Weirdest, snarkiest and... er... funny(?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But here's the rub. The universal values that Barbara and I hold are identical.

What exactly are those universal values? Could you please name them? TIA.

Xray,

No.

From looking at your posts, I could say anything and you would call it subjective without a thought.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My "enough distance to one's psychological make-up" theory goes to explaining what imo is required for a person to be able to laugh at themselves.

Xray,

Really? That's what you meant?

I find that interesting on several levels. Here is your statement:

Imo being able to do laugh at oneself proves that a person has enough distance to his/her own psychological make-up. Rand totally lacked this ability - a lack also very apparent in her writings.

In other words, if I consolidated your two posts quoted above, it would read:

Imo being able to do laugh at oneself proves that a person has enough distance to his/her own psychological make-up to be able to laugh at themselves. Rand totally lacked this ability - a lack also very apparent in her writings.

If you are able to do something, that proves you are able to do it? And you believe Rand lacked this to the point of being apparent?

Hmmmmmm...

Michael

[Xray]

But here's the rub. The universal values that Barbara and I hold are identical.

What exactly are those universal values? Could you please name them? TIA.

Xray,

No.

From looking at your posts, I could say anything and you would call it subjective without a thought.

Michael

But if you are convinced those universal values you and Barbara Branden hold are objective, then this would be an excellent opportunity to present them here on the board in order to refute my claim of values only being subjective.

I can only speak for myself: if I were convinced of a fact and an opponent in a philosophical discussion opens the door wide for me to present my views and challenge his/her position, I would not hesitate to do so.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

The problem is you don't try to understand the ideas you discuss. You use canned presumptions of what others mean (and you are often wrong) and you repeat your prejudices immediately on any comment, irrespective of what the comment is.

Engaging with that system is certainly not an "excellent opportunity" to present or refute anything.

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

The problem is you don't try to understand the ideas you discuss. You use canned presumptions of what others mean (and you are often wrong) and you repeat your prejudices immediately on any comment, irrespective of what the comment is.

Engaging with that system is certainly not an "excellent opportunity" to present or refute anything.

Michael

So the challenge (= values can't be anything but subjective) has not been refuted by you.

Maybe others here can try?

Question to all:

Do you think there exist any objective values?

If yes, what are they?

Edited June 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So my challenge (= values can't be anything but subjective) has not been refuted by you.

Xray,

Not in Xray-speak, no. Nobody can argue with a parrot.

There is no need to make false declarations of victory, either. That's no real victory, everybody knows it and you demean yourself that way.

I hold you in higher regard than those who do that constantly like James Valliant. For the time being, I think you are better than that.

Michael

[Xray]

"Let's take my disagreement with Barbara as an example. I think she gives

far too much importance to statements by Tallulah Morehead and she thinks I

give far too little. In Xray-speak, this would be proof that values are subjective."

In "reality speak", indeed, it is proof that value is subjective. In regard to the same objectively existing item of writing, both you and Barbara Branden offer a different valuation.

So the evidence you present is "difference in value attributed". This most assuredly is not universal valuation, hence, not objective value.

"But here's the rub. The universal values that Barbara and I hold are identical."

Is "objective value", value by consensus?

Edited June 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is "objective value", value by consensus?

Xray,

In Xray-speak, apparently it could be. The only positive definition you have come up with so far for "objective" is the equivalent of consensus by experts. (You usually go on and on about what objective isn't, but that form of definition is very subjective.)

Until I know what you mean by objective and subjective, discussing this with you is merely a semantics trap for you to crow victory over nothing.

I am a patient man, so I will wait some more...

Michael

[Xray]

So my challenge (= values can't be anything but subjective) has not been refuted by you.

There is no need to make false declarations of victory, either. That's no real victory, everybody knows it and you demean yourself that way.

It is not about victory, Michael. It is about truth.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is not about victory, Michael. It is about truth.

Xray,

Good. We agree on that.

So no need to constantly claim victory over nothing, then. Agreed?

Michael

[Xray]

Is "objective value", value by consensus?

Xray,

In Xray-speak, apparently it could be. The only positive definition you have come up with so far for "objective" is the equivalent of consensus by experts. (You usually go on and on about what objective isn't, but that form of definition is very subjective.)

Until I know what you mean by objective and subjective, discussing this with you is merely a semantics trap for you to crow victory over nothing.

I am a patient man, so I will wait some more...

Michael

Michael,

No need to wait since I gave you the definition of "objective" way back when on the Cardinal Values thread, a definition with which you agreed:

[Xray]:As for the definition of objective:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers.

Your reply (emphasis mine):

quote name='Michael Stuart Kelly' date='May 4 2009, 08:43 PM' post='68910']

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

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.

Note: "objective" in "objective facts" was used by me for stylistic emphasis (pleonasm). "Objective" here is actually redundant from the logical point of view since facts can't be anything but objective.

The specific discussion I had with you there was about FACTS, not about values. That's where the consenus of experts issue came up. (One example being how does one know arsenic to be a poison when ingested by human in a certain quantity).

If e. g. you have a health problem, see a doctor, then more doctors to get a second, third and forth opinion, and their diagnoeses are the same, you would accept it as a fact, wouldn't you.

Yes experts can be wrong and all that, but the discussion there was about facts, not about subjective values.

Therefore let's not get sidetracked here and continue with the issue in question: it was about universal (read: objective) values you claimed to share with B. Branden and you did not give an example of such universal values when asked.

As for "consensus" about values, it does not make them objective and if tens of thousands of people agreed on a value.

Should you ask me to give examples, you are very welcome to do so - you'll get them. You won't get a "No" from me like I did from you on the issue.

What would you think of me of the reverse had happened: suppose you had asked me to give an example of (whatever) to prove my point and I had replied "No I won't, because you wouldn't agree anyway".

Would such an such answer have sounded convincing to you? What would you think I was doing in case I had replied like that?

You would think I was evading the issue, wouldn't you - and rightly so.

So no need to constantly claim victory over nothing, then. Agreed?

Like I said, it is not about claiming victory over anything.

We both agreed that it is about finding out the truth regarding this issue, and from what I have gleaned of your posts, you are neither dogmatic nor close-minded, which btw is one of the reasons why the many discussions on this board are so interesting and vivid.

Why would you let anything stop you from arriving at the truth?

So shall we take it from there: We both want to find out the truth about this issue?

Edited June 21, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

As for the definition of objective:

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

Since it requires "a mind" to observe anything then 'objective' does not exist, according to this definition. Humans have learned to be more or less objective, ie. the scientific method, but whatever we sense and speak about has a subjective element.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

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.

Xray,

(yawn...)

You keep bringing this up. So I have to play Master of the Obvious to be clear.

I am in full agreement with that statement as an indication of meaning as opposed to something radically different. I was trying to get on common ground with you. So let me be real clear.

I am not in full agreement that your statement constitutes a proper definition.

That's why I used the term "orbit of meaning" instead of outright meaning. I was indicating the your meaning was incomplete, but the part I agreed with I fully agreed with.

I have mentioned several times your incompleteness of meaning, that you keep using a negative to define a positive. You keep ignoring this and keep repeating yourself as if that were a logical answer.

Do I have to think for you on this kind of basic stuff so you'll understand what I say?

You have a good mind.

Why not use it?

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

(yawn...)

You keep bringing this up. So I have to play Master of the Obvious to be clear.

I am in full agreement with that statement as an indication of meaning as opposed to something radically different. I was trying to get on common ground with you. So let me be real clear.

I am not in full agreement that your statement constitutes a proper definition.

That's why I used the term "orbit of meaning" instead of outright meaning. I was indicating the your meaning was incomplete, but the part I agreed with I fully agreed with.

What is a non "outright meaning?" What is incomplete about the definition given? What part do you agree with, and why?

"Objective -: having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>...

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without

distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (Webster's)

To argue and conclude objectively is to reach a conclusion based on the

objective facts regardless of what one prefers."

I have mentioned several times your incompleteness of meaning, that you keep using a negative to define a positive. You keep ignoring this and keep repeating yourself as if that were a logical answer.

Do I have to think for you on this kind of basic stuff so you'll understand what I say?

You have a good mind.

Why not use it?

I am using it, for example by asking you to point out where I used a negative to define a positive. TIA.

"I was trying to get on common ground with you. So let me be real clear."

"I am not in full agreement that your statement constitutes a proper

definition."

Please give me your "proper definition" of the term 'objective' to be "real clear". TIA.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Please reread my previous posts from the start of our discussions. The answers to every one of your questions are there. You brushed them off in your repetition frenzy that Rand was wrong, all values are subjective and 1001 questions to get people to say stuff so you could ignore what they meant, say Rand was wrong and all values are subjective.

As I said earlier, this is going to take time.

I have other stuff to do right now. So I am signing out of this discussion for a while...

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Please reread my previous posts from the start of our discussions. The answers to every one of your questions are there. You brushed them off in your repetition frenzy that Rand was wrong, all values are subjective and 1001 questions to get people to say stuff so you could ignore what they meant, say Rand was wrong and all values are subjective.

As I said earlier, this is going to take time.

I have other stuff to do right now. So I am signing out of this discussion for a while...

Michael

As long as you or others can't come up with any example of objective value, the challenge has not been refuted and the statmen not been disproved.

Maybe while you are signing out for the time being, others can up with examples disproving my claim that all values are subjective.

If I were convinced of objective values existing, you bet I'd fire on all cylinders to confront my discussion opponents with examples of them.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I wrote:

Any Rand arbitrarily decides what is proper or not, which is basically nothing else than postulating that everyone "ought to" value what she prefers. (Xray)

"You are pouncing on a weakness by Rand", it has been replied.

But if the basis of her philosophy rests on the weakness, things become problematic.

"Check your premises", Ayn Rand stated. Imo this is one of the most valuable pieces of advice one can give to a person.

This advice implies of course also checking Ayn Rand's own premises.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Does all that repetition mean you won?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Xray, my dear hornet, you're right about the problem with "objective values". Let's go back to the source and have a look at what Rand wrote. She defines "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness). Well, it's obvious that in this definition value is a subjective notion, in the sense that different persons may have different values: what A wants to gain and/or keep isn't necessarily the same as what B wants to gain and/or keep. Or as Rand says: "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?". She defines "sacrifice" as "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue" (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness). Example: "If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty." (AR - Galt's speech), a perfect example of the subjectivity of values: for one woman a hat has a higher value than her child, while for another woman the child has the higher value.

But then she switches to a so-called objective theory of values: "The objective theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by force. Capitalism is the only system based implicitly on an objective theory of values—and the historic tragedy is that this has never been made explicit. If one knows that the good is objective—i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man’s mind—one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent" (AR - Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal). The latter statement is a completely arbitrary assertion: why should force invalidate and paralyze a man's judgment? She doesn't present any evidence to support that notion. Note also how she introduces a subjective notion in her argument: "the good is objective" - what is the definition here of the good? No doubt she means that what's good according to Objectivism, but nowhere does she give an objective derivation. She defines the "standard of value" as follows: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness). There we have the infamous switch again! "Man's life" suddenly becomes "that which is required for man's survival qua man", i.e. survival according to Objectivist principles ("then a miracle occurs"!). Calling a theory of values objective doesn't make it so.

[Xray]

Xray,

Does all that repetition mean you won?

Michael

It is not about winning, Michael. It is about finding ot the truth about an issue. Truth can't be "won", it can only be discovered. You and all other board members are invited to join the "expedition".

Dragonfly's # 144 post gives an excellent summary of the "objecvtive values" issue in Rand's thought system.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray, my dear hornet, you're right about the problem with "objective values". Let's go back to the source and have a look at what Rand wrote. She defines "value" as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep" (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness). Well, it's obvious that in this definition value is a subjective notion, in the sense that different persons may have different values: what A wants to gain and/or keep isn't necessarily the same as what B wants to gain and/or keep. Or as Rand says: "The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?". She defines "sacrifice" as "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue" (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness). Example: "If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty." (AR - Galt's speech), a perfect example of the subjectivity of values: for one woman a hat has a higher value than her child, while for another woman the child has the higher value.

But then she switches to a so-called objective theory of values: "The objective theory of values is the only moral theory incompatible with rule by force. Capitalism is the only system based implicitly on an objective theory of values—and the historic tragedy is that this has never been made explicit. If one knows that the good is objective—i.e., determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man’s mind—one knows that an attempt to achieve the good by physical force is a monstrous contradiction which negates morality at its root by destroying man’s capacity to recognize the good, i.e., his capacity to value. Force invalidates and paralyzes a man’s judgment, demanding that he act against it, thus rendering him morally impotent" (AR - Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal). The latter statement is a completely arbitrary assertion: why should force invalidate and paralyze a man's judgment? She doesn't present any evidence to support that notion. Note also how she introduces a subjective notion in her argument: "the good is objective" - what is the definition here of the good? No doubt she means that what's good according to Objectivism, but nowhere does she give an objective derivation. She defines the "standard of value" as follows: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." (AR - The Virtue of Selfishness). There we have the infamous switch again! "Man's life" suddenly becomes "that which is required for man's survival qua man", i.e. survival according to Objectivist principles ("then a miracle occurs"!). Calling a theory of values objective doesn't make it so.

Thanks so much Dragonfly for this excellent summary of what it is about.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I agree some of Rand's theories have problems. From reading you, I don't agree that you understand what they are, since you don't show you understand them to begin with.

Thus it has to be about winning. Either that or repetition qua repetition as an end it itself.

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

I agree some of Rand's theories have problems. From reading you, I don't agree that you understand what they are, since you don't show you understand them to begin with.

Thus it has to be about winning. Either that or repetition qua repetition as an end it itself.

Michael

Have you read Dragonfly's # 144 post, Michael?

If yes, what do you think of his arguments? This is a very convincing argumentation imo, dictated by logic and reason, and which addresses the core of the matter. I agree with every word written there.

If you disagree with anything in Dragonfly's post, would you please quote the points of disagreement and explain why you disagree. TIA.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Xray

[ginny]

XRay, Dragon - re: post #144, what Rand meant by force invalidating a man's judgment is that if someone held a gun to my child's head and told me to spill some state secret, I have a choice to make. Either my child dies or I spill it all. She said specifically that WHATEVER choice one makes, it has no moral foundation. I am acting under coertion and not as I normally would choose to act. If you want the exact reference, please look it up in the Rand Question and Answer Book.

Ginny

[Selene]

"I agree with every word written there."

"This is a very convincing argumentation..."

The purpose of argumentation is to state your opinion on an issue and present an argument to convince others to agree with your opinion and adopt it as their own.

Arugmentation involves the use of logic and persuasion, and teach much more than research of a subject. While argumentation requires more of a student than most other types of presentations, e.g., non-argumentation essays, they can also be the most enjoyable type of essay to write.

Argumentation essays allow the writer to express his or her personal views about a subject. The paper does not only deal in facts, but also in emotional appeal. This site exists to help you learn more about argumentation essays, the process behind writing an argumentation essay, and logical arguments in general.

Is that what you meant by argumentation?

Adam