UncleJim

Jim, I am not interested in challenging or winning or anything like that. I am interested in precision. I even happen to share your values on life. We are discussing something else, which is correctly identifying cognitive versus normative abstractions, and, as Roger properly pointed out, the proper identification of categories and subcategories. Setting aside the misidentification of what Rand wrote, I see you taking a "should" and saying it is an "is." There is a connection between the two but one is not the other. When I said "A is A," I was using it in the sense of "Rand wrote what Rand wrote" or "Rand's writing is Rand's writing." Her words will not change because we believe that something is right. I have seen two areas constantly confused when people discuss Objectivism. The first is that they replace a cognitive abstraction with a normative one (like you do with value). Even Rand did this at times. Here is an example: morality. First there is discussion of the morality of altruism, the morality of Christianity, etc. versus the morality of Objectivism. This is cognitive. This is merely a classification of codes of values. But then there is a discussion on how some of the values in altruism and Christianity, etc., are life-denying, thus evil. This is normative. From that point the word "moral" takes on the meaning of "according to Objectivist morality" and altruism/Christianity are declared as immoral. Then, from that point, I have seen people say, "There is no such thing as a morality of altruism (or morality of Christianity). It is immoral." And they become quite insistent, despite having used the cognitive phrase before. The same word. Two different meanings. And one more useless discussion based on semantics instead of ideas. The other area of confusion I see is that people often replace matters of degree with matters of kind. As I have stated elsewhere, black and white do exist, but so does gray and the other colors. Black and white thinking should be applied to black and white issues. As the saying goes, a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant. The confusion I have seen goes the other way. Where a degree exists, a kind is preached and wholesale bashing ensues. If something is declared as evil, for instance, then anything good about it becomes blanked out on a cognitive level and, as in David Kelley's famous comparison, the evil of a dictator like Hitler is equated with the evil of an obscure college professor teaching Marxism. The fact that the professor doesn't kill people gets blanked out. Striving for cognitive precision is not the same thing as endorsing evil, but I have seen many people attacked like that. Michael Michael thank you for your weool thought out explanation. I do understand what you are saying. The issue I have with it, is as you have explained. I do not see the benefit of having and/or holding both rational and irrational values. It opens the argument "Well those are your values, they are not mine. Lets just agree to disagree." 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.

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

But when asked, these people would of course tell you that their decision is based on "objective value". The objective value (in their eyes) being the "honor" of the family. The raped daughter (i. e. the daughter who is no longer a virgin, for that's what it is about) 'devalues' the whole clan, so to reestablish the honor, her life is sacrificed. Honor is one of THE cardinal (claimed of course as as objective) values in their system, so everything else has to take a back seat. Honor even justifies murder. Virginity in their not yet married daughters is one of the "cardinal virtues" required to preserve the family's honor. They would never say their value is subjective, Uncle Jim. They would say it is objective, probably also citing to you some Koran passages as source of proof of the "objectivity", since god's will ("manifested" in the Koran) is in itself an ideological concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value. The primary concern of those fundamentalist clans here is the daughter's loss of virginity, whether from rape or not plays no role for them. The ideology of "virginity as a virtue/value" is a classic example of a value declared as "objectve" for centuries having lost its status in many (mostly highly industrialized) countries, but by no means in all. This implies that the "status" of the person can be held as the primary. That "personal status' is more important than the person. Notice the contradiction! In the absence of the person "personal status" cannot exist. In the absence of the people, the clan cannot exist. They can claim objectivity in the murder of their daughter but it instead indicates insanity. Not naturally occurring insanity but the insanity as taught by their religious leaders.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies. Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him. --Brant Indeed, Hitler is an (especially horrific) example of someone "pursuing that which does not exist": one group of humans allegedly being "racially superior" to the rest of the world's population. After coming into power, he became a mass murderer forcefully imposing his psychotic belief as "objective value" upon others. Hitler did not pursue "racial superiority" because it does not exist. Hitler is an example of a person whose mind faked reality.

Sure you can. It's called inventing something or creating something. Even making babies. Glad to know that Hitler was rational. I was worried about him. --Brant The pursuit of something is not the same as the creation of something. Notice how that which is created consists of that which already exists.

You are equivocating all over the place, Jim. And you're just plain wrong. In "The Ethics of Emergencies," Rand defined "rational values" as "values chosen and validated by a rational standard." Obviously, she is defining rational values as a ~subcategory~ of values, which ALSO includes ~other~ subcategories, such as values chosen and validated by an irrational standard, as well as automatic values (which she discusses in relation to plants and animals in "The Objectivist Ethics"). (I'm not going to give you the page numbers for this. If you have really read these essays, you know exactly where the points are made; and if you haven't, then your first action now should be to ~read~ them.) What you are doing here is to re-write Rand's definition of "value" -- that which one (including plants, animals, non-volitional babies, and irrational people) seeks to gain and/or keep -- so that it applies more narrowly to ~rational~ values. Apparently you believe that Rand mis-spoke herself in "The Ethics of Emergencies" and instead should have said: "values (goals chosen and validated by a rational standard)." But don't feel bad. Even Leonard Peikoff slips into this syndrome occasionally. As for your equivocating, I mean your referring to the ~logically~ rational application of the concept of "value" as though it were the same thing as the ~morally~ rational application of that concept. It is logically rational for an arsonist to acknowledge that his setting on fire of other people's property is, ~in fact~, a value of (something sought after by) the arsonist--even while it is morally irrational for the arsonist to ~choose~ arson as a value. In the same respect, it is logically rational for a Catholic to acknowledge that his pursuit of sacrifice is ~in fact~ a virtue (an action taken in pursuit of a value)--even while it is morally irrational for the Catholic to ~choose~ sacrifice as a virtue. In the same respect, it is logically rational for a Kantian to acknowledge that his altruist beliefs ~in fact~ constitute a moral code--even while it is morally irrational for him to ~choose~ altruism as his moral code. REB I acknowledge what you are saying. But what is "the rational standard"? It is mans life! Note that Rand said over and over again "life is the standard of value." All of her statements on value stem from this one premise. In other words: It is the existence of life that determines what value is. A statement claiming ones pursuit of value must keep this in mind. One cannot pursue that which does not exist; one cannot pursue the irrational. To claim to do so is an irrational claim.

Jim, If this is your meaning, OK. You are entitled to define your terms. But that is not what Rand wrote. That is not the Objectivist theory of value. Rand wrote what she wrote. As the lady said, "A is A." Michael But how does that challenge what I have said? Yes "A is A." A thing is what it is. This works equally well with value; "value is value." But my comment is on what valuing is. Valuing is a rational action as opposed to a mystical action, insane action, religious action, etc. Ayn Rand; herself, declared that the term "Objectivism" has to do with, and was derived from, the objective nature of reality. Note that the deviation of the term 'life' is itself based one the objective nature of a very specific aspect of nature. And since "life is the standard of value" then value must also be a derivation of the objective nature of reality. By this logic; Value is that which life requires to remain what life is. Since life is the concept that denotes the existence of the fundamental energy activity; then, value denotes that which this fundamental energy activity requires to continue to be what it is. I am not in dispute of what Rand said, I am one of her strongest supporters. I can actually describe that which she was talking about.

Under Objectivism if there is no alternative then choice is not possible. And absent an alternative choice value cannot exist. Choice is then a value driven idea. But if the choice is made outside the principle that "life is the standard of value" then a choice cannot be considered to have been value driven. It is an absurdity to say that I choose to kill my baby therefore that choice must be considered a value driven choice - for me. Or that it satisfies the idea of what an irrational-value is. When a choice is subject to human whim it is, by definition, a subjective choice. Such a choice can be the result of insanity or worse; religion. Note that some consider when their daughter is raped that she must be killed in-order to save the reputation and good standing of the family. The implication is that this is an example of the rational application of the idea of value. It is not!

To value means to volitionally engage ones mind for a specific purpose. It means to act in that what required for a human-being to be considered a properly functioning human-being. Sure there are lots of people who fail the definition of what it is to be a properly functioning human-being but that does not sanction their actions as being 'somehow' value oriented. To value is to purposefully engage in a specific kind of mental action. To value is to volitionally engage ones rationality for a specific purpose. Since this is the case; then, only certain kinds of living beings can value - only rational functioning human-beings. Any person can claim to be functioning rationally but only those who actually are can prove it. A rose bush cannot value. It automatically absorbs from the environment what is required for it to remain what it is. A whale does not value, it instinctively [by the law of necessity] acts in that way required for its continued survival. Only humans choose their course of action. And only rational humans are able to choose the actions determined by what being a properly functioning human is and requires.

And the valuer; under Rand's premise, is a rational actor. An irrational actor; by definition, cannot value. They don't have the mental framework; i.e., they are lacking intelligence. When a person chooses death that is evidence of irrationality because it denies what the the basis of value is. It denies that life is the basis of value.

I have not disputed Rand's various definitions of value. I have expanded them without being in contradiction with them. She said that "life is the standard of value." She said that life; itself, is not value. She said that value is that which mans seeks to hold or gain. Etc. As one example of Rand's statements: 'I quote from Galt’s speech: “There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or nonexistence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.” ' The red highlights are critical in understanding how Rand applied the concept of value. When one ignores that Rand insisted on talking only about, and in reference to, rational beings it becomes very easy to be trapped into suggesting that some value based conclusions can be irrational and yet still be claimed to satisfy the idea of value. Under Rand's stated postion on what value is and requires - that conclusion is just simply impossible.

Xray, To understand Objectivism, you need to broaden your perspective and deal with reality before you get to society. Just because a lot of people decide to worship a stone statue, this does not empower that statue with the capabilities the worshipers attribute to it. Reality trumps what those people believe. As I mentioned above, values are "subjective" in the sense that you and you alone choose your values (at least, the ones you can choose). Values are not "subjective" in the sense that if you choose metaphysically detrimental values, they will destroy you. The only way to learn which values will not destroy you is with objectivity. Doing it subjectively is very, very risky since reality does not forgive mistakes or foolishness. btw - I do not know of anyone burned to the stake over values declared as "objective." I have always read of this within the context of faith-based values. Faith is subjective, not objective. Michael For clarity. I have never denied that some people do act against their own well being. And that these purposefully self-destructive actions are a direct reflection on what they believe is of value to them. Belief does not a value make. When a person chooses to blow themselves into millions of tiny bloody bits of meat and bone, they did not do that based on a value judgment. It is simply absurd to claim and/or insist that they have demonstrated they have a rather special but completely different value system from our own. They do not!! Value is not a derivation of a subjective idea - it is derivation of a real, rational, objective idea. There is no such entity called a "value system." It does not exist in a real, observable, knowable way. Value designates the existence of that which life requires to continue to be whatever it is. People who I consider to be thinkers rather than believers are trying to guide me' on this issue. Since this is not my view; then, I do not need guidance to resolve it.

Who is the 'one' she is talking about? Ayn Rand always talks about rational persons when she established her Objectivist Principles. Rational persons are the 'ones' who act in accordance with their identity as human-beings. In other words: They act properly [meaning in accordance with] what being the rational being is and requires. What is it that rational beings "act to gain and keep"? Value! And again; value is that which is a requirement of life, not just any life, their own life. Sorry, Uncle Jim, that is NOT what Rand means. You are "special pleading" for RATIONAL, life-serving values. Rand is defining "value" GENERICALLY, in such a way that it also applies to plants, animals, and irrational people. It is that which one--i.e., a living organism--acts to gain and/or keep. A person, animal, or plant may be MISTAKEN in what it acts to gain and/or keep, but that is what it ~values~ nonetheless. Perhaps it SHOULDN'T value a particular thing, but that is what it DOES IN FACT value. This whole issue keeps popping up over and over in Objectivist discussions, and Peikoff in his "Two Definitions" did nothing to clarify it. Again: there are rational values and irrational values. Just because a value is irrational does not mean it IS NOT a value, just that it SHOULD NOT BE a value. To argue otherwise, is to adopt the Fallacy of the Frozen Abstraction, which results in such claims as that altruism is not a morality, statism is not a political philosophy, Kant was not a philosopher, Objectivism's political philosophy is not a species of individualism, etc. REB Roger, value is value. It is not not-value. It is what it is. Value is not irrational nor is it rational; it is value. Value is term, word, concept, etc. and as such it was created by a rational functioning human mind. The issue is not "what is value -or- does value exist?" The issue is "WHY does value exist -or- what is the purpose for which the human mind created value?" Value was created by the human mind to denote the existence of specific aspects of reality. It denotes those aspects of reality [and/or their relationships] which life needs to remain in existence. I agree that the human designation of value denotes the existence of that which also apples to all other living organisms. But that does not deny that it is a creation of a properly functioning (rational) human mind. No other living organism has ever demonstrated the ability to create value, time, space, hate, love, god, universe, medicine, cyclotron, etc. etc. To fully appreciate what Ayn Rand has done one must acknowledge who she was talking about - and why - when she was formulating her Objectivist principles.

Who is the 'one' she is talking about? Ayn Rand always talks about rational persons when she established her Objectivist Principles. Rational persons are the 'ones' who act in accordance with their identity as human-beings. In other words: They act properly [meaning in accordance with] what being the rational being is and requires. What is it that rational beings "act to gain and keep"? Value! And again; value is that which is a requirement of life, not just any life, their own life.

I'm concerned with identifying fallacy to avoid ending up in an epistemological blind alley. I am reading Rand and have put up for discussion her objectivist "cardinal values" and "cardinal virtues".Here they are: Her cardinal values "reason, purpose, self-esteem." Her "cardinal virtues: "rationality, productivenness, pride". Are they yours also? You just don't get it. Individuals do not decide what their values (or the values of others) are. Value is determined by the needs of their life. And the value defines the virtue necessary to gain it. If reason, purpose and self-esteem are a requirement for the achievement of a proper human existence (and they are) then YES; they are values. If rationality, productiveness and pride are the virtues of value achievement (and they are) then YES; they are virtues. These are not subject to human whim - they are the absolutes of human intelligence. Meaning they are naturally occurring 'human' attributes. One either gains these values, by enacting their associated virtues, or one fails to be a properly functioning human-being and will eventually die - forever.

I don't think you have understood my point here. The issue was two opposing belief systems (each based on a fallacy) battling each other. Why are you concerned with discussing fallacy? And who and on what grounds, decides what is a "whim", Uncle Jim? Any time a proposition is preceded by "I believe" the following proposition is a whim. Its validity is subject to the degree of rationality of the believer. Therefore whim is a subjective approach to reaching a conclusion. The actions people take are the means to achieve an individually chosen goal. "Value" implies a conscious mind attributing value, worth, to an issue. A plant for example can have no values, however much Rand seems to be convinced of the contrary. Given the existence of the great number of human conscious minds in the world, it follows that you get an infinite variety of chosen values. Surely you won't deny this? Of course I deny it. It violates everytrhing I have said in this entire thread. Why don't you know that? Why are you asking questions you already know the answer to? Again: I deny that value is determined by human whim. Value is an absolute. It is the same for every person who has ever live, to is the same for all people now living and it will be the same for any human who will ever live. Value is that which each individuals life requires to remain what it is. Life is the standard of value. When the needs of life are translated into human intelligence it becomes the values properly functioning humans seek to gain, retain and maintain.

But you will have to agree to the fact that a suicide bomber obviously values different things than you do - right? There is no getting around the fact that whatever is claimed to be a "value" is a subjective choice. The suicide bomber has merely chosen a different value for himself than you have. But that only points our the obvious error in stating that value is determined by human whim. Value is not determined in that way. Since both I and the suicide bomber are a living being; then, value is the same for each of us. The suicide bombers is not operating in accordance with the standard by which value is known and ranked. That standard being the existence of life. Notice the contradiction. One cannot destroy the standard of value and then claim it is the means by which he decides his actions. That is called an absurdity. Yes I have spoken to Marxists socialists. They are nuts! Almost as nuts as Muslim suicide bombers. They can say their values are objectively based but a simple analysis of them defeats their claim. Again. Value is not determined by human whim. That is where your argument fails to address the issue. You keep repeating that humans determine the values they wish to follow. That is not the case. Humans; of course, determine the actions they are going to take. But that does not guarantee that that action was a value based action. The determinate as to whether or not an action was a value based action is the consequence of it on the continued existence of their life. If their life is benefited by the consequence resulting from the action then, and only then, can it be said the action was a values based action. Absent life value has no meaning or application.

Angels are imaginary. They are a made-up thing. They have never been shown to actually exist. So..... the answer is, however many you care to imagine.

Unble Jim, you think the "human mind" mind creates life?? How does that work? How did 'life' come into existence? The human mind created it. What is life? It is a word! Every word ever created was created by a human mind. Consider the enormous impact on your thinking when you begin to realize what the human mind has created. Some examples: water, salt, space, time, distance, god, heaven, hell, universe, everything, "child kidnapping, raping, murdering bastards" etc., etc. Creating a word for a phenomenon is not the same as creating the phenomenon itself. For example, when at some time in English language history, the word "snow" was created to signify the white cold stuff falling fom the sky in some countries, it was of course not the white cold stuff itself which was created. Now we can begin to discuss rationality. When the word created denotes some aspect of reality, that is proof the word was rationally created. That it was created to designate something which is, or was, known to exist.

Of course! The issue is not "does creation exist" the issue is "why does creation exist?"; "what is the purpose for why the human mind created creation?" Creation address the ability of humans to 'create' medicine, light-bulbs, cyclotrons, hot bread, roller-coasters, god, time, space, distance, universe, heaven, hell, etc. In other words: Creation was created to explain what the ability of the human mind to create is and how it operates.

And that is a big problem. It allows people to claim that god is an actual something which is responsible for the creation of everything when it was the human mind that actually created everything. Including the creation of god.

You are confusing the names/description of things with the things themselves. Your thinking is muddled. The word is not the thing. The map is not the territory. The portrait is not the subject. The description is not the thing described. Ba'al Chatzaf You need to actually read my posts more closely.

Nonsense! Living things have existed on this planet for nearly three billion years. About a half billion years ago the one celled critters evolved into more more complex life forms. If humans had never happened this planet would still be a riot of living beings. Living stuff has the following characteristics. 1. It replicates, if not exactly then closely. 2. If maintains its dynamic state in a relatively small portion of its dynamic phase space. Negative feedback control loops evolved spontaneously to maintain the organism in some kind of dynamic equilibrium with its environment. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf Every word used in your post was created by the human mind; including the words life and living. Until you acknowledge that life and what it means are not one and the same (and I am confidant that you do know the difference) this conversation is not going to resolve.

Anything can be considered a value by individuals, yes. Rand tries to dilute the full implication of this hard fact by labeling "whims"certain individually chosen values. But here is the wrinkle: considering something a "whim" is a subjective value judgement too. A person can say anything he wishes. He can say death is a value - to him. But that does not make it so. Value is not a human determinate. Value lies outside of human whim. Failing to identify what value is, is why we some people are able to justify convincing their children and grandchildren to commit murder by suicide bombing.

First of all, life existed on this planet billions of years ago, long before our kind came on the scene. As to why, no one knows exactly how. Long strands of amino acids formed and were able to replicate. That is -what- happened. -Why- as in for what physical reason? No one knows at this time. All we know is that such replicators formed through a perfectly natural process and that is how life began. For the first two and half billion years after life started, only one celled critters lived and replicated. Later on, mutations occurred producing more complex life forms. About five to seven million years ago (a mere eye-blink) primates happened and from the primates evolved the hominids of which we are the last living surviving specie. What you call life is a sustained chemical process which will continue as long as the right ingredients and the right heat and moisture levels are maintained. Humans had nothing to do with it. It happened long before we were and long after we are gone life will go on. Ba'al Chatzaf That which 'life' was created to denote the existence of has always existed. But 'life' has not always existed. Life is a word and only the human mind can create words. Therefore life has existed only as long as the human mind has possessed the ability to create words. The real issue is not "does life exist or what is life?" but is instead "why does life exist?" For what reason [purpose] did the human mind create life? And that reason is to denote the difference between the animate and the inanimate.