Rand's gender hierarchy

[merjet]

Have you read my # 523 post?

Yes. It proves what I said about you in post #524.

Look at her example. When she she says:

"2. If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is."

there is no exteranl moral code, no societal pressure mentioned, not sense of duty, nothing of the sort.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/tacit

Edited August 5, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Have you read my # 523 post?

Yes. It proves what I said about you in post #524.

Proves what?

I don't know if you also have read what I added when expanding the post:her is the edtied version which i hopre brings it across even clearer.

[J. Smith]:

What Rand does not seem to contemplate is the situation where the person involved actually finds value in performing the alternative Rand labels as a sacrifice. Just because Rand did not find any value principle in giving money to worthless strangers (and of course, the very word "worthless" carries in it the fact that the stranger has no value) does not mean that everyone else does not, or should not.

This is the gist of the matter.

A sacrifice is ALWAYS performed because the sacrificer hopes to get a higher value for that which he/she treades in. The individual motives prompting the sacrifice don't alter this fundamental principle.

Just one of countless examples: suppose a Hollywood movie director tries to persuade actress X to have plastic surgery performed, and in the end she reluctantly agrees (although she loathes the mere thought of having plastic surgery performed on her), because she is hoping to get a greater value for herself in return (the coveted role, which in case of her ot complying the movie director would give to another actress.

The actress trades (sacrifices) her independence for a value she subjectively holds higher (getting the role).

Now let's reverse the scenario: the movie director is not successful in persuading actress X to have plastic surgery. She declines. He reacts by giving the coveted role to another actress.

The actress trades (sacrifices) the coveted role for a value she subjectively holds higher: her independence.

The principle at work is always the same. People will only sacrifice (trade) something in exchange for a value they hold higher.

How one judges their choices is irrelevant here, since it is about analyzing an operative principle.

No sacrifice without a higher value expected on the part of the sacrificer.

Feel free to list any sacrifices, Merlin.

If you want, we can start with two extreme cases of sacrifice: Galileo Galilei and Janusz Korczak. Interested?

Edited August 5, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

In the American Revolution it was a battle for political power and the Founding Fathers won. Nothing wrong with that. But the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution which lay the groundwork for the continual expansion of state imperial power and the subjugation of the individual.

Not enough people understand that the Constitution was a counterrevolution, and that all the faults of the modern political system can be traced back to the Founding Fathers--including even Jefferson.

You cannot have individualism in Objectivism if Objectivists arrange themselves hierarchically respecting each other as in Atlas Shrugged with Galt on top of the moral/ability/character/integrity structure: "You don't get too close to a god" (Rand). Admiration is one thing, even intense admiration. Man worship? No. Not unless you're looking at a statue or making a general contemplation of man, not a man. Galt as a statue? Okay, but it doesn't travel.

As the roshi might have said, if you meet Ayn Rand on the road, kill her.

Objectivism is worth nothing if the individual views merely as Ayn Rand's philosophy. If it is Ayn Rand's philosophy, than there is only one thing to do with it: Bahlasti! Ompehda! I spit on your crapulous creeds! It has to be his/her own personal philosophy, thought through and amended as the individual thinks necessary, integrated into his/her own life, with Ayn Rand being quoted only because Ayn Rand happened to be a better writer. NOT a better thinker. It has to be one's one thinking, one's own philosophy: Thou hast no right but to do thy will.

Jeffrey

[jeffrey smith]

If you want, we can start with two extreme cases of sacrifice: Galileo Galilei and Janusz Korczak. Interested?

It strikes me that Galileo matches Rand's definition of sacrifice. He certainly traded what he knew to be a higher value principle for what he knew to be a lower value principle.

Janusz Korczak was neither trading nor surrendering a value. He was fulfilling a value principle, and those around him recognized that he was doing so, in company with his orphans, which is why the eyewitness account quote in the Wiki article about him is written in the style it is--the hagiography of martyrs. The technical term is Kiddush HaShem, although if you're uncomfortable with the theistic implications of that, Kiddush Adam (Sanctification of Man) would serve just as well.

[blackhorse]

I agree with Miss Rand. I don't think that she was denigrating women, but rather judging the self esteem, femininity, and character of a woman by the man she loved. Is he a self made man with self esteem, like her hero's in her books, or a moocher, drunk, or low-life, etc.

[Christopher]

I agree with Miss Rand. I don't think that she was denigrating women, but rather judging the self esteem, femininity, and character of a woman by the man she loved. Is he a self made man with self esteem, like her hero's in her books, or a moocher, drunk, or low-life, etc.

Rand broke it down very clearly at one point why men are "superior" to women. She basically said: all things are equal save that the man has more physical strength. Therefore, this difference in physical strength alone makes the man every slightly superior to women.

This is Rand's writing, clear as crystal. She did write that a woman could never be president because she would then have no man to look up to, and this would be tragic for the woman's relational/romantic health, but she didn't argue that women were less as a result of their desire for a strong man... merely different

[Selene]

I agree with Miss Rand. I don't think that she was denigrating women, but rather judging the self esteem, femininity, and character of a woman by the man she loved. Is he a self made man with self esteem, like her hero's in her books, or a moocher, drunk, or low-life, etc.

Rand broke it down very clearly at one point why men are "superior" to women. She basically said: all things are equal save that the man has more physical strength. Therefore, this difference in physical strength alone makes the man every slightly superior to women.

This is Rand's writing, clear as crystal. She did write that a woman could never be president because she would then have no man to look up to, and this would be tragic for the woman's relational/romantic health, but she didn't argue that women were less as a result of their desire for a strong man... merely different

And I have absolute proof! The only all-female crewed tall ship in the world:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20291465/detail.html

http://www.tallshipunicorn.com/index.html

Adam

[tjohnson]

3. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty.

I think is it pretty clear that Rand viewed "a sacrifice" to mean giving up something you value not because you really want to, but rather, because you feel you should.

[merjet]

Feel free to list any sacrifices, Merlin.

If you want, we can start with two extreme cases of sacrifice: Galileo Galilei and Janusz Korczak. Interested?

I have no interest in being your sacrificial victim while you play your childish word games. Bye.

I take this opportunity to point out another difference between Rand's definition of "sacrifice" and Xray's. For the former the higher value is not obtained; for the latter it is. Xray ignores any even higher value that might be foregone, e.g. Galileo continuing to do what he wanted without compulsion or demands from religious authorities. One normally obtains a higher value via voluntary trade. Xray's definition of "sacrifice" is a vicious package deal of voluntary and involuntary choices.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

3. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty.

I think is it pretty clear that Rand viewed "a sacrifice" to mean giving up something you value not because you really want to, but rather, because you feel you should.

That's part of it. But you left out a feature of the primary meaning of "surrender" -- done under compulsion or demand.

[Xray]

[

quote name='Merlin Jetton' date='06 August 2009 - 06:34 AM' timestamp='1249558482' post='76962]

Feel free to list any sacrifices, Merlin.

If you want, we can start with two extreme cases of sacrifice: Galileo Galilei and Janusz Korczak. Interested?

I have no interest in being your sacrificial victim while you play your childish word games. Bye.

I take this opportunity to point out another difference between Rand's definition of "sacrifice" and Xray's.

Not only Xray's, but also Webster's, in case you have forgotten. Do you think Webster's plays word games?

So my definiton is in perfect congruence with that of one of the most reputable dictionaries of the English language.

Here it is again as a reminder:

"To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value." (Webster's)

That's the whole ball game. Keep it simple.

Remember Ginny being baffled when she discovered that I had not pulled anything out of thin air?

[Ginny] (Posted 30 July 2009 - 03:44 AM):

Dear god, I think X-Ray may have a point. I just picked up my Webster Dictionary.

Definition of sacrifice: "To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value."

How the hell did these definitions get so mucked up?

Sure, Webster's got it mucked up. Everyone else got it mucked up but not Rand, because her supporters tend to believe her without checking her premises.

For the former the higher value is not obtained; for the latter it is. Xray ignores any even higher value that might be foregone, e.g. Galileo continuing to do what he wanted without compulsion or demands from religious authorities. One normally obtains a higher value via trade. Xray's definition of "sacrifice" is a vicious package deal

For the definition of sacrifice, it is completely irrelevant whether the sacrificer gets what he/she bargained for. Nor does one always obtain a higher value via a trade, one hopes to attain it. Merchandise acquired through trade can be damaged, a surrogate mother can decide not to give the child away, etc.

Jane Doe moonlighting to put her husband through medical school may be rewarded for her "sacrifice" or not.

An athlete "sacrificing" countless hours of free time to train for the Olympics may get a medal or not.

It s the same as with any trade, only in the case of sacrifice, a contract is normally not set up.

But the basic principle is the same as in a trade.

Whatever the sacrifice is, it is done to get something in return thought to be of higher value. This is the STANDARD DEFINITION.

Feel free to email Noam Chomsky if you still have doubts about this issue.

Rand valuing the subjectve choices made by people has no bearing on what actually constitutes a sacrifice, as well as her disregarding of the term's actual meaning has no bearing other than creating unnecessary confusion, even among her followers.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

[Xray]

Rand broke it down very clearly at one point why men are "superior" to women. She basically said: all things are equal save that the man has more physical strength. Therefore, this difference in physical strength alone makes the man every slightly superior to women.

First, the notion that every man is physically stronger than every woman is patently absurd.

Second, but more the to the point, if Rand put such a premium on "intellectual", why did she not use this as her benchmark for "superior/inferior?"

Third and most important, there is no such thing as a superior being. There may be superior doctors, superior mechanics, or superior widget makers. There may be superior means to reach a particular end but, superior being, comes right back to hierarchy structures denying equal worth to indviduals.

This is Rand's writing, clear as crystal. She did write that a woman could never be president because she would then have no man to look up to, and this would be tragic for the woman's relational/romantic health

"Romantic health", hilarious term, lol!

Reminds me of Humphrey Bogart who had to stand on an apple crate or something similar so that Ingrid Bergman could look up to him in "Casablanca" because she was actually taller than Bogart. Ah, the cinema world of illusion!

And I have absolute proof! The only all-female crewed tall ship in the world:

http://www.theboston...465/detail.html

http://www.tallshipu....com/index.html

Adam

And how many all male crewed tall ships have encountered similar emergencies too, Selene?

Wasn't it you who said whose hobby was sailing and who likes this - what's his name - Danneskjöld pirating hero of the seas best of all the characters in Rand's magnum opus?

If yes, I've found THE perfect shirt for you: a Danneskjöld shirt! No kidding! Look here - there's even crossed sabers on it - you will look soo daringly impressive wearing it in your next sailing trip - would give Errol Flynn a run for his money!

Look here:

http://www.johngaltgifts.com/proddetail.php?prod=Shirt84

And suppose you should encounter another of these all-female sailing crews not being able to do that man's job (why can't they stick to sewing if they absolutely want to make knots! ), YOU rescue them of course. Admiration guaranteed! With that Danneskjöld shirt, Selene, you can nothing but win!

Happy sailing all into the rest of the week!

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I agree with Miss Rand. I don't think that she was denigrating women, but rather judging the self esteem, femininity, and character of a woman by the man she loved. Is he a self made man with self esteem, like her hero's in her books, or a moocher, drunk, or low-life, etc.

Rand broke it down very clearly at one point why men are "superior" to women. She basically said: all things are equal save that the man has more physical strength. Therefore, this difference in physical strength alone makes the man every slightly superior to women.

This is Rand's writing, clear as crystal. She did write that a woman could never be president because she would then have no man to look up to, and this would be tragic for the woman's relational/romantic health

"Romantic health", hilarious term, lol!

Reminds me of Humphrey Bogart who had to stand on an apple crate or something similar so that Ingrid Bergman could look up to him in "Casablanca" because she was actually taller than Bogart. Ah, the cinama world of illusion!

And I have absolute proof! The only all-female crewed tall ship in the world:

http://www.theboston...465/detail.html

http://www.tallshipu....com/index.html

Adam

And how many all male crewed tall ships have encontered similar emergencies too, Selene?

Wasn't you who said whose hobby was saiiing and who likes this what's his name Danneskjöld pirating Rand hero of the seas? I've found THE perfect shirt for you: a Danneskjöld shirt! No kiddng! Look here - there's even crossed sabers on it - you will look soo daringly impressive in your next sailing trip and would give Errol Flynn a run for his money)

http://www.johngaltg...hp?prod=Shirt84

And suppose you should encounter another of these all-female sailing crews not being able to do that man's job (why can't they stick to sewing if they absolutely want to make knots! ), YOU rescue them of course. Admiration guaranteed! With that Danneskjöld shirt, Selene, it should all be as easy as a basic slip knot for you.

Have a nice hump day all and happy sailing into the rest of the week!

Why thank you so much, xray, I always do.

Secondly, that is a great shirt. I am not prone to wear logos on my nipples, but I will make an exception just for you.

This is actually the most intelligent connection that you have made to a Randian concept.

It fits your gender feminist mythology about the category "male" versus "man," quite well. However, you got quite emotional about the incompetency of the all broads crew

mentioned in the article. I wonder why?

I happen to really like the "way" Noam Chomsky attempts to think. It saddens me that you may like him also. However, PETA, teacher in a "modern" state education system, Chomsky I guess there is a pattern there.

So when are you and Dragonfly going to announce your engagement?

Isn't this ad hominem stuff fun!

Maybe we can just selectively distort more definitions of words in order to conflate and obfuscate more conceptual issues so that we can really not understand Rand.

Adam

Post script: Maybe you slept through that class at cult college, but you should not lead with the statement that irritated you subconsciously.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Selene

[merjet]

Not only Xray's, but also Webster's, in case you have forgotten. Do you think Webster's plays word games?

So my definiton is in perfect congruence with that of one of most reputable dictionaries of te English language.

Here it is again as a reminder:

"To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value." (Webster's)

That's the whole ball game.

It is not the whole ball game. You pick one definiens you prefer out of many and try to arbitrarily exclude the others, including the primary one:

sacrifice - an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially: the killing of a victim on an altar (Merriam-Webster)

The one you pick mentions no victim nor coercion. I am not at all surprised. You try to make them irrelevant to sacrifice. A definiens is not the whole of a concept. A part of the concept not in a definiens is still a part of it. Was Galileo a victim of coercion or not? Moreover, do you know what "forfeit" means?

forfeit - to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime (Merriam-Webster)

This does not mean an ordinary, voluntary trade. Tacit with "forfeit" is a set of rules, often with somebody enforcing them.

Finally, your own definiens doesn't even match the one you pick from Webster's! Here is yours:

A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a (believed) LOWER value to get a (believed) HIGHER value in return. (post 454#)

You used 'trading' rather than 'forfeiture', which is a significant difference. Then you berate Rand for not using a dictionary definition!

[tjohnson]

Yes, sometimes people use words to mean something different than usual, it shouldn't be that big a deal. In science, great care is made so this doesn't happen and so we have technical terms that do not normally have other connotations. In philosophy there is much room for misunderstanding because many of the terms are common, non-technical words which are capable of having many meanings. Therefore it is important to try and understand what the speaker means instead of putting in your own meaning and saying the word is wrong. This is general semantics 101

[Xray]

Not only Xray's, but also Webster's, in case you have forgotten. Do you think Webster's plays word games?

So my definiton is in perfect congruence with that of one of most reputable dictionaries of te English language.

Here it is again as a reminder:

"To forfeit one thing for another thing thought to be of greater value." (Webster's)

That's the whole ball game.

It is not the whole ball game. You pick one definiens you prefer out of many and try to arbitrarily exclude the others, including the primary one:

sacrifice - an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially: the killing of a victim on an altar (Merriam-Webster)

The one you pick mentions no victim nor coercion. I am not at all surprised. You try to make them irrelevant to sacrifice. A definiens is not the whole of a concept. A part of the concept not in a definiens is still a part of it. Was Galileo a victim of coercion or not? Moreover, do you know what "forfeit" means?

forfeit - to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime (Merriam-Webster)

This does not mean an ordinary, voluntary trade. Tacit with "forfeit" is a set of rules, often with somebody enforcing them.

Finally, your own definiens doesn't even match the one you pick from Webster's! Here is yours:

A sacrifice is ALWAYS a trading of a (believed) LOWER value to get a (believed) HIGHER value in return. (post 454#)

You used 'trading' rather than 'forfeiture', which is a significant difference. Then you berate Rand for not using a dictionary definition!

The emphasis in forfeit is in "giving up, losing", i.e. the value offered by the sacrificer is gone;

Mr. X. sacrificing countless hours of free time for the money gets from a moonlighting job - those free hours are gone for good. They have been traded in.

Whether Galilieo was a victim of coercion or not - his final decision was motivated by self-interest. Others may have resisted despite coercion - but self-interest would have been their motive too. The values subjectively held highest would just just happen to be different.

For one cannot act against one's own self-interest. Which can mean that people can even choose to die for their personal values.

Jamusz Korczak's self interest was not to betray the values he held which implied not abandoning the children.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

If you want, we can start with two extreme cases of sacrifice: Galileo Galilei and Janusz Korczak. Interested?

It strikes me that Galileo matches Rand's definition of sacrifice. He certainly traded what he knew to be a higher value principle for what he knew to be a lower value principle.

Galileo opted to save his own life by cowering to an authority. So at the moment of the decision, he clearly valued his life higher than the truth. The truth was traded in.

Janusz Korczak was neither trading nor surrendering a value. He was fulfilling a value principle, and those around him recognized that he was doing so, in company with his orphans, which is why the eyewitness account quote in the Wiki article about him is written in the style it is--the hagiography of martyrs. The technical term is Kiddush HaShem, although if you're uncomfortable with the theistic implications of that, Kiddush Adam (Sanctification of Man) would serve just as well.

Every sacrifice is acting according to the values a person subejctively holds highest at the moment of the decision. Korczak's personal values involved not abandoning the children, therefore giving up his own life was considered of lesser value compared to a value he thought of as higher.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

A sacrifice is ALWAYS performed because the sacrificer hopes to get a higher value for that which he/she treades in. The individual motives prompting the sacrifice don't alter this fundamental principle.

Xray, this may be true according to YOUR use of the word 'sacrifice' but why can't someone else use it differently? I wouldn't even use the word 'sacrifice' for this, I would call it 'exchanging values' or something. The important thing is what we are talking ABOUT, not the words we are using.

[Christopher]

I agree with Miss Rand. I don't think that she was denigrating women, but rather judging the self esteem, femininity, and character of a woman by the man she loved. Is he a self made man with self esteem, like her hero's in her books, or a moocher, drunk, or low-life, etc.

Rand broke it down very clearly at one point why men are "superior" to women. She basically said: all things are equal save that the man has more physical strength. Therefore, this difference in physical strength alone makes the man every slightly superior to women.

This is Rand's writing, clear as crystal. She did write that a woman could never be president because she would then have no man to look up to, and this would be tragic for the woman's relational/romantic health, but she didn't argue that women were less as a result of their desire for a strong man... merely different

And I have absolute proof! The only all-female crewed tall ship in the world:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/20291465/detail.html

http://www.tallshipunicorn.com/index.html

Adam

I laughed despite myself, but that is just sick. Just sick.

[Xray]

Secondly, that is a great shirt.

Actually when I wrote that post, I grinned, thinking "He's probably going to buy it!"

I wouldn't put it past you to run around with that shirt.

This is actually the most intelligent connection that you have made to a Randian concept.

You mean my conclusion that you would like play pirate?

It fits your gender feminist mythology about the category "male" versus "man," quite well. However, you got quite emotional about the incompetency of the all broads crew mentioned in the article. I wonder why?

Please read that whole comic relief post with a good dose of salt. I don't subscribe to any "gender feminist mythology". I'm against any kind of female or male chauvinism. There is no gender superiority.

Edited August 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

XRAY HAS SPOKEN:

"There is no gender superiority."

Wow. Thanks, now I am going to hurry up and change reality. So all those studies about women having higher pain tolerances than men are false...Yes.

Secondly,

"You mean my conclusion that you would like play pirate?"

No that was your subjective fantasy.

Would you like to investigate why you pulled all those connects together?

Hmmm?

You are perfectly willing to walk around in a mind that is not here to defend itself and invent in your own subjective cult like descriptions of behavior that you get from

third party hearsay.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

If you want, we can start with two extreme cases of sacrifice: Galileo Galilei and Janusz Korczak. Interested?

It strikes me that Galileo matches Rand's definition of sacrifice. He certainly traded what he knew to be a higher value principle for what he knew to be a lower value principle.

Galileo opted to save his own life by cowering to an authority. So at the moment of the decision, he clearly valued his life higher than the truth. The truth was traded in.

Janusz Korczak was neither trading nor surrendering a value. He was fulfilling a value principle, and those around him recognized that he was doing so, in company with his orphans, which is why the eyewitness account quote in the Wiki article about him is written in the style it is--the hagiography of martyrs. The technical term is Kiddush HaShem, although if you're uncomfortable with the theistic implications of that, Kiddush Adam (Sanctification of Man) would serve just as well.

Every sacrifice is acting according to the values a person subejctively holds highest at the moment of the decision. Korczak's personal values involved not abandoning the children, therefore giving up his own life was considered of lesser value compared to a value he thought of as higher.

I'm beginning to perceive what Michael means by X-Rayspeak.

X-Ray:

Look, all you're really doing is turning exchange (or trade) and sacrifice into synonyms, and wildly distorting

their meanings by doing so. According to you, when I buy a loaf of bread at Publix I'm sacrificing something, because I'm exchanging a value (in this case, $0.99 US) for another value (the loaf of bread).

And acting to fulfill a value principle--in the case of Korczak, "protecting the widow and the orphan"--may involve a sacrifice (according to the usual view, but not Rand's)--but it is no sense a trade or a surrender. And I think a reasonable argument can be made that Galileo did knowingly sacrifice in the exact meaning of Rand's usage.

[Xray]

A sacrifice is ALWAYS performed because the sacrificer hopes to get a higher value for that which he/she treades in. The individual motives prompting the sacrifice don't alter this fundamental principle.

Xray, this may be true according to YOUR use of the word 'sacrifice' but why can't someone else use it differently? I wouldn't even use the word 'sacrifice' for this, I would call it 'exchanging values' or something. The important thing is what we are talking ABOUT, not the words we are using.

Indeed, a sacrifice is nothing else but exchanging values, i. e. a trade. A person trades a value X hoping to get another value Y in return.

Would you agree that no one engages in a trade hoping to get a lesser value in return for the value he/she is offering?

[Xray]

X-Ray:

Look, all you're really doing is turning exchange (or trade) and sacrifice into synonyms, and wildly distorting

their meanings by doing so. According to you, when I buy a loaf of bread at Publix I'm sacrificing something, because I'm exchanging a value (in this case, $0.99 US) for another value (the loaf of bread).

And acting to fulfill a value principle--in the case of Korczak, "protecting the widow and the orphan"--may involve a sacrifice (according to the usual view, but not Rand's)--but it is no sense a trade or a surrender. And I think a reasonable argument can be made that Galileo did knowingly sacrifice in the exact meaning of Rand's usage.

No one engages in a trade hoping to get a lesser value in return - I think you would agree.

The same goes for sacrifice, which GS (see post above) said he would call exchanging values. A person sacrifices a value x hoping to get a greater (and not a lesser!) value y in return. Agree?

Edited August 6, 2009 by Xray