Rand's gender hierarchy

[Michelle]

I'm done with this conversation. But I'll post one final thing on Buddhism.

You will never understand Buddhism as a Buddhist does until you stop using analytic logic to evaluate it. The approach Buddhists take toward their beliefs is summed up in the concept of upaya, or skillful means. The ultimate goal for the Buddhist is what you call "nirvana," or "awakening." This is not something which can be understood intellectually, according to the Buddhist, but only experienced. To this end, the Buddhist adopts beliefs which will aid him in achieving this state. There is absolutely no concern at all about the factual nature of these beliefs. That is beside the point for a Buddhist. Beliefs are only skillful means to an end, to be kicked off when they are no longer needed.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Michelle:

"Life is not explicitly devalued in Buddhism. Consciousness and individuality are." Thank you for catching her glaring prevarication by attempting

to tell us what Buddhism is not to anyone who has studied it, or been a Buddhist.

However, it illustrates a pattern of thinking and a syntax of thought that needs to be recognized, like learning what a Copperhead snakes, or, Recluse spiders look like and how they like to live.

"In fact everyone has a philosophy,..." quoth the Raven nevermore.

One philosophy is just as good as another philosophy. Chocolate, vanilla, Rocky Road or Rum Raisin.

All are equally worthy. "Formal philosophy is nothing more than taking certain individual philosophies...". Look at this statement and tell me what you do not see?

Adam

Post Script: What a beautiful day, just came back from sailing on Long Island Sound with friends. To be able to move with no power other than your mind is truly ecstatic.

[Selene]

Food is an objective value to a person who values life.

But that doesn't make Objectivist values objective. It's the old Randian trick: start with mere survival (e.g. you need food) and [here a miracle occurs] then switch to "survival as man qua man" and claim that this is also based on objective values. This is a non sequitur.

DF

Yes, of course it would be a non sequitur. Did Rand attempt to qualify it in any way?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Yes, of course it would be a non sequitur. Did Rand attempt to qualify it in any way?

No, she merely told what she thought were objective values.

[Michelle]

Michelle:

"Life is not explicitly devalued in Buddhism. Consciousness and individuality are." Thank you for catching her glaring prevarication by attempting

to tell us what Buddhism is not to anyone who has studied it, or been a Buddhist.

However, it illustrates a pattern of thinking and a syntax of thought that needs to be recognized, like learning what a Copperhead snakes, or, Recluse spiders look like and how they like to live.

"In fact everyone has a philosophy,..." quoth the Raven nevermore.

One philosophy is just as good as another philosophy. Chocolate, vanilla, Rocky Road or Rum Raisin.

All are equally worthy. "Formal philosophy is nothing more than taking certain individual philosophies...". Look at this statement and tell me what you do not see?

Adam

Post Script: What a beautiful day, just came back from sailing on Long Island Sound with friends. To be able to move with no power other than your mind is truly ecstatic.

She wasn't lying. She was merely misunderstanding by thinking about it in a different way than the Buddhists do. You can (and should) rationally evaluate the tenets of Buddhism, but you must change your mode of thinking entirely when attempting to understand it as they do.

It took me quite a while to accomplish this feat.

Not too hard compared to Taoism. Now there is a doozy. Not the modern voodoo-cult it has become, of course, but classical Taoism, as seen in works such as the Tao te Ching.

It's largely the same with Hinduism. It is an Asian style of thinking. The classical Asiatic religions are not concerned with the actual metaphysical order of the Universe.

In the case of Buddhism, you have a multitude of sects that believe different things. Some disavow Gods entirely, while others have several Gods. But these are only vehicles toward enlightenment. They're not contradicting one-another because they ascribe no importance to the truth-value of a proposition.

Buddhism is neither a philosophy nor a religion. It is a lifestyle.

Of course, it isn't odd for the lower classes to literally adopt belief in these Gods.

Edited July 19, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

Yes, Michelle, too strong a word, even though I could try to weasel out and claim the "deceitful" use, but I meant it to be pejorative.

"They're not contradicting one-another because they ascribe no importance to the truth-value of a proposition."

How do you mean this? Do you mean in terms of the ascendancy through the planes/levels of enlightenment? Which winds up non corporeal?

Quite rusty in this area.

Adam

Edited July 20, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

I'm done with this conversation. But I'll post one final thing on Buddhism.

You will never understand Buddhism as a Buddhist does until you stop using analytic logic to evaluate it. The approach Buddhists take toward their beliefs is summed up in the concept of upaya, or skillful means. The ultimate goal for the Buddhist is what you call "nirvana," or "awakening." This is not something which can be understood intellectually, according to the Buddhist, but only experienced. To this end, the Buddhist adopts beliefs which will aid him in achieving this state. There is absolutely no concern at all about the factual nature of these beliefs. That is beside the point for a Buddhist. Beliefs are only skillful means to an end, to be kicked off when they are no longer needed.

Of course Buddhistic concepts can be understood, just as e.g the Catholic belief in the virgin Mary or the Old Egyptian belief in the sun being god can be understood. Understanding does not imply you have to be a supporter of the belief or to practise it. "The Buddhist" btw exists as little as e. g. "the Catholic", since belonging to a religion does not say to what extent and in what way it is practised by the individual.

There exist different schools of Buddhism. etc. If you really want to know more about this religion beyond your superficial tossing around of terms, I can directly put forward any questions you have to my husband who has studied Buddhism for decades.

"Buddhism is neither a philosophy nor a religion. It is a lifestyle."

You have narrowed it down to merely one aspect at the exclusion if the others. This statement is as absurd as if you would be saying e. g. Islam is (only) a lifestyle.

Of course Buddhism is a philosophy and also a religion. What are you talking about?

Edited July 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Food is an objective value to a person who values life.

But that doesn't make Objectivist values objective. It's the old Randian trick: start with mere survival (e.g. you need food) and [here a miracle occurs] then switch to "survival as man qua man" and claim that this is also based on objective values. This is a non sequitur.

That's precisely the point.

[Selene]:

Yes, of course it would be a non sequitur. Did Rand attempt to qualify it in any way?

[Dragonfly]: No, she merely told what she thought were objective values.

That is, Rand arbitrarily declared her subjective values to be objective.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

So all values are subjective...yes.

[jeffrey smith]

Yes, Michelle, too strong a word, even though I could try to weasel out and claim the "deceitful" use, but I meant it to be pejorative.

"They're not contradicting one-another because they ascribe no importance to the truth-value of a proposition."

How do you mean this? Do you mean in terms of the ascendancy through the planes/levels of enlightenment? Which winds up nor corporeal?

Quite rusty in this area.

Adam

Think of it this way:

You are a figment of your own imagination.

Any use of analytic logic on that sort of statement will end up with the conclusion other than "nonsense--will not compute". How can a nonexistent entity possess a cognitive faculty? But that's one way of describing the fundamental insight of Buddhism.

More formally, a Buddhist would probably agree that "existence exists" (the Vajrayana of Tibet and Shingon of Japan, forms of Tantric Buddhism, would be the most likely to diverge from that statement). For them it is not reality which is an illusion, but the ego; and therefore apply the two most effective ways of dissolving the ego: meditation in sundry forms, and the practice of compassion. These two form the "skillful means". If the model of ascending planes of enlightenment works for a particular individual, good. For those for whom that model does not work, other models using other skillful means are available. The goal is to allow the self to experience and comprehend its own illusory nature as quickly and directly as possible.

Another way of looking at it is that neither the past nor the future exist: it is only the present that exists, because only in the present can we act; and there is not necessarily any continuity among the self which exists at this moment, the self which existed before, and the self which will exist in the future, even though each carried forward the memories and ideas of the self which existed before. Therefore the goal is to live entirely in the present without what has been called "lust of result"--without regard for either those putative selves which existed before or those putative selves which will exist in the future. Ch'an (Zen) is the form which is closest to that model.

I won't pretend that a full formal exposition would present the ideas in a different way, but that's what my experience and understanding of Buddhism boil down to.

[Selene]

"You are a figment of your own imagination." I would modify that to you are a representation of your own perception. Imagination works.

However, the you, sans your representation of you via your ego, objectively is reality.

I know that where ever you discover man, there are universal similarities. Culture is basically irrelevant. Everywhere men are they have legends, myths, magic, science communities. We organize in groups of individuals. All those individuals are real.

I was struck by Michael's behavioral Dan Ariely clip wherein he spoke about the human being a visual thinking animal. How much of our sensate

hard wiring, I assume, is the visual.

Men are alleged to be predominantly visually sexually stimulated. The hard wired prompts are there. What you do with them can be volitional and some non volitional. The reality that we all are immersed in is. Whether we choose to notice it, open up your eyes to it, apparently you open you mind to it. Seek and yea shall find.

Why does man basically use the same thinking processes wherever he is thinking on this planet or in space. He assembles particulars and tests them.

The ones that work most often the same he generalizes into risk/percentage statements. Some approach certainty. As Brant eloquently puts it -

keeps you from bumping into things.

Insight can be understood. She sees a wire on the ground. He sees a paper clip. Insight. The inspiration. The touch of the angel. The voice of God.

The individual thinking animal. My kind of guy.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

There is no miracle or trick, but instead a misrepresentation in a silly "gotcha" game since Rand was not clear in the beginning.

All the "man qua man" thing means is that human beings need to use rational thought to survive. If you make it impossible for a person to be able to be rational, you are enslaving him or her.

If you think people with Down syndrome (not the light cases) or other severely mentally impaired individuals can survive without rational thought, we have a vast difference of perception. From what I see, they die easily without care.

After human beings get over the "mere" survival hump, Rand's comment means that if being rational ensures your survival, it is folly to betray and abdicate your own reason just because other people ensure your survival and you have learned how to mooch off of them (seeing that they had to produce your food, shelter, etc. with their rational thought).

Choosing to be consistent with your own nature, once you have developed free will but other people are caring for your needs, is the objective good because such choice is based on your nature "qua man" (i.e., a rational being). That is why, for instance, you choose trade instead of mooching as an objective value. The Objectivist concept of good uses man's nature as its fundamental premise (in addition to the fundamental axioms). Human nature is validated by observation. That is where the "objective" comes from.

People who play the "gotcha" game think that somehow Rand once understood survival of human beings to mean survival without being rational, so she needed to jump from "survival" to "man qua man" as a standard in order to save face from a contradiction. Even a simple skim of her works shows how wrong that presumption is. Her use of "survival" within the context of her writing always implied including rational thought as a part of human nature. I think it is silly to pretend otherwise just so people can bash Rand.

On the other side of the fence (disagreeing with Rand), I hold that her view of human nature was an oversimplification. Not incorrect, but there is a scope issue. Rational thought in my view emerges out of more automatic forms of behavior and valuing that can (and do) develop on their own conceptually. All this stuff works together. Science is moving in the direction of exploring all this, too, and I am fascinated by it.

In several places, Rand claimed that volitional rational thought governs these automatic processes in man's mental makeup—i.e., forming concepts is always volitional, man can program all of his emotions by conceptual volition, and some other doozies like this. I don't find that these ideas at this level of scope fit my own observations nor does this level of scope align with the science of human nature that is developing. But neither do I see the scope problem blank out of existence what being rational means to human nature.

So I see no problem at all with Rand's "man qua man" formulation since I know what she meant by that. I chose to understand it instead of forcing an alien meaning on it. People who have problems with it insist that their alien meaning is what she "really meant."

In fact, the "man qua man" idea is precisely the point where the issue of human nature can be expanded if one wishes to use Rand's ideas as a base.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Sometimes I fall into the trap of trying to endlessly explain things, but this is a perfectly sensible statement to me.

"So I see no problem at all with Rand's 'man qua man' formulation since I know what she meant by that. I chose to understand it instead of forcing an alien meaning on it. People who have problems with it insist that their alien meaning is what she 'really meant.'"

"In fact, the 'man qua man' idea is precisely the point where the issue of human nature can be expanded if one wishes to use Rand's ideas as a base."

Well put.

Adam

[Xray]

Food is an objective value to a person who values life.

But that doesn't make Objectivist values objective. It's the old Randian trick: start with mere survival (e.g. you need food) and [here a miracle occurs] then switch to "survival as man qua man" and claim that this is also based on objective values. This is a non sequitur.

Contradicting her own elaborations on "value" can also be observed:

Rand:

"The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the

question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of

acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative

exists, no goals and no values are possible." (end quote)

This is one of the few times where her premises were correct.

But then, by speaking of plants "seeking values" (TVOS,p. 19), Rand goes against her own premises outlined in the above quote.

For a plant obviously does not have the mental capacity to attribute value, nor can it act to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative.

A plant is programmed to act like it does - for exampe it can't "choose" not to seek sunlight, absorb water, etc.

Like in several instances, Rand contradicts her very own terms.

Her laundry list of alleged "objective" cardinal values ("Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem") and cardinal virtues ("Rationiality, Productivity, Pride") is nothing more than a collection of her own subjective preferences.

Such terms remain floating abstractions unless the skeleton is filled with flesh by getting the propagators to put their subjective philosophical/ideological cards on the table.

They are what M. Huemer called "fudge words", filled with individual interpretation by the human entities using them, which again is purely subjective.

Other popular fudge words are for example "freedom", "justice", "humanity" etc. Political leaders are skilled at dangling those fudge words as a bait - they know people will swallow them eagerly.

One can easily do the test: Suppose one asked, let's say, a Marxist, a militant muslim, an Objectivist, an advocate of abortion, a Jehova's witness, a biologist in a genetic research program, a business owner letting children work for him in a third world sweat shop, what their idea of "humanity" and “justice” is - their answers would differ widely.

Like you have pointed out on another thread (I'm paraphrasing): the term "rational" for example - it has nothing to do with what your goal is, but how you go about realizing it.

"Parasites", "moochers" or killers can be pretty rational, in e. g. carefully planning how to live off other people or how to commit crimes.

And as for Rand's proclaimed "ultimate value, one's life", this again is not shared as a value by everyone; whereas her much-despised "looters" "moochers", "parasites", or criminals may share it with her.

Parasites and criminals may well thrive in life.

I get the impression that Randists often seem to judge from the fate Rand's characters meet in her novels that this necessarily has to happen in real life too.

Edited July 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Choosing to be consistent with your own nature, once you have developed free will but other people are caring for your needs, is the objective good because such choice is based on your nature "qua man" (i.e., a rational being). That is why, for instance, you choose trade instead of mooching as an objective value. The Objectivist concept of good uses man's nature as its fundamental premise (in addition to the fundamental axioms). Human nature is validated by observation. That is where the "objective" comes from.

Let's flesh it out with an example, and take a trade which made headlines in the past years: the Debbie Rowe / M. Jackson deal.

Rowe traded in her children for a lot of money she got from Jackson in return. So per Objectivist principles, this trade was an objective value - right?

Edited July 20, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's flesh it out with an example, and take a trade which made headlines in the past years: Ihe Debbie Rowe / M. Jackson deal.

Rowe traded in her children for a lot of money she got from Jackson in return. So per objectivist principles, this trade was an objective value - right?

Xray,

Hell if I know.

Michael

[ginny]

Xray, instead of asking questions, why not answer them? Do you think the Jackson trade had objective value?

[Brant Gaede]

When Xray was born her parents went, WT??????????????

Which explains everything. Fortunately for her they found her to be an objective value and, not ready to speak, she couldn't convince them otherwise. When she could speak she had figured out she had better keep her mouth shut until she was ready to go on her own--that is, the shame of it to her--she had found her parents to be objective values. Ever since she's been in profound denial and has repressed these painful memories.

--Brant

I've got ESPN

[Xray]

Xray, instead of asking questions, why not answer them? Do you think the Jackson trade had objective value?

There exist no objective values. Values can't be anything but subjective. The Jackson trade is a good example to illustrate this. I'll go into more detail later.

Now your turn please.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Fortunately for her they found her to be an objective value, ...

Subjective value, Brant.

And even that you could not take for granted since there are quite obviously also parents who consider their children as a subjective non-value, e. g. deserting, abusing, even killing them.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[ginny]

"There exist no objective values. Values can't be anything but subjective. The Jackson trade is a good example to illustrate this. I'll go into more detail later.

Now your turn please."

XRay, I believe the thump you heard was a throng of people falling on their knees, praying, PLEASE, NO DETAILS. PLEASE.

Ginny

Edited July 21, 2009 by ginny

[jeffrey smith]

[MSK:]People who play the "gotcha" game think that somehow Rand once understood survival of human beings to mean survival without being rational, so she needed to jump from "survival" to "man qua man" as a standard in order to save face from a contradiction. Even a simple skim of her works shows how wrong that presumption is. Her use of "survival" within the context of her writing always implied including rational thought as a part of human nature. I think it is silly to pretend otherwise just so people can bash Rand.

But part of the problem is that while she, you, and most Objectivists, understand her that way, there is more than enough space for other people to understand her differently. It also leaves space for people who decide that to live as man qua man presupposes survival--that to live as man qua man you must live, period, and from there rationalize behavior that Rand would condemn. The power of the human mind to deceive itself is immense.

That is not necessarily a criticism of Rand's philosophy, only a criticism of one or another person who claims to put her philosophy into practice. But there are other points that are closer to the heart of Objectivism. Other virtues could be proposed in place of hers; and it's not always clear when those virtues are being validly lived out. One man may do work he considers productive which others consider unproductive and an excuse for mooching (for instance, an inventor trying to perfect his idea, or an artist trying to produce something of artistic worth, but both needing support from others while they do this). Publishing pompous pronouncements on politics and music, and expecting others to accept them as the ultimate word on those subjects, and berating those that disagree with him in terms so extreme they pass over into buffoonery, when his credentials on those subjects are not readily apparent, because he believes himself to have all that is necessary in terms of a critical apparatus--is that valid pride or merely an overblown ego?

More generally, I would argue that Objectivism's value system is inherently subjective, because it has to be accepted and put into practice by the individual: which allows the individual to choose standards of value other than life as man qua man. Suppose one's standard of value is the human species in general, and the improvement, whether material or spiritual, of the species? (That may in practice be in concord with orthodox Objectivism, but not necessarily consistent with it--the premises on which it rests are different enough to allow important divergences.) It is also ultimately only the individual who can judge whether or not those values are being put into practice in his/her own life, and how to put them into practice in the particular circumstances of that individual's life.

Finally, I would suggest (and this is whether or not you think the points I make above are valid) that "rational creature" could be refined into "moral animal". Moral acts are inherently rational acts, because they are acts we choose to do, so "moral animal" implies the term "rational animal". Plus it leaves less wiggle room for those who rationalize instead of reason.

[jeffrey smith]

(Sorry for the double post: browser problem. Edited to relieve y'all of the redundancy. Can anyone delete this post entirely?)

Edited July 21, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Brant Gaede]

Fortunately for her they found her to be an objective value, ...

Subjective value, Brant.

I didn't say they weren't mistaken. Only that you lucked out. (I did too.)

--Brant

[Xray]

"There exist no objective values. Values can't be anything but subjective. The Jackson trade is a good example to illustrate this. I'll go into more detail later.

Now your turn please."

XRay, I believe the thump you heard was a throng of people falling on their knees, praying, PLEASE, NO DETAILS. PLEASE.

Ginny

No problem with the thump, Ginny - I can take quite a bit of noise since I work with kids.

What do you have against detailed analysis btw? Tossing around terms or global statemens without elaborating can lead to a lot of misundersanding, which I want to avoid.

The Jackson trade is also an excellent example to show that there is no such thing as a "sacrifice", for a sarifice is always a trade where a believed lesser value is exchanged in order to to get a believed greater value in return. There is NO exception.

But like I said - your turn first. I'm curious to hear yours and others comments on the Jackson trade and name the alleged "objective values" there.

As a reminder here the quote from Michael:

That is why, for instance, you choose trade instead of mooching as an objective value.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray