Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

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

If you know Rand's writings, I'm sure you will also know know where to look for her elaborations.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

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

If you know Rand's writings, I'm sure you will also know know where to look for her elaborations.

Not playing that three card monte throw x-ray, but that stutter is back.

Adam

[Xray]

What method? That I refer to Rand's own definition?

Dragonfly,

Yes, but when I use Xray's own weird use of the language to critique her, all of a sudden you imagine the meanings to not be Xray-speak.

Double-standard.

Michael

Please quote from my posts where you think I used "weird language". (?)

Edited August 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following context has proven to be quite a challenge to some people.

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

As they are obviously challenged understanding-wise in this instance (as proven by the recent posts showing this), they treat the following as if the above context does not apply:

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

So to help them out, let me use the syllogism language they are used to and add in my clearly stated context as a redundancy. Maybe this will make my meaning clearer.

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

Now if that is not understood, we have a real comprehension problem in this discussion. And both premise statements are backed up by Xray's posts, so there is no equivocating going on at all.

My current beef with Dragonfly is that he uses this method for criticizing Rand, but objects when it is used on those he agrees with. That is a double standard.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

The following context has proven to be quite a challenge to some people.

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

As they are obviously challenged understanding-wise in this instance (as proven by the recent posts showing this), they treat the following as if the above context does not apply:

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

So to help them out, let me use the syllogism language they are used to and add in my clearly stated context as a redundancy. Maybe this will make my meaning clearer.

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

Now if that is not understood, we have a real comprehension problem in this discussion. And both premise statements are backed up by Xray's posts, so there is no equivocating going on at all.

My current beef with Dragonfly is that he uses this method for criticizing Rand, but objects when it is used on those he agrees with. That is a double standard.

Michael

This is one of those times when it's best to drag out Sydney Smith.

Rev. Smith (no relation, to my sorrow) was once walking down the street with a friend. They noticed two women yelling at each other from windows on opposite sides of the street.

Said Rev. Smith, "They will never agree. They are arguing from different premises".

If you stick to Objectivist terminology, truth is a value. That should be no surprise. Almost anything can be a value in Objectivist terminology. At the root of this meaning a simple transference: if an object or concept is of value to someone, then it is a "value".

If, on the other hand, you stick to the way the word "value" in its normal, nonObjectivist meaning, truth can not be a value. Honesty and integrity are values, but truth is not: truth is a thing that can be valued, and honesty and integrity are the principles which declare that truth should be valued. Truth is a collection of facts; expand the base of facts, truth becomes reality. So if you say "truth is a value" then you're simply saying reality is a value, and that's getting so close to content-free material as makes no matter.

And try as she might, Rand couldn't escape the fact that values are by their nature subjective. Said Rand:

"Of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal..."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeffrey,

An entity has a nature, even a human being. That nature is not subjective. It exists regardless of any subjective opinion or wish.

This is Rand's point and it is constantly ignored by those who say she contradicted herself. Rand considered a value that is in harmony with man's nature and chosen rationally to be an objective value.

The critics (and even you in this case) pretend that this meaning does not exist in Rand's works. But think about it. If you allow that she meant that, there is no contradiction. Well, she did mean that.

I have no idea why people ignore this. She was clear enough about it. I do know it is harder to bash Rand if you take her at her word with her own meanings.

It is easier to bash her if you graft meanings on her words that she did not intend. Several people are specialists in doing this.

btw - You wrote, "If you stick to Objectivist terminology, truth is a value." You don't have to stick to Objectivist terminology. Truth is a value even in Xray-speak. She explicitly said so.

Also, be careful about the difference between truth and fact. A lot of people stumble on this point imagining that they are identical and interchangeable.

Michael

[Christopher]

Perhaps objectivity would be better understood if people took off their philosophical caps and put on their scientific caps. With the scientific cap on, we all agree with the Theory of Evolution. Given scientific agreement, we then support the notion that man is an organism that evolved and has certain needs/abilities. Values are simply a scientific term that refers to behaviors consistent with meeting the biological needs of the organism and sustaining survival.

[Christopher]

Is it better to post a second post correcting your first post, or to post a post with a mark on it that says you edited it? That is the question. The answer is that I meant to say: Objective values are simply a scientific term that refers to behaviors consistent with meeting the biological needs of the organism and sustaining survival.

Keep your scientific cap on when you read this. Philosophy won't do!

[Brant Gaede]

Is it better to post a second post correcting your first post, or to post a post with a mark on it that says you edited it? That is the question. The answer is that I meant to say: Objective values are simply a scientific term that refers to behaviors consistent with meeting the biological needs of the organism and sustaining survival.

Keep your scientific cap on when you read this. Philosophy won't do!

Ah. Dump philosophy! Do ya know what ya do a?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps objectivity would be better understood if people took off their philosophical caps and put on their scientific caps. With the scientific cap on, we all agree with the Theory of Evolution. Given scientific agreement, we then support the notion that man is an organism that evolved and has certain needs/abilities. Values are simply a scientific term that refers to behaviors consistent with meeting the biological needs of the organism and sustaining survival.

Look, young sir, you take out the foundation and your scientific suppositions float away--or crash and burn.

--Brant

got more values it seems than you do

think, think, think

[Dragonfly]

The following context has proven to be quite a challenge to some people.

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

As they are obviously challenged understanding-wise in this instance (as proven by the recent posts showing this), they treat the following as if the above context does not apply:

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

So to help them out, let me use the syllogism language they are used to and add in my clearly stated context as a redundancy. Maybe this will make my meaning clearer.

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

That confirms what I already suspected, namely that the whole argument is based on a huge equivocation, due to the ambiguity in the question "is truth a value to you?"

That question can have two entirely different meanings:

1. Is "truth" of value to you? Is truth important to you? Are you trying to discover the truth?

2. Do you think "truth" is a "value"? Do you think "truth" is an element of the set of "values" (where "value" is something that is independent of individual preferences)?

Naturally Xray interprets the question as meaning 1, affirming that truth is important to her, and not as meaning 2, that there exist objective values of which "truth" is a particular example. In spite of the endless repetition of the accusation of "Xray-speak" she's following accurately Rand's definition here, in which the concept "value" is inexorably coupled to "to you" ("to whom", "to Xray" etc.): "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" (Rand).

So we see the insidious equivocation in the example given above:

"To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions", here "To Xray" means: "the following is a statement by Xray".

"To Xray, the truth is a value", here "To Xray" is part of the concept "value to Xray", meaning that Xray thinks that finding the truth is important. It does not mean (equivocation!) "The following is a statement by Xray". That is the trick that is used to suggest that Xray's statements are contradictory: in effect turning the statement "truth is important to me" into the statement "truth is an element of the set of values". Elementary, my dear Objectivists.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is the trick that is used to suggest that Xray's statements are contradictory: in effect turning the statement "truth is important to me" into the statement "truth is an element of the set of values". Elementary, my dear Objectivists.

Dragonfly,

I did not say that Xray's statement was contradictory in my syllogism. I said that truth to Xray was subjective, as per her own statements.

Elementary reading, my dear Dragonfly...

I asked her flat out if the truth was a value to her. She said yes. If you like, I will link to the post. Now you are saying she didn't really mean it and taking her at her word is an "insidious equivocation."

Sorry, but that's really lame.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

That is the trick that is used to suggest that Xray's statements are contradictory: in effect turning the statement "truth is important to me" into the statement "truth is an element of the set of values". Elementary, my dear Objectivists.

I did not say that Xray's statement was contradictory in my syllogism. I said that truth to Xray was subjective, as per her own statements.

Which would contradict her stated view that truth is objective, which is obviously the purpose of your playing "gotcha".

I asked her flat out if the truth was a value to her. She said yes. If you like, I will link to the post. Now you are saying she didn't really mean it and taking her at her word is an "insidious equivocation."

What a bizarre interpretation! Where did I say that she didn't really mean it? Are you perhaps dyslexic? It seems that you just pick up some "vibrations" from my text, while the core of my argument totally escapes you. You don't take her at her word at all, you put words into her mouth she didn't say. The phrases may have a superficial resemblance while they have many words in common, but the meaning is quite different, as I've extensively explained.

[Selene]

Is it better to post a second post correcting your first post, or to post a post with a mark on it that says you edited it? That is the question. The answer is that I meant to say: Objective values are simply a scientific term that refers to behaviors consistent with meeting the biological needs of the organism and sustaining survival.

Keep your scientific cap on when you read this. Philosophy won't do!

Depends on your philosophy Chris...yes.

[merjet]

You don't take her at her word at all, you put words into her mouth she didn't say. The phrases may have a superficial resemblance while they have many words in common, but the meaning is quite different, as I've extensively explained.

Oh, the irony! Dragonfly doesn't take Michael's word at face value and tries to put words in his mouth that he doesn't say. Dragonfly's "extensive explanation" is, as I succinctly explained here, merely an attempt to impose changes on Michael's premise and his question to Xray into something contrary to their clear intended meanings.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

Michael:

"I have no idea why people ignore this. She was clear enough about it. I do know it is harder to bash Rand if you take her at her word with her own meanings."

Nor do I. I have been consistently struck for almost half a century as to why "critics" of the crazy Russian lady refuse to accept her paradigm/philosophy as she explicitly stated it.

I can understand some of her writings being subject to interpretation...duh...seems to happen with everyone from Lao Tsu to O'biwan's latest sentence.

Additionally, your statement:

"Also, be careful about the difference between truth and fact. A lot of people stumble on this point imagining that they are identical and interchangeable."

One of the most difficult self awareness lessons to teach folks. I have to watch it all the time because it is very easy to allow your mental discipline to get sloppy on keeping "truth" and "facts" distinct.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am going to blow some BS out of the water right now.

Xray is a dishonest poster.

All during these discussions, I have been having one hell of a time trying to find quotes by her that I know I read, especially after her point had been debunked. I wanted to quote her when she was making those coy requests to people, asking where she had said this or that. But the quotes were nowhere to be found. This happened time and time again.

For instance, when she interpreted a statement by Brant as him abandoning Objectivism, she almost melted down in in an ecstatic gush of hallelujah and promptly started "guiding" him on the path to the One True Way. I wanted to comment on it at the time since it turned my stomach, but I did not have time. As things progressed, it fell to the wayside in my mind until much later. Then I mentioned it and Brant (not her this time) asked where she had done that. I could not find it, yet I know I read it.

There are many other cases. So I started getting suspicious that she was changing her past posts to make anyone new reading the discussion from the beginning look like she never made a statement others later claimed she made, thus making honest posters look like fools to newcomers.

By accident, I came across absolute proof of this. I decided to look up her post where Dragonfly had trouble reading her words to quote them to him. I first encountered where I had quoted them from before:

btw - Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question...

Simple enough answer from me: Yes.

But I decided to look at what she had posted originally so I could link to her original post. Lo and behold, here is what I found:

btw - Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question...

Yes. I value truth as in corresponence with reality.

Then there followed some blah blah blah I do not recall reading back then amidst some other blah blah blah. But I will not swear to that part since I have no record of it.

Now, I have no problem with a person changing typos, spelling mistakes, or things like that much later. I do that sometimes. Idea-wise, I also have a habit in my own posting to change it around during the first few minutes after posting if it has not been discussed. But I do not go back to previous posts after hours or days have passed where people have discussed it and change the ideas or delete things because they did not fit a later argument. Even if I add one of my "EDIT:" comments, I usually mention this in a later post.

I consider changing the actual ideas in past posts without telling anyone dishonest and petty. And it is. It is essentially rewriting history, something I blame ARI for with Rand's works. It is contemptible. It is the mark of someone interested in a mission, not interested in the truth. (Or better yet, someone for whom the truth is subjective in the extreme.)

I am actually glad this happened because I was forced to learn how to limit this feature in the forum software. From now on, members have 30 minutes to edit their posts. After that, the posts are set in stone.

Unfortunately for the hapless Xray, she will have to live with the nonsense she writes after it is later shown to be nonsense. And people will be able to quote her nonsense in the words she expressed it in, not in some later fabrication that makes the person objecting look like he was in error.

My respect for Xray, which had been sorely wavering, is now several long rungs lower.

Michael

(EDIT TO DRAGONFLY: How's that for gotcha? I don't play gotcha like you claimed earlier, and I wasn't playing it in the instance you claimed. But when I do play gotcha, I do it right. I catch dishonest and blatant intents to fool people, for instance. Now let's see if you can justify or rationalize this crap out of the person you admire.)

[Brant Gaede]

I think 30 minutes is a bit extreme, but can live with it. Ideally if there have been no subsequent posts on a thread the last post should be editable including deletion by the poster. Considering your probable software situation, I wish you'd just change that 30 mins to 60.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

(EDIT TO DRAGONFLY: How's that for gotcha? I don't play gotcha like you claimed earlier, and I wasn't playing it in the instance you claimed. But when I do play gotcha, I do it right. I catch dishonest and blatant intents to fool people, for instance. Now let's see if you can justify or rationalize this crap out of the person you admire.)

What is all the noise about? You asked: "Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question..." Xray replied first: "Yes. I value truth as in corresponence with reality." Later she changed that into: "Simple enough answer from me: Yes.". Is there any essential difference? No. The only difference is that she added an explanation in the first version which she deleted later. The funny thing is that her first version underscores my point even better than the second one. She wrote "I value truth", which shows the personal, subjective character of the valuing even better than the simple answer "no", in agreement with Rand's "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?", the 800 pound gorilla that is ignored by every Objectivist on this list.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

What Xray did was wrong and you know it. You do not edit your own previous words to fit a later argument. (Especially after you have been quoted.) You make a new argument, commenting on it if necessary.

That is common honesty.

I find it strange that you objected to Pross's intent to fool people during discussions, yet find Xray's intent to fool people perfectly acceptable.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think 30 minutes is a bit extreme, but can live with it. Ideally if there have been no subsequent posts on a thread the last post should be editable including deletion by the poster. Considering your probable software situation, I wish you'd just change that 30 mins to 60.

--Brant

Brant,

I have no problem with 60 minutes. I will change it for you.

What I don't want anymore is people going back and altering their previous posts in a manner that makes honest posters look like fools to new people reading the thread.

Michael

[Xray]

Dragonfly,

What Xray did was wrong and you know it. You do not edit your own previous words to fit a later argument. (Especially after you have been quoted.) You make a new argument, commenting on it if necessary.

That is common honesty.

I find it strange that you objected to Pross's intent to fool people during discussions, yet find Xray's intent to fool people perfectly acceptable.

Michael

Won't fly, Michael. I edited my post to clarify and and elaborate and NOTHING I added changed the gist of my reply: Truth IS a value to me, for I basically want to KNOW. I can't speak for others, but I CAN handle the truth, at least this has been my personal life experience so far.

This does not mean I would I would tell a killer the truth or want to know every detail of e. g. a nightmarish event.

That's why I edited the post - to ADD these things, to be more specific. What you call "blabla", I'll post it here in full and THEN we'll see how much water your "dishonesty" campaign against me holds.

As for editing in general: as long as there is an edit button people can use here, it allows editing. Correct?

I have to edit virtually all my posts to weed out typos (I'm a sloppy typer), and often do this later too when rereadig a post and I still detect typos (often!).

Editing is done openly and for everyone to see (the date always shows up, so there is nothing "clandestine" about it as you suggest.

If you don't want the edit function enabled as long as it is, you can change it. Many forums allow 30 to 60 minutes for editing.

Re my post to Brant: that tongue-in-cheek post of mine was to be taken with a good dose of salt, but since Brant seemed to have taken it at face value and did not see the humor in it, I decided to delete it to avoid any further misunderstandings.

Now to get to get to the alleged "dishonest" post by me.

You had asked me (IIRC it was on August 25):

Quote

btw - Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question...

My first reply was:

Simple enough answer from me: Yes.

I later edited the post and it read:

Yes. I value truth as in corresponence with reality.

Here is what you labeled "blablabla", Michael.

But it is always "Truth about what? When? In what circumstance? How does one deal with the truth, given the circumstances?"

I value truth heard and spoken in most interpersonal relationships.

Would I value the truth about the horrible condition about a loved one mangled in a car accident? Maybe not. Do I value telling the truth to someone seeking a friend of mine in order to kill the friend? No, I do not.

The addendum did not change my answer "yes", and this answer still stands.

You then constructed a syllogism devoid of any logic to distort what I wrote. Just the facts.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I am not on a "dishonesty campaign." I don't condone the dishonest behavior you have exhibited with respect to doctoring your past posts. There have been oodles. You know it and I know it.

I have taken technical steps to see that you will not do so on this forum again.

Whether you do this elsewhere is not my concern. But here it won't happen again.

Whether that "flies" or not is irrelevant to me. The remedy works. You are stopped dead in your tracks from doctoring more past posts and that is all I care about.

Michael

[Xray]

Dragonfly,

What Xray did was wrong and you know it. You do not edit your own previous words to fit a later argument. (Especially after you have been quoted.) You make a new argument, commenting on it if necessary.

That is common honesty.

I find it strange that you objected to Pross's intent to fool people during discussions, yet find Xray's intent to fool people perfectly acceptable.

Michael

I was not fooling anyone, your accusation is just plain absurd. Read my # 972 post and then tell me where I allegedly "fooled" you. Edited August 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Gimmee a break!

You got away with it countless times. This time you were caught. Get over it.

The main point is that you will not be able to do it again. I don't have to deal with your "subjective integrity" on doctoring posts anymore.

Michael