Rand's gender hierarchy

[Selene]

"First, I did not say "is" in any of the instances"

Oh god, X-Ray is now debating the word "is." Ugly pictures of Bill Clinton and a spotted dress come to mind. This is getting sooo bad.

Ginny

Now, Ginny, be nice today is the sexual predator that used to occupy the White Houses' birthday!

x-ray would have said that Bill had a subjective emission and since we do not have standards ... B)

What a low life he was.

Adam

[ginny]

"Subjective emission?" God, oh god, oh god.

As for Clinton, we should fix him up with X-Ray. It might keep her mouth closed for a minute or two. (I'm hanging my head. My mother would be so ashamed of me.)

Ginny

Edited August 20, 2009 by ginny

[jeffrey smith]

Brant,

Not a simple statement of fact?

There's a premise here that needs checking...

"Man is an end in himself" is more fundamental than all three things you stated. Philosophy, society and freedom spring from factual premises like that. The premise is not merely an allusion to the results.

Michael

Actually, it was Kant who came up with that, although I think he put it in the negative phrasing (no man should be the means to another's ends).

BTW, Michael, in Xray's ideal polity, did you notice that she has to rely on an objective value principle? (non-coercion)

[jeffrey smith]

"First, I did not say "is" in any of the instances"

Oh god, X-Ray is now debating the word "is." Ugly pictures of Bill Clinton and a spotted dress come to mind. This is getting sooo bad.

Ginny

Now, Ginny, be nice today is the sexual predator that used to occupy the White Houses' birthday!

x-ray would have said that Bill had a subjective emission and since we do not have standards ... B)

What a low life he was.

Adam

And a very slick low life he was. Contrary to popular opinion, the "meaning of the word is" statement was not perjury, but actually an elaborate setup meant to give the impression of answering "no" without actually lying. If you parse it, it comes out something like this: It depends on what "is" means. If "is" means the special limited sense I give it to of applying only to this moment in time and point in space, then I have no sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. If "is" means what normal people in normal conversation mean by the word, then I'm not answering the question.

Shades of Xray speak!

[Xray]

Brant,

Not a simple statement of fact?

There's a premise here that needs checking...

"Man is an end in himself" is more fundamental than all three things you stated. Philosophy, society and freedom spring from factual premises like that. The premise is not merely an allusion to the results.

Michael

Actually, it was Kant who came up with that, although I think he put it in the negative phrasing (no man should be the means to another's ends).

BTW, Michael, in Xray's ideal polity, did you notice that she has to rely on an objective value principle? (non-coercion)

The phrase "Man is an end in himself" is at best, a banality. It is makes as much sense as saying, a chimpanzee is an end in itself, the Himalaya, or the galaxies.

BTW, Michael, in Xray's ideal polity, did you notice that she has to rely on an objective value principle? (non-coercion)

BTW, Jeffery, did you notice that the choice of non coercion was subjectively made, hence, subjective value?

In one minute, you talk about objective and objectivity as independent of personal preference.

In the next, the term, "objective", is verbally connected to personal preference. This is a direct contradiction.

"Non-coercion" is a subjective value principle, easily evidenced by the fact that there exist enough other people who actully value coercion. Many ideologies and religions value the subservience and coercion principle, and have countless followers.

Bottom line: values are always subjective. The very definiton of value indicates this.

The resistance to this simple truth can be easily explained because we all have more or less been indoctrinated from the cradle on, to believe that so-called objective values exist. From "god's will" to "the good of the country", even if a gang of killers were in power.

Just take a short look back in history and see what has remained of all those alleged objective values, Jeffrey. They were of course merely subjective values artbitrarily declared to be objective, and mostly have vanished because people's subjective value systems have changed.

You have recognized my choice of non coercion.

Having done that, what and why are your objections?

Well, Rand's statement is a literary and philosophical allusion...

From Michael's reply:

Hell, I even said in a neighboring post, "One lives to live and that's as far as it goes on the deepest level." What needs deciphering here from literary or philosophical analysis?"

So that's what the sentence basically says: "one lives to live"? What tremendous philosophical insight please is contained in that tautological statement?

It applies to my plants as well as to my dog.

(Jeffrey)"Actually, it was Kant who came up with that, although I think he put it in the negative phrasing (no man should be the means to another's ends)"

Well now, this is a whole new ball game. "Means to another's ends" makes sense, but "man as an end in himself", does not.

Jeffrey, I don't know if you have read my other comment on the phrase. I'd be interested in your take on it:

"I consider it a statement that makes no sense.

Each individual may be an end desired for the person who sired, or the person who gave birth to said individual. The individual could be an end desired for grandparents or friends as well, or even an end desired by persons wanting to build a larger group for whatever reason. But, an individual as an "end in itself" jumps the reality fence and dodges the question, an end desired by whom?

One may espouse a philosophy of self-ownership; meaning that one individual is not to be considered property of another to be used as means to the end(s) goals) of another individual.

But the words, "Man", or individual, as an end in itself just won't compute. Where and what are the means to this "end in itself?" I presume if ("man", or individual) is an "end in itself", no means are required. Thus do we arrive at the absurdity of an end (goal)without a seeker along with no means utilized to achieve the end. Oh, I forgot, this "end" ("value judgement") exists in "man's nature" independent of choice, yet the advocates would have us choose? I think we shall require a new kind of calculus to figure this out. " (Xray)

Also, I'm interested in your view on altruism.

You wrote:

View Postjeffrey smith, on 16 August 2009 - 08:09 PM, said:

(To MSK)

There is also the question of what "the mind knowing its own nature" means and what that leads to. I rather suspect that what you would say on that subject, and what I would say on that subject, are rather different. (Hint: it relates to why I can not accept any form of egoism, rational or otherwise.) But that's a rather different topic.

In # 808, I asked you.

"Jeffrey,

Your phrase, "I cannot accept any form of egoism" caught my attention.

Are you an advocate of "altruism" then?" (Xray)

Edited August 20, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"Non-coercion" is best discarded; it's a bad way to refer to the libertarian non-initiation of force principle (NIOFP) which in itself is not a typical Objectivist formulation. NIOFP tends to compartmentalize itself from philosophy. Libertarians don't have much to do with philosophy sticking generally to economics and politics eschewing ethics for the most part. "Reason" magazine has never to my knowledge had a single article about reason. After 37 years I let my subscription lapse a few months ago so maybe I am now wrong about that.

--Brant

bottom line not all values are subjective (if Xray can do this so can I: argue by asseveration)

Edited August 20, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

MSK:

Since you refuse to admit that objective standards exist (especially for measuring values), we have no common language.

Michael,

The mistake in your reasoning is that you infer from the mere fact that standards exist, that these standards are in themselves objective, and not the result of a subjective creation and/or agreement.

Here is from my prior post on standards:

There are no "objective standards." No one ever discovered a standard. Some subjectively created standards such as standards of weight and measures referenced to the common, objective physical realm are very useful.

However, the notion of an "objective standard of values" directly contradicts the reality of individual subjective choice; hence,there are as many "standards of value" as there are individuals. Standards of weights and measure deal with what is, not valuation, or disvaluation of what is.

The Jackson trade serves as an excellent example to demonstrate the illusion of objective value.

As is well-known, Debbie Rowe traded in her children to Michael Jackson in exchange for 8.5 million $.

Now the sum itself is an (objective) fact, right Michael? ("objective" used here as a pleonasm for mere emphasis by me).

What often happens in people's reasoning who advocate objective values: they tend to infer from the fact that people (subjectively) value something and pay money for it, that the sum exchanged indicates objective value.

Therefore per such reasoning, one would get:

"The objective value of the Jackson children is 8.5 million dollars".

There's a big flaw in such reasoning, isn't there, Michael?

The flaw stands out in even more bold relief when one carries the exampe to the other extreme.

Remember Ayn Rand's famous "hat" example, quoted several times by Dragonfly in the discussion here.

Let's say that Debbie Rowe, instead of 8.5 million $, had agreed to be content with a hat instead. Don't laugh, we are talking about a principle, and as everybody knows, the final price paid is a matter of negotiation and mutual agreement ("Preise sind Verhandlungssache", as we say in German).

Theoretically, Rowe could have traded the children to Jackson for a mere thank you smile in return.

Now if a hat was given by MJ to Rowe, one would get:

"The objective value of the children is the price of the hat MJ gave to Rowe."

Now doesn't this make clear to the last doubter that there exist no objective values, no matter what a price tag reads?

It is ALWAYS value to whom, and THAT individual decides what he/she values and in case of monetary exchange, whether he/she is willing to pay for and if yes, how much.

The same goes for non-material values. People can even choose to give their life for the values held high by them.

P.S.: just browsed a bit and saw Debbie Rowe has again agreed to leave custody of the children to someone else (Michael Jackson's mother), this time in exchange for 4 million $ from the Jackson clan.

How one values this choice, this again is a matter of one's personal hierarchy of values.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ginny

"First, I did not say "is" in any of the instances" (Xray)

Oh god, X-Ray is now debating the word "is." Ugly pictures of Bill Clinton

and a spotted dress come to mind. This is getting sooo bad." (Ginny)

Evidently, you do not grasp the importance of the term, is, in the illustration. The word, is, interjected by Selene, contradicts the stated idea of personal preference. Are you saying you do not understand the distinction between options ("may choose") and mandate ("is")?

To say, "group 1 is communal, group 2 is the voting town and group three agrees to the drawing straws town" IS to project choices unknown as if the choices had been made.

The phrase, "may choose" most assuredly is not the same as "does choose" as implied by Selene's "is". The former recognizes personal preference and options. The latter denies personal preference presuming to arbitrarily divide into three groups in total disregard of options.

"Some may choose to draw straws, whatever." (Xray)

The "whatever" makes allowances for choices that may not fit any of the options named. The whole idea of subjective value as the social premise is that you don't make choices for other individuals.

Where is any debate on the word, "is"?

"This is getting sooo bad." (Ginny)

Indeed, it is. That's quite a blank out and stretch of imagination to get Bill Clinton into it.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ginny

"First, I did not say "is" in any of the instances" (Xray)

Oh god, X-Ray is now debating the word "is." Ugly pictures of Bill Clinton

and a spotted dress come to mind. This is getting sooo bad." (Ginny)

Evidently, you do not grasp the importance of the term, is, in the illustration. The word, is, interjected by Selene, contradicts the stated idea of personal preference. Are you saying you do not understand the distinction between options ("may choose") and mandate ("is")?

To say, "group 1 is communal, group 2 is the voting town and group three agrees to the drawing straws town" IS to project choices unknown as if the choices had been made.

The phrase, "may choose" most assuredly is not the same as "does choose" as implied by Selene's "is". The former recognizes personal preference and options. The latter denies personal preference presuming to arbitrarily divide into three groups in total disregard of options.

"Some may choose to draw straws, whatever." (Xray)

The "whatever" makes allowances for choices that may not fit any of the options named. The whole idea of subjective value as the social premise is that you don't make choices for other individuals.

Where is any debate on the word, "is"?

"This is getting sooo bad." (Ginny)

Indeed, it is. That's quite a blank out and stretch of imagination to get Bill Clinton into it.

Xray - it is amazing how correct you are - boy you really nailed Ginny on that one...

Oh! Wait a minute...

Hold on I am getting a fax from my objective fact pleonasm fax machine ...

Bill Clinton and the Meaning of "Is"

Timothy Noah

Posted Sunday, Sept. 13, 1998, at 9:14 PM ET Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyper-analyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

--Timothy Noah

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/

oops - guess that wrong and xray is also pleonasmicly orgasmic in its truth, but that would depend on the meaning of climaxing the argument, but wait a minute since there are no standards maybe all these words mean something else altogether, but then maybe the word mean means it means that we can use any means to gain any ends, but then what if end is the subjective standard of beginning a new end which is really the end of the new beginning...

[Brant Gaede]

From her premises Xray is logically right in her value prognostications. But I submit she has left something out. Consider the subjective valuer valuing his subjective values and you get Xray's position. But when you add the valuer thinking about his valuing and judging his valuing and modifying his valuing you get an objectification process for he is identifying standards of valuing and those standards are factual ultimately by factual reference to himself though he may first reference "man." Everybody values and the need and use of the valuing process is an objective value to avoid bumping into things and to find more valuable values.

This is a long thread on a trite subject for bottom line people value and seek values. Labeling these subjective or objective is insignificant unless the value quest is to be implicitly derided by burying the idea of the objective under mountainous subjective trash dumped continuously on it by you know who.

--Brant

not all values are subjective

[ginny]

Pleonasmic orgasm? Subjective emissions? Is? Not is? I'm turning the dogs lose on you guys.

Ginny

[Selene]

Pleonasmic orgasm? Subjective emissions? Is? Not is? I'm turning the dogs lose on you guys.

Ginny

Ginny:

LOL you started it!

Tell the dogs to wear body armor!

Adam

Edited August 20, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

"Subjective emission?" God, oh god, oh god.

As for Clinton, we should fix him up with X-Ray. It might keep her mouth closed for a minute or two. (I'm hanging my head. My mother would be so ashamed of me.)

Ginny

Poor thing, consumed by guilt - you sound soo very convincing ...!

There's no need to hang your head, dearie. Lift it so you can see the monitor and mouse, and go to the link to post # 761 where Dragonfly has collected a long list of recent helpless "attack the messenger" posts. You can add that post of yours to the list, as well as Selene's # 826.

Happy reading!

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7372&st=760

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray - it is amazing how correct you are - boy you really nailed Ginny on that one...

Oh! Wait a minute...

Hold on I am getting a fax from my objective fact pleonasm fax machine ...

Bill Clinton and the Meaning of "Is"

Timothy Noah

Posted Sunday, Sept. 13, 1998, at 9:14 PM ET Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

The distinction between "is" and "was" was seized on by the commentariat when Clinton told Jim Lehrer of PBS right after the Lewinsky story broke, "There is no improper relationship." Chatterbox confesses that at the time he thought all these beltway domes were hyper-analyzing, and in need of a little fresh air. But it turns out they were right: Bill Clinton really is a guy who's willing to think carefully about "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." This is way beyond slick. Perhaps we should start calling him, "Existential Willie."

--Timothy Noah

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/1000162/

oops - guess that wrong and xray is also pleonasmicly orgasmic in its truth, but that would depend on the meaning of climaxing the argument, but wait a minute since there are no standards maybe all these words mean something else altogether, but then maybe the word mean means it means that we can use any means to gain any ends, but then what if end is the subjective standard of beginning a new end which is really the end of the new beginning...

Question: How many words did you expend on your Bill Clinton diversion/evasion thing? My count is 291. How many words did you expend in

responding to the content of the post in focus? My count is 0. Hmmm; kind of telling isn't it?

I get the impression that you think if you ignore a post completely, or pick out a line of two to distort for personal attack, you believe that the issue and questions will go away.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

x-ray:

I ran across this while looking up some of Ayn's statements on art and aesthetics for another thread, as I have always thought she was nuts in her explanation of art.

What is your critique, if any, of the following. It is written by a person who is a French Libertarian,* so it has an underlying gestalt, just wanted the reader to be aware of it.

"Before examining Rand's view of aesthetics, however, let us begin with her epistemology. Rand believed that her philosophy was a fully integrated system, that all its elements -- aesthetics, ethics, epistemology -- were interrelated, and Rand's epistemology is the foundation of her aesthetics.

In her epistemology, Rand draws our attention to the fact that we humans obtain our information about reality through a process of integration. We integrate from a lower level of awareness to a higher one: from senses into percepts and from percepts into concepts. The very first information we glean about our world comes to us through our senses: an object is either hot or cold, light or dark, big or small. At this level, we function not unlike animals. But where animals can go no further, humans can. Humans can identify sensory data as objects and can put a name on them, i.e., humans can form percepts (these green and tall objects out there are trees, and "tree" is a percept), and then we can progress by integrating two or more single isolated percepts into a concept (these trees form a forest). Even if I cannot see the forest (for instance, it may extend for miles and I am not in a helicopter), I still know by process of abstraction that all these trees form something that I, and all of us, can identify as a forest.

Now, to make things a bit more complex, Rand differentiates between two types of concepts: one type states the facts of reality: a forest, an orchestra... These are cognitive abstractions. They tell us what is. The other type deals with what ought (or ought not) to be. These are normative abstractions, for instance 'beauty', 'truth', 'good', 'evil'. This is precisely what ethics is concerned with. Normative concepts are what we use to guide us in our actions and to set ourselves goals.

All of these concepts are integrated into metaphysical value judgements. True value judgements maintain unity and coherence in a man's life. Rand poetically labels this inner personal coherence 'A theme song of a person's life.'"

Adam

* http://libertarianal...n-the-guardian/

Imo the article is just rambling rhetoric that presumes to look at Rand's ideas, but is short on quotes and specifics. I

see no "this is true because...", or "this is false because...." It all about what he/she believes Rand believed. What's his/her point?

Let's a take a brief look for illustrative purposes.

"Before examining Rand's view of aesthetics, however, let us begin with her

epistemology. Rand believed that her philosophy was a fully integrated

system, that all its elements -- aesthetics, ethics, epistemology -- were

interrelated, and Rand's epistemology is the foundation of her aesthetics."

(From article)

What is called for at this juncture is the specifics of Rand's epistemology. Instead of stipulating the elements of her epistemology, he/she goes off on a vague tangent that tells nothing of Rand's epistemological process.

"In her epistemology, Rand draws our attention to the fact that we humans

obtain our information about reality through a process of integration. We

integrate from a lower level of awareness to a higher one: from senses into

percepts and from percepts into concepts. The very first information we

glean about our world comes to us through our senses: an object is either

hot or cold, light or dark, big or small. At this level, we function not

unlike animals. But where animals can go no further, humans can. Humans can

identify sensory data as objects and can put a name on them, i.e., humans

can form percepts (these green and tall objects out there are trees, and

"tree" is a percept), and then we can progress by integrating two or more

single isolated percepts into a concept (these trees form a forest). Even if

I cannot see the forest (for instance, it may extend for miles and I am not

in a helicopter), I still know by process of abstraction that all these

trees form something that I, and all of us, can identify as a forest." (Ibid)

This is nothing more than the usual confused terminology with a slight rephrasing of Rand's rhetoric trying to validate the illusion of categorical

identity. The critic just regurgitates, not criticizes.

"Now, to make things a bit more complex, Rand differentiates between two

types of concepts: one type states the facts of reality: a forest, an

orchestra... These are cognitive abstractions. They tell us what is." (Ibid)

Again, the "critic" simply parrots Rand's illusion of categorical identity with the term, concept, referenced only to category. Entity identity is left out as if it's a given ("axiomatic) with no discussion necessary.

"The other type deals with what ought (or ought not) to be. These are

normative abstractions, for instance 'beauty', 'truth', 'good', 'evil'. This

is precisely what ethics is concerned with. Normative concepts are what we

use to guide us in our actions and to set ourselves goals." (Ibid)

The "ought" comes from an epistemology of "categorical identity" wherein plants value; the 'good', 'evil' from the myth of morality.

"All of these concepts are integrated into metaphysical value judgements.True value judgements maintain unity and coherence in a man's life. Rand

poetically labels this inner personal coherence 'A theme song of a person's life.'"

Once again, a mere repeating of Rand and the idea of "true value judgments" with the implication of "objective values."

If this is all there is to the article, again, I ask, what's his/her point?

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"The critic just regurgitates, not criticizes."

The word critic comes from the Greek κριτικός (kritikós), "able to discern"^[1], which in turn derives from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation^[2]. The term can be used to describe an adherent of a position disagreeing with or opposing the object of criticism.

Linguistically limited also, I see.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The phrase "Man is an end in himself" is at best, a banality.

Xray,

No it is not. But I recognize this kind of language. You are definitely schooled in some kind of doctrine and on a mission.

What are you doing here spamming your dogma?

Why not start your own site?

(Daniel Barnes did, and boy, do I respect that. I don't respect what you do.)

Michael

[merjet]

Xray doesn't need to start her own site. She could start spending her time at the same site as Daniel Barnes instead of here. She would be in like company there, where mean-spirited and superficial criticisms of Ayn Rand are ordinary. However, I would be surprised if Xray acted on this suggestion. It would be too much of a sacrifice for her.

Speaking of sacrifice Barnes wrote about it and Rand here, from which I excerpt the following.

"Sacrifice"= giving up a greater value for a lesser value.

As someone once remarked about Gertrude Stein, Ayn Rand often does not seem to know what words mean. This peculiar usage is quite opposed to the standard meaning of "sacrifice", which is usually where one gives up something of lesser value for a greater value - for example, sacrificing a Queen to win a game of chess. As a result of this basic confusion, Rand ends up with confounding formulations such as the following:

"The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice'...If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. 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."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!

Either Rand intended this absurdity to be her argument - perfectly possible, given the thrust of her theory - or she got tangled up by her own inversions of meaning. Either way, it's yet another Randian pronouncement which is at first plausible, but on examination we might - with maximum charity - describe as confused.

This is a great example in more than one way. One is the author's confusion and/or misrepresenting, and distorting Ayn Rand's concept of sacrifice. Imagine that, his only example is sacrificing a queen in chess (while hallucinating a dagger like Macbeth? ). This is the author's idea of "maximum charity" towards Rand. It would be hard to be more shallow, although Xray gives it a good try, as I showed here.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Xray doesn't need to start her own site. She could start spending her time at the same site as Daniel Barnes instead of here. She would be in like company there, where mean-spirited and superficial criticisms of Ayn Rand are ordinary. However, I would be surprised if Xray acted on this suggestion. It would be too much of a sacrifice for her.

I am familiar with Barnes's site and have posted there occasionally. Rand supporters post there too, and the discussions are mostly very interesting. I find the blog format a bit difficult to navigate though. A forum with its clearer layout would be much better imo.

[Merlin]:Speaking of sacrifice Barnes wrote about it and Rand here, from which I excerpt the following.

"Sacrifice"= giving up a greater value for a lesser value.

As someone once remarked about Gertrude Stein, Ayn Rand often does not seem to know what words mean. This peculiar usage is quite opposed to the standard meaning of "sacrifice", which is usually where one gives up something of lesser value for a greater value - for example, sacrificing a Queen to win a game of chess. As a result of this basic confusion, Rand ends up with confounding formulations such as the following:

"The word that has destroyed you is 'sacrifice'...If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. 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."- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Ergo: It is immoral for the mother whose highest value is buying a hat to feed her starving child instead!

Either Rand intended this absurdity to be her argument - perfectly possible, given the thrust of her theory - or she got tangled up by her own inversions of meaning. Either way, it's yet another Randian pronouncement which is at first plausible, but on examination we might - with maximum charity - describe as confused.

This is a great example in more than one way. One is the author's confusion and/or misrepresenting, and distorting Ayn Rand's concept of sacrifice. Imagine that, his only example is sacrificing a queen in chess (while hallucinating a dagger like Macbeth? ). This is the author's idea of "maximum charity" towards Rand. It would be hard to be more shallow, although Xray gives it a good try, as I showed here.

Merlin,

D. Barnes was right on target with his analysis. He merely put to the test what Rand said about sacrifice, using her own hat example. Poster Dragonfly did the same and arrived at the same result.

Please follow through step by step:

Rand thinks a sacrifice is "giving up a higher for a lower value" - right, Merlin?

If a mother values a hat more than her child, the hat is the higher value for the mother - right?

Now when this mother does not buy the hat (although she would like to because she values it higher than her child, but grudgingly feeds her child instead, according to Rand, she has sacrificed a higher value (the hat) to a lower value (her child) - right?

Sacrifices are immoral in Rand's eyes; therefore per Rand, this mother acted immorally when feeding her child instead of buying the hat. Simple as that.

Edited August 22, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Baby or hat. That never made any sense to me. If the baby is starving everybody else is too. A better example would be a woman choosing to have children or not. It seems Rand was more interested in denigrating the woman who had to use the most willpower to do the right thing because her values were screwed up than explaining sacrifice.

I'd be interested to know how feeding a child from a sense of duty goes hand in hand with preferring the child to starve?

--Brant

Edited August 21, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

I'd be interested to know how feeding a child from a sense of duty goes hand in hand with preferring the child to starve?

--Brant

You have pointed out another contradiction in Rand's argumentation.

For IF the mother decides to feed the child, then her self-interest obviously goes to not wanting to let it starve.

Baby or hat. That never made any sense to me. If the baby is starving everybody else is too.

Why would everyone else starve too then? Keep in mind that there do exist cases where parents let their child starve while they themselves stay well-fed. One can read about such tragic cases in the newspapers now and then.

A better example would be a woman choosing to have children or not.

Then let's transfer the 'hat' example to yours.

In that case, per Rand, suppose a woman chooses to have children, if childlessness is considered a higher value to her, she sacrifices a higher value (childlessnes) to get a lower value in return (having children).

Notice something, Brant? In the well-kown "hat" example, Rand, without realizing it, actually outlines a theory in which values are subjectve! For in the "hat" example, higher and lower values clearly vary according to an individual's subjective preference.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

D. Barnes was right on target with his analysis. He merely put to the test what Rand said about sacrifice, using her own hat example. Poster Dragonfly did the same and arrived at the same result.

Wrong. I've already replied to this nonsense of picking out one trivial example and ignoring the rest of what Rand said about sacrifice, so I won't repeat myself.

Rand thinks a sacrifice is "giving up a higher for a lower value" - right, Merlin?

Wrong. Do you know the meaning of "surrender" and "yield to another on demand or compulsion"?

Now when this mother does not buy the hat (although she would like to because she values it higher than her child, but grudgingly feeds her child instead, according to Rand, she has sacrficed a higher value (the hat) to a lower value (her child) - right?

Sacrifices are immoral in Rand's eyes; therefore per Rand, this mother acted immorally when feeding her child instead of buying the hat. Simple as that.

No, it's not that simple. You conveniently omitted a key phrase from what Rand wrote -- the part following "and" here:

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.

You and Barnes also conveniently ignore the first part of this sentence -- the mother who buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself (not from a sense of duty). I'm sure Rand would say this mother acts morally, but your and Barnes' claim contradict and ignore that.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

[Brant]:

"But when you add the valuer thinking about his valuing and judging his valuing and modifying his valuing you get an objectification process for he is identifying standards of valuing and those standards are factual

ultimately by factual reference to himself though he may first reference "man."

Subjective values can always change, as well as one's standards.

Person P may decide, for whatever reason, to give up a hobby, e. g. collecting stamps.

People can also make very dramatic changes in their lives because their subjective standards of value have changed.

The process remains the same: it is each individual attributing value in accordance with individual personality/psychology in conjunction with what the individual believes to be true.

(The only "standard" would be individually created and individually variable).

The "objective" part comes in when it comes to objectively evaluating proposed means as objectively suited or unsuited to a subjectively chosen goal. The question is whether the goal chosen is achievable by virtue of being in correspondence with reality.

For example, when someone can't carry a tune but wants to become an opera singer, the subjectively chosen goal is not in correspondence with reality.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

D. Barnes was right on target with his analysis. He merely put to the test what Rand said about sacrifice, using her own hat example. Poster Dragonfly did the same and arrived at the same result.

Wrong. I've already replied to this nonsense of picking out one trivial example and ignoring the rest of what Rand said about sacrifice, so I won't repeat myself.

Rand thinks a sacrifice is "giving up a higher for a lower value" - right, Merlin?

Wrong. Do you know the meaning of "surrender" and "yield to another on demand or compulsion"?

Now when this mother does not buy the hat (although she would like to because she values it higher than her child, but grudgingly feeds her child instead, according to Rand, she has sacrficed a higher value (the hat) to a lower value (her child) - right?

Sacrifices are immoral in Rand's eyes; therefore per Rand, this mother acted immorally when feeding her child instead of buying the hat. Simple as that.

No, it's not that simple. You conveniently omitted a key phrase from what Rand wrote -- the part following "and" here:

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.

You and Barnes also conveniently ignore the first part of this sentence -- the mother who buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself (not from a sense of duty). I'm sure Rand would say this mother acts morally, but your and Barnes' claim contradict and ignore that.

Read what it says. Rand mentions two different cases.

In the first case (per Rand) it is not a sacrifice. (higher value = child / lower value = hat)

In the second case (per Rand) it IS a sacrifice (higher value = hat /lower value = child)

A sacrifice is immoral in Rand' opinion. So the mother who feeds her (lower valued) child instead of buying the (higher valued) hat sacrifices something and therefore behaves immorally. That's the result one gets.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Read what it says. Rand mentions two different cases.

Correct, and you and Barnes completely ignore the first one, where the mother chooses to feed her child rather than buy a hat. You and Barnes also conveniently ignore that Rand would not morally approve buying a hat rather than feeding the child. After all, it would be a sacrifice and ergo immoral.