, single definition of a term which was critical to the "sentence"

that you put forth.

"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence". which now becomes

"Objectivity.... refers to the relationship of consciousness to existence". Ok. what is that relationship?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then in Xray-speak, the truth is subjective. Here's the syllogism (in Xray-speak, of course):

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

Michael

But what a non-sequitur you have produced here, Michael!

You had asked asked me verbatim: "Is truth a value to you?" the modifier "to you" clearly indicating subjectivity, i. e. the question was whether I attribute value to truth (Keep in mind that "a value" is always the result of an individual attributing value to this or that).

And from my answer "Yes", you, using a faulty syllogism, then try to "build a case" against me, suggesting I was distorting terms like "truth".

Won't fly, Michael. This is like wanting to get rid of your stuff by dumping it in my backyard, hoping I would mistake it for my own. :) ;)

In post # 926, Dragonfly in clear words takes you through it step by step, pointing out your logical error. One can't explain it better:

DF: That's an example of bad logic, using the ambiguity of language. "The truth is a value" does not mean that "the truth" is a subset or an element of the set "values", it means that someone can attach some value to "the truth", while another person may find no value in "the truth". That's why values are subjective: what is a value to one person may not be a value to another person (as Rand said: "of value to whom and for what?"). The only correct conclusion of your syllogism is that finding value in the truth is subjective, not that truth itself is subjective.

Thanks DF for explaining so clearly what it is about.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All values are subjective

The truth is a value

...therefore

Truth is subjective.

That corrects the linguistics confusion.

No, it doesn't. The truth is not a subset of the set of values. The correct sentence would be "the truth is a value to some people" (and not to other people, that is why values are subjective, while truth itself doesn't depend on the value people attach to it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So out of my own curiosity ... why do you teach xray?

Adam

Out of my own curiosity - why do you ask me this Selene?

mirroring - good sales technique xray

I didn't apply any technique - my surprise was genuine. For right in the middle of the discussion, you suddenly asked me why I chose my profession.

If I had asked you, out of the blue in a debate, why you became an engineer or a baker or whatever, you would have been surprised too I assume.

I ask because I have always been an excellent teacher, therefore, I am always interested in why people choose

to be in that profession

.

You have been a teacher? Really? In what field? Again, I'm surprised. I wouldn't have thought that.

Did they just get channeled into the profession? Did they chose it? And, if so, why?

Well, choosing a profession is always from a cluster of personal motives, at least in my case. My love of children certainly played a major role. Also my commitment to do everything I can to enable them - who will be the adults of the future - to both develop empathy and become independent thinkers - you can't start early enough here.

I personally would be very unhappy if one day I should see one of my former "kids" deliver such a sermon of hate as L. Peikoff did in the TV interviw Bill Reilly (link in post # 901) ...

xray:

Never assume intent behind a question.

I was attempting to pin you down to a specific, single definition of a term which was critical to the "sentence"

that you put forth.

"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence". which now becomes

"Objectivity.... refers to the relationship of consciousness to existence". Ok. what is that relationship?

Adam

Good opportunity for you Selene to show your knowledge of Rand's work, for the quote is from her.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Never assume intent behind a question.

I was attempting to pin you down to a specific, single definition of a term which was critical to the "sentence"

that you put forth.

"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence". which now becomes

"Objectivity.... refers to the relationship of consciousness to existence". Ok. what is that relationship?

Adam

Good opportunity for you Selene to show your knowledge of Rand's work, for the quote is from her.

I do the testing teach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All values are subjective

The truth is a value

...therefore

Truth is subjective.

That corrects the linguistics confusion.

No, it doesn't. The truth is not a subset of the set of values. The correct sentence would be "the truth is a value to some people" (and not to other people, that is why values are subjective, while truth itself doesn't depend on the value people attach to it).

All values are subjective

the truth is a value to some people Ok then what can be properly concluded with your second statement

Therefore_____________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

Never assume intent behind a question.

I was attempting to pin you down to a specific, single definition of a term which was critical to the "sentence"

that you put forth.

"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence". which now becomes

"Objectivity.... refers to the relationship of consciousness to existence". Ok. what is that relationship?

Adam

Good opportunity for you Selene to show your knowledge of Rand's work, for the quote is from her.

I do the testing teach.

C'mon Selene, you initially didn't even recognize the quote was from Rand, did you. You thought it was mine, trying to pin me down on an alleged odd use of the word "pertain". But the boot was not on my foot here, it was on Ayn Rand's. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xray:

I attended NBI in the 60's, I heard her speak in "the flesh" hundreds of times, I know her writings. I would have asked that question of Ayn if she were here today.

Therefore, answer the question. She can't.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

That's an example of bad logic, using the ambiguity of language. "The truth is a value" does not mean that "the truth" is a subset or an element of the set "values", it means that someone can attach some value to "the truth", while another person may find no value in "the truth". That's why values are subjective: what is a value to one person may not be a value to another person (as Rand said: "of value to whom and for what?"). The only correct conclusion of your syllogism is that finding value in the truth is subjective, not that truth itself is subjective.

The syllogism is formally valid. It is isomorphic to:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If Dragonfly wants to deny the conclusion for himself, he can by denying one or both of the premises, but not otherwise. Unfortunately for Xray, she cannot deny either one without contradicting her prior assertions. Regarding her the conclusion is valid and sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All values are subjective

the truth is a value to some people Ok then what can be properly concluded with your second statement

Therefore_____________________

There is no conclusion to be drawn. The second statement is merely an specific example of the first statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The syllogism is formally valid. It is isomorphic to:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

No it is not valid. "Socrates" is an element of the set of "men", but "the truth" is not an element of the set of "values". As Xray correctly observed, the question Selene asked her was "is truth a value to you?". She affirmed that truth is a value to her, not that it is a value in general, that essential part is omitted in the syllogism. Rand's admonition "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" is conveniently forgotten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She affirmed that truth is a value to her, not that it is a value in general, that essential part is omitted in the syllogism.

Wrong. The syllogism as written by MSK applied to Xray is valid and sound. The second premise says nothing about being a "value in general"; that is your changing MSK's premise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what a non-sequitur you have produced here, Michael!

You had asked asked me verbatim: "Is truth a value to you?" the modifier "to you" clearly indicating subjectivity, i. e. the question was whether I attribute value to truth (Keep in mind that "a value" is always the result of an individual attributing value to this or that).

Actually I was referring to Xray-speak. If anyone reads my post where the syllogism is present, I made this clear.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She affirmed that truth is a value to her, not that it is a value in general, that essential part is omitted in the syllogism.

Wrong. The syllogism as written by MSK applied to Xray is valid and sound. The second premise says nothing about being a "value in general"; that is your changing MSK's premise.

Merlin,

Thank you. Our posts crossed and I was going to point that out.

I find it strange that Xray-speak uses this double-standard. It is one way when the syllogism applies to "truth," but it is reversed it when it applies to "value."

I recall a recent post by Dragonfly where he claimed something like, "according to Rand's own definition of value, she..." bash bash bash. I do not see him using that method to judge my syllogism about Xray-speak.

Critics of Rand like to use her words with their meanings in bashing her. That is, until they get cornered. Then they opt for the double-standard, like here.

I have yet to see single standards in Xray-speak. I even recall a recent post where Xray all but eschewed standards altogether.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Critics of Rand like to use her words with their meanings in bashing her.

I assume you meant something like: Critics of Rand like to use her words with the critic imposing meanings, maybe invented, on her in bashing her.

I heartily agree. At least one great example in this thread is sacrifice.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She affirmed that truth is a value to her, not that it is a value in general, that essential part is omitted in the syllogism.

Wrong. The syllogism as written by MSK applied to Xray is valid and sound. The second premise says nothing about being a "value in general"; that is your changing MSK's premise.

No, the syllogism is wrong. You have it backwards: the second statement is "The truth is a value", as there isn't any qualifier, this means that it is a value in general. If it was a value to a particular person, it should be mentioned. That it is not done is of course because the incorrectness of the syllogism would then be too obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it strange that Xray-speak uses this double-standard. It is one way when the syllogism applies to "truth," but it is reversed it when it applies to "value."

That is nonsense. Truth is something that objectively can be verified, while value is something that refers to a particular person (Rand: "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?").

I recall a recent post by Dragonfly where he claimed something like, "according to Rand's own definition of value, she..." bash bash bash.

Ah yes, if anyone dares to criticize one of your goddess Rand's arguments it's of course "bash bash bash", but if you criticize one of her arguments then it's of course a valid criticism. Talking about double standards!

I do not see him using that method to judge my syllogism about Xray-speak.

What method? That I refer to Rand's own definition? But I did, you must have trouble with your eyes, so here it is again: "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall a recent post by Dragonfly where he claimed something like, "according to Rand's own definition of value, she..." bash bash bash. I do not see him using that method to judge my syllogism about Xray-speak.

What "bash bash bash" of Rand please? DF referred you to Rand's correct definition of value to point out the error in YOUR syllogism:

DF:

As Xray correctly observed, the question Selene asked her was "is truth a value to you?". She affirmed that truth is a value to her, not that it is a value in general, that essential part is omitted in the syllogism. Rand's admonition "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" is conveniently forgotten.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now