Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, Xray, I don't think you'd be prevented from making similar jokes. It's hard to believe that anyone would object to them, either.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

You need to get into video.

I have a feeling that quirky stuff will gain quite a following on YouTube.

I'm serious.

Here are some free programs (just Google the names for the home pages and download links, and sites like CNET have most all):

Audio:

Audacity

Screencast:

BB Flashback

Jing

CamStudio

Video editing (sometimes called Slideshow):

Windows Movie Maker (already comes with Windows)

iMovie (already comes with Mac)

Memories on Web (great effects)

Photostory 3 (Microsoft and allows you to do bg music tracks from music bank)

Slideshow 6 for YouTube (allows many audio tracks)

TraxAxPC (allows many audio tracks)

These are all really good programs. And there are oodles more out there.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

So essentially Ms. Xray has sunk to the OMG Caine Mutiny Strawberry Robbery:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3zgeQmzV9kk

"From your example (I did understand you used the full hour as examples to demonstrate your idea of how the algorithm works here, but still your premise was wrong, for it does not work that way at all):

I'll take you through it step by step so you can clearly see the error.

For clarity's sake, here is the quote again from your example:

Quote

Bill P: So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...

Like I said, this is not not how it works here at OL, even if you put in other times.

To demonstrate it to you, I'll take those random times you listed above as examples: (let's make the day Monday).

Nr. 1: 0100

Nr. 2: 0207

Nr 3: 0209

Nr: 4: 1103

Nr. 5: 1927

So per your algorithm calculation, after using up my Monday posts, the next time I'll be able to post (quoting you: ("ONE POST") is at 0100 Tuesady, and I can make the next post at 0207 on Tuesday. That's what your calculation says.

While you are correct on the time when I can start a new posting cycle, you are completely wrong in assuming I can make only ONE POST and then will have to wait until another post will become possible at 0207."

Sad

Adam -

She has wandered beyond the pale of rational discussion long ago, and sees no sign of returning. I see no benefit in even attempting discussion with her. When Xray wants to treat others with some respect and read what they say before pretending to "explain how they are wrong" she will modify her behavior. AFTER SHE CHANGES HER BEHAVIOR I will consider responding to her or acknowledging her existence. Until then - I won't waste any more time on Xray.

I agree, it's a sad situation for a human to engage in the sort of behavior we have seen consistently from Xray.

Bill P

You were just plain wrong in assuming in your initial post:

So, for example, if you post at 0100, 0200, 0300, 0400 and 0500 on Monday, you will next be able to post (ONE POST) at 0100 Tuesday. Another post will become possible at 0200 Tuesday, etc...

However you slice it, there is no restriction whatsoever in terms of "another post" (after the first one in the new cycle) becoming possible only after some time has elapsed. Any attempt on your part at trying to backpedal on this is futile.

I will not even take the time to outline, painstakingly, the many errors you have made in this post, again, Xray.

I will instead point out: If you are actually correct in your claim at the end - - - then you have absolutely nothing to complain about, even though you have continued to complain for so long and with such emotional volume. (Unless you just want to complain because the status message doesn't give you a complete discussion and description of the algorithm and the implications of your recent posting history in the light of the algorithm. Which would be a very silly request, indeed.)

So - if you think your last few sentences are correct - - then it's time for you to realize that you don't have anything of significance to complain about (except for things of your own doing - and for those you should complain to yourself).

Bill P

[9thdoctor]

View PostBrant Gaede, on 30 December 2009 - 02:39 PM, said:

Gee, Xray, the burning at the stake was, like, a joke. That was obvious. I didn't think you'd use it as an excuse to get sophistical. You didn't do that with my long ago suggestion that you come to Arizona to share the cask of whatever a la Edgar A. Poe in my cellar.

A lot is revealed in jest, Brant.

As opposed to the E. A. Poe example, so clearly placed in the realm of fiction, the "stake" example you used was far closer to reality - for in history, people indeed have been burned at the stake, either for stating truths or merely for not fitting the mold of whatever "morality" was prevalent in the societies they happened to live in.

The topic was fair game for Monty Python, did you really feel it was a threat?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdifIjZoBUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdifIjZoBUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdifIjZoBUE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I’d be more worried if someone I’d had a conflict with offered me a glass of Amontillado.

Prosit Neujahr!

[Xray]

So - if you think your last few sentences are correct - - then it's time for you to realize that you don't have anything of significance to complain about (except for things of your own doing - and for those you should complain to yourself).

Bill P

There are still glitches, for I keep getting contradictory messages from the software.

Imo the posting problem is due to program malfunction and/or independent arbitrary settings controlling the operation, maybe both.

It looks like some parts of the program are not talking to other parts.

Michael Stuart Kelly : I didn't even realize that this particular function worked the 24 hour

calculation way. But I checked and that's the way it worked with my posts and those of another. It says "today", but it includes posts in the count from yesterday within up to 24 hours"

If the "premium posters" have no number of posts per 24 hour time limit, therefore, no start/stop parameters, how does the program "select" the 24 hours in which the posts of each poster is counted? What "today" is used as reference, and how could it apply to all posters with or without posting limits?

Just exactly how does the program calculate the top posters of the day except with a 'midnight to midnight' day? Since I am relegated to posting in a 24 hour cycle independent of a regular day, how does my name even show up on the top posters of the day list since I'm relegated to a different posting format?

If there are, let's say 10 posters each with a separate 24 hour cycle, by what computer calculations can top posters be determined for a single "today" when there is no single "today" for the ten posters?

It is claimed that none of the posters have regular day count, yet, there stands the "today's top posters" thing. Doesn't make sense.

MSK: "Here is a very clear case where a word ("today") has more than one meaning. It might sound wrong to our everyday usage ears, but it is 100% accurate as used by the geeks who made this program.

"Today" to us means a 24 hour period we are currently in that starts at12:00:01 AM and ends on 12:00:00 PM.

"Today" to the geeks means a sliding 24 hour unit we are currently in."

Does this mean if I set my email program to send at 11 PM today, on Jan 1/2010, that the email may be sent anytime within 24 hours of set time? Certainly not.

Top posters on a given day can be known only by a regular calendar day. That's the only frame of reference which makes sense.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

She's hung up on objective values. If she ever acknowledges there are some everything collapses.

I'm afraid the boot is on the other foot, Brant. Suppose the concept of objective value is revealed as fallacy, what would this mean for Objectivism?

The objective value premise is that "values" (valuations) are objectively discovered as opposed to subjectively created.

But isn't this is abdication of self-responsibility?

The Crusades, Inquisitions and all sorts of violent horrors are "justified" as "duty" and "moral obligation" to "God's will"; to "values" that were "discovered." None of these atrocities happened on the rationale, "I subjectively prefer."

Since "objective value" is a myth, it's all a matter of personal preference believed to be otherwise. With each believing this "morality" to be "objective" with the "moral duty" to pursue, the inevitable is the violent clash of opposing "objective moralities."

Herein, lies the root of conflict. Subjective value is not the problem. The problem is denial of this truth.

If Rand is really promoting individualism, freedom and free market, why not leave it at non initiation of force and non coercion? If someone tells me that he/she

is all about individualism and freedom while handing me a laundry list of lifestyle dos and don'ts, I'm going to have to question a bit.

I’d be more worried if someone I’d had a conflict with offered me a glass of Amontillado.

Prosit Neujahr!

It looks like I had good reason to become suspicious at the offer and decline it.

Reading Poe's story made me curious as to what Amontillado tastes like. But when J. Riggenbach wrote sherry tastes sickenly sweet, I lost interest, having no sweet tooth, neither in food nor in drink.

I like it that the champagne served where we were invited yesterday was real dry.

Prosit Neujahr ('Happy New Year) to you to as well ND, and also to the other members of this global village 'cyber -tertulia'.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

To say there are no objective values is to say there is no objective knowledge because everything is subjectively filtered one person to the next. This is anti-science too. The tentativeness of scientific knowledge is acknowledgement of the difficulty of obtaining it not that reality is plastic. An objective value is a value that is universal to the species qua life such as food and water and air. These are subjectively valued always and the further away we get from these basics the more tentative and potentially controversial they become. Xray says these basic values aren't values at all but doesn't or hasn't said that they are not subjective values because, I suspect that would reveal a contradiction. If you are breathing and someone tries to smother you with a pillow you will suddenly put great albeit subjective valuing on the objective value relative to your own life to get oxygen to your lungs and expel waste gas. Subjective value means how much value is put on any value, objective or subjective, at any one time. In a real sense it is quantitative. Objective value is never quantitative it just is--is there for the species generally. An individual can disvalue an objective value as in a suicide. To find an objective value a universal human need qua life has to be identified.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

To claim all morality is subjective is to denigrate knowledge of right and wrong. Objective morality requires objective knowledge of human universals, again qua life. This requires very modest knowledge about human being because there are such great cultural differences in the world. It is easy to obtain the non-initiation of force principle, for instance, but to build a skyscraper of morality on top of that foundation is to create a tower of moral babble sustained by facile words if not, ironically, force. Ayn Rand just kicked you out of (her) paradise.

--Brant

Edited January 1, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Xray decries the use of force to enforce one's morality on another. Okay, that is wrong as long as it isn't legal/retaliatory. But it is also Objectivism.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Xray is a closet Objectivist because implicitly she comes out for reality and truth. Too bad she's all tied up in knots and fails in her quest. She's too sure she's right so she keeps referencing what's in her head instead of out there.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

You can of course define values as including elementary necessary physiological functions and conditions, but that's in fact only distracting from the real discussion. Now to me a value is something you can choose to pursue or not to pursue, and not something that is just a necessity for mere biological survival. But let suppose you call these conditions for biological survival also "values". The real point of the discussion is then of course again the switch from "mere survival" to "survival as man qua man" and the question whether there exist objective values for the concept "qua man", because that is of course the disputed claim made by Objectivists. The argument that the elementary "values" (mere survival) are objective as everyone needs them does not imply that the "higher values" ("survival as man qua man") are also objective, that is a non sequitur and it is demonstrably false.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Since Rand started her discussion in VOS with the values of a plant, I think it is safe to say the Objectivist view of values includes more than volition.

Also, since concepts are hierarchical in Objectivism, a general rule of thumb for objectivity is that if a higher level value undermines an elementary level value, it is not objective. Context itself and other values scaled within the context of the human organism also play a part.

If you can align all so that the higher does not undermine the lower, you have a totally objective higher level value. Using the rational method of cognition for handling conceptual knowledge, for instance, fits this criterion.

In my first paragraph, I refer to conceptual volition. I happen to think that choosing a course of action involves a lower level volition that a plant is entirely capable of, but if I remember correctly, Rand defined volition only in terms of a conceptual mind. This is one of the knots that actually does exist in this theory.

You can't define volition only in terms of conceptual thought, then say that values are defined by volition, then say that a plant has values but does not have volition.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

DF, your formulation is more particularized and nuanced than Xray's. And much better put.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

Also, since concepts are hierarchical in Objectivism, a general rule of thumb for objectivity is that if a higher level value undermines an elementary level value, it is not objective.

But the reverse is not true, if a higher level value does not undermine an elementary level value, it doesn't become objective by that fact.

If you can align all so that the higher does not undermine the lower, you have a totally objective higher level value.

There are many different higher values that can be chosen and that don't undermine the lower values. The fact that different people can choose different higher values makes these values by definition subjective. "Viable" is not the same as "objective".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Once again we are at the problem of what standard. "Objective" in Objectivism is always in relation to a standard.

In order to make a statement like the following:

"The fact that different people can choose different higher values makes these values by definition subjective. "Viable" is not the same as "objective".

... and have it be valid, you would have to be using the same meaning for "objective." And then, you would have to mention the standard you are using.

I get the feeling you are using a different meaning for "objective" than Rand did.

A real easy conclusion I can make from your statement above is: If you can choose it, it ain't objective. And "by definition" at that.

Not only is that not the standard Rand gives for something to be objective/subjective, I also don't agree with it. To me, volition is not a synonym for subjective.

Michael

[Xray]

Your statement A: "Rand correctly states that 'good' is relative to evaluation from the facts of reality. Which plain and simple meams, that good is no absolute."

"The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man."

How could you have gotten your statement A from that quote?

I realize that my using 'absolute' here was not the correct term.

In her first quote, Rand correctly points out that "good" is nothing inherent in "things in themselves".

Let's exercise it through with a simple example, and visualize a chocolate cake.

Per Rand, good is no attribute of the cake in itself. So if someone says, "the cake is good", how do they arrive at the conclusion? Per Rand, "the good" "is" an evaluation from the facts of reality.

Okay, let's take two individuals, Joe and Jim, "evaluating" the cake by tasting it. Joe says it is good because he likes the taste, Jim says it is not good because he does not like the taste. Another individual, Jake, says he wouldn't even taste because he doesn't like anything with chocolate.

Now how is Rand going to exercise it through with her alleged "'rational' standards of value" derived from the facts of reality? Is there an "objective flavor" all "ought to" value?

She says "the good" is "an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value".

Now where is it here, "the good" which, nota bene, must be "discovered"?

If that good/bad "evaluation" does not even work with a simple chocolate cake, how is it supposed to work with more complicated matters?

The "facts of reality" are that people value different things, and no way leads to "the good" which Rand believes is "an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man."

In Rand's universe, it boils down to: 'those decision are the good ones which are the 'rational' ones. And Objectivism (translated ("I")) tells you what those rational, good ones are. (translated: those which I prefer). Often, Galt's speech is mentioned as if that constituted any proof of veracity. Rand's Roundabout of circular argumentation.

Is what Peikoff propagates here the "rational standard of value"? Remember this is the intellectual heir Rand chose (it can be assumed that she would have called her decison 'rational' as well):

Edited January 2, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: if objective value is revealed as a fallacy that's effectively the end of Objectivism--that would break the bridge between metaphysics/epistemology and ethics. This is where the philosophy gets ought from is. Orthodox Objectivism claims way too much ought IMHO, but that doesn't mean it's basically wrong. All right actions are ought from is. Are you not aware that if there is not an objective base for morality anything goes? So what is your "ought"? And from what "is"? Brant ought to agree with Xray?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If Objectivist morality is just one of countless subjective objective moralities extant on poor old earth why focus on it? Why come here with the message that objectivity in morality and values is an illusion when all such are illusions? If morality is a universal human need, call it what you will, isn't that an objective need and, if so, don't we need the best morality we can get? And what makes "best" best? What is the reference? Human beings being human qua living and survival as ---------------

--Brant

and the beat goes on

[Dragonfly]

Xray: if objective value is revealed as a fallacy that's effectively the end of Objectivism--that would break the bridge between metaphysics/epistemology and ethics. This is where the philosophy gets ought from is. Orthodox Objectivism claims way too much ought IMHO, but that doesn't mean it's basically wrong. All right actions are ought from is. Are you not aware that if there is not an objective base for morality anything goes?

Yup. Ain't life a bitch? We just have to make the best of it, guided by a morality that is the result of our genes and our upbringing and sometimes perhaps a bit of thinking. Perhaps it would be nice to have some reference, a standard, so that we had a solid basis for our morality. For many centuries such standards were given by diverse religions, as a dictate by a God, but today that is for many people no longer a serious possibility. So they look for alternatives, like philosophies that promise to give such a basis by scientific arguments. Alas, that is also an illusion. We'll have to look for more or less like-minded people and try to convince them that our views about morality are best suited for the kind of society that they also would prefer, without claiming to have some ultimate, objective basis, but using pragmatic arguments without rationalizing. Compromises are unavoidable, as there will be always many people who disagree with our views. Utopia doesn't exist, so don't wait for it, else blue turn you will, as Ba'al always says.

[Selene]

Xray: if objective value is revealed as a fallacy that's effectively the end of Objectivism--that would break the bridge between metaphysics/epistemology and ethics. This is where the philosophy gets ought from is. Orthodox Objectivism claims way too much ought IMHO, but that doesn't mean it's basically wrong. All right actions are ought from is. Are you not aware that if there is not an objective base for morality anything goes?

Yup. Ain't life a bitch? We just have to make the best of it, guided by a morality that is the result of our genes and our upbringing and sometimes perhaps a bit of thinking. Perhaps it would be nice to have some reference, a standard, so that we had a solid basis for our morality. For many centuries such standards were given by diverse religions, as a dictate by a God, but today that is for many people no longer a serious possibility. So they look for alternatives, like philosophies that promise to give such a basis by scientific arguments. Alas, that is also an illusion. We'll have to look for more or less like-minded people and try to convince them that our views about morality are best suited for the kind of society that they also would prefer, without claiming to have some ultimate, objective basis, but using pragmatic arguments without rationalizing. Compromises are unavoidable, as there will be always many people who disagree with our views. Utopia doesn't exist, so don't wait for it, else blue turn you will, as Ba'al always says.

Exactly, DF, as to your statement on a "Utopia". However, and I have always found this fascinating in the objectivist movement, an aversion to politics which is a practical path to a small "utopia".

I would have these protracted arguments with the left anarchists at the anarchism conferences we held in the 60's at Columbia. It would be five in the morning after two days of none stop argument. Finally, I got to the point that an "o-ist" type of anarchism would clearly allow all the left wing anarchist into the community corpus because they could establish their communalist life style 100% on their own land within the aggregate community. No oist would interfere with their community.

However, our community would not be permitted in their communalist utopia because no private property would exist. Their side had to admit, not that it changed their minds, but they did admit that in theory, the oist society would be more free than the communalist society.

Politics has been called the art of compromise. Not necessarily a valid assessment, but accurate in that in a complex limited constitutional republic such as the US, compromise on most legislation is required.

A smart state would have almost no laws. It is no accident that the US Constitution has immense restrictions on the Congress. Congress shall make no law..,.Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended...; Article 9 is replete with limits, ie., No bill of attainder...No ...No...

Freedom exists where there are almost no yeses in the powers that the state may employ on the individual citizens.

You make excellent points to consider DF.

Adam

[Selene]

This is from your post #666 <<<<< Damn that is really interesting lol - You can argue the devil made you do it!

"I realize that my using 'absolute' here was not the correct term."

I wonder if you realize how many times you have done this. You possess phrases to apologize and correct the apparently "innocent" repeated errors. There comes a point where that rings rather quietly to a discerning mind like mine.

You generally, immediately after wiping the crumbs off your hand as you take it out of the cookie jar, launch back into your patterned system of "argument" [for lack of a better term].

For example:

"In her first quote, Rand correctly points out that 'good' is nothing inherent in 'things in themselves'.

Let's exercise it through with a simple example, and visualize a chocolate cake." {Here you use your "teaching" enrollment technique..."Ok kids let's all take our scissors and ...." which is fine, but really obvious.}

"Per Rand, good is no attribute of the cake in itself. So if someone says, "the cake is good", how do they arrive at the conclusion? Per Rand, "the good" "is" an evaluation from the facts of reality."

Here is where you may be making an intellectual error, which we all make if we honestly analyze and critique others thoughts as well as our own. I believe you are transposing two different "goods" when you apply it to cake.

The "good" that is objective is the cook's determination of how to make the cake. The cook must 1) have to know what ingredients to mix; 2) what type of device to place the ingredients in; 3) how much time the cooking of the cake will require and, most importantly, how much to charge you for the cake in order to make a profit. Those are the objective attributes of the cake.

Your consistent transportation of words with different meanings and contexts is a serious problem in the way you reason.

"Okay, let's take two individuals, Joe and Jim, "evaluating" the cake by tasting it. Joe says it is good because he likes the taste, Jim says it is not good because he does not like the taste. Another individual, Jake, says he wouldn't even taste because he doesn't like anything with chocolate.

"Now how is Rand going to exercise it through with her alleged "'rational' standards of value" derived from the facts of reality? Is there an "objective flavor" all "ought to" value?"

Regardless of how Ayn would have, using her principles, a rational individual would not apply the concept of an "objective flavor" as it has no ethical or moral relevancy. It is subjective in the way others, on other threads, have illustrated over and over again.

Therefore, it makes me very suspicious of your integrity when you attempt to use it here.

You continue stating,

"She says "the good" is "an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value".

Now where is it here, "the good" which, nota bene, must be "discovered"?

Nota bene is a Latin and Italian phrase meaning "note well"^{[nb 1]}. It is in the singular imperative mood, instructing one individual to note well the matter at hand. (The Latin plural form is notate bene.) In present-day English, it is used to draw the attention of the reader to a certain (side) aspect or detail of the subject on hand, translating it as "pay attention" or "take notice". It is often written in the abbreviated form: N.B.

So now we see one of your errors, so let us take notice of your next "argument":

If that good/bad "evaluation" does not even work with a simple chocolate cake, how is it supposed to work with more complicated matters?

The "facts of reality" are that people value different things, and no way leads to "the good" which Rand believes is "an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man."

"...good/bad 'evaluation' does not even work with a simple chocolate cake,..." {this is just as irresponsible an argument as the statement that making money is easy, see reality and Francisco's speech}.

In Rand's universe, it boils down to: 'those decision are the good ones which are the 'rational' ones. And Objectivism (translated ("I")) tells you what those rational, good ones are. (translated: those which I prefer). Often, Galt's speech is mentioned as if that constituted any proof of veracity. Rand's Roundabout of circular argumentation.

Is what Peikoff propagates here the "rational standard of value"? Remember this is the intellectual heir Rand chose (it can be assumed that she would have called her decison 'rational' as well):

I knew Peikoff back in the sixties, not personally, but within the same social and political groups. He was pretty forgettable then and I haven't changed my opinion much.

Additionally, you again assume that I would accept Peikoff's statement of what is right and or wrong because Ayn picked him as her heir which is an absurd argument which does not apply to me at all.

Argument by association does not work, I mean come on Ms. Xray you are a government employed teacher, that ranks below call girl on my list of professions.

Adam

Edited January 2, 2010 by Selene

[Xray]

Brant Gaede: To claim all morality is subjective is to denigrate knowledge of right and wrong. Objective morality requires objective knowledge of human universals, again qua life. This requires very modest knowledge about human being because there are such great cultural differences in the world. It is easy to obtain the non-initiation of force principle, for instance, but to build a skyscraper of morality on top of that foundation is to create a tower of moral babble sustained by facile words if not, ironically, force. Ayn Rand just kicked you out of (her) paradise.

Watching Peikoff yell and scream makes me glad I never set foot in that "paradise".

Peikoff is the "orthodox". The rest are ostracized dissidents.

Brant: Xray is a closet Objectivist because implicitly she comes out for reality and truth.

People can call their philosophy anything they like, Brant. 'Objectvism' as a label could make you think it is about facts and truth. But when you start with its chaotic epistemology (what is more basic for a philosophical thought system than epistemology?) the multiple contradictions just jump out.

Brant: She's too sure she's right so she keeps referencing what's in her head instead of out there.

I have given countless references to what is "out there". Latest example is the link to the Peikoff video in post # 666.

DF, your formulation is more particularized and nuanced than Xray's. And much better put.

I'm interested in your comments on the content:

Dragonfly: You can of course define values as including elementary necessary physiological functions and conditions, but that's in fact only distracting from the real discussion. Now to me a value is something you can choose to pursue or not to pursue, and not something that is just a necessity for mere biological survival. But let suppose you call these conditions for biological survival also "values". The real point of the discussion is then of course again the switch from "mere survival" to "survival as man qua man" and the question whether there exist objective values for the concept "qua man", because that is of course the disputed claim made by Objectivists. The argument that the elementary "values" (mere survival) are objective as everyone needs them does not imply that the "higher values" ("survival as man qua man") are also objective, that is a non sequitur and it is demonstrably false.

Do you agree with what DF stated, Brant?

MSK:

Dragonfly,

Once again we are at the problem of what standard. "Objective" in Objectivism is always in relation to a standard.

In order to make a statement like the following:

"The fact that different people can choose different higher values makes these values by definition subjective. "Viable" is not the same as "objective".

... and have it be valid, you would have to be using the same meaning for "objective." And then, you would have to mention the standard you are using.

I get the feeling you are using a different meaning for "objective" than Rand did.

A real easy conclusion I can make from your statement above is: If you can choose it, it ain't objective. And "by definition" at that.

Not only is that not the standard Rand gives for something to be objective/subjective, I also don't agree with it. To me, volition is not a synonym for subjective.

Michael,

Dragonfly's statement is correct: "The fact that different people can choose different higher values makes these values by definition subjective". (DF)

It refers to the fact that values are the result of personal choice, hence subjective.

Your inference: "A real easy conclusion I can make from your statement above is: If you can choose it, it ain't objective. And "by definition" at that" (Michael)

is an non-sequitur.

For it is about subjectively attributing value to this or that, not about what is chosen.

So when I choose a pair of new shoes fom a selection, my choice does of course not make the pair of shoes "subjective", but my personally attributing value to this pair over others makes them of value to me, i. e. a subjective value.

I get the feeling you are using a different meaning for "objective" than Rand did.

Has Rand ever defined 'objective'?

And then, you would have to mention the standard you are using.

Which means that a standard is the result of a choice as well.

Galt says man "has to hold his life as a value" (AS, 1012)

Telling others they "have to" hold (whatever it is) as a value is nothing else than imposing one's own values on others.

For centuries, ideologists have done the same: "You have to value X, or else ..." (you will end up in hell, or perish like the 'enemies' in Rand's revenge fantasy Atlas Shrugged; just think of the scene where Dagny cold-bloodedly shoots the guard).

According to Rand, morality is "a code of values to guide man's actions". That scene is AS gives an illustrative example of how that code of hers looks like. Of what is to be expected in case others don't happen to share that code.

Anyone can call their philosophy 'rational' and their values objective. Anyone can tell others that their own very personal, emotional choices are 'rational', and possibly succeed in making them believe it. Everyone who has read B. Branden's book will know what I'm referring to here (see page 290 in TPOA).

Edited January 2, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: The "higher values" DF refers to are indeed more problematic than values needed for mere biological survival. Our knowledge of them is more tentative. I value art; I value music. I don't really care if they are objective or subjective values. I'm even willing to accept (edit: no I'm actually not) that all values are subjective except those basic ones: objective values subjectively valued. If I'm hungry food is more valuable to me than when I'm satiated. I consider food an objective value to the human organism valued subjectively. My taste for Mexican food is subjective on all counts. Orthodox Objectivism is anti-individualism because one is supposed to swallow other people's subjective values as objective. This is the curse of Atlas Shrugged: value conformity. The real purpose of the novel is to batter down collectivism, altruism and irrationality so conform to that purpose as soldiers in a war. That was needed in the 1950s and 60s because of an intellectual/cultural blockade, but now something else is needed. The Ayn Rand Institute and such blocks the way, however, still demanding conformity to the catechism, explained for several prices. Try to be rational qua Objectivism while at the same time explaining Leonard Peikoff's rantings pretending to have something to do with Objectivism from on high as the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. That lead sinks the boat.

--Brant

edit: that I'm willing to let slide the question of objective ethics or the possibility of higher objective values generally, it's because I'm not interested in arguing the point. As long as Xray keeps arguing for the absence of any objective values, I'm not interested in a broader discussion. I'm sure those values are there but properly identifying them is difficult. I consider rational self interest to be an objective value, so too a free society. Etc. But when you get down to details devils are everywhere.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[merjet]

But when you start with its chaotic epistemology (what is more basic for a philosophical thought system than epistemology?) the multiple contradictions just jump out.

The pot calls the kettle black.

It refers to the fact that values are the result of personal choice, hence subjective.

Your inference: "A real easy conclusion I can make from your statement above is: If you can choose it, it ain't objective. And "by definition" at that" (Michael)

is an non-sequitur.

Michael is correct; Xray makes the non-sequitur. Food is necessary for biological survival, an objective need. However, what particular kinds of food to eat (meat and potatoes, rice and beans, etc.) is usually a matter of choice. Xray's subjective/objective dichotomy fails again.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

But when you start with its chaotic epistemology (what is more basic for a philosophical thought system than epistemology?) the multiple contradictions just jump out.

The pot calls the kettle black.

It refers to the fact that values are the result of personal choice, hence subjective.

Your inference: "A real easy conclusion I can make from your statement above is: If you can choose it, it ain't objective. And "by definition" at that" (Michael)

is an non-sequitur.

Michael is correct; Xray makes the non-sequitur. Food is necessary for biological survival, an objective need. However, what particular kinds of food to eat (meat and potatoes, rice and beans, etc.) is usually a matter of choice. Xray's subjective/objective dichotomy fails again.

Correct. However, even if you wished to do the behavioralist bean counting Skinnerian bullshit, you would still come out with an objective medium diet that would be the most healthy for the most amount of the "beans".

That is nice information, but utilized to make public policy it leads to tyranny. There are objective values. Ms. Xray continues to ask whether Rand defined objective.

For that to continue to appear in her post at this juncture is unexplainable to me.

I think Ayn very clearly defined it. Whether her definition is the best is a different question.

Adam

Edited January 3, 2010 by Selene