Rand's gender hierarchy

[Brant Gaede]

I'm confused. I said "my" not "your" deletion. It was repartee. I also said by direct implication that I wasn't taking HER word that her deletion was "innocent."

Brant,

Sorry.

Senior moment...

Michael

Me too. I think it's Xrey's fault that these symptoms are manifesting themselves now, however.

Actually, what happened is you read too fast. You've done it before. Old man in a hurry? (Don't worry. I'm 65 and only now approaching middle age.)

You could have deleted your post. Heh, heh.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Jeffrey Smith:

"Since your previous posts give every indication of not actually want to know what others think, but only want more fodder for your wordgames

Accusing others of word games without a support for the accusation is similar to the practice of declaring error without ever identifying the what and why of alleged error.

So to clarify, would you please define 'word games' and give examples from my posts supporting the claim of word games.

Asking for, or parsing, a definition without ever actually offering one of your own, and making unsupported judgments without offering any evidence to make them credible, and bending everything to fit your presupposed axioms of human nature, and ignoring the actual arguments offered against you.

As for examples--this, and just about every other post you have made in this thread...

[Brant Gaede]

"Honor killings as murder by our law," Xray. But okay back home? Are you aware of some recent efforts to impose Sharia law in Great Britain?

--Brant

This is being attempted here too, and I'm strictly against these efforts, which is why I wrote:

"I'm for applying our law against those who violate it, so if people expect to get away with e. g. honor killings because the laws in their country don't treat them as murder, I'm absolutely for our judges making NO exception for them in any way."

I'm totally against what these religious fundamentalists are attemping to do, but what I'm not doing is to lump all "muslims" together as "the enemy", as if they were all alike in their mindset. I just know too many personally and those I know would shudder at the mere thought of having the Sharia here.

If I was unclear, I was referring to home countries like Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, etc. Was it objectively immoral to seize an American journalist and videotape his head being sawed off, killing him? Is forced female circumcision objectively immoral? Or is all this crap and nonsense merely subjective value exp​ression not open to objective censure?

--Brant

Marrying the term "morality" to the term "objective" is a semantic mismatch, the same as "objective values". Actually it blinds the view to independent thinking, for once you bring up the term "objective morality" or "objective value", you are in trap, since those who committed the videotaped act will tell you point-blank exactly the same: that theirs was an act of "objective value". Shocking, sure, but that is a fact.

Just like - who said it - US President Andrew Jackson? "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian". If asked, he certainly would have insisted on this being an "objective value".

As for "forced female circumcision", the term "forced" is redundant since this is always an imposed act. 'Circumcision' is a euphemism for what is in fact genital mutilation, causing indescribable pain, if not death from sepsis, and robbing women forever of the ability to experience sexual pleasure. Behind all this is a deep-set fear of female sexuality, therefore sexually active women are considered as a threat to males.

But shocking as it is, the practice of genital mutilation is considered as an act of "objective morality" by those who condone it.

See how trying to apply "objective morality" leads into a blind alley each time, Brant?

One can only try to convince these people via social projects to stop this horrific practice, and not via throwing bombs on their villages.

A lot has been achieved, but much still remains to be done.

I'm also against the practice of circumcising males btw., and if I had a son, would never consent to this being performed.

Although the consequences for males can't be compared to those which genital mutilation has for females, still it is an imposed, forceful act unnecessarily cutting protective skin off a very sensitive area.

To sum it up again for the umpteenth time here: realizing that people subjectively attribute value to whatever, and often erroneously call their values 'objective' does not imply one has an 'anything goes' attitude. If I had this attiude, I would not support the social projects I donate money to.

This is the problem: you have no essential understanding of right and wrong outside your epistemological (semantical) formulations. Not once did you ever attempt to understand or evaluate anything I said apropos to the essential discussions on this thread. You have a mind-set schematic you always fall back on and throw back at critics without the blessings of thought or knowledge expecting that Silencio! must logically follow. You cannot stop the great +1000 year war between the Muslim religion and the Christian this way except by running around the inside of our fort urging us to lay down our arms and open the gates resulting in our being slaughtered or converted. That Islam is spread by the sword is enough to make it wrong. The Christians knock on your door and want to have a talk and invite you to their church.

While I am an atheist, culturally I am a Protestant. The way to deal with this spread by the sword nonsense is with bigger and more and other swords. Balance of power. The big threat to the West isn't terrorism but demographics. Israel has this problem too. Eventually Israel would be destroyed in its present incarnation by that, but in the meantime it has bigger problems. In less than a hundred years I expect Europe, including Great Britain, to be taken over and submerged by its Muslim populations, absent violent and huge bloody pogroms and mass expulsions. When secularized Europeans finally get religion they may go on a bloody rampage a la the Balkans. The U.S. (and Canada) won't be, but will be economically and otherwise integrated into S.E. Asia and China particularly. Japan is simply doomed by its low birth rate and Russia by Vodka.

I expect the 21st Century will be as bloody as the 20th was, but that the blood won't come in big bunches. I hope not to the former. A wild card is China with +50 million young men without humanizing women. What's going to happen to them? Default homosexuality or war, foreign or domestic. I would count on everything mentioned.

--Brant

that's why this thread is trite

[kiaer.ts]

You cannot stop the great +1000 year war between the Muslim religion and the Christian this way except by running around the inside of our fort urging us to lay down our arms and open the gates resulting in our being slaughtered or converted. That Islam is spread by the sword is enough to make it wrong. The Christians knock on your door and want to have a talk and invite you to their church.

While I am an atheist, culturally I am a Protestant. The way to deal with this spread by the sword nonsense is with bigger and more and other swords. Balance of power. The big threat to the West isn't terrorism but demographics. Israel has this problem too. Eventually Israel would be destroyed in its present incarnation by that, but in the meantime it has bigger problems. In less than a hundred years I expect Europe, including Great Britain, to be taken over and submerged by its Muslim populations, absent violent and huge bloody pogroms and mass expulsions. When secularized Europeans finally get religion they may go on a bloody rampage a la the Balkans. The U.S. (and Canada) won't be, but will be economically and otherwise integrated into S.E. Asia and China particularly. Japan is simply doomed by its low birth rate and Russia by Vodka.

I expect the 21st Century will be as bloody as the 20th was, but that the blood won't come in big bunches. I hope not to the former. A wild card is China with +50 million young men without humanizing women. What's going to happen to them? Default homosexuality or war, foreign or domestic. I would count on everything mentioned.

Very well said, Brant. I like what you said about the Protestant atheism. I just had a similar discussion elsewhere about atheist cultural Catholics. The yellow peril remark scares me - I hadn't thought about the fact that all those one child males are now coming of age.

[Xray]

I expect the 21st Century will be as bloody as the 20th was, but that the blood won't come in big bunches. I hope not to the former. A wild card is China with +50 million young men without humanizing women. What's going to happen to them? Default homosexuality or war, foreign or domestic. I would count on everything mentioned.

With more and more people becoming atheists, imo every religion will lose its power in the long run. But this doesn't meant that people won't seek other gurus or "-isms" to follow. For our biological group animal heritage which goes to blindly following a 'pack leader' is still there. But while this was useful to survive back then, it does have its clear disadvantages now.

The more independent a person's mind, the less he/she will fall prey to indoctrination.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeffrey Smith:

"Since your previous posts give every indication of not actually want to know what others think, but only want more fodder for your wordgames

Accusing others of word games without a support for the accusation is similar to the practice of declaring error without ever identifying the what and why of alleged error.

So to clarify, would you please define 'word games' and give examples from my posts supporting the claim of word games.

Asking for, or parsing, a definition without ever actually offering one of your own, and making unsupported judgments without offering any evidence to make them credible, and bending everything to fit your presupposed axioms of human nature, and ignoring the actual arguments offered against you.

As for examples--this, and just about every other post you have made in this thread...

Your claim that I have not ever offered a definition of my own can be easily disproved - you need only read my posts where I did provide them.

Edited September 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The way to deal with this spread by the sword nonsense is with bigger and more and other swords.

Imagine you had been born into an islamic fundamentalist family and been indoctrinated accordingly. Do you think it is possible you would be swinging the sword for the so-called 'objective values' propagated by Islam?

Edited September 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Jeffrey:

The fact that it is almost impossible, if not actually impossible, to convey what exactly "egolessness" is to those that have not experienced

it firsthand, testifies to how firmly wedded normal human functioning is tied to the ego.

Have you thought of the possibility that this 'mystical' experience could have been created by our own mind?

My guess is you are referring to experiences you have had in meditation, where a point may be reached at which the individual subjectively gets the feeling of the ego "dissolving" or something similar. I suppose it's just different brain waves which are activated in meditation, which then produce that feeling.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The way to deal with this spread by the sword nonsense is with bigger and more and other swords.

Imagine you had been born into an islamic fundamentalist family and been indoctrinated accordingly. Do you think it is possible you would be swinging the sword for the so-called 'objective values' propagated by Islam?

No. I would have found some way to get out.

I'm assuming I'd be biologically the same person with the same amount of brains. I have a lot of brains.

--Brant

[Selene]

Jeffrey:

The fact that it is almost impossible, if not actually impossible, to convey what exactly "egolessness" is to those that have not experienced

it firsthand, testifies to how firmly wedded normal human functioning is tied to the ego.

Have you thought of the possibility that this 'mystical' experience could have been created by our own mind?

My guess is you are referring to experiences you have had in meditation, where a point may be reached at which the individual subjectively gets the feeling of the ego "dissolving" or something similar. I suppose it's just different brain waves which are activated in meditation, which then produce that feeling.

Folks:

In discussing this particular issue, the Dalai Lama explained:

"All these studies are observation-driven, in that - regardless of the philosophical views that scientists bring to any given experiment in the final analysis,

it is the empirical observation based on evidence that and the discovery of phenomena that must determine what is true. Likewise, whatever our philosophical

views about the nature of consciousness, whether it is ultimately material or not, through a vigorous first person method we can learn to observe the phenomena, including their characteristics and causal dynamics.

On this basis, I envision the possibility of broadening the scope of the science of consciousness and enriching our collective understanding of the human mind in scientific terms."

Thanks again Rich - 44 pages to go. A fine book.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Folks:

In discussing this particular issue, the Dalai Lama explained:

"All these studies are observation-driven, in that - regardless of the philosophical views that scientists bring to any given experiment in the final analysis,

it is the empirical observation based on evidence that and the discovery of phenomena that must determine what is true. Likewise, whatever our philosophical

views about the nature of consciousness, whether it is ultimately material or not, through a vigorous first person method we can learn to observe the phenomena, including their characteristics and causal dynamics.

On this basis, I envision the possibility of broadening the scope of the science of consciousness and enriching our collective understanding of the human mind in scientific terms."

Thanks again Rich - 44 pages to go. A fine book.

Adam

Adam--what's the book's title?

[Selene]

The Universe in a Single Atom: The convergence of Science and Spirituality

Broadway Books NY 2005 ISBN13 978-0-7679-2081-0 I got mine at Barnes and Noble near Penn Station in NYC

Rich Engle from this forum recommended it.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

The Universe in a Single Atom: The convergence of Science and Spirituality

Broadway Books NY 2005 ISBN13 978-0-7679-2081-0 I got mine at Barnes and Noble near Penn Station in NYC

Rich Engle from this forum recommended it.

Adam

Noted down, with thanks

[Ellen Stuttle]

X-ray,

I won't be responding to you after this post. I debated responding at all. You did enough distorting of what I'd said (the reference is to my post #1108) -- plus interpolating of meanings which aren't there into what I'd said -- I have to question the honesty of intent. Whether honest or not, I think you gave yourself away with the substance of your reply ( post #1110).

You've been preaching ethical subjectivism -- "preaching" is an accurate description, I have to agree with Michael. Your reply reveals that you don't believe your own sermon, that instead you believe that there are differences which make a demonstrable difference in results amongst systems of morality.

I'll explain why I took any interest in your posts, enough to read a large sample of them: It's because I can sympathize with persons who have grown up in Germany and who have deep-seated fear of absolutist ethical systems. But what you don't understand, and seem to be putting up deliberate barriers against understanding, no matter how it's explained to you, is that the subjectivism you preach isn't the antidote to the sort of history you fear. To change the metaphor from that of "posion," it's becoming kerosene feeding a slumbering fire.

For example, there have already been pogroms against the Gypsies in Hungary -- portents of things to come. I shudder to think of the likely future of Europe, with the US maybe not far behind.

Ellen

PS: Yes I read your post #1075.

[RightJungle]

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

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant.

For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all.

Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them.

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.

You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route.

The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler.

But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb.

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

You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values.

As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing.

No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals.

[RightJungle]

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

Identification of a value does not make the value itself objective, Brant.

For example, you and I obviously value retriever dogs since we both own one (labrador retriever/golden retriever). But this does not make the dogs an objective value since other people don't value the breed or even dogs at all.

Conclusion: the owners of the dogs Saga and Mira subjectively attribute value to them.

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.

You are attempting to "save" the term "objective value" by using it in situations where the issue actually is about objectively assessing means and ends to achieve a subjectively chosen goal.

For example, kamikaze suicide pilots crashing their planes into the targets too assessed (evaluated) the preciseness of their flight route.

The Hiroshima bombers evaluated their means and proceedings, as well those who planned to kill Hitler.

But the individual goal is always subjectively chosen, whether it is wanting to bake a cake or wanting to build a bomb.

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

You have realized yourself that "objective" value does not apply here, since this would mean conceding that the enemy has "objective" values too, and this in turn would of course collapse the whole Randian concept of (absolute) objective values.

As for "trite", I completely disagree. Actually it can be a matter of life or death. Just think of the millions who suffered and lost their lives with the rulers justifying their proceedings with alleged objective value judgements. "God's will", "sacred ideas", "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori", "virginity", any kind of racism - these are all results of arbitarily declaring subjective preferences as objective values.

Now you might simply take out the word "objective" and replace it with "subjective." I simply take out "objective" and replace it with nothing.

No problem, Brant. We might as well call them values only, which are attributed to this or that by individuals.

You might want to take a look at Tara Smith's "Viable Values" her book that expounds with great clarity on Ayn Rand's value theory. She makes it really easy to grasp the difference between objective and subjective and provides an excellent description of the foundational objective values without which valueing is not possible. That book will just flat out clear it all up for you.

[Xray]

X-ray,

I won't be responding to you after this post. I debated responding at all. You did enough distorting of what I'd said (the reference is to my post #1108) -- plus interpolating of meanings which aren't there into what I'd said -- I have to question the honesty of intent. Whether honest or not, I think you gave yourself away with the substance of your reply ( post #1110).

You've been preaching ethical subjectivism -- "preaching" is an accurate description, I have to agree with Michael. Your reply reveals that you don't believe your own sermon, that instead you believe that there are differences which make a demonstrable difference in results amongst systems of morality.

I'll explain why I took any interest in your posts, enough to read a large sample of them: It's because I can sympathize with persons who have grown up in Germany and who have deep-seated fear of absolutist ethical systems. But what you don't understand, and seem to be putting up deliberate barriers against understanding, no matter how it's explained to you, is that the subjectivism you preach isn't the antidote to the sort of history you fear. To change the metaphor from that of "posion," it's becoming kerosene feeding a slumbering fire.

For example, there have already been pogroms against the Gypsies in Hungary -- portents of things to come. I shudder to think of the likely future of Europe, with the US maybe not far behind.

Ellen

PS: Yes I read your post #1075.

Without you quoting specific areas of disagreeemt and attempting to refute, yours is a mere "I don't like your posts" post.

Also, coming to the conclusion that objective values can't exist is of epistemological nature and therefore unrelated to what country one happens to live in.

For as surely as heat is used to cook and cold used to freeze, every volitional entity attributes value. There is no contrary; nothing to contradict these obvious and irrefutable facts. Hence, "objective values" can't be "discovered".

Imo things would have been far clearer if Rand had simply stated "My values are" or "I prefer".

Edited September 9, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

You might want to take a look at Tara Smith's "Viable Values" her book that expounds with great clarity on Ayn Rand's value theory. She makes it really easy to grasp the difference between objective and subjective and provides an excellent description of the foundational objective values without which valueing is not possible. That book will just flat out clear it all up for you.

It looks like Rand herself never defined the adjectives "objective" and "subjective". Did T. Smith define them?

Still, the terms have been discussed intensively here; on the Epistemology thread, I have recently posted an excerpt of what Rand said about subjectivism: and frankly, I ask myself if anyone knows of, or has ever heard of, any person who believes what Rand claims is believed by "subjectivists".

She says that

"Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid,plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver — i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims."....indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver— i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims." (Rand)

As for viable values, you say T. Smith presents "objective values" "on the basis of which valuing is not possible".

Is that about Rand's "life is the standard of value"?

Could you just name some of these foundational "objective values" from the book?

Edited September 9, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Still, the terms have been discussed intensively here; on the Epistemology thread, I have recently posted an excerpt of what Rand said about subjectivism: and frankly, I ask myself if anyone knows of, or has ever heard of, any person who believes what Rand claims is believed by "subjectivists".

She says that

"Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid,plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver — i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims."....indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver— i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims." (Rand)

Look up "Prosperity Gospel", although that is merely an more extreme form of a tendency found in almost all Christianity (and probably most religions, albeit under other names)

[Xray]

[Xray]:

Still, the terms have been discussed intensively here; on the Epistemology thread, I have recently posted an excerpt of what Rand said about subjectivism: and frankly, I ask myself if anyone knows of, or has ever heard of, any person who believes what Rand claims is believed by "subjectivists".

Look up "Prosperity Gospel", although that is merely an more extreme form of a tendency found in almost all Christianity (and probably most religions, albeit under other names)

Jeffrey, I went a link - so this is about "if you are rich you were chosen by god" issue?

Prosperity theology (also known as prosperity doctrine, health and wealth, prosperity gospel) is a religious belief centered around the notion that God provides material prosperity for those He favors.[1] It implies both that people who are favored by God will be materially successful, and also that materially successful people are successful because God favored them. The Prosperity Gospel is often used by its promoters to elicit donations, on the premise that donations will be materially repaid and rewarded via divine intervention.

Prosperity theology has been the target of criticism. Within the Christian community, Prosperity theology has been criticized as being antithetical to traditional biblical teaching.[2] More generally, Prosperity theology has been criticized as as being exploitative of its adherents, and for the financial excesses and lack of financial transparency of its leadership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

I don't think what is promoted there is based on the same premises as Rand's definition of subjectivism.

Prosperity gospel draws a wrong inference from a fact (richness) to the causes of this fact: "chosen by god".

That is, it bases "being rich" on the premise of having been chosen by God.

If you are rich, you are favored by God

X is rich

X is favored by God

If you are poor, you are not favored b God

Y is poor

Y is not favored by God

Based on a false premises, prosperity gospel draws a wrong inference from a fact of realty in relation to this irrational premise.

Whereas Rand's definiiton of subjectivity alleges that subejctvists believe they can alter reality by their consciousness. Imo this is something else.

Rand: "Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid,plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver — i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims.".

Apart from children still being in the "magical" phase of thinking, or a person suffering from a psychosis, I can't think anyone fittig Rand's definition of "subjectivist". (?)

Although I know of no one who consciously believes he/she can alter reality by feelings, the opposite happens quite often: that people imagine their subjective feelings to be objective reality.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

[Xray]:

Still, the terms have been discussed intensively here; on the Epistemology thread, I have recently posted an excerpt of what Rand said about subjectivism: and frankly, I ask myself if anyone knows of, or has ever heard of, any person who believes what Rand claims is believed by "subjectivists".

Look up "Prosperity Gospel", although that is merely an more extreme form of a tendency found in almost all Christianity (and probably most religions, albeit under other names)

Jeffrey, I went a link - so this is about "if you are rich you were chosen by god" issue?

Prosperity theology (also known as prosperity doctrine, health and wealth, prosperity gospel) is a religious belief centered around the notion that God provides material prosperity for those He favors.[1] It implies both that people who are favored by God will be materially successful, and also that materially successful people are successful because God favored them. The Prosperity Gospel is often used by its promoters to elicit donations, on the premise that donations will be materially repaid and rewarded via divine intervention.

Prosperity theology has been the target of criticism. Within the Christian community, Prosperity theology has been criticized as being antithetical to traditional biblical teaching.[2] More generally, Prosperity theology has been criticized as as being exploitative of its adherents, and for the financial excesses and lack of financial transparency of its leadership. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

I don't think what is promoted there is based on the same premises as Rand's definition of subjectivism.

Prosperity gospel draws a wrong inference from a fact (richness) to the causes of this fact: "chosen by god".

That is, it bases "being rich" on the premise of having been chosen by God.

If you are rich, you are favored by God

X is rich

X is favored by God

If you are poor, you are not favored b God

Y is poor

Y is not favored by God

Based on a false premises, prosperity gospel draws a wrong inference from a fact of realty in relation to this irrational premise.

Whereas Rand's definiiton of subjectivity alleges that subejctvists believe they can alter reality by their consciousness. Imo this is something else.

Rand: "Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid,plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver — i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims.".

Apart from children still being in the "magical" phase of thinking, or a person suffering from a psychosis, I can't think anyone fittig Rand's definition of "subjectivist". (?)

Although I know of no one who consciously believes he/she can alter reality by feelings, the opposite happens quite often: that people imagine their subjective feelings to be objective reality.

I guess you've never seen Protestants of a certain type loudly claim a car or some other material reward--or even medical healing--"in Jesus' name", and leave very confidently believing that God is going to give them that car or whatever they prayed for simply because they prayed with the correct words and a fervent enough tone of voice.

Magical thinking? Probably? Subjectivism as Rand meant it? Definitely.

[Xray]

I guess you've never seen Protestants of a certain type loudly claim a car or some other material reward--or even medical healing--"in Jesus' name", and leave very confidently believing that God is going to give them that car or whatever they prayed for simply because they prayed with the correct words and a fervent enough tone of voice.

Magical thinking? Probably? Subjectivism as Rand meant it? Definitely.

I too have seen such 'performances', and they are not limited to protestants of a certain type - in fact a whole book industry is flourishing (at least here in Europe), with publications encouraging people to ask a "benevolent universe" for their wishes and they will get what they want, crazy as it sounds.

But these people all appeal to some kind of higher power who is to help them to fulfill their wishes, whether it is god or a "benevolent universe" - but is this the same as to believe oneself can alter reality by mere feelings?

Interesting also that Rand herself used the term "benevolent" universe - as it this were an entity capable of volition.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I guess you've never seen Protestants of a certain type loudly claim a car or some other material reward--or even medical healing--"in Jesus' name", and leave very confidently believing that God is going to give them that car or whatever they prayed for simply because they prayed with the correct words and a fervent enough tone of voice.

Magical thinking? Probably? Subjectivism as Rand meant it? Definitely.

I too have seen such 'performances', and they are not limited to protestants of a certain type - in fact a whole book industry is flourishing (at least here in Europe), with publications encouraging people to ask a "benevolent universe" for their wishes and they will get what they want, crazy as it sounds.

But these people all appeal to some kind of higher power who is to help them to fulfill their wishes, whether it is god or a "benevolent universe" - but is this the same as to believe oneself can alter reality by mere feelings?

Interesting also that Rand herself used the term "benevolent" universe - as it this were an entity capable of volition.

It would be refreshing if you would actually read what Ayn stated before you make your out of context remarks that would lead the casual reader to be philosophically hustled - that is why you are the 3 card monte girl:

Benevolent Universe Premise

There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter . . . . That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters . . . .

Its consequence is the inability to believe in the power or the triumph of evil. No matter what corruption one observes in one’s immediate background, one is unable to accept it as normal, permanent or metaphysically right. One feels: “This injustice (or terror or falsehood or frustration or pain or agony) is the exception in life, not the rule.” One feels certain that somewhere on earth—even if not anywhere in one’s surroundings or within one’s reach—a proper, human way of life is possible to human beings, and justice matters.

Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.

Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage):

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.”

This is why Ayn Rand’s heroes respond to disaster, when it does strike, with a single instantaneous response: action—what can they do? If there’s any chance at all, they refuse to accept defeat. They do what they can to counter the danger, because they are on the premise that success, not failure, is the to-be-expected.

Adam

[Xray]

Interesting also that Rand herself used the term "benevolent" universe - as it this were an entity capable of volition.

It would be refreshing if you would actually read what Ayn stated before you make your out of context remarks that would lead the casual reader to be philosophically hustled - that is why you are the 3 card monte girl:

Benevolent Universe Premise

There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter . . . . That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters . . . .

Its consequence is the inability to believe in the power or the triumph of evil. No matter what corruption one observes in one’s immediate background, one is unable to accept it as normal, permanent or metaphysically right. One feels: “This injustice (or terror or falsehood or frustration or pain or agony) is the exception in life, not the rule.” One feels certain that somewhere on earth—even if not anywhere in one’s surroundings or within one’s reach—a proper, human way of life is possible to human beings, and justice matters.

Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.

Pain, suffering, failure do not have metaphysical significance—they do not reveal the nature of reality. Ayn Rand’s heroes, accordingly, refuse to take pain seriously, i.e., metaphysically. You remember when Dagny asks Ragnar in the valley how his wife can live through the months he is away at sea, and he answers (I quote just part of this passage):

“We do not think that tragedy is our natural state. We do not live in chronic dread of disaster. We do not expect disaster until we have specific reason to expect it, and when we encounter it, we are free to fight it. It is not happiness, but suffering, that we consider unnatural. It is not success but calamity that we regard as the abnormal exception in human life.”

This is why Ayn Rand’s heroes respond to disaster, when it does strike, with a single instantaneous response: action—what can they do? If there’s any chance at all, they refuse to accept defeat. They do what they can to counter the danger, because they are on the premise that success, not failure, is the to-be-expected.

Adam

So per Ramd, "benevolent" universe = "indifferent" universe. Indifferent is something else than "benevolent".

Her then calling "reality" "benevolent" doesn't make her odd word choice any better. More later.

Edited September 11, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

So per Ramd, "benevolent" universe = "indifferent" universe. Indifferent is something else than "benevolent".

Her then calling "reality" "benevolent" doesn't make her odd word choice any better. More later.

Why? So AR could get literary sometimes. Imagine that. What a horrible, insufficient person she must have been. I do not know why Xray is treating Ayn Rand as a pinata, but she's not wearing a blindfold.

--Brant