Selene Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 As I am stepping up to your elevated subjective plain of truth, I am reduced to cartoons to attempt to simply communicate. You know nothing about objectivism or Objectivism.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) Objective truth, you know, leads to objective value.No, it does not.Indeed it does not. How on earth can Brant's mind arrive at such a non-sequitur? Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) Objective truth, you know, leads to objective value.No, it does not.Indeed it does not. How on earth can Brant's mind arrive at such a non-sequitur?Objective truth doesn't have objective value? Or, truth doesn't have value?I'm a simple man (ha,ha), maybe I'm missing something.I do know objective truth is a redundancy but objective value is not. That's because truth has only one component while value has two: objective and subjective.--Brant Edited October 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I do know objective truth is a redundancy but objective value is not. That's because truth has only one component while value has two: objective and subjective.No, value can only be subjective, it's not independent of the valuer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Dragonfly,Neither is cognitive thought independent of the thinker.That makes facts and truth "subjective" according to this standard. Unless you somehow imagine that facts and truth exist without cognitive thought.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Like I said here and here, Ayn Rand used "rational values" far more than "objective values". I invited Xray and Dragonfly 11 weeks ago to attack rational values. So far the response has been "blank out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) Like I said here and here, Ayn Rand used "rational values" far more than "objective values". I invited Xray and Dragonfly 11 weeks ago to attack rational values. So far the response has been "blank out."Attack "rational" values? How can you attack something which doesn't exist? Edited October 15, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I do know objective truth is a redundancy but objective value is not. That's because truth has only one component while value has two: objective and subjective.No, value can only be subjective, it's not independent of the valuer.All you are arguing for is the objectivity (truth) of subjective values. My nature as a man is the basic objectification. My individuality as a man is the basis for subjectification. It is the valuing that is always subjective. Thus subjective valuing of objective values and subjective valuing of subjective values. It is very hard to identify objective values beyond the obvious and fundamental, just as with scientific identification of knowledge. For instance art as an objective value and one's preferences in art as subjective. That's something to investigate and perhaps argue about. Objective value is objective need. Air, water, food, clothes, shelter are objective needs (values). Xray couldn't deal with this except by arbitrarily declaring needs were not values.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Like I said here and here, Ayn Rand used "rational values" far more than "objective values". I invited Xray and Dragonfly 11 weeks ago to attack rational values. So far the response has been "blank out."Attack "rational" values? How can you attack something which doesn't exist? What did you do to them?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Neither is cognitive thought independent of the thinker.That makes facts and truth "subjective" according to this standard. Unless you somehow imagine that facts and truth exist without cognitive thought.Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) How is Galt's Gulch "rigid" and "collectivist?" Wasn't it you who commented that the denizens of Galt's Gulch acted "like a bunch of cloned mini-Galts"?I have the same impression. Michelle:You said I needed to "learn" something. What do I need to learn? Moral relativism? Xray:Do you really believe there exists anything like objective morality?Will such claim stand up to the scrutiny of checking its premises? It won't, Michelle. I just went through past discussions we've had on this, and I see you have come to the same conclusion (quoted in # 69 here): http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4486&st=60 Michelle: I wouldn't say that morality is objective. Edited October 16, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Like I said here and here, Ayn Rand used "rational values" far more than "objective values". I invited Xray and Dragonfly 11 weeks ago to attack rational values. So far the response has been "blank out."So all the people defending feverishly the notion of "objective values" are chasing a chimera that doesn't belong to Objectivism?"Rational values" isn't any better. The notion of "rational" refers to the efficacy of realizing a certain goal, the value you want to gain. As I already said 11 weeks ago, a goal cannot be rational in itself, it can be considered to be rational or irrational depending on to what purpose it may be used. I discussed this with examples already 11 weeks ago here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Neither is cognitive thought independent of the thinker.That makes facts and truth "subjective" according to this standard. Unless you somehow imagine that facts and truth exist without cognitive thought.Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity.Incorrect, they both could be wrong.They cannot both be right.Adam Edited October 16, 2009 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Dragonfly,Actually facts are cognitive projections of states of existence independent of the mind, not the actual states or existents. But you know that.You did not convince me that individual cognitive thinkers are not needed for truth to exist objectively.Nor did you convince me of what standard is to be used when opinions of truth are different. All you said was one would be right and the other wrong. Using your standard of "all values are subjective," because a valuer is needed, I see no fundamental difference so far with "all truth is subjective"—according to your own logic. A thinker is needed. At least one.Or I could take you at your word: "It [truth] requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker." How on earth cognitive thought (a requirement of truth, according to your statement) can be independent of the thinker, I do not know. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merjet Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) As I already said 11 weeks ago, a goal cannot be rational in itself, it can be considered to be rational or irrational depending on to what purpose it may be used. I discussed this with examples already 11 weeks ago here.Like I said 11 weeks ago, a subgoal is a kind of goal, and your attempt to mask a contradiction with verbal sleight-of-hand, then and now, doesn't pass my inspection. Edited October 16, 2009 by Merlin Jetton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity.Incorrect, they both could be wrong.They cannot both be right.AdamIt is you who is incorrect. For DF did not state what you wrongly conclude from his post (that both can be right). He wrote "at least one of them is wrong", so they could both be wrong. Edited October 16, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Lessons for the reading comprehensionally challenged xray:Adam's statement:"Incorrect, they both could be wrong."xray "correction":"...so they could both be wrong."As I said in an earlier post:xray fails to read correctly.xray fails to understand what she read when she reads it.xray just fails all over the place.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity.Incorrect, they both could be wrong.Incorrect? Not at all. When I write that "at least one of them is wrong", that implies of course that both can be wrong. That is elementary logic, correctly understood by Xray, but not by you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity.Incorrect, they both could be wrong.Incorrect? Not at all. When I write that "at least one of them is wrong", that implies of course that both can be wrong. That is elementary logic, correctly understood by Xray, but not by you.To some, but to effectively persuade, you leave no choice. But, your point is well taken.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity.Incorrect, they both could be wrong.Incorrect? Not at all. When I write that "at least one of them is wrong", that implies of course that both can be wrong. That is elementary logic, correctly understood by Xray, but not by you.Adam, what obscure point of rhetoric are you on about? I can't see it. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) You did not convince me that individual cognitive thinkers are not needed for truth to exist objectively.DF did not state what you claim he stated (that "cognitive thinkers are not needed for truth to exist objectively"). He wrote: (bolding mine) "Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker." So knowledge about facts can of course only be acquired by work of the mind, but the issue is about differentiating knowledge about facts from personal valuation of facts. They are not the same. Example: "Dogs exist". This is a statement of fact. Whether a person attributes value or not to the fact that dogs exist, is a matter of subjective choice. Using your standard of "all values are subjective," because a valuer is needed, I see no fundamental difference so far with "all truth is subjective"—according to your own logic. A thinker is needed. At least one.Again, you fail to differentiate the mental activity required to recognize a fact (e.g. "Dogs exist") from the mental activity required to attribute value (or not) to a fact (e. g. "I like/don't like dogs"). So the fault in logic is yours, since you wrongly inferred from the fact of mental activity being involved in both cases, that DF's reasoning was in error, allegedly leading to an "all truth is subjective" non-sequitur. Do the test: when I say "I like dogs" - does this make the fact that dogs exist a "subjective" truth?? Of course not. Edited October 16, 2009 by Xray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Does anyone have any comment on the opening post on this thread? It has gone terribly off topic.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guyau Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 What is striking me about the things people in general regard as heroic is that there seems to be some elementary core of the heroic, which different moralists try to harness for their different moral visions. The core seems to be some extraordinary momentous action for the well-being of people, well-being physical and spiritual. From Homer to Rand, a high hero is willing to forfeit his own life, or his social standing, or some other treasure, for a love or cause or principle.The common stress upon unselfishness and self-sacrifice in heroic actions seems largely artificial. I remember some years ago, there was a crash of a Concord jet taking off in Paris. There was a woman on the ground, who, upon seeing the wreck coming towards her, instantly jumped through the window into a building that protected her. The press widely spoke of her action as heroic. It was so memorable to me because there was no way to spin the heroic act as deriving its heroism from self-sacrifice or altruism.Thanks to Jeffrey for remembering the following fictional case of heroism, involving no self-sacrifice as I recall.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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Facts exist independent of any thought. The sun existed already billions of years before anyone could think about it. Truth is knowledge about facts. It requires cognitive thought but it is independent of the thinker: in contrast to the case of values, the truth for person A is not different from the truth for person B (they may have different opinions about what the truth is, but in that case at least one of them is wrong), and that is the meaning of objectivity.Except in mathematics, there is no such thing as "true vs. false". There is more accurate vs less accurate descriptions of what is going on, but to say one statement is TRUE and another FALSE absolutely is only possible in mathematics. Life is not so simple as 2-valued aristotelian logic would have you believe. You BELIEVE the sun existed billions of years ago and so do I because it fits in with all our theories about the structure of the universe but it is still a BELIEF none the less. Language is used to create structures that correspond with what we can observe and these structures are under constant revision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Stephen,A good question might be to ask what is the opposite of heroism.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now