Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

Merlin, I didn't "declare victims irrelevant", but pointed out that discussing the victims is another topic altgether.

It is like when e. g. in discussing the sacrifice the biblical figure Abel made and thinking about the goal he wanted to achieve, one would suddenly shift the discussion to the slaughtered lamb.

On can of course decide to discuss victims of sacrifices, but here in this specific discussion, it would mean getting sidetracked.

Umm, considering that this discussion of sacrifice is itself a sidetrack from what was supposed to Rand's views on gender, I call that a ROTFL moment.

This is of course correct, but no one could foresee that the mere mention of "sacrifice" would unleash such a vivid discussion on this thread.

But sacrifice is connected to values, a as soon as values are being discussed, controversy is certain to occur, for people tend to throw their own personal values into the mix and you get the melee which can be observed here.

But all this does not alter the contents of what I wrote in my post to Merlin re the victims of sacrifice.

And having gotten back in my chair, I have to ask: is there any human action in the Xray universe which is not a trade? and is there any trade in the Xray universe which is not a sacrifice? Because your usage seems to indicate that they all collapse into each other, a universal solvent.

Let's put it that way: in us humans, the self-interest motivation for action is to seek and/or hold onto that which is valued higher than the alternative. There is nothing to preclude this in whatever action for whatever reason whether it is called a trade or not.

For example, there are endless accounts of persons who lost their lives for refusing to give up a particular ideology. Obviously, these persons valued the ideology more than their lives.

All our actions are motivated by self-interest, and self-interest implies not wanting to get a lesser value in exchange.

This does not mean one always gets what one has bargained for, but the wish to get the higher value prompts every single one of our actions.

As I said previously, although I have problems with Rand's definition, at least it's a clear one which she used consistently. I suggest you follow her example.

I suggest you first point out where Rand definition is clear, for I fail to see the clarity in it.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue." (Rand)

Now what is that "lesser value" or "non-value"? Is that her personal value judgement regarding people's choices?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Let's put it that way: the self-interest motivation for action in us humasn is to seek and/or hold onto that which is valued higher than the alternative. There is nothing to preclude this in whatever action for whatever reason whether it is called a trade of not.

For example, there are endless accounts of persons who lost their lives for refusing to give up a particular ideology. Obviously, these persons

valued the ideology more than their lives.

All our actions are motivated by self-interest, and self-interest implies not wanting to get a lesser value in exchange.

This does not mean one aways gets what one has bargained for, but the wish to get the higher value prompts every single one of our actions.

As I said previously, although I have problems with Rand's definition, at least it's a clear one which she used consistently. I suggest you follow her example.

I suggest you first point out where Rand definition is clear, for I fail to see the clarity in it.

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue." (Rand)

Now what is that "non-value"? Is that her personal value judgement regarding people's choices?

I've asked for definitions of sacrifice and exchange, with specific reference to where they differ. You fail to provide them. Hiding behind assertions about Rand does not excuse that.

Non-value: something which has no value. That does seem rather obvious: I see nothing unclear about that. The fact that Rand meant "what I consider to be lesser values/nonvalues" is irrelevant: she provided an exact definition that I could use, if I wish.

[ginny]

X-Ray, this is going diverge from the topic of this thread, but since nothing has been accomplished in 31 pages before this, I don't consider it much of a loss. I may consider you a bit nutty, but as a fellow Karl May fan, I give you a big hug. Howgh!! But X-Ray, dear X-Ray, we disagree again. How can you say Lex Barker didn't make a good Old Shatterhand!! Sacrilege!! In the immortal words of Belle, "Quelle Hombre." And I cried buckets at Nscho Tschi's death, which ended the great romance of all literature.

Hell, my screen saver consists of a picture of Lex Barker in a pair of snug bathing trunks. Makes me want to power up the old laptop each day.

And if you have any further comment on OS or Sexy Lexy, send me an email. We don't want to bore the rest of the gang with our reminiscences.

Okay, guys, you now go back to arguing about sacrifices. Have fun.

Ginny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

Isn't a value subjective in Xray-peak?

If so, then winning the game is not really the higher value.

There is no higher value.

Plain and simple...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Yes indeed. It is that ability to just morph the use of the word at her own will/

And what is really funny was that the real chess game that I had in mind was when winning the game meant nothing to me.

I was teaching two folks at our chess club in Virginia how a [night] knight in a given situation effected the entire pattern of the other individuals plan.

She is just like the Vatican emitting philosophical and definitional encyclicals.

Adam

Post script:

Yes the quite ambiguous typo.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Selene

[Dragonfly]

The higher value is to win the game, plain and simple.

Isn't a value subjective in Xray-peak?

If so, then winning the game is not really the higher value.

There is no higher value.

Non sequitur. That values are not objective doesn't mean that they cannot be ordered for a given person at a certain moment in time. When we're talking about a sacrifice in chess, it is understood that this refers to the fairly common situation in which the purpose of both players is to win or at least not to lose. Of course this is not an objective value, some people might not care at all or might even want to lose, but for obvious reasons chess terminology is not geared to that kind of players.

[Dragonfly]

Michael:

Yes indeed. It is that ability to just morph the use of the word at her own will/

And what is really funny was that the real chess game that I had in mind was when winning the game meant nothing to me.

I was teaching two folks at our chess club in Virginia how a night in a given situation effected the entire pattern of the other individuals plan.

I've no idea what "nights" have to to with it, but in a previous post you wrote:

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game

.

so increasing the odds of winning the game is a higher value to you than the mere "possession" of a "night". Claiming now that winning the game was not really your purpose because you only intended the example as an illustration is of course pure sophistry.

[merjet]

Merlin, I didn't "declare victims irrelevant", but pointed out that discussing the victims is another topic altgether.

Xray-speak. Exhibit No. ______ (fill in large number).

Xray:

"The natural law operating 100 per cent of the time is that humans cannot act against what they value higher."

Merlin Jetton:

"In order to dodge counter-arguments and play word games, what Xray conveniently ignores is that a person can be prevented from obtaining something he/she values even more highly by somebody else using coercion or threats."

Merlin,

If someone holds you at gunpoint and says he will kill you if you don't hand over your money, what will you do, and why? Do you value your life more than the money? Being a victim of initiation of force and/or coercion, does not change the hardwired mental action. If you value your life more than the money, then the higher value will motivate your action. Natural law does not change with personal circumstance.

Xray evasion. Exhibit No. ______ (fill in large number).

[Xray]

And I cried buckets at Nscho Tschi's death, which ended the great romance of all literature.

Me too. I cried rivers actually. It was as if I had personally been present, and I went through a veritable grieving process.

Meanwhile, many years have passed and I have since read quite a few other novels where great romances ended tragically (just think of Dr. Zhivago!) but none of these shattered me as much as Nscho Tschi's death in the arms of OS which I read at the age of nine. Makes me want to dig out the book from the cellar and reread it.

Was it because we were so young and 'vulnerable' when reading it, that it had such a tremendous effec on our souls? Or did Karl May (who so often has been ridiculed by highbrow literary critics) actually possess both the dramatic and poetic power of language enabling him to describe these scenes in a way leaving no one with a dry eye?

But X-Ray, dear X-Ray, we disagree again. How can you say Lex Barker didn't make a good Old Shatterhand!! Sacrilege!! In the immortal words of Belle, "Quelle Hombre." Hell, my screen saver consists of a picture of Lex Barker in a pair of snug bathing trunks. Makes me want to power up the old laptop each day. And if you have any further comment on OS or Sexy Lexy, send me an email. We don't want to bore the rest of the gang with our reminiscences.

My apologies for the trip down memory lane, but as I'm currently weeding out old stuff, your asking me about Karl May just happened to strike a chord.

Isn't it "quel hombre"? My Spanish has become a bit rusty over the years, so I'm not quite sure.

Well, as for your valuing Lex Barker - Ginny, dear Ginny, now isn't that an excellent example to illustrate that no objective values exist?

In my opinion, giving the role of OS to a "hunk" like L. Barker was a miscasting. I simply had not imagined OS as a hunk in the book and therefore could not connect Barker in my mind to OS in the book at all.

And aside from that, even for all his looks, L. Barker was just not my type. I decided this at the tender age of nine and it never changed. Like I said, subjective values.

In short, de gustibus non est disputatandum, and de virtutibus non est disputandum either since objective morality is a myth.

Every discussion on ethics, by whomever and wherever it is conducted, will finally land at the doorstep of this truth.

Whether one is willing to go through the door, this is up to the individual to decide. All I can say is I went through it and am glad I did.

If there is one thing I regret, it is not having done it earlier.

This means taking responsibilty for my own subjective values and my actions based on these values.

My # 468 post on this thread elaborates on my personal philosophy of individualism.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

X-Ray, this is going diverge from the topic of this thread, but since nothing has been accomplished in 31 pages before this, I don't consider it much of a loss.

31 pages and no one (including you whom I specifically asked) has been able to come up with an example of an action not motivated by self-interest.

Need more be said? There exists no such action of course.

I use self-interest as the neutral, denotative term, since it does not carry the negative connotation of "selfishness".

Each human individual is hardwired with specific characteristics: as volitional, and a goal-seeker who attributes value to this or that. This is a fact no one would dispute.

The self-interest principle operating 100 % of the time is necessary for survival. There is no part time self-interest.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person who trades a value X to want a lower value in exchange for what he/she gives. The goal is ALWAYS a higher value one wants to get in return.

Agree?

Disagree, anyone? If yes, please say why. TIA.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Michael:

Yes indeed. It is that ability to just morph the use of the word at her own will/

And what is really funny was that the real chess game that I had in mind was when winning the game meant nothing to me.

I was teaching two folks at our chess club in Virginia how a night in a given situation effected the entire pattern of the other individuals plan.

I've no idea what "nights" have to to with it, but in a previous post you wrote:

I make that early "transaction" in anticipation that it will increase my chance to win or draw the game

.

so increasing the odds of winning the game is a higher value to you than the mere "possession" of a "night". Claiming now that winning the game was not really your purpose because you only intended the example as an illustration is of course pure sophistry.

It's clearly sophistry. Selene is (unsuccessfully) trying to wriggle out of the conctradictions in his own argumentation.

[Xray]

I was teaching two folks at our chess club in Virginia how a night in a given situation effected the entire pattern of the other individuals plan.

Oh, there is no doubt that a "night" in a given situation can have quite an effect on an individual's plans - even a life plan! ;)

For that little typo you made in writing "night" instead of "knight" made your phrase a bit ambiguous, Selene.

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

X-Ray, this is going diverge from the topic of this thread, but since nothing has been accomplished in 31 pages before this, I don't consider it much of a loss.

31 pages and no one (including you whom I specifically asked) has been able to come up with an example of an action not motivated by self-interest.

Need more be said? There exists no such action of course.

I use self-interest as the neutral, denotative term, since it does not carry the negative connotation of "selfishness".

Each human individual is hardwired with specific characteristics: as volitional, and a goal-seeker who attributes value to this or that. This is a fact no one would dispute.

The self-interest principle operating 100 % of the time is necessary for survival. There is no part time self- interest.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person who trades a value X to want a lower value in exchange for what he/she gives. The goal is ALWAYS a higher value one wants to get in return.

Agree?

Disagree, anyone? If yes, please say why. TIA.

You mean "survival" has an "objective" value?

Hey, how about this: trading for a higher value but not an available higher value higher than the one traded for? Isn't that less selfish--that is, selfless?

--Brant

confused in Tucson

the higher value of sophistry

[Xray]

xray, sweetie:

Now you know my rules. Your word choice. Your obligation to define. Your obligation to defend your assertion.

And while you are struggling to denotively wrestle with "equal", then you can work on by what standard, that is objective, that we evaluate your assertion.

Babes, this stuff just gets difficult for you, I understand.

Adam

Let me guess, Selene, which role is it now for you? Danneskjöld? No, not really, doesn't fit.

Ah, wait - I think I've got it! Like "cool" Humphrey Bogart in one of his Black Series films, right?

BTW, I rewatched "Play it again, Sam" last night and laughed tears - too, too funny! Great idea in the farewell scene - as an "ironic quote" of the original - to put Diane Keaton with her Bergman-like hat in a position where she looks down at W. Allen, not up like Bergman did with Bogart, who had to stand on an apple crate or something (crate invisible to the spectator of course ); ).

If you haven't seen "Play it again, Sam", please do. I think you'd enjoy it very much.

Now what do I read here: that's you again, but what a dramatically different tune!

"essentially you are the worst of both worlds a Calvinistic Skinnerian without any moral standards." (Selene)

Wow! Hm, now that's clearly not Bogart aka Sam Spade, for Spade wouldn't give a damn about those moral standards, would he? ;)

You sound more like a morally outraged reverend here ...

One has to give you that, Selene, you ARE versatile in your roles, and in a way, quite entertaining!

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

31 pages and no one (including you [= Ginny] whom I specifically asked) has been able to come up with an example of an action not motivated by self-interest.

Need more be said? There exists no such action of course.

I use self-interest as the neutral, denotative term, since it does not carry the negative connotation of "selfishness".

Each human individual is hardwired with specific characteristics: as volitional, and a goal-seeker who attributes value to this or that. This is a fact no one would dispute.

The self-interest principle operating 100 % of the time is necessary for survival. There is no part time self- interest.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person who trades a value X to want a lower value in exchange for what he/she gives. The goal is ALWAYS a higher value one wants to get in return.

Agree?

Disagree, anyone? If yes, please say why. TIA.

You mean "survival" has an "objective" value?

Hey, how about this: trading for a higher value but not an available higher value higher than the one traded for? Isn't that less selfish--that is, selfless?

--Brant

confused in Tucson

the higher value of sophistry

"Value" is always the result of someone's "attributing" value to something. "to value - a value"

Which is why humans as conscious volitional entities having the mental capacity of attributing value can decide to go against the biological program 'survival' by taking their lives.

Hey, how about this: trading for a higher value but not an available higher value higher than the one traded for? Isn't that less selfish--that is, selfless?

Brant, could you please give an example to illustrate so I can be sure what exactly you mean. TIA.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The difference between "natural law" and what Michael continues to ask you about in defining what objective "is" "is"

Being objective means recognizing the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness.

Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Agree? If not, why?

Edited August 9, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That values are not objective doesn't mean that they cannot be ordered for a given person at a certain moment in time. When we're talking about a sacrifice in chess, it is understood that this refers to the fairly common situation in which the purpose of both players is to win or at least not to lose. Of course this is not an objective value, some people might not care at all or might even want to lose, but for obvious reasons chess terminology is not geared to that kind of players.

Dragonfly,

I find this kind of semantic stubbornness amusing.

I don't know what kind of chess you play, but in the way I learned it, the objective was to checkmate the King of the opponent.

That's an objective value.

Or does objective not mean objective and suddenly become a "non sequitur" because that part doesn't fit Xray-speak gobbledygook? Especially the part where a word can have one meaning and one meaning only, except where it has more than one meaning?

I do admire you ability to understand Xray-speak. I personally can't make heads or tails of it...

Michael

[Selene]

"Being objective means..."

Objective is ________________

[Brant Gaede]

31 pages and no one (including you [= Ginny] whom I specifically asked) has been able to come up with an example of an action not motivated by self-interest.

Need more be said? There exists no such action of course.

I use self-interest as the neutral, denotative term, since it does not carry the negative connotation of "selfishness".

Each human individual is hardwired with specific characteristics: as volitional, and a goal-seeker who attributes value to this or that. This is a fact no one would dispute.

The self-interest principle operating 100 % of the time is necessary for survival. There is no part time self- interest.

Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a person who trades a value X to want a lower value in exchange for what he/she gives. The goal is ALWAYS a higher value one wants to get in return.

Agree?

Disagree, anyone? If yes, please say why. TIA.

You mean "survival" has an "objective" value?

Hey, how about this: trading for a higher value but not an available higher value higher than the one traded for? Isn't that less selfish--that is, selfless?

--Brant

confused in Tucson

the higher value of sophistry

"Value" is always "attributing" value to something.

Which is why humans as conscious volitional entities having the mental capacity of attributing value can decide to go against the biological program 'survival' by taking their lives.

Hey, how about this: trading for a higher value but not an available higher value higher than the one traded for? Isn't that less selfish--that is, selfless?

Brant, could you please give an example to illustrate so I can be sure what exactly you mean. TIA.

Let me restate my position so people don't have to hunt it up on this endless thread.

All valuing is subjective. Some values are subjective, some objective. The subjective cannot exist without the objective because subjective is a derivative concept. Objective values pertain to man or men generally. Subjective only to particular men. (Hey women! Note the "men" in women.) Subjective valuing is at least an implicit search for the objective behind the subjective just as scientific inquiry is the search for (objective) truth. We don't say all scientific knowledge is subjective. To know what is an objective value for man one needs to know the nature of men in man. Men need air to breath so that's an objective value of man and men. That's an easy one, but Xray says NO! Survival isn't what she wants. She wants the house without the foundation and demands the house be produced so she can say the house has no foundation hence there are no objective values after all. I say that if we can't agree on something so basic as air for breathing there's no point in positing the existence of more abstract, less concrete objective values. The tentativeness of human knowledge doesn't mean the absence of objective truth including values, only that it is very hard to find and know such. When a scientist uses the scientific method we don't say he's being subjective and that all knowledge is subjective; we are saying he is proceeding in a careful and tentative fashion using an established protocol.

The insistence on complete and absolute subjectivity concerning values is only a smokescreen for an attack on the efficacy of human cognition, philosophy--especially moral philosophy and ultimately any political system. It's trading free will for the consciousness of any lower animal, none of which has free will.

What Xray advocates might be of value if she could explain how the West, naked and exposed to its enemies, will survive in a world where other systems claim their own objective superiority and you convert or get killed. When we fight for our freedom we are proclaiming freedom a superior value to totalitarian dictatorship. We don't say it's just our opinion and you're entitled to yours--you with the club in hand approaching.

--Brant

Edited August 9, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Dragonfly]

That values are not objective doesn't mean that they cannot be ordered for a given person at a I find this kind of semantic stubbornness amusing.

I don't know what kind of chess you play, but in the way I learned it, the objective was to checkmate the King of the opponent.

That's an objective value.

The funny thing is that you are now contradicting your co-Objectivist Selene, who stated in his example that winning the game meant nothing to him, so it can't be an objective value. Now I'd like to know what the official Objectivist viewpoint on this matter is... The point is of course that when we're speaking about a "sacrifice" in chess, we implicitly assume that the purpose of the game is to win or at least not to lose, so within that framework we can assign values to different options and we should also analyze the meaning of sacrifice within that framework (and arrive at the conclusion that the sacrifice is giving up some value (of some chess piece in the game) to attain a greater value (winning that game). But that doesn't mean that these values are therefore objective, as it is very well possible that someone is not interested in winning a game or even wants to lose a game for some reason. The discussion of a sacrifice in chess is only meaningful given the goal to win the match, but that goal is itself a subjective choice.

[merjet]

A sacrifice is ALWAYS performed because the sacrificer hopes to get a higher value for that which he/she treades in. (post #527)

NO ONE trading a value X does this because she/she wants to get a lower value in return. (post #591)

A sacrifice could also be a deliberate exchange of a chess piece of higher value for an opponent's piece of lower value. (link)

Wikipedia disagrees with Xray and agrees with Rand.

Pseudo sacrifices

Checkmate. A common benefit of making a sacrifice is to allow the sacrificing player to checkmate the opponent. (ibid.)

Does "sacrifice" in Xray-speak really mean "pseudo sacrifice"?

[Brant Gaede]

That values are not objective doesn't mean that they cannot be ordered for a given person at a I find this kind of semantic stubbornness amusing.

I don't know what kind of chess you play, but in the way I learned it, the objective was to checkmate the King of the opponent.

That's an objective value.

The funny thing is that you are now contradicting your co-Objectivist Selene, who stated in his example that winning the game meant nothing to him, so it can't be an objective value. Now I'd like to know what the official Objectivist viewpoint on this matter is... The point is of course that when we're speaking about a "sacrifice" in chess, we implicitly assume that the purpose of the game is to win or at least not to lose, so within that framework we can assign values to different options and we should also analyze the meaning of sacrifice within that framework (and arrive at the conclusion that the sacrifice is giving up some value (of some chess piece in the game) to attain a greater value (winning that game). But that doesn't mean that these values are therefore objective, as it is very well possible that someone is not interested in winning a game or even wants to lose a game for some reason. The discussion of a sacrifice in chess is only meaningful given the goal to win the match, but that goal is itself a subjective choice.

While I'm personally not telling anybody what the "official Objectivist viewpoint" on any matter is, to say a "goal is itself a subjective choice" belies the fact that choosing itself is an objective value for there is no choosing not to choose which in turn is a choice for that state belongs to the deceased. You cannot displace the objective with the subjective by rendering knowledge free from valuing. To state the matter literally correctly say "that goal is itself an objective-subjective choice." I'd rather just say it was a choice, as "subjective" per se brings absolutely nothing to the table concerning choice. "Objective" is essentially redundant. All valuing is subjective but the overall context all valuing exists in is objective.

--Brant

confused and confusing

[Dragonfly]

A sacrifice could also be a deliberate exchange of a chess piece of higher value for an opponent's piece of lower value. (link)

Wikipedia disagrees with Xray and agrees with Rand.

But Wikipedia also says: "in the hopes of gaining tactical or positional compensation in other forms", which is exactly what Xray says: "..because the sacrificer hopes to get a higher value for that which he/she treades in", so Wikipedia agrees with Xray... You're overlooking the fact that the "material value" of a chess piece is not the only value in the game, there is for example also something like the "positional value" and that may more than compensate for the loss in purely "material value" if the goal is to win the game. That is of course the real meaning of the sacrifice, to get ultimately a better value. Otherwise, unless your goal is to lose the game, a sacrifice in chess would just be meaningless!

Pseudo sacrifices

Checkmate. A common benefit of making a sacrifice is to allow the sacrificing player to checkmate the opponent. (ibid.)

Does "sacrifice" in Xray-speak really mean "pseudo sacrifice"?

The distinction between "sacrifice" and "pseudo-sacrifice" is rather arbitrary and not essential. The goal is the same: to gain advantage, only in the "pseudo-sacrifice" the advantage is more or less direct and unavoidable, while the effect of the "real" sacrifice is more indirect and therefore less certain.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now I'd like to know what the official Objectivist viewpoint on this matter is...

Dragonfly,

You have a lot more interest in this than I do. I don't give a damn about any "official Objectivist viewpoint."

The point is of course that when we're speaking about a "sacrifice" in chess, we implicitly assume that the purpose of the game is to win or at least not to lose, so within that framework we can assign values to different options and we should also analyze the meaning of sacrifice within that framework (and arrive at the conclusion that the sacrifice is giving up some value (of some chess piece in the game) to attain a greater value (winning that game).

You couldn't possibly be talking about that item in Objectivist thought Rand-bashers love to mock, context, now could you?

You couldn't possibly mean that values exist within a context?...

But that doesn't mean that these values are therefore objective, as it is very well possible that someone is not interested in winning a game or even wants to lose a game for some reason.

Bull crap.

Is the objective of the game to checkmate the King or not? If it is, this is an objective value. It is the same objective for all players, too. That is, if they want to play chess.

It's funny seeing the logical pretzels and total ignoring of what was just posted when the shoe is on the other foot...

Face it. Xray-speak only makes sense if you ignore a lot of stuff.

Michael

[Xray]

That values are not objective doesn't mean that they cannot be ordered for a given person at a certain moment in time. When we're talking about a sacrifice in chess, it is understood that this refers to the fairly common situation in which the purpose of both players is to win or at least not to lose. Of course this is not an objective value, some people might not care at all or might even want to lose, but for obvious reasons chess terminology is not geared to that kind of players.

Dragonfly,

I find this kind of semantic stubbornness amusing.

It is not "semantic stubbornness". It is semantic clarity.

I don't know what kind of chess you play, but in the way I learned it, the objective was to checkmate the King of the opponent.

That's an objective value.

Michael

I don't know what kind of dictionary you use, Michael, but in mine, "objective" as a noun in the English language means "goal" ["something that you are trying hard to achieve", especially in business or politics" (Longman's dictionary)].

For example, Stalin's "objective" (= goal) was to eliminate his opponents as obstacles, and to achieve it, he used all kinds of means, including murder.

But according to your reasoning outlined above, this was an "objective value" then.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Xray