Xray
-
Posts
4,183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Xray
-
-
Brant,
You seem to have had enough of that understanding on the battlefield to have survived.
Here's the more technical version. All concepts have referents. The most basic ones have referents that can be defined only by pointing and saying "that is what I am referring to."
This is not "pretend understanding."
Bullets exist.
Bullet is bullet.
Michael
"Bullet is bulllet" is a tautology.
You think Rand meant "Existence exists" in a tautological sense too: "Existence is existence", so to speak?
-
My question about the Iranian journalists applies to actual real circumstances of two people in Iran. This is not a litmus test, this is a real question in which people chose different behaviors. We're observing the aftermath, but you've dismissed it out-of-hand. The goal of both these men was to stand against the government. However, is it better to stand up for your freedoms and go to jail (like Nelson Mandella perhaps?), or to tell untruths for a year, stay out of jail , but lose credibility with Iranians who might have otherwise been more supportive of your cause? Very very valid question, ver very real question, set in the real world.
It is a very real question indeed, and that's what ethics is about.
It looks like the journalist who went to jail had more courage than the other, especially since he could not even know whether he would ONLY be imprisoned - for he might as well have been tortured and killed.
But unless we know more about his motives, all we can do is speculate.
The other journalist may be perceived as having betrayed the rights of the oppressed citizens by cowtowing to the dictators, writing articles supporting them. One is inclined to think his primary interest was saving his hide, but again, what drove him to do this we don't know. He may have had a large family to support and felt he could not let them down, etc.
Imo self-interest motivates us all 100 per cent of the time. The one one who went to jail for example may have found the idea unbearable to be considered "a coward".
-
[Xray]:
So it was Ayn Rand who chose the objectivist standard of values, and once chosen, it is regarded as an invariant absolute?
['Thom T G' post='67261' date='Apr 11 2009, 12:19 AM]:'Xray, to be clearer, I could have written more concretely, "We can choose whichever standard of length to use for measurement purposes. But once it is chosen, that is an invariant absolute." If you want to measure pieces of lumber to build a bench, then choose your standard of length and start measuring; but don't switch standard in mid-activity and confuse yourself.
I see what you mean. In the bench example, it makes no sense to switch the standard in mid-activity to because then the pieces of the bench won't fit together. Still, one might decide (even in mid-activity) to switch the standard of length for measurement, but this would mean one has to start all over again. For example, I could decide in mid-activity to switch from 'yards' to 'meters' but then I'll have to cut the wood pieces anew.
This is why I have problem with the word "invariant absolute" here. For we can change our standards.
[Thom]:That is what is meant by retaining a standard as an invariant absolute. Similarly, for purposes of choosing and ranking values to live one's life, a chosen standard of value is an invariant absolute.
The key word is "chosen". For indeed, standards of value always imply that these standards have to be chosen, and a 'choice' is always subjective.
Now, you asked the follow-up question: "So it was Ayn Rand who chose the Objectivist standard of values, and once chosen, it is regarded as an invariant absolute?" My short answer is: Yes, for herself.Another key element: for herself. Like you said, it was her personally chosen standards. It doesn't matter whether she called her philosophy Objectivsm - the standards of value she selected for herself were her personal choice.
My long answer is the rest. Read on. In both the above cases, who does the choosing of the enumerated categories of standards? Anyone, really. It is you for your bench, if you want to make one; it is you for your life, if you want to live.Who does the categorizing from which I then choose?
[Thom]:Ayn Rand discovered and elaborated on two such standards. There is the standard of the second-hander psycho-epistemology. There is also the standard of the first-hander psycho-epistemology. For short, let us call these long-naming standards by the synonym of cognitive styles.
When a person 1) observes something, 2) makes a judgment on it, based on some standard of evaluation, and then subsequently 3) reports to you about it; what do you do cognitively about the report? If your chosen cognitive style is of a second-hander, you zero in exclusively on the person doing the observing, judging, and reporting; you evaluate his social standing, his notoriety, his political pull; and then you take whatever he reports as your own judgment--regardless of any actual personal observation and/or any actual personal judgment from observation (based on some standard). On the other hand, if you adopt the first-hander cognitive style, you do consider the reporter's credibility as part of the larger context, of course, but more importantly, you take the report as an invitation to do the observing yourself, if feasible, and to make the judgment yourself, if you adopt the same standard; and once having made your own independent judgment, you evaluate the reported judgment against your own before accepting or rejecting it.
So per Rand, the "second-handers" don't do the litmus test on what is being served to them, since the "WHO" says something is more important to them than WHAT is being said?
[Thom: (bolding mine)I would argue that some second-handers will accept NB's judgment wholly, uncritically. Some other second-handers, following other figures of authority, of different social standings, etc., will reject NB's judgment wholly, uncritically.
By contrast, the independent first-hander, I would argue, will read the report and decide to accept or reject the proffered standard of mental health on its own logical merit. If he rejects the standard, the entire report is dismissed. If he finds the standard plausible, he goes on to observe first-hand the dancing of beatniks, and then to judge their activities in accordance to the standard. Only then will he make the secondary judgment about NB's judgment of the dancing of the beatniks
Another variable to be considered in that context: N. Branden himself may have acted as a "second-hander" here, mirroring Rand's own disapproval of the way the beatniks danced.
I would approach the subject by asking Branden to elaborate on his chosen "standard of mental health" and then ask him to explain why he thinks dancing like that is detrimental to it.
-
Xray, in discussing Objectivist ethics, a certain precision in terminology may be helpful. Ayn Rand makes the distinction between a standard of values and a hierarchy of values.
Take the following analogy. The length of the meter is a standard unit of length; so is the length of the foot. We can choose whichever standard to use for a discussion. But once it is chosen, that is an invariant absolute.
So it was Ayn Rand who chose the objectivist standard of values, and once chosen, it is regarded as an invariant absolute?
Contrasting the standard unit of, say, the foot, there is your foot and its length, and there is my foot and its length. Your foot has a certain specific length, as measured by the standard foot, which may differ from the specific length of my foot. Yours may be under a foot; mine may be a little over a foot.In terms of quantity, it is fairly clear. It gets difficult when it comes to quality.
I'd like to discuss those objective quality standards.
For example, Nathaniel Branden writes in his essay "The Psychology of Pleasure" (1964, in the The Virtue of Selfihsness, pb, p. 71-78)), about the pleasures appropriate or inappropriate for the "rational, psychologically healthy man".
[N. Branden]:Observe, in this connection, the modern "beatniks" - for instance, their manner of dancing. What one sees is not smiles of authentic enjoyment, but thevacant, staring eyes, the jerky, disorganized movements of what looks like decentralized bodies, all working very hard - with a kind of flat-footed hysteria - at projecting an air of the purposeless, the senseless, the mindless. This is the pleasure of "unconsciousness."
So everyone who danced like that got the thumbs down from Rand and Branden because they "know" it is no "authenic enjoyment" and these people are purposeless, mindless, senseless?
Frankly, I have read similar lectures on the "wrongl" way to dance in Jehova's Witnesses' brochures.
Branden also uses the word "crippled" in combinaton with lesbian ("crippled lesbian").
What "objective" standards of values are these?
-
Xray,
What works of Rand have you read?
I ask because it would be a good idea for you to learn the Objectivist version of these questions before going in depth on questioning them.
After all, this is a forum devoted to discussing Objectivist ideas, both pro and con.
Once I know what you know of Objectivism, I will know how to respond.
Michael
I have read The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness and have just started with her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged.
Of works about Rand, I have read Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand.
The Q&A section on this site is very informative too.
The impression I have so far is that while Rand advocates indivdualism, she is very dogmatic, for example in deciding what an "objective" value is.
-
So it looks like what considers a value is basically a subjective choice.
Xray,
This depends on your standard of epistemology.
The power to make a choice (and to value) is not the same thing as identifying something correctly.
Michael
By what criteria does one identify something correctly? It is fairly easy when it comes to correctly identifying e. g. a chair, but as for abstracts as "values", how does it work?
-
It might be much clearer if you consider who is calling an act a "sacrifice." For example, consider somebody sacrificing an animal to a god. In Rand's view it is a sacrifice of something of value for nothing. To the person doing the sacrificing, it is giving up a lesser value to obtain a greater value.
So it looks like what considers a "value" is basically a subjective choice.
The problem to consider before using the word sacrifice is standard of value. Once the standard of value is identified, it is relatively easy to judge what is a sacrifice and what is a bargain.Michael
EDIT: btw - Welcome to OL, Xray. I hope you enjoy it here.
Thanks for for the welcome, Michael. I'm from Germany and didn't know about Ayn Rand until two years ago during a discussion on atheism.
The problem to consider before using the word sacrifice is standard of value. Once the standard of value is identified, it is relatively easy to judge what is a sacrifice and what is a bargain.But aren't those "standards of value" subjective choices too?
Person A's standards of value may differ from person B's and C's, etc.
-
To individuals who experience empathy, valuing others before the self is a conscious ascription of the events that are occurring. When Brother John helps the homeless Macy Gray by giving her his food, Brother John will always assert that he has sacrificed his needs for another. He will add that the motivation for his behavior was a result of empathy. Although Brother John asserts that he has placed another above himself, the ontological truth is that he has placed his values embedded in feelings of empathy above values embedded in his ego. When Brother John later reports that putting others before himself provides a sense of fulfillment, we can be sure that Brother John’s sacrifice, unbeknownst to him, was indeed an act of putting himself first. Thus, because empathic values and fulfillment arise from the self, perceptions of sacrifice in the context of empathy are actually consistent with the ethics of Objectivism.
The word "sacrifice" is a big topic in Rands writings. She is downnright obsessed with the term.
"Sacrifice is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser
value", she writes in "The Virtue of Selfishness".
But is it? Isn't the exact opposite the case?
What exactly is a sacrifice? It is an act directed by something which the person peforming the act considers as a greater value then that which is sacrificed. Imo there is NO exception to this principle.
.
Whether it was ancient tribes sacrificing animals or humans to the gods (the origin of the term refers to a religious act [from Latin "sacer" (holy) and "facere" (to do)], whether it is people sacrificing a good time of their lives caring for their ailing parents, whether it is the suicidal terrorist causing a plane to crash, or whether my colleague offers to take over an undesirable job instead of me, sacrificing her free time, or whether one "sacrifices" a pawn in a chess game because one wants to gain one of his opponent's figures of higher status or another strategic advantage through the act - whatever the sacrifice is, ALWAYS the motive is present to gain a higher value.
Ayn Rand claims that the frustration of a desire is a "sacrifice". But does that qualify as sacrifice? A feeling of frustration because a desire has not been fulfilled??
Isn't there a crucial element of the term sacrifice missing here?
Rand (in TVOS, pb. page 33) theorizes that (I'm paraphrasing a bit) when Jim robs John of his car, John is being sacrificed, and Jim too. Imo neither John nor Jim are being sacrificed through this act.
Does anyone here think they are? If yes, why?
-
I even knew one or two poor souls who started smoking because Ayn did!
Classic example of blind leader followership without using one's brain.
My guess is the total number of those who started smoking because of Rand (or did not think of quitting because Rand advocated smoking) was quite high.
-
Human beings are genetically wired to be sociable. We are born blabber mouths and being neonate we are totally dependent for survival on our care givers and nurturing persons for at least the first three years of life. Part of being human is relating to others. There are good survival reasons why we are sociable. As individuals we would perish quickly. We are neonates (literally born half baked from the oven), helpless as youngsters. Our well being is absolutely dependent on the specialization of labor and mutual support/defense. This is how the human race (homo sapien sapien) made it through the ice age. Trading, swapping, chewing each other's ear off (or the internet equivalent) is how we survive and what we are.
Imo Rand's construction "selfishness vs. altruism" is an artificial opposition.
"Selfishness" (I prefer to call it self-interest) is present in every human being 100 percent of the time, for if it weren't, we wouldn't be able to survive for a single day. Self-interest is a necessary survival tool. It is neither a virtue nor a vice - it is what it is.
Human beings are genetically wired to be sociable. We are born blabber mouths and being neonate we are totally dependent for survival on our care givers and nurturing persons for at least the first three years of life. Part of being human is relating to others. There are good survival reasons why we are sociable. As individuals we would perish quickly. We are neonates (literally born half baked from the oven), helpless as youngsters. Our well being is absolutely dependent on the specialization of labor and mutual support/defense. This is how the human race (homo sapien sapien) made it through the ice age. Trading, swapping, chewing each other's ear off (or the internet equivalent) is how we survive and what we are.Biologically, we are mammals living in groups. The fact that in the course of evolution, our brain has developed so highly does not change this basic fact
This being said, there is nothing in nature that demands self abnegation and wretched subordination to others.Imo our biological heritage does pose a hurdle because of the pack structure (with a group leader) we have always been living in. Hence people's susceptibility to follow an authority, a leader and submit to the leader's wishes, whether it is the sandbox bully of a kids' group, a political leader, an ideological guru or a god - the mechanism is basically the same.
-
Xray:
I can work with that as an agreed to definition, but that does modify:
"But the meaning of 'metaphysics' is the exact opposite of 'reality'. The Greek prefix 'meta' means 'beyond', therefore 'meta'physics refers to what is beyond, what transcends (the physical) reality. Religions for example are based on a metaphysical concept (transcendence)."
Yes?
Adam
Modified insofar as the problem of mutually exclusive definitions complicates issues.
For instance, you may hear e. g. an atheist tell you "I reject any metaphysical concepts", meaning it in the sense of the above quote (= I reject the idea of transcendence).
Whereas Rand uses the term in the sense of "that which pertains to reality".
Objectivism stands against all forms of metaphysical relativism or idealism.What is Rand's idea of metaphysical relativism?
-
The way I learned it from Greek Aristotelian rhetoric scholars was that the only reason it was meta physics was that it was the book Ari wrote after the physics.
Adam
Philosophers refer to it as First Philosophy. It is the philosophy of being as such.Ba'al Chatzaf
Correct. The history of the term 'metaphysical' goes back to a classification of Aritstotle's writings.
But in the course of philosophical history, the term took on a new meaning.
This Wikepedia article sums it up quite well:
Before the development of modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as "natural philosophy"; the term "science" itself meant "knowledge" of epistemological origin. The scientific method, however, made natural philosophy an empirical and experimental activity unlike the rest of philosophy, and by the end of the eighteenth century it had begun to be called "science" in order to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics became the philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence. Thus the original situation of metaphysics being integral with (Aristotelian) physics and science, has, in the West, become reversed so that scientists often consider metaphysics antithetical to the empirical sciences. -
But the meaning of "metaphysics" is the exact opposite of "reality". The Greek prefix "meta" means 'beyond', therefore 'meta'physics refers to what is beyond, what transcends (the physical) reality. Religions for example are based on a metaphysical concept (transcendence).FAQ: What is the Objectivist View of Reality (Metaphysics)?by William Thomas - The Objectivist Center
-
What does it mean for the universe to be benevolent? The physical universe (and that is all that there is) is NOT a sentient being, although sentient beings live within it. Malevolence and Benevolence are properties of intentions and only sentient beings can have intentions.
The Universe (or Cosmos) just is. It does not care, it does not think, it has no mind, it has no brain, it has no persona. Of visible matter it is mostly hydrogen. Of dark matter, who knows? Does dark matter have dark or bright intentions?
Ba'al Chatzaf
Correct. For indeed, attributing benevolence (or malevolence) to "the universe" is projecting qualities of sentient beings into what is clearly NOT a sentient being.
Existence exists?
in Objectivism in Dark Places
Posted · Edited by Xray
I'm from Germany and no native speaker of English - what is the famous saying?
I wasn't discarding the phrase. A tautology is a fairly complex language phenomenon, open to interpretation. For example, It can be used for reasons of emphasis.
.What exactly of the concept was left out?
As for "brush-aside", this is not my cup of tea at all. On the contrary, I'm a 'leave no stone unturned' type and want get to the bottom of things.
"Existence exists" is on the same level as e. g. saying "Live lives". So if anyone here wrote "Life lives", would you think they used a correct phrase?
A phrase is always with meaning to the person who uses it, however "nonsensical" it may sound to others at first glance. Clarifying avoids misunderstandings.