Rand's gender hierarchy

[merjet]

It is you who have the comprehension problem. DF referred to a specific situation, not to a global rule.

Xray misfires again. I referred to Dragonfly's specific inference, a non sequitur. If anybody used a global rule, it was Dragonfly. However the rule might be characterized, it was if an action is not a sacrifice in Ayn Rand's view, then it is moral in Ayn Rand's view. I merely identified his using it.

[Dragonfly]

Xray misfires again. I referred to Dragonfly's specific inference, a non sequitur. If anybody used a global rule, it was Dragonfly. However the rule might be characterized, it was if an action is not a sacrifice in Ayn Rand's view, then it is moral in Ayn Rand's view. I merely identified his using it.

You're wrong, as I've explained in post #859.

[merjet]

You're wrong, as I've explained in post #859.

Here are your own words from post #859.

That implies that the alternative is not a sacrifice and must be the moral thing to do (post #859)

[Dragonfly]

You're wrong, as I've explained in post #859.

Here are your own words from post #859.

That implies that the alternative is not a sacrifice and must be the moral thing to do (post #859)

Misrepresenting an argument by selective quoting is also an art.

[Selene]

We can all agree that Ayn would present these either or choices as if they were the only ones to chose from.

DF's modification of Ayn's argument about the hat and the child is worthy of credibility. In essence, it is proper argumentation to

present an alternate or additional set of of choices within the framework of the originating statement.

It is also proper argumentation to reduce to the absurd an opponents argument by intentionally taking it out of context to make a point, However, that

should be rare.

I still use Ayn's essentially false choice to make a point. For example, she would, pompously, state, "Show me the compromise between food and poison!"

Excellent for it's rhetorical effect, but wanting in the logos frame.

"The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered. This is sometimes referred to as the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" because it can occur as a misapplication of the Law of the Excluded Middle. This "law of logic" stipulates that with any proposition, it must be either true or false; a "middle" option is "excluded". When there are two propositions, and you can demonstrate that either one or the other must logically be true, then it is possible to argue that the falsehood of one logically entails the truth of the other.

That, however, is a tough standard to meet - it can be very difficult to demonstrate that among a given range of statement (whether two or more), one of them absolutely has to be correct. It certainly isn't something which can simply be taken for granted, but this is precisely what the False Dilemma Fallacy tends to d

Adam

[Xray]

Truth is an objective value to be pursued for all human minds.

Whether one chooses to pursue it or not is up to the individual.

Michael

Where have I heard this before? Now I remember. Thousands of theologians admonishing one and all to "discover divine truth" as the highest value.

Perhaps, you prefer Plato's version which goes something like this: Objective values are those that lie outside of the individual and are not dependent upon her/his perception or belief.

Surely, you would not claim truth to be an objective value without first providing a reference by telling us what an objective value is in itself, would you?

Socrates had the same problem with Menon on the question of virtue. Perhaps, you would be kind enough to provide a definition of the operative term, objective, if you don't like Plato's version as independent of mind (referring to perceptions or beliefs).

It is truly amazing as to what can be claimed, believed and promoted if the language usage is not connected to a limiting reality. Let us see if we can find a connection to reality upon which we can agree.

1)"Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence".

...

2) "It is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness".

Are we on the same page? How about:

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

Can we agree on these three points? IIIRC, we did agree a while ago on # 2; and if memory serves, also on # 3 before that.

Here's the problem. If an omnipotent god exists independently of individual mind as objective, absolute, immutable and controlling all, including every individual's mind, where does choice come in?

By the same rationale, if "truth" or any other "value", is considered as an "objective value", absolute and immutable, where does choice come in?

Whether one chooses to pursue it or not is up to the individual.

But how does one choose the unchoosable? If the "value" is "objective" (independent of mind) and choosing itself is definitely dependent on mind?

How does the terminology, objective, connect to independent of mind at the same time it connects to dependent on mind?

Isn't the reality suggested here based on fallacious premises?

The objective part comes in with an objectively existing volitional entity with objective mental characteristics to attribute value in step with beliefs and infinite variations in personal preferences. The term, subjective, works quite well as an audiovisual symbol differentiating what

exists (objectively) from individual subjectively valuing or disvaluing what exists, or is believed to exist.

The only subjective value I see in the idea of "objective value" is denial of self and self-responsibility. "Oh, I didn't create these "values." I just found them. It's not my fault. I was just following "nature's orders". That sounds a lot like "God's will", doesn't it?

Edited August 23, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Let's start with one, sort of like the zero hour for Germany on May 8-9, 1945:

"...pertains..." interesting word choice -

1. (intransitive) To belong.
2. (intransitive) To relate, to refer

So, therefore, 1)"Objectivity..." refers how "...to the relationship of consciousness to existence.", or does

2) "Objectivity..." belong "... to the relationship of consciousness to existence." and if this meaning,

How does objectivity belong to the relationship to existence?

Adam

Edited August 23, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Subjectivity is an objective value. Some people seem to be over-valuing it ostensibly making (turning) it into a subjective value for them. I guess that's the whole point for it makes a smokescreen for sophistical, specious reasoning aimed at the heart of both philosophy and right philosophy.

--Brant

[Xray]

I always thought Mother Teresa was selfish. The selfish pursuit of selflessness is a core contradiction of religion. The trick is to stop feeling guilty about your basic human nature which is the basic nature of all life. Through guilt you are controlled which is the basic trick of religion and all morality save morality based on true individualism. Objectivism went too far with this sacrifice business. It's one thing to know enough to refuse a morality of sacrifice and avoid the controlling guilt, it's quite another to make confusing postulations about what naturally occurs in a human brain. Avoiding sacrifice simply means making best choices for one's benefit. This is rational self interest. I have to agree with Xray about motivation. One's actions, however, may be sacrificial to oneself because for whatever reason or reasons one made a bad choice or choices. Bad choices come from ignorance, stupidity, brain damage, depression, irrationality, "acts of God," etc. I do not think, though, that no exceptions are possible. Someone might find some "black swan" somewhere. It's happened before.

I certainly think Ayn Rand got tangled up here in her theorizing and rhetoric and special definitions. Selfishness is a virtue, also a simple fact. Selflessness is an existential threat qua a morality of collectivism and control through guilt and moral disarmament. Selfishly trying to act selflessly can be amusing to an observer, but certainly contradictory if not insanely stupid.

--Brant

Good points, Brant.

The problem with the term "selfish" is that its connotation is so negative. Using the the neutral term self-interest intstead enables a sine ira et studio approach.

We are ALL motivated by self-interest, Brant, whoever we are and in whatever cirumstances we live. In fact we could not survive for one single day if this weren't the case. Self-interest is natural law, and as for someone like Mother Theresa, her self-interest just happened to differ from that of yours or mine or other people's. Mother Theresa's self-interest lay in obeying the god in whom she believed and by doing "God's will" as she perceived it. The promise of eternal life in god's glory is a mighty reward for a believer.

A Jehova's witness with whom I spoke about this issue a while ago made the bargain with god quite clear.

"Why do you sacrifice so much of your time to go from door to door and attend the frequent assemblies?" I asked her.

"Oh, we want to please God!" she beamed at me, eagerly outlining Jehova's 'directives' in the Bible and the prospect of a wonderful afterlife for those who do "His" will.

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

Edited August 23, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

In short, Xray is incapable of seeing any difference between a motivation and an action that benefits somebody else. It's another of her package deals.

[Xray]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

In short, Xray is incapable of seeing any difference between a motivation and an action that benefits somebody else. It's another of her package deals.

You are confusing cause and effect, Merlin. It was not about whether the results of an action benefit someoene else or not. The issue was on self-interest as the driving force behind every action of a human being.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

In short, Xray is incapable of seeing any difference between a motivation and an action that benefits somebody else. It's another of her package deals.

Whether the results of an action benefit someoene else or not is irrelevant here. The issue was on self-interest as the driving force behind all our actions.

xray:

Why do you teach?

Adam

[Xray]

Let's start with one, sort of like the zero hour for Germany on May 8-9, 1945:

"...pertains..." interesting word choice -

1. (intransitive) To belong.
2. (intransitive) To relate, to refer

So, therefore, 1)"Objectivity..." refers how "...to the relationship of consciousness to existence.", or does

2) "Objectivity..." belong "... to the relationship of consciousness to existence." and if this meaning,

How does objectivity belong to the relationship to existence?

Adam

I have no doubt that Rand meant "pertain" to be understood as "refers". Have you?

Edited August 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

xray:

Why do you teach?

Adam

Are you referring to my job?

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

xray:

Why do you teach?

Adam

Are you referring to my job?

Of course and solely in the context of this discussion.

No sarcasm in this question lol.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But how does one choose the unchoosable?

Xray,

One doesn't.

But who, besides you speaking in an Xray-speak bubble, would ever dream that an objective value is unchoosable? That has nothing to do with Objectivism or with objectivity. That only has to do with Xray-speak used on a mission.

Michael

[merjet]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

Of course, this is pure Xray-speak, and it defies "selfless" being defined in most or all English language dictionaries and "selfless" as used by normal English-speaking persons.

[Brant Gaede]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

Of course, this is pure Xray-speak, and it defies "selfless" being defined in most or all English language dictionaries and "selfless" as used by normal English-speaking persons.

I disagree with Xray. If you selfishly seek values that damage you you will diminish yourself and that's selflessness incarnate.

The trick is to selfishly seek values that augment yourself. Selfish meets selfish as opposed to selfish meets selfless.

--Brant

[Xray]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

Of course, this is pure Xray-speak, and it defies "selfless" being defined in most or all English language dictionaries and "selfless" as used by normal English-speaking persons.

I didn't say that term doesn't exist. It is used in a connotative way, to valuate actions by a human being which appear to be done without self-interest. "Jane selflessly cared fo her ailing parents". But Jane's preferred sense of self simply implies caring for her parents.

"I'm the most selfish person you can think of". You'd be surprised who said that: Mahatma Gandhi. He was aware of what drove him. It was seeking "spiritual salvation" of his soul in that he wanted it to be freed from the cycle of reincarnations. In short, 100 % self-interest directed his actions.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I disagree with Xray. If you selfishly seek values that damage you you will diminish yourself and that's selflessness incarnate.

The trick is to selfishly seek values that augment yourself. Selfish meets selfish as opposed to selfish meets selfless.

--Brant

Brant,

Everything you seek is considered as a personal value by you, otherwise you wouldn't seek it. Name any example, the principle applies with no exception.

What you are doing Brant, is personally evaluating the results of a choice. For in hindsight, people can of course say, "That was stupid of me to choose this or that".

Or people can frown on another person's choice. We are all doing this in everyday life.

For example, when I read about Britney Spears choosing Kevin Federline, I thought, "How can she choose that sleazy 'gold digger' type. This is is going to end in a total disaster."

But what I or others think of someone's choice is irrelevant here because it does not affect the operative principle at work: For whatever reasons, at the time Spears chose Federline, she considered him as valuable to her, otherwise she would not have chosen him.

Choosing is always a personal value decision motivated by self-interest, whether people choose brown bread over white for their breakfast, or whether they choose to throw an atomb bomb over not throwing it.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

In short, there is no such thing as "selflessness".

Of course, this is pure Xray-speak, and it defies "selfless" being defined in most or all English language dictionaries and "selfless" as used by normal English-speaking persons.

I didn't say that term doesn't exist.

This is more Xray speak. There is no such thing but it does exist; A and not-A.

Mahatma Gandhi. He was aware of what drove him.

Yes, enemas. (link)

Edited August 24, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

But how does one choose the unchoosable?

Xray,

One doesn't.

But who, besides you speaking in an Xray-speak bubble, would ever dream that an objective value is unchoosable? That has nothing to do with Objectivism or with objectivity. That only has to do with Xray-speak used on a mission.

Michael

Michael,

"Objective value" is a contradiction in terms. Here's the rub.

Humans are goal-seeking entities attributing value to this or that.

The results of their choices or our assessments of another person's choice do in no way affect the fact that values can't be anything but subjective.

To express and/or imply that THE CHOICE itself of a goal is "objective" is to make no distinction between what is and what one wants.

It makes no distinction between the mental action of choosing and the object of choice.

The valuing process is an objectively existing natural phenomenon derived from the brain/mind of a volitional entity. Like any other existing phenomenon, it may or may not be valued. Objectively existing does not make it, nor anything else an "objective value." As always, that which is subject to valuing is also subject to disvaluing. This is inherent in the nature of mind and matters.

Brant wrote:

"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." (end quote)

What Brant labels as "trite" is, in reality, a matter of life and death as well as influencing the quality of one's life. The question is, how does one get through the wall of "objective value" while the illusion is embedded in thinking and language?

The core of the matter comes down to two poles, or two potential conditions of thought and action. One is the notion, openly expressed in formal religion, of "moral values" created by "God", but also expressed in many other ideologies.

This presents "values" as independent of individual creating and attributing. This sets "values" to be "discovered" outside of individual

mind and individual valuations. Ergo, the two poles are valuations individually made, i.e, value individually attributed (infinitely variable) vs. "values discovered", i.e., existing independently of individual creating (fixed, no variables.)

They are exact opposites. What label one puts on each is arbitrary, but to put the same label on opposites is indication of failure to recognize the

absolute difference. This failure leaves mind to treat both the same and confuse personal valuations with "objective discovery."

When mind processes this thinking, the notion

of universal, "objective values" holds that "God" or "nature" mandates that all accept and abide by these "objective values."

When mind integrates this with the idea of "good and evil", it also integrates the "moral duty" to stamp out "evil"; "evil" being any departure

from the "objective values." It is commanded and/or justified by God and/or nature", to use whatever physical force necessary for the "universal good." Couple this (mental integration)with the illusion of categorical identity and you have the truth about genocides and centuries of perpetual war.

"Trite?" Of course, this truth does not fit preferred self-image, but a simple equation makes it logically undeniable.

Behind every action, there is a belief (or beliefs) consistent with and directing the action. Every action has an effect. For every effect, there is an action consistent with the effect. The sequence is belief - action - effect.

Ergo, the effect of perpetual war is a consequence of the directive beliefs.

Countless conflicts in the history of mankind indicate a common fallacy directing thought and action throughout the centuries. That highly visible common fallacy is "objective value."

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

This is more Xray speak. There is no such thing but it does exist; A and not-A.

You are imprecise as usual. I was referring to a linguistic term.

For example, the term "god" exists, but does that mean god exists? Got it now?

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

I didn't say that term doesn't exist.

This is more Xray speak. There is no such thing but it does exist; A and not-A.

That is of course not a valid criticism and I'm really amazed that you can make such an elementary error, confusing a concept with the label of that concept. The term "nothing" does of course exist, but does that imply that "nothing exists"?

Now I disagree with Xray in so far that there is more than one definition of selfishness and one should make a distinction between the selfishness as a motivation (general usage) and selfishness in the biological sense (effectively enhancing one's fitness for survival, specialist term). Rand herself is not clear on this point, as she often uses the term rational selfishness, implying that there is also irrational selfishness, in other words she uses the term "selfishness" with two different meanings. In her definition she seems to refer to the motivational meaning (hence the qualifier "rational"), but the overall impression of her texts is that she uses it mostly in the effective meaning (as indicated by Branden's essay "Is'nt everyone selfish?"), or in other words, she later equates "selfishness" with "rational selfishness", so she isn't consistent in her terminology.

[merjet]

That is of course not a valid criticism and I'm really amazed that you can make such an elementary error, confusing a concept with the label of that concept.

I readily concede to my not being an expert in Xray speak. Nor would I ever want to be. However, I am acutely aware of the difference between a label and a concept. If you can show me where Xray clearly distinguished her use of selflessness as merely a label versus the concept, then I will reconsider. Until then, your charge of my confusing them is prima facie absurd.

The term "nothing" does of course exist, but does that imply that "nothing exists"?

Extremely poor analogy. "Selflessness" is not "nothing", with or w/o the quotes.

Now I disagree with Xray in so far that there is more than one definition of selfishness and one should make a distinction between the selfishness as a motivation (general usage) and selfishness in the biological sense (effectively enhancing one's fitness for survival, specialist term).

Well, that's commendable. However, has Xray ever made this distinction? If so, please point to it. Also, can you give several examples where she does not confound them?

As you can see here (post #887), when I made a distinction between motivation and the benefit of an action, Xray first replied that the distinction was irrelevant. (She later edited the post and claimed I confused cause and effect. That is obviously flat out wrong. Distinguishing between two things is the opposite of confusing them. Except maybe in Xray speak!).

Edited August 24, 2009 by Merlin Jetton