Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

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

The German word for "sacrifice" is "Opfer", which also has as root the verb "to offer" (from Latin 'offere').

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

I'm aware of the difficulty in that field, and appreciate your help with translations from the Hebrew.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Xray

[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."

If it's a matter of personal choice, how is "life" an "objective standard" when personal choice itself is contrary to any "standard of life" except what one personally chooses?

In the face of this fact, to speak of "objective standard of life" is to implicitly claim "standard" existing independently of any valuer. It sounds a bit like "God giving free will" to choose or reject "omnipotent values."

The same contradiction can be found in "life proper to man." If objective, it is absolute and there is no choice. Ergo, to argue for "objective value" is revealing subjective choice; thus, such an argument is self-negating.

" 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' tstop at some pretend value and fact border as she tells us "that's a fact."

-- Brant

To the contrary, it is an argument for objectivity; that is, objective identity of an individual AS IS, not what one wishes the individual to be.

What objectively is (i. e. a fact) is each individual subjectively attributing value.

You have said as much yourself:

"....which any particular person can tie into but doesn't have to...."

Question: Why do you call one choice objective and a disagreeing choice subjective when both are from the same natural characteristics of volition?

Rather arbitrary, isn't it?

Edited August 12, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

[jeffrey smith]

I'll await your answers first before I continue.

In other words you are refusing to answer a simple question.

Your prerogative , but it's also my prerogative to decide any discussion I might have with you is, as Rand would put it, a nonvalue.

And I'm exercising that prerogative. I'm not playing your game. I will only note that your abuse of the term self-interest in your previous post to me pushes it to such an extreme limit that it becomes a useless term: anything an individual does is automatically in its self interest.

Have a nice life.

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=rNQRfBAzSzo

[Brant Gaede]

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."

If it's a matter of personal choice, how is "life" an "objective standard" when personal choice itself is contrary to any "standard of life" except what one personally chooses?

In the face of this fact, to speak of "objective standard of life" is to implicitly claim "standard" existing independently of any valuer. It sounds a bit like "God giving free will" to choose or reject "omnipotent values."

The same contradiction can be found in "life proper to man." If objective, it is absolute and there is no choice. Ergo, to argue for "objective value" is revealing subjective choice; thus, such an argument is self-negating.

" 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' tstop at some pretend value and fact border as she tells us "that's a fact."

-- Brant

To the contrary, it is an argument for objectivity; that is, objective identity of an individual AS IS, not what one wishes the individual to be.

What objectively is (i. e. a fact) is each individual subjectively attributing value.

You have said as much yourself:

"....which any particular person can tie into but doesn't have to...."

Question: Why do you call one choice objective and a disagreeing choice subjective when both are from the same natural characteristics of volition?

Rather arbitrary, isn't it?

I wonder if you've really been reading what I've been saying. I've written a lot you've never responded to and this last post by you tells me if what you read doesn't go *click* in your head you just let it go by. I've carefully distinguished between "man" in the abstract and particular men in referencing objectivity in values several times, for instance. The concept of man seems to mean nothing to you, only individual men.

--Brant

[merjet]

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.

Oh my, what distortions or contortions some people will make to accuse Rand of contradiction. Where does Rand at all say the mothers in her example are making objective value judgments? Her example is to illustrate her definition of "sacrifice", not objective values.

[Dragonfly]

Oh my, what distortions or contortions some people will make to accuse Rand of contradiction. Where does Rand at all say the mothers in her example are making objective value judgments? Her example is to illustrate her definition of "sacrifice", not objective values.

No need for distortions, just following Rand's own definitions. Rand's definition of 'value' is clear enough:

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

In other words, value is not defined as that what people should act to gain and/or keep or what would be best for people, it's simply defined as that what people do try to gain and keep (which is a sensible definition in my opinion).

Then Rand's definition of 'sacrifice':

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

Note that she writes a "greater value" and not something about value judgments (which wouldn't necessarily reflect the "real" value). Greater according to what standard? From her definitions and the examples she gives it's clear that she doesn't use any objective standard, but accepts the value judgments of the persons she mentions at face value. Now you can talk a lot about "objective" values, but from Rand's definitions and examples it's clear that values are not objective, you can't just redefine something that is subjective to something that is objective at the moment it suits you and pretend that you didn't change the rules. You can of course use a different definition of 'value', for example the one Robert Hartford gave, but then you should make it clear that this is not Rand's definition of 'value', because that would certainly muddy the waters.

[Xray]

I'll await your answers first before I continue.

In other words you are refusing to answer a simple question.

Your prerogative , but it's also my prerogative to decide any discussion I might have with you is, as Rand would put it, a nonvalue.

And I'm exercising that prerogative. I'm not playing your game. I will only note that your abuse of the term self-interest in your previous post to me pushes it to such an extreme limit that it becomes a useless term: anything an individual does is automatically in its self interest.

Have a nice life.

If you think I'm refusing to answer your question or playing games, you are totally mistaken.

I was preparing the ground for a sensible step by step approach, and for a connotatively so heavily "loaded" term like "sacrifice", going back to its etymology is crucial imo ("What was the original meaning of sacrifice?").

What do you have against a thorough approach? What do you have against the presentation of a clear example of sacrifice, like in Cain and Abel? Was the example too compelling for you maybe?

Your prerogative, but it's also my prerogative to decide any discussion I might have with you is, as Rand would put it, a nonvalue.

Your post is an illustrative example of the fact that we subjectvely attribute value or non-value.

You need not especially claim any prerogatives, Jeffrey, since we are all free to decide to whom to reply.

In case you have misunderstood my post: I was by no means trying to "push" you into doing something; it was you who had asked me for a definition. I made my comment to wait for your answers first before continuing because I wanted to be sure if we are on the same page and to clear up possible disagreements right then and there. I like my ducks in a row in discussions - it avoids unnecessary confusion.

But no problem, I'm going to work it out without you then. Maybe you'll change your mind and join when it becomes clear to you that I'm not "playing games", but committed to getting to the core of an issue.

I will only note that your abuse of the term self-interest in your previous post to me pushes it to such an extreme limit that it becomes a useless term: anything an individual does is automatically in its self interest.

You're still caught in the trap of interpreting "self-interest" connotatively with a negative touch to it.

It was used by me as a neutral term.

Abandoning the children would have competely have gone against Korcazk's personal value system involving empathy and caring, and how he viewed himself (that is, against his preferred sense of self - again, the term is NOT used connotatively in a negative sense by me).

anything an individual does is automatically in its self interest.

As goal seeking entities, we can't but act in self-interest.

The various self-interests may of course widely differ and can even involve giving one's own life for a highly valued cause. Just think of suicide bombers as classic examples.

As for so-called "altruists" - we all know people who like to help others, who work in social projects, who do a lot of volunteering, etc.

Those they help can benefit substantially from the actions by these people, but the helpers in turn are not trading something for nothing.

For what they do gives them a sense of personal accomplishment and fulfillment, of being accepted, needed, appreciated, admired and/or rewarded later in an "afterlife", etc.

So there can be a whole cluster of motives going right to "self-interest".

Edited August 12, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

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

In other words, value is not defined as that what people should act to gain and/or keep or what would be best for people, it's simply defined as that what people do try to gain and keep (which is a sensible definition in my opinion).

Jmo too. It is a sensible definition, leaving no doubt about the subjectivity of values.

But Rand goes against her very own definition of values by later presenting her laundry list of so-called "objective" values.

In short, she violates her own premise.

Now you can talk a lot about "objective" values, but from Rand's definitions and examples it's clear that values are not objective, you can't just redefine something that is subjective to something that is objective at the moment it suits you and pretend that you didn't change the rules.

You hit the nail on the head.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

It seems that a few here are on the premise that Rand made only correct statements concerning values and valuing.

--Brant

[Xray]

Brant Gaede:

"Her whole position on this whole thread is to use objectivity as a stolen concept to attack not just objective values but objectivity itself."

It is not a (non-existent) "attack upon objectivity" that bothers you, it's precisely the objectivity in arguments that trouble you.

I find the "stolen concept" bit rather amusing. What on earth is a "stolen concept?" I can understand agreeing, or disagreeing with a concept (idea), but theft of a concept???

Of course, you are just repeating Rand. She didn't explain much either. In the Lexicon under "stolen concept", I find for example:

"They proclaim that there are no entities, that nothing exists but motion, and blank out the fact that motion presupposes the thing which moves, that without the concept of entity, there can be no such concept as "motion."(Rand)

I see a lot of "they" in Rand's works. What I don't see is who "they" are, and exactly what did "they" say?

Where's the quotes? Since I have never come across anyone stupid enough to say "there are no entities, that nothing

exists but motion", I trust you can understand my curiosity about "they" that Rand invokes so often.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I wonder if you've really been reading what I've been saying. I've written a lot you've never responded to and this last post by you tells me if what you read doesn't go *click* in your head you just let it go by. I've carefully distinguished between "man" in the abstract and particular men in referencing objectivity in values several times, for instance. The concept of man seems to mean nothing to you, only individual men.

A concept is is "a conceived idea of". When you use "man" "in the abstract" singular form, (as in "life proper to man"), you have a conceived idea of a category "man" which you want to see applied to all members of the category (= all men).

So when you use "life proper to man", it claims a one set for all "life proper to man value package" in denial of innumerable invidual human identities subjectively attributing value.

But "Man', the abstract, by definition, does not exist as an entity, let alone a volitional one. Therefore, "man", the abstract, has no logical connection to the term, value, and the mental action of attributing value.

"The concept of man seems to mean nothing to you, only individual men."

Your complaint is that I'm referencing the finite real (individual) as the acting entity rather than the infinite categorical abstract ("Man").

Have you ever seen "Man" (the category) attributing value, Brant?

Edited August 12, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Thus Xray does not or cannot define "man" but can describe men or a man. While all men have certain things in common they don't have all things in common. One man may today kill himself while another enjoys his young bride. One may hate music while another can't live without it.

--Brant

[Xray]

Thus Xray does not or cannot define "man" but can describe men or a man.

Contrary to your assertion, I did define the term, "man" as an abstract, a category.

".....but can describe men or a man." Of course, men (more that one) is also category.

As for describing "a man", this goes to the differentiation set of characteristics as description which I have promoted over and over again. But you make no distinction between "man" the category, and "a man", a finite existent.

You top it off with:

"While all men have certain things in common they don't have all things in common. One man may today kill himself while another enjoys his young bride. One may hate music while another can't live without it."

Which is exactly what I have been saying (subjective value) all along, but you now say it as if you are informing me with the inference that this opposes and refutes my position, although it is in agreement with my consistently stated position along with many examples just like the one you presented.

In short, you "disagree" by actually agreeing.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I replied to Xray but it disappeared.

--Brant

[Xray]

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.

Jeffrey declinded to reply, but what could he have replied other than the obvious: of course the offerer wants to get a HIGHER value in return for what he/she gives.

In the case of Cain and Abel, "God's approval" was the sought higher value by them, by far surpassing for them in value a lamb or produce from the fields.

It is also a myth that this type of trade (sacrficing as offering to a deity), has to imply that the offer is of considerable value to the giver. Many churches have offering boxes (in German "Opferstock" - 'sacrifice chest') where people often throw in only a few cents.

Fifteen years ago, during our vacation to Italy, we visited a church in Ravenna where there was a big water-filled basin in the middle in which people could throw in coins as little "sacrifice offerings".

Our then six-year-old daughter looked at the substantial amount of coins which had accumulated at the bottom of the basin and asked:

"And who gets this money then? When it is dark, does God reach down with his hand from above and take it?"

A six-year-old can grasp that in every so-called 'sacrifice', the trade idea is at work, and it is also an undisputed fact that EVERYONE engaging in a trade wants to get a HIGHER, not a lower value for what he/she gives.

But Rand says:

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

The exact opposite is the case. In every offer, whether it is a lamb to a deity, or anything else to anyone else (and every so-called 'sacrifice' is trading a value X in order to get a higher value Y), a lesser value is traded in order to get a higher value.

What is subjectively valued as higher/lower depends on the individual's personal value hierarchy at the moment of the choice.

But Rand, while stating in the 'hat' example that people do have a personal hierarchy of subjective values, now makes the 'switcheroo' (I'll borrow that term from DF) to "objective values", but what are those alleged "objective values" other than her own subjective choices?

"Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.

This applies to all choices, including one’s actions toward other men. It requires that one possess a defined hierarchy of rational values (values chosen and validated by a rational standard). Without such a hierarchy, neither rational conduct nor considered value judgments nor moral choices are possible." (Rand)

Not only is altruism a myth, here is also the usual deciding for someone else what that person values; or more to the point, deciding what someone else "ought" to value. This in turn, evades the fact that an individual may, by the nature of personal preference, choose something other that what the outsider thinks the individual "ought" to choose.

It is from the "ought" that the outsider decides for the person what is the higher value. Thus, is the reality of subjective choice by one person denied and pushed aside by the subjective choice of another person presuming to decide the higher value for someone other than self. Of course, the fallacious underlying premise is "objective value."

Edited August 13, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

You can make an argument that altruism is a myth only if you make the same argument that selfishness is a myth. Or any philosophy. They are concepts and exist as concepts in our heads.

Altruism is essentially a way of duping people into certain behaviors they might not engage in otherwise. But since they want to do those things their behavior is selfish in Xray's world where subjectivity precludes any selfless activity.

So when the followers of the Rev. Jim Jones drink the Kool Aid they are acting selfishly. Bullshit.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Thus Xray does not or cannot define "man" but can describe men or a man.

Contrary to your assertion, I did define the term, "man" as an abstract, a category.

".....but can describe men or a man." Of course, men (more that one) is also category.

As for describing "a man", this goes to the differentiation set of characteristics as description which I have promoted over and over again. But you make no distinction between "man" the category, and "a man", a finite existent.

You top it off with:

"While all men have certain things in common they don't have all things in common. One man may today kill himself while another enjoys his young bride. One may hate music while another can't live without it."

Which is exactly what I have been saying (subjective value) all along, but you now say it as if you are informing me with the inference that this opposes and refutes my position, although it is in agreement with my consistently stated position along with many examples just like the one you presented.

In short, you "disagree" by actually agreeing.

No you didn't give a definition of "man" and have description and definition mixed up with each other. Basically you don't think concepts exist because they aren't "out there."

Not making an Objectivist explanation but merely my own, I posit all valuing is subjective and values can be subjective or objective or even both. The objective values appertain to man--the concept, the idea--and may or may not be valued by any particular man. To know what these are we have to learn the characteristics and life-sustaining needs of man by examining men. (I'm in favor of examining women too, very much.) Life is for life's sake. We aren't born to die, we are born to reproduce. That's the biology. Unlike the birds and bees no one has to.

So air, water, shelter, clothes, companionship, art, etc., can all be described as objective values. The fact they are subjectively valued doesn't de-objectify them. What kind of art you value and how much--that all is completely subjective, but a good case can be made that the human organism has a real need for art as such and that would be an objective value. The fact that knowledge of that objective value might be tentative doesn't mean the same thing as subjective any more than theoretical scientific knowledge is subjective because it is tentative.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Arguing with Xray is like arguing with an intellectual zombie.

--Brant

[Selene]

Arguing with Xray is like arguing with an intellectual zombie.

--Brant

And reallllllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyy boring also.

Adam

[Xray]

You can make an argument that altruism is a myth only if you make the same argument that selfishness is a myth.

Or any philosophy. They are concepts and exist as concepts in our heads.

Not every concept is a myth, Brant. A concept is "a conceived idea of". The issue is what these ideas are.

You can make an argument that altruism is a myth only if you make the same argument that selfishness is a myth.

Both are myths.

It depends on what you connote with selfishness. Is it a value judgement with a negative connotation, calling person P's behavior selfish means one "ought not" to put oneself first?

selfish

Adjective

1. caring too much about oneself and not enough about others

Or do you mean it to be understood neutrally:

2. (of behaviour or attitude) motivated by self-interest

"Self-interest" is a neutral term; it is a natural condition, directing our actions.

Altruism is essentially a way of duping people into certain behaviors they might not engage in otherwise. But since they want to do those things their behavior is selfish in Xray's world where subjectivity precludes any selfless activity.

A person believing that people can act without self-interest succumbs to an illusion.

In that respect, we are not different from chimpanzees "grooming" each other: The groomer feels accepted and appreciated.

What personal benefit does John Doe draw from inviting his collegue to a cup of coffee? John is doing a form of grooming too.

So when the followers of the Rev. Jim Jones drink the Kool Aid they are acting selfishly. Bullshit.

Their self-interest directed them to look for an authority figure to guide them, and they uncritically believed what came from the guru's mouth.

It is a simple, albeit drastic, example of the believer attitude: alleged truths are accepted by faith, independent thinking is wilingly relinquished for the preferred value of alleged "security" offered by subordinating oneself to a leader figure. The fervent follower attitude can go as far as accepting to end one's life if the guru so decides.

Not all accepted this though. Those who refused to commit suicide were murdered. Here you have your "blood and war" example, Brant: The leader imposing by force his alleged "objective values" upon those who don't accept them.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

If you are talking about Jones Town, source please?

"Not all accepted[sic] this though. Those who refused to commit suicide were murdered"

[jeffrey smith]

Arguing with Xray is like arguing with an intellectual zombie.

--Brant

You noticed that....

The pity is that I agree with what she seemed to be saying when I entered this thread. But she's rendered her definitions so broadly and vaguely that they become useless, and I now have no idea of what she actually thinks.

To be clear, I think that it's not possible to have "objective" values because it's not possible to have an objective standard of value. If you pick a standard of value, you're really just exercising your subjective choice about what funamental value principles you adhere to. But there is nothing about reality that declares one standard of value is superior to the rest. Life as a productive person requires adherence to certain value principles, which Rand states fairly clearly--but there's nothing in reality that says being a productive person is superior to the other possible alternatives.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is Xray a myth?

Michael