UncleJim

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.

Values can be, and ought to be, ranked. The method to used to rank value is the degree by which they support the needs of life. Human whim should never be a value ranking instrument. However for a human to rank value he must apply reason and that does require a human mind. The real issue is, then, the rationality of the mind doing the ranking. The more rational the human mind doing the ranking the more happy the consequence.

I am not ignoring what you are trying to say. I am disputing your claim that value can be other that what it is. Value is a specific idea. Value is the idea derived from observing that life requires certain conditions to be in-place in-order for to remain whatever it is. Life is the idea derived from the acknowledgment there is a difference which exists between the animate and the inanimate. This difference is possessed by the animate. The animate possess a specific additional identifying characteristic which the inanimate lacks. This additional identifying characteristic is called life. The human mind created life in-order to allow for discussing what this difference is and requires to remain what it is. That which human based life requires to remain what it is is called value. Value was created to allow rational human to discuss what their life requires to remain in existence.

That was my point precisely. There is no value in the non-sentient physical domain. It exists purely within the contexts of judgments made by sentient beings. In non-sentient nature there is nothing intrinsically valuable. Ba'al Chatzaf But that is not what I said - either. I said that the needs of life determine what 'value' is. In other words: Life is the standard of value. Value has nothing at all to do with whether there are sentient beings or not. It only has to do with whether life exists or not. Life is; however, a human creation. Meaning that life is a specific word created by the human mind. The issue in not "what is life or does life exist." The issue is why does life exist? Why did the human mind create life? What is the purpose behind why the human mind created life? The same issue exists with the existence of value. Value was created in recognition of the "needs" of life. Life was created in recognition of the difference between the animate and the inanimate. The "needs" of life do not have meaning or application in the absence of the animate. I am an animate being. As such my life has needs. When translated into human language these "needs of life" are called human values.

Choice can be shown to be either irrational or rational based on the consequence resulting naturally from it. Choice is either subjective or objective based on how it came into existence. If the choice came into existence based on the emotion of human whim then it is subjective. Its existence is subject to the emotional influence of human whim. If; on the other hand, the choice came into existence based on the needs of ones life then, and only then, is it an objective choice. The needs of life are the energy resources it requires to continue to function. The idea of life describes a naturally occurring energy activity. Life is merely the word that was created to allow for discussing and learning about this naturally occurring energy activity. The energy resources which ones 'life' needs to continue to function is found as and within the objects of reality possessing nutritional value. Here then is the derivation of "objective values." They are the needs of life. Value simply translates the needs of life into an intellectual format. Fast food does contain some of the 'nutritional value' which ones life requires to continue functioning. The issue is with whether ones physical body can function long enough for one to experience a full and happy lifespan.

Value is determined by (human) judgement. A is of value to B if A is a means to an end E that B had. There is no inherent value in the natural order. Nothing in the laws of physics says "This X is valuable". A value is something that a person chooses to pursue or keep. So choice precedes value. Ba'al Chatzaf Re-read by post that you quoted. Notice it says nothing about physics. If something supports the existence of life then, and only then, is it a value.

You have identified the known nature of "fast food" yet you maintain that it is an example of how you describe value - to you. Why do you describe it that way?

This is exactly why value is not determined by human whim. It is determined by life. Just because "Jack" believed he could fly does not magically make that a value - to him. The effect of that belief on his life is the indicator of whether his belief is of value - to his life. Belief is not a value maker. That is the error of religion.

This allows your value to contradict my value. But that is the denial of the idea of value rather than a confirmation of it. A value cannot contradict itself and yet that is what your claim requires. Your claim allows the same exact value to OK by your standard and at the same time be not OK by my standard. That is called an absurdity - it cannot be true. A value is always a value. Value is independent of the mental state of the valuer. A person can claim that death is a value to them but that does not make it so. Value is that which life needs to remain life. In other words: Value is to the existence of humans that need is to the existence of life.

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking. Not at all, because some values are objective needs of the organism and others are subjective and experienced as needs and wants. --Brant Anything can be a value, but the ones Objectivists are concerned with are VIABLE values... By your claim that anything can be a value allows a non-value to be a value. That is called an absurdity.

A value is always a value. To say that some values contradict others is wrong thinking.

OK, this is a value, now what is an objective value? It is whatever ones life requires to remain in existence.

IMO value is not determined by humans. In other words: Value is not subjective - it is not subject to human whim. Since one is a living organism; then, one must behave in a certain way to remain a living organism. Since humans are considered to be the rational actor; then, one must be a rational actor prior to be considered a properly functioning [a rational] human-being. Water does not 'magically' become a value because someone simply says it is. It is a value only because it is a need of life. First life must exist, then its needs must be understood; only then does value have meaning and application. In this way value is described as being a human creation. Value was created to denote the existence of that which life needs to remain life. Not any life, of course, just ones own. Value moves need from metaphysics to epistemology.

There is a widely held premise that that which is chosen is that which is valued - by that person. This implies that life may or may not be a value depending on the whim of the person making the choice. The premise equates being alive with being dead. This is, of course, is an absurdity. The real issue here is whether the person making the choice is a rational actor. Life is not a value - it is the standard by which values are known and ordered. Absent life value has no meaning or application. To act against ones life is evidence of insanity. To not be able to gain the needs of ones life is evidence of physical and/or mental incapacity.

Correct imo. But it is a fact that people can (and sometimes do) choose death over life. Choosing to end one's existence as a biological entity is an option. What we call death of a biological entity is the irreversible result of the transition from one stage to another, in numbers from a stage 1 to a stage 2. The chooser in that case values stage 2 more than stage 1. Xray; how is it possible to choose something which does not exist? Death is not a something which exists in an objective way, it therefore cannot be an objective choice; i.e., it cannot be considered a value based choice. . The issue you bring up is whether or not one is acting (or can act) as the rational being; i.e., a properly functioning human-being. To not do that which is a requirement of ones life is evidence of an improperly functioning mind. A choice is a value based action - an action based on the requirements [the needs] of ones life. But the implication is that one is able to understand what the requirements of ones life is. This ability to understand is the requirements of ones life carries with it the ability to understand ones purpose. With that being to do whatever is required to support the needs of ones life. This is the derivation of the principle that the needs of life describe the values of human existence.

Here's one for you. Imagine a man in a desert. Is periodically drinking water a value to him? Michael In this example man must drink water or die. His fundamental choice seems to be life or death. If he chooses life that choice makes it a value. But this example also implies that if he chooses death that choice makes it a value. This conclusion is called an absurdity. It's an absurdity because of the implied "objective existence" of death. Death is not a something which actually [objectively] exists, death; therefore, can not be chosen. The existence of life is absolute. Life cannot be chosen - it already exists. The choice (and therefore that which is chosen) is to act in accordance with the needs of life or not; i.e., to act properly or not. When one drinks water one is acting properly with regard to what ones life requires to remain in existence. The act of drinking is a value based act. That which is chosen [here water] is the what ones life needs to remain in existence. Water is not a human need, it is a need of human based life. In other words: Since humans are not what life is; then, water is not a human need. The need of water, by ones life, makes it [water] a human value. The drinking of water is a value based action.

Xray, Please read more carefully. I never stated that a need is a value. If you have read anything of Rand, you know that need is not a value, nor is it a claim on others. A need creates the conditions for value. Correctly identifying a need and how to satisfy it with efficacy and within context (the big picture—which is basically the perspective of a conceptual mind having volition facing reality) is an "objective value" in the sense of ethics. btw - Need is not the only standard for measuring a value, but it is a main one. You are putting a subjective meaning on "ought to," then complaining that others who use a conceptual daisy-chain back to reality don't use your meaning. You are essentially refusing to see what we are talking about, then complaining that our language and ideas are flawed. For instance, you are equating "ought to" with "duty" as mandated by someone (usually Rand with the anti-Rand folks). You don't need to read much (not even here on OL) to see that "ought to" always occurs with respect to an expected outcome in Objectivism. It is not related to any authority other than reality. (This point is extremely difficult for some people to understand for some reason.) "Ought to" is intimately tied to the law of causality. There is always an implicit "if you want this" before "you ought to do that." Go back to ignoring this if you wish as you explain to people who have studied Objectivism what is wrong with it. You certainly do not have a monopoly on getting the ideas all wrong before bashing them. You have a good mind from what I read. You have no need to do it that way, but you make your own choices. This, in fact, is an instance of using a subjective standard of value in using your mind. There are other standards, but judging before knowing seems to be important to you in discussing Rand. Do carry on. EDIT: To address your misunderstanding of what Rand wrote, it does not apply to the condition that you need water in order to survive. It applies to whether you choose to act to get water. You do have a choice about what acts you wish to perform. You can choose to refuse to drink, depending on your values (your inner "ought to"). There is no choice about what certain outcomes will be if you make a poor choice. As Rand wrote, ethics is a code of values to guide man's actions, and this implies choice of what action to take. That means a set of standards for using volition. Where man can choose to act, he has values that guide him. Some are subjective and some are objective. You can even choose which you prefer. Here's one for you. Imagine a man in a desert. Is periodically drinking water a value to him? It sure is. But there are other values, also. Suppose he encounters a person who has water, but demands he betray everything he holds sacred to get a drink of it. (This is actually a good metaphor for several aspects of modern society.) To some people this will be easy. To others, they will refuse to drink. This is the choice they can make. Clear standards are in order here. They cannot choose whether lack of water will kill them. It will. And they cannot choose the impact of what betraying their most sacred values will have on their character. They will lose the sense of sacred. The person will have to choose which is more important to him and act accordingly. To carry this one step further, a typical approach in Objectivism is to reject the choice altogether (and the person demanding it) and seek water elsewhere. Michael Beginning with what Rand said: "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.' " For this premise to work life must exist. For life to exist it [life] must consume specific energy resources. These energy resources are the "needs" of life; they are what life "needs" to remain in existence. Translating the needs of life into a human context the idea expressed by the concept of need must is changed to value. Therefore the needs of ones life become the values one must choose to be considered a properly functioning human-being.

That would interest me too. For Rand's definition of "value" = "something one acts to gain or keep" says nothing about what the value is. For e. g. the Marxist, the "value he acts to gain or keep" is the dictature of the proletariat. For the Christian, it is the promised resurrection of the flesh, etc. Sure, in the history of mankind, there have always been attempts to declare the values of a specific ideology as allegedly "objective" and impose them on others. Those who openly disagreed were risking their lives. Still happens today in many places all over the world. But the declaraton of a value as objective does not make it so. So what is an objective value? What qualifies "an objective value" as one common set for all, without exception (for this is the strict requirement for it be "objective")? The example of the nihilist has already disproved Rand's claim that the only objective value is one's life. The one common set for all here clearly does not apply to the nihilist. Life is the standard of value. Life; itself, is not value; what life needs to remain life is, is what value is. Since life is a physical absolute then what it needs to remain what it is, is also a physical absolute. Absent life 'value' has no meaning or application.

The non-linear "right brain" activity seems to be very much associated with creativity and intuitive processing. It is fundamentally generative and holistic. The linear "left brain" activity is very systematic and deductive. It is fundamentally focused on particulars and is reductive. The latter processes are more associated with the "conscious mind." I wonder if this tends to bias those with a respect for the systematic aspects of discovery and justification to accept reductionist worldviews. Conversely, I wonder if it tends too leave more generative and holistic worldviews in the hands of those who have little respect for the systematic aspects of discovery and justification. A bias in programming. It's unfortunate that most generative and holistic approaches wind up in some type of mysticism or some sort of social metaphysical primacy. I guess that's part of Ayn Rand's attraction. Her fictions present a generative and holistic worldview without falling into mysticism or social metaphysical primacy. Unfortunately, I don't think her non-fiction captured the essentials of her generative and holistic epistemology. Also, while she built third person models of social dynamics, she lacked genuine first person social intuition from within. Her lack of social intuition, while it was partly responsible for her not assuming the primacy of the social realm, it also kept her ignorant of how social images were generated in her and flowed through her. This is where lies the greatest weakness of Objectivism. Its founder and many of her followers have underdeveloped social intuition. It's a defining feature of the system. My guess is that people who are socially intuitive in first person images are not generally captured by Rand's spell (most of them have their own challenges though). Rand and many of her followers appear ignorant of how first person social images are generated in them and flow through them into the authoritarian, moralizing and "rage" behaviours that have so become associated with the Objectivist movement. Paul By what method have you observed this thing you call "social intuition"? What permits you to make the claim that it is a defining feature of Objectivism? Objectivism is merely a tool. Its value is that it allows one to explain what they know to exist. In doing so it reveals the level of development of their intelligence. Objectivism observes 1) what one is, 2) where one lives and 3) what these say about how one must behave to be considered a properly functioning human-being [what one is] right here on earth [where one lives]. This (of course) includes those times when one is socially engaged.

I'm not sure when you added the second man you chose a "worthless parasite." Such a person cannot exist except by sanction of the first; i.e., the achiever. In other words: he [the parasite] did not pre-exist his existence as a parasite because he would have died as soon as he was abandoned by his parent supporters.

This brings up a very interesting situation that is real-life. In this case it is easy to simply say the responsibility and fault lay at the feet of the parents, but there is a hugely important objective value at root. The law does not legislate over miracles. I believe the lady when she said she was doing what she thought best for her daughter, but there is a legal stricture that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So, should the law insist on licensed medical treatment for all children? If so, what about the right of the parents to treat their child as they see fit? Does the concept of individual rights as proposed by Objectivists and libertarians protect parents to the extent that they can replace medical treatment of their child with prayer? That sounds as dangerous as all get out to me. If not, what is the standard for protecting the child and what degree of medical knowledge is used as that standard? Are home remedies enough rights-wise—even when grossly inadequate and the cure is easy with modern medicine? Going further in this direction, does a child have a right to medical treatment in the first place (reasonable or otherwise)? Who decides? The parents? The government? Or should the right to life not include medicine at all and only be the right to death? Here is a second interesting angle. What if a child is found in an emergency with parents not around, a stranger happens by, the child can be extracted from the emergency with very little effort and/or cost by the stranger, but instead, the stranger decides to pray for hours to God for Him to resolve the issue—and the child dies? Unfortunately this does not cut into the essentials of defining human nature, as I would prefer at this juncture, but it sure makes for one hell of an interesting problem. Michael Under Objectivism "The Right to Life" simply means that since an individual possess life then he has a right to act accordingly. Since a child is alive then he has a right to act in accordance with what that requires of him. But since a child is a child then his ability to undetstand what that means is limited. The responsibility to act properly, in regard to what the childs life is and requires, falls on his parents. The parents MUST act in accordance with the laws of nature governing of what a proper human existence is and requires. The evidence seems to be suggesting the childs parents were (and perhaps asre) insane. The child suffered under the insanity demonstrated by his parents actions. That is not right but how can that be resolved.

BRAVO, Mike 11. I indeed see your point -- and I don't think the post was "badly written," instead that it was an admirable job of description. I emphasized the "encourages ignorance to pass itself off as knowledge," since I think I might choose arrogant and insistent unacknowledged ignorance as the characteristic of "Randroids" which I find the most irritating of all. Ellen ___ The people who you describe would be irritating regardless of the philosophy they follow. I find religious persons the most irritating of all.

They look like their waiting for Wal Mart to open.

Help me out, Brant. I'm a little dense. And it' s an important question. Forget what I may have said above. Define heroism, please. W. Not compromising value. The less-able can act as heroically as the more-able. It's not so much a matter of bravery as it is of honesty. Being honest to the fundamental nature of value is what affords bravery its popular appeal in matters concerning heroism.

Since ones life does exist; then, one has a right to act to its benefit, and no other. A "right to petition the courts" does not precede ones right to continue living. Nor does it imply "a positive right to be kept alive." A person who demonstrates by murdering others that they prefer death; then so be it. Their desire to end my life does not precede my right to continue living. Since this is the case; then, it becomes my moral responsibility to ensure that both of us get what we deserve.