Rand's gender hierarchy

[Brant Gaede]

Am I to get the last word or is Xray on holiday?

--Brant

gloat, gloat

[Selene]

Am I to get the last word or is Xray on holiday?

--Brant

gloat, gloat

SSSSHHHH! Let it sleep!

[Xray]

objective value is the objectification of value--i.e., identification

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant.

For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all.

Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them.

Well, here is how I see it: In ground combat my unit is taking machine-gun fire from the treeline. My objective evaluation is that that is an objective disvalue to me and other members of my unit. The enemy soldiers, though, see that as an objective value to them. I call in an airstrike and a jet fighter-bomber drops napalm on the enemy position. I see that as an objective value to me as I want to live. The enemy sees that as an objective disvalue to them for the same reason.

You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route.

The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler.

But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing. That's why I think this entire discussion is essentially "trite." However, you confuse people with false importance.

--Brant

You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values.

As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing.

No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I don't think Xray has any real understanding or appreciation or use for "man in the abstract." Major problem.

--Brant

What pecisely is your definition of "man in the abstract"?

Edited August 29, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Xray has any real understanding or appreciation or use for "man in the abstract." Major problem.

--Brant

What pecisely is your definition of "man in the abstract"?

Why do you want to know? There is no definition, for instance, of man in the concrete--that is, a man. I'm not going to do this bits and pieces thing with you. Universality for objective values belongs to the concept, but there are other objective values for men which vary dynamically. If I'm dying of dehydration in the wilderness the spring of clear potable water I come across is a huge objective value to me qua my objective situation. I would merely think it's a huge value to me qua my situation. If I accidentally fall in and start drowning it becomes an objective disvalue. If I struggle to get out and drink at the same time, gulp, gulp, it is both a value and a disvalue.

--Brant

the objectivity of subjectivity

Edited August 29, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

I don't think Xray has any real understanding or appreciation or use for "man in the abstract." Major problem.

--Brant

What pecisely is your definition of "man in the abstract"?

Why do you want to know? There is no definition, for instance, of man in the concrete--that is, a man. I'm not going to do this bits and pieces thing with you. Universality for objective values belongs to the concept, but there are other objective values for men which vary dynamically. If I'm dying of dehydration in the wilderness the spring of clear potable water I come across is a huge objective value to me qua my objective situation. I would merely think it's a huge value to me qua my situation. If I accidentally fall in and start drowning it becomes an objective disvalue. If I struggle to get out and drink at the same time, gulp, gulp, it is both a value and a disvalue.

--Brant

the objectivity of subjectivity

So you think there is no definiton of "man"? What is it that one can read in the dictionary entry then? How do you call it?

You say I have "no real understanding or appreciation or use for 'man in the abstract'", and when I ask you to offer a definition, you refuse. How can you conclude I don't understand something which you obviously don't want to (or can't) define?

Universality for objective values belongs to the concept

Again, what concept is it, this "man in the abstract"?

What you call "bits and pieces thing", I call clarification because I want to know what each discussion partner is talking about, to avoid misunderstandings.

but there are other objective values for men which vary dynamically. If I'm dying of dehydration in the wilderness the spring of clear potable water I come across is a huge objective value to me qua my objective situation. I would merely think it's a huge value to me qua my situation. If I accidentally fall in and start drowning it becomes an objective disvalue. If I struggle to get out and drink at the same time, gulp, gulp, it is both a value and a disvalue.

What you list here is again value subjectively attributed by individuals with respect to a specific situation. Water can be valued or not valued, depending on the person's goal.

I suppose you are aware that this has nothing to do with Rand's idea of "objective values".

Edited August 29, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Xray has any real understanding or appreciation or use for "man in the abstract." Major problem.

--Brant

What pecisely is your definition of "man in the abstract"?

Why do you want to know? There is no definition, for instance, of man in the concrete--that is, a man. I'm not going to do this bits and pieces thing with you. Universality for objective values belongs to the concept, but there are other objective values for men which vary dynamically. If I'm dying of dehydration in the wilderness the spring of clear potable water I come across is a huge objective value to me qua my objective situation. I would merely think it's a huge value to me qua my situation. If I accidentally fall in and start drowning it becomes an objective disvalue. If I struggle to get out and drink at the same time, gulp, gulp, it is both a value and a disvalue.

--Brant

the objectivity of subjectivity

So you think there is no definiton of "man"? What is it that one can read in the dictionary entry then? How do you call it?

You say I have "no real understanding or appreciation or use for 'man in the abstract'", and when I ask you to offer a definition, you refuse. How can you conclude I don't understand something which you obviously don't want to (or can't) define?

Universality for objective values belongs to the concept

Again, what concept is it, this "man in the abstract"?

What you call "bits and pieces thing", I call clarification because I want to know what each discussion partner is talking about, to avoid misunderstandings.

but there are other objective values for men which vary dynamically. If I'm dying of dehydration in the wilderness the spring of clear potable water I come across is a huge objective value to me qua my objective situation. I would merely think it's a huge value to me qua my situation. If I accidentally fall in and start drowning it becomes an objective disvalue. If I struggle to get out and drink at the same time, gulp, gulp, it is both a value and a disvalue.

What you list here is again value subjectively attributed by individuals with respect to a specific situation. Water can be valued or not valued, depending on the person's goal.

I suppose you are aware that this has nothing to do with Rand's idea of "objective values".

I don't represent Rand in this or most discussions. She did say "Man is the rational animal." There's a definition for you. It's not enough for these purposes. The idea or concept of man is much more than this. Air, food, shelter, clothing, language, sex are all objective values apropos man. Cases can be made for other things such as art but as we expand the list such knowledge will generally become more tentative.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

We can also state that sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch are all objective values to man and most men. Rationality is an objective value too. The fact that it isn't to the fellow over there doesn't deobjectify the value; it's just not being made use of. And rationality can fall to fate or chance. It would have been the rational thing for me to move to southern California in the early 1970s but I was not free to leave New Jersey. As it turns out the move would have been a disaster. Rationality saved me in the midst of an irrational war, luck saved me several times in civilian life. I'd call "luck" a subjective value and "rationality" an objective value. Doing the best you can with what you've got seems to be very rational to me. Thus: "rational value."

My basic objection to the way Xray labels things is her primacy of the subjective which morally equates right and wrong, good and evil. So when the Muslim hordes are at the gates of Vienna she throws them open.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

One of man's hidden addictions is to be understood. We all suffer from it in one degree or another. It actually comes from a good part within us, but it does make us suspend our common sense if we feel there is hope or possibility of getting our true intent across to someone.

Xray preys on this addiction.

Look at her questions that are repeated no matter how often they are answered... her polite misrepresentations that continue no matter how often they are corrected... her endless string of non-pertinent examples... and, yes, even her nonstop dogmatic proclamations injected in the middle of all this.

You will never be understood by her since she already disagrees with you by default. All you will get is an insinuation that understanding is right around the corner. That's actually powerful stuff for people like you and me and, like sheep, we play right into her hands. God knows I did.

So keep falling for her BS if you must and keep your discussions with her alive, but at least be aware of her con game. You are being manipulated by an intellectually dishonest person and it is nothing more than that, even when you make your criticisms of her and think that such statements make a difference. (Notice that they are rarely addressed.) It never will be anything more, either.

It is certainly working that way here in this post of mine. But at least I am addressing you and possible readers to help with awareness even as I grant this person unearned and undeserved attention. I have no intention of making a habit of this, though.

Sooner or later you will tire and come to the conclusion that you will never be seen intellectually by that source—because her intent is never to see or understand.

It is to preach and convert you to her dogma, or to trip you up so you will consider it.

It begins and ends there. It will never go anywhere else.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I'm well aware of all this although at first I thought there was brain damage caused by nurture.

I merely want to restate my own position(s) in better ways. I use her for that. I have no expectation of changing her mind about anything.

The subjective theory of value belongs to Austrian economics. Within economics the overall objective context while implicit can be ignored. Within philosophy it cannot be ignored when it is given overall primacy by an indefatigable troll.

Her basic position is anti-philosophy for the good guys while the bad guys get a free ride.

I suggest you let her make one more post then lock down the thread. After 1000 posts, more or less, everybody has said what they have to say. By letting her have the last word she can't complain she was censored. Let her post on other threads and make other threads and see who comes to play, and see if she has anything else to offer, which I doubt.

I think this interminable thread is damaging OL. I'd shut up if her other antagonists would shut up.

--Brant

[Xray]

Brant Gaede:

We can also state that sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch are all objective values to man and most men.

Then you could call digestion an "objective value" too. But the issue is "morality", not biology.

Dragonfly wrote: (# 993)

Dragonfly:

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".

Xray,

That something is an objective value to me doesn't mean it has to be to you too. I reject your universality premise ..."

Brant,

But the whole idea of "objective value" IS its alleged universality. It's the idea of the "need" for infallible directives independent of fallible individual.

If the "objective value" is not universal, what's left but non-universal, i.e. value attributed subjectively by each individual: the opposite of "objective value"?

but on this level of arguing it's semantical. We're just putting different labels on the same thing.

No. I'm putting different labels on different things. You are putting the same label on two different things.

... I don't like your labeling because it's pernicious -- as I've explained several times before. It leads to intellectual and moral disarmament.

I gather from this that you consider calling valuations subjective is destructive. Why do you think this "leads to intellectual and moral disarmament" (whatever that is)?

"...It chews the foundation right out of science."

Isn't the exact opposite the case? What is more scientific than pointing out the fact of individual entity identity and the corollary, subjective valuation?

My basic objection to the way Xray labels things is her primacy of the subjective which morally equates right and wrong, good and evil. So when the Muslim hordes are at the gates of Vienna she throws them open.

Your thinking relying upon "objective moral guidelines" leaves you assuming I advocate "anything goes"; hence, "So when the Muslim hordes are at the gates of Vienna she throws them open."

Nowhere did I express or imply advocating initiation of force and coercion. On the contrary, as I have stated in various posts of mine, I'm completely against advocating initiation of force and coercion.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Nowhere did I express or imply advocating initiation of force and coercion. On the contrary, as I have stated in various posts of mine, I'm completely against advocating initiation of force and coercion.

Brant (and others)--notice that Xray says she is against "advocating initiation of force and coercion". From this we may deduce that while she is against advocating initiation of force and coercion she is not against the use of initiation of force and coercion.

Also notice that she is proposing what can be only an objective value principle (since she thinks it applies to all others and not just herself). Thus either she believes in objective values despite all her talking here, or she does not really believe that we should not advocate initiation of force and coercion.

[Brant Gaede]

Enough is enough, Jeffrey. Notice how she arbitrarily discards biology so she can keep talking to her points without appearing silly? Mind/body dichotomy. If Rand made a mistake here with her formulations, I simply don't care--not apropos this stuck in the intellectual-sand discussion.

--Brant

[Christopher]

Xray, I still don't see you addressing my points. I don't see you discussing the criteria for choosing values, I don't see you addressing man's needs.

[Selene]

Xray, I still don't see you addressing my points. I don't see you discussing the criteria for choosing values, I don't see you addressing man's needs.

Chris:

So you did you speak with her husband.

Adam

[Xray]

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

I've never acted to gain or keep the Mona Lisa. Does that mean that it doesn't count as something which I value according to Objectivism?

J

Imo Rand's definition of "value" is clearly incomplete here.

Jonathan,

In my understanding, if you value viewing the Mona Lisa (or any art work), you have to value it enough to want it to exist. Thus your eyes can "gain" it even though the physical painting stays elsewhere.

Michael

Imo Rand's incomplete definition goes too much it the direction of "possessing" something, leaving out the many instances where one can attribute value to issues in which neither gaining nor keeping plays a role.

Her definition disregards that attributing value can apply to many situations where gaining and and keeping is not the focus.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

Brant (and others)--notice that Xray says she is against "advocating initiation of force and coercion". From this we may deduce that while she is against advocating initiation of force and coercion she is not against the use of initiation of force and coercion.

Also notice that she is proposing what can be only an objective value principle (since she thinks it applies to all others and not just herself). Thus either she believes in objective values despite all her talking here, or she does not really believe that we should not advocate initiation of force and coercion.

Wrong. You can be a strong proponent for something you see as a value and still realize that it is a subjective choice. I'm definitely against murder and I'm for a legislation that punishes murder, but I do realize that this is a subjective choice. That's the error Objectivists make: they think that you only can defend something if you think that it is an "objective" value and therefore they try to rationalize their choice.

[Xray]

Brant (and others)--notice that Xray says she is against "advocating initiation of force and coercion". From this we may deduce that while she is against advocating initiation of force and coercion she is not against the use of initiation of force and coercion.

Also notice that she is proposing what can be only an objective value principle (since she thinks it applies to all others and not just herself). Thus either she believes in objective values despite all her talking here, or she does not really believe that we should not advocate initiation of force and coercion.

Wrong. You can be a strong proponent for something you see as a value and still realize that it is a subjective choice. I'm definitely against murder and I'm for a legislation that punishes murder, but I do realize that this is a subjective choice. That's the error Objectivists make: they think that you only can defend something if you think that it is an "objective" value and therefore they try to rationalize their choice.

That's exactly what it is about, DF.

[Xray]

Brant (and others)--notice that Xray says she is against "advocating initiation of force and coercion". From this we may deduce that while she is against advocating initiation of force and coercion she is not against the use of initiation of force and coercion.

Also notice that she is proposing what can be only an objective value principle (since she thinks it applies to all others and not just herself). Thus either she believes in objective values despite all her talking here, or she does not really believe that we should not advocate initiation of force and coercion.

Read Dragonfly's clear explanation in # 1042, Jeffrey.

I neither advocate or nor approve of initiation of force and coercion. Which is why I would not "throw gates open" to those which do advocate it.

Each person is faced with the fact of attributing value, Jeffrey.

But the fixed "objective value" idea sets thinking of "a value" as if it exists independently of individual valuation.

But it is "OF" value to whom, or valuation, or attributing value. The fixed value idea tends to lose the valuer leaving valuation as not individually generated, but individually discovered.

If values are objective (universal), then all persons would make the same valuations in regard to all things.

But what can be observed is that not all persons do not make the same valuations in regard in all things.

What else can be concluded other than values can't be anything but subjective?

Edited August 31, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray, I still don't see you addressing my points.

Christopher,

How can you say I didn't address your points? Read my # 1019 post which is a detailed reply to yours with several questions asked.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You can be a strong proponent for something you see as a value and still realize that it is a subjective choice. I'm definitely against murder and I'm for a legislation that punishes murder, but I do realize that this is a subjective choice.

Dragonfly,

By that standard, what is a weak proponent? Just a difference in noise?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

By that standard, what is a weak proponent? Just a difference in noise?

I cannot think for other people, but I think a weak proponent doesn't care so much or perpaps thinks it doesn't make any difference in practice, or thinks it's not just a simple black-and-white question, or just isn't quite sure what he wants, etc. In effect that may be a difference in noise.

[rhartford]

You can be a strong proponent for something you see as a value and still realize that it is a subjective choice. I'm definitely against murder and I'm for a legislation that punishes murder, but I do realize that this is a subjective choice. That's the error Objectivists make: they think that you only can defend something if you think that it is an "objective" value and therefore they try to rationalize their choice.

Does this mean you will not try to "rationalize your choice" about being "against murder" as a correct choice.

Does this mean that another's "subjective choice" to be "for murder" is equally valid?

Is there no way in your mind to decide which of the two choices is a correct choice?

If you can choose one of the two choices as correct, by what standard?

If you can't choose one as correct, do you hold the two contradictory choices as "equally valid" if you can't rationalize your own choice?

What does it mean to you to be a "strong proponent" of something?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the rub. Society (in other words, law, at least in principle) is based on ethics.

Law can either be objective (i.e., based on man's nature and individual rights), or it can be at the whim of the rulers (i.e., subjective in relation to the rulers and simply commands to be obeyed by everyone else). I can't think of another realistic alternative.

If people are to live in an ethical society with objective laws, there must be objective values. An objective law without an objective value underpinning it is a contradiction.

There's more. Without objective laws based on objective values, there is only one social alternative that will arise irrespective of any blah blah blah about values being subjective: tribal warfare.

That's reality trumping the blah blah blah and it will trump it every time.

History has presented this over and over. One would think the apologists of subjective ethics would tire of it.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

"One would think the apologists of subjective ethics would tire of it." Agreed, I have to admit, that it still semi-stuns me that they even try it.

They will never tire of it as long as we sanction it, that is for sure.

Adam