Xray

Was it very hard for you to give it up back then? Well, such is life. In the end, we'll have to give up everything. ;)

I'm currently reading AS, which is why I asked if there exists a thread here for I would like to dicuss the book chapter by chapter as I read along. I'm not the type who breezes through books - I like to take my time with them - so it will take me a while until I have finished it - but the 'heros' depicted so far imo all show a strange lack of empathy. Re the passage quoted by you (bolding mine): Here it is again: the Randian hero's refusal to accept pain as part of life. Instead he feels "proud chastity" in repressing it - almost like a monk would feel "proud chastity" in overcoming his impulses. "Joy is the goal of existence" - that's the credo Rand's heros seem to cling to. The fact that pain is part of life (and often a life-saver!) just as joy is downright uncacceptable to them - pain is something so dreadful to them that they go right into denial mode. An strange opposition is constructed between the "sufferer" Philip whose credo is "only to suffer is to feel" and Rearden rejecting it by replacing it with his own, no less odd credo. Existence has a "goal" ("joy"), it is claimed. Who please sets that goal? How can "existence" be a volitional, goal-seeking entity?

But the contents of the faith were declared as objective, i. e. true. People were not even allowed to doubt the doctrine. This has not changed today in most church leaders' eyes. Ask the Pope if he thinks what he says about paradise or whatever else in the catholic ideology is TRUE and you will get a "Yes". "God's will" is an ideological concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value. Since such values are said to exist in reality independent of individual mind, this sets these value as objective whether declared or logically implied. Yes, faith is subjective. To believe the fallacy "objective value", is a subjective choice.

I don't know enough about those aura photographs from the technical point of view. I'm generally skeptical about these things in view of the many charlatans which exist in that field. But a picture is an object which can be examined. Just like the paper containing the readings of an electocardiogram, or polygraph readings of physiological reactions. I assume the aura is connected to a physical object (a human) who is being photographed? So the object is clearly part of reality.

I don't think Dagny was being sarcastic when she said that. Here is the passage under discussion: She had turned to go, when he spoke again—and what he said seemed bewilderingly irrelevant. "That's all right for you, because you're lucky. Others can't do it." "Do what?" "Other people are human. They're sensitive. They can't devote their whole life to metals and engines. You're lucky—you've never had any feelings. You've never felt anything at all." As she looked at him, her dark gray eyes went slowly from astonishment to stillness, then to a strange expression that resembled a look of weariness, except that it seemed to reflect much more than the endurance of this one moment. "No, Jim," she said quietly, "I guess I've never felt anything at all." What do you think explains Dagny's change from astonishment to stillness to reflection of long-standing endurance? If Dagny never felt anything, then why astonishment at Jim's comment? Why her emotional state at the end of this passage as quoted above? Bill P I believe her astonishment came from the fact that Jim had hit the nail on the head with his comment. She did not think much of her brother anyway, and probably hadn't expected him to have much psychological insight, and this surprised her. By accusing Dagny of never having felt anything at all, imo Jim referred to her lack of empathy. Is there an extra thread here on the book Atlas Shrugged?

Categorizing a substance as "poison" in general is an arbitrary decision too. For a substance which may be toxic for the human body may not affect certain animals at all. Or vice versa. What is "objective" is the chemical composition of the substance which can be scientifically examined and described. As for the individually attributed value of a "poison", Dragonfly posted an illustrative example in # 138.

I did as you suggested: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry68606 (post# 126) You state there: Would you agree that "valuer" implies a volitional being attributing value to this or that? As for the second part of your sentence, "relationship with some part of reality" - what about a person attributing value to an illusion? All religions for example value elements which clearly are not part of reality.

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. I take it you're telling me that I don't understand Objectivism with the inference that if I did, it would settle the matter. To do this you say, "you need to broaden your perspective and deal with reality before you get to society." I find this totally abstract and not at all instructive. To get down to the nitty gritty of a reality of entities and relationships, would you please advise me where I have made a specific error in entity identity and/or a relationship? As for stone worshipers, or worshipers of any sort, what is there to worship in the absence of the concept, objective value? The entity in focus is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking human individual. These characteristics make of the objective identity of said entity. This entity attributes value to this or that. Given the immutable identity of this entity, how can attributing value in one instance be subjective and in the next be objective? Does this not logically imply two separate identities and/or a dual reality? There appears to be some confusion as to ends and means. The end is value chosen, i.e., value attributed. Self destruction goes to objective means. The choice of self destruction is no less attributing value subjectively.The implicit interjection as "life as a standard" is no less a subjective choice. Such interjection of your personal choice attests to the fact of subjective value even in denial. "God's will" is a concept of values existing independently of any individual creating and attributing value. Since such values are said to exist in objective reality independent of individual mind, this sets these values as objective whether declared or logically implied. Yes, faith is subjective. It is a subjective choice to believe the fallacy "objective value".

I don't think Dagny was being sarcastic when she said that.

How do you get the idea that I'm denigrating that fact? I merely stated what is, without giving any value judgement on it. You mean what I personally value in life? My own philosophy, so to speak?

As mammals living in groups (Rand would probably not have approved of it being stated like that I suppose ), we depend on the group for survival, and imo the actions we perfom "for others" without exception also serve the purpose of satisfying our own needs. For example, when my colleague at work asks me if she can bring me a cup of coffee, she is basically doing what a chimpanzee does when it "grooms" another group member. I'm perfectly well able to get that coffee for myself, but her offer is a gesture of appreciation, of affirmation of a bond. On other occasions, I'll do the same for her. Instead of the artifically constructed opposition "selfishness" vs "altruism", imo "self-interest" is the far more apt word. As opposed to "selfishness" which carries a negative tinge, "self-interest" is neutral. What is hard-wired is self interest (100%) as an objective identifying characteristic as the motive directing our actions. A mother risking her life trying to save her child from fire is doing this because the child is of immense emotional value to her. That she considers it a value may be explained that it is her offspring carrying her genes, but someone may also jump after their dog in the same situation. "Self-interest" does not imply wanting to stay alive at all costs. People may choose to die for an idea of whose supreme value they are totally convinced of. Their self-interest lies in promoting that idea, even if it involves their dying for it as martyr. But as opposed to machines, we can choose to act against the genetic program.

Genetic reproduction is what it is. Here is an example of a non-meaningless tautology. It's a biological fact. Natural law in action.

You and Bob Mac are of course correct on that: the genetic reproduction program is primary. The highly developed brain of humans allows them many choices other species can't make. Choosing death over life for example. Or going against the biological program of gene replication by deciding not to reproduce at all. Or via birth control, separating sexuality from its biological purpose (producing offspring).

C'mon Selene - I work with kids and you accusing me of "crippling" them just makes me laugh. Good teachers will always try to build up their pupils' self-esteem. What are you talking about? Why those rants? I know, I know, you said you "have no [emotional] thermostat", but still ... is it necessary to always get carried away like that? You really think empathy and rationality are mutually exclusive? I have not made the experience that they are. And her personal history offers insight into why she got them.

It is true that gene reproduction is the primary, but interlinked with survival, since it is necessary to achieve gene replication. The biological program in a newborn is directed to survival of the individual to enable the individual to later replicate his/her genes. With humans and most living beings (there are exceptions: some spiders for example immediately get eaten by their offspring) the survival program keeps active even after the being has long since passed the gene replicating phase.

The lemming issue is obviously a myth created by the Disney filmmakers way back when. Very interesting article debunking the myth: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

No, that whole lemming story is just an urban legend. Correct. This article for example debunks the lemming myth: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

Point taken. I had not been precise enough - you are correct. I'll edit my post on that, to avoid any further misunderstanings.

I am quite convinced that this is indeed the case. I came to this conclusion quite early on during my reading of her stuff. To me, it is the simplest explanation behind some of the glaring problems I see in Objectivism. She had to hold on to some rather foolish arguments in order to hold her political views together. I really do think Objectivism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the polar opposite of the political 'hell' she escaped. It was so bad, that only the exact opposite has to be the 'right' way. So she worked backwards from her political views - jamming all sorts of square pegs into round holes. I'm thinking in the same direction. Imo a lot of Rand's weird thinking is rooted in the experience of a political hell (and also of personal trauma, since she was an unloved child rejected by her mother who only "appreciated" her for her intelligence) she had to endure and finally fled from. All that "sacrificil animal stuff" she stresses over and over again in her writings - it was probably SHE who had felt that way back then in the USSR. Singing the praise of unbridled capitalism was later to become the credo of her belief system, and and the USA her Sangri La land guaranteeing it. Ayn Rand's book heroes feel no pain, they deny pain fervently. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she created invulnerable heroes because she herself had been so deeply psychologically wounded in her childhood, youth and early adult years. I'll say it again, Ayn was one person. A philosophical system has to be built upon. It will never be a perfect product. We could all sit here and bash a person that has passed away over 20 years ago, but I find that counterproductive to progressing Objectivism. Cite your criticisms, back them up and and proceed. Butchering her character while doing so only stands in the way of progress. ~ Shane Explaining is not "butchering". I often feel sorry for what AR had to go through in her life. I work with children, and when a child is being as rejected and unloved as A. Rand had been, this is an incredible emotional burden for the child.

Let's see, which of the following feel no pain: Kira Dominique Francon Howard Roark Francisco D'Anconia Hank Rearden Please advise. Are you making these statements as guesses in the absence of having read, say, any of We the Living, The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Or did you read these and not see where these five undergo very serious pain? Bill P Sorry if I confused you, Bill. The Randian heros (at least those who I have encountered so far) do of course have the ability to feel both physical and emotional pain, but its eems to me the lack of empathy they show is like an psychological armor Rand gave them. Dagny Taggart for example says verbatim she has never felt anything at all. Rand disciple N. Branden wrote: TVOSE, p. 71: "Implicitly contained in the the experience of pleasure is the feeling "I am in control of my existence" - just as implicitly contained pain is the feeling: "I am helpless". As pleasure emotionally ential a sense of efficacy, so pain emotionally entails a sense of impotence." Imo Branden's statement does not stand up to scrutiny, for pain does not automatically entail the feeling of impotence. When you feel e. g. the pain of a headache, it can lead you to get a pill from the medicine cabinet. Where's the impotence here? Also, there exist quite a few pleasures in life which are connected to the feeling of not being in control of one's existence, and are often sought specifically for that purpose. The "pleasure" people seek in a roller coaster ride or a Bungee jump is also derived from the potential element of danger adding a thrill. Imo what NB wrote does reflect Rand's wish for her heros to triumph over pain. Rand herself said she modeled all her male fictional heros after Cyrus, the fearless hero of an of adventure story in a boys' magazine she read as a kid: "The Mysterious Valley". Her first love for a comic-strip like figure (today such Cyrus types woud probably be comic strip heroes) shaped Rand' relationship with men all her life. In a way, she never stopped thinking like a child, seeking Cyrus in them, no matter how little they fit the bill. Source: Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand p. 12- 13.

Ahaahaaa! Too, too funny, wonderful cartoon, Dragonfly, and what a brilliantly astute post!! You have directed the attention to the core of the issue. Values are subjective, and calling one's own values "proper to man" does not change one iota from this fact. "Proper human existence" brings back memories. I almost feel like back at school where the catholic nuns told us about "proper human existence" from their perspective. Bottom line: all these value judgements are subjective notions, and presenting them as "objective" does no change this fact one iota. Wars have been fought, people burnt at the stake because they did not fit into a value system (usually declared as "objective") of another group. Rand's praising of individualism while at the same time handing to followers a laundry list of "objective values" they "ought" to accept is a contradiction imo.

I did take the time with Bob's most interesting post, rest assured. What interests me in that context - if it is that hardwired, then why don't all people jump down and save another person in such an emergency? For most people clearly DON'T.

I am quite convinced that this is indeed the case. I came to this conclusion quite early on during my reading of her stuff. To me, it is the simplest explanation behind some of the glaring problems I see in Objectivism. She had to hold on to some rather foolish arguments in order to hold her political views together. I really do think Objectivism is nothing more than an attempt to justify the polar opposite of the political 'hell' she escaped. It was so bad, that only the exact opposite has to be the 'right' way. So she worked backwards from her political views - jamming all sorts of square pegs into round holes. I'm thinking in the same direction. Imo a lot of Rand's weird thinking is rooted in the experience of a political hell (and also of personal trauma, since she was an unloved child rejected by her mother who only "appreciated" her for her intelligence) she had to endure and finally fled from. All that "sacrificil animal stuff" she stresses over and over again in her writings - it was probably SHE who had felt that way back then in the USSR. Singing the praise of unbridled capitalism was later to become the credo of her belief system, and and the USA her Sangri La land guaranteeing it. Imo AR's soul had been deeply wounded in her childhood years. In the wishful thinking of her fantasy, she later created fearless characters who were to triumph over pain.

What is is the gene benefit for a John Doe, who, on impulse, jumps after another person, a stranger, who has fallen from the train platform onto the rails, risking the danger of the approaching train killing both himself and the other person?

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?