UncleJim

OK. Once again, how do I separate this from "subjective"? What does "be known" mean? Xray is big on telling everyone how values can't be known, other than "subjectively."

I think she means that values are chosen subjectively, so we are free to value whatever we want. I think it is not a question of what the value "is". For example, I'm sure she won't argue that food exists but whether or not it is considered valuable depends on the individual case.

If the value of food is subject to the the whim of personal choice then starving to death is a rational consequence of trying to live without it.

The next time you come to a conclusion, will it be value based?

A human being is a specific kind of living organism. As such a human being has no alternative but to live in accordance with his identity or suffer the consequences of not doing so. Since you are a human being; then, that determines what you must do to be considered a properly functioning human being.

Your values are determined by the kind of living organism you are. Since this is the case; then, your values and mine and theirs are the same. Our values are the same as every human who has ever lived, all human now living and all humans who will ever live.

"qua man" means "in accordance with human identity."

Jim:

Was the quote from the crazy Russian lady wrapped in Kryptonite?

Because it appears that Super Woman's x-ray vision was blinded by the light of truth....er ....hmmm

guess there is no explanation.

Adam

Xray is a lady? Missed that part. Thanks for the correction.

Jim:

So, for the record, the quote cited by xray, is:

"... there is no such entity as 'man', since man is only a number of individual men "

Adam

That is his claim - Does not make much sense does it.

Ayn Rand: TVOS, p. 15:

"... there is no such entity as "society", since society is only a number of individual men " (end quote)

Rand is right re a category being no entity.

But the term "society", does not denote a number of individuals. The term, society, denotes interpersonal relationships of two

or more individuals as opposed to each of the individuals existing in isolation from each other

While Rand lambastes the attitude of holding "the good of society" as standard of value, she commits the same error in postulating "life proper to man", treating a category "Man" comprising a number of individual entites as if it were a finite entity.

The subject in the quote you provided is life - not man.

Humans (homo sapien sapien) have been around less than a million years. Ants have been around a quarter of a billion years. I use their past reproductive success as a predictor for their future reproductive success. While my conjecture is far from certain, it is not base on ignorance either. Ants (and other insects) are very good at making copies of themselves and that is largely what Natural Selection is based on.

We are in fact not ignorant (ha ha ha) at all. Our complexity, which enables our amazing technological advances, is also our achilles' heel. When physical circumstances become really bad, the complex organism of a mammal is much more vulnerable than the relatively simple organism of an insect, let alone a bacterium. For example, it has been demonstrated that insects are much more resistant to radioactive radiation than mammals. 65 million years ago something struck the earth, killing most of the "higher" animals, including the until then highly successful dinosaurs. No problem for the insects or the bacteria. Sure, we have the advantage over the dinosaurs by our intelligence and our technology. But that won't save us from really bad disasters (there is for example no way to divert a really big asteroid), and you can be sure that in the next billion years some very bad things are going to happen.

Look in a mirror - you are a human-being. Sure we are different from ants - so what?

Oh yes, h.s. is. Why? Because nature has never before found intelligence to be of high survival value in a species so h.s. is a fluke. There is no evidence of dinosaur civilizations.

--Brant

Natural Selection favors those characteristics which promote reproductive success. Intelligence has little to do with this. The ants, bees and cockroaches are much more effective reproducers than are humans. Long after humans are extinct, there will be ants, bees, wasps, termites and cockroaches.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What resource did you use to make this claim - ignorance?

Complex numbers which are a combination of real numbers and multiples of the imaginary unit are handy for representing phases of cyclic processes. They are very important in engineering, physics and signal processing.

Not to mention their essential role in quantum mechanics, without which Uncle Jim wouldn't have had a computer to type on.

They are useful when trying to explain reality. They do not, are not intended to, represent a real something.

The issue is not have imaginary numbers been made-up, the issue is what do they represent. When I talk about a horse (for example) it exists as an actual physical something the existence of which is mathematically designated with the symbol - 1. What does the symbole -1 designate the existence of?

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#Applications

Complex numbers which are a combination of real numbers and multiples of the imaginary unit are handy for representing phases of cyclic processes. They are very important in engineering, physics and signal processing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So you don't actually know? When I talk about 1-horse I can actually demonstrate what it is I am talking about.

Uncle Jim:

"What does the symbole -1 designate the existence of?"

The Intelligence Quotient of a marxist.

I know I got it right, so now ask the tough ones.

Adam

I was asked to participate in a debate about capitalism with a couple of Marxist socialists. Holly crap!

Folks:

Seems to include everything to me.

"Henceforth, the question before the house today then becomes, can an imaginary number (or the square root of negative one, for one example in mathematics) be compared with Kant's noumenal realm, a hypothetical realm where it is supposed that all of reality arises? The author believes this to be the case."

Adam

That depends on whether Kant knew what it was he was talking about. In other words: Did he have an actual sensual experience which translated into the conscious existence of a brain-image or was he hallucinating?

Note: An imaginary number is just that - imaginary!

So is an integer. Look the wide world over and never an integer shall you find.

Just an aside. It turns out the field (division ring) of complex numbers is isomorphic to the set of 2x2 matrices:

First row: a, -b

second row: b, a

all such matrices in which no both a and b are zero has a inverse matrix which corresponds to the reciprocal. The isomorphism is between the set of such matrices with matrix multiplication and matrix addition and the set complex numbers. The matrix:

First row : 0, - 1

Second row:-1, 0

corresponds to i, the imaginary unit. If you square this matrix by matrix multiplication you get

the matrix

first row : -1, 0

second row: 0, -1

which is the negation of the unit matrix that corresponds to good old 1.

So while imaginary numbers and all other numbers are abstractions which have no physical existence in the real world, as mathematical entities imaginary numbers are no harder to deal with than matrices of real numbers.

Another way of getting to the complex numbers is to take the polynomial ring R[x] of polyomials with real co-efficients module the ideal generated by the polynomial x^2 + 1. This is the splitting field for the polynomial and it is what you get when you adjoin a root of x^2 + 1 = 0 to the real numbers. The two roots are i and -i. Again, it is no major brain exercise. There is nothing mystical, mysterious or magic about complex numbers and the imaginary unit. They are called "imaginary" for purely historical reasons, since when they were first encountered in the 16th century by Cardano and Tartaglia, neither of these worthy algebraists quite know what to make of them. So they called them imaginary or fantastic and such like sobriquets. After a while mathematicians grew accustomed and learned how to fit them in the context of other mathematics. Philosophers did not have the least idea of how to proceed, but that did not stop the mathematicians.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The issue is not have imaginary numbers been made-up, the issue is what do they represent. When I talk about a horse (for example) it exists as an actual physical something the existence of which is mathematically designated with the symbol - 1. What does the symbole -1 designate the existence of?

Folks:

Seems to include everything to me.

"Henceforth, the question before the house today then becomes, can an imaginary number (or the square root of negative one, for one example in mathematics) be compared with Kant's noumenal realm, a hypothetical realm where it is supposed that all of reality arises? The author believes this to be the case."

Adam

That depends on whether Kant knew what it was he was talking about. In other words: Did he have an actual sensual experience which translated into the conscious existence of a brain-image or was he hallucinating?

Note: An imaginary number is just that - imaginary!

In my view catagory contains that which concept explains the existence of.

... they have an objective referent, a finite identitiy (John) whose actions they judge. Only their subjective judgements differ.

Xray,

I want to get away from your repeated opinions about what is subjective or not, and get to agreeing on meanings. After the meanings are agreed upon will those opinions have any real intellectual value as ideas. Until then, they are merely repeated opinions.

Since you agree that there is an objective referent, do you also hold that the causality involved in the referent's actions is objectively known?

Michael

Notice how evil can exist only in reference to the existence of good. Further that good can exist only in reference to the existence of life.

In each case there must be (and is) a standard to judge it by. That standard must be (and is) the same for every person who has ever lived, for all persons now living and for all persons who will ever live at any time in the future. In other words the standard must actually (i.e., physically) exist and one must know that it does exist prior to being able to apply it.

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Once again you conflate the concept of X with X itself.

Here is some free advice and take it for FWIW to you: do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes confusion.

Real Things exist outside our intellects. Abstractions are brain farts. A perturbation of neurons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't read my first paragraph.

You said "life is a human creation". There was life way before humans. The concept of life is a human creation. I take people exactly, literally, precisely, unswervingly at their word. I do not read between lines, I do not interpret and I do not supply implicit meanings. As you have written, so I have read.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Life is a word and only humans create words. The issue is not "does life exist?" or "what is life?" The issue is "why does life exist?" "Why did the human mind create 'life'?"

The human mind also created space, time, distance, medicine, cyclotron, god, heaven, hell, etc. etc.

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Once again you conflate the concept of X with X itself.

Here is some free advice and take it for FWIW to you: do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes confusion.

Real Things exist outside our intellects. Abstractions are brain farts. A perturbation of neurons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't read my first paragraph.

When we speak about life we are not speaking about something else. When I say life I am speaking about life. It matters not whether I'm speaking about my life, your life, or any other occurrence of life.

From this position when I say life is the "standard of value" this applies equally well to whatever living organism we may be discussing. Absent life value has no meaning or application.

Please make yourself plain. Are you talking about life in general, existence of life in general or some particular lives? There is no life in general. There are various kinds of lives with differing natures and requiring differing conditions to exist or continue to exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You have not conceptualized what life is. You are talking about 'living organisms'. And yes there are very many different kinds of 'living organisms'.

The difference between what to means to be alive and to not be alive is called life. Life is the the difference between the animate and the inanimate. And the animate is the different one because it has an additional distinguishing characteristic. That characteristic is - life. The inanimate has no issue with survival, the animate must provide what its life requires or it will become inanimate. The needs of survival of the life of any animate organism is what the human conceptualization of life was created to describe.

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Note that the existence of ones life, the existence of another's life, the existence of all animal and all plant life is the same existence. Therefore my values and yours and their values are the same. Value is that which life needs to remain what it is. When ther needs of life is translated into conceptual human intelligence it becomes the concept - value.

Not so. My life can exist and yours not. Or your life can exist and mine not. So they can't be the same.

Ba'al Chatzaf

When we speak about the existence of life we are not speaking about the existence of something else. When I say life I am speaking about life. It matters not whether I'm speaking about my life, your life, or any other occurrence of life.

From this position when I say life is the "standard of value" this applies equally well to whatever living organism we may be discussing. Absent life value has no meaning or application. Life must exist prior to any discussion about the existence of value. This is because life has specific needs. It is the needs of life that when conceptualized become known as human values.

A musing:

The conclusion as to whether x [which for this argument is defined as a natural event, e.g., a storm] is good or evil can only be made by a sentient valuer as to its effect on the valuer.

It seems that we all agree with the above statement.

The nature of a "storm" can have no volitional intent. Correct?

Therefore, according to your reasoning the storm is both good and evil depending on the valuer, the perspective and other valuer issues.

Therefore, the operative phrases good and evil cannot be employed as the storm has no consciousness.

The concepts of good and evil require a value system.

Does that seem to be a position we can all agree with?

Adam

I will say the concepts of good and evil require a standard of value. And I will further say that that standard is the existence of life. Not life itself but its existence. Not just any life, human life - and not just any human life, ones own. Whenever the existence of ones life benefits that ALONE is the identification value.

Note that the existence of ones life, the existence of another's life, the existence of all animal and all plant life is the same existence. Therefore my values and yours and their values are the same. Value is that which life needs to remain what it is. When ther needs of life is translated into conceptual human intelligence it becomes the concept - value.

My perception of color is one hundred percent mine. But there is something out there whose color I am perceiving.

It's called reality. If reality did not exist there would be nothing to know about. And knowing nothing is called an absurdity.

It takes a human or a sentient at least to render the judgment whether something is good or evil. And that judgement is made from an individual viewpoint (hence subjective).

I agree. Whenever a conclusion is based on human whim it is subjective.

A storm with much rain may save a farmer's crop (he thinks it good) but cause a dam to burst (many think that bad). The storm is the storm and it happened. Whether it is good or evil, that depends on who is making the judgment and why.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Again; any time a conclusion is subject to human whim it is a subjective conclusion.

Again: If the subjective is not in violation of the objective; then, it cannot be subjective.

Okay. John likes ice-cream, Jane doesn't. Two subjective value judgements, right?

What is "the objective" they don't (or do) "violate"?

This has nothing at all to do with value or valuing.

I see this as a very dangerous proposition. In my view it is why we are engaged in the war against terrorism. As Rand said; "in any conflict between the good and evil it is only the evil that can win." Meaning that whenever we permit the irrational persons are allowed to exist unchallenged they will gain strength and they will eventually hurt the rational persons. In a strange way being understanding of irrational persons and their beliefs is the most irrational action available to an otherwise rational persons.

If this is truly the case then in a struggle between good and evil, put your money on evil. I am not so pessimistic. I think that some forms of evil are self defeating which is why they don't last forever. Evil that has a logical contradiction at its root cannot persist. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed. It was not defeated in war, as was Nazi fascism. It fell from its own internal contradictions. The fate that the Marxists predicted for Capitalism befell the examplars of Marxism. The nation that was the most Marxist (China) survived by taking on the forms and practices of Capitalism. To be sure, China is a thugocracy, but it is no longer a Marxist thugocracy.

Bottom line, thorough collectivism will fail because it is contrary to human nature. It works for ants and bees. It fails for humans.

Unfortunately some forms of evil are evolutionarily stable. That means they do not contradict human survival. An example is Feudalism. The system would have persisted for ten thousand years if it were not for the Plague. A labor shortage made it untenable. Systems that recognize rights (as we understand them) are not necessary for human survival. Egypt and Babylon, neither of which recognized human rights lasted for thousands of years. As long as the ruling classes did not tax and seize every last bit of agricultural surplus, enough was left over for the farmers to reproduce their numbers and continue growing food for themselves and the rest of the community. In Egypt the tax rate hit a maximum of 20 percent, which ironically is less than the income tax rate in the United States.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The good has nothing to gain from the evil.

The good must be good 100% of the time otherwise evil benefits (i.e., the evil wins and the good loses). On the other hand the evil need never be good to remain what it is - evil. The evil need never worry about becoming good.

When the subjective does not violate the objective then it dose not exist - it is objective.

What? Huh???

I don't understand your confusion.

Again: If the subjective is not in violation of the objective; then, it cannot be subjective.

The ability to value does not produce a subjective value. Nor is valuing a subjective act. Each have to do with rationality. Rationality is the ability to connect ones intellectual content to that in reality responsible for it. It means one is acting in accordance with their identity as the rational being.

To hold that values are subject to human whim is wrong thinking.