Rand's gender hierarchy


Xray

Recommended Posts

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

I have no problem at all with limited editing time. Your term "doctoring" for editing suggests "illegal actvity", lol. I was not fooling you or anyone; I think you know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem at all with limited editing time. Your term "doctoring" for editing suggests "illegal actvity", lol. I was not fooling you or anyone; I think you know that.

Indeed. It has not been shown that the changing has been done to hide something or to mislead someone, so the accusation is not proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Good analysis DF, pointing out the mistake in the syllogism Michael constructed.

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.

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."

Michael: Let's look at the premises you listed:

Premise 1. "all values are subjective, no exceptions" (is true).

("truth is a value" leaves out value to whom)

The function of Premise 2 is to provide a reference by which to confirm or deny Premise 1.

However, you abandon Premise 1.

Premise 2. "the truth is a value" says nothing about the issue of valuations being subjective. It abandons the antecedent premise by inserting an irrelevant premise while claiming confirmation of the premise abandoned.

"all values are subjective" is stated as a fact.(objective)

A test of the premise call for premise(s) to provide reference for Premise 1.

Example:

Premise 1. If values are subjective, then value is attributed by each individual.

Premise 2. Value is attributed by each individual.

Conclusion: Value is subjective.

(Refuting requires providing premises with objective validation that value is not attributed by each individual).

You leave the issue and premise of subjective value behind and insert an irrelevant value judgment.

In other words, you arbitrarily changed Premise 1 from "subjective value" to a value judgment about truth and absurdly called it Premise 2.

From this, you imagined a conclusion of "subjective" truth. (??)

"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." (Michael)

You abandoned the primary premise for a different premise and different subject matter.

Can you explain the thinking behind your syllogism?

By what mental procedure do you go from the isolated statement that all "values" are subjective to the conclusion the statement expresses or implies that ALL truth is subjective?

In other words, how can you validate your syllogism?

In your version with the modifier "to Xray":

MSK:

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

No Michael, the correct conclusion is: "To Xray the truth is a subjective value."

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayaamm!

Caught doing something dishonest like doctoring posts and still with last-word-itis. No wonder you people think morality is subjective. You degrade moral values and elevate vanity.

Well, the game's up.

Yap all you guys want about the past. The future has changed for you in this corner of the universe.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayaamm!

Caught doing something dishonest like doctoring posts and still with last-word-itis. No wonder you people think morality is subjective. You degrade moral values and elevate vanity.

Well, the game's up.

Yap all you guys want about the past. The future has changed for you in this corner of the universe.

Michael

There's no game, Michael.

I don't think you can validate the faulty syllogism you constructed. If you think you can, feel free to refute the challenge.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

You've cut me off at the knees!

--Brant

sob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. smile.gif

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.

Xray, if I "didn't get" your humor it would have been interesting to me if you had pointed that out instead of deleting your post. This leaves me wondering why I didn't get it. I also find your explanation of why you deleted it to be, well, specious. I wonder if I ever read it at all. I certainly don't remember it.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been obvious since she first started posting that Xray is only interested in ramming her rhetorical view of the world down our throats and escaping acknowledging the objective value of her position for then she'd have no position for there actually is no objective truth for her particular subjective valuing. That's why I called this interminable discussion "trite." Truth is objective truth is a redundancy. There is objective value in objective truth. The subjectivity is in the valuing, but the overall context is objective. She has to keep fighting this or it all collapses for her leaving nothing of her epistemological something. The idea that biological necessities because they are biological necessities are not objective values to an organism is the biggest hoot of all.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today driving home, I realized this discussion of values really needs a more clear definition, so we need to use Objectivism:

A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

Great. Xray, Dragonfly, you guys following? A value is defined as that which one acts to gain and/or keep (according to Objectivism). Does that mean all values are subjective? Well, it depends on how you define subjective and objective. This definition of values simply is. -> at this point it has neither objectivity nor subjectivity.

Objectively, scientifically, truthfully, the human organism has certain needs. Behaviors that fulfill those needs are behaviors that are explicitly linked to an objective criterion. Behaviors which are not linked to an objective criterion are not objective (they can be called subjective).

Therefore,

We can define "objective values" as those values which are linked to human needs, to objective criteria.

We can define "subjective values" as those values which are not linked to human needs, not linked to objective criteria.

This really should end all arguments about the subject. Any further discussions are epistemological in nature and address the validity of science as opposed to the concept "value."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Michael--

Given the anti-conceptual (using that term in the sense that Objectivism uses it) nature of Xray-speak, I'm not sure I want to be able to understand it at this point. And at this point, I certainly don't intend to use anything in Xray's posts to buttress my arguments.

My objections to Rand's usage of the term "value" is that it is overbroad--or at least that it confuses two categories that are really distinct. Eating healthy food is a value (or, to use Robert Hartford's terms, a value principle). Healthy food is not a value except in Objectivist terminology. In any other terminology, eating healthy food is a value, but healthy food is something that is valued, but not itself a value.

As for being "in harmony with man's nature"--there is, I will say flat out, no objective way of determining what man's nature is. Man the Producer? Man the Spiritual Striver? Man the Lover? Man the Intellectual Thinker? Man the Divine Being Incarnate (that's the religious answer for you there)?

And since you can not say objectively what "Man's nature" is, you can not say what is objectively in harmony with it, nor what is of value for it.

Edit to add:

Don't bother trying to tell me what "man's nature" is. Whatever you think "man's nature" is, is merely your subjective belief of what that is; it's your subjective choice of a primary value, from which all your other values are derived; it's the ultimate statement of what Objectivism calls a person's "sense of life".

And I'll repeat that even in giving her definition of "value" Rand could not avoid stating the subjective element, even as she denied there was a subjective element. Hmmm. Does the term "stolen concept" apply there?

Edited by jeffrey smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Premise 1. If values are subjective, then value is attributed by each individual.

Premise 2. Value is attributed by each individual.

Conclusion: Value is subjective.

Formally Xray says:

1. If P, then Q.

2. Q

3. Therefore P.

Wow! This must be Xray speak, for it surely is fallacious in ordinary logic.

Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form:

1. If P, then Q.

2. Q.

3. Therefore, P.

Arguments of this form are invalid, in that the conclusion (3) does not have to follow even when statements 1 and 2 are true. (source)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep and as Wiki continues using real folks they state:

"One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but an obviously false conclusion. For example:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.Bill Gates is rich.Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. There are any number of other ways to be rich.

Arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.I have a sore throat.Therefore, I have the flu. Having the flu is not the only cause of a sore throat since many illnesses cause sore throat, such as the common cold or strep throat."

Good job Merlin.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for being "in harmony with man's nature"--there is, I will say flat out, no objective way of determining what man's nature is. Man the Producer? Man the Spiritual Striver? Man the Lover? Man the Intellectual Thinker? Man the Divine Being Incarnate (that's the religious answer for you there)?

And since you can not say objectively what "Man's nature" is, you can not say what is objectively in harmony with it, nor what is of value for it.

Edit to add:

Don't bother trying to tell me what "man's nature" is. Whatever you think "man's nature" is, is merely your subjective belief of what that is; it's your subjective choice of a primary value, from which all your other values are derived; it's the ultimate statement of what Objectivism calls a person's "sense of life".

Since you don't know what man's nature is and don't want to know why is this discussion of interest to you? Actually, you do claim to know: Man is a subjectively valuing being of subjective values, ergo! Objectification!

To state "flat out" that there is "no objective way of determining what man's nature is" is to state the same thing about the birds and the bees, cats and dogs and the fish from the sea. And everything else. You just outdid Xray, in spades. She was trying to slip it in under the tent, you drove in with a tank.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you don't know what man's nature is and don't want to know why is this discussion of interest to you? Actually, you do claim to know: Man is a subjectively valuing being of subjective values, ergo! Objectification!

To state "flat out" that there is "no objective way of determining what man's nature is" is to state the same thing about the birds and the bees, cats and dogs and the fish from the sea. And everything else. You just outdid Xray, in spades. She was trying to slip it in under the tent, you drove in with a tank.

--Brant

You're missing the difference between man and the birds, bees, cats, dogs, etc. etc

Man is a self aware thinking being.

The others aren't.

Although there are plenty of cat and dog lovers who would dispute that :)

And therefore one can make a final statement about the "nature" of those others. But you can't make such a statement about man.

What Rand offered was really a Platonic Form: Man the Producer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you don't know what man's nature is and don't want to know why is this discussion of interest to you? Actually, you do claim to know: Man is a subjectively valuing being of subjective values, ergo! Objectification!

To state "flat out" that there is "no objective way of determining what man's nature is" is to state the same thing about the birds and the bees, cats and dogs and the fish from the sea. And everything else. You just outdid Xray, in spades. She was trying to slip it in under the tent, you drove in with a tank.

--Brant

You're missing the difference between man and the birds, bees, cats, dogs, etc. etc

Man is a self aware thinking being.

The others aren't.

Although there are plenty of cat and dog lovers who would dispute that :)

And therefore one can make a final statement about the "nature" of those others. But you can't make such a statement about man.

What Rand offered was really a Platonic Form: Man the Producer.

My dog, Saga, is pretty "self aware." However, I'm glad you have objectified man as "a self aware thinking being." Now what?

Look, I know you've only just begun to study Objectivism, but it shows. I've no desire to pile-drive you into the ground, but you've got to react differently if Michael pisses you off for you're exposing your flank. You're attacking objectification with your own objectification, but that's bottom-line sophistry.

I'm not up to making "final" statements about birds and bees, cats and dogs, et al. Objectification isn't about "final" statements. Objectification is seeking truth. The truth is the objective. It ain't easy. What's easy is calling it all subjectivism and yelling "fire" in the Objectivism theater and being first out the door while the Objectivists trample each other to death. But, being Objectivists, they ignore that and watch the rest of the movie while a few fools reach the subjectivism outside, neutered but alive. So to say.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, not a single person in support that all values are subjective has addressed my arguments. Can we say (or whisper).... EVASION.

This was the same with my earlier posts. Why do I even try, I wonder? Obviously any solid good arguments continually are evaded. If nothing else, those supporting subjective values at least have the brains not to engage logic they can't obfuscate or refute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, not a single person in support that all values are subjective has addressed my arguments. Can we say (or whisper).... EVASION.

Before you make your stupid remarks you might consider the possibility that those persons might live in a different time zone and don't feel obliged to keep awake at night only to read your silly posts.

It doesn't make much sense to describe elementary physiological needs as values, as there isn't much to choose. The essence of a value is that it can be chosen, that it is something that is actively sought. There is of course the rub: what Objectivism tries to prove that things as independence, creativity, honesty etc. are objective values, but when asked how you can prove that these things are objective, they come up with physiological functions, as if these belong in the same category. It's the same old trick: from mere survival you get trough a miracle to survival as "man qua man".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

No Michael, the correct conclusion is: "To Xray the truth is a subjective value."

Like I said earlier (post #939), Michael's syllogism in isomorphic to:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

What sort of verbal sleight-of-hand is Xray trying to use here? It parallels claiming that 'Socrates is mortal' is incorrect but 'Socrates is a mortal man' is correct. Wow! By what standard? Word games with Xray speak, of course. It allows contorting (another example here) or discarding ordinary logic to try to score a debating point.

Many years ago I heard a conversation that went much like this.

Person 1: John Doe is 6 feet 3 inches.

Person 2: No, John Doe's height is 6 feet 3 inches.

Maybe Person 2 was well-versed in Xray speak, too. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Brant almost nailed it when he said the act of valuing is subjective, but not the value itself.

If I compare this with normal cognitive identification, maybe it will be clearer to you.

For identification, the act of thinking is subjective, yet a concept is either subjective or objective. Venn diagrams are very useful for understanding this. Imagine two intersecting circles with an overlapped part. On the left you have mental processes and on the right you have verifiable facts. You get the objective identification (the objective concept) in the overlap.

It doesn't matter what these verifiable facts are. Only that they be facts and can be identified correctly. This obviously presupposes a cognitive mechanism that is suited to processing this information.

The same goes for values. And it helps if you think of a value as a normative abstraction, i.e., a special form of concept with a "call to action" built in instead of some kind of vague formless something-or-other. You can use the same Venn diagram on values with the same results. The act of valuing is subjective as is all act of thinking, but when mixed with verifiable fact, the abstraction (even with the built in "call to action") becomes objective. Objective values (objective normative abstractions) are in the overlap.

That is Rand's meaning as I understand it, although I doubt she would ever have used this form to explain it. I adhere to this meaning of objective value.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can define "objective values" as those values which are linked to human needs, to objective criteria.

We can define "subjective values" as those values which are not linked to human needs, not linked to objective criteria.

This really should end all arguments about the subject.

Hardly. For "subjective values" in Xray speak simply means that value is attributed by each individual. Note how she and Dragonfly have often cited Ayn Rand:

The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?

So they have an answer to the first part of Rand's question. Their answer to the second part of the question is tacitly anything or it doesn't matter.

Dragonfly says here that Rand's statement is "the 800 pound gorilla that is ignored by every Objectivist on this list." Really? Or is it that Dragonfly wants everybody else to consider only half of the gorilla?

Like I said earlier (post #336) Ayn Rand used the term "objective values" only once per The Objectivism Research CD-ROM. On the other hand, she used "rational values" many times. Therefore, it would be far more suitable to define:

- "rational values" as those values which are linked to human needs, to rational criteria, and

- "irrational values" as those values which are not linked to human needs nor rational criteria.

Finally, framing the debate/discussion in terms of 'subjective versus objective' invites the very negative meaning of "subjective" as Rand used it.

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth is objective truth is a redundancy.

Correct.

There is objective value in objective truth.

Incorrect, since the term "value" implies attributing value. For example, to the perpetrator of a crime denying involvment in the crime, telling the truth is of no value at all.

The subjectivity is in the valuing, but the overall context is objective.

There is ONLLY subjectivity in valuing, and as for the the "overall context", it is a framework closely linked to the chosen goal.

Dropping bombs on Vietnam was obviously considered as greater value by the bomb droppers than not dropping it, right?

Where is your "overall context" from which you judge this action value-wise? Objective value? Subjective value?

If you hold that the ultimate value is one's life, then this includes of course the life of every human being.

If you hold that "the enemy" is to be destructed at all costs (like e. g. Peikoff said in the interview with Bill Reilly) - your assessment will be different.

You will see at once when it comes to values, the "overall context" by which to assess them is itself influenced by the subjective value system of the assessor. Just think of how the people targeted by the bomb will "value" it.

She has to keep fighting this or it all collapses for her leaving nothing of her epistemological something. The idea that biological necessities because they are biological necessities are not objective values to an organism is the biggest hoot of all.

The very act of valuing requires a living, conscious entity mentally capable of attributing value. A rosebush cannot "value"; my teeth can't "value" the slice of dark bread they are chewing on as I'm typing this, nor can my stomach "value" what is going to arrive when I've gulped it down.

It is me, the person, who attributes value to the bread, others may not value it, and this principle apples to every value one can think of, Brant.

The objective/subjective value debate is of course closely connected to the fundamtental issue of individualism.

You wrote (as quoted in # 187 on the "Cardinal Values" thread)

Brant:

"Objectively speaking we must value the subjectivity in value if we value individualism and personal freedom."

Well said. IF the desired goal is individualism, THEN acknowledging and accepting subjectivity in individual valuing is a conditio sine qua non.

From which it follows: no "one size fits all" set of alleged "objective values" is possible in a philosophy of individualism.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray,

That something is an objective value to me doesn't mean it has to be to you too. I reject your universality premise, but on this level of arguing it's semantical. We're just putting different labels on the same thing. I don't like your labeling because it's pernicious--as I've explained several times before. It leads to intellectual and moral disarmament. It chews the foundation right out of science. Subjectivity is not a philosophy but it's all you've got. That's why you bring so little to the table.

The universality of Objective values appertains only to man in the abstract. A particular man, for instance, may want to die, so he would not value even the air he breathes.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't make much sense to describe elementary physiological needs as values, as there isn't much to choose. The essence of a value is that it can be chosen, that it is something that is actively sought. There is of course the rub: what Objectivism tries to prove that things as independence, creativity, honesty etc. are objective values, but when asked how you can prove that these things are objective, they come up with physiological functions, as if these belong in the same category. It's the same old trick: from mere survival you get trough a miracle to survival as "man qua man".

The problem is you deny the existence of psychological needs. Honesty, creativity, we don't need to bend logic to fit physiological requirements, we simply have to assert that man's mind, his most vital organ, has needs just as any other organ. One way to determine these needs is to look at the emotional motivations humans are innately born with (attachment for example). This is heavily pursued in the field of Psychology. Another way to assert an objective criterion to values is to understand how the mind can be used to maximize the behaviors that fulfill needs (whether psychological or physiological). Awareness, which correlates to honesty, can be logically asserted to fulfill this latter category.

Yes, a value can be chosen. But a value is not chosen in a vacuum, a value is chosen against some set of criteria. A value chosen against objective standards (i.e. towards the fulfillment of man's needs) should be considered objective, whereas a value chosen by any other criterion is not. After all, we choose to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. We call this belief objective, but we have a choice on whether to follow the logic or not. Our choice to follow mathematical logic is based simply on an objective criterion of relationship to reality, there is nothing inherent in mathematics that makes it true. Believing in math is a choice and just as subjective as a value. We aren't forced to choose 1 + 1 = 2, we can choose 1 + 1 = 42. So in Xray's discussion with MSK, MSK's 3-point logic is correct: when all values are subjective, it follows that truth itself is subjective because denying objectivity to values denies a set of objective criteria, and we use objective criteria to validate all knowledge.

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

As for Merlin's comments - perhaps "rational value" would be a better label than "objective value."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today driving home, I realized this discussion of values really needs a more clear definition, so we need to use Objectivism:

A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

Great. Xray, Dragonfly, you guys following? A value is defined as that which one acts to gain and/or keep (according to Objectivism). Does that mean all values are subjective? Well, it depends on how you define subjective and objective. This definition of values simply is. -> at this point it has neither objectivity nor subjectivity.

Objectively, scientifically, truthfully, the human organism has certain needs. Behaviors that fulfill those needs are behaviors that are explicitly linked to an objective criterion. Behaviors which are not linked to an objective criterion are not objective (they can be called subjective).

Therefore,

We can define "objective values" as those values which are linked to human needs, to objective criteria.

We can define "subjective values" as those values which are not linked to human needs, not linked to objective criteria.

This really should end all arguments about the subject. Any further discussions are epistemological in nature and address the validity of science as opposed to the concept "value."

Wow, not a single person in support that all values are subjective has addressed my arguments. Can we say (or whisper).... EVASION.

This was the same with my earlier posts. Why do I even try, I wonder? Obviously any solid good arguments continually are evaded. If nothing else, those supporting subjective values at least have the brains not to engage logic they can't obfuscate or refute.

Classic case on your part of counting your chickens before they were hatched, Chris.

There's a few time zones between Sausalito, Ca. and where I live, so to believe your post was "evaded" if you don't get a reply on the spot was an non-sequitur.

Objectively, scientifically, truthfully, the human organism has certain needs. Behaviors that fulfill those needs are behaviors that are explicitly linked to an objective criterion. Behaviors which are not linked to an objective criterion are not objective (they can be called subjective).

"Subjective" behavior - now what's that, lol? Would you please give me an example of "subjective" behavior? :D

Objectively, scientifically, truthfully, the human organism has certain needs. Behaviors that fulfill those needs are behaviors that are explicitly linked to an objective criterion. Behaviors which are not linked to an objective criterion are not objective (they can be called subjective).

Therefore,

We can define "objective values" as those values which are linked to human needs, to objective criteria.

We can define "subjective values" as those values which are not linked to human needs, not linked to objective criteria.

Ah, I see, so that's your position. So going along with your reasoning, values not linked to the needs of the human organism, like "reason", "purpose", "self-esteem" are then subjective values?

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