Rand's gender hierarchy

[Brant Gaede]

For Heaven's sake, Xray, Rand's heroes never got a chance to study Objectivism at the Nathaniel Branden Institute! Give them a break!

--Brant

yet to beat up Lillian, but wait until I find her!

[Xray]

Again, Michael, you missed the point. The issue is about a precise unequivocal definition for a term...

Xray,

Blah blah blah.

This sounds nice, but it has nothing to do with your behavior on these threads.

If this really were your standard, you would realize that Rand gives a precise definition to certain words and uses them with that meaning consistently.

Michael

No. Her (basically excellent) definition of "value" for example contradicts her use of the term in context with plants. Edited July 31, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

If there is a problem with something Rand wrote why not fix it? Isn't that the true essence of Objectivism?

--Brant

[Xray]

For Heaven's sake, Xray, Rand's heroes never got a chance to study Objectivism at the Nathaniel Branden Institute! Give them a break!

Come on Brant, Rand's heros stand for her philosophy - you don't suddenly deny that?

She explicitly created them "as man should be" - remember?

yet to beat up Lillian, but wait until I find her!

--Brant

So you think threatening and inflicting bodily harm are justifed?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

If there is a problem with something Rand wrote why not fix it? Isn't that the true essence of Objectivism?

--Brant

But can it be fixed at all?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

For Heaven's sake, Xray, Rand's heroes never got a chance to study Objectivism at the Nathaniel Branden Institute! Give them a break!

Come on Brant, Rand's heros stand for her philosophy - you don't suddenly deny that?

She explicitly created them "as man should be" - remember?

yet to beat up Lillian, but wait until I find her!

--Brant

So you think threatening and inflicting bodily harm are justifed?

If you can't tell I'm having a little fun ...

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If there is a problem with something Rand wrote why not fix it? Isn't that the true essence of Objectivism?

--Brant

There sure is a lot to fix. Where would you start?

I'd replace absolutism with tentativeness in the morality and politics, but not the basic principles. I don't generally worry about epistemological issues unless the bottom line adds to my reasoning ability.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No. Her (bascily excellent) definition of "value" for example contradicts her use of the term in context with plants.

Xray,

That's bull. Utter crap.

Here is Rand's definition of value in several places:

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

Genus = That (an existent).

Differntia = Which one acts to gain and/or keep.

Sunlight, for example, is a value to most plants. They act by growing toward it.

When Rand discusses beings with mobility and volition, obviously the values and actions to get them become more complex than for living beings without mobility and volition.

Only in Xray-speak does Rand contradict this stuff. But then again, Objectivism has nothing to do with Xray-speak. (Often, reality doesn't either.)

Michael

[ginny]

X-Ray, I forget how literal you are. My german's a bit rusty. I meant young lady, not virgin. And before you argue, I'm not sure that you are a lady. Just guessing. I should probably use the term frau. Still, as usual, you circumvented the question. Let me put it as plainly as I can. I'm curious how an Austrian lady/woman/female/not a virgin is so knowledgeable on such Americanism as Trouble in River City. Clear question?

[Selene]

It fascinates me when European Socialists attempt to understand how sometimes a solid punch in the mouth stops a bully who has terrorized all the little castrated [yes, I picked that specific word for the essential de-masculization of the educational system you work for and represent] boys you turn out of your schools.

"Such 'justfication' is both crazy and dangerous imo.

Given the many breaches of contract which happen in the world,

if physical violence were permitted each time as areaction against

the breaches, can you imagine how such a world would look like?"

I would refer you also to the book More Guns, Less Crime for an overwhelming statistical proof of what common sense already illustrates.

You see the dirty little secret about the men and women who founded this country which is the greatest country that ever existed on our planet within the known history is that

breaches of contract are "violent" acts in terms of taking something which one is not entitled to.

Furthermore, they realized that human nature was imperfect. Therefore, any government would be imperfectly run by imperfect men. Therefore, the natural right of man to use violence to defend and preserve his own life, liberty and property was absolute, unalienable and possessed by the individual.

There is the old story about a lawless town where women and children cannot even safely walk the streets. The important elements of the community get together and hire some "guns".

They called the hired guns - town marshals - and gave these funky stars to them to wear so they would make good targets at night .

At any rate, as more and more rude men with guns got killed by the funny men with the stars [kinda like the old Texaco commercials from the '50's *], the word got around that it would be smart to avoid that town.

Let me ask you a question xray, would you breach a contract with Roark after he was acquitted?

I can accept a yes or no answer only. No modifying, changing or maybes are permitted.

Then after you answer that one, if you moved into my town and you were hungry so you were going to go into my orchard and pick fruit, go into the garden and pull up some veggies and snap the neck of one of my chickens and were going to squat under one of my shade trees and make a stew while eating an apple, but as you entered the grove, a skeleton was hanging from a tree with a sign on it stating:

Looters will be shot

You going to actualize that plan?

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2nGUq1LldU

[Guyau]

Jonathan, concerning the last paragraph of #423:

I do not think just any ole attempt at determining how to live a moral life, no matter what the attempt and no matter what its success, "might be objective."

We can set aside the moral nihilists for this issue, as they think any attempt to determine how to live a moral life is a pointless effort. They deny that there is such a thing as a morally good life distinct from a moral-free life or any such thing as a moral anything as distinct from a moral-free anything. They do not make the attempt of which you speak.

The subjectivist theories of moral value that Michael Huemer refutes in his Objectivity essay ”The Subjectivist’s Dilemma” are trying to give an objective and true account of the nature of moral values. They are trying to give an objective account for the thesis that moral values are subjective. Were any of them successful, they would have succeeded in giving a true objective characterization of the absence of objective moral values and the presence of subjective moral values. Their attempts at determining what is a moral value would be objective in the attempt. The subjectivity of their sought-for result does not make the seeking epistemically subjective. The successful result of their attempt would mean moral values are subjective, truly subjective, objectively speaking.

Two objectivist theories of moral value would be Ayn Rand’s and Michael Huemer’s. They both aim to show that objective moral values exist. Their disagreement is not over the status of (some) moral values in the binary subjective/objective; they agree there are moral values on the objective side of that partition of moral values. Their disagreement is over the status of such objective moral values in the further divide intrinsic/objective/subjective. Professor Huemer and others land such values in the intrinsic bin, whereas Rand lands them in the objective bin of this tri-partition.

Various attempts to characterize moral values as objective in the binary subjective/objective might both be correct in that placement, and they might both be epistemically objective in their method of arriving at that placement. Beyond that, they might diverge. For example Rand and Guyau concluded that life is the objective basis of moral values, whereas Nozick concluded that organic unity together with the value-seeking character of selves was the objective basis of moral values. The fact that both schools use objective methods in reaching their conclusions about the objective character of moral values—as well as about which values are the ones that are objectively morally valuable—is not enough to ensure any of them have gotten the fully correct answers. If their answers to the question of how to live a moral life differ, that does not show that at least one of the schools is incorrect. But if their answers to the question of how to live a moral life not only differ, but contradict each other, that means at least one of them is incorrect.

[Xray]

No. Her (bascily excellent) definition of "value" for example contradicts her use of the term in context with plants.

Xray,

That's bull. Utter crap.

Here is Rand's definition of value in several places:

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep.

Genus = That (an existent).

Differntia = Which one acts to gain and/or keep.

Sunlight, for example, is a value to most plants. They act by growing toward it.

When Rand discusses beings with mobility and volition, obviously the values and actions to get them become more complex than for living beings without mobility and volition.

Only in Xray-speak does Rand contradict this stuff. But then again, Objectivism has nothing to do with Xray-speak. (Often, reality doesn't either.)

Michael

Have you forgotten what Rand added, Michael? (bolding mine)

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

So you believe a plant is an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative?

[jeffrey smith]

"Such 'justfication' is both crazy and dangerous imo.

Given the many breaches of contract which happen in the world,

if physical violence were permitted each time as areaction against

the breaches, can you imagine how such a world would look like?"

I would refer you also to the book More Guns, Less Crime for an overwhelming statistical proof of what common sense already illustrates.

You see the dirty little secret about the men and women who founded this country which is the greatest country that ever existed on our planet within the known history is that

breaches of contract are "violent" acts in terms of taking something which one is not entitled to.

Furthermore, they realized that human nature was imperfect. Therefore, any government would be imperfectly run by imperfect men. Therefore, the natural right of man to use violence to defend and preserve his own life, liberty and property was absolute, unalienable and possessed by the individual.

Adam--

I think the point about "breach of contract" isn't relevant to the case of the Reardens; but I understood it to refer to run of the mill "breach of contract" that starts litigation in the courts. Unless you think that the President of Company A should go out and beat up the President of Company B if Company B fails to deliver an order on time? (Or perhaps the boards of directors should meet by arrangement and have a brawl?)

I'd say that Rearden was simply casting back on Lilian the fundamentals of her own way of life, which was one long career of using force (usually in the form of emotional coercion).

[DavidMcK]

I was perusing the Wikipedia article on 'the Big Lie' and ran into two quotes from George Orwell that seems especially pertinent to this long discussion and specifically to x-ray:

“The key-word here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts”.

“To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed...”.

Both are from 1984.

[merjet]

Have you forgotten what Rand added, Michael? (bolding mine)

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

So you believe a plant is an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative?

This doesn't pass muster. I found Xray's excerpt in Virtue of Selfishness, p. 16. Xray omitted what immediately preceded it, which is:

In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

Therefore, the context strongly favors the argument that Rand wasn't talking about plants here, but humans. Good try, Xray, but no cigar.

There is also the following about plants on VoS, p. 19, which Xray failed to report.

A plant can obtain its food from the soil in which it grows. An animal has to hunt for it. Man has to produce it.

A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. There are alternatives in the conditions it encounters in its physical background—such as heat or frost, drought or flood—and there are certain actions which it is able to perform to combat adverse conditions, such as the ability of some plants to grow and crawl from under a rock to reach the sunlight. But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

[Selene]

"Such 'justfication' is both crazy and dangerous imo.

Given the many breaches of contract which happen in the world,

if physical violence were permitted each time as areaction against

the breaches, can you imagine how such a world would look like?"

I would refer you also to the book More Guns, Less Crime for an overwhelming statistical proof of what common sense already illustrates.

You see the dirty little secret about the men and women who founded this country which is the greatest country that ever existed on our planet within the known history is that

breaches of contract are "violent" acts in terms of taking something which one is not entitled to.

Furthermore, they realized that human nature was imperfect. Therefore, any government would be imperfectly run by imperfect men. Therefore, the natural right of man to use violence to defend and preserve his own life, liberty and property was absolute, unalienable and possessed by the individual.

Adam--

I think the point about "breach of contract" isn't relevant to the case of the Reardens; but I understood it to refer to run of the mill "breach of contract" that starts litigation in the courts. Unless you think that the President of Company A should go out and beat up the President of Company B if Company B fails to deliver an order on time? (Or perhaps the boards of directors should meet by arrangement and have a brawl?)

I'd say that Rearden was simply casting back on Lilian the fundamentals of her own way of life, which was one long career of using force (usually in the form of emotional coercion).

Jeff:

First, the reason I selected that particular quote out of xray's rambling "Rand bad because the glebes do not match the kalandras" or some other such philosophical, semantic and linguistic three card monte post which has been her modus operandi since she joined is to bring all her shifting "arguments" of using Rand's archetypal heros and heroines to selectively distort and selectively retain Rand's statements and intent.

I think she is dishonest and playing games. I think she visits reality as a tourist.

Therefore, I hope that I illustrated that in the real world xray's entire distorted world view of both human nature and human society fails.

Individual human beings chose what we use violence for, when we use it and how do we live with its use after it is employed.

xray wants all the animals to play nice on the Serengeti. She wants the lion to lay down with the lamb. She is a member of PETA.

My judgment is that she selectively retains and selectively distorts Rand, other people's posts and is essentially a semantic charlatan.*

Adam

*Selective distortion -- distorts input stimuli Interpret to meet preconceived idea

Selective retention (rehearsal) -- affects what is remembered Support your argument with repetition of the things that do support your pre-concieved ideas or prejudices

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Have you forgotten what Rand added, Michael? (bolding mine)

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

So you believe a plant is an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative?

This doesn't pass muster. I found Xray's excerpt in Virtue of Selfishness, p. 16. Xray omitted what immediately preceded it, which is:

In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

Therefore, the context strongly favors the argument that Rand wasn't talking about plants here, but humans. Good try, Xray, but no cigar.

There is also the following about plants on VoS, p. 19, which Xray failed to report.

A plant can obtain its food from the soil in which it grows. An animal has to hunt for it. Man has to produce it.

A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. There are alternatives in the conditions it encounters in its physical background—such as heat or frost, drought or flood—and there are certain actions which it is able to perform to combat adverse conditions, such as the ability of some plants to grow and crawl from under a rock to reach the sunlight. But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

Merlin,

In addition to your comments, I used to think that when one used the pronoun "whom," it was obvious to all readers and listeners that one was talking about people.

I kept pushing aside Xray's comments on this "plant contradiction" nonsense because I believed there was some actual thought going on and I just didn't see it. I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt until I could detect the hidden error. But you are right to mention all that master of the obvious stuff.

I'm not sure she will want to get it, though. Xray's complaint is her own reading-and-comprehension problem. And she likens discussions of ideas to a competition where one challenges others for refutation, etc. So, from what I have observed in reading way too many of her posts, her principal intent is to win, not to understand.

I thought she was a better thinker than she is...

That actually makes me sad...

Michael

[Selene]

Yep.

Quite sad.

Adam

Edited July 31, 2009 by Selene

[DavidMcK]

In addition to the two quotes in my previous post which helps explain this discussion, I would also submit the Objectivist idea that a mind that is certain of anything is certain of itself; a mind uncertain of anything won't be content with their own uncertainty, such a person must try to make everyone else as uncertain as they are.

[Xray]

Have you forgotten what Rand added, Michael? (bolding mine)

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

So you believe a plant is an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative?

This doesn't pass muster. I found Xray's excerpt in Virtue of Selfishness, p. 16. Xray omitted what immediately preceded it, which is:

In ethics, one must begin by asking: What are values? Why does man need them?

Therefore, the context strongly favors the argument that Rand wasn't talking about plants here, but humans. Good try, Xray, but no cigar.

There is also the following about plants on VoS, p. 19, which Xray failed to report.

Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek.

A plant can obtain its food from the soil in which it grows. An animal has to hunt for it. Man has to produce it.

A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions. There are alternatives in the conditions it encounters in its physical background—such as heat or frost, drought or flood—and there are certain actions which it is able to perform to combat adverse conditions, such as the ability of some plants to grow and crawl from under a rock to reach the sunlight. But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.

Thanks for digging up the quotes, Merlin! You saved me the trouble to use the search function to look for the posts on the subject where I had addressed the very same issue several times.

You proved my point with the quotes.

Rand goes against her very own definition of "value" by offering examples blatantly contradicting the definition she gave.

Her definition of value is clear as a bell (rare from Rand, but she did get that right):

"Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is

not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom

and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal

in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no

values are possible." (Rand)

Note how she stresses that where no alternative exists, no values are possible.

She mentions plants to illustrate her point:

there is no alternative in a plant's function (Rand)

No objection there. Perfectly consistent argumentation.

But lo and behold, although per Rand, no alternative exists in a plant's function, from which it follows that no values are possible, she states that plants can seek values:

"Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek." (Rand)

Rand's left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And this is by no means the only example of confused thinking on her part.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Michael:

If values are something only humans can have, then why did she write this:

A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. Its life is the standard of value directing its actions.

It certainly sounds like she's talking about value-possessing plants there--even if the plants are totally unaware that they have values. I rather imagine her writing the passage, and then re-reading it and thinking, "Hmm, that does sound a little off. Better add in a footnote so people won't think I'm bonkers. When applied to physical phenomena...."

[jeffrey smith]

That's what it is about: non-ambiguity and non-contradiction, principles which Rand, using muddled termimology, violates.

Example is her calling Peter Keating a "selfless man, a ruthless egotist".

Rand's label 'selfless' for Keating was not meant to be understood ironically.

She arbitrarily decided to attach a meaning to "selfless" in complete opposition to the actual definition of the term.

It's like using "black" and meaning "white".

Suppose we all decided to attach as we please our subjective meanings to words and tried to put it to work.

The result would be total communication breakdown.

Here's one time when I think she did nothing wrong with her wordplay. She was using the word in its most literal sense--Peter Keating was a man who had no real "self". There was no "there" there in his case.

See the first two quotes here from the Ayn Rand Lexicon, one of which is specifically about Keating.*

Of course, this didn't stop her from using "selfless" in its more usual sense when claiming that there is no such thing as "selfless love" (see third quote on the same page).

*Hmm, the hyperlink isn't linking. It's this:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selflessness.html

Edited August 1, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Xray]

[J.Smith]It certainly sounds like she's talking about value-possessing plants there--even if the plants are totally unaware that they have values. I rather imagine her writing the passage, and then re-reading it and thinking, "Hmm, that does sound a little off. Better add in a footnote so people won't think I'm bonkers. When applied to physical phenomena...."

That's exactly what I meant when writing that Rand's left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

Edited August 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael:

If values are something only humans can have, then why did she write this:

Jeff,

I must have writing issues. There is nowhere I know of where Rand stated that values are something only humans can have. (That happens to be Xray's view, anyway.)

Pointing out the context of a comment does not mean excluding all other contexts.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Go to # 445 and I suppose your "sadness" will vanish faster than you can pronounce "value".

Xray,

I looked. It didn't vanish.

I got sadder at your insistence on refusing to see context.

The light is there. Your eyes are closed.

EDIT: Here's a bone. Rand's writing is sloppy like this at times where she shifts contexts and uses the same word with two different meanings without making the meaning used in context clear. I have a few terms on file like this. And I have even noticed the pattern of how she does it. (There is often a cognitive-normative shift during an essay where the normative meaning takes the place of the cognitive one.)

But that does not mean that you understand what she is getting at. You are playing gotcha only with nothing of more substance. If I asked you for a pattern of how this develops, all you have is gotcha with Rand-bashing.

I don't think you know what Rand was getting at and I don't think you care.

Michael