Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

Don't ya just hate when they use that truth stuff!

"Typical examples are the word combination like "divine reality" or "divine truth" often used by believers."

Ya know, I heared about this lady kept talkin bout a "door of truth" or sum such stuff.

"Door of truth" was figurative speech used by me, and has nothing to do with a believer's illusion of "divine truth/divine reality".

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Don't ya just hate when they use that truth stuff!

"Typical examples are the word combination like "divine reality" or "divine truth" often used by believers."

Ya know, I heared about this lady kept talkin bout a "door of truth" or sum such stuff.

"Door of truth" was figurative speech used by me, and has nothing to do with a believer's illusion of "divine truth/divine reality".

Ahh so you are right again.

Sorry

[jeffrey smith]

Sacrifice (from the Gaede dictionary): throwing Xray into the volcano to appease Ayn Rand.

--Brant

virginity not needed

Attention Brant, for according to Rand's logic, "sacrifice" means giving a higher value for a lesser value.

That won't save you.

--Brant

Brant:

Is this going to be pay for view because I have my plastic ready!

Maybe some heavy Wagnerian sounds building in the introduction.

Adam

I like the idea of this paying for itself.

Do you know where we can charter a helicopter?

--Brant

Brant:

Actually, I do know two folks who have had to arrange for transportation like that . I would want the digital-camera angles to be really precise for those OMG moments

when objective reality really makes it's impression.

Maybe Jonathan can be hired for his consultation.

Adam

Brant and Adam, I'm afraid you'll be running a serious risk here. Mother Pele is liable to have a serious case of heartburn after digesting XRay, and you don't want to give Mother Pele heartburn, do you?

BTW, this is now the third day since I asked Xray for her actual definition of sacrifice and an explanation of how it differs from simple exchange or trade, and still no response on a relatively simple point.

[Brant Gaede]

Sacrifice (from the Gaede dictionary): throwing Xray into the volcano to appease Ayn Rand.

--Brant

virginity not needed

Attention Brant, for according to Rand's logic, "sacrifice" means giving a higher value for a lesser value.

That won't save you.

--Brant

Brant:

Is this going to be pay for view because I have my plastic ready!

Maybe some heavy Wagnerian sounds building in the introduction.

Adam

I like the idea of this paying for itself.

Do you know where we can charter a helicopter?

--Brant

Brant:

Actually, I do know two folks who have had to arrange for transportation like that . I would want the digital-camera angles to be really precise for those OMG moments

when objective reality really makes it's impression.

Maybe Jonathan can be hired for his consultation.

Adam

Brant and Adam, I'm afraid you'll be running a serious risk here. Mother Pele is liable to have a serious case of heartburn after digesting XRay, and you don't want to give Mother Pele heartburn, do you?

BTW, this is now the third day since I asked Xray for her actual definition of sacrifice and an explanation of how it differs from simple exchange or trade, and still no response on a relatively simple point.

I'm stymied. I can't get the necessary permits. Curse the lack of free market capitalism!

--Brant

Edited August 11, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[rhartford]

Technically and definitively, it is literally impossible for a 100 % self-interest individual to trade something of a higher value for something valued less.

Technically and definitively, that statement was made because the author defines every "trade" to be acquisition of "something of a higher value."

In Objectivism, however, “something of a higher value” is something that is of greater benefit to the organism. To declare something “higher” requires a standard of measurement and that standard, in Objectivism, is beneficial contribution to the life of the organism.

“Something valued less” is something that a person thinks, rightly or wrongly, is of lesser benefit. The hierarchy of things that actually benefit a person’s life can be quite different than the hierarchy of things a person thinks will benefit life.

Different concepts are needed to label choices that match the actual hierarchy of benefit and choices that are made in conflict with actual benefit. There are many reasons for choosing in conflict with actual benefit. Some possibilities are acceptance of the wrong standard for measuring benefit, simple error in applying a proper standard, and allowing feelings to override considered judgment.

One must clearly recognize that one can make errors and that what one thinks is of value may not be something of actual value - that acting to achieve what one thinks is of greater benefit may not in fact be of greater benefit. The pursuit of truth requires one to be "on guard" for cases when what is "in one's mind" fails to correspond to reality.

I decided to reply to my own post. I thought "going to the facts" in the above post might be helpful. The last paragraph, in particular, I thought would prompt some labeling of cases where what one thinks to be to one's benefit may not actually benefit one's life. For instance, bowing to social pressure might cause one to act in conflict with one's actual benefit. One might label that a "no-backbone" choice.

Of course, Xray would claim that bowing to social pressure was actually choosing the "higher value." That's because XRay engages in the logical fallacy of circular definition. She says, in effect, a person 100% of the time chooses the higher value. And the higher value is a goal sought in preference to a lower value. Without an independent standard for measuring value, she is reduced to circularity. The higher value is that which is chosen and that which is chosen is the higher value. In that treatment, "higher" and "value" lose their meaning and float off unanchored to any facts of reality.

There may be more to learn from Xray's errors, but I think this thread has probably covered most of them by now.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Robert Hartford

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

BTW, this is now the third day since I asked Xray for her actual definition of sacrifice and an explanation of how it differs from simple exchange or trade, and still no response on a relatively simple point.

Jeff,

Don't worry about it. If you keep pressing, she will eventually copy/paste a few dictionaries, filter a few parts through Xray-speak, ignore the rest, and then ask if you agree...

Michael

[tjohnson]

Hmmm...perhaps xray means there is no such thing as objective valuing, not objective values.

[Brant Gaede]

Hmmm...perhaps xray means there is no such thing as objective valuing, not objective values.

No. That's my position, not hers. However, she has not answered any of my posts to that point.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hmmm...perhaps xray means there is no such thing as objective valuing, not objective values.

GS,

If you want to use that standard for calling something subjective (i.e., something that happens inside someone's skull while a person is alive and conscious), there is no such thing as objective thinking.

I hold that that's a sorry excuse of a standard for measuring knowledge.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Hmmm...perhaps xray means there is no such thing as objective valuing, not objective values.

GS,

If you want to use that standard for calling something subjective (i.e., something that happens inside someone's skull while a person is alive and conscious), there is no such thing as objective thinking.

I hold that that's a sorry excuse of a standard for measuring knowledge.

Michael

I think "objective thinking" is the striving for objectivity. Truth. Knowledge. Xray doesn't engage on this level, apparently not to distract from her general assault on objectivity obscured by her assault on "objective values." She has not ONE good thing to say, so far, about anything "objective." It's all blood and wars. Of course, everything she says is "objectively" true. If what she claims about subjective values is true it is, of course, objectively true. True is true. "Objectively" is a redundancy. Her whole position on this whole thread is to use objectivity as a stolen concept to attack not just objective values but objectivity itself.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Furthermore, she'll just keep repeating herself, as if that was an argument. She ignores and she repeats. There is no substance other than she has something to do with PETA.

--Brant

eating tasty animals

[Xray]

Hmmm...perhaps xray means there is no such thing as objective valuing, not objective values.

No. That's my position, not hers. However, she has not answered any of my posts to that point.

--Brant

"A" value is simply the noun from the verb "to value". Like e. g. "a catch" is the noun form from the verb "to catch".

Using the term, value, as a noun can erroneously connote a fixed and permanent value. It tends to blank out the fact that since it is a simultaneous derivative from the mental action of attributing value, it's always infinitely variable.

So, "value to whom" necessarily and logically recognizes the simultaneous relationship of "value" and the mental action of attributing value. The objective constant is the mental action of attributing value manifested in the infinite variations of the personal preferences of each individual and circumstances.

Even if e. g. an individual consistently values the characteristic of honesty,

it's still personal choice subject to change if the individual so desires.

Since it is always the mental action of attributing value, there is no objective fixed value existing independently of individual mind and individual subjective personal preference.

"Christian values", "Socialist values", or "Objectivist values", are three examples in illustration of the point.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Hmmm...perhaps xray means there is no such thing as objective valuing, not objective values.

No. That's my position, not hers. However, she has not answered any of my posts to that point.

--Brant

"A" value is simply the noun from the verb "to value". Like e. g. "a catch" is the noun form from the verb "to catch".

Using the term, value, as a noun erroneously connotes a fixed and permanent value. It tends to blank out the fact that since it is a simultaneous derivative from the mental action of attributing value, it's always infinitely variable.

So, "value to whom" necessarily and logically recognizes the simultaneous relationship of "value" and the mental action of attributing value. The objective constant is the mental action of attributing value manifested in the infinite variations of the personal preferences of each individual and circumstances.

Even if e. g. an individual consistently values the characteristic of honesty,

it's still personal choice subject to change if the individual so desires.

Since it is always the mental action of attributing value, there is no

objective fixed value existing independently of individual mind and individual

subjective personal preference.

"Christian values", or "Socialist values" or "Objectivist values", are three examples in illustration of the point.

Interesting that you assert, with no objective source, the statement that a "value" is "simply" the "noun from the verb" to value. From that a leap is made stating that it ...

"...erroneously connotes a fixed and permanent value..." <<<to whom? The person who stands by the "door of truth"?

"The objective constant is the mental action of attributing value manifested in the infinite variations of the personal preferences of each individual and circumstances."

From that contorted, convoluted philosophical twister game you play with yourself, you then equate all ___________ values as illustration of you tautological pronouncements.

Sad. Tediously sad. Essentially boring.

Adam

[Xray]

Interesting that you assert, with no objective source, the statement that a "value" is "simply" the "noun from the verb" to value. From that a leap is made stating that it ...

Look it up in any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me:

value (n.)

1303, from O.Fr. value "worth, value" (13c.), noun use of fem. pp. of valoir "be worth," from L. valere "be strong, be well, be of value" (see valiant).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=value

"...erroneously connotes a fixed and permanent value..." <<<to whom?

You made my point. That's exactly what it is about. For it is always value to whom, since there exist no fixed and permanent objective values as common set for all.

"The objective constant is the mental action of attributing value manifested in the infinite variations of the personal preferences of each individual and circumstances."

From that contorted, convoluted philosophical twister game you play with yourself, you then equate all ___________ values as illustration of you tautological pronouncements.

Adam

I'm merely describing facts. Premises not having their basis in facts lead to fallacious conclusions, therefore it is of crucial importance to check them.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Of course, Xray would claim that bowing to social pressure was actually choosing the "higher value." That's because XRay engages in the logical fallacy of circular definition. She says, in effect, a person 100% of the time chooses the higher value. And the higher value is a goal sought in preference to a lower value. Without an independent standard for measuring value, she is reduced to circularity. The higher value is that which is chosen and that which is chosen is the higher value. In that treatment, "higher" and "value" lose their meaning and float off unanchored to any facts of reality.

The exact opposite is the case, Robert. For a thinking discipline guided by the entity identity principle recognizes the fact that each human individual is a goal-seeking, valuing entity.

The disconnect from reality is imagining values existing independently of "value to whom"; that is, independently of the valuer.

So the anchor to reality is, is always "higher/lower value to whom", establishing the connection to the entity attributing value to this or that, and this is precisely what PREVENTS those values from "floating off unanchored to any facts of reality".

If these "higher values" Robert speaks of are not personally his, what is the source? Who is the valuer creating these " universal, superior values?"

No valuer. No values.

Any "higher value" chosen is always what the specific chooser thinks of as the higher value.

How other parties value the choices, or whether in the end, the chooser gets what he/she bargained for, is irrelevant when it comes to describing the operative principle at work.

Every choice humans make is motivated by the wish to get a higher value in return, from which it follows that NO ONE makes a choice because they want to attain a lower value in return.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Interesting that you assert, with no objective source, the statement that a "value" is "simply" the "noun from the verb" to value. From that a leap is made stating that it ...

Look it up in any etymological dictionary if you don't believe me:

value (n.)

1303, from O.Fr. value "worth, value" (13c.), noun use of fem. pp. of valoir "be worth," from L. valere "be strong, be well, be of value" (see valiant).

http://www.etymonlin....php?term=value

"...erroneously connotes a fixed and permanent value..." <<<to whom?

You made my point. That's exactly what it is about. For it is always value to whom, since there exist no fixed and permanent objective values as common set for all.

"The objective constant is the mental action of attributing value manifested in the infinite variations of the personal preferences of each individual and circumstances."

From that contorted, convoluted philosophical twister game you play with yourself, you then equate all ___________ values as illustration of you tautological pronouncements.

Adam

I'm merely describing facts. Premises not having their basis in facts lead to fallacious conclusions, therefore it is of crucial importance to check them.

"For it is always value to whom, since there exist no fixed and permanent objective values as common set for all." << this is the tautological spin that you literally cannot see.

And now we waltz around the floor with "I'm merely describing facts." And of course we then swirl back into "facts" by what standard of value and we spin right back into the loop in your circular argument.

Sad like I said - you can cut and paste until your decoupage of words completely obscures the reality of objective values as asserted in the philosophical premises that Rand laid out, but that would hope that you were not a dogmatic denier and someone who can have discussion.

Adam

Edited August 11, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

And now we waltz around the floor with "I'm merely describing facts." And of course we then swirl back into "facts" by what standard of value and we spin right back into the loop in your circular argument.

Sad like I said - you can cut and paste until your decoupage of words completely obscures the reality of objective values as asserted in the philosophical premises that Rand laid out, but that would hope that you were not a dogmatic denier and someone who can have discussion.

Adam

There is no objective standard of value. That's another fact.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

X-Ray, someone in fact did come up with an example of a real life person who did not act out of self interest. That was you; the example was J. Korczak. The fact that you misapply your definitions to try to make everything fit into your dogma does not change that. Acting to fulfill a value principle is not acting in self interest. It is acting to fulfill a value principle. Apparently the idea that some people do things because they think it's the correct thing to do [whether they are correct in thinking that way is of course a different subject and the answer will vary from situation to situation], regardless of the consequences to themselves and their loved ones, is something that your brain can not handle. But it does happen. It's happened numberless times in human history.

I have commented on Korczak before, so here is a summary of several posts made.

Jeffrey:

And acting to fulfill a value principle--in the case of Korczak, "protecting the widow and the orphan"--may involve a sacrifice (according to the usual view, but not Rand's)--but it is no sense a trade or a surrender. And I think a reasonable argument can be made that Galileo did knowingly sacrifice in the exact meaning of Rand's usage.

Korczak's sense of self and the personal values related to the sense of self involved not abandoning the children, therefore giving up his own life was considered of lesser value compared to a value he thought of as higher.

An intangible value is often more compelling than the tangible. The "principle" of which you speak is a matter of the philosophy/psychology of caring, sympathy and empathy. That was Korczak's identity, an identity which he apparently found immensely satisfactory. So much so, he couldn't imagine life without it, or did imagine and disvalued such an existence without it.

Even knowing that he would be killed, for example Korczak could also have fought to the death in an effort to protect the children.

Why did he choose to placidly go along with the children at the peril of his own life? Did he see it of value to stay with the children and comfort them as long as possible as more valuable that his own life? What was to become of him had he abandoned the children? He traded his life to hold onto his greater value as long as his life existed. The indication is that no matter how much he wanted to live, he evaluated it as of little or no worth if he abandoned the children in any way.

The rationale you offer is that Korczak valued the "value principle" and acted upon it although it was not in his self-interest to do so.

The "value principle" goes to Korczak's sense of self. According to you, Korczak acted to preserve the preferred sense of self, but acting to preserve sense of self IS acting in self-interest.

Pleas note that I do not use the term self-iterest with any negative connotation - I use it as a neutral term.

Bottom line: self-interest does not imply that one wants to preseve physical self at all costs. Countless persons who chose to die for their preferred values are ample proof of this.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for your definition of sacrifice.

I'll get to that ASAP.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[rhartford]

Of course, Xray would claim that bowing to social pressure was actually choosing the "higher value." That's because XRay engages in the logical fallacy of circular definition. She says, in effect, a person 100% of the time chooses the higher value. And the higher value is a goal sought in preference to a lower value. Without an independent standard for measuring value, she is reduced to circularity. The higher value is that which is chosen and that which is chosen is the higher value. In that treatment, "higher" and "value" lose their meaning and float off unanchored to any facts of reality.

So it is always "higher/lower value to whom", establishing the connection to the entity attributing value to this or that, and this is precisely what PREVENTS those values from "floating off unanchored to any facts of reality".

Every choice humans make is motivated by the wish to get a higher value in return . . .

Note that the "for what" of value has floated away. One can't even wish to get a higher value without a measurement standard for what is a higher value. For her the standard is what is wished for, circular again. For Objectivism the standard is benefit to one's life.

[Xray]

Of course, Xray would claim that bowing to social pressure was actually choosing the "higher value." That's because XRay engages in the logical fallacy of circular definition. She says, in effect, a person 100% of the time chooses the higher value. And the higher value is a goal sought in preference to a lower value. Without an independent standard for measuring value, she is reduced to circularity. The higher value is that which is chosen and that which is chosen is the higher value. In that treatment, "higher" and "value" lose their meaning and float off unanchored to any facts of reality.

So it is always "higher/lower value to whom", establishing the connection to the entity attributing value to this or that, and this is precisely what PREVENTS those values from "floating off unanchored to any facts of reality".

Every choice humans make is motivated by the wish to get a higher value in return . . .

Note that the "for what" of value has floated away. One can't even wish to get a higher value without a measurement standard for what is a higher value. For her the standard is what is wished for, circular again. For Objectivism the standard is benefit to one's life.

The "what is wished for" is of course personal choice again. There is no natural mandate to wish for (to value) anything in particular. If person P is alive, who decides for P whether P wishes to remain alive? If P decides to live, who decides for P his/her lifestyle? Who decides whether certain choices are a benefit or not? If P does not decide these things, what's left except for someone else to decide for P? If someone else decides for P regardless of P's choice, what is this if not the concept of ownership of P?

If that someone "justifies" this ownership (in theory or practice) on the grounds of "objective, universal values", does this change the concept of external ownership? Ergo, how can "objective value" with all it expresses and implies ever be reconciled with the concept of self-ownership and making non-invasive choices for self without external interference by word, or deed? (see post # 468)

To speak of life as an "objective standard" is fallacy even on the face of it. If life were an "objective standard", it would be absolute and not subject to choice. The argument for life as an "objective standard" of value implicitly

recognizes the presence of choice (subjective). This recognition itself negates the claim of "life as objective standard".

Edited August 12, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The Objective standard of value refers to human life in general which any particular person can tie into but doesn't have to. Some people don't want to live, for example. One thing Xray is doing is giving us the old "you can't step into the same river twice" in her argument for subjectivity. Her argument frankly doesn't stop at some pretend value and fact border as she tells us "that's a fact."

--Brant

[Xray]

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for your definition of sacrifice.

Let's start from scratch, and step by step.

I'd like to go to the etymological roots of the term "sacrifice" first.

It stems from Latin "sacra facere" which means 'to perform holy acts', the holy acts being mostly offers made by humans to a deity.

So the term clearly has its origin in a religious act.

The next question to ask is:

WHY are those religious sacrifices performed?

Are they perfomed because the sacrificer expects to get

- a higher value

or

- a lower value in return?

What do you think?

To flesh it out with an example, we'll take a famous sacrifice we are all familiar with:

Cain and Abel sacrificing to the biblical god.

Each offered something to God - Cain gave cereal froms his fields, Abel gave a lamb from his herd.

What did they expect to get in return for what they traded in?

A higher value or a lower value?

As for the expected value itself - how would you describe the value?

I'll await your answers first before I continue.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

To flesh it out with an example, we'll take a famous sacrifice we are all familiar with:

Cain and Abel sacrficing to the biblical god.

Each offered something to God - Cain gave cereal froms his fields, Abel gave a lamb from his herd.

What did they expect to get in return for what they traded in?

A higher value or a lower value?

As for the expected value itself - how would you describe the value?

I'll await your answers first before I continue.

Both expected to receive praise and reward from the Lord. One was disappointed. Or maybe both felt grateful for gifts received and services rendered. A way of saying thank you, as it were.

By the way, the Hebrew does not say sacrifice; it says offering*.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The Hebrew word (transliterated) is -minchah-, which means an offering. The Hebrew word (transliterated) for sacrifice is -karvan- or -zevach-.

A small word of advice; if you want to refer to scripture, be careful of which translation you use.

Edited August 11, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

To flesh it out with an example, we'll take a famous sacrifice we are all familiar with:

Cain and Abel sacrficing to the biblical god.

Each offered something to God - Cain gave cereal froms his fields, Abel gave a lamb from his herd.

What did they expect to get in return for what they traded in?

A higher value or a lower value?

As for the expected value itself - how would you describe the value?

I'll await your answers first before I continue.

Both expected to receive praise and reward from the Lord. One was disappointed. Or maybe both felt grateful for gifts received and services rendered. A way of saying thank you, as it were.

By the way, the Hebrew does not say sacrifice; it says offering.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You are wrong and xyz ray is right that is the Door of Truth that you stand at Ba'al. The Valkyrie had Brant at the Door of Truth but he laughed so hysterically that she could not

drag him through to the promised sacrificial New World Truth Door Order of the Logically Challenged [NWTDLCN] < damn they even suck at acronyms,

[Dragonfly]

In Objectivism, however, “something of a higher value” is something that is of greater benefit to the organism. To declare something “higher” requires a standard of measurement and that standard, in Objectivism, is beneficial contribution to the life of the organism.

Then how do you square this with Rands example of the woman who wants to buy a hat?

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.

It's obvious that the values implied here (sacrifice is giving up a higher value for a lower value, according to Rand) are not objectively measured according to a standard of measurement, they depend on the preferences of the mother (that's the only difference between the two situations), and not on what is a beneficial contribution to her life. So you cannot have your cake and eat it too: either "something of a higher value" is something that is of greater benefit to the organism, which means that Rand contradicts herself in her example, or Rand's example is consistent with her theory of values, but in that case there is no standard of measurement for values.

Of course, Xray would claim that bowing to social pressure was actually choosing the "higher value." That's because XRay engages in the logical fallacy of circular definition. She says, in effect, a person 100% of the time chooses the higher value. And the higher value is a goal sought in preference to a lower value. Without an independent standard for measuring value, she is reduced to circularity. The higher value is that which is chosen and that which is chosen is the higher value. In that treatment, "higher" and "value" lose their meaning and float off unanchored to any facts of reality.

Well, this situation is in fact quite similar to what we observe in evolution. Organisms we find in nature have evolved because they were the "fittest" (best adapted for survival and reproduction in their environment). How do we know that they were the "fittest"? Because they survived! A nice example of circularity, but that doesn't mean that the notion of "fitness" is unanchored to any facts of reality, on the contrary!