Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

You are making a primary (a very elementary) mistake in summarizing Rand's thought, which is why I asked for a reference.

You did not give one that is relevant to your claim .

Do you have another reference?

(Here's a hint. It concerns the finite objects part.)

Your explanation of the process of abstraction is more-or-less correct, but it is not relevant to the question I asked. You make a very curious statement, too:

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.

So in Xray-speak, if you choose the means, that is objective, but if you choose the goal, that is subjective?

What happens if another person chooses means other than the ones you choose for the same goal? Is he or she thus choosing in an objective manner?

Michael

[Rich Engle]

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.

I am intimating to the idea of integrating emotional, physical, and intellectual centers of the body so that we don't live inside our heads and treat the rest of it like a bad apartment complex. Sit and try to not have a thought. Oops, you did it.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Selene]

Rich:

Clarence Darrow used to illustrate your point by telling jurors to "go into a corner and do not think of a red pony."

Most folks have the mental battle of their lives sitting alone trying not to think of a red pony while thousands of different red ponies are dashing through their minds.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

Sure, that's right, Adam.

We are very conversant with using our words and minds. The practices to integrate the rest of our, oh, "corporeal being" require much more work due to the fact that we don't practice as much.

For the record, at least dodging semantics for a moment, I do believe emotion to be a tool of cognition. I like using everything at once. Sometimes people call this "gut instinct," but that is kind of a simple model. On the other hand, I notice the only time my results go down is when I do not operate in that manner. Bruce Lee: "Don't think...feel."

Again, it can be approached only so far in words. But it's there.

Often, during attempts at discussion of this in the O-world, it goes South almost immediately, due to requests for "evidence," (which has to be developed from practices) and more often, just being told about irrationality. For me, it is about results in life, and that includes getting along with others. A good way to start looking at that is reading George Gurdjieff's work, but again, you will get run up the pole quite often for that. I liked the early Moscow talks, "Views From The Real World."

http://www.gurdjieff.org/views.htm

Awareness, real awareness, is something that is accomplished through the whole being, not just the mind. It's a matter of balance and it takes a long time. You work it every day.

It is very simple to notice when someone is only working through their mind.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Xray]

Xray,

You are making a primary (a very elementary) mistake in summarizing Rand's thought, which is why I asked for a reference.

You did not give one that is relevant to your claim .

Do you have another reference?

(Here's a hint. It concerns the finite objects part.)

Rand uses concept almost exclusively in the sense of category. I have edited my # 266 post accordingly. Would you elaborate on the finite objects part by directing me to the specific pages in ITOE, so that we are (literally in that case) "on the same page" with respect to the source ITOE. TIA.

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.

So in Xray-speak, if you choose the means, that is objective, but if you choose the goal, that is subjective?

What happens if another person chooses means other than the ones you choose for the same goal? Is he or she thus choosing in an objective manner?

Michael

There is no " Xray-speak". The means chosen are subject to proof/disproof in terms of whether they are suitable to achieve the goal.

As to your second question: the only criterion is whether the means chosen lead to the desired result.

Example: two people have the goal of packing their suitcase for a holiday trip. Person A packs it meticulously, way ahead, while person B throws in stuff at the last minute, in no particular order. But in the end, both have achieved their goal: a packed suitcase.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"The means chosen are subject to proof/disproof in terms of whether they are suitable to achieve the goal."

Therefore, in xray-land where they do or do not speak x-ray, randomness, luck or an outside force that can sway the choice selection do not exist...yes.

Man, I just gotsta git me a pare o them thar glasses!

Adam

[Rich Engle]

That's why it's important to keep an open mind and go out to learn stuff.

[Xray]

[Xray]:

"The means chosen are subject to proof/disproof in terms of whether they are suitable to achieve the goal."

Therefore, in xray-land where they do or do not speak x-ray, randomness, luck or an outside force that can sway the choice selection do not exist...yes.

Man, I just gotsta git me a pare o them thar glasses!

Excellent idea to get yourself a pair of glasses - I sincerely hope they'll help you see that your comment is totally unrelated to the issue being discussed.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

I dunno, I got what he was saying. Allowing or not allowing for the very real fact that the metaphysics can do things one is powerless over, or unaware of.

That's what I got out of it.

[Selene]

Exactly Rich.

Next time I am going to leave radioactive breadcrumbs for the old _ _ _ _ _!

[Xray]

quote name='Rich Engle' date='Jun 13 2009, 09:40 AM' post='72780']

Sure, that's right, Adam.

We are very conversant with using our words and minds. The practices to integrate the rest of our, oh, "corporeal being" require much more work due to the fact that we don't practice as much.

For the record, at least dodging semantics for a moment, I do believe emotion to be a tool of cognition. I like using everything at once. Sometimes people call this "gut instinct," but that is kind of a simple model.

When e. g. your gut instinct tells you that person X has not told you the truth about something, unless you have definite proof, your gut feeling remains speculation.

People who are lying often have revealing body language like e. g. averting the eyes, blinking their eyelids more often, etc. Persons experienced in reading body language will spot these signs, which is a cognitive act of observation, not an emotional act.

Bruce Lee: "Don't think...feel."

I doubt Bruce Lee used this phrase when sitting down to analyze a philosophical text.

Again, it can be approached only so far in words. But it's there.

Often, during attempts at discussion of this in the O-world, it goes South almost immediately, due to requests for "evidence," (which has to be developed from practices) and more often, just being told about irrationality. For me, it is about results in life, and that includes getting along with others. A good way to start looking at that is reading George Gurdjieff's work, but again, you will get run up the pole quite often for that. I liked the early Moscow talks, "Views From The Real World."

http://www.gurdjieff.org/views.htm

Awareness, real awareness, is something that is accomplished through the whole being, not just the mind. It's a matter of balance and it takes a long time. You work it every day.

Getting along with others is a subjectively chosen goal which may get you in conflict with other goals, given the circumstances. As an individual, goal-seeking entity, you (like everyone else), will then choose the goal which you believe serves your self-interest better. I don't use the term "self-interest" to convey a negative impression, but to denote a fact: the biologically hardwired natural law operating in all of us.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Therefore, in xray-land where they do or do not speak x-ray, randomness, luck or an outside force that can sway the choice selection do not exist...yes.

Man, I just gotsta git me a pare o them thar glasses!

Of course, you were talking about rose colored glasses, weren't you?

But I'm afraid glasses won't help. Your type of blindness is not subject to physical remedy; nor will they enhance comprehension.

Whatever sways or doesn't sway the choice, it's still the matter of whether the means selected and applied will achieve the goal, or fail to achieve the

goal. It is still the means (not the ends) that are subject to proof or disproof.

Next time I am going to leave radioactive breadcrumbs for the old _ _ _ _ _!

For instance, your means of quips and personal attacks are obviously designed for evasion. It may achieve your end of not seeing cherished

beliefs exposed as fallacy, but it is not the means to get at the truth.

This may work in "Selene land" (satisfy some psychological need), but in the end, the unwelcome truth evaded does not disappear just because you choose to interject irrelevant comments rather than respond to the issue and argument.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ok.

"...obviously..." x-ray has spoken, hear her declaration at about 1:20 of the vid - I didn't know she was bald!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand uses concept almost exclusively in the sense of category. I have edited my # 266 post accordingly. Would you elaborate on the finite objects part by directing me to the specific pages in ITOE, so that we are (literally in that case) "on the same page" with respect to the source ITOE. TIA.

Xray,

Not necessary to cite pages. Think percept for physical concretes. You'll find that all over the place in her writing.

Although Rand does not explicitly say it, everything I have read of hers points to the conclusion that a percept is the subconscious act of recognizing the individual identity of a physical whole. (She says that this act consists of subconsciously noticing very basic similarities and differences with all the rest of the input at the time and integrating this into a mental unit.) A percept is only integrated from input coming through the sense organs, thus it has to be physical. But it's where the law of identity kicks in, so to speak.

(I differ a bit from Rand in that I do not hold that all concepts ultimately boil down to percepts, and a few other thoughts based on my cognitive science studies, but that is a discussion for another time.)

btw - "Physical whole" (or something along those lines) is much better than "finite object" for describing the referent of a percept. Thus a color can be a percept of a wave length that has a specific identity, for example, and does not need to emanate from or bounce off of this "finite object" or that to be perceived as that color.

The means chosen are subject to proof/disproof in terms of whether they are suitable to achieve the goal.

You still have not explained what objective means, especially as regards proof, except for saying that a consensus of experts is needed.

Do you have another standard or is objective in Xray-speak (which seems to exist if it doesn't) a matter of vote by experts?

Michael

[Xray]

Although Rand does not explicitly say it, everything I have read of hers points to the conclusion that a percept is the subconscious act of recognizing the individual identity of a physical whole. (She says that this act consists of subconsciously noticing very basic similarities and differences with all the rest of the input at the time and integrating this into a mental unit.) A percept is only integrated from input coming through the sense organs, thus it has to be physical. But it's where the law of identity kicks in, so to speak.

(I differ a bit from Rand in that I do not hold that all concepts ultimately boil down to percepts, and a few other thoughts based on my cognitive science studies, but that is a discussion for another time.)

I differ from Rand on that too, and on many other things she wrote in ITOE. How for example, can the (to use Rand's words) "concept" of an audiovisual language symbol like e. g. "treatise" boil down to a percept?

Also, her theory of the method which she thinks people apply when forming concepts is questionable.

Remember the example where she elaborates of the concept formation of "length"?. ITOE, p. 11:

"If a child considers a match, a pencil, and a stick, he observes that length is the attribute thay have in common, but their specific lengths differ." (Rand)

The child may observe competely different things from what Rand believes. For example, he may only be interested in one object, the match, and try to take it.

Especially since Rand pointed out that the child doing the comparison "is still at the stage where he has no knowledge of words".

In that case I can guarantee Ms. Rand that the child will not even remotely grasp the concept "length" in the unmethodical experimental set-up she chose.

I have a lot of experience in language acquisition (foreign language in that case) since I work with children who often don't speak a word of German when they arrive - so I have a pretty good idea of what works in that field and what doesn't.

Rand's set-up is flawed in another respect too, for the three objects may have other things in common, for example the material "wood".

What does she expect a small child to "differentiate" here? A child having yet "no knowledge of words"? Forget it.

The correct method to choose here (with a child having enough knowledge of words to understand what is being said) is to get e. g. three identical sticks differing only in length. Length is relative, and then you can tell them to pick the "longest" stick, the "shortest" stick etc, make them arrange the sticks by length, do exercises with "longer than, "shorter" than, etc.

Even with all that said and done, it is a long way before a categorial term like "length" becomes part of a person's language.

As a rule, children that young are interested in finite objects and concrete relationships. The don't yet reflect on linguistic categories, musing e. g. about length that it "must exist in some quantitiy, but may insist in any quantity" (Rand p. 11).

Rand is also often remarkably imprecise.

For instance, look at the defintion she gave of "table":

"An adult definition of "table" would be: A man-made object consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other smaller objects."

Rand)

This definition is not precise enough since it it corporares shelves, which can have supports too. Rand's defintion does not differentiate.

(I differ a bit from Rand in that I do not hold that all concepts ultimately boil down to percepts, and a few other thoughts based on my cognitive science studies, but that is a discussion for another time.)

I would like to get into more detail here, but agree that this is an extra dicscussion which imo would fit better in the Epistemology thread. When I'm through reading ITOE, I'll get back to you on the topic there.

You still have not explained what objective means, especially as regards proof, except for saying that a consensus of experts is needed.

Do you have another standard or is objective in Xray-speak (which seems to exist if it doesn't) a matter of vote by experts?

Michael

Michael, you were in full agreement with with my post re "objective" on this very thread (# 154):

QUOTE (Xray @ May 4 2009, 05:17 PM)

"To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the objective facts regardless of what one prefers." (end quote)

Your answer:

Xray,

"We are in full agreement on this. Please understand that when I use the term "objective," it is always within this orbit of meaning." (end quote)

So why disregard your own words? How can we get forward in the discussion when you keep "changing into reverse gear", so to speak?

[ETA: the term "objective" in connection with facts is logically redundant and was only used stylistically for emphasis]. redudnant

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I still agree with that. But saying that "objective" is not what one prefers is not the same thing as saying "objective" is (or means) xxxxxxx.

So my question remains. What do you mean by objective?

Michael

[Selene]

xray - just answer the question posed by Michael in his last post.

I would suggest, as teachers, that we should state "one of" "...The correct method(s) to choose here..." is using sticks of equal length.

Moreover, we could easily run variants that are easily measured, e.g., color, material etc.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

"...obviously..." x-ray has spoken, hear her declaration at about 1:20 of the vid - I didn't know she was bald!

LMFAO.

"Ah, it is a perplexment...." -That Bald Guy

Getting along with others is a subjectively chosen goal which may get you in conflict with other goals, given the circumstances. As an individual, goal-seeking entity, you (like everyone else), will then choose the goal which you believe serves your self-interest better. I don't use the term "self-interest" to convey a negative impression, but to denote a fact: the biologically hardwired natural law operating in all of us.

I knew there was a reason I quit reading evolutionary psychology. It must have been the same primal drive that put me back on the fart jokes.

rde

I feel so...dirty...so...logically deterministic.

[Xray]

xray - just answer the question posed by Michael in his last post.

I have answered the question many times. Quoted Webster's defintioin with which he agreed.

"Rand's cardinal values: 'reason, purpose, self-esteem.'

Rands' cardinal virtues: 'rationality, productiveness [sic], pride'. "

I believe that the crazy Russian lady said that these are the proper values

qua man for man to achieve his most productive existence." (Selene)

I'm a bit curious. What does "man qua man" look like? Or a "woman qua woman" for that matter?

"Proper values?" Proper for what or whom? Why? What makes the values "proper?" Are they for "Man" (the category)?

How does this work since there is no such entity as "man?"

".....for man to achieve his most productive existence." You're talking about each individual. Right? Would it be a "productive existence" for an

individual to cut down some trees and build a house? Or would it be productive to leave the trees for animal habitat? Who decides these things?

By what rationale?

Suppose that an individual inherited a lot of wealth and didn't have to hit a lick of work to not only survive, but live quite well. He has more wealth

than he knows what to do with. "Ought" he go to work and produce more? What

is he to do with it? Give it to the "needy?" According to the "crazy Russian

lady", this would be abhorrent "altruism."

The point is, "man qua man" is a concept that may provide some entertainment in a fantasy novel, but in the real world, it is the absurdity of a "super race". If all are such "heroes", how does one know they are "heroes" when there are no "non-heroes of lesser value" for contrast?

The Taggart rails made of "Rearden metal" did not get laid by some "intellectual" thought process. It took "common labor" and a lot of it. While Rand was doing her writing, she had electric lights, running water, food and drink. Where did these come from if not from "non intellectual common labor?" Did Rand even ever hint at credit for these individuals?

In the reality of "human existence", there is endless array of individual mentalities, interest and talents. I am always aware of the benefits I

derive from this diversity. This individuality is precisely what every collectivist philosophy proposes to stamp out.

To imagine one collectivizing set of values fitting all is fallacious. It is the illusion of "life proper to man" in total disregard for all the variables in

individual identities. It leads to conflict including all the schisms and dissentions within the Rand camp.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ok.

Thank you so much.

You do not understand Objectivism as postulated by Ayn.

I was reasonable certain by your statements about teaching that you and I would wind up here.

Adam

[UncleJim]

A human being is a specific kind of living organism. As such a human being has no alternative but to live in accordance with his identity or suffer the consequences of not doing so. Since you are a human being; then, that determines what you must do to be considered a properly functioning human being.

Your values are determined by the kind of living organism you are. Since this is the case; then, your values and mine and theirs are the same. Our values are the same as every human who has ever lived, all human now living and all humans who will ever live.

"qua man" means "in accordance with human identity."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You do not understand Objectivism as postulated by Ayn.

Adam,

That is obvious.

I don't think it is her fault though.

I have not seen any evidence of her understanding cognitive priority and hierarchy in concept formation. It's one stolen concept after another in her explanations and questions. The jargon term is concrete-bound thinking, although I dislike that term for a variety of reason.

I get the sense that she was never encouraged to create a concept from the ground up, or trace a concept down one level after another in terms of fundamentals until she gets to the axioms.

In a sense, I feel bad for her. A lifetime of refusing (or being unable) to use any muscle will atrophy it. I suspect the abstracting capacity is the same since it is organic.

(I'm not joking or trying to flame, either. I see this as a damn shame...)

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

I agree with your analysis. It is a shame because she has the intellectual space or power.

She does not have the will as you phrase it to "...create a concept from the ground up, or trace a concept down one level after another in terms of fundamentals until she gets to the axioms."

It is a shame, but unfortunately, and it is my problem, I tend to get angry at the fact that it happened.

Well hope springs eternal.

I respect the way you approached her.

Adam

[Xray]

Ok.

Thank you so much.

You do not understand Objectivism as postulated by Ayn.

I was reasonable certain by your statements about teaching that you and I would wind up here.

Adam

You have not addressed one single point in my post.

If you are so certain that I don't understand "Objectivism as postulated by Ayn" then why don't you go ahead and try to refute what I said point per point?

Simply stating "You don't understand" without precisely explaining what exactly it is and why you think I don't understand - this is mere evasion on your part, Selene. You remind me of someone only putting a toe in the waters of truth without daring to take the plunge. Come on Selene, don't be so watershy - just give it a try!

Well hope springs eternal.

Well said, Selene, which is why I'll give it another try:

Does Rand postulate there are objective values?

Does she believe people can act wihout self-interest?

In case you answer these two questions with "yes", please give examples of objective value and non-self interest and we'll be right in middle of a compelling discussion about Rand's philosophy.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Well said, Selene, which is why I'll give it another try:

Does Rand postulate there are objective values?

Does she believe people can act wihout self-interest?

In case you answer these two questions with "yes", please give examples of objective value and non-self interest and we'll be right in middle of a compelling discussion about Rand's philosophy.

We had an interminable discussion already about "objective value" and "non-self interest." Slapping Ayn Rand's name on this and then doing it all again to no point won't resolve anything nor create "a compelling discussion about Rand's philosophy." All valuing is subjective but not all values. There is more than the valuer's experience: there is the commonality of human needs respecting the objective reality of the species and each individual member. And note I personally have little interest in quoting or referring to Ayn Rand, which is my preference. It has a lot to do with the use of my time and energy.

--Brant

Edited June 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede