RightJungle

Roger, I have an audio book by Barbara Branden - 19 discs and titled "Efficient Thinking". Given that you were instrumental in bringing "The Vision of Ayn Rand" to book form, I was hoping to see you announce a similar project for ET. The discs of ET are of very good quality, so I am able to listen and learn without the struggle that I had with "The Basic Principles of Objectivism". Still, it would be very helpful to have ET in book format.

I can't say I agree with this. I can observe animals making choices all the time, like a cat deciding whether to attack or not. If this is what is called "free will" then I don't see how he can say animals don't have it. I can see maybe like life forms without a nervous system, like bacteria, maybe but not higher life-forms.

We have cats, too, so I agree with you on this. I see it all the time. Stimulus-response is not enough to explain their behavior. They even turn down food to go outside.

However, David Kelley has an essay on free will. He finds volition in the choice of what to focus on, what to think about.

Personally, I place great weight on the ideas of Julian Jaynes. We probably did not have a sense of self before the invention of writing. That, too, is arguable, when you consider the animals who can recognize themselves in a mirror, other apes, of course, but elephants and porpoises, as well. The thing is, though, do they worry about it? Do they argue whether or not they are like us or us like them on the basis of essential characteristics?

Whatever our roots -- from the fact that blood is sea water -- there is a lacuna, a hiatus, between human and non-human ... and I am not sure that all "featherless bipeds" are "volitional creatures."

Michael, are you talking about Julian Jaynes' theory presented in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? It is a description of a moment in human evolution.

My paper back copy is in my hands. Received the book on Monday. Happy as a clam that we will be iced in here in Iowa - lots of time to read. The acknowledgements page lists Roger Bissell as a major player in getting the lectures transcribed. Thank you! Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Biggers - thank you! Robert Campbell - thank you! Barbara Branden - thank you! Jim Peron - long suffering publication manager - thank you!

Nathaniel Branden - thank you most of all!!! And yes, I remember the scene between Rearden and Galt in the Airplane.

I like your approach to considerations of truth and the benevolence principle. This really comes down to values in the end.

Values are rather abstract representations of concretes: life, justice, honesty, etc. This is an important consideration. Concretes as values can be construed as situational (I am the value, not you) and are therefore less representational of universal values. Rand did not condone situational values/ethics.

Objectivism is founded on the premise that man's life is the utmost value, with one's own life as the primary responsibility to upholding that value. But one's own life is an expression of a value, it is not the value in Objectivism. Objectivism does not condone upholding one's life at the cost of others. In the same way, it would be inappropriate to uphold another's life at the cost of one's own.

I think that it is very logical to uphold human life by causing yourself some pain/discomfort to save another person (say, from kidnapping). This is not sacrifice since you are actively choosing to uphold human life. If you do not take action, you could not be said to be upholding human life. Perhaps you are upholding your own desire to avoid a little pain or gain a little pleasure, ... but this has nothing to do with universal values per se, this is merely situational ethics.

Christopher, it goes like this. Man's life is the standard, your life is the value.

You are correct about that being their right ala Tara Smith's Moral Rights and Political Freedom. As she pointed out, if I am going to promote individual rights, I have to accept the fact that some individuals will do things of which I don't approve.

So, thank you. I stand corrected. Beck's involvement with the ASAMOM ladies was just to publicize them and a couple of other websites started by Mommy patriots. I don't see myself that way, but a friend gave me the assignment to join ASAMOM and monitor their progress. My friend thought they might become important in educating children. Rejected I was.

I, too, greatly admire the way Beck has awakened the sleeping giant. His work has been phenomenal. I am eager to see what his educational effort of 2010 is and I plan to be at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in August.

He claims to be be an Ayn Rand fan and that is very helpful for her work getting known more widely. I know a number of people who read Atlas Shrugged on his recommendation alone. Still, I would just love to see the Objectivist principles being applied more consistently by the separate branches of this 912 Project movement. Speaking of which, I e-mailed Beck several times in the weeks following his big "We Surround Them" meeting in March. I was arguing with his sucker's choice of our rights being given to us by either God or the government. He accepted and liked my argument on his morning radio show, but by his afternoon T.V. show he was insisting that we have to have God for the freedom formula to work. Ah, well.

He seems to know Ayn Rand only through ARI. I am hoping to see him hold up a copy of Branden's The Vision of Ayn Rand: The Basic Principles of Objectivism the way he held up The 5000 Year Leap. Would do us all good. However, I suspect that the Mormon's will discourage that recommendation given the lesson about the non-existence of God in the book. Here lately, I've become concerned that Beck's efforts could start carrying us toward a Theocracy rather than a Constitutional Republic. Barbara Branden teaches us about the price paid when men try to hold contradictory ideas in their heads. It only works for me until someone like yourself brings the contradiction to my conscious awareness.

In the meantime, I watch Beck's show and listen frequently to his radio show and know that without his efforts, many of us would not be making all of the valuable connections that we need to make to fight back against this rush to the bottom.

Mary Lee

The last I heard from Jim Peron was that the book was to be delivered from the printer on December 10 - two days from now. Then, as soon as they come in they will push them out the door to those of us who are waiting for them.

Actually, I suspect that the audience out there is huge. Everyone to whom I teach Objectivism in an entry level presentation responds positively to it. That includes working men and women, college professors, and IT professionals. Tara Smith's Moral Rights and Political Freedom is the current selection in my book club and is getting rave reviews. Objectivism is the only philosophy that has a chance to turn this country around.

Here's the important thing about Objectivism: it really isn't that hard to grasp and use. The real beauty of rationality is the ease with which one can spot one's mistaken actions or ideas and correct them. Reality rocks.

I couldn't help noticing that Barbara Branden has not answered my question about getting someone to do the transcripts of her "Efficient Thinking" series. I have the CD book and it is easy to hear, no static or buzz, so I don't feel so desperate for the transcript. Still, it would be nice for looking up specific ideas.

Here's a question for the OL group: If you are interested in the subject, would you mind passing along a short statement of what you personally are doing to help return our country to a constitutional republic?

Mary Lee

The Glenn Beck effort fell through the floor. I went to the ASAMOM sight to see what was happening, was vetted for access and rejected because of how I truthfully answered the vetting questions. The response to me was that "This is a FAITH BASED organization, we think you would be happier somewhere else" - and so I would. Good Grief.

Thank you for the information provided. As far as Peikoff's death hold on the Ayn Rand intellectual estate is concerned, I have to accept it because Property rights are to be protected along with all of the other rights. I just didn't know about the expiring contract and the person who put the announcement on the web site didn't spell that out. Now I know.

Charles Ives - "The Unanswered Question". I was twenty something when I came upon this piece. I listened to it over and over and visualized meaningful cosmic ballets starring one lone naked, beautiful man climbing a mountain on a planet with a dark sky, arriving at the very top and looking out at the stars and with his arms spread straight out, his head thrown back, he calls and calls for the answer. I didn't even know what the question was back then, but I knew that I would find the answer some day.

Here is a pretty cool quote from Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto (found in the Ayn Rand Lexicon):

There are many special or “cross-filed” chains of abstractions (of interconnected concepts) in man’s mind. Cognitive abstractions are the fundamental chain, on which all the others depend. Such chains are mental integrations, serving a special purpose and formed accordingly by a special criterion.

Cognitive abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is essential? (epistemologically essential to distinguish one class of existents from all others). Normative abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is good? Esthetic abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is important?

“Art and Sense of Life,” The Romantic Manifesto, 36.

It's been probably twenty years since I read that book. It might be worth while to have another go at it.

What do you say we get a little less esoteric in this discussion? Some of the sentences are causing blood to shoot out of my eyes. Of course, if that's what makes it fun then go ahead, but I am unable to devote anymore real effort to this right now. So, I'll just look in every once in while to see how it's going. Wish we'd hear from the instigator of this topic.

Actually, I was just trying to be funny by quoting my other favorite philosopher, Bugs Bunny.

See you all in a few days. Gotta take a break.

O.K. You realize that this means war!

Maybe we should all take a couple of days off and go re-read David kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

The posts on this topic are getting confusing to me. I'm going to read the section on how to use this forum. In the meantime, I think we can put this topic to bed unless someone can explain very clearly how my example doesn't work as a demonstration of "abstraction". I would like to hear that critique because it would show me the error of my ways. Right now, I don't know what the error of my ways might be.

Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept.

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

This is actually categorizing. Categorizing is always arbitrary, like e. g. "radio personality"; for example, one could as well have categorized these people as "sound makers", "noise makers", "talking mammals", whatever, or focused on the snatches of sound only, categorizing them as one sees fit.

To once again clarify: the units are persons. The abstractions are Radio Personalities, Radio Disk Jockies, Talk Show Hosts, Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. This process also demonstrates the process of moving from a wide abstraction (Radio Personalities) to the more narrow abstractions of Disk Jockies and Talk Show Hosts, and thence to the even more narrow abstractions of Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. You could look at it as a demonstration of studying a specific subject of interest.

I didn't enter the line "Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept." That was from an earlier post. You're right, though, with your question. Anyway, I don't know how that happened, but please don't credit me with stuff I didn't write. Your discussion of categories reminded me of a line from Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine, The Power of Ideas, "Savages acquire information without making categories by the attributes or qualities of things." Isn't that a unique way to differentiate civilized people from savages? I don't know why that struck me on the first reading, but it stayed with me.

Again, it is about categories and subcategories.

Well, Chris, do you think that we've all given the topic originator the answer that he was looking for?

All fussing aside - I've been wanting this transcript since I first bought the not so great CD copy of the original tapes, on which BB's efficient thinking lecture is practically inaudible. So, just getting that is going to be majorly great. You know what? I thought that when Nathaniel Branden sent out the announcement about this transcript to his newsletter list, that it was in answer to my request to him to "help us save the country" that I had sent in just a couple of months earlier. Guess, that was kinda dumb, huh? Still, the timing sure couldn't be any better.

Now, when is Barbara's lesson series on Efficient Thinking going to be published in book form? That would sure be icing on the cake. Beside, I think, somehow, I need it.

Announcing a new Meetup for The 9/12 Project!

What: * Glenn Beck Studio Audience - NYC *

When: September 24, 2009 4:30 PM

Where: (A location has not been chosen yet.)

Glenn is looking for mothers with school age children from NYC to be part of the studio audience this Thursday, September 24 at 4:30 PM.

The show will focus on challenges mothers face when their children are encouraged by teachers and school administrators into accepting certain ideologies, discouraged from accepting other ones, politically labeled (thereby stopping further communications among their peers) and subject to public addresses by government officials.

If you live in NYC and are interested in attending the show, you can email 912moms@gmail.com and rsvp on the Greater NYC 9/12 Project: http://www.meetup.com/The-9-12-Project-of-NYC/calendar/11438579/

Learn more here:

http://www.meetup.com/WeSurroundThemGathering/calendar/11439341/

I don't have any children at home but I bought "An Island Called Liberty" ...well, just because. My adult friends smile and agree with it whole heartedly. Here is its description from Amazon:

Product Description

"This book is a cross between Dr. Seuss and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged," writes the publisher. Younger children will enjoy the rhyming verse and beautiful, full-color illustrations on every page, while older children and adults will enjoy the strong message that speaks in favor of free markets and against excessive government regulation, bureaucracy, and taxation.

About the Author

Joseph Specht has almost twenty years of experience in business and banking, and knows the impact that excessive regulation and taxation have on the average family and the average small business. While he doesn't expect this book to alter the course of human events, he hopes that it will cause readers to think of free markets and government regulation in new ways.

It's a little expensive at $14.95 but is eligible for free shipping if you come up with a few others.

I don't like the current difinitions so I'll show you what I've deduced.

Abstraction is the process of defigning an unknown entity for use as a concept. As such, all concepts are epistemological representations of abstracts based on the relative knowledge base used to create it. The creation of the Abstraction process is by the natural biological function of the brain as it traverses its own existence. Through life, without a completed definition, this process can be distorted by many influences. I believe autism is a product of some of these distortions as well as various learning deficiencies, like dyslexia, and many sensory interperetation issues.

Another word for abstraction is "conception" since to conceive something is to create a concept with the same process.

An abstract is an identified entity's potential for the process of abstraction.

ITOE:

Concept: mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

...The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction..

Abstraction: a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.)

----

You seem to have defined abstraction well in your post...

I like your definition Chris. I have made an effort to show the principles of concept formation and abstraction in that definition using the example that follows. Please correct any logic errors or application errors that I might have made.

Politically Oriented Talk Radio

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

Then you notice something else about these folks. Some are crooning into the microphone in very sexy voices, “All county all the time”. Others are talking in a very serious manner about politics and the economy. By mentally focusing on their focus on subject matter you are able to isolate the people talking about politics from those talking about music and you can then integrate the individual people thus isolated from the group designated as “Radio Personalities” back into two integrated concepts, one concept being “Talk Show Hosts” and the other concept being “Radio Disk Jockies.” Again you have just indulged in concept formation. In addition, your process of isolating the people who are focused on politics and the economy into “Talk Show Hosts” as separate from those focusing on music is a process of abstraction.

Then you notice something else about the talk show hosts. The men and women include Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin. You notice that some Radio Talk Show Hosts according to their political convictions into two distinct groups. Ignoring the Radio Talk Show Hosts’ genders, weights, and hair color, you apply your mental focus to the political convictions of Al Franken, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Alan Colmes, and Rachel Maddow. Thus you can separate them from the rest of the Radio Talk Show Hosts and form the concept of “Liberal Talk Show Host”. Once again you have indulged in concept formation. The act of isolation on the basis of the hosts’ political convictions is a process of abstraction. Your mental focus has separated the attribute of liberal from the persons of the hosts themselves. By the same process you can designate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin as “Conservative Talk Show Hosts” by the abstract process of separating the attribute of conservative from the persons of the hosts themselves.

To once again clarify: the units are persons. The abstractions are Radio Personalities, Radio Disk Jockies, Talk Show Hosts, Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. This process also demonstrates the process of moving from a wide abstraction (Radio Personalities) to the more narrow abstractions of Disk Jockies and Talk Show Hosts, and thence to the even more narrow abstractions of Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. You could look at it as a demonstration of studying a specific subject of interest.

Chris, please feel free to correct any of my mis-conceptions.

Hey, another Tara fan? Cool. I am currently reading her "Viable Values". [...]

Me too, I am a Tara fan. Currently I am reading her Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. I'm also listening to her 1998 lecture course "Rationality and Objectivity."

I hope to see some threads here about Tara's Moral Rights and Political Freedom. I'm convinced that the answer to saving this country is in that book's ideas. Would be nice to head for Austin and just have a little chat with her, wouldn't it?

The best source for understanding Objectivist Epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. If you don't have the book, it is usually available at Barnes and Noble as well as on Amazon.com. If you just want an answer right now without going in search of the book, let me know and I will write it up for you. My reference, given that this is an Objectivist site, will be from Rand's book.

I ordered "The Objecvtivism Research CD ROM: The Works of Ayn Rand" on June 11, 2009 through Amazon.com. Their website has just left the order sitting there open and they've never sent out a notice that it was suspended. I check on it every once in while and so when I went looking for it from some other source, I found a notice at The Obectivist bookstore that it had been suspended.

Does anyone know about this, or know why it was offered and then withdrawn? I learned to like this info format after I bought George Reisman's CD ROM of "Capitalism", so seeing this one slip away has been pretty disappointing.

I recently bought Nathaniel Branden's cd lecture set through the TAS bookstore (YAY for the deep discounts they were offering since they are clearing out their book store - or else I would have had to wait several more months to save up for it!).

I have gone through the first few lectures, and just finished up "The Nature of God" lecture.

So far, it is a really great series of lectures. I have been listening to them in the car as a taxi the family around and do errands, since I seem to spend my life as a taxi driver lately it makes me feel like I am making good use of the time haha.

On another note, I am almost finished with his book "The Six Pillars of Self Esteem". Phenomenal! I wish this was required reading for every parent and teacher. I admit that when I bought the book I thought to myself "Well, I won't learn anything new here, but it doesn't hurt to reinforce what I already know." I was surprised there were quite a few things that I hadn't thought of before that he points out. I won't go into details, as those details would fall under the topic "too much information", but I can truly state that this book has helped me clarify a few things in my personal life that I hadn't really thought of in depth. (I found his book at HalfPrice, but I think I am going to call around the other HalfPrice bookstores and see if anyone else has a copy so I can have a spare to lend out to a few of my relatives.)

Anyway, I know many here have listened to the lectures, and has read this book. But for those that haven't, I really think both are worth the time and money.

That's a pleasant memory - the first exposure to those lectures. I am glad that you are having this opportunity now.

Bill P

The book and the lectures have been very helpful keeping me positive. I was laid off about 2 months ago, and though I am usually a pretty upbeat person, I have to admit for several weeks it really had me down. I am a recruiter, and usually have a good grasp on the job market for my field locally, but things have been really bad due to the economy in general. I realized that I was spending way too much time focusing on the negative things about my situation instead of working on how I could better my life. Listening to the lectures and reading the book both are helping to remind me that I am responsible for my life and own happiness regardless of external situations that can make things difficult. My goal - or you could even say purpose - right now is to focus on the other areas in life I can improve on. There are a lot haha, and I am grateful that Ayn Rand published her novels and essays, and that there are a lot of great people that have written about her philosophy.

The most important thing I am finding, especially with his book, is that Branden lays out a way to actually put Objectivism principles in practice to improve one's life. I am not saying other Objectivist authors haven't done that - but his Six Pillars book and Tara Smith's book on Ayn Rand's Ethics are the two I have read so far that show how on a very personal level why it is truly the only philosophy for living on earth.

Sometimes I feel like a nerd because I still get excited about what I am learning hahah. I hope my kids as they get older will experience the same "aha!" moments and excited I have had the past few years since my husband and I started studying the philosophy.

Hey, another Tara fan? Cool. I am currently reading her "Viable Values". I too have a copy of the 'Basic Principles of Objectivism" CD's but I bought a set with very poor reproduction so I'm anxiously awaiting the transcripted book. However, I'm still listening to them and I recently went through those about Government and Capitalism again. Found a connection between Branden's description of the way the economy grows under Capitalism and the fact that under fully free markets, the economy doesn't dislocate in "fits and starts" so people have time to respond to the coming changes in the economy. I read books and web sites by the enemy so I see what they are doing and this morning I found one that said, "Consolidate the Various "Adjustment Assistance Programs" into a Single, Broad-based Adjustment Program. In the New Economy, where all Americans are potentially affected by rapid economic change, it no longer makes sense to limit adjustment assistance only to those affected directly by a government action (e.g., defense cutbacks, a new trade deal). The various programs should be consolidated into the single WIA system. This consolidated, comprehensive system should be locally based, well-financed, and linked to ongoing efforts at skill upgrading, and it should use public-private partnerships to marshal government resources."

Now, obviously this is way not "Objectivism", but it is really interesting to me to see this description by the Progressive Policy Institute that was unable to point to non-government caused "rapid economic change". I suspect that we Objectivists need to jump on this subject with both feet as it is also heavily involved in the "green jobs" ecological movement that is going to help the Progressives get Marxism established in this country. If you are interested I found the site and the article when I was researching the "Athena Alliance" organization. Here is the site for any who are interested: http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=175&contentID=929

objective value is the objectification of value--i.e., identification

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant.

For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all.

Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them.

Well, here is how I see it: In ground combat my unit is taking machine-gun fire from the treeline. My objective evaluation is that that is an objective disvalue to me and other members of my unit. The enemy soldiers, though, see that as an objective value to them. I call in an airstrike and a jet fighter-bomber drops napalm on the enemy position. I see that as an objective value to me as I want to live. The enemy sees that as an objective disvalue to them for the same reason.

You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route.

The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler.

But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing. That's why I think this entire discussion is essentially "trite." However, you confuse people with false importance.

--Brant

You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values.

As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing.

No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals.

You might want to take a look at Tara Smith's "Viable Values" her book that expounds with great clarity on Ayn Rand's value theory. She makes it really easy to grasp the difference between objective and subjective and provides an excellent description of the foundational objective values without which valueing is not possible. That book will just flat out clear it all up for you.

objective value is the objectification of value--i.e., identification

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant.

For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all.

Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them.

Well, here is how I see it: In ground combat my unit is taking machine-gun fire from the treeline. My objective evaluation is that that is an objective disvalue to me and other members of my unit. The enemy soldiers, though, see that as an objective value to them. I call in an airstrike and a jet fighter-bomber drops napalm on the enemy position. I see that as an objective value to me as I want to live. The enemy sees that as an objective disvalue to them for the same reason.

You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route.

The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler.

But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing. That's why I think this entire discussion is essentially "trite." However, you confuse people with false importance.

--Brant

You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values.

As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing.

No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals.