Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[BaalChatzaf]

When we speak about life we are not speaking about something else. When I say life I am speaking about life. It matters not whether I'm speaking about my life, your life, or any other occurrence of life.

From this position when I say life is the "standard of value" this applies equally well to whatever living organism we may be discussing. Absent life value has no meaning or application.

Please make yourself plain. Are you talking about life in general, existence of life in general or some particular lives? There is no life in general. There are various kinds of lives with differing natures and requiring differing conditions to exist or continue to exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

When we speak about life we are not speaking about something else. When I say life I am speaking about life. It matters not whether I'm speaking about my life, your life, or any other occurrence of life.

From this position when I say life is the "standard of value" this applies equally well to whatever living organism we may be discussing. Absent life value has no meaning or application.

Please make yourself plain. Are you talking about life in general, existence of life in general or some particular lives? There is no life in general. There are various kinds of lives with differing natures and requiring differing conditions to exist or continue to exist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You have not conceptualized what life is. You are talking about 'living organisms'. And yes there are very many different kinds of 'living organisms'.

The difference between what to means to be alive and to not be alive is called life. Life is the the difference between the animate and the inanimate. And the animate is the different one because it has an additional distinguishing characteristic. That characteristic is - life. The inanimate has no issue with survival, the animate must provide what its life requires or it will become inanimate. The needs of survival of the life of any animate organism is what the human conceptualization of life was created to describe.

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

[BaalChatzaf]

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Once again you conflate the concept of X with X itself.

Here is some free advice and take it for FWIW to you: do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes confusion.

Real Things exist outside our intellects. Abstractions are brain farts. A perturbation of neurons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 7, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Xray]

Basically, the concept "chair" stands for all chairs in all sizes, colors, materials, etc. Countless referents. You arrive at the concept "chair" initially from looking at a lot of stuff, noticing similarities and differences with other existents, then making a mental grouping and a category (called "concept").

Does Rand think "category" and "concept" are the same?

[UncleJim]

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Once again you conflate the concept of X with X itself.

Here is some free advice and take it for FWIW to you: do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes confusion.

Real Things exist outside our intellects. Abstractions are brain farts. A perturbation of neurons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't read my first paragraph.

[BaalChatzaf]

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Once again you conflate the concept of X with X itself.

Here is some free advice and take it for FWIW to you: do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes confusion.

Real Things exist outside our intellects. Abstractions are brain farts. A perturbation of neurons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't read my first paragraph.

You said "life is a human creation". There was life way before humans. The concept of life is a human creation. I take people exactly, literally, precisely, unswervingly at their word. I do not read between lines, I do not interpret and I do not supply implicit meanings. As you have written, so I have read.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

You see life is a human creation. As are time, space, distance, love, hate, child kidnapping raping murdering bastard, religion, god, heaven, hell, etc.

Once again you conflate the concept of X with X itself.

Here is some free advice and take it for FWIW to you: do not reify abstractions. Doing so causes confusion.

Real Things exist outside our intellects. Abstractions are brain farts. A perturbation of neurons.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You didn't read my first paragraph.

You said "life is a human creation". There was life way before humans. The concept of life is a human creation. I take people exactly, literally, precisely, unswervingly at their word. I do not read between lines, I do not interpret and I do not supply implicit meanings. As you have written, so I have read.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Life is a word and only humans create words. The issue is not "does life exist?" or "what is life?" The issue is "why does life exist?" "Why did the human mind create 'life'?"

The human mind also created space, time, distance, medicine, cyclotron, god, heaven, hell, etc. etc.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

We all subjectively value all the time, but imo the idea of "obejctive" value is an illusion.

Xray,

I shall ask again, since you didn't answer.

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

[Xray]

I shall ask again, since you didn't answer.

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Calling something (or someone) "good" or "evil" is a subjective value judgement.

Baal's post sums it up well:

"Good and Evil are judgments, not facts. In nature there is no good and no evil, there are only facts. It takes a human or a sentient at least to render the judgment whether something is good or evil. And that judgement is made from an individual viewpoint (hence subjective). A storm with much rain may save a farmer's crop (he thinks it good) but cause a dam to burst (many think that bad). The storm is the storm and it happened. Whether it is good or evil, that depends on who is making the judgment and why." (end quote)

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Calling something (or someone) "good" or "evil" is a subjective value judgement.

Xray,

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

[Xray]

Calling something (or someone) "good" or "evil" is a subjective value judgement.

Xray,

Do you mean good and evil are 100% illusory?

Michael

The term illusory does not apply here, since we all do judge actions as 'good' or 'evil' all the time.

Example. At work, John is something like the boss's pet, snitching on his colleagues whenever he can. The boss uses John as an informant and praises his 'good' work. The colleagues loathe John, judging his actions as really 'evil'.

So the subjective value judgements passed by the boss as well as by the colleagues are not "illusory" at all - they have an objective referent, a finite identitiy (John) whose actions they judge. Only their subjective judgements differ.

If you absolutely want to enter the word 'illusion' into this argumentation, I would say that it is an illusion to believe 'good' or 'evil' exist as objective values /non-values "out there", only to be discovered like one would discover a new planet.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... they have an objective referent, a finite identitiy (John) whose actions they judge. Only their subjective judgements differ.

Xray,

I want to get away from your repeated opinions about what is subjective or not, and get to agreeing on meanings. After the meanings are agreed upon will those opinions have any real intellectual value as ideas. Until then, they are merely repeated opinions.

Since you agree that there is an objective referent, do you also hold that the causality involved in the referent's actions is objectively known?

Michael

[UncleJim]

... they have an objective referent, a finite identitiy (John) whose actions they judge. Only their subjective judgements differ.

Xray,

I want to get away from your repeated opinions about what is subjective or not, and get to agreeing on meanings. After the meanings are agreed upon will those opinions have any real intellectual value as ideas. Until then, they are merely repeated opinions.

Since you agree that there is an objective referent, do you also hold that the causality involved in the referent's actions is objectively known?

Michael

Notice how evil can exist only in reference to the existence of good. Further that good can exist only in reference to the existence of life.

In each case there must be (and is) a standard to judge it by. That standard must be (and is) the same for every person who has ever lived, for all persons now living and for all persons who will ever live at any time in the future. In other words the standard must actually (i.e., physically) exist and one must know that it does exist prior to being able to apply it.

[Xray]

... they have an objective referent, a finite identitiy (John) whose actions they judge. Only their subjective judgements differ.

Xray,

I want to get away from your repeated opinions about what is subjective or not, and get to agreeing on meanings. After the meanings are agreed upon will those opinions have any real intellectual value as ideas. Until then, they are merely repeated opinions.

Since you agree that there is an objective referent, do you also hold that the causality involved in the referent's actions is objectively known?

Michael

Again, it depends on what you men by "causality involved".

Let's say I observe my pupil Jimmy shoving Johnny. I can objectively observe the action of shoving: Jimmy shoves Johnny who falls to the floor. But the causality involved which led to the shove may have eluded me because I was not there, and unless there was no other observer, I'll have to ask both what happened, and the different versions one can get from each 'opponent' are often very interesting.

Both will value the actions subjectively.

No, the causalties involved in a person's actions may not always be objectively known to others (sometimes immediately not even to the person who committed the act ("How on earth could I have done/said this??!!"), although there always exists a reason for a volitional action, which can be traced back to self interest.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

You are talking about the person's intent. That is only one instance of causality operating (and a particular kind, at that).

Another instance of causality operating is that Johnny falls when shoved by Jimmy.

Jimmy shoves Johnny = cause.

Johnny falls = effect.

Johnny may fall for other reasons in other situations, but objectively speaking, in your scenario, the only reason he falls is because he gets shoved by Jimmy.

Do you agree?

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

You are talking about the person's intent. That is only one instance of causality operating (and a particular kind, at that).

Another instance of causality operating is that Johnny falls when shoved by Jimmy.

Jimmy shoves Johnny = cause.

Johnny falls = effect.

Johnny may fall for other reasons in other situations, but objectively speaking, in your scenario, the only reason he falls is because he gets shoved by Jimmy.

Do you agree?

Michael

The shove triggered the fall. That is all one can say in this situatonn. In how far the shove was actually objectively sufficient to have the fall as a necessary result, again this is open to speculation. For example, Johnny could have used a comparatively mild shove as a welcome 'opportunity' to fall dramatically on the floor with the purpose of getting Jimmy ticked off by the teacher.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

And he could have been tripped by an invisible friend who you cannot see because:

As I was going up the stair

I saw a man who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

Oh, how I wish he’d go away...

When I came home last night at three

The man was waiting there for me

But when I looked around the hall

I couldn’t see him there at all!

Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!

Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair

A little man who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

Oh, how I wish he’d go away

Inspired by reports of a ghost of a man roaming the stairs of a haunted house in Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada,[1] the poem was originally part of a play called The Psyco-ed which Mearns had written for an English class at Harvard University about 1899.[2] In 1910, Mearns put on the play with the Plays and Players, an amateur theatrical group and, on 27 March 1922, newspaper columnist FPA printed the poem in "The Conning Tower," his column in the New York World.[3][2]

Appearances in popular culture

Mearns' "Antigonish" has been used numerous times in popular culture, often with slight variations in the lines. Versions are frequently featured in modern entertainment, such as the opening of the 2003 movie Identity, Velvet Goldmine in 1998, Being Cyrus in 2006, in the Stephen King novel "Dreamcatcher", in the Charles Stross novel "Halting State", in "The Silent Tower" novel by Barbara Hambly in 1986, in the British adventure television serial 'Sapphire and Steel', the comic book Doom Patrol, the Sector General novel Major Operation, the Star Trek novel Q-Squared, and The Haunting in Connecticut in 2009.

A version printed in Mad magazine around the time of the Church Committee hearings read:

There was a man upon the stair

When I looked back, he wasn't there

He wasn't there again today

I think he's from the CIA.

A version appeared in March 2008 that played on the contrast between UK Prime Ministers Tony Blair (1997-2007) and Gordon Brown (2007-). Allegedly it was composed by a minister in the Labour government.[4]

In Downing Street upon the stair

I met a man who wasn't Blair.

He wasn't Blair again today.

Oh how I wish he'd go away.

[Xray]

[Michael Stuart Kelly @ May 6 2009, 10:22 AM]

Basically, the concept "chair" stands for all chairs in all sizes, colors, materials, etc. Countless referents. You arrive at the concept "chair" initially from looking at a lot of stuff, noticing similarities and differences with other existents, then making a mental grouping and a category (called "concept").

Does Rand think "category" and "concept" are the same?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does Rand think "category" and "concept" are the same?

Xray,

I have difficulty answering this kind of question because I don't know what Rand thinks or thought other than what she wrote and what others have said about her (and what I speculate, which doesn't count as fact).

To my knowledge she never did make the statement that concept and category have the same meaning. Often she used the two words near each other. Yet for the life of me, I cannot find a fundamental difference between them.

There is a usage difference Rand made. When she discussed concept, especially in ITOE, she treated it as a subject that was being dissected and when she used the word category, it was mostly in the sense of how to classify and sort concepts. Yet according to her definition of "concept" (ITOE, "Concept-Formation," p.9):

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

... all this has to be in place for a category to mean anything. And if you think about it, a category doesn't mean anything else.

I know Rand hated Kant, so I imagine the idea of "categorical imperative" that she loathed so much would have put a subconscious negative load on the word category and this would have caused resistance to using category as a synonym for concept.

(As an aside, it is interesting to ponder the implications when you convert Kant's phrase into "conceptual imperative"... )

Meaning-wise, I believe the two words are fundamentally the same. Usage-wise, if you do not consider colloquial meanings and slang, all I have ever found is that they tend to have some slight, non-fundamental differences.

I think it is intellectually healthy to find synonyms for Objectivist jargon and find ways of stating Objectivist ideas that are different from what is in the literature. This greatly helps comprehension on the conceptual level and forces the person to think instead of repeat like a parrot.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael: "I know Rand hated Kant ...."

I wonder. Maybe she hated Kant the way Bugs Bunny hated the Briar Patch. She found him very useful, afterall. If Kant could be so very bad qua philosophy and philosophy's effect on society then, ergo, Rand could be very good qua philosophy and philosophy's effect on society. Simply ignore "the impotence of evil" thing regarding Kant who apparently, regardless, had no effect on the Founding Fathers of the great U.S. governance experiment. Philosophy is important but not as important as Rand liked to think. It's true that Kant and others corrupted European intelligentsia who corrupted the American in the 19th Century which had tremendously bad effect over here especially in education, but the primary trust of American society has always been imperialistic and it's all been downhill since 1776 in that the people in charge of the Federal government generally did (and are doing) what they could get away with--foreign wars, civil war, and all the rest. Now special interests can loot the country because general interests aren't concentrated in effective opposition. Sometimes a special interest can protect itself as opposed to looting as with the National Rifle Association. Congresscritters are afraid of the NRA. If we want to have more freedom generally we need to find a way to make this general interest a specific interest. GG is trying to do that, but I don't think he and Ron Paul have found the way.

--Brant

Edited May 9, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[UncleJim]

In my view catagory contains that which concept explains the existence of.

Edited May 10, 2009 by UncleJim

[Xray]

Does Rand think "category" and "concept" are the same?

I know Rand hated Kant, so I imagine the idea of "categorical imperative" that she loathed so much would have put a subconscious negative load on the word category and this would have caused resistance to using category as a synonym for concept. (As an aside, it is interesting to ponder the implications when you convert Kant's phrase into "conceptual imperative"... )

Kant's"categorical imperative" deals with "morality".

I have difficulty answering this kind of question because I don't know what Rand thinks or thought other than what she wrote and what others have said about her (and what I speculate, which doesn't count as fact).

To my knowledge she never did make the statement that concept and category have the same meaning. Often she used the two words near each other. Yet for the life of me, I cannot find a fundamental difference between them.

Could you come up with at least one example where Rand used the two words near each other?" I can't can't find the term, category, in the online lexicon. I would be very interested in instances wherein Rand used the term, category.

Concept - 1 : "something conceived in the mind : thought, notion" (Webster's)

It is the general term, all inclusive, so to speak. It takes in the whole shooting match. Categorizing is but one of unlimited (ideas) concepts.

Example of a concept:

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

This is a conceived idea (concept) of entity identity. "A thing", not a group of things, nor the similarities of things.

The difference between a concept of 'entity identity' (by difference) and a concept of 'category' (grouping by similarity) is quite clear.

Why is the definiton and category issue is so important in the discussion of Rand's philosophy?

I understand the concept of each individual identity as being the real.

A subjectively created category is NOT the objective existent, but Rand treats it as such by applying the categorial label "man" as if it were an objective universal entity.

Edited May 10, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

This qualify as "near" 61 words away:

"Man

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)"

[Selene]

xray:

"Ostensive Definition

With certain significant exceptions, every concept can be defined and communicated in terms of other concepts. The exceptions are concepts referring to sensations, and metaphysical axioms.

Sensations are the primary material of consciousness and, therefore, cannot be communicated by means of the material which is derived from them. The existential causes of sensations can be described and defined in conceptual terms (e.g., the wavelengths of light and the structure of the human eye, which produce the sensations of color), but one cannot communicate what color is like, to a person who is born blind. To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: 'I mean this.' Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.”

Ostensive definitions are usually regarded as applicable only to conceptualized sensations. But they are applicable to axioms as well. Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition—e.g., to define “existence,” one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: 'I mean this.'"

I think this means the concept "chair" can be placed in different categories, e.g., folding, rocking, Shaker, lounge, high, wheel, etc.

The concept is the structure that does x y z etc.

Adam

[galtgulch]

This qualify as "near" 61 words away:

"Man

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.)"

Adam,

Do you mean Phylum: Chordata; Subphylum: Vertebrata; Class: Mammalia; Order: Primate; Family: Hominidae; Genus: Homo; Species: H. sapiens

If this were true it would mean that each human was part of the animal kingdom and not a special creation outside that kingdom of animals.

It is curious in retrospect to try to recapture that perspective that once prevailed.

I vaguely recall being made aware of that notion that humans were not part of the animal kingdom when I was a child.

Fortunately I was skeptical even then.

Some suspect I have become more gullible with age.

gulch