Rand's gender hierarchy

[Selene]

Is Xray a myth?

Michael

I am telling you Michael she is a Valkyrie. She too sour noted to be a Siren luring poor innocent Somali seamen to their doom.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

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.

I simply think you haven't digested all this enough. Freedom is superior to tyranny, for instance. Freedom is a superior value. Leave off the objective/subjective crap. We are really talking about the efficacy of the human mind to make good and right choices. I have not been arguing with Dragonfly and I'm not arguing with you. I am arguing with a dogmatist who is trying to ram her views down our throats without any proper ratiocination and give and take with the view of destroying Objectivism and human freedom. She'll deny all this, of course, but her other words belie. Look, it's not about objective/subjective. It's about superior/inferior. It's about best and worst, good and bad, good and evil. It's about moral and immoral morality.

--Brant

[Christopher]

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.

Hmmm... first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness argues that objective values exist. The values that are objective are those values required to support the value system (i.e. the human life). This is logical.

[BaalChatzaf]

Hmmm... first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness argues that objective values exist. The values that are objective are those values required to support the value system (i.e. the human life). This is logical.

Values that lead to the destruction of human life are just as "real" as values that maintain and produce flourishing of human life. Life Maintaining is not the criterion of reality. The criterion of objectivity is really existing.

Consider a thermonuclear bomb or a nerve gas weapon. The values that produced it are quite real, hence they are objective.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

If you are talking about Jones Town, source please?

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

From the German Wikipedia article:

Unmittelbar nach der Rückkehr der Todesschützen in die Urwaldsiedlung wurde ein Massenselbstmord organisiert, wobei suizidunwillige Peoples-Temple-Mitglieder ermordet wurden.[1] Das Prozedere war während so genannter white nights mehrfach geprobt worden. Die Sektenmitglieder wurden per Lautsprecherdurchsagen zum zentralen Pavillon der Anlage gerufen, wo mit Zyankali versetzter Traubensaft verabreicht wurde, der binnen fünf Minuten zum Tod führte. Widerspenstige Sektenmitglieder wurden unter Androhung von Waffengewalt zum Trinken gezwungen, einige starben auch an Schusswunden.

Translation of the bolded sections:

"Sect members refusing to commit suicide were murdered".

"Sect members refusing to drink the potion of grape juice mixed with zyankali were forced at gunpoint to do so, some also died of gun wounds."

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

Edited August 14, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Hmmm... first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness argues that objective values exist. The values that are objective are those values required to support the value system (i.e. the human life). This is logical.

Values that lead to the destruction of human life are just as "real" as values that maintain and produce flourishing of human life. Life Maintaining is not the criterion of reality. The criterion of objectivity is really existing.

Consider a thermonuclear bomb or a nerve gas weapon. The values that produced it are quite real, hence they are objective.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What they produce are objective effects, not values. But how one values the effects, this is a subjective issue.

The bomb throwers will "value" what they are doing differently than those targeted.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

deleted by me

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

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.

That's correct.

[Xray]

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.

You can't have your value cake and eat it too, Brant. "Values" can't be anything but subjective, since they are always the result of valuing by an individual entity.

John values his stamp collection; it is "of value" to him.

The idea of objective values is an illusion Rand succumbed to, and countles others have done and do the same. Since humans are indoctrinated from the cradle to the grave that alleged objective values exist, seeing this as fallacy is very difficult, and sometimes impossible to conceive for many.

In AS, Danneskjöld hands a bar of gold to Rearden with the comment that gold is an objective value.

Quite obviously this is wrong. Imagine you are on a deserted island and have to hunt to get your stomach filled, a bar of gold won't serve to lure your prey in a any trap. That is, gold will be of no value to you at all there.

After Leo Tolstoj gave away all his wealth, do you think he would have considered a bar of gold as of any value to him?

Money, gold etc, offered can be rejected because the receiver considers it as a non-value to him/her.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hmmm... first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness argues that objective values exist. The values that are objective are those values required to support the value system (i.e. the human life). This is logical.

Christopher,

This is correct. Values only exist in reference to a standard. Values that promote or adhere to the standard are objective. Those that do not take that standard into account within the context of that standard are not objective.

Valuing is something only living beings can do. That is the first context and standard. Xray (and others who make the same oversimplified errors she does) wish to divorce the concept of value from life, then backpedal—in the same breath—and claim that values are dependent on life, i.e. a valuer, and this makes values subjective.

It' a really weird variation of the stolen concept fallacy. The part that leaves me intrigued is the passion with which this error is argued. I sense a real need on the part of these people to blank out the fact that universal principles of good and evil exit for human beings.

They wish to divorce values from human nature instead of deriving values from human nature. (Incidentally, the fundamental ethical problem with religion is that it does that, although much human nature gets injected over the centuries despite the words in the sacred texts.) In other words, this is religious thinking at the root.

There is an obvious contradiction: the claim that all values are subjective is, in itself, a value judgment encompassing the entirety. Ironically, that is one value these misguided souls want to claim is universal and objective. However, if it is a value, by their reasoning it cannot be universal and objective since it has to be included in "all," despite applying to "all." Thus "all values" are objective and subjective at the same time.

The contradiction doesn't seem to bother them. Reading some of their posts is like playing conceptual crossword puzzles. Instead of letters that fit or don't fit the puzzle, you have referents (both abstract and concrete) that fit or don't fit. But that is all the intellectual content you will derive from them. They present no wisdom or objective premises to build a productive life on.

Notice that, with very few exceptions, these people are passionately devoted to disproving someone else's thinking, not in advancing their own.

Psychologically, I keep getting an warning-bell emotion when I engage these people. Verbalized, it is something like this, "What are they hiding?"

Michael

[Christopher]

Thanks Michael Great points.

The standard of value is the (integrity of the) system. To argue that all values are subjective is to argue that there is no system in which values exist. One cannot make any assertion without some set of premises, some system, giving context to that assertion. Therefore, one cannot both assert values are subjective and have that assertion be meaningful.

This sentence is a lie, bitches!!

[Selene]

Thanks Michael Great points.

The standard of value is the (integrity of the) system. To argue that all values are subjective is to argue that there is no system in which values exist. One cannot make any assertion without some set of premises, some system, giving context to that assertion. Therefore, one cannot both assert values are subjective and have that assertion be meaningful.

This sentence is a lie, bitches!!

"...bitches..." damn I am getting old! "bitches" ?

Adam

[Xray]

Values only exist in reference to a standard. Values that promote or adhere to the standard are objective. Those that do not take that standard into account within the context of that standard are not objective.

And who chooses those standards of value? Human individuals choose them by subjectively attributing value.

Also, values don't become objective because they adhere to a standard.

A simple example makes this clear. In may patriarchal societies, virginity is a "standard of value" for young unmarried women. That is, women are valued according to that standard.

According to your logic, "values that promote or adheres to the standard are objective", then a woman's behavior directed to adhere to the standard 'virginity' is an "objective value".

Brothers accompaning their sisters like watchdogs everywhere they go in order to 'protect' their virginity - the brothers' moral values are "objective" too since they adhere to the standard.

Valuing is something only living beings can do.

To which it must be added living beings having a consciousness and the mental capacity to choose and attribute value.

That is the first context and standard. Xray (and others who make the same oversimplified errors she does) wish to divorce the concept of value from life, then backpedal—in the same breath—and claim that values are dependent on life, i.e. a valuer, and this makes values subjective.

But Michael, where please did I convey that the concept of value exists 'out there', "divorced from life"??

Just exactly how does saying that an individual attributes value "divorce the concept of value from life?" I don't recall any post about someone dead attributing value.

Individual living human being is the source of all valuations, that is, each individual attributing value to this or that in infinite variations. How do you get a "standard" out of infinite variations?

It is precisely the "divorcing" which is denial of entity identity and ALL the characteristics that make up a particular entity (human individual), each with the common of differences in subjective valuations. This is the life that is denied by the illusion, "objective value".

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Thanks Michael Great points.

The standard of value is the (integrity of the) system. To argue that all values are subjective is to argue that there is no system in which values exist. One cannot make any assertion without some set of premises, some system, giving context to that assertion. Therefore, one cannot both assert values are subjective and have that assertion be meaningful.

This sentence is a lie, bitches!!

"...bitches..." damn I am getting old! "bitches" ?

Adam

You can look it up in the Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bitches

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

There is an obvious contradiction: the claim that all values are subjective is, in itself, a value judgment encompassing the entirety.

Can you spell "equivocation"?

[Selene]

Thanks Michael Great points.

The standard of value is the (integrity of the) system. To argue that all values are subjective is to argue that there is no system in which values exist. One cannot make any assertion without some set of premises, some system, giving context to that assertion. Therefore, one cannot both assert values are subjective and have that assertion be meaningful.

This sentence is a lie, bitches!!

"...bitches..." damn I am getting old! "bitches" ?

Adam

Language constantly changes, but keeping abreast of its development is easy in today's internet times. A good source for slang exp​ressions is the Urban Dictionary:

http://www.urbandict...hp?term=bitches

xyz ray - here is a bulletin - I am fully familiar with how to keep abreast of language - and if you were going to have integrity and openly offer that dictionary - this is the bulletin part:

"Language constantly changes, but keeping abreast of its development is easy in today's internet times." Lose your condescending effete language.

[Xray]

Lose your condescending effete language.

Should I use you as a role model of politeness instead?

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Lose your condescending effete language.

You mean I should imitate you as role model for politeness instead?

Nope - that skill is well above either your pay grade or mental skills.

[Xray]

There is an obvious contradiction: the claim that all values are subjective is, in itself, a value judgment encompassing the entirety.

Recognizing a fact is no value judgement.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: What do you bring to the table and for the benefit of who/what?

You are so sure of yourself, but for what? A brave new world: subjective subjective subjective.

Not fighting for me you default to my enemy: that guy over there with the club.

So a question: Is freedom an objective value?

Of course your answer is no.

So another question: Is freedom a value?

Never mind objective or subjective. Simply: Is freedom a value?

--Brant

watch--she won't simply say "yes" or "no" but rather it's a value for him but not for her even though just saying "yes" or "no" won't contradict even that supposition because she has an agenda for she isn't for valuing at all--not anything--just disvaluing by trivializing valuing as such as only one of many objectifications to live and die for and if we could get rid of that we'd all be free from war and violence and the general lack of peace but she's not appearing, I suspect, on Muslim BBs extolling the subjectivity of their values and if they'd just give up their crap and nonsense there'd be love not war, hooray!

Edited August 15, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

There is an obvious contradiction: the claim that all values are subjective is, in itself, a value judgment encompassing the entirety.

Recognizing a fact is no value judgement.

But choosing to recognize a fact, as opposed to denying a fact, is the result of a value judgment.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

There is an obvious contradiction: the claim that all values are subjective is, in itself, a value judgment encompassing the entirety.

Recognizing a fact is no value judgement.

But choosing to recognize a fact, as opposed to denying a fact, is the result of a value judgement.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Recognizing an existent is not the same as attributing value to it. Objective entity identity is what it is; not a value judgment.

Whereas in denying a fact, the question to ask is "What is the denier's motive for the denial?"

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Hmmm... first chapter of The Virtue of Selfishness argues that objective values exist. The values that are objective are those values required to support the value system (i.e. the human life). This is logical.

Of course, it is logical. All conclusions are logical in reference to a given premise. This is how the mind works. Logical is not the issue. The issue is whether the premise conforms to reality.

Since human life is no "value system" but a biological phenomenon (to which one can attribute value or not), the premise does not conform to reality.

Since by nature, each individual can choose (choose within mental/physical capacity) how to live, or choose not to live, "human life" (abstract) as a constant, as an "objective value" is in direct contradiction of individual entity identity, volition and personal choice, therefore, is a false premise.

One individual's personal choice does not become universal, objective, and applicable to all just because the individual prefers it to be that way.

In fact the argument for "objective value" is self-contradictory and self-defeating in that the argument itself admits that "objective value" is subject to choice.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Brant Gaede:

"I have not been arguing with Dragonfly and I'm not arguing with you. I am arguing with a dogmatist who is trying to ram her views down our throats without any proper ratiocination and give and take with the view of destroying Objectivism and human freedom."

Brant,

Have you read my post #468?

Just how exactly is this post "trying to ram her views down our throats...?"

The concept, subjective value, as illustrated in the post, opposes only the initiation of force and/or coercion. It is clearly hands off any and all non imposing beliefs, valuations and actions. How does hands off equate with "ram her views" and "destroying freedom?"

Xray: What do you bring to the table and for the benefit of who/what?

The truth about values being subjective. Won't you at least taste what's on the table instead of rejecting it before having tried?

The benefit of recognizing a truth is that one's premises will conform to reality.

That's why it is so important to check one's premises; Rand's advice here was one of the best a philosopher can give.

As for my personal benefit (self-interest ), I have gotten a lot of inspiration from OL, with its challenging discussions and its many links to sites covering topics of interest to me, as well as to authors I didn't know about yet, like e.g. Michael Shermer.

You are so sure of yourself, but for what? A brave new world: subjective subjective subjective.

My understanding of individualism implies non-imposing concepts manifested in recognition of subjective values.

For denying personal, subjective values and setting out a list of values as objective for all to accept in lieu of personal preference sets the stage for conflict.

There is another serious problem on the intra-personal level: The very notion of "objective value" sets an "emotional standard" as reference for one's sense of self value. In practice, this frequently translates into the "opinion of others."

The feeling of not measuring up to standards set by others can cause a lot of misery, especially since these standards are usually believed to be "objective".

Not fighting for me you default to my enemy: that guy over there with the club.

"X does not agree with me, therefore X is my enemy" - I often get this impression when reading your posts.

Brant, imo you are making things unnecessarily difficult for you as long as you stay caught in those "friend-enemy" thinking schemes.

Edited August 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Is freedom a value?

--Brant

whimper