Rand's gender hierarchy

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded

[Xray]

It doesn't make much sense to describe elementary physiological needs as values, as there isn't much to choose. The essence of a value is that it can be chosen, that it is something that is actively sought. There is of course the rub: what Objectivism tries to prove that things as independence, creativity, honesty etc. are objective values, but when asked how you can prove that these things are objective, they come up with physiological functions, as if these belong in the same category. It's the same old trick: from mere survival you get trough a miracle to survival as "man qua man".

The problem is you deny the existence of psychological needs. Honesty, creativity, we don't need to bend logic to fit physiological requirements, we simply have to assert that man's mind, his most vital organ, has needs just as any other organ. One way to determine these needs is to look at the emotional motivations humans are innately born with (attachment for example). This is heavily pursued in the field of Psychology. Another way to assert an objective criterion to values is to understand how the mind can be used to maximize the behaviors that fulfill needs (whether psychological or physiological). Awareness, which correlates to honesty, can be logically asserted to fulfill this latter category.

Yes, a value can be chosen. But a value is not chosen in a vacuum, a value is chosen against some set of criteria. A value chosen against objective standards (i.e. towards the fulfillment of man's needs) should be considered objective, whereas a value chosen by any other criterion is not. After all, we choose to believe that 1 + 1 = 2. We call this belief objective, but we have a choice on whether to follow the logic or not. Our choice to follow mathematical logic is based simply on an objective criterion of relationship to reality, there is nothing inherent in mathematics that makes it true. Believing in math is a choice and just as subjective as a value. We aren't forced to choose 1 + 1 = 2, we can choose 1 + 1 = 42. So in Xray's discussion with MSK, MSK's 3-point logic is correct: when all values are subjective, it follows that truth itself is subjective because denying objectivity to values denies a set of objective criteria, and we use objective criteria to validate all knowledge.

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is subjective.

That faulty syllogism (if it even deserves be called syllogism) constructed by Michael, not me. It was he who drew those wrong inferences, and you simply repeat it without seeing the flawed logic either.

Haven't you understood DF's analysis of the fallacy see post # 961)?

Please read it again - it is clearly worded enough.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly says here that Rand's statement is "the 800 pound gorilla that is ignored by every Objectivist on this list." Really? Or is it that Dragonfly wants everybody else to consider only half of the gorilla?

Merlin,

LOL...

Spot on.

But I have found it to be even worse. In proposing an alternative, I have seen that this line of argument (not just Dragonfly) uses the missing half of the 800 pound gorilla as if it were the whole thing.

In other words, they leave out one-half of the 800 pound gorilla, keep the other half (the one they attribute to Rand) and criticize that the Rand-attributed half (the one they didn't blank out) is not a whole gorilla.

But here's the kicker. They take the half they blanked out and hold it up, then claim it is a whole gorilla while blanking out the first half (the one they attributed to Rand).

In both cases there actually is an 800 pound gorilla in the room, but they claim that it only weighs 400 pounds, has one leg, one arm, etc.

Michael

[Christopher]

Jesus, Michael, you're right. There's an 800lbs gorilla in my last post, and not a single comment by Xray addresses it. Instead, it's a little nitpicking here and there, a laugh at this, a joke at that. TOTAL EVASION.

As for even the tiniest addressment of my post by Xray, addressing perhaps the little toe of this gorilla, she says:

Ah, I see, so that's your position. So going along with your reasoning, values not linked to the needs of the human organism, like "reason", "purpose", "self-esteem" are then subjective values?

Any my simple response is: It's clearly explained in the Psychology of Self-Esteem. I hope a whole book on the subject helps to satiate you. But this is the toe of my post, this has nothing to do with the main body of my logic and position.

[merjet]

[Selene]

To Michael. Merlin, Brant, Michell, Ginny et al. [in lieu of that applause icon]

[Jonathan]

All values are subjective, no exceptions.

The truth is a value.

Therefore the truth is subjective.

What happens if we define "value" and "truth" and then rewrite the above syllogism using the definitions in place of the words "value" and "truth" so as to avoid equivocation? For example, if one defines "value" as "the act of appraising or establishing worth," and "truth" as "that which corresponds to reality," then the syllogism would look like this:

All acts of appraising or establishing worth are subjective.

That which corresponds to reality is an act of appraising or establishing worth.

Therefore that which corresponds to reality is subjective.

Or if one defines "value" as "a principle by which one chooses to live," and "truth" as "that which has been proven to be factual," then the syllogism would look like this:

All principles by which one chooses to live are subjective.

That which has been proven to be factual is a principle by which one chooses to live.

Therefore that which has been proven to be factual is subjective.

Clearly there are problems with the syllogism when one makes an effort to avoid equivocation.

J

[merjet]

Jonathan,

True enough. But you picked on Michael's syllogism, and your comments apply equally well to Xray's "corrected" modification of it:

To Xray, all values are subjective, no exceptions.

To Xray, the truth is a value.

Therefore: To Xray, the truth is a subjective value.

(post #978)

Also, there are three terms one could equivocate on, not just the two you gave.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Impressive picture of one of our co-primates!

But as opposed to the gorilla, I'm afraid an "objective value" claim has 'no teeth' at all. ;)

Edited August 28, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff,

Brant almost nailed it when he said the act of valuing is subjective, but not the value itself.

If I compare this with normal cognitive identification, maybe it will be clearer to you.

For identification, the act of thinking is subjective, yet a concept is either subjective or objective. Venn diagrams are very useful for understanding this. Imagine two intersecting circles with an overlapped part. On the left you have mental processes and on the right you have verifiable facts. You get the objective identification (the objective concept) in the overlap.

It doesn't matter what these verifiable facts are. Only that they be facts and can be identified correctly. This obviously presupposes a cognitive mechanism that is suited to processing this information.

The same goes for values. And it helps if you think of a value as a normative abstraction, i.e., a special form of concept with a "call to action" built in instead of some kind of vague formless something-or-other. You can use the same Venn diagram on values with the same results. The act of valuing is subjective as is all act of thinking, but when mixed with verifiable fact, the abstraction (even with the built in "call to action") becomes objective. Objective values (objective normative abstractions) are in the overlap.

That is Rand's meaning as I understand it, although I doubt she would ever have used this form to explain it. I adhere to this meaning of objective value.

Michael

I'd counter to your explanation that there is no overlap. Either it's a fact or a value.

It struck me this morning that Rand's statement of what "value" is is really an anti-concept--conflating two entirely different things under the same rubric, and claiming that what goes for one goes for both. In this case she conflated facts (more precisely, entities which humans find valuable) and moral principles. That some foods are healthier for us than others is a fact. To arrange one's eating habits to take account of that is a moral principle, and therefore can be properly described as a value.

However, if, as Merlin suggests, Rand's preferred terminology was actually "rational value", I have much less of a problem. But even to talk about "rational values" is itself a statement of one's values. One chooses to be rational, and therefore the idea of rational values is something that is subjectively chosen. But there is nothing in the universe that requires us to be rational. For all we know, rationality and self awareness are evolutionary dead-ends, like the Irish elk that had antlers as big as its body (or whatever the actual dimensions were--do you know what I'm referring to?); and much of human history seems evidence for the proposition that the mass of humanity has no need to be rational.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'd counter to your explanation that there is no overlap. Either it's a fact or a value.

Jeff,

You are entirely welcome to construct your own system using these meanings, but this has nothing to do with Objectivism. Essentially you are proposing a mind-body dichotomy, to use Objectivist jargon.

Although I disagree with a system constructed with the meanings you suggest, I have no problem discussing this with you (as I have done so far, and I am even willing to go at length). My real beef is with people who try to attribute this kind of stuff or outright fantasies to Rand as an attempt to invalidate Objectivism, then claim contradictions where they graft meanings she did not use or intend on her words.

There are many arguments one can choose since there actually are several gaps, oversimplifications, inconsistencies, etc., in Rand's writing (amid oodles of great stuff, of course). Open disagreement is honest. Wholesale misrepresentation is not.

I find it so very odd that some people need to misrepresent Rand in order to disagree with her. It smacks of intellectual insecurity.

Notice that you and I disagree without boneheadedness creeping in. This is because there is an honest attempt on both parts to identify, then evaluate.

When people already value something (subjectively, i.e., without knowing much about it), then go on a crusade to find facts they can cherry-pick to fit their opinion as they preach their position to others, they tend to get dogmatic and competitive.

I don't sense that in you.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

I'd counter to your explanation that there is no overlap. Either it's a fact or a value.

Jeff,

You are entirely welcome to construct your own system using these meanings, but this has nothing to do with Objectivism. Essentially you are proposing a mind-body dichotomy, to use Objectivist jargon.

My main quarrel here is with Rand's attempt to conflate facts and moral values, and her claim that something which is inherently subjective (moral principles) is objective. I think that is the weak point of her system. And it's how she arrives at her moral conclusions that I have a problem with, not the conclusions themselves, most (but not all) of which I share, having gotten there by a different route. Her metaphysics and epistemology have what I think are problems around the edges--but nothing that I would call a fatal flaw.

Although I disagree with a system constructed with the meanings you suggest, I have no problem discussing this with you (as I have done so far, and I am even willing to go at length).

-------------

Notice that you and I disagree without boneheadedness creeping in. This is because there is an honest attempt on both parts to identify, then evaluate.

When people already value something (subjectively, i.e., without knowing much about it), then go on a crusade to find facts they can cherry-pick to fit their opinion as they preach their position to others, they tend to get dogmatic and competitive.

I don't sense that in you.

Michael

Thank you

Jeffrey

[Xray]

Also, be careful about the difference between truth and fact. A lot of people stumble on this point imagining that they are identical and interchangeable.

How do you define the two terms "truth" and "fact"?

[Selene]

[merjet]

But as opposed to the gorilla, I'm afraid an "objective value" claim has 'no teeth' at all.

Unfortunately for Xray "objective value" is purely her straw man, about as related to Ayn Rand as Xray is to the gorilla.

Moreover, Ayn Rand's concept of rational value is sound, untouched by Xray, and immune to Xray's flea bites.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Jesus, Michael, you're right. There's an 800lbs gorilla in my last post, and not a single comment by Xray addresses it. Instead, it's a little nitpicking here and there, a laugh at this, a joke at that. TOTAL EVASION.

There's no gorilla, only you scurrying away from directly addressing questions asked of you.

As for even the tiniest addressment of my post by Xray, addressing perhaps the little toe of this gorilla, she says:

Ah, I see, so that's your position. So going along with your reasoning, values not linked to the needs of the human organism, like "reason", "purpose", "self-esteem" are then subjective values?

Any my simple response is: It's clearly explained in the Psychology of Self-Esteem. I hope a whole book on the subject helps to satiate you. But this is the toe of my post, this has nothing to do with the main body of my logic and position.

A toe IS is part of the body, quite a sensitive part actually, which I just realized again when last week one of my kiddies, playing race driver with his tricycle, accidentally ran over my toes.

Chris, all you can come up with is "Read NB's book"? This is similar to a Jehova's witness referring me to the Bible where "things are explained". But at least they refer to specific passages and quote them, one has to give them that. Mrs K. who stands at my door every two weeks always does this,,

Nice lady, Mrs. K., always very thorough. Giving the Bible as the source is of course circular reasoning, but so is Objectivists quoting from Galt's speech, as if that were proof of anything.

But circular reasoning would be an extra topic.

I always prefer the primary source - where in Rand's work do you find material to quote and counter?

You called the values "objective" which are linked to the [physiological] needs the human organism. Correct?

"Reason", "Purpose", "Self-esteem" are clearly not linked to the needs of the human organism.

What values are they then in your opinion?

If you call them "objective" too, then your premise does not apply. Check our premises, that's all I'm asking of you.

And be specific please. A global reference to a book and leaving it at that is no argument.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Unfortunately for Xray "objective value" is purely her straw man, about as related to Ayn Rand as Xray is to the gorilla.

Unfortunately for you, the notion of "objective value" was Rand's mental creation, not mine, therefore I have to decline responsibility and am afraid it's the believers in it who are being left holding that baby.

Moreover, Ayn Rand's concept of rational value is sound, untouched by Xray, and immune to Xray's flea bites.

"Sound, untouched" - words can have such a wonderful ring in one's ears. Problem is, you can hear similar wonderful words from virtually every ideolgy.

"The pure path of truth", etc. - the various creations are legion, there's a wide selection to chose from.

But unless you become specific, it's all merely words strung together.

Please list some of those alleged "rational values" and explain why they are rational in your opinion.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Lo and behold! Pure whiteness is all I see ...!"

Hmm, maybe Selene has discovered Feng Shui, where it is advocated to always leave a blank spot in the house (a so-called Min Tang) ... is that what you're doing here, Selene?

You could also post the "Crickets and Rain" again for a change. That one was my personal favorite. I love those sounds. Subjectivity of values wherever you turn, Selene, and this applies to ALL values, since what is valued/not valued is always the result of a decision by a chooser. Such is life, whether we like this fact or not.

xray:

I attended NBI in the 60's, I heard her speak in "the flesh" hundreds of times, I know her writings. I would have asked that question of Ayn if she were here today.

Selene, was it possible to ask Ayn Rand questions back then and if yes, what was the nature of the questions? Were they of the deferential Q & A type listed in ITOE, where the disciples ask and the teacher explains? Or did she permit challenging questions too? If yes, how was her reaction to them?

Did you ask Rand questions too?

If yes, what was the most challenging question you asked her?

Edited August 28, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Christopher:

Today driving home, I realized this discussion of values really needs a more clear definition, so we need to use Objectivism:

"A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep".

Christopher, since you seem to believe your arguments have been "evaded", here is addressing the issue point per point, with questions added for clarification so you can address them directly too.

It came up rather long but this was needed to cover all the bases.

"A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep"

If it's a clear definition you seek, this makes it necessary to connect the term, value, to some aspect of reality without equivocation.

Agree? If not, why not?

This means connecting the term, to the objective referent for the term, value.

Agree? If not, why not?

That referent is each individual with each made up of a specific set of differentiating characteristics.

Agree? If not why not?

The characteristic in focus is the natural capacity to attribute value.

Agree? If not, why not?

Can you present any example of value without a valuer, without an individual attributing value?

If so, what? If not, why not?

Given the correlation between term, value, and the necessity of a valuer attributing value, does it not logically follow that valuation is a matter of the mental action of attributing value?

Agree? If not, why not?

Can you find fault with any of the above?

If so, what? Why?

If not, can there be a "value" just laying around with no connection to a valuer? Can there be a "value" without a volitional entity? Is a volitional entity finite, or infinite? Did you ever shake hands with "man" (the category) and ask "man" what "man" wanted for Christmas? Did you ever ask "man" what life is "proper for man?"

If this didn't happen, what's left except some individual deciding "life proper to man", i.e., for all individuals? Where is the "individualism" here??

Chris:

"Great. Xray, Dragonfly, you guys following? A value is defined as that which one acts to gain and/or keep (according to Objectivism). Does that

mean all values are subjective? Well, it depends on how you define subjective and objective. This definition of values simply is.

.. at this point it has neither objectivity nor subjectivity."

Direct contradiction. How can "value to whom" be "interpreted" to mean anything but value to a volitional entity?

What does volition mean if not to choose? What does choose mean except separate from that which is not subject to choice? Who does the choosing except each and every individual in step with beliefs and personal preferences? What is this if not subjective? The phrase itself sets the definition. To claim no definition is denial of what has by logical inference been stated.

A clear principle of subjectivity ("value to whom") is set, then immediately denied in deference to limbo land of no definition? Going where? Nowhere?

How do you propose to settle the issue of objective vs. subjective without first defining the terms as reference?

As has been posted several times, the radical differentiation between objective and subjective is independent of mind = independent of personal preference, vs dependent on mind. (personal preferences, feelings, beliefs, etc.)

Example: The earth, moon, stars, trees, law of gravity, etc., exist independently of mind, i.e. independent of personal preference.

Shall we call these items "objective"?

Jack, Jim and and Joe see a bowl of fruit on the table, filled with apples and pears. The bowl and pieces of fruit are objective items, aren't they?

Jack chooses an apple, Jim a pear and Joe neither. Personal subjective preference is operating here, with individuals subjectively attributing value, right? The choice is dependent on personal preference, hence subjective.

*Attention - don't confuse it with the act of choosing/not choosing itself which is of course objective. We are talking about attributing value.

Objections? If so, what and why? Is there any objection to assigning differentiating terms to that which we observe as real difference? Shall we call these personal preferences, i.e. attributing value, subjective?

What about honesty vs. dishonesty, initiation of force vs. non initiation of force, life or death (within capacity), lifestyle? Are these not all a matter of personal preference?

If not, why not?

"Well, it depends on how you define subjective and objective." (Ibid)

In other words, there is a proposition to distinguish objective from subjective with no defining reference given for either. This is not addressing the issue. It's evading it.

How do you define any term if not in reference to an entity and/or a relationship. That definition is provided above: Independent of mind vs mind dependent. Independent of mind meaning (of course) independent of personal preference.

behaviors which are not linked to an objective criterion are not objective (they can be called subjective).

"Subjective" behavior - now what's that? Would you please give me an example of "subjective" behavior??

You can take the gorilla picture posted by Merlin:

Did the gorilla show "objective" or "subjective" behavior? Please elaborate.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Xray

[Jonathan]

"A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep."

I've never acted to gain or keep the Mona Lisa. Does that mean that it doesn't count as something which I value according to Objectivism?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

In my understanding, if you value viewing the Mona Lisa (or any art work), you have to value it enough to want it to exist. Thus your eyes can "gain" it even though the physical painting stays elsewhere.

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

That something is an objective value to me doesn't mean it has to be to you too.

Brant,

But this concedes that values are subjective, doesn't it? Value to me vs. value to you. Can it get more subjective?

I reject your universality premise, but on this level of arguing it's semantical. We're just putting different labels on the same thing. I don't like your labeling because it's pernicious--as I've explained several times before. It leads to intellectual and moral disarmament. It chews the foundation right out of science. Subjectivity is not a philosophy but it's all you've got. That's why you bring so little to the table.

The contrary is the case, Brant. My goal is to bring it to the table, for the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But you and others shy away from eating it since they may not like the taste.

The universality of Objective values appertains only to man in the abstract. A particular man, for instance, may want to die, so he would not value even the air he breathes.

But Brant, a philosophy which can't be applied to concrete life situations and remains in the abstract is not worth the paper it is written on.

"Man" in the abstract does not exist as an individual entity (have you ever spoken to "man"?)

The litmus test has to be conducted in reality. That's why it is so crucial to tie a thought system to reality - to see if stands up to scrutiny.

So I'll bring up the example from my prior post again (to the table, so to speak), and ask all Objecvtists to please apply Rand's objective value theory to it.

Here goes:

Dropping bombs on Vietnam was obviously considered as greater value by the bomb droppers than not dropping them, right?

Now how is this action to be judged Objectvism-wise? Objective value? Subjective value?

If you hold that the ultimate value is one's life, then this includes of course the life of every human being - right?

If you hold that "the enemy" is to be destructed at all costs (like e. g. Peikoff said in the interview with Bill Reilly) - your assessment will be different.

Which is it? If the agenda is "destruction of the enemy", and this very enemy has the same philosophy, where do we take it from there?

My challenge is: you will see at once when it comes to values, the "overall context" by which to assess them is itself influenced by the subjective value system of the assessor. Just think of how the people targeted by the bomb will "value" it.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Dropping bombs on Vietnam was obviously considered as greater value by the bomb droppers than not dropping them, right?

Now how is this action to be judged Objectvism-wise? Objective value? Subjective value?

If you hold that the ultimate value is one's life, then this includes of course the life of every human being - right?

If you hold that "the enemy" is to be destructed at all costs (like e. g. Peikoff said in the interview with Bill Reilly) - your assessment will be different.

Which is it? If the agenda is "destruction of the enemy", and this very enemy has the same philosophy, where do we take it from there?

My challenge is: you will see at once when it comes to values, the "overall context" by which to assess them is itself influenced by the subjective value system of the assessor. Just think of how the people targeted by the bomb will "value" it.

Well, here is how I see it: In ground combat my unit is taking machine-gun fire from the treeline. My objective evaluation is that that is an objective disvalue to me and other members of my unit. The enemy soldiers, though, see that as an objective value to them. I call in an airstrike and a jet fighter-bomber drops napalm on the enemy position. I see that as an objective value to me as I want to live. The enemy sees that as an objective disvalue to them for the same reason.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing. That's why I think this entire discussion is essentially "trite." However, you confuse people with false importance.

--Brant

objective value is the objectification of value--i.e., identification

[Brant Gaede]

I don't ascribe Rand's value theory to any situation in that I don't think of it even though a lot of it is in my brain. I never studied the Objectivist catechism except rather briefly in the 1960s and 70s. It's my brain, reason, reality. I use reason to get my brain to reality. It's not my brain, Objectivism, reason, reality. Using Objectivism that way tends to derail reason and you may end up in a cult headed by intellectual and moral authority figures. Objectivism, the way I studied it and was influenced by it, has been highly educational and valuable and extremely interesting, but it doesn't lead me around by the nose.

--Brant

Edited August 28, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Xray has any real understanding or appreciation or use for "man in the abstract." Major problem.

--Brant