Rand's gender hierarchy

[rhartford]

Xray provides a clear, simple example of an audiovisual symbol, the word “pupil,” that refers to two different concepts. She provides identification of the facts of reality underlying each of the two concepts.

Take the audiovisual symobl "pupil" for example, which is quite obviously a homonym, with two different 'meanings' attached to it.

But as for the actual definition for each separate lexicon entry, (one for of pupil/student; one for pupil/part of the eye), it is these definitions which have to be in themselves consistent, unambiguous and contradiction-free in order to assure communication, and I have to USE them in this sense in order to avoid misunderstandings of ultimate magnitude.

So e.g. in "pupil" referring to a specific part of the eye, the definition has to be such that the reader knows what is meant, that is, after absorbing the definition, no doubt has to be left as to what it refers to. Entity identity is required.

If Rand had been that clear decades ago, it would have saved us much time and internet “ink.” Rand used a single word for two different concepts and it is often difficult to tell from the context which concept is meant.

One use refers to a principle one has accepted for guiding one’s action. The other use refers to things in reality that a living organism acts to achieve in pursuit of its life. Unfortunately both Rand and Xray use that single word without making clear (or possibly without understanding) that two different concepts are being discussed.

See this post to reveal that word and find suggested terminology to avoid confusion.

See also this for more detail.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

That is true and consistent with my own observations. (The principle is what I call the normative and the physical condition is what I call the cognitive.)

Now I understand why Xray was so insistent that words have only one meaning. She wouldn't be able to play gotcha otherwise. She's been setting this thing up for a while...

btw - You just convinced me. I need to do more than a cursory skim of your article.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Michael:

If values are something only humans can have, then why did she write this:

Jeff,

I must have writing issues. There is nowhere I know of where Rand stated that values are something only humans can have. (That happens to be Xray's view, anyway.)

Pointing out the context of a comment does not mean excluding all other contexts.

Michael

True, O king.

Reading over Objectivist Ethics, I find the passage I had in mind says instead that what is unique to man is "the fact that his consciousness is volitional."

But I still think that saying a plant can have values is strange to the ear. I guess it's an outcome of her usage of values to mean both materially valuable, and morally valuable: the plant can have the first, but I don't know of any plant that can have the second Back in #369, I referred to this problem as "conflating moral value and material value"--what Robert Hartford referred to as the difference between value and value-principle (which usage I'll try to stick to), and you refer to as cognitive-normative.

[Xray]

It's not that simple. Xray's assertion is that Rand believed that a person P can knowingly and willingly give up a higher value and receive in return a lesser value or nonvalue, according to P's own scale of values. Xray denies P can do this, like it is psychologically impossible.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue.

I contend that when Rand said this she meant her own scale of values, not P's. In other words, Rand did not say that P can knowingly and willingly give up a higher value and receive in return a lower value or nonvalue according to P's own scale of values.

That's a crucial distinction which you have made here. In fact, every time when it comes to looking at the chosen values themselves, Rand fails to distinguish between her own scale of values and between the scale of values of the person who gives up a value X in return for a value Y.

That is, she frowns upon those choices others make which she doesn't like, and to illustrate it, even resorts to a wrong use of the term "sacrifice".

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. (Rand)

This definition is just plain wrong since it fails to grasp the very idea of sacrifice.

A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a (believed) LOWER value to get a (believed) HIGHER value in return. There is no exception.

It is important to point out that WHAT is consdidered as the higher and lower value depends entirely on the scale of values which the person doing the sacrifice has.

The person sacrifing will always opt for the higher value he/she expects to get in return.

The choices Rands frowns upon, she arbitrarily decides to call "nonvalues". That is, she has no "sine ira et studio" scientific approach to the issue (= examination of the phenomeneon sacrifice) but lets her subjective moral preferences flow into an alleged "rational" assessment.

This THE methodical flaw of her thought system.

When one looks at the controversial debate the mere mention of the sacrfice issue has unleashed here, one thing becomes instantly clear: sacrifice is about values, and since everyone has their own set of values, it is obviously very difficult for many to keep their personal values out of the discussion. Often, it instantly switched to the personal, attacking others'individual values.

In my case, I found it quite amusing that some posters went as far as attacking certain alleged "personal values" of mine which I don't even have.

This shows how easily the "discussion train" can run off the main track, continuing on the sidetrack "My personal values vs yours", which is another topic altogether.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. (Rand)

This definition is just plain wrong since it fails to grasp the very idea of sacrifice.

A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a LOWER value to get a HIGHER value in return. There is no exception.

This is Xray-speak.

It only works in online Xray-land.

(You can build a theory on that and it will be right within the context of that theory. When you insist the meaning of another author's use is that, it is wrong.)

Michael

[Xray]

Go to # 445 and I suppose your "sadness" will vanish faster than you can pronounce "value".

Rand's writing is sloppy like this at times where she shifts contexts and uses the same word with two different meanings without making the meaning used in context clear. I have a few terms on file like this. And I have even noticed the pattern of how she does it. (There is often a cognitive-normative shift during an essay where the normative meaning takes the place of the cognitive one.)

Imo one can't let such methodical sloppiness slide when the issue is about a thought system priding itself for its "rational" approach.

As for the "terms on file", I have some too (e. g. "altruism" "sacrifice" "selfishness") - which are on your file?

But that does not mean that you understand what she is getting at. You are playing gotcha only with nothing of more substance. If I asked you for a pattern of how this develops, all you have is gotcha with Rand-bashing.

I don't think you know what Rand was getting at and I don't think you care.

Michael

It is very easy to see what Rand is getting at, since her philosophy is very simple. It is based on the illusion of objective value.

I'm no "Rand basher" - I'm interested in studying thought systems. Overall, I would call Rand more an ideologist than a philosopher.

Now one could argue that every philosopher is always an ideologist too and vice versa , but there are differences between the various philosophical schools when it comes to studying ethical values, and a sincere effort can be felt e.g. by many analytical philosophers to exclude their own personal preferences in ther analyses of ethical values.

But not so Rand. She was very outspoken about her likes and dislikes. The many harsh personal value judgements she made, her arbitrarily condemning this or that, her frequent belligerence - all that reminds me strongly of an ideologist holding flaming speeches to an audience in order to convince them of his /her values. Maybe becoming a politician would also have been an option for her? As chief ideologist for her preferred political party maybe?

Edited August 1, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. (Rand)

This definition is just plain wrong since it fails to grasp the very idea of sacrifice.

A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a LOWER value to get a HIGHER value in return. There is no exception.

This is Xray-speak.

It only works in online Xray-land.

(You can build a theory on that and it will be right within the context of that theory. When you insist the meaning of another author's use is that, it is wrong.)

Michael

Why don't you challenge it and try to refute it? Simply saying "Oh, that's Xray speak" - that's not refuting anything.

You make it seem as if I pulled all this out of thin air, but as you have seen, the dictionary entry re 'sacrifice' which Ginny quoted confirms the definition I gave, and that obviously upset her, leading her to 'conclude' Webster's must be wrong because Rand's was right.

The sacrifice discussion offers so many opportunities to illustrate with examples:

Jane Doe 'sacrifices' (= trades) a lot of her free time to care for her ailing parents.

Value A (free time) is seen by Jane as a lesser value than value B (taking care of the parents).

Jane acts accordingly. If her value hierarchy had been different, she would not have acted as she did. Plain and simple.

Jane's brother John does not want to care for their ailing parents because he does not want to trade in his free time.

Value A (free time) is seen by John as a higher value than value B (caring for the parents).

John makes a deal with his sister Jane by offering her a hefty sum of money to buy himself out of the caregiving.

John is no tycoon, so the money leaves quite a hole in his bank account.

Value A (the money)is sacrificed (= traded) because it is seen as a lesser value compared to value B (free time).

Note that I did not say "Jane valued the parents". She may even dislike them, and John may value them higher than Jane values them. All that is irrelevant here. It is the act of caregiving itself which is valued, and this in turn is valued because it serves a subjectively chosen goal, which is why Jane's individual motives for her caregiving may be manifold.

It is also important to be aware of the many variations of choice, but the principle remains the same: the final decision to do this or that will ALWAYS be prompted by those values a person holds highest at the moment of the decision, with self-interest being the motive. There exists no voluntary action not motivated by self interest.

Every sacrifice is basically a trade.

A voluntary trade takes place only because one trader values X more than Y while the other trader values Y more than X. There is no fixed value no matter what a price tag reads.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

You are the one who makes exclusionary statements and ignores all facts presented to the contrary.

I (and others) have provided dictionary definitions, specifically stated meanings from Rand, analyses of short-term/medium-term/long-term values, explanations from scholars, and on and on and on.

You have been refuted so many times on this very thread it is actually funny to hear you request it.

The problem is that you do not speak English. You only speak Xray-speak.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I could cite many more, but there is no need for that. These few make it clear that Rand is not referring to such trivial cases as a mother choosing between a hat and some food, or who gets a bottle of milk, or somebody choosing between giving a small amount of money to a friend or a stranger. She is instead talking about something far more significant -- religion and politics and pervasive ideas that have enormous consequences. She is talking about societal leaders calling for other people to self-sacrifice, i.e. for victims.

You're still missing the point. Of course Rand may have used the word "sacrifice" in different meanings, but we were discussing her own definition of "sacrifice", namely "'Sacrifice' is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue" and "'Sacrifice'" is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t." The latter one is from Galt's speech and is immediately followed by the examples I discussed, so there is no doubt that these examples refer to that definition and not to some different meaning. Bringing up a different meaning is therefore only muddying the waters.

Yet Xray and now you try to restrict the discussion to the trivial!

Well, we can't help it that Rand puts so much effort in discussing the trivial in Galt's speech.

You try to declare any talk about victims or some authority calling for other people to self-sacrifice as irrelevant.

Talk about victims is irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of Rand's definition of "sacrifice" in terms of higher and lower values. That doesn't mean that it can't be relevant in a different context.

Are you now trying to say that goals cannot be rationally judged? I deny that. How do you choose your goals? Whims, roll dice, or consult a fortune teller? Do you never subject your goals to criticism, ethical or otherwise?

The only way to judge a goal rationally is when it is intended as a subgoal to another goal, but that's merely shifting the problem. A goal in itself cannot be rational, which does not mean that it can only be the result of a "whim" ("a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind" according to Webster).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The only way to judge a goal rationally is when it is intended as a subgoal to another goal, but that's merely shifting the problem. A goal in itself cannot be rational, which does not mean that it can only be the result of a "whim" ("a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind" according to Webster).

Dragonfly,

This may be the logic in some other system of thought, but it has little to do with Objectivism for fundamental goals.

Man is an end in himself.

That is the ultimate standard of human value in Objectivism. A goal, like a person choosing to develop reason to the utmost capacity in order to ensure the continuation of that state, is not a "subgoal to another goal."

Man is not the means to someone else's ends.

I am sure you recognize the spirit behind these two statements, and the origin of them.

Michael

[Xray]

The only way to judge a goal rationally is when it is intended as a subgoal to another goal, but that's merely shifting the problem. A goal in itself cannot be rational, which does not mean that it can only be the result of a "whim" ("a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind" according to Webster).

Dragonfly,

This may be the logic in some other system of thought, but it has little to do with Objectivism for fundamental goals.

Man is an end in himself.

That is the ultimate standard of human value in Objectivism. A goal, like a person choosing to develop reason to the utmost capacity in order to ensure the continuation of that state, is not a "subgoal to another goal."

Man is not the means to someone else's ends.

I am sure you recognize the spirit behind these two statements, and the origin of them.

Michael

The qualifier which you added "in Objectivism" (correctly) identifies value judgements like "Man is and end in himself" and "Man is not the means to someone else's needs" as subjective.

Therefore "the ultimate standard of value" in any "...ism" is merely the standard of value fitting the subjectvely chosen goals of that philosophy/ideology, nothing more.

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

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

You keep showing how little you know of Objectivism and how little you care about understanding it.

The observation that an individual life is an end in itself is a cognitive identification, not even a value judgment (a normative abstraction). A living thing's corpse might be food for the ends of others, but its life is an end in itself.

This has no relation to Communism, Nazism, Buddhism...

No gotcha here...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Didn't you learn any spells in your 30 years in Brazil, you know one that opens a persons mind to lucidity?

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Xray,

You keep showing how little you know of Objectivism and how little you care about understanding it.

The observation that an individual life is an end in itself is a cognitive identification, not even a value judgment (a normative abstraction). A living thing's corpse might be food for the ends of others, but its life is an end in itself.

This has no relation to Communism, Nazism, Buddhism...

No gotcha here...

Michael

She hasn't told us one thing that attracted her to Objectivism. Not the whole and not a part.

The Big Picture is humanity trying to find its way--humanity trying to understand itself for a better self and Objectivism is part of that quest. This is an essential part of the western intellectual tradition, one that has always needed heroes, one of whom was Ayn Rand. Criticising Rand the way Xray does is criticism of this tradition. To an extent she has a point for orthodox Objectivism has dead-ended into a small cult of religious-type dogmatism headed by a few authoritarian figures. If Ayn Rand said it or wrote it it's Objectivism is so silly my mind goes ga ga thinking about it.

There's a reality inside all our heads and there's the reality out there and that reality is factual, objective and true and pertains not just to scientific quest but value and moral quest and that's the essence of Objectivism if it truly is objectivism. The lack of verifiable data expressed in numbers as in science doesn't mean we can't figure the other stuff out.

--Brant

[Xray]

Michael:

Didn't you learn any spells in your 30 years in Brazil, you know one that opens a persons mind to lucidity?

Adam

Why would you want to look for external help in the form of trance sessions, Selene?

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

She hasn't told us one thing that attracted her to Objectivism. Not the whole and not a part.

Wrong. I mentioned that I got interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy in the course of a discussion on atheism I had elsewhere.

The Big Picture is humanity trying to find its way--humanity trying to understand itself for a better self and Objectivism is part of that quest.

Absolutely. We are all "seekers", so to speak. As for seekers posting on philosophy forums, they usually also have interest in studying philosophical thought systems.

This is an essential part of the western intellectual tradition, one that has always needed heroes, one of whom was Ayn Rand. Criticising Rand the way Xray does is criticism of this tradition.

"Trying to find one's way" is not only part of "western intellectual tradition" - it is part of the conditio humana as such. Every single human being is driven by this. And since every human being is an individual, valuing, goal-seeking entity, you can imagine the variety of goals chosen.

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

As for the term "hero" - a "hero" was originally a mythical figure (for example, the war hero fearless in battle, fighting against demons etc.. 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 extent, it has its roots in our amimal 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 even be counterproductive.

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

To an extent she has a point for orthodox Objectivism has dead-ended into a small cult of religious-type dogmatism headed by a few authoritarian figures.

This illustrates what often happens when authority figures abuse their power.

As for the power struggles and turf wars between the various groups, they are very similar to the schisms which can be observed in many belief systems.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Xray,

You keep showing how little you know of Objectivism and how little you care about understanding it.

The observation that an individual life is an end in itself is a cognitive identification, not even a value judgment (a normative abstraction). A living thing's corpse might be food for the ends of others, but its life is an end in itself.

This has no relation to Communism, Nazism, Buddhism...

No gotcha here...

Michael

What does this mean "an individual life is an end in itself"? Does it mean we will all die one day?

[Xray]

The Big Picture is humanity trying to find its way--humanity trying to understand itself for a better self and Objectivism is part of that quest.

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 and the individual as an autonomous existent 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.

Suppose that number one on the list of Jane Doe's goals is peace and harmony. It's not from any "divine dictate", nor any idea of "morality." It's simply what Jane wants for herself.

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, Jane concludes 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 Jane wants.

(I suppose that's what Dragonfly meant upthread (# 459) when pointing out that how to achieve a chosen goal can of course be subject to rational assessment. 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).

Now back to Jane: In addition to peace and harmony, she desires voluntary mutual exchange for mutual benefit.

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

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.

Jane is not guided by "morality" - she is guided by self-interest, and self-interest is biologically hardwired in us.

All of this is precisely what the "moralists" want to stamp out by herding all under a single umbrella of "objective values".

Jane's self-interest, her personal choices, are briefly outlined above. I want of see what fault any "moralists" can find with it.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

....

The observation that an individual life is an end in itself is a cognitive identification, not even a value judgment (a normative abstraction). A living thing's corpse might be food for the ends of others, but its life is an end in itself.

....

What does this mean "an individual life is an end in itself"? Does it mean we will all die one day?

Good question, GS.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

X-Ray, I forget how literal you are. My german's a bit rusty. I meant young lady, not virgin. And before you argue, I'm not sure that you are a lady. Just guessing. I should probably use the term frau.

I knew you had accidentally used the wrong term, Ginny, - but "Jungfrau" just sounded too funny here, so I could not help joking a little.

The word "Jungfrau" was actually used in past times meaning 'young unmarried woman", but the term underwent a shift of meaning ('Bedeutungsverschiebung' is the German technical term in semantics) and now means 'virgin'. It can also refer to the Virgo sign of the Zodiac, and sometimes people play word games asking "Bist du Jungfrau?" which is in fact an ambiguous phrase since it can both mean "Is is your sign Virgo"? as well as asking whether someone is a virgin. For clear communication to work, disambiguation is necessary.

Btw, I was surprised at the label young lady since it was you who had asked me how old l am and I told you (I'm three years your junior actually).

"Austrian" is wrong too. I'm German.

Let me put it as plainly as I can. I'm curious how an Austrian lady/woman/female/not a virgin is so knowledgeable on such Americanism as Trouble in River City.

Oh, I know quite a few more. Don't get me started when it comes to language - for I'll run off topic faster than you can say "get the hell out of Dodge" - now there's another Americanism.

Clear question?

How about a deal, Ginny? If you will provide an example of an action not motivated by self-interest, I will not only answer your question, but throw in Robert Preston's hat size as well.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Thanks for digging up the quotes, Merlin!

You are welcome.

Rand's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And this is by no means the only example of confused thinking on her part.

How silly -- claiming that Rand's left hand knew anything at all.

This is by no means the only example of your confused thinking.

Regarding your attempt to prove Rand was confused, no cigar again.

A criticism of Ayn Rand by Xray is like a fly on the back of an elephant. I have a flyswatter, but this time it's not worth the hassle for me to get the ladder. It would likely be a sacrifice anyway. Higher value = my time. Nonvalue = Xray ignores my swatting.

[merjet]

You're still missing the point.

No, but I am not obsessed with nor impressed by your point, unlike you and Xray. On the other hand, you said Rand's definition of sacrifice is meaningless (post #408). It isn't, and I will explain that in my next post.

Talk about victims is irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of Rand's definition of "sacrifice" in terms of higher and lower values.

I disagree, and see my next post.

The only way to judge a goal rationally is when it is intended as a subgoal to another goal, but that's merely shifting the problem. A goal in itself cannot be rational,

A subgoal is a kind of goal. Trying to mask a contradiction with verbal sleight-of-hand doesn't pass my inspection.

[merjet]

A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a LOWER value to get a HIGHER value in return.

That is way too broad, and would include even working for money and buying groceries. So I will charitably consider she meant only what she considers "good examples", whatever that might include.

Let us analyze Xray's proposition. Let us use Rand's well-known question "of value to whom and for what?" Xray used "value" twice, so we can ask the question about each occurence. Is the valuer the same person for both? If yes and the lower value is the person's own property, e.g. reluctantly selling something of value to obtain something else more highly valued, it is a ho-hum situation. However, if yes and the lesser value is another human being, e.g. the valuer is a priest sacrificing an unwilling victim to appease the gods, that is a radically different situation. Another radically different situation is a duped victim who puts little or no value on his own life, e.g. a suicide bomber.

The valuers being two different people adds more and different situations. Consider again the priest with an unwilling victim. The victim is not trading a lower value for his/her own higher value, but rather the opposite. The victim is coerced, or duped, into forfeiting a higher value for a lower value. For such a case, Rand's saying "sacrifice" means "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue" is not meaningless like Dragonfly claims (post #408), but makes good sense. I suspect Rand thought more about sacrificial victims when she formulated her meaning of "sacrifice."

Talk about victims is irrelevant to the discussion of the validity of Rand's definition of "sacrifice" in terms of higher and lower values.

Ayn Rand says, "Check your premises."

The problem here is that Objectivism has a habit of using terms in ways that are specific to Objectivism. "Sacrifice" is a good example. For ready reference, here's N. Branden's definition in one of the essays he contributed to The Virtue of Selfishness ("Mental Health versus Mysticism"): "the surrender of a higher value in favor of a lower value or a nonvalue". Now turn to Webster's definition (I'm using the Seventh New Collegiate); the closest it comes to this is part 3a: "destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else". Nothing in the Webster's suggests that the thing destroyed or surrendered is a higher value (or a lower value, for that matter) than the thing for the sake of which it was destroyed or surrendered. And in fact, most people, if queried on their usage of the word, would state that the thing that is sacrificed will always be perceived to be of lesser value than the thing for which it was sacrificed.

Jeffrey, did it ever occur to you that maybe Rand thought these terms as generally used are package-deals? She made a fresh start.

I don't disagree with you. However, I believe "most people" would think of voluntary actions without coercion, not of sacrifices with victims. I doubt they would think of Hitler sacrificing the lives of thousands of Germans to obtain his "higher value" of expanding his dictatorship and exterminating Jews.

I don't claim this is a thorough analysis, but it reveals that Xray's statement has some gaping ambiguities. Who is the valuer for each of the two instances of "value" in it? Is there more than one person involved? Is there a victim? Is there coercion? Is somebody being duped?

Xray wrote: "I'm looking at the phenomenon called 'sacrifice' from an analytical, structural point of view, that is, I'm describing elements of the system called 'sacrifice'" (post #391).

So readers, how thorough has her analysis been? What elements has she missed? Note her examples in post #457. Each one considers the values of only one person and none involve coercion. All are "voluntary trades", like she says. Her definition of "sacrifice" is a package deal. She is oblivious to and avoids examples with sacrificial victims. Xray says (post #365): "You are shifting the focus on the victim, which is another topic altogether. The issue is about the sacrificer, the person peforming the sacrifice." In other words, the victims of a Hitler or suicide bomber are irrelevant!

Arguably, Rand's saying 'sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue' is ambiguous, too, when regarded as an isolated statement. 'Sacrifice is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t' is a bit clearer. Presumably 'you' is the same person. It doesn't hold for a priest or ruler sacrificing victims, but such people were not in her target audience. Lastly, it's clear she did not ignore coercion and calls for others to dutiful self-sacrifice.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

The only way to judge a goal rationally is when it is intended as a subgoal to another goal, but that's merely shifting the problem. A goal in itself cannot be rational,

A subgoal is a kind of goal. Trying to mask a contradiction with verbal sleight-of-hand doesn't pass my inspection.

I suppose what Dragonfly meant is that how to achieve a subjectively chosen goal can of course be rationally assessed. For the means one chooses to attain a goal can be analyzed as to whether they are adequate and effective 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).

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray's grounds for subjective, "There is no value, no valuation without a valuer. No exceptions."

Once an agent is mentioned ("valuer"), the matter becomes 100% subjective for her.

My problem comes with a paraphrase, "There is no knowledge, no knowing without a knower. No exceptions."

That is a true statement. But the presence of an agent ("knower") also makes all facts subjective, that is in Xray-speak.

Which once again goes back to my not understanding what Xray means by objective.

Maybe it's 100% inconsistent usage on her part...

Michael

It's the term "value" one has to focus on. A rosebush can't seek values, no matter what linguistic contortions Rand made with the term "value".

Edited August 2, 2009 by Xray