Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

Excerpt from my prior post:

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.

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."

Rand "heir" Leonard Peikoff being interviewed by Bill Reilly offers a drastic example to illustrate the above points.

Is that what Objectvism is about? Is that the "Objectvist rage" B. Branden mentioned on another thread? Peikoff shows no empathy, not even for children and babies. Even Bill Reilly said to Peikoff that he was "crazy", and tried to stop his tirade.

Just put children and babies under the label, "enemy" and destroy. Peikoff leaves no room for doubt that this is his attitude.

So much for "life as the ultimate value".

The life of "the enemy" is obviously not contained in LP's 'value' system.

Look at Peikoff's facial expression, listen to his words. What a fanatical sermon of hate that is!

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

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.

She wrote: "I didn't say that [the] term doesn't exist". A term is a word or an expression that is used as a label for a concept.

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.

It's a perfect analogy (analogy is not the same as identity), as it illustrates the difference between a concept and the term to designate that concept. Xray's own example with the term "God" is another illustration of that principle and the fact that existence of a term does not imply that the concept labeled by that term does exist in reality.

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?

She only uses the motivational meaning, so she cannot confound them.

[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.

She wrote: "I didn't say that [the] term doesn't exist". A term is a word or an expression that is used as a label for a concept.

You are quite disingenuous! My comment on Xray speak and selflessness was post #892. She wrote, "I didn't say that term doesn't exist" in post #894, which was after my comment. If she had said that before my comment, you'd have a leg to stand on. As it is, you don't. Also, don't you think it would be ridiculous for her to claim the term doesn't exist when it obviously does?

Edited August 24, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

You are quite disingenuous! My comment on Xray speak and selflessness was post #892. She wrote, "I didn't say that term doesn't exist" in post #894, which was after my comment. If she had said that before my comment, you'd have a leg to stand on. As it is, you don't. Also, don't you think it would be ridiculous for her to claim the term doesn't exist when it obviously does?

Who is disingenuous here? Nowhere did she say that the term "selflessness" doesn't exist, she obviously meant that what is commonly called "selflessness" is in fact no selflessness at all, in other words that the term "selflessness" does not refer to something that actually exists. When you replied that "selflessness" is defined in all English dictionaries, she of course countered that she didn't dispute the existence of the term "selflessness". If she had said 'there is no such thing as a "God" ', had you then replied 'but "God" is defined in all the English dictionaries and it's used by normal English-speaking persons'? Are you so intent on playing "gotcha" that you don't realize that your remark about a contradiction is utter nonsense?

[merjet]

Dragonfly, are you so intent on playing "gotcha" that you don't realize that your remark about my confusion of a word and a concept is utter nonsense?

Edited August 24, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Dragonfly]

I see that you've run out of arguments.

[merjet]

I see that you've run out of arguments.

I don't need any against nonsense.

[Brant Gaede]

Stamping out evil means when someone tries to rob or assault me I protect myself. In Xray's world I'm deluded by my "objective value"--obviously the objective value I place on my objective ass.

--Brant

[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

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."

I normally do not quote an entire long post, but this one is illustrative of the rhetorical game-playing I currently criticize. Look what happens when one takes the fundamental covers off of Xray-speak like I did.

Blah blah blah.

Then more blah blah blah.

Then even more blah blah blah and so on.

All beside the point so Xray can repeat her dogma ad nasauem while she pretends she has addressed the issue.

I detect a strong mind-body dichotomy (to use Rand's phrase) in her approach. Look at this statement from above:

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 obvious error in this manner of thinking is imagining that these are the only 2 alternatives. I believe Adam mentioned the false alternative fallacy.

Reality does not exist on 2 realms. It exists in one only. Reality has parts, not companion realities. The mind and body (or external objects) are part of the same thing, not separate existences.

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" (to use Xray-speak) are not mutually exclusive in reality. If they were, there would be two realities. They both exist at the same time because they are both part of the same existence, especially with respect to values, and more especially with respect to objective values. An objective value is made up of the need to choose and the object to be chosen or not. An objective value is an integration of both.

An objective value is further based on facts, not on things that do not exist.

Xray severs the connection. In trying to challenge mystical dogma, she preaches totally disconnecting the volitional mind from reality. If this logic is taken further, Xray even severs volition from the act of identification.

Within the human context, a volitional mind that is totally disconnected from reality is how mankind has essentially and universally defined a spirit or a lunatic, not a living human being with a healthy mind.

Michael

[Xray]

I see that you've run out of arguments.

I don't need any against nonsense.

Indeed you have run out of arguments, Merlin (if you ever had any). Arbitrarily labeling another poster's arguments as "nonsense" is pure evasion on your part.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

So out of my own curiosity ... why do you teach xray?

Adam

[Xray]

So out of my own curiosity ... why do you teach xray?

Adam

Out of my own curiosity - why do you ask me this Selene? Edited August 24, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

So out of my own curiosity ... why do you teach xray?

Adam

Out of my own curiosity - why do you ask me this Selene?

Could this be love?

--Brant

[Selene]

So out of my own curiosity ... why do you teach xray?

Adam

Out of my own curiosity - why do you ask me this Selene?

mirroring - good sales technique xray

I ask because I have always been an excellent teacher, therefore, I am always interested in why people choose

to be in that profession.

Did they just get channeled into the profession? Did they chose it? And, if so, why?

Adam

[Selene]

So out of my own curiosity ... why do you teach xray?

Adam

Out of my own curiosity - why do you ask me this Selene?

Could this be love?

--Brant

LOL - it would be the most perverse love even the creative minds on OL could imagine!

Moreover, the persons philosophy is a key part of love for me, now lust is a different issue, lol,

Adam

[Xray]

Reality does not exist on 2 realms. It exists in one only. Reality has parts, not companion realities. The mind and body (or external objects) are part of the same thing, not separate existences.

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" (to use Xray-speak) are not mutually exclusive in reality. If they were, there would be two realities. They both exist at the same time because they are both part of the same existence, especially with respect to values, and more especially with respect to objective values. An objective value is made up of the need to choose and the object to be chosen or not. An objective value is an integration of both.

An objective value is further based on facts, not on things that do not exist.

Xray severs the connection. In trying to challenge mystical dogma, she preaches totally disconnecting the volitional mind from reality. If this logic is taken further, Xray even severs volition from the act of identification.

Within the human context, a volitional mind that is totally disconnected from reality is how mankind has essentially and universally defined a spirit or a lunatic, not a living human being with a healthy mind.

Michael

You completely evaded that the issue was about a volitional mind attributing value to this or that, and not about a (volitonal) mind perceiving reality.

Example: Person P perceives a peach and an orange as entities and THEN makes his/her choice according to personal preference.

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" (to use Xray-speak) are not mutually exclusive in reality.

Nobody said they are. They are merely two different things, not to be mixed up.

So when e. g. Britney Spears chose Kevin Federline, the act of choosing is quite obviously different from the object of choice, and does not make this object an objectve value merely because it was chosen.

If they were, there would be two realities. They both exist at the same time because they are both part of the same existence, especially with respect to values, and more especially with respect to objective values. An objective value is made up of the need to choose and the object to be chosen or not. An objective value is an integration of both.

See above. The very act of choosing means subjectively attributing value. Calling a value subjective and objective at the same time - this indeed would create "two realities".

Also, you did not address what I wrote in my post:

Xray:

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 (her\his 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.

Objectivity.... pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence.

....., it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of

any perceiver's consciousness."

Are we on the same page? How about: Reality exists as an objective

absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or

fears."

Any problem so far? If so, what and why?

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

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

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

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 unless there are two realities?

If one, or the other, or both uses of the term, objective, fail to connect to reality, isn't this a fallacy?

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 audio/visual 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." Gee,

that sounds a lot like "God's will", doesn't it?

MSK: The obvious error in this manner of thinking is imagining that these are the only 2 alternatives. I believe Adam mentioned the false alternative fallacy.

What is that "false alternative fallacy"? I hope Adam will elaborate.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Xray

[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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You completely evaded that the issue was about a volitional mind attributing value to this or that, and not about a (volitonal) mind perceiving reality.

Xray,

I did not evade anything. I am refusing to speak in Xray-tongue, mainly because you misrepresent Objectivism with it, pretending that Rand used your meanings (or, in some cases, lack of meanings, or even in others, meanings all over the place).

Your error continues as you still refuse to understand Objectivism and persist in misrepresenting it. So let's try simple grammar. The qualifier "exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness," refers to reality, not objectivity. The qualifier "independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears" refers to facts, not not objectivity. You constantly treat objectivity as being independent of the mind. All you have to do is read and parse the grammar to get it right. I find it strange that a teacher makes this kind of mistake.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" (to use Xray-speak) are not mutually exclusive in reality.

Nobody said they are. They are merely two different things, not to be mixed up.

Xray,

Heh.

You just said it again. Just now. In the same breath when you said, "Nobody said they are."

That "merely" of yours is a big honking mind/body dichotomy if I ever saw one.

I personally set the limit at reality. "Act of choosing" and "object of choice" actually are "mixed up" on the reality level. They are part of the same existence.

We can make differences between living (including volitional) and nonliving things only after existence (and a singular reality at that) has been acknowledged.

Also, you did not address what I wrote in my post:...

There were too many errors in that particular post. Things like the following:

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." Gee,

that sounds a lot like "God's will", doesn't it?

This levels prioritization and categories of values to the lowest level and pretends that no other kinds of values exist. In reality there are fundamental values like food, etc., on the biological level, trying to understand, etc., on the mental level, and others. This stuff exists whether anyone subjectively wants it to or not. Gee, that's nobody's fault, is it?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Does Xray value truth?--to crib from Michael on the other thread. It's already been established that she doesn't value freedom except "freedom of mind." What the heck can you do with that??? That really is a subjective value; you can't attach a mule to it.

--Brant

Edited August 25, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" (to use Xray-speak) are not mutually exclusive in reality.

Nobody said they are. They are merely two different things, not to be mixed up.

Xray,

Heh.

You just said it again. Just now. In the same breath when you said, "Nobody said they are."

That "merely" of yours is a big honking mind/body dichotomy if I ever saw one.

Your premise is wrong, Michael. For some strange reason, you assume that mutually exclusive is the same as "different".

"Mutually exclusive" refers to statements/propositions where one denies (excludes) the other. Mutual exclusive statements can't be both valid.

For example, when someone asks me "Where were you yesterday at 10 AM, and I reply: "In Berlin and in Moscow", the two statements are mutually exclusive since it is impossible to be at those two locations at the same time.

I can't eat and not eat at the same time or sleep and not sleep, or arbitrarily decide to call morning "evening" and expect the communcation partners to ignore the contradiction.

The saying "wanting to have one's cake and eat it it too" refers to this fallacy of mutual exclusion.

Rand herself offers ample material in that respect. In her well-known "hat" example, she bases her whole sacrifice theory on the the premise of subjective value, leaving the decision as to what is a "higher" or "lower" value up to the choice of the individual.

While in other passages of Rand's work, one can see her either praising or lambasting the choices (made by the individual) as being of "higher" or "lower" value.

Rand clearly succumbs to the fallacy of mutual exclusion here.

One the one hand, she has the individual decide for themselves what is a higher and lower value, on the other hand, she decides what constitues a higher and lower value. Her having it both ways here is clearly a contradiction in her thinking.

The same can be said of her dealing with the term "selfishness". She offers the neutral definition, quoting a lexicon entry where selfishness is defined as concerned with one's own interests". So far, so good.

Her book is called "The Virtue of Selfishness", so one can logically infer that she considers selfishness as a as virtue as such.

But now comes the Randian "switcheroo" (apt term chosen by DF), where she arbitrarily declares that of course only so-called "rational self-interest" is a virtue. And what is labeled as rational by her is that which she subjectively prefers.

The modifier "rational" self-interest collapses her premise outlined in the book title, which has selfishness as a virtue per se.

This gives me an idea: I always have to laugh when reading the funny word combination "stolen concept". Just curious: how does one go about absconding with one? I love whodunits - "The Mystery of the Stolen Concept" now wouldn't that be a gripping title?

While waiting for an answer, I'll dabble a bit and try to coin something too. "Collapsed premise" - how's that? "Collapsed Premises" as a book title about Rand's non-sequiturs?

It looks like "Rand's Razor" was pretty active in erasing her own premises ... ;)

Frankly, Michael, I have the impression that Rand frequently just passionately wrote along, forgetting to check for inherent contradictions the thoughts she presented in her writings. I think she often simply got carried away in her fervor of total commitment to her cause, resulting in a torrent of words not controlled by a mind functioning in an analytical manner.

This would explain the many inconsistencies, garbled terminology etc. one can detect in her writings.

But for an author who has "non-contradiction" writen on her banner, these mistakes weigh heavily imo, and can't be downplayed in any way.

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" actually are "mixed up" on the reality level. They are part of the same existence.

But Michael, please, how can you say that being part of the same existence equals being mixed up on the reality level??

When some years ago, my husband, daughter and I chose our Golden Retriever from a bunch of puppies in the breeder's garden, obviously the dog and our family were "part of the same reality" (to say "same existence" makes no sense here since each finite entity exits separately).

How does that translate to being "mixed up" in your rationale?

There was a clear relation of 3 individual finite entities (the choosers) to other entities (8 puppies, of which four had already been chosen by other people, so there were four left for us to choose, of which we then chose one). Again, Michael, where does anything get "mixed up" here?

We can make differences between living (including volitional) and nonliving things only after existence (and a singular reality at that) has been acknowledged.

No objection here. Your point being?

Edited August 25, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" actually are "mixed up" on the reality level. They are part of the same existence.

But Michael, please, how can you say that being part of the same existence equals being mixed up on the reality level??

. . .

We can make differences between living (including volitional) and nonliving things only after existence (and a singular reality at that) has been acknowledged.

No objection here. Your point being?

Xray,

You have got to be joking.

You object and not object at the same time in the same post about the same thing.

Xray-speak is very strange...

btw - Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question...

Michael

[Xray]

"Act of choosing" and "object of choice" actually are "mixed up" on the reality level. They are part of the same existence.

But Michael, please, how can you say that being part of the same existence equals being mixed up on the reality level??

. . .

We can make differences between living (including volitional) and nonliving things only after existence (and a singular reality at that) has been acknowledged.

No objection here. Your point being?

Xray,

You have got to be joking.

You object and not object at the same time in the same post about the same thing.

Xray-speak is very strange...

Michael

Your quotes don't refer the same thing, Michael.

btw - Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question...

Yes. I value truth as in corresponence with reality.

But it is always "Truth about what? When? In what circumstance? How does one deal with the truth, given the circumstances?"

I value truth heard and spoken in most interpersonal relationships.

Would I value the truth about the horrible condition about a loved one mangled in a car accident? Maybe not. Do I value telling the truth to someone seeking a friend of mine in order to kill the friend? No, I do not.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your quotes don't refer the same thing, Michael.

Xray,

They certainly do, and I am telling you right now in as clear language as I am able to muster that they do.

If you refuse to even attempt to understand what I am talking about, that's on you.

btw - Is truth a value to you? It's a simple enough question...

Simple enough answer from me: Yes.

Then in Xray-speak, the truth is subjective. Here's the syllogism (in Xray-speak, of course):

Premise: All values are subjective, no exceptions.

Premise: The truth is a value.

Conclusion: The truth is subjective.

Michael

[Xray]

Also, you did not address what I wrote in my post:...

There were too many errors in that particular post. Things like the following:

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." Gee, that sounds a lot like "God's will", doesn't it?

"This levels prioritization and categories of values to the lowest level and pretends that no other kinds of values exist"

In reality there are fundamental values like food, etc., on the biological level, trying to understand, etc., on the mental level, and others. This stuff exists whether anyone subjectively wants it to or not. Gee, that's nobody's fault, is it?

Michael

I'll address your answer point per point.

"This levels prioritization and categories of values to the lowest level and pretends that no other kinds of values exist".

It doesn't pretend this. please read more thoroughly. I had written the only subjective value I see in the idea of "objective value". Therefore my statement was limited to the idea of "objective value" only and in no way denied the fact that "other kinds of values exist".

In reality there are fundamental values like food, etc., on the biological level, trying to understand, etc., on the mental level, and others.

Again you use "value" for what are simple biological necessities, which may be judged as being of value or not, depending on individual choice and circumstances. Ingesting food after being freshly operated is lethal for example. Too much water can be as detrimental as too little.

Grapes, a so-called "valuable" food, are detrimental to eat for a diabetic, etc.

An anorectic will not value ingesting food at all. To a person about to commit suicide, eating and drinking to sustain life is of no value.

And so on.

trying to understand, etc., on the mental level, and others.

On the mental level, "trying to understand" is no fundamental value to everybody either; I can think of enough cases where people refuse to understand since it would have as a consequence giving up cherished beliefs ...

Edited August 25, 2009 by Xray