Logical Structure of Objectivism

[merjet]

If could refute it, you would long since have done so. Simply calling something hogwash won't do the trick.

Been there, done that. You sound like Wile E. Coyote saying, "I wasn't burnt to a crisp or squashed flat in any prior episodes." :D

Edited November 25, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

View PostSelene, on 25 November 2009 - 08:29 PM, said:

Then I can "analyze" them en toto.

Apparently you do not check your words before you emit a communication.

I am sure I do not.

For once, you are correct, Selene. Indeed you do not check your words (it is "in toto"), let alone your premises.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ah, "the so is your mother attack."

I have no idea what that phrase means. (?)

I told you that I would respond to that which I thought was worthy of response. So far, you have not provided more than a thought or two (2) that engaged me enough to respond since that toothless declaration.

Toothless, yeah right. What's toothless about the entity identity thinking principle? The opposite is the case: it has very strong teeth, but I get the feeling that you have no idea what it is about even if it bit you.

Isn't the focus on the terms "entity" and "identity" central in Rand's thinking too? Too bad she did not put it to work as a thinking discipline, for if she had, she would have seen the fallacy of life "proper to man", with "man" not referring to an entity, but to a category. Presenting a 'one set for all' moral values for all members of a category is the very contradiction of individualism.

To refresh your memory (from the post you refer to as toothless):

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." (Rand)

"A thing is — what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity" (Rand))

(You can add these as the # 4 and # 5 premises and get to work analyzing them "in toto").

Continued:

"At the root of it all, it's the same process of entity identity by mentally abstracting by a specific SET OF DIFFERENTIATING CHARACTERISTICS.

In mentally abstracting a human individual, we note a set of characteristics peculiar to that individual. Each such identity is a finite volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity.

Each volitional entity attributes value to this or that according to beliefs and personal preference infinitely variable between individuals and in time and circumstance.

Thus, do we understand the source and cause of subjective valuations. Agree? If not, why not?

On the other hand, with entity identity left out of the thinking equation, there appears to be magical and mystical valuations ("values") without definitive source and cause. How do you go about finding what is in the "national interest", or "life proper to man?"

If you can find these ("standard") "objective values" without interjecting personal preference, please do explain exactly where and how you "discovered" these "universal values".

Do you actually believe that the natural fact of personal preference and subjective valuations can be set aside?

Suffice it to say, the real is each finite individual that attributes value. The notion of an expressed or implied "infinite entity", "God's will, "good of the country", "life proper to man", is a direct denial of finite entity identity." (end quote).http://www.objectivi...t=0entry83231

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

As you remember, this was after you threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to a duel.

A morally-acceptable duel would start with the challenger issuing a traditional, public, personal grievance, based on an insult, directly to the single person who offended the challenger.

The challenged person had the choice of a public apology or other restitution, or choosing the weapons for the duel.

The challenger would then propose a place for the "field of honour".

The challenged man had to either accept the site or propose an alternative. <<<<We have only gotten that far Ms. Xray

Your memory is inaccurate, Mr. Selene.

To refresh it: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7703&st=260&p=82628entry82628

View PostSelene, on 31 October 2009 - 10:01 AM, said:

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

Xray: I see you have switched roles again, Mr. Selene. Now it is the dueling hero, lol.

One has to give you that: you are entertaining in a way. Every forum seems to have posters enjoying the role of jester. ;)

But Selene, sorry to spoil the fun for you here: we are not going to duel at the Epistemology field.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue. What you perceived as a 'gauntlet' was a shovel. You'll need it.

But if you absolutely want some competition, okay then, we can bet on who is going to find out the truth faster. Agree?

So I'm off to "check (the) premises" pun intended: a suitable field at Epistemology where we can discuss it.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7703&st=260&p=82628entry82628

Did that and now it would be your turn, but you failed to show up.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Who decides what the priority standard is?

You do -- for yourself.

Bingo!

In short, values are subjective.

[Xray]

Xray, how can you know "the principle applies without exception"? You areclaiming the search for even a lower value is actually a search for a higher--that any value acquired is worth more than the cost in the mind of the acquirer prior to the aquisition.consequences." (Brant) This fits with your subjectivism but Rand was not a subjectivist, primarily, and considered the objectivity of consequences."

Brant, I'm no subjectivist; strawman "subjectivists" do not alter natural law.

Natural law is without exception. The natural law of self-interest motivating actions is biologically hardwired.

Ergo, to refute a claim of natural law, i.e., no exception, one needs to present the alleged exception. In this case, it means presenting an instance of action motivated by non-self interest interest (more for less) in order to validate the concept of "sacrifice."

Otherwise, "sacrifice" is a synonym for a trade of a lower value for a higher value.

Can you produce such an exception and validate it by words and actions?

You can say that you value A over B and claim that you would "sacrifice" A for B, but word arrangements do not necessarily conform to reality.

Suppose A is chocolate ice cream and B is vanilla. Suppose you intend to eat icecream and prefer the taste of chocolate over vanilla, which would you select? Suppose you select to eat vanilla instead of chocolate because it pleases your host. Obviously, you value pleasing your host more than pleasing your palate. Once again, the choice of the higher value.

An arrangement of words may claim to believe anything, however, subjective claims are often belied by objective actions.

There is another natural law at work here: It is literally impossible for one to act against what one believes to be true. If there is a conflict between words and actions, look at the actions to tell the actual motivating belief every time.

In short, self interest incorporating trading less valued for more valued is hardwired, natural law, hence, 100% applicable in all times, places and circumstances. The notion of "sacrifice" as in giving up something valued more for something valued less is just plain fallacy; a very popular fallacy to be sure, but a fallacy no less.

"Altruism" is a religious word symbol for subordination which is dependent upon the concept, "superior being."

From this is born the idea of "sacrifice" (more for less) as supplication.

Thus, the validity of the term, "sacrifice" is dependent upon the concept of superior being and subordination. To accept the term as valid, as representing an aspect of reality, is to accept the god idea as true. Ergo, Rand's acceptance of the term, "altruism" as valid necessarily regarded it as true. She then absurdly set out to denounce that which she had already accepted as true. This not a very tenable position.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Unfortunately I have no more time than to say sacrifice is simply giving up one value for a lesser value. I am not evaluating any one's motivation, but the objective result of an action.

--Brant

[merjet]

Who decides what the priority standard is?

You do -- for yourself.

Bingo!

In short, values are subjective.

The standard being discussed here is a standard for truth. Xray shows again that she believes truth is subjective.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just counted. Of the posts made today on this thread, here is the breakdown:

Xray - 10 posts

Merlin - 6 posts

Selene - 5 posts

GS - 2 posts

Dragonfly - 1 post

Brant - 1 post

That is 25 posts and the issue has become another stale preach-fest by Xray on her dogmatic "all values are subjective." And there is mockery.

What does this have to do with "The Logical Structure of Objectivism"?

Every thread where Xray gets comfortable, she spams this dogma, irrespective of the issue at hand. I am thinking of limiting her to 5 posts a day.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

I just counted. Of the posts made today on this thread, here is the breakdown:

Xray - 10 posts

Merlin - 6 posts

Selene - 5 posts

GS - 2 posts

Dragonfly - 1 post

Brant - 1 post

That is 25 posts and the issue has become another stale preach-fest by Xray on her dogmatic "all values are subjective." And there is mockery.

What does this have to do with "The Logical Structure of Objectivism"?

Every thread where Xray gets comfortable, she spams this dogma, irrespective of the issue at hand. I am thinking of limiting her to 5 posts a day.

Michael

LOL. I was thinking yesterday of posting to note how far we had wandered from my original question which started the thread, about the status of the manuscript "Logical Structure of Objectivism."

Limiting Xray to 5 posts of substance (that is, with actual content) would not be a constraint. She has not come close to that many in a single week, as far as I have noted. A constraint on her total number of posts (without regard to content) would be.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, how can you know "the principle applies without exception"? You areclaiming the search for even a lower value is actually a search for a higher--that any value acquired is worth more than the cost in the mind of the acquirer prior to the aquisition.consequences." (Brant) This fits with your subjectivism but Rand was not a subjectivist, primarily, and considered the objectivity of consequences."

Brant, I'm no subjectivist; strawman "subjectivists" do not alter natural law.

Natural law is without exception. The natural law of self-interest motivating actions is biologically hardwired.

If it is "biologically hardwired" then all actions and values are objective with a thin veneer of felt subjectivity for motivation, also hardwired. This also appears to be determinism.

Michael, my suggestion is to confine her to threads she starts. She'll have to come up with real value to engage anyone. One thread she did start went to, what, 1100-1200 posts? That will never happen again. If I say something on a thread and she wants to engage me she can quote me on a new thread.

--Brant

to the ghetto

[jeffrey smith]

LOL. I was thinking yesterday of posting to note how far we had wandered from my original question which started the thread, about the status of the manuscript "Logical Structure of Objectivism."

Limiting Xray to 5 posts of substance (that is, with actual content) would not be a constraint. She has not come close to that many in a single week, as far as I have noted. A constraint on her total number of posts (without regard to content) would be.

Bill P

I would propose renaming this thread "Clip Art", because that's the predominant feature lately.

As for Xray and 5 posts of substance--I'm not sure I've seen that many from her in all the time I've been on the forum.

Jeffrey S.

[jeffrey smith]

She'll have to come up with real value to engage anyone.

--Brant

to the ghetto

But Brant, since she thinks all values are subjective, how can she come up with anything of real value--since they will be of value only to herself.

Jeffrey S.

[Brant Gaede]

She'll have to come up with real value to engage anyone.

--Brant

to the ghetto

But Brant, since she thinks all values are subjective, how can she come up with anything of real value--since they will be of value only to herself.

Jeffrey S.

Well, if so there will be entertainment value in her trying.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

She'll have to come up with real value to engage anyone.

--Brant

to the ghetto

But Brant, since she thinks all values are subjective, how can she come up with anything of real value--since they will be of value only to herself.

Jeffrey S.

Well, if so there will be entertainment value in her trying.

--Brant

Thought "The Myth of Sisyphus" was a comedy, eh, Brant?

Bill P

[Xray]

Xray shows again that she believes truth is subjective.

It is a non-sequitur to suggest that pointing out the subjectivity of values implies believing truth is subjective.

There is no such thing as subjective truth.

Example:

It is true (i. e. a fact) that there exist apples and oranges.

Person A values apples more, person B values oranges more.

These subjective choices in no way alter the fact that apples and oranges exist.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Xray

[Daniel Barnes]

It is a non-sequitur to suggest that pointing out the subjectivity of values implies believing truth is subjective.

X-Ray is quite right.

[Selene]

Xray shows again that she believes truth is subjective.

It is a non-sequitur to suggest that pointing out the subjectivity of values implies believing truth is subjective.

There is no such thing as subjective truth.

Example:

It is true (i. e. a fact) that there exist apples and oranges.

Person A values apples more, person B values oranges more.

These subjective choices in no way alter the fact that apples and oranges exist.

"It is true (i. e. a fact)..." soo it was true that the Earth was flat when it was a pre Copernicus Earth...?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

OK, it's done.

Xray doesn't need to say "all values are subjective" or goad others or ask leading questions more than 5 times a day on OL.

Maybe now there will be a quality increase in her posts (should she wish to continue).

One of the main problems with people who constantly preach that all values are subjective is that they usually have poor objective standards of quality. Hopefully this measure will start to teach her a bit of objectivity in her posting values.

Since this restriction is in effect, I feel it is unfair to mock her nonstop. So I request that all please try to use a bit of balance in interacting with her.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

"It is true (i. e. a fact)..." soo it was true that the Earth was flat when it was a pre Copernicus Earth...?

If you agree with Rand's "contextual" theory of certainty it was!

Edited November 26, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

One of the main problems with people who constantly preach that all values are subjective is that they usually have poor objective standards of quality.

Actually, that all values have a subjective element is objectively demonstrable.

This is because the adoption of a value, like a goal, requires a decision.

And decisions cannot be logically derived from facts. Yes, decisions pertain to facts. They can be constrained by, or made possible by facts. But they cannot be derived from them. This is the well-known dichotomy between facts and decisions. Thus there is always a subjective element in decisions.

Anyone who cares to dispute claim this is welcome to demonstrate the logical means by which they derive a decision from a fact, or any set of facts.

(If they can't, I suggest they don't bother posting in reply to this. If they can and do, I can bask in the satisfaction that I have met one of the greatest philosophers of all time, right here on the Objectivist Living forum! For indeed they will be world-famous once news of their philosophical breakthrough spreads).

If adopting a value depends on a decision, and decisions cannot be derived objectively, then it seems reasonable to say that values cannot be derived objectively.

While I am not familiar with X-ray's previous posting habits on this forum, it seems to me on this thread at least her critics' main beef with her is that she spells poorly sometimes and that she makes perfectly reasonable arguments.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Brant Gaede]

It is a non-sequitur to suggest that pointing out the subjectivity of values implies believing truth is subjective.

X-Ray is quite right.

The implicit assumption is she hasn't been implicitly contradicting herself elsewhere earlier. I've been reading her since she came on board and that's been my impression. Lately she's had to trim her sails, as above. Similarly, when she couldn't refute certain values as being objective she defined those (food, air, sex, shelter, clothes) out of the equation rather than admit the existence of any objectivity in values at all. Etc. I could go on and on and have done so for hundreds of posts which she has answered if at all merely by repeating her subjectivity mantra, refusing to differentiate between valuing--all valuing is subjective--and values, most of which are subjective, some objective.

--Brant

basically through with this and her: any one interested can go read what's been already written

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

I don't want to go into the merits of the issue of value in this post, other than to say that if a decision is subjective, so is the decision to use this or that idea, or this or that symbol, or even the decision to call this or that objective (including "facts"). So if it is a subjective decision to call an idea objective and a fact, what does that say about the nature of objective and facts? I say the standard for these things deserves a little bit more than oversimplification.

I don't mention this to discuss the merits of the idea per se. This is merely an example of what can be said. My point is that between our different views, there are important things to talk about and examine.

At any rate, after almost 1.5 k of Xray's posts, some patterns become pretty clear. Although her opinion is similar to yours on this, there is a difference. You have a notion of what you are talking about and she has shown the cognitive behavior of a parrot (time after time in post after post). Just because you both mouth the same words, this does not mean you are both on the same intellectual level. You discuss. She parrots and goads and asks 1001 questions all the time like a kid who asks "Why?" after every statement to irritate his parents.

There's also the element of honesty. I have seen you change your view from a previous statement (like we all do at times) and I have seen you trip up and be uncomfortable and do some funny logic, but I have never seen you try to fool people into believing you did not say something you said. This person Xray has—and claimed she found nothing wrong with it when she was caught red-handed.

Then there is manipulation. And the fact that she is bringing out the very worst in very intelligent people who are normally of goodwill. (I believe she does that on purpose, too.)

I could go on, but I am tired of talking about Xray. Let's just say this. You and Dragonfly (who hold many similar views) are one thing and she (depsite saying some similar things) is quite something else—a much inferior something else, both intellectually and morally.

I don't mind discussion, even contentious discussion and discussion I do not agree with, but I am tired of seeing good discussions polluted with bursts of spam-like BS. Five posts of that crap a day is more than enough for now.

Michael

[Xray]

It is a non-sequitur to suggest that pointing out the subjectivity of values implies believing truth is subjective.

X-Ray is quite right.

The implicit assumption is she hasn't been implicitly contradicting herself elsewhere earlier. I've been reading her since she came on board and that's been my impression. Lately she's had to trim her sails, as above. Similarly, when she couldn't refute certain values as being objective she defined those (food, air, sex, shelter, clothes) out of the equation rather than admit the existence of any objectivity in values at all. Etc. I could go on and on and have done so for hundreds of posts which she has answered if at all merely by repeating her subjectivity mantra, refusing to differentiate between valuing--all valuing is subjective--and values, most of which are subjective, some objective.

--Brant

basically through with this and her: any one interested can go read what's been already written

A value is merely the noun form referring to what a person values. Alan Greesnpan values money while Tolstoy gave it all away because at one point he decided it was of no value to him. This example alone shows that D'Anconia (voicing Rand) got it wrong in his speech about money being an "objective" value).

It has also been pointed out here many times (not only by me) that there is a difference between biological necessities and personal ethical values.

There is also a difference between biological necessities and attributing value or not to them.

For example, a person may not attribute value at all to being born and to everything that comes with it.

Human beings can also decide to end their lives, thereby valuing non-existence over existence.

Rand herself stated that where ther are no alternatives, no values are possible.

Now if "a being of volitional consciouness" (AS, 1012) chooses death over life, this is clearly a choice between alternatives, hence an act of attributing value. Rand possibly disapproving of that choice does not magically transform her different subjective values into "objective" ones.

Note also that she pointed out (AS, 1013): "But a plant has no has no choice of action" and that there is no alternative in its function. (From which it follows that a plant can't seek values).

Edited November 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Actually, that all values have a subjective element is objectively demonstrable.

This is because the adoption of a value, like a goal, requires a decision.

And decisions cannot be logically derived from facts. Yes, decisions pertain to facts. They can be constrained by, or made possible by facts. But they cannot be derived from them. This is the well-known dichotomy between facts and decisions. Thus there is always a subjective element in decisions.

Anyone who cares to dispute claim this is welcome to demonstrate the logical means by which they derive a decision from a fact, or any set of facts.

(If they can't, I suggest they don't bother posting in reply to this. If they can and do, I can bask in the satisfaction that I have met one of the greatest philosophers of all time, right here on the Objectivist Living forum! For indeed they will be world-famous once news of their philosophical breakthrough spreads).

If adopting a value depends on a decision, and decisions cannot be derived objectively, then it seems reasonable to say that values cannot be derived objectively.

These are key points.

Daniel,

I don't want to go into the merits of the issue of value in this post, other than to say that if a decision is subjective, so is the decision to use this or that idea, or this or that symbol, or even the decision to call this or that objective (including "facts"). So if it is a subjective decision to call an idea objective and a fact, what does that say about the nature of objective and facts? I say the standard for these things deserves a little bit more than oversimplification.

If people (for whatever reason) subjectively decide to call this or that "objective", this does not affect the nature of objective and facts.

For example, Teddy in 'Arsenic and Old Lace' no doubt would have called it a "fact" that those buried in the cellar were victims the Yellow Fever.

As for real life, history offers enough examples of ideologists calling 'objective facts' what are simply subjective beliefs.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Xray