Rand's gender hierarchy

[Xray]

[All quotes: Selene]

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

Right. Do you know an exception?

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

I don't see a quote. Are you saying you got this from my post? If so, please show everyone from where by a quote from my post.

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?

Who said anything about equally worthy? From where did you get this evaluation? The simple statement was that everyone has a philosophy.

There was no evaluation of any particular philosophy.

"Look at this statement and tell me what you do not see?"

I don't see any recognition of my position at stated, (individual philosophies) nor any response to it.

"So all values are subjective...yes."

Of course. That's what I've been saying all along. What's the problem? Do you know a value without a valuer? Do you know a meaning of the term, value, that does not mean attributing value to this or that? How do you get a "value" without a volitional being attributing value? How can attributing value be anything other than an expression of personal preference, i.e. subjective?

I repeat: No matter what is valued, it's not the what, but the "who" that determines the fact of subjective value at all time and in all places.

By all means, define the terms, objective and subjective, then tell me about

"objective values" with at least one example.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

There are a few points in your post that need addressing, but first, I want to ask what you have read of Rand. You show some really good thoughts right beside some basic errors, which is why I ask. Anyway, here goes:

1. To live as "man qua man" actually does presuppose survival since "to live" means to survive, at least so long as you are alive. I can't imagine surviving while dead, can you?

The mistake in this kind of thinking (not yours, but the idea itself) is the stolen concept fallacy.

2. I fully agree with you that some Objectivists do rationalize behavior that Rand would not approve of, however I, for one, have little interest in Rand's imaginary approval. If ever there were a monkey-wrench in the works in Objectivism, "Rand's approval" is it. Some people twist themselves into pretzels and repress themselves out of existence to get this imagined approval (and real approval from those claiming to speak in her name).

I will not pompously claim that approval of others does not affect me. It does. But on the deepest level, I need the approval of myself in first, second, third, fourth and fifth place. Many or Rand's ideas are integrated with what I identify as "myself," but I do not carry her ghost around in my subconscious. I used to, but I got rid of it.

To address the other meaning of your comment, I agree that some people rationalize very nasty behavior by pretending that they are practicing some kind of Objectivist virtue. I often call this boneheaded reasoning, but sometimes I just call it disgusting.

3. The more I study Rand's views on art, the more I disagree with her. Not all of it, but enough to make me say it. I am outlining a work on this where I will go into my differences. And the idea of using pompous proclamations about art as a whip to keep others in line or relegate them to the outer limits is so beyond the pale that many negative adjectives leap to mind. Not Rand's finest moments (nor that of other Objectivists who do that).

4. On your comments about species and subjectivity, there is too much to untangle right now. Leave it to say that they involve another problem with stolen concepts creeping in and that there cannot be any individual human being without the human species, nor can there be a human species without individual human beings.

5. The correct term that Rand used was "rational animal," not "rational creature."

Michael

[Xray]

[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.

I've just posted some general thoughts on "value" on the Cardinal Values thread: (post # 467)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4630&st=460&gopid=75754entry75754

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I am curious. Do you have a meaning for "objective" other than what it is not and "consensus of experts"?

Michael

[Selene]

Xray,

I am curious. Do you have a meaning for "objective" other than what it is not and "consensus of experts"?

Michael

Asked and not answered by xray, ever, that I remember.

Excellent point:

"I fully agree with you that some Objectivists do rationalize behavior that Rand would not approve of, however I, for one, have little interest in Rand's imaginary approval. If ever there were a monkey-wrench in the works in Objectivism, "Rand's approval" is it. Some people twist themselves into pretzels and repress themselves out of existence to get this imagined approval (and real approval from those claiming to speak in her name)"

This behavior still stuns me. I would be like telling Madame Curie that I had to like he brand of freaking tea to accept her theories on radiation.

By definition, if Rand was "not the missionary position only" type of person, what in heavens name does that have to do with the price of peaches in Somalia. Nothing. I think Americans are so hung up on their own sexuality or other deeply emotional acts that they are blinded into rigidity.

Yesterday, when I went to the post office, the clerk, said to me "Oh, you like Glenn Beck?" I had his book Common Sense with me as well as the Dalai Lama book. Before I could even look up, she was saying, but I don't agree with everything he says.

I sized her up and quickly said, "That's fine, people do not agree with everything Christ said."

She opened up and said, "You're right. I never thought of it that way!" We would up exchanging e-mails and she will start reading Atlas Shrugged in two weeks.

Can we just not make Rand the issue and concentrate on what she gave us from that brilliant mind.

Adam

[Xray]

Just imagine, if the world were made according to Xray-speak, we would not have television because there would be no commercials.

Michael

But Michael, why do you think I'm against people making propaganda for their merchandise?? Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[All quotes: Michelle]

Imagine how the invention of the wheel would've gone:

Inventor: Because all points are an equal distance from the center, it will allow us to effectively increase the speed at which we can pull our loads. It'll save much time and energy!

Xray: Says you.

Wrong.

Xray: "Let's try it out. Build it and show us how it works."

[Michelle]:

"If you want to live, you will hold it as your proper standard of value, since it is a value which makes all other values possible."

No kidding. News flash: Being alive does not automatically mean valuing being alive.

"It is the foundational value, if you will. Food is an objective value to a person who values life."

No it isn't. Food is an objective MEANS to staying alive. There is nothing that compels anyone to value that means. If it is values, it is only because value is subjectively attributed. There is a difference between WHAT (objective) is being valued and WHO (subjective)is doing the valuing or disvaluing.

"If you value death, then the next proper step is clear: to kill yourself."

Now you're getting it: It's a matter of personal choice.

"Philosophy is only the concern of people who value their lives."

Since being alive and conscious is synonymous with holding a philosophy, the statement is redundant at best. Also, that philosophy could be not valuing being alive. So, what's your point?

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray,

I am curious. Do you have a meaning for "objective" other than what it is not and "consensus of experts"?

Michael

I have exchanged posts with you on that on several threads; you agreed that you use the term according to one Rand quote I gave (I can dig out the post if you like); I even offered you you to use Rand's own definition as basis for the discussion, (no reaction from you IIRC); I also asked you to give me YOUR definition if you think mine is so wrong and you flat-out replied: "NO". Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I was pretty sure you didn't.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

All the "man qua man" thing means is that human beings need to use rational thought to survive.

Rational thought means that efficiently pursue your goal by logical reasoning, it doesn't tell us what that goal is. Criminals, parasites, con men all can be very rational and can survive, even flourish. Now of course that is not what Rand had in mind when she used the term "man qua man". That is in fact the problem with this term, it's very elastic and everyone can fill in his own interpretation, which makes it a good candidate for equivocation.

If you make it impossible for a person to be able to be rational, you are enslaving him or her.

How can you make it impossible for a person to be able to be rational, except by making him unconscious? Even people in dire circumstances (like slaves) can be quite rational.

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.

That is not relevant to this discussion. That the cognitive functions of some persons are so limited that they cannot survive by using rational thinking does not imply that people who are compos mentis cannot survive and flourish if they do not pursue the Objectivist ideals.

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).

No, as criminals etc. can also be quite rational, i.e. successfully pursue their goals by logical reasoning.

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

You may find trade a greater value than mooching, but that doesn't make it an objective value, for the moocher mooching is a greater value. We may disagree, but that is exactly why such values are subjective.

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.

Well, that is a rather limited observation, as it doesn't take into account all the evidence of slavery, murder, bullying, thieving, rape, incest, parasitism, aggression, embezzlement, arson etc. It's rather arbitrary to declare that these things are not part of human nature. It's substituting an ideal for reality.

People who play the "gotcha" game think that somehow Rand once understood survival of human beings to mean survival without being rational,

Certainly not, "rational" is not the same as "according to Objectivist principles" (featuring independence, productivity, honesty etc.), it only means that you use logical reasoning to pursue your goal. That is the essential gap in her argument, which you cannot reason away by simply declaring those Objectivist principles as deducible from 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."

What alien meaning? Do you deny that "man qua man" for Rand means "man who lives according to Objectivist principles" (which is of course not the same as "being an Objectivist")?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Of course a person can use a rational process of thinking based on a wrong premise.

Rand's idea is that he should use rational thinking on the premise, too.

I don't understand why there is an issue with this. She is quite clear about it.

Michael

[Xray]

Dragonfly,

Of course a person can use a rational process of thinking based on a wrong premise.

Rand's idea is that he should use rational thinking on the premise, too.

I don't understand why there is an issue with this. She is quite clear about it.

Michael

And what happens in case rational thinking discovers the premises of a philosophy to be false?

[Selene]

Just for the record can each who decides to list at least 3 but no more than 10 premises

that the statement:

man qua man rests upon

maybe it would help. Legitimately, as Michael states above, I also do not see why there is this confusion, but I have "blind spots" just like any human.

My understanding is that we all agree that reasoning will take us logically to the right conclusion if the premise is valid.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And what happens in case rational thinking discovers the premises of a philosophy to be false?

Xray,

That only happens when you know how to construct concepts rationally from fundamental premises. You have demonstrated time and time again through countless primary errors that you still need to learn how to do this.

Michael

[Xray]

Ginny:

Xray, let me help Michelle out here. The definition of a lady is whatever you are not.

Michelle:

There is no room for literature or writers in xray's universe either.

Michelle:

If the world were the way Xray thinks it is, we wouldn't have tools anyway, because we'd have no concept of how they objectively function.

Selene:

And Michelle, I fear there is no room for passion and joy in that universe either.

Priceless, folks! Thanks for the comic relief. You all sound so ... so entertaingly "rational".

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[DavidMcK]

I've run across an interesting web site that discusses personality theory, everyone from Freud to anybody you can think of (except N. Branden unfortunately), and there is a fascinating compressed exposition of Buddhism that some might find enlightening (Buddha means 'one who is awake'). http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/perscontents.html

[Xray]

Yesterday, when I went to the post office, the clerk, said to me "Oh, you like Glenn Beck?" I had his book Common Sense with me as well as the Dalai Lama book. Before I could even look up, she was saying, but I don't agree with everything he says.

Sounds good. Points to a critical mind.

I sized her up and quickly said, "That's fine, people do not agree with everything Christ said."

She opened up and said, "You're right. I never thought of it that way!" We would up exchanging e-mails and she will start reading Atlas Shrugged in two weeks.

I hope you will be asked a lot of probiung questions about that novel and Rand's work.

Can we just not make Rand the issue and concentrate on what she gave us from that brilliant mind.

What DID did she give in your opinion? What was so brilliant about her mind? What was the greatest gift you got from her work?

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

And what happens in case rational thinking discovers the premises of a philosophy to be false?

Xray,

That only happens when you know how to construct concepts rationally from fundamental premises. You have demonstrated time and time again through countless primary errors that you still need to learn how to do this.

Michael

Unless you name the primary errors and elaborate precisely why you think they are errors, your words remain unlinked to anything.

[Xray]

Just for the record can each who decides to list at least 3 but no more than 10 premises

that the statement:

man qua man rests upon

maybe it would help. Legitimately, as Michael states above, I also do not see why there is this confusion, but I have "blind spots" just like any human.

My understanding is that we all agree that reasoning will take us logically to the right conclusion if the premise is valid.

Adam

Excellent idea of you Selene, that you are trying to tackle this.

Just fire away folks and list those premises!

[Selene]

Yesterday, when I went to the post office, the clerk, said to me "Oh, you like Glenn Beck?" I had his book Common Sense with me as well as the Dalai Lama book. Before I could even look up, she was saying, but I don't agree with everything he says.

Sounds good. Points to a critical mind.

I sized her up and quickly said, "That's fine, people do not agree with everything Christ said."

She opened up and said, "You're right. I never thought of it that way!" We would up exchanging e-mails and she will start reading Atlas Shrugged in two weeks.

I hope you will be asked a lot of probiung questions about that novel and Rand's work.

Can we just not make Rand the issue and concentrate on what she gave us from that brilliant mind.

What DID did she give in your opinion? What was so brilliant about her mind? What was the greatest gift you got from her work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CB1tBjcWug

[Selene]

Just for the record can each who decides to list at least 3 but no more than 10 premises

that the statement:

man qua man rests upon

maybe it would help. Legitimately, as Michael states above, I also do not see why there is this confusion, but I have "blind spots" just like any human.

My understanding is that we all agree that reasoning will take us logically to the right conclusion if the premise is valid.

Adam

Excellent idea of you Selene, that you are trying to tackle this.

Just fire away folks and list those premises!

Thanks xray:

You show me yours first.

Adam

[ginny]

Xray, for once I'll tone down the sarcasm and ask nicely if you could keep the "ribbon copying" to a minimum. It does make your posts more difficult to read.

Thanks.

Ginny

[Xray]

[

quote name='Dragonfly' date='21 July 2009 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1248202118' post='75771]

[Michael]:

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

You may find trade a greater value than mooching, but that doesn't make it an objective value, for the moocher mooching is a greater value. We may disagree, but that is exactly why such values are subjective.

Precisely. It's that simple.

Do you have any idea Dragonfly why many people find it so difficult to accept the simple fact that there exist no objective values?

Edited July 22, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Thanks xray:

You show me yours first.

Adam

I don't believe it has any valid premises but instead rests on the false premise of "categorial identity", that is, it treats a category ("Man" = all humans) as if it were a finite entity, with Rand setting forth in "Life proper to man" a set of "objective values" for all to follow in direct contradiction of individualism.

Now your turn please.

Edited July 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray, for once I'll tone down the sarcasm and ask nicely if you could keep the "ribbon copying" to a minimum. It does make your posts more difficult to read.

Thanks.

Ginny

What is "ribbon copying"?