Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

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

Calling another person's posts "intellectual garbage" is again a purely personal value judgment.

But checking premises always goes to the core of an issue, and imo the fact that a thread had more than 15000 views just shows how much the value question preoccupies people. It is true that the thread did run off the original topic, but this happens on other threads too (the recent discussion would have fit better into one of the "values" or "morality" threads), but as it often is with such discussion, one question leads to others; it's a bit like in a house with many doors to go through.

As for "good faith", faith in what? My position has always been clear: imo every philosphy has to pass the litmus test of applicability so see if it is viable, whether it is Kant's or Rand's.

I got interested in Ayn Rand because of her stance as an atheistic philosopher. For centuries, the question of ethics had uniquely been the realm of religion, with people being indoctrinated that without religion, no "true ethics" was even possible. Sounds absurd, but that was the message priestes often conveyed to their shep from the pulpit.

Without God as the glue to hold everything together, it would all fall apart, so to speak.

It was therefore Rand's atheist ethical systems which epecially interested me, and also her claim of individualism.

Many questions I asked have stayed unanswered, and my claims not been refuted. Instead of disproving my critique, all I often got back as a reply was insults, and for these indeed I needed "good faith" to ignore them.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

'jeffrey smith' date='02 September 2009 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1251938354' post='78477'

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

Something does not always have to be a substantive entity. Where for example is the substantive entity in a term like e. g. "emotion"?

So what exactly do you mean by substantive entity? Of course "Self" is not a concrete object like e. g. a ball, but still it is a concept referred to by the audiovisual symbol "self".

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.

My husband has studied buddhism for decades, so I know quite a bit about it.

There are different branches ('schools') of Buddhism: Hinayana (Theravada) and Mahayana (which has several subdivisions). Do you adhere to one of the schools?

One branch of Mahayana for example (Amida-Buddhism) even worships Buddha as a personal god (the personal salvation god which guides the soul to the so-called "pure land").

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.

My guess is you are referring to experiences you have had in meditation.

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

Does one always have to have personally experienced something in order to believe it?

When your friend tells you he saw a movie yesterday you don't accept it because you have not experienced it personally?

Edited September 3, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It's very simple, Xray. The primacy of the subjective isn't any Objectivism or objectivism I've ever heard of. In fact the "objectivisms" you've been complaining of are actually all subjectivisms. To adopt your labeling means destroying the philosophy and even the idea of philosophy generally except any mish-mash anyone may have inside their heads. Putting this thread into the Garbage pile merely means that Objectivist Living does not sanction your efforts here since you are the dominant voice. As for your being insulted, most of that comes out of frustration with dealing with a poster who is essentially a rude troll even though you can't help it without giving up your basic position. Nevertheless you have made many good criticisms of official Objectivism including Ayn Rand's messy formulations regarding values and valuing. I don't think the thread belongs in something labeled "garbage," but that's what Michael calls it here. "Not Objectivism" is how I'd do it.

You have highlighted in my opinion how Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, really isn't a true Objectivism since she filled it with so many of her personal subjectivisms. She was as much a cultural as an intellectual warrior and her culture references Atlas Shrugged and tangles up the intellectual. The incredible hubris of the Objectivist Ethics was in response to the even worse hubris of collectivist, altruist ethics that left the 20th Century bathed in blood. It doesn't matter that she was essentially correct for if you want to come up with a radically new morality you need to do a lot of empirical work covering many disciplines, especially psychology. The artificial bifurcation of psychology and philosophy belies what goes on in any human head at any time. For this we probably have to thank the Germans. We certainly have to thank them for the joke that is public education, all the way through college in the so called "soft sciences," in this country. Regardless, the search for truth and knowledge is the search for Objectivism using reason referencing reality. Using Objectivism for the search means displacing reason and reality. It gets it backwards. But we do have to know what we are about. Objectivism is orientating, especially since the basic principles seem to be correct. Those principles are logically laid out relative to each other and reality and are an integratable whole.

The whole idea of a formal philosophy correctly understood is that people can find and adopt better ideas and thus live better lives by bettering themselves (their philosophies). Compared to Objectivism most such philosophy is a sick, indigestible joke and is not concerned with "living on earth" or much else beyond self referencing academic one-upmanship and buffaloing college students with gobbledygook.

--Brant

Edited September 3, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think the thread belongs in something labeled "garbage," but that's what Michael calls it here.

Brant,

Outside of the issues discussed, this thread was seriously damaged when Xray doctored her previous posts based on losing later arguments. The impression a new reader gets is that she was reasonable all along and was being persecuted by people who intentionally misquoted her, misrepresented her statements, etc.

That's pure garbage, intellectual or otherwise.

There's more garbage in Xray's participation, but that part is the clearest garbage.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think the thread belongs in something labeled "garbage," but that's what Michael calls it here.

Brant,

Outside of the issues discussed, this thread was seriously damaged when Xray doctored her previous posts based on losing later arguments. The impression a new reader gets is that she was reasonable all along and was being persecuted by people who intentionally misquoted her, misrepresented her statements, etc.

That's pure garbage, intellectual or otherwise.

There's more garbage in Xray's participation, but that part is the clearest garbage.

Michael

Oh, I was only thinking of the other stuff.

--Brant

[Xray]

I don't think the thread belongs in something labeled "garbage," but that's what Michael calls it here.

Brant,

Outside of the issues discussed, this thread was seriously damaged when Xray doctored her previous posts based on losing later arguments. The impression a new reader gets is that she was reasonable all along and was being persecuted by people who intentionally misquoted her, misrepresented her statements, etc.

That's pure garbage, intellectual or otherwise.

There's more garbage in Xray's participation, but that part is the clearest garbage.

Michael

I did not 'doctor' (translated 'falsify') any posts of mine, nor do I have the impression that I have lost any arguments. Actually I had expected far more challenge than has been offered.

As for my post re 'truth' which you listed as alleged 'proof' of 'doctoring': I had added to elaborate on this post, and what I added in no way contradicted what I had written before. Anyone can see this for themselves when they compare the original and the edited post.

The same goes for every single one of my posts I have edited here. Nor do I recall any instance before where my editing of a post led to any misunderstanding in the discussion in that someone quoted from one my posts which was later edited by me, or got confused by an edited post. If there had been any such misunderstandings, I would have cleared them up at once. So I can't understand you bring up things like "intentionally misquoted" and "persecuted". (??)

I'm by no means the only poster who has used the edit button with some delay. A while ago, I searched for a specific post by someone else which had been there some hours before but it was gone. So the poster probably deleted it, I thought. What's the big deal? As long as an edit button is active, posters can use it.

And if you think my posts are "garbage", to make clear what precisely you are referring to, would you please quote from them what you think is garbage and explain why.

Edited to add:

*** Attention: it is possible that this post will be edited by me as long as the edit button is active*** (e.g. for weeding out typos, better layout, better phrasing, etc.) - and if I should have in that time span any additional thoughts fitting the post, or find a link, or some quote etc., I might add these things too.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, you wanted far more challenge in the context of your suppositions. Getting that your suppositions would be re-enforced. Win, win. That's my impression.

I don't think Michael made his case about the dishonesty of your editing. As I recall he had or presented only one piece of evidence. My objection to you has to do with your orientation and argument by asseveration as if you were pointing out self-evident truth. Again and again and again, for hundreds of posts. And if someone rather unsophisticated in all this made a somewhat contrary point, all the better for you to dig in deeper.

Objectivism is above all about substance--all substance. Subjectivism is all about non-substance. You have no ism, actually, except anything goes and can go and will go. Ergo, not only does that make you a troll here, but a troll anywhere except where trolls come from. Except for a peculiar line of reasoning for people like me to sharpen themselves up against you have nothing to offer but the virtue of multi-culturalism.

My own case about your dishonesty is lack of sincere seeking of truth; you've got it and now you want to pour in down the throats of truth seekers all the while claiming the primacy of subjectivism in values which cannot escape the logical consequence of subjectivism in truth as an objective truth and value in itself, while not admitting it. This makes Michael's claim against you relatively trivial.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

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.

The excerpt is a brief example of the sort of garbage of which Brant spoke in his post above, and in several others I've read.

She has no consistent grounds on which to stand in objecting to a Muslim take-over of Vienna, or of anywhere else, or to Nazi atrocities, or to any other barbarities in the name of ideology (which she decries), except to say that she doesn't like it. On her premises even a desire for the consistency she doesn't demonstrate would have no more grounds of justification than its happening to be her personal preference.

The garbage she expounds -- and with a tone of moral superiority -- is poison, the kind of poison which has been insidiously for a long while destroying the ability of Western intellectuals to defend that in which they could justifiably, with proper underpinning, take pride in their own tradition. I've found reading her posts -- I've gotten around to reading a significant sample of them -- rather like reading a minitutorial which might be titled "the dead end of the erosion within."

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think Michael made his case about the dishonesty of your editing. As I recall he had or presented only one piece of evidence.

Brant,

I mentioned others and she even owned up to the one about her gush over your "conversion" (with the standard cop-out that it was a joke, which it wasn't at the time from the whole tone and manner, and which now cannot be confirmed since it was deleted).

Put it this way. Somebody comes in your store and steals from you. Then he steals from you again. And again. And again. And so on. You don't know that he did it at first, but your inventory starts showing the lack, so you start suspecting him. Then one day you catch him red-handed, but only with a gumball in his hand. Then you take measures to keep a permanent eye on him. The inventory problems stop.

What do you do? Keep presuming he is an honest customer and never stole from you before just because you did not "make a case" except for "only one piece of evidence"? Just because you did not catch him red-handed all those other times?

Gimmee a break! That sounds like James Valliant...

You can believe she is honest if you like. I know better from countless times trying to quote what I know I read and suddenly couldn't find.

One thing is for sure. She will no longer doctor her past posts to suit a later argument she lost. I removed the ability to do that from her.

Michael

[Xray]

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.

The excerpt is a brief example of the sort of garbage of which Brant spoke in his post above, and in several others I've read.

You consider it garbage when I state that I'm for treating those honor killings as murder by our law??

She has no consistent grounds on which to stand in objecting to a Muslim take-over of Vienna,

My consistent ground here is our law applied to everyone who commits murder.

She has no consistent grounds on which to stand in objecting to a Muslim take-over of Vienna, or of anywhere else, or to Nazi atrocities, or to any other barbarities in the name of ideology (which she decries), except to say that she doesn't like it.

I elaborated in 1080 # on the freedom of religion

How you can conclude that I shrug off Nazi atrocities and barbarities in the name of ideology is especially odd, given the fact that in many of my posts I have explicitly pointed out the danger represented by ideologists who forcefully impose their subjective preferences as alleged obejctive values on others and the blood baths this has caused in history.

But then you have not followed this discussion from the beginning, so there may be some misunderstanding on your part.

On her premises even a desire for the consistency she doesn't demonstrate would have no more grounds of justification than its happening to be her personal preference.

Desire for the consistency of what? Desire is linked to a goal one would want to reach, whether it is desiring a cup of coffee or desiring peace.

Yes indeed I desire peace, which is why my personal value system includes non-initiation of force and non-coercion. Violence causes violence in return, or other forms of resistance which will fall back on the aggressor in one form or other.

Conflicts arise when value systems clash, so this does not mean I would not defend myself if attacked. But I won't initiate force, and also speak up against those who propagate it. But all this I have elaborated on in my # 1080 post to you.

The garbage she expounds -- and with a tone of moral superiority -- is poison, the kind of poison which has been insidiously for a long while destroying the ability of Western intellectuals to defend that in which they could justifiably, with proper underpinning, take pride in their own tradition.

Arbitrary labels are so easy to attach, aren't they? Meanwhile I have been called everything here, from "immoral" to "having a tone of moral superiority".

Also, you lump together "Western intellectuals" in one category, as if they were a homogenous group sharing the same values, or better, who in your opinion "should" share the same values, and is it a stretch to conclude thath these just happen to be the values which you prefer? ;)

I've found reading her posts -- I've gotten around to reading a significant sample of them -- rather like reading a minitutorial which might be titled "the dead end of the erosion within."

Could it be that what might erode and crumble is the blind belief in alleged objective values and the black and white friend/enemy thinking once you have become aware of how complex those ethical value questions are?

BTW, have you also read my #1075 reply to you about the syllogism issue?

___

Edited September 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I don't think Michael made his case about the dishonesty of your editing. As I recall he had or presented only one piece of evidence.

Brant,

I mentioned others and she even owned up to the one about her gush over your "conversion" (with the standard cop-out that it was a joke, which it wasn't at the time from the whole tone and manner, and which now cannot be confirmed since it was deleted).

It was banter. Seriously, Michael - do you really think I was that naive to believe I had "converted" Brant?

Edited September 4, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It was banter. Seriously, Michael - do you really think I was that naive to believe I had "converted" Brant?

Xray,

Yup. Just as I believe know that you are a bald-faced liar.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Michael made his case about the dishonesty of your editing. As I recall he had or presented only one piece of evidence.

Brant,

I mentioned others and she even owned up to the one about her gush over your "conversion" (with the standard cop-out that it was a joke, which it wasn't at the time from the whole tone and manner, and which now cannot be confirmed since it was deleted).

Put it this way. Somebody comes in your store and steals from you. Then he steals from you again. And again. And again. And so on. You don't know that he did it at first, but your inventory starts showing the lack, so you start suspecting him. Then one day you catch him red-handed, but only with a gumball in his hand. Then you take measures to keep a permanent eye on him. The inventory problems stop.

What do you do? Keep presuming he is an honest customer and never stole from you before just because you did not "make a case" except for "only one piece of evidence"? Just because you did not catch him red-handed all those other times?

Gimmee a break! That sounds like James Valliant...

You can believe she is honest if you like. I know better from countless times trying to quote what I know I read and suddenly couldn't find.

One thing is for sure. She will no longer doctor her past posts to suit a later argument she lost. I removed the ability to do that from her.

Michael

I forgot about that deleted post. But Michael, this is your store (prop.) while it's only mine for shopping (cust.). Nice analogy but you can't logically extend it without explaining why you didn't call the cops (kick her out). If you go back over a thousand posts ago, maybe not that many, I was the only one really calling Xray out, if not for dishonesty per se then at least for trolldom, while you were the benevolent let's-give-her-a-chance overseer. That was appropriate from you then and it didn't take too long for you to become more aware of this. Editing of posts came much later, not that she didn't do that much sooner for all we now know.

So: "The Garbage Pile!"

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Michael made his case about the dishonesty of your editing. As I recall he had or presented only one piece of evidence.

Brant,

I mentioned others and she even owned up to the one about her gush over your "conversion" (with the standard cop-out that it was a joke, which it wasn't at the time from the whole tone and manner, and which now cannot be confirmed since it was deleted).

It was banter. Seriously, Michael - do you really think I was that naive to believe I had "converted" Brant?

Macht nichts. You deleted it. But I'll certainly take Michael's take on this over yours; he destroyed no evidence. It's just more evidence, much more important, that you're one of those I-am-never-wrong-about-anything dogmatists protected so you say by the intellectual superiority of your arguments and positions wondering why you piss so many people off.

--Brant

the objective superiority of multi-culturalism?

the objective superiority of subjectivism?

Objectivism is subjectivism?

subjectivism without objectivism?

facts without values?

values without facts?

mind without body?

evil is okay for the other guy if he keeps it at home?

evil? what's that?

war is evil for the West not the East? for the Christian, not the Muslim?

objectivism is evil, subjectivism just is?

all objectivisms are subjectivisms? and that's objectively true?

[Brant Gaede]

"Honor killings as murder by our law," Xray. But okay back home? Are you aware of some recent efforts to impose Sharia law in Great Britain?

--Brant

Edited September 4, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Macht nichts. You deleted it. But I'll certainly take Michael's take on this over yours; he destroyed no evidence.

Claiming I "destroyed evidence" is absurd as if I claimed you "destroyed evidence" when I was looking for posts of yours and found out you had deleted them, e.g. like the one where you commented on Atlas Shrugged here on this thread.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Honor killings as murder by our law," Xray. But okay back home? Are you aware of some recent efforts to impose Sharia law in Great Britain?

--Brant

This is being attempted here too, and I'm strictly against these efforts, which is why I wrote:

"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."

I'm totally against what these religious fundamentalists are attemping to do, but what I'm not doing is to lump all "muslims" together as "the enemy", as if they were all alike in their mindset. I just know too many personally and those I know would shudder at the mere thought of having the Sharia here.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Macht nichts. You deleted it. But I'll certainly take Michael's take on this over yours; he destroyed no evidence.

Claiming I "destroyed evidence" is absurd as if I claimed you "destroyed evidence" when I was looking for posts of yours and found out you had deleted them, e.g. like the one where you commented on Atlas Shrugged here on this thread.

I'll take your word about my deletion being innocent.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Honor killings as murder by our law," Xray. But okay back home? Are you aware of some recent efforts to impose Sharia law in Great Britain?

--Brant

This is being attempted here too, and I'm strictly against these efforts, which is why I wrote:

"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."

I'm totally against what these religious fundamentalists are attemping to do, but what I'm not doing is to lump all "muslims" together as "the enemy", as if they were all alike in their mindset. I just know too many personally and those I know would shudder at the mere thought of having the Sharia here.

If I was unclear, I was referring to home countries like Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. Was it objectively immoral to seize an American journalist and videotape his head being sawed off, killing him? Is forced female circumcision objectively immoral? Or is all this crap and nonsense merely subjective value expression not open to objective censure?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Could it be that what might erode and crumble is the blind belief in alleged objective values and the black and white friend/enemy thinking once you have become aware of how complex those ethical value questions are?

Some are complex, some are blatantly simple. The basic ones are simple but can be hidden in the complexity of particular cases which can be talked about endlessly to no elucidation or education for hoi intellectual polloi. In the meantime the gates are swung open and the rape and pillage of western civilization begins!!

--Brant

run for your lives!

the subjective objectivists are coming!

(I'm an objective Objectivist )

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'll take your word about my deletion being innocent.

Brant,

I don't.

I read it.

I know. The author knows. Others can't know.

I say one thing. The author says another.

That's my point.

That's why this garbage is garbage.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'll take your word about my deletion being innocent.

Brant,

I don't.

I read it.

I know. The author knows. Others can't know.

I say one thing. The author says another.

That's my point.

That's why this garbage is garbage.

Michael

I'm confused. I said "my" not "your" deletion. It was repartee. I also said by direct implication that I wasn't taking HER word that her deletion was "innocent."

--Brant

[Xray]

"Honor killings as murder by our law," Xray. But okay back home? Are you aware of some recent efforts to impose Sharia law in Great Britain?

--Brant

This is being attempted here too, and I'm strictly against these efforts, which is why I wrote:

"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."

I'm totally against what these religious fundamentalists are attemping to do, but what I'm not doing is to lump all "muslims" together as "the enemy", as if they were all alike in their mindset. I just know too many personally and those I know would shudder at the mere thought of having the Sharia here.

If I was unclear, I was referring to home countries like Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. Was it objectively immoral to seize an American journalist and videotape his head being sawed off, killing him? Is forced female circumcision objectively immoral? Or is all this crap and nonsense merely subjective value expression not open to objective censure?

--Brant

Marrying the term "morality" to the term "objective" is a semantic mismatch, the same as "objective values". Actually it blinds the view to independent thinking, for once you bring up the term "objective morality" or "objective value", you are in trap, since those who committed the videotaped act will tell you point-blank exactly the same: that theirs was an act of "objective value". Shocking, sure, but that is a fact.

Just like - who said it - US President Andrew Jackson? "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian". If asked, he certainly would have insisted on this being an "objective value".

As for "forced female circumcision", the term "forced" is redundant since this is always an imposed act. 'Circumcision' is a euphemism for what is in fact genital mutilation, causing indescribable pain, if not death from sepsis, and robbing women forever of the ability to experience sexual pleasure. Behind all this is a deep-set fear of female sexuality, therefore sexually active women are considered as a threat to males.

But shocking as it is, the practice of genital mutilation is considered as an act of "objective morality" by those who condone it.

See how trying to apply "objective morality" leads into a blind alley each time, Brant?

One can only try to convince these people via social projects to stop this horrific practice, and not via throwing bombs on their villages.

A lot has been achieved, but much still remains to be done.

I'm also against the practice of circumcising males btw., and if I had a son, would never consent to this being performed.

Although the consequences for males can't be compared to those which genital mutilation has for females, still it is an imposed, forceful act unnecessarily cutting protective skin off a very sensitive area.

To sum it up again for the umpteenth time here: realizing that people subjectively attribute value to whatever, and often erroneously call their values 'objective' does not imply one has an 'anything goes' attitude. If I had this attiude, I would not support the social projects I donate money to.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeffrey Smith:

"Since your previous posts give every indication of not actually want to know what others think, but only want more fodder for your wordgames

Accusing others of word games without a support for the accusation is similar to the practice of declaring error without ever identifying the what and why of alleged error.

So to clarify, would you please define 'word games' and give examples from my posts supporting the claim of word games.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm confused. I said "my" not "your" deletion. It was repartee. I also said by direct implication that I wasn't taking HER word that her deletion was "innocent."

Brant,

Sorry.

Senior moment...

Michael