Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Selene]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.

MJ:

Thanks.

Nice one, but Ms. Xray is beyond the reach of even an Italian swatter.

Therefore, I have ordered an air strike...Brant gave me her address.

Adam

[Xray]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.

Oh, they'll like that little game. Quick success and soo much easier than getting the concept of "objective value" to fly in the discussion here.

For the illusion of objective value is among the biggest flies in the objectivist ointment.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.

MJ:

Thanks.

Nice one, but Ms. Xray is beyond the reach of even an Italian swatter.

Therefore, I have ordered an air strike...Brant gave me her address.

Adam

Selene, better not count on Brant here. Somehow the schemes he is involved in don't seem to work, at least not with me.

He probably still mourns the financial loss of the airplane ticket and everything else he prepared when he invited me to taste from an alleged cask of Amontillado in the cellar of his Tucson home.

After getting a confidential hint from my good old friend Edgar Allan Poe how this would end, I decided to turn down the invitation. ;)

Edited November 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

A plant values by how it flourishes or not in relationship to its environment. That is how it is a valuer. This is very primitive, of course.

--Brant

generally avoiding Rand said this and Rand meant that--I stopped worrying about such nearly 40 years ago--same same with the Objectivist catechism which contradicts rationality and individualism and personal psychological freedom for it is with reason that we deal with reality not any middleman filter

[Brant Gaede]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.

MJ:

Thanks.

Nice one, but Ms. Xray is beyond the reach of even an Italian swatter.

Therefore, I have ordered an air strike...Brant gave me her address.

Adam

Selene, better not count on Brant here. Somehow the schemes he is involved in don't seem to work, at least not with me.

He probably still mourns the financial loss of the airplane ticket and everything else he prepared when he invited me to taste from an alleged cask of Amontillado in the cellar of his Tucson home.

After getting a confidential hint from my good old friend Edgar Allan Poe how this would end, I decided to turn down the invitation.

I drank it all. You'll have to bring your own. I don't have your address and Germany has already been bombed quite enough, I'm sure.

--Brant

Dutch, English, German = all American boy!

[Xray]

"The concept "value" is not a primary."

Do you agree, or disagree, with that proposition.

Adam

I agree with that proposition.

[Brant Gaede]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.

Oh, they'll like that little game. Quick success and soo much easier than getting the concept of "objective value" to fly in the discussion here.

For the illusion of objective value is among the biggest flies in the objectivist ointment.

The illusion of objective fact is the biggest one in the subjectivist ointment.

--Brant

[Xray]

The illusion of objective fact is the biggest one in the subjectivist ointment.

--Brant

You've got that wrong. For Rand's subjectivists deny that facts exist!

Edited November 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.

Oh, they'll like that little game. Quick success and soo much easier than getting the concept of "objective value" to fly in the discussion here.

For the illusion of objective value is among the biggest flies in the objectivist ointment.

Ms. Xray:

How about you and I play a little game of chess?

Adam

Post Script:

Notice the attempt you divide, separate and turn one against the other, in jest [reveals much] that Ms. Xray poorly attempts, e.g. "Selene, better not count on Brant here. Somehow the schemes he is involved in don't seem to work, at least not with me."

Edited November 6, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Is the non-purple a valid question in your estimation?

"...of value to whom and for what?"

"The concept "value" is not a primary." < check.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

The illusion of objective fact is the biggest one in the subjectivist ointment.

--Brant

You've got that wrong. For Rand's subjectivists deny that facts exist!

Nope. I was referring to the subjectivist qua values who also claims the objective validity of facts which cannot be done with the same line of reasoning. The valuing of facts is an objective value so people don't bump into things. It's true the valuing itself is always subjective, but that doesn't exclude the subjective valuing of objective values just as it doesn't exclude the subjective valuing of subjective values. Underneath it all are those needed objective facts--objectivity or the Objectivist philosophy. The basic objective/subjective bifurcation is yours, not mine. It's an attack on objectivity per se because neither can exist without the other. You simply cut reality out of the equation while saying you do not. Valuing values means the amount of valuing varies from time to time and circumstance so it must be subjective always. If I'm accidentally drowning in my bathtub breathing is much more valuable to me than the Mozart playing on my stereo.

--Brant

Edited November 6, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

How about you and I play a little game of chess?

I know how to move the chess figures and only know some rudimentary basics, but that's about it.

But from chess I know that 'sacrificing' a figure, even if it is of high value (like e. g. the queen) is always done with the goal to achieve a higher value in the end: win the game or at least not to lose it (draw).

We've had debates about this in connection with Rand's 'sacrifice' theory.

Ms. Xray:

Is the non-purple a valid question in your estimation?

"...of value to whom and for what?"

"The concept "value" is not a primary." < check.

Adam

You mean if I think "of value to whom and for what" is a valid question?

Answer: Yes.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

I see you have switched roles again, Mr. Selene. Now it is the dueling hero, lol.

One has to give you that: you are entertaining in a way. Every forum seems to have posters enjoying the role of jester. ;)

But Selene, sorry to spoil the fun for you here: we are not going to duel at the Epistemology field.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue. What you perceived as a 'gauntlet' was a shovel. You'll need it.

But if you absolutely want some competition, okay then, we can bet on who is going to find out the truth faster. Agree?

So I'm off to "check (the) premises" pun intended: a suitable field at Epistemology where we can discuss it.

Duel became discuss and now debate. I agree with the progression.

Moreover, since the status quo here is that values are objective, we will have to frame a debate topic. [see below]

Why would you want to go on a public debate when you have the opportunity to show me your debating prowess here on this forum? Give it a try, Selene, I'm all ears.

For so far, I have read little from you in the post exchange indicating a seasoned debater; instead, you have often resorted to name calling, of which 'Valkyrie' was one of the 'friendlier' names ...

If you like, we can start right here.

Resolved that: Objective values do not exist, would be one suggestion.

Give me some of your suggestions for framing the debate with the status quo as stated above.

Resolved that: __________________________________________

Adam

wondering how much air fare is from Germany to Port Au Prince

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

I see you have switched roles again, Mr. Selene. Now it is the dueling hero, lol.

One has to give you that: you are entertaining in a way. Every forum seems to have posters enjoying the role of jester. ;)

But Selene, sorry to spoil the fun for you here: we are not going to duel at the Epistemology field.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue. What you perceived as a 'gauntlet' was a shovel. You'll need it.

But if you absolutely want some competition, okay then, we can bet on who is going to find out the truth faster. Agree?

So I'm off to "check (the) premises" pun intended: a suitable field at Epistemology where we can discuss it.

Duel became discuss and now debate. I agree with the progression.

Moreover, since the status quo here is that values are objective, we will have to frame a debate topic. [see below]

Why would you want to go on a public debate when you have the opportunity to show me your debating prowess here on this forum? Give it a try, Selene, I'm all ears.

For so far, I have read little from you in the post exchange indicating a seasoned debater; instead, you have often resorted to name calling, of which 'Valkyrie' was one of the 'friendlier' names ...

If you like, we can start right here.

Resolved that: Objective values do not exist, would be one suggestion.

Give me some of your suggestions for framing the debate with the status quo as stated above.

Resolved that: __________________________________________

Adam

wondering how much air fare is from Germany to Port Au Prince

BTW, still waiting for you to reply to my #279 post on the other thread. You claimed to be such a good debater - why don't you go ahead and prove it?

See above ^^^^^ that it above Ms. Xray...objectively speaking...

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

I see you have switched roles again, Mr. Selene. Now it is the dueling hero, lol.

One has to give you that: you are entertaining in a way. Every forum seems to have posters enjoying the role of jester. ;)

But Selene, sorry to spoil the fun for you here: we are not going to duel at the Epistemology field.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue. What you perceived as a 'gauntlet' was a shovel. You'll need it.

But if you absolutely want some competition, okay then, we can bet on who is going to find out the truth faster. Agree?

So I'm off to "check (the) premises" pun intended: a suitable field at Epistemology where we can discuss it.

Duel became discuss and now debate. I agree with the progression.

Moreover, since the status quo here is that values are objective, we will have to frame a debate topic. [see below]

Why would you want to go on a public debate when you have the opportunity to show me your debating prowess here on this forum? Give it a try, Selene, I'm all ears.

For so far, I have read little from you in the post exchange indicating a seasoned debater; instead, you have often resorted to name calling, of which 'Valkyrie' was one of the 'friendlier' names ...

If you like, we can start right here.

Resolved that: Objective values do not exist, would be one suggestion.

Give me some of your suggestions for framing the debate with the status quo as stated above.

Resolved that: __________________________________________

Adam

wondering how much air fare is from Germany to Port Au Prince

BTW, still waiting for you to reply to my #279 post on the other thread. You claimed to be such a good debater - why don't you go ahead and prove it?

See above ^^^^^ that it above Ms. Xray...objectively speaking...

Adam

Objectively speaking, you have not even shown up on the thread where I posted at Epistemology after your 'challenge', inviting you to seek the truth.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32

Edited January 27, 2010 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

No problem. You seem to actually believe that you can direct people to act in a certain manner.

I told you that I would comment or argue with you whenever you bring something up that is worthwhile which you occassionally have actually achieved.

You threw down the challenge. As I explained in the dueling rules, the challenged get to select certain aspects of the confrontation.

You rejected that.

I proposed a debate proposition. You wish to talk about your subjective view of the past thread.

If you wish to debate the proposition. let's agree on a clear statement.

Then we will agree on the definitions of the key words and then you will present your affirmative case.

Adam

arranging analogies, tightening tropes, mooring my metaphors, sharpening satirical sorties...

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

No problem. You seem to actually believe that you can direct people to act in a certain manner.

I don't want to direct anyone. I'm interested in checking premises and have invited you to dig up empistemological truths.

Selene: I told you that I would comment or argue with you whenever you bring something up that is worthwhile which you occassionally have actually achieved.

Any disagreement on your part with what I wrote? For if not, this of course would mean you agree.

Selene: You threw down the challenge. As I explained in the dueling rules, the challenged get to select certain aspects of the confrontation.

It was you who interpreted this as duel, not me.

But if you subjectively interpreted this as a duel, it looks like you selected not showing up at all.

BTW, what happens if the challenged does not show up?

I'm only vaguely familiar with dueling issues. Currently I only recall that hilarious scene In Woody Allen's 'Love and Death' where he makes fun of it.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

An epistemological truth is a reference only to epistemology. A truth is the broader category. Subjective is the derivative category from objective. The subjective/objective moral contretemps is merely a derivative category of right and wrong, the objective category. The fact that cultures and philosophies usually sanction the initiation of physical force--the violation of individual rights--doesn't mean an objectively right philosophy is not possible only that we know they are wrong by referencing what should be and why.

--Brant

Edited January 28, 2010 by Brant Gaede