Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh yes, h.s. is. Why? Because nature has never before found intelligence to be of high survival value in a species so h.s. is a fluke. There is no evidence of dinosaur civilizations.

--Brant

Natural Selection favors those characteristics which promote reproductive success. Intelligence has little to do with this. The ants, bees and cockroaches are much more effective reproducers than are humans. Long after humans are extinct, there will be ants, bees, wasps, termites and cockroaches.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What resource did you use to make this claim - ignorance?

Humans (homo sapien sapien) have been around less than a million years. Ants have been around a quarter of a billion years. I use their past reproductive success as a predictor for their future reproductive success. While my conjecture is far from certain, it is not base on ignorance either. Ants (and other insects) are very good at making copies of themselves and that is largely what Natural Selection is based on.

The total insect population of this planet outweighs the mammalian population by a thousand to one. Insects are not very bright but they sure do succeed at reproduction

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Intelligence has little to do with this.

What resource did you use to make this claim - ignorance?

Jim,

I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one. Great quip.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Natural Selection favors those characteristics which promote reproductive success. Intelligence has little to do with this. The ants, bees and cockroaches are much more effective reproducers than are humans. Long after humans are extinct, there will be ants, bees, wasps, termites and cockroaches.

If mankind ever creates space colonies he could conceivably outlast all other lifeforms on earth when the sun expands and burns earth to a crisp. It takes abstract knowledge to do that - something no other lifeform on earth has.

[Selene]

Correct - almost all my favorite sci fi persons posit the diaspora from Earth as our "salvation" lol

[Dragonfly]

Humans (homo sapien sapien) have been around less than a million years. Ants have been around a quarter of a billion years. I use their past reproductive success as a predictor for their future reproductive success. While my conjecture is far from certain, it is not base on ignorance either. Ants (and other insects) are very good at making copies of themselves and that is largely what Natural Selection is based on.

We are in fact not ignorant (ha ha ha) at all. Our complexity, which enables our amazing technological advances, is also our achilles' heel. When physical circumstances become really bad, the complex organism of a mammal is much more vulnerable than the relatively simple organism of an insect, let alone a bacterium. For example, it has been demonstrated that insects are much more resistant to radioactive radiation than mammals. 65 million years ago something struck the earth, killing most of the "higher" animals, including the until then highly successful dinosaurs. No problem for the insects or the bacteria. Sure, we have the advantage over the dinosaurs by our intelligence and our technology. But that won't save us from really bad disasters (there is for example no way to divert a really big asteroid), and you can be sure that in the next billion years some very bad things are going to happen.

[UncleJim]

Humans (homo sapien sapien) have been around less than a million years. Ants have been around a quarter of a billion years. I use their past reproductive success as a predictor for their future reproductive success. While my conjecture is far from certain, it is not base on ignorance either. Ants (and other insects) are very good at making copies of themselves and that is largely what Natural Selection is based on.

We are in fact not ignorant (ha ha ha) at all. Our complexity, which enables our amazing technological advances, is also our achilles' heel. When physical circumstances become really bad, the complex organism of a mammal is much more vulnerable than the relatively simple organism of an insect, let alone a bacterium. For example, it has been demonstrated that insects are much more resistant to radioactive radiation than mammals. 65 million years ago something struck the earth, killing most of the "higher" animals, including the until then highly successful dinosaurs. No problem for the insects or the bacteria. Sure, we have the advantage over the dinosaurs by our intelligence and our technology. But that won't save us from really bad disasters (there is for example no way to divert a really big asteroid), and you can be sure that in the next billion years some very bad things are going to happen.

Look in a mirror - you are a human-being. Sure we are different from ants - so what?

Edited May 19, 2009 by UncleJim

[Xray]

Ayn Rand: TVOS, p. 15:

"... there is no such entity as "society", since society is only a number of individual men " (end quote)

Rand is right re a category being no entity.

But the term "society", does not denote a number of individuals. The term, society, denotes interpersonal relationships of two

or more individuals as opposed to each of the individuals existing in isolation from each other

While Rand lambastes the attitude of holding "the good of society" as standard of value, she commits the same error in postulating "life proper to man", treating a category "Man" comprising a number of individual entites as if it were a finite entity.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand: TVOS, p. 15:

"... there is no such entity as "society", since society is only a number of individual men " (end quote)

Right on! A category is no entity.

The same applies to "Man" as infinite category. It is no entity either, but comprises a number of individual entities.

While Rand lambastes the attitude of holding "the good of society" as standard of value, she commits the same error in postulating "life proper to man", treating a category as if it were a finite entity.

Even if she had said "a man" instead of only "man" it's still conceptual thinking as all words except proper nouns are concepts. Even proper nouns tend to the conceptual. When we refer to Thomas Jefferson up pops our idea of Thomas Jefferson, probably with an image. But if we say someone's name we don't know and don't know anybody by that name then we devolve into mere sexual classification assuming the name is not sexually ambiguous.

You're going to have to decide if you want to attack Rand's ideas or conceptual thinking and stop using the former as a Trojan horse to attack the latter.

--Brant

ideas make our brains go

[Selene]

Brant:

Excellent point. I have never been so amazed at the lack of argumentation skills, which include logic [under logos in Aristotelian models], that "professional teachers" exhibit.

Then I realize, that they are not taught to think, or even to communicate well, they are taught methodology, much of which is flat out wrong.

The agenda based methodologies that are inculcated in teachers verges on crimes against humanity.

Adam

[UncleJim]

Ayn Rand: TVOS, p. 15:

"... there is no such entity as "society", since society is only a number of individual men " (end quote)

Rand is right re a category being no entity.

But the term "society", does not denote a number of individuals. The term, society, denotes interpersonal relationships of two

or more individuals as opposed to each of the individuals existing in isolation from each other

While Rand lambastes the attitude of holding "the good of society" as standard of value, she commits the same error in postulating "life proper to man", treating a category "Man" comprising a number of individual entites as if it were a finite entity.

The subject in the quote you provided is life - not man.

[Selene]

Jim:

So, for the record, the quote cited by xray, is:

"... there is no such entity as 'man', since man is only a number of individual men "

Adam

[UncleJim]

Jim:

So, for the record, the quote cited by xray, is:

"... there is no such entity as 'man', since man is only a number of individual men "

Adam

That is his claim - Does not make much sense does it.

[Selene]

Jim:

Was the quote from the crazy Russian lady wrapped in Kryptonite?

Because it appears that Super Woman's x-ray vision was blinded by the light of truth....er ....hmmm

guess there is no explanation.

Adam

[UncleJim]

Jim:

Was the quote from the crazy Russian lady wrapped in Kryptonite?

Because it appears that Super Woman's x-ray vision was blinded by the light of truth....er ....hmmm

guess there is no explanation.

Adam

Xray is a lady? Missed that part. Thanks for the correction.

[Xray]

Even if she had said "a man" instead of only "man" it's still conceptual thinking as all words except proper nouns are concepts.

Even proper nouns tend to the conceptual. When we refer to Thomas Jefferson up pops our idea of Thomas Jefferson, probably with an image. But if we say someone's name we don't know and don't know anybody by that name then we devolve into mere sexual classification assuming the name is not sexually ambiguous.

You're going to have to decide if you want to attack Rand's ideas or conceptual thinking and stop using the former as a Trojan horse to attack the latter.

--Brant

ideas make our brains go

"Conceptual thinking" - every thinking is "conceptual" - for there exists no thinking without concepts.

Rand uses the term "concept" almost exclusively in the sense of "category".

Ferdinand de Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, called "signifié" the mental image created in mind on hearing a sound chain/reading a chain of letters ("signifiant"). What Saussure called "référent" is the finite objective existent.

The clear distinctions made by Saussure are missing in Rand's dealing with the subject. For a category does not refer to a specific entity.

For example, the category "fork" exists only in mind. You don't eat with the category, fork. You eat with "a" specific objectively existing finite fork of a specific identity. An actual relationship is always with a finite objective existent. A category is never an objective identity. It exists only in mind.

And in the case of a specific fork, one does no eat with the term 'fork' either, but the term is the mental language symbol denoting a finite objective existent.

"Concept: something conceived in the mind : thought, notion" (Webster's)

"conceived idea of" pretty much nails it down. To be sure, a category is a concept, but not concept per se.

A concept (conceived idea of) "a man" (one) is the differentiating set of characteristics that identify a particular, objective finite individual

existing outside of mind.

A concept of the category, "man" is a mental grouping of arbitrarily and subjectively selected similarities existing only in the mind.

The problem lies in Rand's succumbing to the illusion of categorial identity ("Man"), treating it as if it were a finite entity, presenting her laundry list of alleged objective values and virtues to be accepted and acted upon by that illusionary entity.

Take a look at any ideology and you'll find the same fallacy:

The Christian religion speaks of "Man" as a sinful creature and offers its own laundry list of values and virtues for life "proper to Man".

Communism's idea of "life proper to Man" is a bit different of course.

And so on.

"Proper" here is a mere subjective value judgement, and the illusion of categorial identity does not lead to indvidualism, but to its opposite: collectivism.

All ideologies are based on the fallacious concept of categorial identity. Can you think of an ideology not operating on this fallacy?

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

VELCOME to the amazing morphing crazy Russian's cabaret!

"...the illusion of categorical identity does not lead to individualism, but to its opposite: collectivism."

Ahh, so you hate Rand because she is a collectivist!

I never saw that - congratulations you have finally convinced me!

Adam

[Xray]

Jim:

So, for the record, the quote cited by xray, is:

"... there is no such entity as 'man', since man is only a number of individual men "

Adam

Does not make much sense does it.

Of course it doesn't make sense since Selene distorted it.

Here is the correct statement: there is not such entity as "Man", since "Man" (as e. g. in "life proper to man") refers to a category comprising many individual entities. Collective identity is an illusionary concept denying the idea of individualism.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

VELCOME to the amazing morphing crazy Russian's cabaret!

"...the illusion of categorical identity does not lead to individualism, but to its opposite: collectivism."

Ahh, so you hate Rand because she is a collectivist!

I never saw that - congratulations you have finally convinced me!

Adam

I don't hate Rand, Selene. Her philosophy does contain several truths.

I'm analyzing her thought system sine ira et studio, going by her own words: "Emotions are no tools of cognition."

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Analysis by what objective standard?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand applies the term "concept" referring both to "categories" and to "finite objects". Her idea of concept is what Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, called the "signifié", the mental image created in mind on hearing a sound chain/reading a chain of letters ("signifiant"). What Saussure called "référent" is the finite objective existent.

Xray,

That's an amazing statement. Could you reference where Rand claimed that?

Michael

[Rich Engle]

"Emotions are no tools of cognition."

Eh...but the emotional center is. And even if you look at them as by-products they still contain useful information that you can check out, as NB more or less said it.

[Xray]

Rand applies the term "concept" referring both to "categories" and to "finite objects". Her idea of concept is what Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, called the "signifié", the mental image created in mind on hearing a sound chain/reading a chain of letters ("signifiant"). What Saussure called "référent" is the finite objective existent.

Xray,

That's an amazing statement. Could you reference where Rand claimed that?

Michael

The reference to Saussure is from me - it was he who (as early as in 1916) coined the terms signifiant /signifé/référent.

For example, in the language sign "table", the sound chain/chain of letters is the "signifiant", which evokes in mind a mental picture ("signifié) of a piece of furniture with legs to put on food and other things. The real entity, the concrete object is the "référent". (IIRC, the English translations are (signifer/signfied/ referent).

The lexicon entry "table" defines the term symbolizing the category.

Terms like table can refer both to categories and finite objects. Mom telling little Johnny to wipe "the" table is referring to a specific, finite object belonging to the category table, with its own set of characteristics.

"Entity identity" always refers to the finite object. A category is no entity.

In language acquistion, the encounter with the finite object precedes categorizing. When for example, a child is shown a ball (or a picture of a ball), a finite object (Saussure's referent) for the first time, accompanied with the sound chain, the sound chain will eventually become associated to the object via the idea of the thing, the mental image created in mind (signifié), and in a second step it is broadened by mentally grouping objects of similar shape together. Categorizing is grouping by similaritr, and what I miss in Rand's elaborations on the subject is the clear distinction between entity identity and category.

For example, she says, in ITOE, p. 11/12:

The same principle directs the process of formng concepts of entities - for instance, the concept "table". The child's mind isolates two or more tables from other objects, by focusing on their distinctive of characteristic: their shape. (end quote)

Again, it is not clear what she is talking about: category or entity identity?

Once the encounter with a specific entity in connection with the sound chain has formed the idea of the thing in the child's mind, there is no need anymore to then "isolate two or more tables from other objects in order to form a concept of an entity" - the concept (the idea of the thing) is already formed.

In saying abstracting as in entity identity, we're talking about the mental separation, the mental isolation of a specific set of

characteristics. The term, abstracting, means "away from" all other sets of characteristics. The idea of the thing (the abstract) exists in the

mind, whereas, the entity abstracted is objectively real.

When e. g. I think of my new colleague Mrs. X , I mentally separate/isolate a specific set of charactersistics distinguishing her

from "all other sets of characteristics" identifying other individual entities.

The set of specific characterstics I have in mind when thinking of Mrs X may differ from those my other colleagues have when thinking of her, but

the process remains the same: mental isolation of a specific set of characterisitics sufficient enough to mentally identify the entity. The

entity Mrs X is the real, the idea of Mrs. X exists in the mind.

The important distinction between category and individual entity identiy can't be stressed enough when analyzing Rand's thought system, which rests on categorial identity ("life proper to Man", "Man qua Man").

There is no such entity as "man." To treat the subjective category as the real is to deny the reality of individual identity and all the concepts that

go with it. Each individual is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity.

Objectively, "proper", or "improper" (right or wrong) refers to whether the means selected are suited or unsuited to achieve the goal subjectively

chosen. The means selected may be objectively evaluated as suited or unsuited, but the choice of the goal to pursue is ALWAYS a personal subjective

choice. The idea of "life proper to man" has no objective corresponent. It is illusion. The most that can be said of it is that is simply the personal preference of what one prefers to exist.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Xray is a lady? Missed that part. Thanks for the correction.

In that case x-ray should be xx-ray.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Xray is a lady? Missed that part. Thanks for the correction.

In that case x-ray should be xx-ray.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Good one - thanks for the laugh!

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Emotions are no tools of cognition."

Eh...but the emotional center is. And even if you look at them as by-products they still contain useful information that you can check out, as NB more or less said it.

Are you referring to things like instinctive reactions to a possible danger? Like for example, on hearing an unknown sound at night, we will become instantly alert since it might signal danger.

I used the phrase "emotions are no tools of cognition" in the context of analyzing a thought system, where I believe emotions can indeed prevent from seeing clearly. Which is why I use "sine ira et studio" as a guideline here.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray