Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Brant Gaede]

For anyone else I'd say "Wow! A triple post!" But for X it's more like triple hundredth, to grossly understate the matter. Since I think freedom is an objective value and she thinks it's in the same boat as all those forms of tyranny she alludes to, what's to talk about? She's not going to talk about freedom.

--Brant

triple posting is not an objective value

[merjet]

Whether it is Catholicism, Marxism or Objectivism (to name but a few) - all these ideologies are based on the same fallacy "objective" value.

So please subjectively rate each of these on a scale of -5 (worst) to +5 (best) so other readers can know where you stand. Feel free to rate others as well, including your own favorite subjective ideology with enough detail for us to discern what it is.

[Brant Gaede]

Whether it is Catholicism, Marxism or Objectivism (to name but a few) - all these ideologies are based on the same fallacy "objective" value.

So please subjectively rate each of these on a scale of -5 (worst) to +5 (best) so other readers can know where you stand. Feel free to rate others as well, including your own favorite subjective ideology with enough detail for us to discern what it is.

She's not about value--any value. It's all about European pull the teeth of America. They can't brush their own teeth so we're not to brush ours.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Xray, Randall asked you some very on topic and legitimate questions about your anti-objectivity views which you've neglected to answer:

[quoting Randall]

1. Are criminals and productive men morally equal objectively?

2. In judging the character of men, it is all a matter of arbitrary whim or feelings?

On another matter, Adam, where do you get your little Disney, animated smileys? I WAAANT SOOOME!! [making an 'envy' + pouting + table-pounding face]

Edited October 13, 2009 by Philip Coates

[merjet]

She's not about value--any value. It's all about European pull the teeth of America. They can't brush their own teeth so we're not to brush ours.

Good one!

[Xray]

[i don't know why my prior post shows up three times. I wanted to edit an accidental double post of mine but got three instead which I can't delete anymore].

Randall:

Xray,

Are you saying there is no such thing as the objective good, objective evil and objective heroism by the standard of life? Are criminals and productive men morally equal objectively? In judging the character of men, it is all a matter of arbitrary whim or feelings? If morality, if the good is just a matter of opinion, then why bother having this discussion at all? Nobody would be able to prove what is right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational.

Randall,

As for "good and evil", defining independently of value judgment (yours or mine), is not "good" in reference to means suited to purpose while "evil" (bad) refers to means not suited to purpose?

"standard of life?" Whose "standard?" Is not the choice to live or not live (within natural capacity) a personal preference? Is not the same true of lifestyle?

So, please explain what "standard of life" you're talking about and who made the choice(s)?

"Are criminals and productive men morally equal objectively?" (Randall)

"Criminals" are often made by the stroke of pen via legislation or the decision of some judge.

For example, countless people have been killed or sit in jails as alleged criminals because they disagree with the powers that be.

If a private person shoots many people, he is called a serial killer,

but if he shoots many people on order in a war, he is called a hero by the country he is fighting for and is decorated.

So much for "life as the standard of value" ...

What one may call productive another may call destructive. To one cutting down trees to build a house is productive. To another, it is destruction of anatural habitat for animals.

"morally equal objectively"

To what do you attach the term, objectively? From where I stand, objectively is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion.

"morally equal objectively" does not compute. Equality is measurement-dependent, whereas, when you speak of "morally", are you not taking about your subjective personal value judgment which is not subject to objective measurement?

"In judging the character of men, it is all a matter of arbitrary whim or feelings?" (Randall)

I don't judge "the character of men." I evaluate the beliefs and actions of an individual to value, or disvalue in step with my personal preference.

"If morality, if the good is just a matter of opinion, then why bother having this discussion at all?" (Randall)

Randall, a belief or action you call "moral", another may call, "immoral."

Do you happen to observe that this difference in "moral values" is a phenomenon that has existed for all known history and that these difference over "moral values" underlies centuries of violent conflict and bloodshed?

"Nobody would be able to prove what is right or wrong, true or false, rational or irrational." (Randall)

Of course, there is no proof or right or wrong except in the evaluation of means as suited or unsuited to purpose, which is always personal preference.

Of course, subjective personal preference cannot be proven to be right or wrong; hence, the only common ground is the battle ground.

Holding out "morality" as the only thing possibly directing behavior leaves out individual entity identity and subjective value with personally chosen ends with the right and wrong referenced to means.

As to my personal preferences and valuations that direct my thinking and behavior,

here is a modified excerpt from a post I wrote while ago on this issue:

Discussion about values invariably reveals a core psychological/linguistic problem.

In most thinking, values are either "moral or immoral." This is mentally held as an absolute prohibiting envisioning an alternative. The term, "moral and immoral" emotionally are regarded as "objective" and stand as a constant reference for judgement. I'm talking about both inside and outside of Objectivism.

In is incomprehensible to many people that values can exist without the terms, "moral and immoral" applying. They cannot envision any individual holding values that do not fit in either category. The reason they cannot envision this is because actual entity identity of the individual is precluded from their thinking by a lifetime of programming in subservience.

Each individual is faced with three questions: What do I want? Can it be achieved? If so, how? This keeps the whole issue of valuations focused upon the real individual, real self interest, and real means to achieve the end desired. There is no issue of "morality or immorality." The terms do not apply.

There is an assumption that an individual left to his/her own choices without external guidance would necessarily result in "evil." This is, of course, a prejudgement of "innate evil" without consideration of what choices an individual might make.

The number one on the list my goals is peace and harmony. It's not from any "divine dictate", nor any idea of "morality." It's simply what I want for myself.

The next question is: "Can it be achieved?" which flows into the question "How?", which in turn goes to what means are required to achieve the end, peace and harmony.

In observing entity identity and relationships based on the characteristics of the involved entities, I conclude the means is non initiation of force and non coercion, since initiation of force and coercion will result in resentment, hostility and violent conflict, the exact opposite of what I want.

For the means one chooses to attain a goal can be analyzed as to whether they are adequate or not.

If e.g. my goal is to cook spaghetti, not turning on the stove to get the water boiling is an irrational decision in view of my desired goal.

In addition to peace and harmony, I desire voluntary mutual exchange for mutual benefit.

By not interfering with other minds and other non coercive actions, I reap the benefits of varied interests and varied talents far beyond anything I could accomplish on my own. This make others both a social and economic benefit to me.

Even if there is no direct social nor economic benefit from given persons at a given times, non initiation of force and non coercion leaves these persons to pursue their own interest within an atmosphere of desired peace and harmony.

I'm not guided by "morality" - I'm guided by self-interest, and self-interest is biologically hardwired in us all.

Is all this gong to be stamped out by "moralists" herding all under a single umbrella of "objective values"?

This is a brief outlne of my self-interest and personal values.

I want to see what fault any "moralists" can find with it.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7372&st=460

Randall, if you have questions or disagree with any points, let me know. Just quote the what and why of alleged error and I will be happy to respond.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray, Randall asked you some very on topic and legitimate questions about your anti-objectivity views which you've neglected to answer:

Philip, they are addressed in # 57 (which I was typing at the same time as you posted).

Merlin: So please subjectively rate each of these on a scale of -5 (worst) to +5 (best) so other readers can know where you stand. Feel free to rate others as well, including your own favorite subjective ideology with enough detail for us to discern what it is.

My personal valuations and preferences are outlined in #57.

As for the ideologies listed, I have never thought of rating them on scales.

But they are all based on the fallacy "objective" value.

Claiming to have a "one size fits all" list of "objective values" is actually denying individualism in favor of collectivism.

Alleged "ultimate standards of value" exist also in Communism, Nazism, Buddhism, ... etc.

Therefore "the ultimate standard of value" in any ideological "...ism" is merely the standard of value fitting the subjectvely chosen goals of that ideology.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[Michelle]

More wacky fun with xray, I see.

[Selene]

More wacky fun with xray, I see.

Yes, it is part of my extension of life therapy because of the riotous laughter she brings to me with her gestalt of life.

I expect that from the mentally ill members of People Eating Tasty Animals [PETA].

She still hasn't gotten my prodding joke about stuttering, but this time, when pressed, she actually started a three post stutter!

Then I realized that it was that instinctive Goebbels move of repeating a lie over and over again ...

What terrifies me is that an individual with this agenda is teaching young minds!

Adam

[Xray]

My computer dictionary has this definition for the concept hero:

hero |ˈhi(ə)rō|

noun ( pl. -roes)

a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities : a war hero.

• the chief male character in a book, play, or movie, who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.

• (in mythology and folklore) a person of superhuman qualities and often semidivine origin, in particular one of those whose exploits and dealings with the gods were the subject of ancient Greek myths and legends.

As for the term "hero" - indeed a "hero" was originally a mythical figure (for example, the war hero fearless in battle, fighting against demons etc..

Or the medieval white knight in shining armor rescuing the damsel in distress etc. They are imaginations and projections of male/female fantasies.

Attaching the label hero/heroine to someone is a mere subjective value judgement fulfilling the desire to look up to a "superior" human being.

To a certain degree extent, it may have its roots in our animal heritage as primates having the alpha male leadership principle. But merely because something rooted in animal heritage does not mean one still has to follow it today - it may be downright counterproductive.

The danger of hero worship is also that it places all the "non-heroes" is an inferior position, which can again open the door to collectivsm, with the hero as the 'pack leader'.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Then I realized that it was that instinctive Goebbels move of repeating a lie over and over again ...

What terrifies me is that an individual with this agenda is teaching young minds!

Adam

Teaching them to develop both empathy and become independent thinkers. Do you have anything against these values?

It's never too late to learn, naturally for Michelle who is very young, but also for Selene, even if you are way past school-age, but to jettison the arbitrary categorizing trap you are in, you first would have to realize that it is a trap, stifling both your emotional and intellectual growth.

You can only teach empathy if you live it yourself, i. e. be empathetic toward them.

Children will thrive if they feel appreciated. I have felt very sorry for Ayn Rand when learning how alone she felt as a child, rejected by her mother and unable to make friends among her peers, not even as a kindergartner, where it is usually not difficult for children to find friends.

When a child has massive problems with making contact to other children at that early stage, this raises a red flag indicating that something has gone wrong in the child's socialization, affecting emotional development.

Her fictional characters btw show the same "symptoms": Dagny is unable to relate to nearly all other young people of her age, feeling aliented from them; of D'Anconia, Danneskjöld and Galt it says in AS that hey had "no time for people" in their student years.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

There is another element necessary for capitalism and the modern life it makes possible. That is savings. Entrepreneurship is not enough. There has to be savings withheld from consumption in order to form capital. I wonder if one could construct a novel or short story or poem displaying saving as noble and momentous. Even if saving (particularly for lending) is an endeavor in which heroism is not occasioned, it remains worthy of commendation.

There's certainly one classic entry in that category, which I'm sure everyone has seen, probably more than once: It's a Wonderful Life. I'm thinking in particular of the scene in which George stops the run on the bank. It may not be the central theme of the film, but the scene itself forms a climax in the story, and I think is the most frequently run highlight when TV shows want to show a famous clip from the movie.

Jeffrey S.

[merjet]

My personal valuations and preferences are outlined in #57.

Huh? You comment on other people's preferences of and other people saying something is good or bad. You gave none of your own preferences and you evaluated nothing as good or bad. Evidently your position is moral agnosticism.

"Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil." (source)

[Xray]

Huh? You comment on other people's preferences of and other people saying something is good or bad.

I commented on other people caught in the delusion that their subjective preferences are "objective" values, and therefore constitue a one set for all, which others "ought to" prefer too.

Ayn Rand is a classic example; those who did not share her personal values were called "irrational".

You gave none of your own preferences and you evaluated nothing as good or bad.

You have not read thoroughly enough. Peace and harmony are my preferences, with non-initiation of force and non-coercion being the means I apply in trying to attain them. What I then value as as "good" or "bad" depends on this chosen goal. It ALWAYS always depends on the goal chosen.

"Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil." (source)

Again, Rand stays caught in the fallacy of there existing any such thing as "objective morality" which in her eyes was what she subjectively preferred. In short, it was her values she proclaimed as being "rational" and therefore "good", all those who did not share them were proclaimed as "evil", with their values being labeled as mere "whims".

Same old same old, Merlin. Look closer at any other ideology and you will see the same fallacy, often correlated with forceful attempts to impose those subjective values (whatever they are) upon others.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Saying thank you, is spiritual payment, i.e., the recognition that you have obtained a higher value in a trade, and that this is the reason and purpose of trade.

An exchange of equal value is really purposeless. For example, suppose I were to trade a brand new copy of Atlas Shrugged with a friend, for his copy that was identical. There would be no purpose in this trade. Now if I were to trade a copy of Atlas Shrugged for $10.00, then we both walk away as winners, because the $10.00 is a higher value to me than the copy of Atlas Shrugged, and the copy of Atlas Shrugged is a higher value to my friend than his $10.00.

Correct. A trade will only take place if person A values X (the copy of Atlas Shrugged in your example) more than Y (the 10 dollars) and person B values Y (the 10 dollars) more than X (the copy of AS)

No one will engage in a trade not expecting to get a higher value in return, no one.

The trade example can also be used to debunk "altruism" as a myth. For people showing alleged "altruistic" behavior do this because they too expect to get a higher value in return. An expected higher value need not be monetary, but can also be

recognition, a sense of accomplishment, feeling better about oneself, etc.

Edited October 14, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Saying thank you, is spiritual payment, i.e., the recognition that you have obtained a higher value in a trade, and that this is the reason and purpose of trade.

An exchange of equal value is really purposeless. For example, suppose I were to trade a brand new copy of Atlas Shrugged with a friend, for his copy that was identical. There would be no purpose in this trade. Now if I were to trade a copy of Atlas Shrugged for $10.00, then we both walk away as winners, because the $10.00 is a higher value to me than the copy of Atlas Shrugged, and the copy of Atlas Shrugged is a higher value to my friend than his $10.00.

Correct. A trade will only take place if person A values X (the copy of Atlas Shrugged in your example) more than Y (the 10 dollars) and person B values Y (the 10 dollars) more than X (the copy of AS)

No one will engage in a trade not expecting to get a higher value in return, no one.

The trade example can also be used to debunk "altruism" as a myth. For people showing alleged "altruistic" behavior do this because they too expect to get a higher value in return. An expected higher value need not be monetary, but can also be

recognition, a sense of accomplishment, feeling better about oneself, etc.

How do you know this? No black swans? No irrationality? Have you solved the problem of induction? This statement of yours depends on the existence of the subjective to the total exclusion of the objective, even though, once again, you are claiming to know an objective truth. Objective truth, you know, leads to objective value. You can't escape this contradiction. Even "subjective truth" needs to go up against an objective standard or no one will be able to tell that that subjective truth isn't an objective truth. In fact, there is no such thing as subjective truth. That's just being wrong. You need a point of reference. Even Einstein's Relativity needed one: the speed of light--the cosmological constant.

--Brant

[Michelle]

It's never too late to learn, naturally for Michelle who is very young

I'm doing quite fine without your brainwashing, thank you very much.

[Xray]

I'm doing quite fine without your brainwashing, thank you very much.

Michelle, calm down, you fume like the train in your avatar.

Why? I'm not brainwashing anybody; as for brainwashers, they are always operating on the principle of alleged objective values which they then try to impose on others.

What I'm doing is checking the premises of Rand's work. Have you checked them too? If yes, what conclusions have you reached?

Re Rand's heroes:

You brought up an important point a while ago on an another thread where you commented on John Galt coming across as almost 'battery-operated'. True. But somehow you stopped there, and I'like to take it from there.

To me, that brave new world of Galt's Gulch is no haven for individualists at all, but more a rigid (almost collectivist) community with the "leader" John Galt resembling a 'Big Brother is Watching You' type.

I'm interested in your opinion on that, Michelle.

Would you have liked to live there?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It's never too late to learn, naturally for Michelle who is very young

I'm doing quite fine without your brainwashing, thank you very much.

The primacy of subjective value(?): "If I put my head in the meat grinder I'll have something to eat for dinner."

The primacy of objective value: "Ouch! Ouch! Ouch!"

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

How do you know this? No black swans? No irrationality? Have you solved the problem of induction? This statement of yours depends on the existence of the subjective to the total exclusion of the objective, even though, once again, you are claiming to know an objective truth. Objective truth, you know, leads to objective value. You can't escape this contradiction. Even "subjective truth" needs to go up against an objective standard or no one will be able to tell that that subjective truth isn't an objective truth. In fact, there is no such thing as subjective truth. That's just being wrong. You need a point of reference. Even Einstein's Relativity needed one: the speed of light--the cosmological constant.

--Brant

Actually, the cosmological constant was not the speed of light. It was, in essence, an arbitrary number which Einstein at one point thought he had to include in his equations to make them match the data available to him at that time. He was greatly relieved when eventually he could rework the equations to get rid of the constant entirely.

Jeff S.

[Michelle]

I'm doing quite fine without your brainwashing, thank you very much.

Michelle, calm down, you fume like the train in your avatar.

Why? I'm not brainwashing anybody; as for brainwashers, they are always operating on the principle of alleged objective values which they then try to impose on others.

What I'm doing is checking the premises of Rand's work. Have you checked them too? If yes, what conclusions have you reached?

Re Rand's heroes:

You brought up an important point a while ago on an another thread where you commented on John Galt coming across as almost 'battery-operated'. True. But somehow you stopped there, and I'like to take it from there.

To me, that brave new world of Galt's Gulch is no haven for individualists at all, but more a rigid (almost collectivist) community with the "leader" John Galt resembling a 'Big Brother is Watching You' type.

I'm interested in your opinion on that, Michelle.

Would you have liked to live there?

How is Galt's Gulch "rigid" and "collectivist?" Certainly I wouldn't want to live there, but I don't really like being around other people anyway.

You said I needed to "learn" something. What do I need to learn? Moral relativism? How to permanently retard my rational faculties?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

We all need to learn something. One of the glories of being alive is knowing that something new is over the horizon to discover.

For example, a good thing that people like Xray provide is a learning experience. It's just not the one they think they are providing with their dogma. We encounter these kinds of folks all the time, but usually not with the level of insistence on polite one-on-one engagement that this persons does.

How do you treat someone who constantly comes off as wading among the pygmies in order to nudge the savages out of their ignorance (you being one of the pygmies, of course) without becoming something like that person yourself or worse? In other words, how do you deal with polite goading with clever boobytraps disguised as intellectual discussion and still remain true to thinking with your own mind?

I found my path. I kept on discussing until I properly identified what was happening to my satisfaction, then I stopped engaging. (This follows my mental routine of "identify correctly, then judge.") I am willing to discuss anything with anyone, but to continue discussing things with a person who behaves with that kind of agenda—after the agenda has become clear—is an enormous waste of time. And I feel it diminishes me.

A Brazilian author, Nuno Cobra, once wrote something I really resonate with in cases like this. In his book, A Semente da Vitória (The Seed of Victory), he was talking about a semi-uneducated country-dude kind of mentor named Pedro who had a different take on life than what you normally get in Brazil. He attributes Pedro with getting him started on facing life's big issues and the major challenges of the world. (Cobra is top in his field. He is the trainer of several Brazilian sports champions, the most famous being Ayrton Senna, three-time Formula One world champion.)

He quoted Pedro as saying: "Não se deve lutar com quem não se gosta, para não se igualar a quem você repudia."

Roughly translated, this means that you should not fight against someone you dislike so you don't get on equal terms with a person you repudiate.

Let's look at it from this angle. What great things are you going to accomplish in life by getting aggravated at someone like Xray or by getting on equal terms with her?

Will you correctly identify what she is doing so you won't be unfair in your judgments? OK. That's a good use of your mind. But what about after that? Where do you think your discussions with her will go?

One thing's for sure. She ain't going anywhere except to spin in the same circles on the same track. Guess where she'll take you? On the same track, of course.

I feel you have great potential to go far. That track-to-nowhere doesn't go to places I see you can go. As the old joke says, "You can't get there from here."

It's your life and your time. It's all yours, but you don't get the present back once time passes. Think down the road a bit. Wouldn't it be something to discover that you spent your entire life spinning in circles and never went anywhere?

How would that be for something new to learn?

Michael

[Xray]

Michelle

You said I needed to "learn" something. What do I need to learn? Moral relativism? How to permanently retard my rational faculties?

Life is one big learning experience, Michelle. When I think back at what I believed in at your age as opposed to now, the difference is dramatic.

You too will be surprised at what lies ahead of you. Fasten your seatbelt, for it is going to be a rough ride at times.

I have always been eager to learn, and have never asked myself the question "What do Í need to learn" with the connotation that I needn't learn because I know already.

Moral relativism?

Do you really believe that exists anything like objective morality?

Will such claim stand up to the scrutiny of checking its premises? It won't, Michelle.

How to permanently retard my rational faculties?[

On the contrary, how to tap into to their full potential and use it.

If you honestly seek for the truth and don't stop in your quest, you will get there.

[MSK]:

It's your life and your time. It's all yours, but you don't get the present back once time passes. Think down the road a bit. Wouldn't it be something to discover that you spent your entire life spinning in circles and never went anywhere?

How would that be for something new to learn?

Well said, Michael. Life experience is one of the best teachers anyway.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

Objective truth, you know, leads to objective value.

No, it does not.

[Xray]

How is Galt's Gulch "rigid" and "collectivist?" Certainly I wouldn't want to live there, but I don't really like being around other people anyway.

I think Galt's Gulch would allow for privacy if you are not a gregarious person; that would not pose a problem.

The problem is the odd rules in the valley all have to abide by. For example, for every service rendered, they have to pay each other. Suppose you and I lived there and I, let's say, offered you help in weeding out your stuff, I would have to accept money from you. But what if I didn't want any money but merely wanted to do you a favor?

But this would be violating the rules of the valley. I certainly would feel unfree there. Wouldn't you?

Here is the passage where D'Anconia suggests to Galt that they could notify the outside world that Dagny is not dead. (AS, p. 769):

Quote:

"After a long moment, he turned to Galt: "John, his voice sounded peculiarly solemn, "could we notify those outside that Dagny is alive .. in case there's somebody who ... who'd feel as I did?"

Galt was looking straight at him. "Do you wish to give any outsider any relief from the consequences of reamaining outside?"

Franciso dropped his eyes, but answered firmly, "No."

"Pity, Francisco?"

"Yes. forget it. You're right." (end quote)

D'Anconia's attempt at showing empathy is coldy stifled by Galt, and Francisco folds like a wet Kleenex, like a schoolboy reprimanded by the head teacher.

Imo "Big Brother Is Watching You" could well be applied to Galt too.

For how much room here is there really left for individualsim in that valley? Very little.

On the contrary, there's quite a bit of collectivism.

"You are going to stay here for month", Galt tells Dagny.

For the one month of our vacation, like the rest of us.

I'm not asking for your consent - you did not ask for ours when you came here. You broke our rules, so you'll have to take the consequences. Nobdoy leaves the valley during this month. I coud let you go, of course, but I won't." (end quote)

There's something disturbingly wrong with Galt's argumentation.

Since Dagny had no idea that this valley and its rules existed at all, she could not have "broken any rules" when her plane happened to crash there. Galt sounds almost like a cynical Grand Inquisitor confronting an accused with alleged breaking of divine rules.

"Nobody leaves the valley duringg this month." (Galt)

So there's no room for individual choice?

"I could let you go of course, but I won't." (Galt)

Isn't that typical dictator speak? For what gives Galt the right to rob Dagny of her freedom? HE gives himself the right.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray