Rand's gender hierarchy

[Selene]

Now this should be really amusing!

Adam

[Xray]

x-ray:

I also think you might be interested in this study for now.

http://www.guardian....ence.psychology

Adam

Post Script:

Here it is, but it was 2 to 1 as the ratio.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52445

Thanks for the links, Selene.

[Xray]

Now this should be really amusing

Adam

What "should be really amusing"?

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

First, the term, truth, without the question, truth about what, is a meaningless floating abstraction.

Ah, the Pontius Pilate option.

[Xray]

The Muslims are well past the gates of Vienna. On my recent stay in Vienna, I saw even more of them there than I saw three years ago -- and, again, as was the case three years ago, often they were in family groups with children in tow. I fear that the demographic infiltration bodes danger, as Oriana Fallaci warned -- and that the regnant subjectivist-ethics philosophy is handing the Muslims the keys of the city on a gilded platter.

Ellen, I happen to have a lot of contact with people of the muslimic religion since I work in a kindergarten with children from many different nations and all continents. I have never suffered from any kind of xenophobia, if I did, I would have had had to look for another job long ago.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed in our constitution as well as in yours.

I happen not to have the same subjective value system as propagated by the Koran in which the alleged existence of a transcendent almighty being ("Allah") is presented as fact, but nor do I share the subjective value system as propagated by the Bible in which the existence of a transcendent almighty being ("God") is also presented as fact, the one in the Bible even ordering genocides and a mass murder of children.

You are wrong in assuming that being aware of the subjectivity of values implies that a person realizing this will just sit back and advocate an "anything goes" attitude. I have endorsed quite a few human rights projects, and am strictly against Peikoff's fanatic advocating of throwing bombs on "the enemy", even if it involves killing babies.

I'm for applying our law against those who violate it, so if people expect to get away with e. g. honor killings because the laws in their country don't treat them as murder, I'm absolutely for our judges making NO exception for them in any way.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray uses key terms like "subjective" and "objective" like Rand meant the same thing by them as Xray does. This is an obvious fallacy of equivocation. Regardless, pointing out Xray's fallacies makes no difference to her. You may as well talk to a brick wall.

I often have the same impression of Objectivists, sometimes including Rand. They use terms like "subjective" and "objective" in quite a different way than what is commonly used, but often act as if they mean what everyone else means. Not only that, but they don't use the terms consistently amongst themselves. An Objectivist might say that objectivity is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following rules of logic and reason, so, therefore, the Objectivist ethics is objective since Rand supported her views with logic and reason. But when others -- people ranging from Marxists to fellow Objectivists -- use logic and reason to disagree with some of Rand's views, and to support their own, Objectivists claim that their views are "subjective" or "non-objective."

Objectivists will state that being objective doesn't guarantee that one's conclusions will be right, they'll say that objectivity doesn't exclude the possibility of error, and they'll say that even Rand was sometimes mistaken while being objective. But then they'll apply what appears to be a completely different set of standards to what they take to be others' errors, seemingly at whim. Not only are these others' views in error, but they are "subjective," despite the fact that they were supported with logic and reason, and often times quite extensively and tenaciously supported.

J

Good points, Jonathan.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeffrey,

Your phrase "I cannot accept any form of egoism" caught my attention.

Are you an advocate of "altruism" then?

Imo your attitude re egoism directly opposes Rand's position.

Agree?

If not, why not?

Your motto:

"Magna est veritas et praevalebit."

If it is, and will prevail, then what do you think will be left of Objectivism?

1) I come at this from rather different starting point than Rand does, so to say my view opposes Rand's position would be unfair: it doesn't render her position invalid so much as it renders it irrelevant. Egoism is any philosophy which affirms the existence of the self/ego as a substantial entity. Having had certain experiences that can be best referred (for purposes of this discussion)to "egolessness" renders one unable to affirm the ego in the normal fashion.

I think even altruism acknwoledges that self/ego exists.

Imo labeling an act as "egoless" is a interpretation of a behavior which may give the impression of a person putting his/her needs first.

But imo the persons acting that way do this because they value what are doing higher than not doing it. So whatever it is that are doing, you will find this personal value aspect present.

What is is regarded as personal value by X may not be regarded as persnvlaue by others, hence the difficulty by many to see the subjective value aspect in a so-called "altruistic" action. But it is ALWAYS present in one form or the other.

Altruism is a form of irrational egoism. After all, to think that you must sacrifice your Self, you need to believe that you have a Self.

You believe one doesn't have a Self?

2) I hold to an objective theory of moral value, but my standard of value is not man's nature; it is the Universe's nature which provides the standard, or more precisely, That Which gives the universe its being. From that comes certain necessary inferences about the nature of man and the world in which he exists, and from that comes a viewpoint of morality and ethics that agrees with Objectivism on many, but not all, points.

From "That Which" written in capitals I infer that you are a believer in a transcendent power.

But Xray, I don't intend to exhibit the chain of logic involved therein for your benefit.

I can only speak for myself, Jeffrey, but if I'm convinced of the truth about something, I always regard presenting the chain of logic to others as to their benefit too. They may agree or not like what is is being offered, but the gift is always made with this commitment on my part.

For I value the truth about this issue so much that I want to let others know about it too.

Imo Objectivsm is irreconcilable with any kind of belief in transcendence; Rand herself was very clear about this.

3) Just like anything else: so much as there is truth in Objectivism, it will endure, and no more than that.

Does the "it" refer to the term 'truth' or to 'Objectvism'?

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

First, the term, truth, without the question, truth about what, is a meaningless floating abstraction.

Ah, the Pontius Pilate option.

It looks like Pontius Pilate asked Jesus for a definition of the term 'truth' - excellent idea.

For defining is the first step in connecting those floating abstractions to reality.

ST. JOHN, 18:

(37) Jesus: "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice".

(38) Pilate saith unto him, "What is truth"?

Jesus failed to provide the definition, so maybe we could have go at it?

How do you define "truth"?

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Not so fast three card monte girl:

So now you will misquote and miss apply biblical quotations. Soon you will descend to the gutter of politics where we can really get dirty.

"Jesus failed to provide the definition, so maybe we could have go at it?"

I might just, for the record, point out that that that Jesus guy...[i heard he was an illegal Mexican] answered the question, repeatedly:

Jesus saith to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

Adam

Edited September 2, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

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

"Strong" proponent can be stylistically used for mere emphasis; as e. g. in "John X is a strong believer in ..."

The use of the adjective strong for emphasis does not automatically establish an opposition strong/weak. So if person P is called "a strong proponent of ...", it does not imply that the others are "weak" proponents.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Not so fast three card monte girl:

So now you will misquote and miss apply biblical quotations. Soon you will descend to the gutter of politics where we can really get dirty.

"Jesus failed to provide the definition, so maybe we could have go at it?"

I might just, for the record, point out that that that Jesus guy...[i heard he was an illegal Mexican] answered the question, repeatedly:

Jesus saith to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

Adam

You obviously have no idea of what constitues a "misquote".

The words you quoted also appear in the dialogue, and those I quoted figure there too. Where's your problem with that?

Jesus says he is "the truth" and "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice", and that "I should bear witness unto the truth".

It looks like Pontius Pilate wanted Jesus to clarify his wishy-washy application of the term truth by asking him to define it.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Not so fast three card monte girl:

So now you will misquote and miss apply biblical quotations. Soon you will descend to the gutter of politics where we can really get dirty.

"Jesus failed to provide the definition, so maybe we could have go at it?"

I might just, for the record, point out that that that Jesus guy...[i heard he was an illegal Mexican] answered the question, repeatedly:

Jesus saith to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

Adam

You have no idea of what constitues a "misquote".

The word you quoted also appear in the dialogue, and those I quoted figure there too. Where's your problem?

Jesus says he is "the truth" and "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice".

Pontious Pilate obviously had the wish to make Jesus clarify his wishy-washy application of the term truth by asking him to define it.

Yep, you know how wishy washy things can get after you have been brutalized by the soldiers of the European thugs. So essentially, 3 card monte girl, Jesus was a pussy.

Got it.

Adam

[Jonathan]

Xray uses key terms like "subjective" and "objective" like Rand meant the same thing by them as Xray does. This is an obvious fallacy of equivocation. Regardless, pointing out Xray's fallacies makes no difference to her. You may as well talk to a brick wall.

I often have the same impression of Objectivists, sometimes including Rand. They use terms like "subjective" and "objective" in quite a different way than what is commonly used, but often act as if they mean what everyone else means. Not only that, but they don't use the terms consistently amongst themselves. An Objectivist might say that objectivity is the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following rules of logic and reason, so, therefore, the Objectivist ethics is objective since Rand supported her views with logic and reason. But when others -- people ranging from Marxists to fellow Objectivists -- use logic and reason to disagree with some of Rand's views, and to support their own, Objectivists claim that their views are "subjective" or "non-objective."

Objectivists will state that being objective doesn't guarantee that one's conclusions will be right, they'll say that objectivity doesn't exclude the possibility of error, and they'll say that even Rand was sometimes mistaken while being objective. But then they'll apply what appears to be a completely different set of standards to what they take to be others' errors, seemingly at whim. Not only are these others' views in error, but they are "subjective," despite the fact that they were supported with logic and reason, and often times quite extensively and tenaciously supported.

J

Good points, Jonathan.

Thanks, Xray, but I was hoping that others here would respond to my comments and maybe give me their thoughts on what standards they might propose (or that Rand might have proposed) for judging how much error is acceptable while being objective and not slipping into subjectivity. I asked similar questions earlier, but Stephen was the only person to respond, and I was hoping for more clarity on the issue.

I've heard some very detailed defenses of everything from anarchism to altruism in which those who were defending their views appeared to be trying to use "the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following rules of logic and reason." Their arguments were generally very logical and well-reasoned. Would others here agree that their viewpoints were objective, (or, without hearing the details of the arguments themselves, could you at least agree that such viewpoints could be classified as objective)?

J

[rhartford]

...I was hoping that others here would respond to my comments and maybe give me their thoughts on what standards they might propose (or that Rand might have proposed) for judging how much error is acceptable while being objective and not slipping into subjectivity.

I mentally separate things in reality into those things that are “out there” and those things that are my mental products, such as memories, concepts, propositions, and principles. If my mental products are to be true, they must correspond to the “out there,” they must correspond to reality.

The mental processes for producing mental products vary in their effectiveness at achieving correspondence to reality. Basing one’s mental products on processes that are known to be unreliable, e.g. by what “feels” right or by acceptance on faith, is to act subjectively. Basing one’s mental products on processes that are known to be effective at achieving truth, e.g. reasoned analysis, is to act objectively. The former is more likely to result in error than is the latter.

In attempting to judge any individual it is not always easy to know which procedure the person is using. The criterion, however, is not "how much error" is made, but the objectivity/subjectivity of the mental processes used. That is why it is often so difficult to judge and why accusations of subjectivity are often subjective.

Obviously, there is a great deal more to say, and I welcome others' suggestions of valuable references. The above is my simplistic view of the issue.

[Xray]

[Xray]: (#1082)

Imo labeling an act as "egoless" is a interpretation of a behavior which may give the impression of a person putting his/her needs first.

Now if that wasn't a Freudian slip typo on my part:

I meant to write of course:

"Imo labeling an act as "egoless" is a interpretation of a behavior which may give the impression of a person putting others' needs first.

(I just know that there is no such thing as "altruism". ;)

It exists as a doctrine only.)

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I've heard some very detailed defenses of everything from anarchism to altruism in which those who were defending their views appeared to be trying to use "the process of volitionally adhering to reality by following rules of logic and reason." Their arguments were generally very logical and well-reasoned. Would others here agree that their viewpoints were objective, (or, without hearing the details of the arguments themselves, could you at least agree that such viewpoints could be classified as objective)?

Johnathan, are you referring to discussions here at this OL forum? If yes, I'd be very interested in reading these arguments.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I was hoping that others here would respond to my comments and maybe give me their thoughts on what standards they might propose (or that Rand might have proposed) for judging how much error is acceptable while being objective and not slipping into subjectivity. I asked similar questions earlier, but Stephen was the only person to respond, and I was hoping for more clarity on the issue.

Jonathan,

I didn't realize what you were asking. Whenever I see a post laden with "Objectivists do this..." or "Objectivists do that...," I usually ignore the post.

I consider myself an Objectivist and I am certainly not typical of "Objectivists" if the fundamentalists are being referenced. I know that I did not recognize myself in your post.

To answer how much error is acceptable and still be objective, I can't speak for Objectivism, especially since there is no such entity or even official organization. I can only speak for me. For the record, I do start from an Objectivist stance gleaned from the works of Rand, but all of my thoughts are my own.

I say that no error at all is permissible to be objective if you know that the error is an error and you want to claim it is correct.

Does that help?

Michael

[Xray]

Yep, you know how wishy washy things can get after you have been brutalized by the soldiers of the European thugs. So essentially, 3 card monte girl, Jesus was a pussy.

Got it.

Adam

"3 card monte"? Selene, do you really think any bending of cards is required to see your modus operandi, which is resorting to primitive categorizing each time you have run out of arguments?

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I say that no error at all is permissible to be objective if you know that the error is an error and you want to claim it is correct.

Knowing that an error is an error and wanting to claim it is correct is actually lying.

For a lie is claiming something to be a fact while knowing the alleged fact to be untrue.

An error is something else than a lie.

Therefore the phrasing "no error is permissible to be objective" is a bit strange. For errors are always 'objective' in that they are committed. The same goes for lies told.

So I suppose MSK meant "No LIE is permissible if you want to be objective and know that the error is an error and you want to claim it is correct".

Edited September 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a balance problem. I suppose I will have to deal with it sooner or later:

[Xray]

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?"

You look for "objective moral grounds" for "justification" - i. e. you insist on validating a personal choice by some criteria apart from personal choice. But Dragonfly clearly pointed out the ends and means element about being against murder because initiation of force does not suit his preference of how he'd like to see society.

DF: "Valid" and "correct" are meaningless terms here, it is about my personal choice how I'd like to see society.

Precisely. Means and ends is the real issue. Valid or invalid refer to evaluation of means in respect of a chosen goal.

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

The "standard" was given by DF: ".... it is about my personal choice how I'd like to see society." Again, means and ends.

RH: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?

Valid by what reference? Again, ends and means. DF has answered it.

RH: "In dealing with the foundations of knowledge, David Kelley (1998, 17), in Evidence and Justification,' gives ‘a justification of knowledge that goes all the way down, based upon a set of epistemological standards to which all knowledge is subject.' He starts 'all the way down' with a person's very first awareness and provides justification of an entire hierarchy of knowledge. Similarly, a justification of normative judgments must be traced to such foundational roots."

As for the roots of "normative judgments", value is subjective. That's all there is to it. The roots don't go any deeper than this.

As for your essay "Objectivity and the Proof of Egoism" - is there a discussion thread on it here at OL?

RH: "After some complex arguments, I assert:

"This analysis provides a criterion for ‘correspondence to reality' in the realm of normative action. The action, its causes, and its consequences must integrate with the rest of one's mental contents. For noncontradictory integration, volitional selection of action must be in accord with holding one's own life as the motive and goal of one's action."

What corresponds to reality is volition and choice, including choosing to live or die (within capacity) and choice of lifestyle. So, "holding one's own life as the motive, life as a standard of value" are arbitrary inserts which can be supported only by more arbitrary inserts.

RH:"If the proof holds, or can be made to hold, normative choices can then be properly assessed as valid or invalid, correct or incorrect."

Does this mean that volition can be invalidated by "wrong normative choices?" Can only the "right valuations" maintain volition as a natural characteristic?

Edited September 3, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Imo labeling an act as "egoless" is a interpretation of a behavior which may give the impression of a person putting his/her needs first.

But imo the persons acting that way do this because they value what are doing higher than not doing it. So whatever it is that are doing, you will find this personal value aspect present.

What is is regarded as personal value by X may not be regarded as persnvlaue by others, hence the difficulty by many to see the subjective value aspect in a so-called "altruistic" action. But it is ALWAYS present in one form or the other.

Egolessness has nothing to do with "acting selflessly". It means existing without an ego, in a manner more profound than anything you are talking about. If you are actually interested in understanding what I am talking about (although I seriously doubt you are), study Buddhism. Intensively.

You believe one doesn't have a Self?

The Self or ego is not a substantive entity, however firmly human psychology is wedded to the perception that it is.

The fact that it is almost impossible, if not actually impossible, to convey what exactly "egolessness" is to those that have not experienced it firsthand, testifies to how firmly wedded normal human functioning is tied to the ego.

2) I hold to an objective theory of moral value, but my standard of value is not man's nature; it is the Universe's nature which provides the standard, or more precisely, That Which gives the universe its being. From that comes certain necessary inferences about the nature of man and the world in which he exists, and from that comes a viewpoint of morality and ethics that agrees with Objectivism on many, but not all, points.

From "That Which" written in capitals I infer that you are a believer in a transcendent power.

To the extent that being a believer implies accepting something one has not personally experienced, I am not a believer in anything.

But Xray, I don't intend to exhibit the chain of logic involved therein for your benefit.

I can only speak for myself, Jeffrey, but if I'm convinced of the truth about something, I always regard presenting the chain of logic to others as to their benefit too. They may agree or not like what is is being offered, but the gift is always made with this commitment on my part.

For I value the truth about this issue so much that I want to let others know about it too.

Since your previous posts give every indication of not actually want to know what others think, but only want more fodder for your wordgames, I have no intention with supplying you with said fodder. The wise merchant exhibits his wares only to those that are interested in buying them.

In fact, even now I am responding more for the benefit of others who read this, so they won't get misled by your wordgames, than out of any consideration for yourself. If they want the details, I'll be glad to supply them, because they will be actually interested in what I am saying.

Edited September 3, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been advised offline by several people that participation by people who wish to discuss these topics has been crowded out by the sheer volume and length of Xray's go-nowhere-but-down posts. As one person put it (in the economic terms of Gresham's Law), bad money drives out good.

(How's that for an objective value? )

I think I am the only Objectivist still left discussing.

I'm thinking about what to do...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Garbage pile.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Garbage pile.

--Brant

Brant,

Great suggestion. I don't know why I didn't think of this. Xray has turned this thread into intellectual garbage.

My apologies to those who made posts on this thread in good faith.

Michael