Existence exists?

[Selene]

He means when you have your lover in your arms do you see the depth of her soul in her eyes or do you see a transitional blur of matter ....etc.?

Adam

[Ian]

Ian, I just peaked through this thread. Wilkommen. Ich bin auch Deutsch. Wie lange bist du in Amerika? Kann ich fragen wie alt due bist?

(Sorry, everyone else, just wellcoming a fellow kraut).

Ginny

Hi, Ginny.

I afraid I must disappoint you. I am not German, except in some of my ancestry. I have been in many places in the world, and was last in Germany in 1980. I am American, born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which used to be a German city in America but before my time. I speak German only about well enough to order a beer. I can get the sense of written German somewhat better. If I understand your last question, I am 59 years old.

I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English. I believed hers was an honest misunderstanding and responded accordingly. She blew off my explanation without question or dispute, and, in later posts, insisted on her interpretation.

Idioms, phrases which mean something other than what they literally mean, are common in English. They can make it hard for foreigners to understand. But I would expect someone to accept an explanation by a native speaker. Since she ignored my explanation, I decided to show her that her own native language also contains things which are not meant as literal truth: gender, in the German language treats items that have no sex as either male or female, and treats people, who do, as if they did not. I thought it best to show this in German itself, and used a translated quote from the American humorist, Mark Twain.

And so that's how I came to post partially in German.

Ian.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Ian

[Xray]

Ian, I just peaked through this thread. Wilkommen. Ich bin auch Deutsch. Wie lange bist du in Amerika? Kann ich fragen wie alt due bist?

(Sorry, everyone else, just wellcoming a fellow kraut).

Ginny

Hallo, Ginny - ich lebe in Deutschland, und bin 54 jahre alt. We lange lebst du schon in Amerika, und darf ich auch fragen wie alt du bist?

[Transl: (Hi Ginny - I live in Germany and am 54 years old. How long have you lived in the US, and may I too ask how old you are?)]

Edited May 12, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Dragonfly] No, not a real one, just a neighbor.

Austrian? Swiss?

Edited May 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

QUOTE (Ian @ May 10 2009, 04:10 PM)

I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English.

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Notice how a German would not think of Poland!

[tjohnson]

.... and am 54 years old.

Hey, me too!

[Dragonfly]

Another one?

No, not a real one, just a neighbor.

Österreicher oder Schweizer?

(Austrian or Swiss?)

Es gibt mehrere Nachbarn!

[Xray]

Notice how a German would not think of Poland!

Selene, Dragonfly's sentence was perfect German, hence my thought he/she might come from a German-speaking country.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Another one?

No, not a real one, just a neighbor.

Österreicher oder Schweizer?

(Austrian or Swiss?)

Es gibt mehrere Nachbarn!

Dein Deutsch ist so gut, dass ich dachte du kommst aus einem dieser (deutschsprachigen) Nachbarländer.

(Translation see post # 309]

Edited May 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Therefore, are we not describing the same "territory" but with different maps?

Precisely.

GS -

Do you speak in this fashion in ordinary life? In sharing tender thoughts with someone you care deeply about, do you "compare maps?"

Bill P,

But as opposed to the type of interpersonal exchange you refer to, when discussing about philosophy, you have to compare (mental) maps.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Send me your map x-ray I want to compare it with my current map.

[tjohnson]

He means when you have your lover in your arms do you see the depth of her soul in her eyes or do you see a transitional blur of matter ....etc.?

Gee, I'm getting excited. :hug:

[Selene]

Just a little psychological nudity lol.

[Ian]

QUOTE (Ian @ May 10 2009, 04:10 PM)

I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English.

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating.

As I wrote to you in the first place: "I think you are encountering an idiom of the English language. The sense of the first sentence is more like "Joy is the goal of a living being's existence (and should be the goal of a human existence)." Your reply did not include either disagreement with that being the meaning of Ayn's phrasing, or any indication that you did not understand what I wrote. I regretted before I posted, that I did not have enough German to use that language for my explanation, but I expected that if you did not understand me, you would ask for clarification.

Bill P gave a better answer, using an example of the same phrasing in another context: "If you read "the goal of a game of football is to score more points than the other team" do you conclude that the writer is saying that the football game is sentient, and has intentions and goals? Or do you realize that the writer is speaking of the goal of the players in the game?"

Did you not understand him either? Or are you just playing games?

Ian.

[Xray]

QUOTE (Ian @ May 10 2009, 04:10 PM)

I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English.

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating.

As I wrote to you in the first place: "I think you are encountering an idiom of the English language. The sense of the first sentence is more like "Joy is the goal of a living being's existence (and should be the goal of a human existence)." Your reply did not include either disagreement with that being the meaning of Ayn's phrasing, or any indication that you did not understand what I wrote. I regretted before I posted, that I did not have enough German to use that language for my explanation, but I expected that if you did not understand me, you would ask for clarification.

Bill P gave a better answer, using an example of the same phrasing in another context: "If you read "the goal of a game of football is to score more points than the other team" do you conclude that the writer is saying that the football game is sentient, and has intentions and goals? Or do you realize that the writer is speaking of the goal of the players in the game?"

Did you not understand him either? Or are you just playing games?

Ian.

I have already given a comment on Bill's example re the "goal" of a football game.

[Ian]

I have already given a comment on Bill's example re the "goal" of a football game.

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig.

Ian

[Xray]

I have already given a comment on Bill's example re the "goal" of a football game.

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig.

Ian

Have you read my comment?

BTW, even native speakers of English have commented on Rand's strange use of certain terms.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Send me your map x-ray I want to compare it with my current map.

I have already provided a map of my take on epistemology, identity and categories:

'Cardinal Values' thread, posts #223 and #243.

'Existence Exists' thread, post #281

TIA for your response to these posts so we can compare our maps.

[Ian]

I have already given a comment on Bill's example re the "goal" of a football game.

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig.

Ian

Have you read my comment?

From your post #208:

How can "existence" be a volitional, goal-seeking entity?

From your reply to Bill P, post #250:

And who sets the goals of a football game? A group of people who have agreed on those goals. So "goal" requires a volitional entity.

Goal is and end to be achieved. As for "joy is the goal of existence" - who is the volitional entity setting the goal "joy" as an arbitrary end/aim /purpose for all "existence"?

Here you've let slip that you understand the English: That x is the goal of y, or that the goal of y is x, does not necessarily mean that y is a volitional, goal seeking entity. That construction depends on whether y is in fact a volitional, goal seeking entity. If not, that phrasing means the goal is that of those playing the game, in the one case, and those existing in the other.

Yet you still pretend, in your reply to me, that you don't understand: post #305:

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating.

If you wish to argue that values are necessarily subjective, that is another issue, which I addressed in my post #237:

Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die."

Some more examples: If values are necessarily subjective, then any difference between the morality of Sophie Scholl, and the morality of Joseph Mengele, is merely a matter of opinion, purely subjective. So is the difference between the Third Reich, and the Bundesrepublik. Some may prefer one, some the other, like preferring chocolate ice-cream to vanilla, or vice versa.

Have at it.

Ian.

[tjohnson]

The act of choosing what to value is subjective, not the value itself. Food is not subjective, choosing to eat is.

[Selene]

GS:

Can "value" be objective [objective meaning independent of the human senses]?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

GS:

Can "value" be objective [objective meaning independent of the human senses]?

Adam

How can a valuer value some valued thing without the use of senses?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Here you've let slip that you understand the English: That x is the goal of y, or that the goal of y is x, does not necessarily mean that y is a volitional, goal seeking entity. That construction depends on whether y is in fact a volitional, goal seeking entity. If not, that phrasing means the goal is that of those playing the game, in the one case, and those existing in the other.

We are talking about the phrase "Joy is the goal of existence", which is a subjective value judgment, there is no getting around this fact.

If you wish to argue that values are necessarily subjective, that is another issue, which I addressed in my post #237:

Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die."

Some more examples: If values are necessarily subjective, then any difference between the morality of Sophie Scholl, and the morality of Joseph Mengele, is merely a matter of opinion, purely subjective. So is the difference between the Third Reich, and the Bundesrepublik. Some may prefer one, some the other, like preferring chocolate ice-cream to vanilla, or vice versa.

Have at it.

For sure, there is an objective difference between alive and dead. Alas, the wanting or not wanting is the issue. Ergo, the objective difference is in the end result AFTER subjective choice.

"Some more examples: If values are necessarily subjective, then any difference between the morality of Sophie Scholl, and the morality of Joseph Mengele, is merely a matter of opinion, purely subjective. So is the difference between the Third Reich, and the Bundesrepublik. Some may prefer one, some the other, like preferring chocolate ice-cream to vanilla, or vice

versa.

To simply recognize the fact that value is subjective neither expresses, nor implies any approval/disapproval of any particular valuation. It's simply recognition of what is, not what I prefer.

Didn't you just exercise your subjective, personal preference in comparing the "moralities"? If not, what is your rationale for denying subjective value while demonstrating it in your denial?

BTW, The Crusades, the Inquisition and any other historical occurrences you care to name didn't happen because value is subjective. They happened because of denial of the fact that value is subjective. All such atrocities, including those of the "Third Reich", were propagated, promoted and carried out on the premise of objective value, of value existing independently of individual valuation. The claimed motivation and "justification" always was (and is) "God's will", "For the Fatherland", "Motherland", la la land, whatever.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

GS:

Can "value" be objective [objective meaning independent of the human senses]?

Adam

How can a valuer value some valued thing without the use of senses?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I value justice, but justice is an abstract concept.