Rand's gender hierarchy

[Selene]

I've run across an interesting web site that discusses personality theory, everyone from Freud to anybody you can think of (except N. Branden unfortunately), and there is a fascinating compressed exposition of Buddhism that some might find enlightening (Buddha means 'one who is awake'). http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/perscontents.html

Thanks very much David. Very helpful for me.

The B.F. Skinner childhood info was really helpful. I almost went to Hamilton when I was 16, but at the interview with the President, I was asked which fraternity I was going to belong to. I explained that I was not going to join any fraternity. I was told then I would have to dorm in the isolation dorm.

I thanked him. Explained to him that if I ever came down with that intellectual disease, I would reapply and be isolated.

My father and I stood up, thanked him very much for his time and left.

Nice "little ivy".

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We are all such good little rational people.

It feels so warm and tingly to be rational.

Why doesn't someone come here to make fun of us?

I really feel left out if no one makes fun of us.

Why won't anybody come if we are such good little rational people?

Why won't anyone make fun of us?

Oh why? Oh why?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Subjective

Subjective minus objective = nojective

Xray

Xray minus Ayn Rand = Noray

--Brant

waiting for the rest of her

Edited July 22, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff,

There are a few points in your post that need addressing, but first, I want to ask what you have read of Rand. You show some really good thoughts right beside some basic errors, which is why I ask. Anyway, here goes:

1. To live as "man qua man" actually does presuppose survival since "to live" means to survive, at least so long as you are alive. I can't imagine surviving while dead, can you?

True. But remember that Rand herself suggested that it might be possible that someone might find it worthwhile to die in order to protect something they intensely valued (for instance, their spouse and children), because they felt that life would not be worth living without that value being around.

2. I fully agree with you that some Objectivists do rationalize behavior that Rand would not approve of, however I, for one, have little interest in Rand's imaginary approval.

I was using "Rand's approval" as shorthand for "ideas explicitly stated by Rand" or "ideas which directly result from Objectivist principles".

I will not pompously claim that approval of others does not affect me. It does. But on the deepest level, I need the approval of myself in first, second, third, fourth and fifth place. Many or Rand's ideas are integrated with what I identify as "myself," but I do not carry her ghost around in my subconscious. I used to, but I got rid of it.

It is very unfortunate that a large number of Objectivists don't follow your example. They seem to have missed the point that Objectivism's basic idea is "think for yourself, dammit!"

3. The more I study Rand's views on art, the more I disagree with her. Not all of it, but enough to make me say it. I am outlining a work on this where I will go into my differences. And the idea of using pompous proclamations about art as a whip to keep others in line or relegate them to the outer limits is so beyond the pale that many negative adjectives leap to mind. Not Rand's finest moments (nor that of other Objectivists who do that).

I didn't actually have Rand in mind when I wrote that, but a certain other individual--but he's not the only person who does that, in Objectivist circles and out of them, and he at least sincerely thinks he is advancing the cause of reason and freedom by doing so, which some of the others don't. So let him remain unnamed, and let us think of it as a more general type of behavior.

I'd suggest that Rand's views on art were one of the times when she chose to take her own (subjective) values and tried to forcibly meld them with the underlying principles of Objectivism. The result is not always a happy one.

And why she chose the term Romantic, given how much of historical Romanticism is dedicated to the absolute reverse of Objectivist principle, is beyond me. After all, the first true Romantic hero in literature was Goethe's Werther. Remember what happened to him?

4. On your comments about species and subjectivity, there is too much to untangle right now. Leave it to say that they involve another problem with stolen concepts creeping in and that there cannot be any individual human being without the human species, nor can there be a human species without individual human beings.

The species comment was to suggest (rather speculatively) a possible alternative that differed from Rand's view of what should be valued but which was actually consistent with the arguments that led up to that point. I won't insist on it in particular, only the general proposition that a rational human can reasonably adopt a standard of value other than that adopted by Rand.

5. The correct term that Rand used was "rational animal," not "rational creature."

The technical term for what I did there is cerebral afflatus, known in the vernacular as a brainfart.

But I still think that "moral animal" is a better term than "rational animal".

As to what I've read by Rand:

Atlas Shrugged, as a teenager, at the suggestion of a neighbor. That was more than thirty years ago, so my memory is now rather hazy. I was not impressed by it, and thought the characters wooden, the plot in need of ample doses of WD-40, and the novel overall a second rate book. The philosophy either slipped right by me, or didn't impress me at the time. I'm not sure, but I may have actually skipped over The Speech, or only skimmed through it. I'm trying to convince myself that I owe it a second reading, but reading random pages while standing in the bookstore have only provided me with evidence that my original view was correct. Almost every passage I read was marred by techniques that are the mark of a second rate novelist.

I did find it rather amusing that she chose to end the novel with a magical ceremony, invoking the god Mercury (of whose staff the dollar sign is one form) into Galt's Gulch. And, since he is the god of commerce, probably the most appropriate god to invoke, too.

Anthem--read at some point or other; my basic reaction was, "Well, that was wierd."

Fountainhead--I tried to read it recently, but couldn't get into it. The characters, including Roark, where the most toxic group of people I've ever come across in any novel (Roark being toxic in a different way from the rest). So toxic, I couldn't get myself to go on, other than for the sake of seeing how Rand illustrated her ideas--which wasn't enough of a motive. After all, I know, more or less, what her ideas are. On a literary level, I would rate it much higher than I do AS. It takes a really good writer to make a group of people who are so vividly blecch.

Sidelight on Roark--as she presents him in the opening chapters, he is a perfect illustration of the theory of "lack of theory of mind" which psychologists now use in discussing autism. Of course, since the novel was written long before the "theory of mind" theory was proposed, Rand presumably didn't intend to present Roark as autistic.

Of the nonfiction, I've read Virtue of Selfishness and some scattered other essays; ITOE, and (supplementally) Piekoff's primer on Objectivism. I would rate her as one of the best essayists of the 20th century, irrespective of their philosophical value. This was at the time I became a libertarian (I remain a small letter libertarian), and discovered the influence of her ideas on libertarianism. (Frankly, there would be no modern libertarianism without Ayn Rand--or at least it would be vastly different.) So I began to delve into Objectivism, and found it wanting in a number of respects, although my interest in it remains--partly because I'm on the same political wavelength (mostly), partly because it represents one of the few areas on the Internet that actually values rational thinking (even if various Objectivists pay only lip service to that idea), and partly because I've always learned the most from discussions with people I don't agree with.

Edited July 22, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Barbara Branden]

X-rat, you seem to require that for a value to be objective, it must be of value to everyone under all circumstances, in all contexts, and under all conditions. But you're arguing against a straw man.That is not the Objectivist concept of value. For instance, (to oversimplify) if you asked me if taking tonight's redeye from Los Angeles to New York is a value -- I'd say it would be an objective value to someone with an urgent need to be in New York as soon as possible -- but not to someone slated for emergency surgery in Los Angeles tomorrow morning. As Rand made clear, "Value" presupposes an answer to the question: Of value to whom and for what? She wrote, "Value presupposes a standard, a purpose, and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative."

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

X-rat, you seem to require that for a value to be objective, it must be of

Barbara

Sorry, Barbara, but your typo is preserved for all eternity. No way am I going to give you a chance to fix it.

--Brant

rat terrier

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara, Xray is a semanticist so your post to her is useless to her except for her semantical platform, but not to me. Well put.

If we don't have objective values, what are we to fight for, 99 love balloons?

If we drop "objective" and "subjective" and just leave "values" we can avoid this unilateral disarmament and talk about honoring and protecting our values. This primacy of the subjective nonsense is just female Europe trying to castrate masculine America with cultural moral equivalency crap.

--Brant

is that a knife?

[Brant Gaede]

Jeffery, I think how old one is is one factor of many that might affect how one reacts to Rand's novels. I seem to have 15-20 years on you and 1963 was quite different than, say 1979-80 or so. I do think there are other things even more important of a psychological nature.

--Brant

[Xray]

X-rat, you seem to require that for a value to be objective, it must be of

Barbara

Sorry, Barbara, but your typo is preserved for all eternity. No way am I going to give you a chance to fix it.

--Brant

rat terrier

No problem - I can take a joke, and myself had to grin when reading that (Freudian? (wink ;) ) typo.

Brant

rat terrier

Happy sniffing, terrier. But keep in mind rats are very hard to catch for a terrier.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"...such a feeling of subjective powerlessness..." <<<< poke poke probe probe

"Merely calling it "crap" is no magic formula qualifying as disproof."

Merely calling all values subjective is no magic formula qualifying as disproof.

Mirror Mirror on the wall...

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, sitting on top of a semantical mountain called "subjective" and declaring yourself "Queen of the hill" is all right by me, but why should I try to climb it? Yes, semantically you or anyone else can make something of a case for all values being subjective. The problem is you cannot then say something is right or wrong and claim moral superiority to terrorists, communists or Nazis. All subjectivity is egalitarian. There is no superiority in my preferring my Ford to your Opel and that's fine, but that's as far as that goes. My preferring freedom to totalitarianism is moral objectification of facts and data and freedom is an objective value to human beings according to the way they are put together--constituted. It is your job to explain why communism is not compatible with subjectivism, or subjectivism sanctions it. You have brought nothing to these discussions of any value except for the resultant intellectual energy generated to talk to you about these things. An implicit apologia for evil is not a value for us. I'm not saying you know what you do. I am saying what are the logical consequences. Barbara Branden's post makes perfect sense giving clarity to human choices and actions. Her formulation is an objective value for people who (subjectively?) value that sort of thing--people who don't want to go through life in a fog, living for the moment and bumping into things after making wrong choices. Hers has utility. Yours has no utility.

I did state that I thought all valuing was subjective while some values per se are objective and why. Maybe more than once. You never once dealt with what I said except to keep repeating yourself. I'm not claiming my position is an Objectivist position. I never really learned the Objectivist catechism and never will. No philosophy is going to lead me around by the nose. That's the real problem with philosophies, ideologies and religions, not that one has one but whether one is dominated by any. Your subjectivism formulation is a weak tea antidote to such poison.

--Brant

Edited July 22, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Barbara, Xray is a semanticist so your post to her is useless to her except for her semantical platform, but not to me. Well put.

I'm no "semanticist" - but I have studied linguistics and therefore know quite a bit about semantics too.

Rand calls concept what is actually a category, and her arbitrary, odd definitions contradict accepted language usage. In Rand's self-created semantic universe, plants can value and a Jim Taggart is not motivated by self-interest at all, a Peter Keating is a selfless man who is a ruthless egotist, altruism exists, with selfless ruthless egotist Keating being an example. The semantic chaos created by Rand is obvious. It is as if one would arbitrarily decide to call 'black' 'white' and expect others to go along with it.

This primacy of the subjective nonsense is just female Europe trying to castrate masculine America with cultural moral equivalency crap.

Now, now Brant, please calm down. I assure you there is no danger for you whatsoever here.

But I really ask myself why you (who seem to be a seasoned and experienced forum poster), should have such a feeling of subjective powerlessness merely from exchanging posts with someone with whom you happen to disagree on certain points in a philosophy discussion. (??)

So my guess is that your personal attacks simply imply you don't like what you see, but can't refute. Am I wrong? Show me. If you think you see error, just quote what, and say why.

Merely calling it "crap" is no magic formula qualifying as disproof.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm confused. I thought my #160 was my reply to Xray's #161. Maybe I'm just waiting for her next--with bad breath.

--Brant

[ginny]

Bad breath - is that another Xrat?

[Selene]

Geez Ginny, I am still confused about the alleged Freudian slip that Barbara made.

Adam

[ginny]

She typed Xrat instead of Xray. I think it was Barbara's subconscious jumping out.

[Selene]

She typed Xrat instead of Xray. I think it was Barbara's subconscious jumping out.

I guess xray get's empowered by emotional responses to her frigid German gestalt.

I remember Michelle pointing out that "you guys" are keeping it going by responding to her and in theory Michelle is

correct.

However, I just find her patterns hilariously predictable. I will bet that extends to her entire personal life.

Picky eater would be another guess. Never trust or make love with a picky eater.

Adam

[Barbara Branden]

X-Ray, I don't know if this helps or makes it worse, but my mistake was not deliberate.

Barbara

[Dragonfly]

I guess xray get's empowered by emotional responses to her frigid German gestalt.

I suppose xenophobia is also one of those objective values?

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, Barbara never does something like that--ever--except by mistake. I immediately took it for a typo; it couldn't have been anything else. I've been reading her for 45 years. It was so funny, really, simply because it was so out of character and I knew the thought had never entered her mind to deliberately write your screen-name like that. I just had to tweak her about it.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Bad breath - is that another Xrat?

Darn! I meant "bated breath."

--Brant

Edited July 22, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

I guess xray get's empowered by emotional responses to her frigid German gestalt.

I suppose xenophobia is also one of those objective values?

right on queue. Seriously, I chose those words just to see the response.

I do not have a xenophobic. or other "ic" in my mind.

However, I was laughing when I saw this last night :

Reuters.com - Want to predict the weather? Watch the dragonflies

http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINTRE56F1LS20090716

Lighten up DG.

Adam

[Xray]

Xray, sitting on top of a semantical mountain called "subjective" and declaring yourself "Queen of the hill" is all right by me, but why should I try to climb it? Yes, semantically you or anyone else can make something of a case for all values being subjective. The problem is you cannot then say something is right or wrong and claim moral superiority to terrorists, communists or Nazis.

The hard clash with reality is that what person A calls a "terrorist" (let's say a suicide bomber), person B may call "a hero", with claiming "moral superiority" to the ideology the bomber adheres to.

All subjectivity is egalitarian. There is no superiority in my preferring my Ford to your Opel and that's fine, but that's as far as that goes.

My preferring freedom to totalitarianism is moral objectification of facts and data and freedom is an objective value to human beings according to the way they are put together--constituted.

The totalitarian may argue that control is better, since the the way humans "are put together" indicates they need strong guidance.

And as for words like freedom, they are empty shells the supporters of the various philosophies fill with whatever sense suits the beliefs they hold. For Ayn Rand, 'freedom' implied ubridled capitalism - for a monk, it means to be free from earthly desires etc.

We can open whole threads here discussing those philosophies and our own - still all the values discussed remain subjective, since value is per se connected tothe very act of atribtng value, i. e. subjectively choosing something as a value.

I did state that I thought all valuing was subjective while some values per se are objective and why. Maybe more than once. You never once dealt with what I said except to keep repeating yourself. I'm not claiming my position is an Objectivist position. I never really learned the Objectivist catechism and never will. No philosophy is going to lead me around by the nose. That's the real problem with philosophies, ideologies and religions, not that one has one but whether one is dominated by any. Your subjectivism formulation is a weak tea antidote to such poison.

How and why does the issue of values become important? Breaking it down into

two schools of thought, it comes down to the question as to whether values

are discovered, or mentally created. If the former, then values are

objective, hence, universal. If the latter, then values are subjective,

hence, peculiar to each individual.

Since I have never seen anything other that value attributed in accordance

with individual personal preferences, I go with the latter seeing values as

subjective. On the other hand, another person may claim that his/her values

comes from "God", therefore, discovered and objective.

Suppose a person says, "I want you to refrain from imbibing any

alcoholic drink; to wear only the clothes of which I approve; to eat what I

choose for you to eat; to behave as I want you to behave."

This personal preference standing alone doesn't carry a lot of persuasive

weight. On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not

my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for

whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations

outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences. Being outside of

individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are

considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

Since, these "objective values" are illusion, the reality is subjective

personal preferences paraded as "objectively discovered."

The fruition is individuals forming groups to follow the personal

preferences of someone they believe espouses the "true religion", or secular

version of the "proper objective values."

Of course, few, if any, will declare this openly. To the contrary, the

verbal appeal may well be to the idea of individuality while downplaying the

underlying premises and the philosophy/psychology of servitude. Of course,

distorted (non definitive) language usage plays an integral part of the

persuasion. The "leader" may well believe his/her own spiel and be

subordinated to the same root illusions. Indeed, this is the usual. What is

verbalized is a personal spin on the ancient fallacy, objective value.

The bottom line is that human beings are volitional. Each can make a choice

to behave in any manner within that individual's mental and physical

capacity. This is neither an endorsement, nor condemnation of any particular

choice and action. It's simply stating fact derived from entity identity.

"IF" the choice is peace and harmony, the only "code of values" needed in

non initiation of force and non coercion. Beyond this, a laundry list of

"proper behavior" is not only unnecessary, it's an anti-individual

philosophy that presumes to treat an individual as means to an end not of his/her choosing.

It is no problem to find a vast array of philosophies that pay lip service

to non initiation of force and non coercion. However the truth may be

obscured in deceiving verbiage, when it comes down to "how is this going to

work in practice", the facade falls away. When it does, what you will always

find is some version of "objective value." A contradiction revised is still

a contradiction.

It is your job to explain why communism is not compatible with subjectivism, or subjectivism sanctions it.

Communism is an ideology based on alleged objective values.

Unmasking these values as subjective says nothing about my personal preferences.

It is simply a statement of fact concerning the premises of the ideology.

You have brought nothing to these discussions of any value except for the resultant intellectual energy generated to talk to you about these things. An implicit apologia for evil is not a value for us. I'm not saying you know what you do. I am saying what are the logical consequences. Barbara Branden's post makes perfect sense giving clarity to human choices and actions. Her formulation is an objective value for people who (subjectively?) value that sort of thing--people who don't want to go through life in a fog, living for the moment and bumping into things after making wrong choices. Hers has utility. Yours has no utility.

You confirmed what I said above. "Objective value" is all

about "moral superiority." The problem is there are billions who also

directly and/indirectly claim "objective values" and moral superiority.

As for Barbara Branden's post, it actually confirms that values are subjective.

I'll address this in a separate post.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Xray, sitting on top of a semantical mountain called "subjective" and declaring yourself "Queen of the hill" is all right by me, but why should I try to climb it? Yes, semantically you or anyone else can make something of a case for all values being subjective. The problem is you cannot then say something is right or wrong and claim moral superiority to terrorists, communists or Nazis.

The hard clash with reality that what person A calls a "terrorist" (let's say a suicide bomber), person B may call "a hero", with claiming "moral superiority" to the ideology the bomber ahderes to. All subjectivity is egalitarian. There is no superiority in my preferring my Ford to your Opel and that's fine, but that's as far as that goes.

My preferring freedom to totalitarianism is moral objectification of facts and data and freedom is an objective value to human beings according to the way they are put together--constituted.

The totalitarian may argue that control is better, since the the way humans "are put together" indicates they need strong guidance. The various ideolgies alhave their set ofahve no roblem

And as for words like freedom, w they are emoty shells the supporters of the various philiosophies fill with whatever sense suits the beliefs they hold. dFor Ayn Rand, freedom implied ubridled capitalism - for a monk, it means to be free from earthly desires etc.

We can open wholethreads here discussing those philosophies bliefs and our own, all the values remain subjective becuase the very act of valuing can'be anything but subjective.

I did state that I thought all valuing was subjective while some values per se are objective and why. Maybe more than once. You never once dealt with what I said except to keep repeating yourself. I'm not claiming my position is an Objectivist position. I never really learned the Objectivist catechism and never will. No philosophy is going to lead me around by the nose. That's the real problem with philosophies, ideologies and religions, not that one has one but whether one is dominated by any. Your subjectivism formulation is a weak tea antidote to such poison.

How and why does the issue of values become important? Breaking it down into

two schools of thought, it comes down to the question as to whether values

are discovered, or mentally created. If the former, then values are

objective, hence, universal. If the latter, then values are subjective,

hence, peculiar to each individual.

Since I have never seen anything other that value attributed in accordance

with individual personal preferences, I go with the latter seeing values as

subjective. On the other hand, another person may claim that his/her values

comes from "God", therefore, discovered and objective.

Suppose a person says, "I want you to refrain from imbibing any

alcoholic drink; to wear only the clothes of which I approve; to eat what I

choose for you to eat; to behave as I want you to behave."

This personal preference standing alone doesn't carry a lot of persuasive

weight. On the other hand, if the person says and believes: "These are not

my subjective personal values. They are "God's will." The clear intent for

whatever reason is to replace individual personal preference with valuations

outside of, and superior to, said personal preferences. Being outside of

individual mind creating these values, these "superior values" are

considered objective whether labeled as such or not.

Since, these "objective values" are illusion, the reality is subjective

personal preferences paraded as "objectively discovered."

The fruition is individuals forming groups to follow the personal

preferences of someone they believe espouses the "true religion", or secular

version of the "proper objective values."

Of course, few, if any, will declare this openly. To the contrary, the

verbal appeal may well be to the idea of individuality while downplaying the

underlying premises and the philosophy/psychology of servitude. Of course,

distorted (non definitive) language usage plays an integral part of the

persuasion. The "leader" may well believe his/her own spiel and be

subordinated to the same root illusions. Indeed, this is the usual. What is

verbalized is a personal spin on the ancient fallacy, objective value.

The bottom line is that human beings are volitional. Each can make a choice

to behave in any manner within that individual's mental and physical

capacity. This is neither an endorsement, nor condemnation of any particular

choice and action. It's simply stating fact derived from entity identity.

"IF" the choice is peace and harmony, the only "code of values" needed in

non initiation of force and non coercion. Beyond this, a laundry list of

"proper behavior" is not only unnecessary, it's an anti-individual

philosophy that presumes to treat an individual as means to an end not of his/her choosing.

It is no problem to find a vast array of philosophies that pay lip service

to non initiation of force and non coercion. However the truth may be

obscured in deceiving verbiage, when it comes down to "how is this going to

work in practice", the facade falls away. When it does, what you will always

find is some version of "objective value." A contradiction revised is still

a contradiction.

It is your job to explain why communism is not compatible with subjectivism, or subjectivism sanctions it.

Communism is an ideology based on alleged objective values.

Unmasking these values as subjective says nothing about my personal preferences.

Itis simply a statement of fact concerning the premises of the ideology.

You have brought nothing to these discussions of any value except for the resultant intellectual energy generated to talk to you about these things. An implicit apologia for evil is not a value for us. I'm not saying you know what you do. I am saying what are the logical consequences. Barbara Branden's post makes perfect sense giving clarity to human choices and actions. Her formulation is an objective value for people who (subjectively?) value that sort of thing--people who don't want to go through life in a fog, living for the moment and bumping into things after making wrong choices. Hers has utility. Yours has no utility.

You confirmed what I said above. "Objective value" is all

about "moral superiority." The problem is there are billions who also

directly and/indirectly claim "objective values" and moral superiority.

As for Barbara Branden's post, it actually confirms that values are subjective. I'll addres this in a separate post.

I

--Brant

Damn - I finally agree 100% with an x-ray post

[ginny]

That puts you ahead of me, Adam. I don't get 1%. Damn. Shoulda been smarter.

Ginny