Rand's gender hierarchy

[merjet]

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.

My bold. Bulls eye! Whether or not there is coercion or threats is irrelevant in Xray's subjective opinion.

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

[tjohnson]

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?

OK, I am going to give you a real life example. I lived in a house my father and I built for about 17 years but I never had title to the land. My brother bought the house next door which came with the land my house was on and he took out a mortgage to build an addition on his home. Then he threatened to sell the whole property because of some personal issues we had. After consulting a lawyer I decided I did not want to get involved in a legal battle with my brother that I had maybe a 50/50 chance of winning anyway. So I packed up and left. I did not receive "a value" in return for my house unless you want to call "not going to court against my brother" a value. I call it a tough decision based on many factors. Calling it a value would be a considerable stretch, I think.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

Jeff,

It goes way beyond values, too. All cognition in Xray-speak is subjective. Not a syllable is objective. Not even the word or concept "objective."

Thus in Xray-speak, since everything is subjective (although she subjectively denies it), all values have to be subjective, including sacrifice. And sacrifice in Xray-speak subjectively must operate one way and one way only. Interestingly enough, things that do that are not subjective, except this one is.

Anyway, that is no problematic issue in Xray-speak. The whole shebang is subjective, even what is not.

Michael

[Xray]

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.

"Gender superiority" was meant as valuing one gender higher than the other - that's what male/female chauvinism is about.

Countless individual entities are arbitrarly declared to be more/less valuable because they happen to belong to the category man (or woman).

Edited August 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

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.

"Gender superiority" was meant as valuing one gender higher than the other - that's what male/female chauvinism is about.

Countless individual entities are arbitrarly declared to be more/less valuable because they happen to belong to the category man (or woman).

xray:

I am confused, xray, help me out here, valuing by what objective standards are you employing to make that conclusionary statement that the genders are absolutely equal.

So any 100 males is exactly equal to any 100 females. OK by what objective standard, dear?

Adam

America's Best Dance Crew's Layla Kayleigh Stars in Sexy PETA Ad

Layla Kayleigh's sexy PETA ad

Layla Kayleigh wants you to stop and think before making your next purchase at the cosmetics counter. The sexy co-host of MTV's America's Best Dance Crew feels so strongly about stopping product tests on animals that she posed for PETA's first-ever "Animal Testing Breaks Hearts" ad!

Every year countless mice, rats, rabbits, and other animals are poisoned, blinded, and killed in cruel and outdated product tests that are not required by law and often produce inaccurate results. These animals suffer and die alone, without ever experiencing an ounce of kindness, so chemicals in things like shampoo, makeup, deodorant, toothpaste, and household cleaners can be tested. Animal testing breaks hearts!

The good news is that more than 950 companies have banned animal tests forever! There is no reason that anyone should be buying products that blinded bunnies or poisoned mice when there are plenty of cruelty-free options out there. All you have to do is read those labels!

Says Layla, "I don't think people are purposely buying cosmetics and household products that are tested on animals. I just don't think they think twice. … It really takes such a small thing to make such big impact, you know, and I feel like the more people get involved, the more it can make a difference." Check out what else Layla had to say in her PETA interview below.

Enter to Win!

Now complete the form below by August 17 for a chance to win a pair of tickets to be part of the America's Best Dance Crew audience! We'll notify you by August 20 if you are the winner. Good luck!

Now you tell me that I cannot find 100 American men not to admit that this female is superior. There, I have a consensus, I am right.

Adam

Edited August 6, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

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?

OK, I am going to give you a real life example. I lived in a house my father and I built for about 17 years but I never had title to the land. My brother bought the house next door which came with the land my house was on and he took out a mortgage to build an addition on his home. Then he threatened to sell the whole property because of some personal issues we had. After consulting a lawyer I decided I did not want to get involved in a legal battle with my brother that I had maybe a 50/50 chance of winning anyway. So I packed up and left. I did not receive "a value" in return for my house unless you want to call "not going to court against my brother" a value. I call it a tough decision based on many factors. Calling it a value would be a considerable stretch, I think.

Thanks for giving the real life example, GS.

Indeed it does sound like a tough decision, and decisions to trade in one value for another can of course be be tough, no question, for what is tradedin in can subjectively be valued be very highly, like in your case. "Subjective" is added since although most people would value the possession of a house highly, it does not apply to all (Tolstoj for example voluntariy gave up all his wealth in exchange for another value. This is just another example to illustrate that there exist no "objective" values.

To get back to your case: in your decision back then, the scale tipped toward a value you held higher at the moment of the decision, and you finally decided in favor of that value.

I suppose you carefully weighed the pros and cons before finally deciding not to take legal action against your brother.

A 50/50 chance means also a 50 % chance of losing the battle. So there was the question to consider "What if I lose?" Then you would not only have lost the house but also a substantial amount of money paid in legal fees.

If the brother had more money, then he could hire the better lawyers, so the chance to win may even have been slimmer than 50 per cent.

But even if you won and could stay in your house, the prospect of having to live with a brother next door whom you had to take to court may have been very disagreeable to you, impairing your quality of life, and also diminishing your ability to enjoy your home. You probably would not have been on speaking terms after such a legal battle, and thus would have avoided seeing each other. Not easy to manage when you are next door neighbors.

Then there's the immense emotional strain of getting into a legal battle with a sibling. Legal battles are stressful anyway, but the stress is compounded when it is a relative, and a very close one at that (brother).

All this factors in when mentally loading the pro and con individual value scale.

It is of course only speculation on my part, but I have the gut feeling that you opted for "peace of mind" as the higher value back then, supported by other values like keeping the money you had instead of possibly spending it in vain.

All that considered, "It is not worth it" was the conclusion you drew for you personally at that time.

You had your reasons to value a non confrontation with your brother over a confrontation and acted accordingly.

Thanks again for sharing your story, GS. It gave me lot of food for thought; maybe I'm way off base, and I'm aware that my interpretation can be influenced by how I myself would have reacted in your place, but I have tried to put myself into your shoes to the best of my ability.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Xray

[DavidMcK]

Galileo didn't trade truth for his life: He knew the truth wouldn't change no matter what he said; he traded stating the truth for his life.

[Selene]

Galileo didn't trade truth for his life: He knew the truth wouldn't change no matter what he said; he traded stating the truth for his life.

Exactly.

We need to ask Ba'al about the Socrates and hemlock deal in his signature.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

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.

My bold. Bulls eye! Whether or not there is coercion or threats is irrelevant in Xray's subjective opinion.

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.

Merlin--

It's time to draw in the difference between connotation and denotation. We've been back and forthing in this thread on the denotation of "sacrifice"--the precise definition. I think Rand's definition of the word is flawed, but she did give a precise definition. Unlike X-Ray, who seems to think it's just another synonym for trade or exchange, and is expanding the denotations of those words into near meaningless. The problem with X-Ray's approach is that it insists on seeing everything as an exchange of values or value principles, and leaves no room for the concept of acting out or fulfilling a value principle. Korczak did not trade his life for the opportunity to fulfill one of his value principles. He fulfilled the value principle, and his doing so had as one of its consequences his own death.

I find Rand's definition flawed because its sees sacrifice only as exchanging a greater value for a lesser (or nonexistent) value. In my view, the value given does not need to be the greater one. But I don't think the word is just another synonym for exchange.

I think what has been missing here is the one of the things the word "sacrifice" connotes: that the value given is, on its own merits, something of high value to the sacrificer. If I'm looking for a new job, but have steady employment and a large enough bank account, I'll go buy a new suit to look good at interviews; but I won't be sacrificing anything in doing so. If I'm looking for a new job because I just lost my old job, and a very slim bank account, I'll also buy a new suit. But for person no 1, no sacrifice is involved, because the price I will pay for the suit is not very high; for person 2, sacrifice is involved--he's giving up a sizeable chunk of money he may well need later on. This aspect is not part of the dictionary definition, but it is part of the package of ideas the word conveys in ordinary conversation.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get my list out and prepare for sacrificing some money in exchange for the weekly basket of food from Publix.

[Xray]

Merlin--

It's time to draw in the difference between connotation and denotation. We've been back and forthing in this thread on the denotation of "sacrifice"--the precise definition. I think Rand's definition of the word is flawed, but she did give a precise definition. Unlike X-Ray, who seems to think it's just another synonym for trade or exchange, and is expanding the denotations of those words into near meaningless. The problem with X-Ray's approach is that it insists on seeing everything as an exchange of values or value principles, and leaves no room for the concept of acting out or fulfilling a value principle. Korczak did not trade his life for the opportunity to fulfill one of his value principles. He fulfilled the value principle, and his doing so had as one of its consequences his own death.

I find Rand's definition flawed because its sees sacrifice only as exchanging a greater value for a lesser (or nonexistent) value. In my view, the value given does not need to be the greater one. But I don't think the word is just another synonym for exchange.

I think what has been missing here is the one of the things the word "sacrifice" connotes: that the value given is, on its own merits, something of high value to the sacrificer. If I'm looking for a new job, but have steady employment and a large enough bank account, I'll go buy a new suit to look good at interviews; but I won't be sacrificing anything in doing so. If I'm looking for a new job because I just lost my old job, and a very slim bank account, I'll also buy a new suit. But for person no 1, no sacrifice is involved, because the price I will pay for the suit is not very high; for person 2, sacrifice is involved--he's giving up a sizeable chunk of money he may well need later on. This aspect is not part of the dictionary definition, but it is part of the package of ideas the word conveys in ordinary conversation.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get my list out and prepare for sacrificing some money in exchange for the weekly basket of food from Publix.

It's about connotation, precisely. Sacrifice carries the connotation of high subjective value, and again one can see at a glance that there exist no objective values, since what person may subjectively consider as as a sacrifice, another person may not.

The operative term is trading. Exchanging a value x for a value y is the basic principle at work.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I'm back. If you're a rat, scat!

--Brant

Edited August 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

It's about connotation, precisely. Sacrifice carries the connotation of high subjective value, and again one can see at a glance that there exist no objective values, since what person may subjectively consider as as a sacrifice, another person may not.

The operative term is trading. Exchanging a value x for a value y is the basic principle at work.

But what if you have no choice in the matter. Suppose the government expropriates your land and you are forced to move? What values are being exchanged or traded? You get $x for your house but you didn't want to sell but are being forced to.

[merjet]

Jeffrey,

I wholly agree with what you say about Xray. Regarding what you say about Ayn Rand's definition of "sacrifice" being flawed, I suggest you at least reconsider it. (I am not saying her definition is perfect.)

I find Rand's definition flawed because its sees sacrifice only as exchanging a greater value for a lesser (or nonexistent) value. In my view, the value given does not need to be the greater one. But I don't think the word is just another synonym for exchange.

Rand's definition does not use "exchange"; it uses "surrender". See post #510.

I understand your using "sacrifice" for person 2 buying the suit. Over time the meaning of "sacrifice" has been stretched from its original meaning to include such "mild" cases as:

1. sacrifice bunt and sacrifice fly,

2. in chess sacrifice a queen pursuant to checkmating the opponent,

3. a business selling something at a price well below cost.

But would you say "person 2 surrendered" when buying the suit?

I think what has been missing here is the one of the things the word "sacrifice" connotes

I think what has much been missed here is what "surrender" both denotes and connotes.

Yaron Brook even uses "give" rather than "surrender" in the video (at about 0:39) in post #396.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

It's about connotation, precisely. Sacrifice carries the connotation of high subjective value, and again one can see at a glance that there exist no objective values, since what person may subjectively consider as as a sacrifice, another person may not.

The operative term is trading. Exchanging a value x for a value y is the basic principle at work.

But what if you have no choice in the matter. Suppose the government expropriates your land and you are forced to move? What values are being exchanged or traded? You get $x for your house but you didn't want to sell but are being forced to.

It certainly is not a voluntary trade, but it is a trade no less. The essence of the issue is that one acts to gain a higher value, or holds onto what is valued more, whether it be a tangible or intangible value.

In this case, the alternative is to turn over the property to the "government", or face the consequences of a legal/physical confrontation with the high probability of coming out on the losing end. The obvious is that resistance to the take over could be result in jail time and/or bodily harm. You could not could not only lose your property, but perhaps your life as well.

In weighing the options and probabilities, arriving at the action of turning over the property for whatever you can get he can get is found to be a higher value than the likely outcome if you he refused. As always, it's the perceived higher value that motivates action.

The yielding action is prompted by valuing survival and/or non punishment more than the property.

Another individual might well value his/her "right" to the property in such measure that he/she would fight to the death to hold onto the ideal valued more than life.

The natural law operating 100 per cent of the time is that humans cannot act against what they value higher. Technically and definitively, it is literally impossible for a 100 % self-interest individual to trade something of a higher value for something valued less.

We ALWAYS act in favor of what we value higher. It makes no difference if what is valued is tangible or intangible.

Whether it's a mundane purchase of a loaf of bread, or a highly charged emotional issue like an intangible personal philosophy entwined with the lives of children, the natural law of self-interest always applies.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

It's about connotation, precisely. Sacrifice carries the connotation of high subjective value, and again one can see at a glance that there exist no objective values, since what person may subjectively consider as as a sacrifice, another person may not.

The operative term is trading. Exchanging a value x for a value y is the basic principle at work.

The connatation is by definition (so to speak) not part of the definition of "sacrifice".

What then is the difference between what "sacrifice" denotes and what "exchange" denotes?

How do you define them? Your usage of them seems to make them mere equivalents of each other.

At least Rand's definition was a precise one.

[Selene]

It's about connotation, precisely. Sacrifice carries the connotation of high subjective value, and again one can see at a glance that there exist no objective values, since what person may subjectively consider as as a sacrifice, another person may not.

The operative term is trading. Exchanging a value x for a value y is the basic principle at work.

The connatation is by definition (so to speak) not part of the definition of "sacrifice".

What then is the difference between what "sacrifice" denotes and what "exchange" denotes?

How do you define them? Your usage of them seems to make them mere equivalents of each other.

At least Rand's definition was a precise one.

Excellent question. Watch how she wiggles out of these.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Jeffrey,

I wholly agree with what you say about Xray. Regarding what you say about Ayn Rand's definition of "sacrifice" being flawed, I suggest you at least reconsider it. (I am not saying her definition is perfect.)

I find Rand's definition flawed because its sees sacrifice only as exchanging a greater value for a lesser (or nonexistent) value. In my view, the value given does not need to be the greater one. But I don't think the word is just another synonym for exchange.

Rand's definition does not use "exchange"; it uses "surrender". See post #510.

Hmm, I keep forgetting Rand's use of "surrender"--the appropriateness of which word I have to question. If it is appropriate, then it has to be used in a sense that doesn't imply the giver is being coerced. (Which would be so far descending into XRayspeak that I think we need to avoid it.) See suit buyer number 2 for an example of this. (Or for that matter, "sacrifice fly".) For another, I think the definition should carry with it the idea that the value being given up is of relatively higher value. Something along the lines of:

Sacrifice: the act of exchanging a value which the giver considers to be of high worth for another value, which may be of greater, equal, or lesser value from the view point of an outside observer. [NB''"lesser" would include "nonvalues".]

[Xray]

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).

The natural law principle at work is that in every action we take, we decide in favor of what we think of as the higher value.

It makes no difference whether we buy a loaf of bread for one dollar, whether we decide to snatch our wallet back from a robber despite despte being threatened with a gun, or whether we decide to yield.

As valuing, goal-seeking entities, we can't but decide in favor of what we value higher.

Ayn Rand, in subjectively labeling certain individual choices as "non-values", commits the methodical mistake of transferring her personal prefences onto those choices.

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.

An intangible value is often more compelling than the tangible. The "principle" of which you speak is a matter of the philosophy/psychology of caring, sympathy and empathy. That was Korczak's identity, an identity which he apparently found immensely satisfactory. So much so, he couldn't imagine life without it, or did imagine and disvalued such an existence without it.

Even knowing that he would be killed, for example Korczak could also have fought to the death in an effort to protect the children.

Why did he choose to placidly go along with the children at the peril of his own life? Did he see it of value to stay with the children and comfort them as long as possible as more valuable that his own life? What was to become of him had he abandoned the children? He traded his life to hold onto his greater value as long as his life existed. The indication is that no matter how much he wanted to live, he evaluated it as of little or no worth if he abandoned the children in any way.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

The natural law operating 100 per cent of the time is that humans cannot act against what they value higher.

In order to dodge counter-arguments and play word games, what Xray conveniently ignores is that a person can be prevented from obtaining something he/she values even more highly by somebody else using coercion or threats. Examples:

- Galileo doing what he wanted without compulsion or threats by religious authorities

- Janusz Korczak's higher value of the Nazis freeing him and the children rather than (most likely) the Nazis sending them to a gas chamber.

Galileo and Korczak surrendered these higher values. This fits Rand's definition.

Galileo, Janusz Korczak and the children were victims of sacrifice, but Xray says victims are irrelevant.

Edited August 7, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

Folks:

I sacrifice a night [horse] in the mid game because I am a fanatic about pawn structures ever since I read Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in 1960 about the same time as Atlas.

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game. Now a knight is valued as either 2 1/2 or 3 "points". A pawn is valued as 1 point.

Therefore, what would xray's or your statement as to that "exchange", trade, sacrifice...????

Adam

[rhartford]

Technically and definitively, it is literally impossible for a 100 % self-interest individual to trade something of a higher value for something valued less.

Technically and definitively, that statement was made because the author defines every "trade" to be acquisition of "something of a higher value."

In Objectivism, however, “something of a higher value” is something that is of greater benefit to the organism. To declare something “higher” requires a standard of measurement and that standard, in Objectivism, is beneficial contribution to the life of the organism.

“Something valued less” is something that a person thinks, rightly or wrongly, is of lesser benefit. The hierarchy of things that actually benefit a person’s life can be quite different than the hierarchy of things a person thinks will benefit life.

Different concepts are needed to label choices that match the actual hierarchy of benefit and choices that are made in conflict with actual benefit. There are many reasons for choosing in conflict with actual benefit. Some possibilities are acceptance of the wrong standard for measuring benefit, simple error in applying a proper standard, and allowing feelings to override considered judgment.

One must clearly recognize that one can make errors and that what one thinks is of value may not be something of actual value - that acting to achieve what one thinks is of greater benefit may not in fact be of greater benefit. The pursuit of truth requires one to be "on guard" for cases when what is "in one's mind" fails to correspond to reality.

[Christopher]

Folks:

I sacrifice a night [horse] in the mid game because I am a fanatic about pawn structures ever since I read Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in 1960 about the same time as Atlas.

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game. Now a knight is valued as either 2 1/2 or 3 "points". A pawn is valued as 1 point.

Therefore, what would xray's or your statement as to that "exchange", trade, sacrifice...????

Adam

Hey Adam, I would love to play you a game of chess and see how you work your pawn structure. Yahoo has a really nice (free) online chess arena. Let me know if you're up for a game some evening.

(My apologizes for the off-topic post!)

[Xray]

I am confused, xray, help me out here, by what objective standards are you employing to make that conclusionary statement that the genders are absolutely equal.

So any 100 males is exactly equal to any 100 females. OK by what objective standard, dear?

What do you mean by "equal", dear? Identical?

Edited August 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Folks:

I sacrifice a night [horse] in the mid game because I am a fanatic about pawn structures ever since I read Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in 1960 about the same time as Atlas.

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game. Now a knight is valued as either 2 1/2 or 3 "points". A pawn is valued as 1 point.

Therefore, what would xray's or your statement as to that "exchange", trade, sacrifice...????

Adam

Hey Adam, I would love to play you a game of chess and see how you work your pawn structure. Yahoo has a really nice (free) online chess arena. Let me know if you're up for a game some evening.

(My apologizes for the off-topic post!)

Chris:

Not a problem. I had spoken in an e-mail with Michael about setting up a tournament and he was amenable, I just did not know who might be interested and I have not had the time to flesh out the structure as I would want to accommodate anyone who wanted to learn or improve where ever their game is at.

I would recommend this as a site also I have played by e-mail which is a lot more fun than postal chess lol.

http://www.chess.com/

I will e-mail you my e-mail in any event, which is the same one I use here, but from what I am told it is better to be direct when e-mailing.

I love the game.

Adam

Edited August 7, 2009 by Selene

[Selene]

I am confused, xray, help me out here, by what objective standards are you employing to make that conclusionary statement that the genders are absolutely equal.

So any 100 males is exactly equal to any 100 females. OK by what objective standard, dear?

What do you mean by "equal", dear? Identical?

xray, sweetie:

Now you know my rules. Your word choice. Your obligation to define. Your obligation to defend your assertion.

And while you are struggling to denotively wrestle with "equal", then you can work on by what standard, that is objective, that we evaluate your assertion.

Babes, this stuff just gets difficult for you, I understand.

Adam

Edited August 7, 2009 by Selene