Rand's gender hierarchy

[Selene]

Live = good \ non-life = bad

"Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a Buddhist [sic.] or someone choosing to end his/her life. Nor does it apply to governments sending soldiers out to kill other people. So much for life as an 'objective value'."

A living consciousness strives to survive, to live ...yes.

[Xray]

Michelle:

Sorry, I was in a rush to go somewhere, I would have included this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Tent

The Red Tent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the film The Red Tent which refers to a North Pole rescue expedition, see the article The Red Tent (film).

The Red Tent

Cover of the first-edition hardcover

Author Anita Diamant

Country United States

Language English

Genre(s) Historical novel

Publisher St. Martin's Press

Publication date October, 1997

Media type print (hardcover, paperback)

Pages 321 p. (hardcover edition)

ISBN 0-312-35376-6

The Red Tent is a novel by Anita Diamant, published in 1997 by St. Martin's Press. It is a first-person narrative which tells the story of Dinah, daughter of Jacob and sister of Joseph, a talented midwife and proto-feminist. The book's title refers to the tent in which women of Jacob's tribe must, according to the ancient law, take refuge while menstruating or giving birth, and in which they find mutual support and encouragement from their mothers, sisters and aunts.

[edit] Plot summary

Dinah opens the story by recounting for readers the union of her mother Leah and father Jacob, as well as the expansion of the family to include Leah's sister Rachel, and Zilpah and Bilhah. Leah is depicted as capable but testy, Rachel something of a belle but kind and creative, Zilpah as mature and serious and Bilhah as the baby of the quartet. The book also downplays the rivalry between Leah and Rachel.

Dinah remembers sitting in the red tent with her mother and aunts, gossiping about local events and taking care of domestic duties between visits to Jacob, the patriarch of the family. A number of other characters not seen in the Biblical account appear here, including Laban's second wife Ruti and her shiftless sons.

According to the Bible's account in Genesis 34, Dinah was "defiled" by a prince of Shechem, although he is described as being genuinely in love with Dinah. He also offers a bride-price fit for royalty. Displeased at how the prince treated their sister, her brothers Simeon (spelled "Simon" in the book) and Levi treacherously tell the Shechemites that all will be forgiven if the prince and his men undergo the Jewish rite of circumcision so as to unite the people of Hamor, king of Shechem, with the tribe of Jacob. The Shechemites agree, and shortly after they go under the knife, while incapacitated by pain, they are murdered by Dinah's brothers and their male servants, who then rescue Dinah.

In The Red Tent, Dinah genuinely loves the prince, and willingly becomes his bride. She is horrified and grief-stricken by her brothers' murderous rampage. After berating her brothers and father she escapes to Egypt where she gives birth to a son. In time she finds another love, and reconciles with her brother Joseph, now prime minister of Egypt. At the death of Jacob, she visits her estranged family. She learns she has been all but forgotten by her other living brothers and father but that her story lives on with the females of Jacob's tribe.

[edit] Reception

The book was a New York Times bestseller, and is a perennial book club favorite. According to the Los Angeles Times review, "By giving a voice to Dinah, one of the silent female characters in Genesis, the novel has struck a chord with women who may have felt left out of biblical history. It celebrates mothers and daughters and the mysteries of the life cycle." The Christian Science Monitor wrote that the novel "vividly conjures up the ancient world of caravans, shepherds, farmers, midwives, slaves, and artisans.... Diamant's is a compelling narrator of a tale that has timeless resonance."

[edit] References

* The Red Tent (1997) ISBN 0-312-16978-7

* Rabbi J. Avram Rothman, The Red Tent - if you knew Dina like I know Dina. Aish.com, June 2001.

* Photos of the first edition of The Red Tent

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Tent"

Categories: American novels | 1997 novels | Novels based on the Bible | Feminist novels | Historical novels

Adam

I ask myself why would women even want to have a voice in that book filled with tribal carnage?

Edited July 18, 2009 by Xray

[ginny]

Xray, please give it a rest. You're too young to be this cantankerous.

Edited July 18, 2009 by ginny

[Selene]

Xray, please give it a rest. You're too young to be this cantankerous.

Ginny:

Thank heaven you are careful with your vowels typing.

Adam

[Michelle]

Words strung together without anchor.

What anchor, Xray? Everything is subjective, remember?

Don't evade the question I asked, Michelle. Not everything is subjective, only values are.

Aside from that, your comment was related to epistemology.

You wrote:

"Of course, this is again you revealing your anti-conceptual mindset. You cannot see beyond the concrete to the level of principles. A role-model is judged by the abstract nature of their personality."

So if you would be so kind to explain to me the "anti- conceptual mindset", the "level of principles" and the "abstract nature of a personality".

"The objective nutritional analysis of the food has nothing to do with the act of attributing value. Good or bad refer to the evaluation of means in respect to a chosen goal. IF my goal is to work toward staying healthy, then eating vegetables is valuable. IF other values have more weight to me, jelly beans may be the food of choice."

The standard of value is life.

You know this.

You're just being dishonest at this point.

I'm not being dishonest.

You are repeating Rand's words, that's all I know. Life as the standard of value does not apply to e. g. a nihilist, a buddhist or someone choosing to end his/her life. Nor does it apply to governments sending soldiers out to kill other people. So much for life as an "objective value".

I'm not going to educate you on Objectivist concepts.

Read the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon if you want to know what it is.

Oh, for god's sake!

I'll speak more simply, since I don't want to waste time explaining things to you.

Instead of considering the qualities of a personality (self-confidence, independence, etc.), you get stuck on the immediate concrete nature of a person/character. Instead of considering Roark's personality traits, you consider his specific, contextual actions, and so conclude that Roark is only a suitable role-model for a person who thinks it is proper to blow up a building because someone violated a contractual agreement.

A person who does not hold life as their basic standard of value is not going to be alive for too long. If you want to live, you will hold it as your proper standard of value, since it is a value which makes all other values possible. It is the foundational value, if you will. Food is an objective value to a person who values life. If you value death, then the next proper step is clear: to kill yourself. Philosophy is only the concern of people who value their lives.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

Xray, please give it a rest. You're too young to be this cantankerous.

"Please list the reasons why you think I am cantankerous. tia"

[ginny]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

[Selene]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

[Michelle]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

I'm almost positive she would have said that.

I had to decide between that and "I'm not cantankerous. I'm just looking for the truth. "

She is more predictable than a chatterbot.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

Your own very tongue, good sir?

[Selene]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

Your own very tongue, good sir?

Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Randland usually comes with two types of people. (There are other ways to analyze these people, though. I happen to like this standard because it is one of the ones that gets them all.)

1. Those with a bug up their behinds about Rand, and

2. Those who are interested in her ideas and/or her life.

To phrase it at an even more fundamental level (and having in mind what Rand said in regards to the fundamental choice in life (sorry I can't locate the exact quote just now) being whether or not to THINK:

1. Those that do not think.

2. Those that think.

Objectivists who do not think are surprisingly thick on the ground, although the bug up their behinds may be things other than Rand.

Edited July 19, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michelle]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

Your own very tongue, good sir?

Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around.

Adam

Oh yeah? Why is that?

[Selene]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

Your own very tongue, good sir?

Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around.

Adam

Oh yeah? Why is that?

I know myself.

Don't you love that quote feature!

Edited July 19, 2009 by Selene

[tjohnson]

The difference is between objective value and subjective tastes. I might say that jelly beans are the best food in the world because they're my favorite-tasting food, and this would, of course, be a purely "subjective" valuation. Taste varies.

However, vegetables are objectively superior as food to jelly beans, and most other "food" products.

So it would not be in error to say that vegetables are among the best food for people.

I think you mean objectively healthier. 'Superior' is quite vague unless you specify superior for what purpose.

[Michelle]

The difference is between objective value and subjective tastes. I might say that jelly beans are the best food in the world because they're my favorite-tasting food, and this would, of course, be a purely "subjective" valuation. Taste varies.

However, vegetables are objectively superior as food to jelly beans, and most other "food" products.

So it would not be in error to say that vegetables are among the best food for people.

I think you mean objectively healthier. 'Superior' is quite vague unless you specify superior for what purpose.

If you like.

[Michelle]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

Your own very tongue, good sir?

Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around.

Adam

Oh yeah? Why is that?

I know myself.

Don't you love that quote feature!

Haha. Too little self-restraint?

[Selene]

Restraints? They can focus the mind to a hot point that can sear the soul.

The unrestrained self could be a choice between unbridled passion and excellence or misdirected wildness.

The self restrained self could be a choice between a rigid death by dullness or a controlled power waiting to be unleashed.

[Brant Gaede]

Michelle, you're going to get it for putting words in Xray's mouth.

Ginny

Bites his tongue!

Your own very tongue, good sir?

Both you and Ginny are just so dangerous for a smart ass like me to be around.

Adam

Oh yeah? Why is that?

I know myself.

Don't you love that quote feature!

Haha. Too little self-restraint?

Don't stop now. Let's keep this going and drive DF nuts!

--Brant

[Xray]

[Michelle]:

I'm not going to educate you on Objectivist concepts.

Read the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon if you want to know what it is.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anti-conceptual_mentality.html

Frankly, Michelle, do you simply accept such muddled terminology at face value without even trying to cut through it?

We can discuss it in detail on the epistemology thread if you like.

Oh, for god's sake!

I'll speak more simply, since I don't want to waste time explaining things to you.

Instead of considering the qualities of a personality (self-confidence, independence, etc.), you get stuck on the immediate concrete nature of a person/character. Instead of considering Roark's personality traits, you consider his specific, contextual actions, and so conclude that Roark is only a suitable role-model for a person who thinks it is proper to blow up a building because someone violated a contractual agreement.

It's of no use playing down Roark's dynamiting the building - Rand's message was of course that he was justified in doing it.

Roark & Co are fantasy figures crafted by the author to promote her philosophy and subjective vision of an ideal man/woman, simple as that.

A person who does not hold life as their basic standard of value is not going to be alive for too long.

Oh, I know quite few theists who are alive and kicking despite not holding life as their basic standard of value. To them it is god.

We are talking attributing value, not about biological conditions/necessities. For example, you would not call shedding metabolic waste products as a basic standard of value, would you?

So the fact that we exist can be taken as a given, (let's leave out for simplicity's sake all those speculative theories dealing with "how real is reality").

Whether one values that "given" is an entirely subjective choice.

Food is an objective value to a person who values life. If you value death, then the next proper step is clear: to kill yourself.

You have got it: humans are valuing goal-seeking entities, and what is considered a value is dependent on their subjectively chosen goals.

Philosophy is only the concern of people who value their lives.

Wrong. Nihilism for example is a philosophy, buddhism is too, where live is also disvalued. In fact everyone has a philosophy, and in some cases, a person's philosophy may lead them to end their life.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I mean he's a robot. Of all the men in ATLAS SHRUGGED, he is the only one who never gives me much of any kind of impression. Oh great, he's perfect. Whoopee! I'd take a hottie like Francisco over Galtbot 2000 anyday.

These figures are all more or less pretty devoid of realistic traits (except maybe Eddie Willers and a few others).

For example, look at how idealistic Fransico is presented at the beginning of the novel: already as young boy, he was perfect at doing everything.

I got the impression of Rand being girlishly infatuated with her male heros. Imo she never got over that stage of admiring worship, as with her childhood fantasy hero Cyrus.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michelle]

Frankly, Michelle, do you simply accept such muddled terminology at face value without even trying to cut through it?

We can discuss it in detail on the epistemology thread if you like.

It's of no use playing down Roark's dynamiting the building - Rand's message was of course that he was justified in doing it.

Roark & Co are fantasy figures crafted by the author to promote her philosophy and subjective vision of an ideal man/woman, simple as that.

Oh, I know quite few theists who are alive and kicking despite not holding life as their basic standard of value. To them it is god.

We are talking attributing value, not about biological conditions/necessities. For example, you would not call shedding metabolic waste products as a basic standard of value, would you?

So the fact that we exist can be taken as a given, (let's leave out for simplicity's sake all those speculative theories dealing with "how real is reality").

Whether one values that "given" is an entirely subjective choice.

You have got it: humans are valuing goal-seeking entities, and what is considered a value is dependent on their subjectively chosen goals.

Wrong. Nihilism for example is a philosophy, buddhism is too, where live is also disvalued. In fact everyone has a philosophy, and fpor example, a person's philosophy may lead them to end their life.

The first time I heard a person use the phrase "anti-conceptual mentality," I actually laughed at him. Right in his face. It sounded like the most bizarre thing ever. Look at the phrase in my sig and you'll see that I am still amused by a lot of stiff Objectivist terminology.

Over the years, though, I have learned through experience that this mentality is alive and kickin'.

And no, I'm not going to discuss this with you in the epistemology thread/forum.

Why keep bringing in Roark's dynamiting Cortlandt when it doesn't pertain to the discussion?

My brother-in-law is a Christian. But he clearly, in most respects, holds life as his ultimate value. He's also an incredibly rational person, outside of that uncritical acceptance of a belief in God. Almost everybody holds life as a value. They have to. They couldn't survive if they didn't. A philosophically pure theist would let God take care of all their needs and die in the process.

Life is not explicitly devalued in Buddhism. Consciousness and individuality are. The goal of a Buddhist is to attain a state of pure oneness with the present and separate himself from the world around him. Now, underneath it all I do believe there to be a wish for death, because the Buddhist wishes to reduce himself to the level of Being-in-itself, to be one with nature and not an intentional being. The only effective means of achieving this would be to kill himself. A corpse IS being-in-itself, and death transforms the human being from subject to object.

Also, what do you mean when you say "nihilism?" Political nihilism, like the Russians had? Mereological nihilism?

This is all beside the point, however. Philosophy points to how a person should live. A philosophy which values death will always eventually self-destruct.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Michelle R

[Brant Gaede]

We need to get something straight: Ayn Rand had Roark blow up the housing development because it was a great climax to the novel. Everything else said about it is comparatively petty and frequently drivel. We outta have a contest: write a better climax for The Fountainhead. Good luck with that one!

--Brant

[Xray]

The first time I heard a person use the phrase "anti-conceptual mentality," I actually laughed at him. Right in his face. It sounded like the most bizarre thing ever. Look at the phrase in my sig and you'll see that I am still amused by a lot of stiff Objectivist terminology.

Over the years, though, I have learned through experience that this mentality is alive and kickin'.

And no, I'm not going to discuss this with you in the epistemology thread/forum.

Gee, what a surprise.

Why keep bringing in Roark's dynamiting Cortlandt when it doesn't pertain to the discussion?

Of course it pertains to the discussion since Rand said Dominique Francon was the ideal woman for Howard Roark, "the perfect priesess", thereby establishing a gender hierarchy involving worship for a man who feels he has the right to dynamite the Cortland buiding just because of breach of contract.

When you condsider how many breaches of contract happen in life, can you imagine the amount of violence one would get in a society allowing people to react to the breaches in a way similar to Roark?

Life is not explicitly devalued in Buddhism. Consciousness and individuality are. The goal of a Buddhist is to attain a state of pure oneness with the present and separate himself from the world around him. Now, underneath it all I do believe there to be a wish for death, because the Buddhist wishes to reduce himself to the level of Being-in-itself, to be one with nature and not an intentional being. The only effective means of achieving this would be to kill himself. A corpse IS being-in-itself, and death transforms the human being from subject to object.

Buddhism attains to achieve the stage of nirvana which ends the cycle of rebirths, from which it follows that being born is not considered as a value.

The shortcut via suicide is no option since it would bring bad karma prolonging the cycle of rebirths.

Also, what do you mean when you say "nihilism?" Political nihilism, like the Russians had? Mereological nihilism?

Existential nihilism.

This is all beside the point, however. Philosophy points to how a person should live. A philosophy which values death will always eventually self-destruct.

As long as you are on the lookout for a philosopy/ideology to tell you how you "should" live, you will stay caught in the illusion of objective values, which are usually the values subjectively preferred by the philosophers/ideologists.

Each individual has a philosophy that is made up of a set of beliefs and values.

Formal philosophy is nothing more than taking certain individual philosophies (there is no other kind) and arbitrarily exalting them to a "superior position". Then presume to validate the exaltation by reserving the word, philosophy, for these "esteemed few."

They are basically a reflection of prevailing beliefs often couched in language so distorted and pretentious as to be incomprehensible. Of course, here and there are truths. But the same is true of almost every writing.

The exalted situation ("truth via authority") prompts emotional acceptance and uncritical belief.

Rand is by no means the only one caught up on the illusion of

categorical identity, recommending her subjective values in "life proper to man" as if they were objective and teating a category (man) as if were finite entity.

Every ideological doctrine operates the same way. This means that entity identity is often left out of the thinking with the end result of cascading contradictions.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

Food is an objective value to a person who values life.

But that doesn't make Objectivist values objective. It's the old Randian trick: start with mere survival (e.g. you need food) and [here a miracle occurs] then switch to "survival as man qua man" and claim that this is also based on objective values. This is a non sequitur.