Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Brant Gaede]

It may be that some long-term posters to internet forums are inured of the vitriol of such epithets as “nonsense” or “absurd” or “ridiculous” thrown at one’s interlocutor. It remains that such expressions are disrespectful of the person you are addressing. I bet we can do without that element in these exchanges.

I call a spade a spade and a nonsense argument a nonsense argument. I see no problem in identifying and attacking bad arguments. That is not the same as attacking a person, and in that connection I wonder why you haven't raised your voice against the rampant psychologizing of some forum participants here, the barrage of nasty personal remarks by some members, or the wolf pack mentality on this forum. Then your protest might have been a bit more credible.

I'd guess, DF, that it's because he values your posts much more than those other posters you are referring to, as simple as that. Anyway, I like the way you post. Take out those words and we lose your in-your-face personality and you'd come across as banal as Xray that way.

--Brant

[Xray]

Her intention is to engage you (by manipulating your responses) and trip you up, not to actually discuss the ideas. I recently exposed some of the persuasion techniques she was employing and her posts improved a bit. Subliminal persuasion is like hypnosis. You can't do it if the targeted person is aware of what you are doing and resists it. But the manipulation is still there.

I'm a 'just the facts' type which I think can be clearly seen in my posts. That's why the mere thought of manipulating anyone into anything goes totally against my sense of self.

For feeling the need to manipulate would mean not having trust in one's arguments having enough power to stand on its own. I can assure you this is not the case with me. Therefore I would feel both ridiculous and incompetent if I tried any 'persuasion techniques'.

I can prove that values are subjective. It's that simple. I don't need to 'persuade' anyone of that. I can show it directly here. Want examples? Go through the Cardinal Values thread for example.

Dragonfly: That morality is non-objective is indeed an objective fact.

Indeed it is.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You know, it's funny how the charge "psychologizing" falls flat on its face when you show a clear pattern (with quotes) and explain what's going on in terms anyone can understand.

I really dislike the "getting off on a technicality" mentality. Taking the covers off in the manner I am doing is not "psychologizing," but I can see where it can be very irritating to those used to getting away with it. Especially when their BS doesn't work on others like it is supposed to.

Now I am going to psychologize a bit. I wonder if the "getting off on a technicality" folks are so used to lying to others that they end up believing their own lies. I imagine so, but I can also imagine not. In any case, neither case serves for me. If I had to choose to be that or die, I would end it all.

btw - I don't mean Dragonfly, either. Although he and I disagree strongly on several issues and he agrees with Xray on a number of them, I see a world of difference between them. In the same manner, there are some people who agree with some of my Objectivist ideas, but I can't stand them (starting with Jabba). It's a question of character.

DF does not try to decieve anyone. That's just not his way. That counts big with me. He's brusk (and a bit too Dutch at times ), but he's a man I respect.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I've just started to post on the subject "The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged" on the Why did Dagny and Hank....the Motor thread:

One reader [Dragonfly] posted his view that the book started strong but is of poor quality either starting in "the valley" or in the remaining chapters.

This has prompted me to reread starting 2/3 into the book, so I can see those parts freshly without a page-flipping stretch run toward the end and being alert to details perhaps missed before.

I'm reading it very slowly and I've found some new things - seeing with fresh eyes - and I'm posting some commentary on that thread, but will stop if no one replies.

I read your post on the other thread, but you didn’t raise any questions and I didn’t find anything to reply to. Just so you know you’re being read.

I find defending Rand literarily to be tedious, she just doesn’t connect with some percentage of readers. I think people develop a taste for ambiguity and even for the opaque (myself included), and Rand’s fiction lacks these elements. I think Rand’s most effective hook is her appeal to teenage alienation, young readers identify with Howard Roark the same way they identify with Holden Caulfield, qua virtuous outsider. But with Rand the waters are both clear and deep, and some don’t like what they see. Or how it’s shown.

I was at a TOC event about 5 years ago, it was held at the Institute for Management Accounting in New York; David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Tibor Machan, and Ed Hudgins were there. I don’t have notes on the logical steps that got the discussion to this point, but there was general agreement that something about Rand was off-putting, and that while Objectivist ideas should gain more cultural traction, Rand herself will remain a marginalized figure. Someone summed it up with a shoulder shrug and the comment “We’re just weird!”. I wonder if there’s a tape of that event. I remember John Stossel made similar comments at the 1997 event in Washington DC; that one was a lot of fun (Promise Keepers everywhere! Stand in the gap!).

[Xray]

Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position.

Wrong, Randall. I'll give you a simple example so you can clearly see the non-sequitur in your argumentation.

John likes spaghetti. He subjectively attributes value to something, right? But this does in no way affect the fact that spaghetti exist, does it?

[Xray]

Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position.

ETA to my previous post: The effect of the chaos Ayn Rand created with her strawman argument ('the "subjectivists" who deny that reality exists') can clearly be seen in non-sequiturs like the above, where it is wrongly inferred from the statement that moral values are subjective that reality thus becomes subjective too.

The parts in AS where Rand is trying to introduce the alleged subjectivist position are particularly strange and very unconvincing, like e. g. when Dr. Pritchett, after being told about the mother who was holding her dead son in her arms, says: "Reality is only an illusion. How does that woman know that her son is dead? How does she know he ever existed?" (p. 498)

Rand needed Pritchett of course as strawman to thrash in order to present "Objectivsm" as "the real thing".

Anything goes, or as Nathaniel Branden would say: you are playing life deuces wild.

That people who have identified values as subjective have an "anything goes" attitude is another non-sequitur.

The "anything goes" myth has been instrumentalized for centuries to make peope abide to alleged objective values (as e. g. propagated in religious dogma or other ideologies).

As for Nathaniel Branden, I was surprised to read how negatively he thought of Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

(Source as listed in Wikipedia: NB, "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand: A Personal Statement". 1984):

"Former Ayn Rand associate Nathaniel Branden argues that Atlas Shrugged "encourages emotional repression and self-disowning" and that her works contain contradictory messages. Branden claimed that the characters rarely talk "on a simple, human level without launching into philosophical sermons." He criticizes the potential psychological impact of the novel, stating that John Galt's recommendation to respond to wrongdoing with "contempt and moral condemnation" clashes with the view of psychologists who say this only causes the wrongdoing to repeat itself." (end quote)

Edited October 26, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Reality itself, becomes totally subjective, unknowable and unprovable by your position.

ETA to my previous post: The effect of the chaos Ayn Rand created with her strawman argument ('the "subjectivists" who deny that reality exists') can clearly be seen in non-sequiturs like the above, where it is wrongly inferred from the statement that moral values are subjective that reality thus becomes subjective too.

The parts in AS where Rand is trying to introduce the alleged subjectivist position are particularly strange and very unconvincing, like e. g. when Dr. Pritchett, after being told about the mother who was holding her dead son in her arms, says: "Reality is ony an illusion. How does that woman know that her son is dead? How does she know he ever existed?" (p. 498)

Rand needed Pritchett of course as strawman to thrash in order to present "Objectivsm" as "the real thing".

Well I'll be a son-of-a-gun! Xray is a closet Objectivist! Now, let's get the facts into VALUE!!--Objective Value!

--Brant

dancing a jig at Xray's coming conversion to objective value

[Xray]

Well I'll be a son-of-a-gun! Xray is a closet Objectivist! Now, let's get the facts into VALUE!!--Objective Value!

--Brant

dancing a jig at Xray's coming conversion to objective value

'Conversion' would be the apt word indeed. Evokes religion.

Edited October 26, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Xray:

Point of information:

The opposite of the improper conclusion from " your position", asserted by Randall is what?

Please be specific?

"'...the subjectivists' who deny that reality exists...'"

What are the precise ontological and epistemological assumptions of Xrayism?

How does Xrayism differ from "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis." Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Thank you.

Adam

[Xray]

Xray:

Point of information:

The opposite of the improper conclusion from " your position", asserted by Randall is what?

Please be specific?

"'...the subjectivists' who deny that reality exists...'"

What are the precise ontological and epistemological assumptions of Xrayism?

How does Xrayism differ from "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis." Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Thank you.

Adam

There is no "Xrayism". And I think it has become clear from my posts that I'm no solipsist either.

There are things that exist which cannot be influenced and altered by personal preferences. All natural laws comes to mind. This realm is called objective.

Knowing the difference between fact and subjective validation is essential.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

There is no "Xrayism". And I think it has become clear from my posts that I'm no solipsist either.

That's blindingly obvious. This is again the argument "if you say that values are subjective, then you imply that everything is subjective." Which is of course nonsense (sorry Stephen, but that is the only fitting description here).

[Selene]

Xray:

Point of information:

The opposite of the improper conclusion from " your position", asserted by Randall is what?

Please be specific?

"'...the subjectivists' who deny that reality exists...'"

What are the precise ontological and epistemological assumptions of Xrayism?

How does Xrayism differ from "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis." Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Thank you.

Adam

There is no "Xrayism". And I think it has become clear from my posts that I'm no solipsist either.

There are things that exist which cannot be influenced and altered by personal preferences. All natural laws comes to mind. This realm is called objective.

Knowing the difference between fact and subjective validation is essential.

Ok. I said it was a point of information.

"Knowing the difference between fact and subjective validation is essential." Xray statement...yes?

That difference " between fact and subjective validation" is specifically defined as what? Additionally, how does the individual human come to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation?" I will stipulate that it is essential knowledge.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Morality can be objectified by objective reference to what a human being is, but this is extremely difficult and hasn't really been done yet. The basic mistake of Objectivism is to take the Objectivist ethics as a revealed truth and go and run with it instead of doing the general and vast empirical work. The consequent inappropriate absolutism of the philosophy is actually used by libertarian anarchists to advocate abolishing government out of moral reasons as if Galt's Gulch or some such could be a practical working Utopia. They share with Rand the horrid idea of human perfectibility. Because of this all morality might as well be called subjective because orthodox Objectivists including Rand herself have not been behaving responsibly. One needs to take the basic principle of rational self interest and work off that with the tentative humility required in investigating and learning about human nature. It does make historical sense that the absolutism of Objectivism was/is needed to counteract or counterbalance the absolutism of the collectivist left and religious conservatives on the right, but that could have been done even if combined with some modesty.

--Brant

Actually, Rand left some rather large gaps in her argument, and it would do well for Objectivists to fill those gaps in if they want to have a viable philosophy.

For instance, Rand's idea of what "man qua man" is--she never established that her conception of what "man qua man" is, is the only possible definition, and that no viable alternatives existed. Objectivism would need to prove that her conception of "man qua man" is in fact the only possible one.

Her principle that the "standard of value is life" is, as it stands, merely a subjective choice--a primary assertion of value-principle from which other value-principles are then deduced in logical fashion. Objectivism would need to bridge that gap, and come up with an argument that renders it truly objective and not subjective.

Finally, the idea that the universe is completely amenable to reason and human understanding is more an assertion than anything else. That too needs to be actually proved. The elaborate argument that galtgulch quoted today on the Philosophy-Who Needs It thread (reply 83) is actually an elaborate question begging--or more exactly, an assertion that reason is in fact universally applicable to the universe.

He went on to mention in that context that there are no contradictions in the Universe. He pointed out that a contradiction would be that something exists which does not exist or something possesses an attribute which it does not possess.

Since there can be no contradiction with regard to the existence and identity of any entity, whether we are aware of that entity or not, and the Universe refers to all of the entities which exist, it follows, logically, that there are no contradictions in the Universe. It is simply a restatement of the Law of Identity, that things are what they are.

But that holds water only if the Law of Identity--in other words, reason--is in fact universally applicable. As it stands, the argument assumes what it seeks to prove in order to provide a "proof".

Jeff S.

[merjet]

I'm a 'just the facts' type which I think can be clearly seen in my posts.

On the other hand, Xray is very selective about which facts she chooses to recognize. She uses her subjective preferences to ignore facts that are inconvenient to her dogma, bias, and to play her word games.

It is a fact that Ayn Rand used rational value and rational values often. It is a fact that Ayn Rand used "subjective" and "objective" with different meanings that Xray does. Yet Xray ignores these facts so she can relentlessly play her word game ridiculing 'objective value' and declaring 'all values are subjective'. If she were to attack rational values, that would require she defend irrational values.

Xray says there is no such thing as altruism, as if it is impossible that person P1 can be motivated to benefit person P2. She insists that P1's motivation is to benefit him/herself in some way, however minimal, while evading any motivation P1 may have to benefit P2. For example, when I have brought up the example of P1 being a parent and P2 being a child, Xray responded:

When you dig deeper into the these issues you will always find self-interest as the motor behind this. Parenting is a classic example. Why are we concerned for the welfare of our kids, and not for the kids of the Joneses? Because they are our offspring.

Her using "our" here is merely playing a word game, and her reply fails to defend her dogma. P2 is another person, not P1's self. Even if P2 is P1's own child, that is irrelevant to my rebuttal. P2 is another person, period.

Xray says she is a teacher. Does she have absolutely no motivation nor intention to benefit her students? Does she teach only to get the paycheck?

[Brant Gaede]

Jeff, when you quote someone please explicitly ID whom you are quoting. There is some implication the second quote above is also mine and it isn't.

Thx.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff, when you quote someone please explicitly ID whom you are quoting. There is some implication the second quote above is also mine and it isn't.

Thx.

--Brant

My apologies. The quote was from the post by galtgulch I referred to in the immediately preceding paragraph, which I quoted to save people from having to find the thread and figure out what exactly I was referring to. I thought the context made it clear that I was quoting galtgulch. Obviously I was wrong.

Jeff S.

[Xray]

"Knowing the difference between fact and subjective validation is essential." Xray statement...yes?

That difference " between fact and subjective validation" is specifically defined as what? Additionally, how does the individual human come to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation?" I will stipulate that it is essential knowledge.

Knowng the difference between fact and subjective validation is by no means a complicated mental operation. A kindergartner can do it.

This afternoon for example, a colleague of mine entered our room and said to the kids: "The sun is shining - those who want can go outside with me." Most wanted, but a few chose to stay inside.

There was not one kid who would have denied the fact that the sun was shining since they could see it for themselves when they looked out the window.

Their choice to either go outside or stay inside was no "whim" (Rand's derogatory term for people's subjective choices), but was a personal decision within their mental capacity to subjectively attribute value to something.

Ayn Rand's epistemological error was that she believed her personal subjective values to be "objective", accompanied by a second epistemological error connected to the first: labeling anything subjective as negative, as belonging to the world of fantasy or at best as a "whim".

One fallacy in her thinking led to another.

It boils down to Rand thinking :

"My values are objective. They are rational.

"Should your values differ, this makes them subjective and therefore irrational."

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

That difference " between fact and subjective validation" is specifically defined as what? Additionally, how does the individual human come to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation?" I will stipulate that it is essential knowledge.

Knowng the difference between fact and subjetive validation is by no means a complicated mental operation. A kindergarter can do it.

This afternoon for example, a colleague of mine entereed our room and said to the kids: "The sun is shining - those who want can go outside with me." Most wanted, but a few chose to stay inside.

There was not one kid who would have denied the fact that the sun was shining since they could see it for themselves when they looked out the window.

Their choice to either go outside or stay inside was no "whim" (Rand's derogatory term for people's subjective choices), but was a personal decision within their mental capacity to subjectively attribute value to something.

Ayn Rand's epistemological error was that she believed her personal subjective values to be "objective", accompanied by a second epistemological error connected to the first: labeling anything subjective as negative, as belonging to the world of fantasy or at best as a "whim".

One fallacy in her thinking led to another.

It boils down to Rand thinking :

"My values are objective. They are rational.

"Should your values differ, this makes them subjective and therefore irrational."

Ms. Xray:

Assume I am in pre-K and explain it please.

Additionally, I would prefer you go over the next paragraph, as there are so many dyslexic like spellings that I would prefer to read it with clarity. Moreover, is that paragraph in support of the answer to how does the individual human come to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation?"?

I will reserve any comments or questions until you can respond.

Adam

[Xray]

It is a fact that Ayn Rand used rational value and rational values often. It is a fact that Ayn Rand used "subjective" and "objective" with different meanings that Xray does. Yet Xray ignores these facts so she can relentlessly play her word game ridiculing 'objective value' and declaring 'all values are subjective'. If she were to attack rational values, that would require she defend irrational values.

Rand erroneously believed her subjective choices to be objective values. That was the error her thinking was rooted in. That she called those values 'rational' only indicates confused thinking.

For "rational" applies to adequate means employed to achieve a chosen goal. For example, if I buy ice cream and want to preserve its coldness, it would be irrational to leave it out at room temperature since it will melt.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Assume I am in pre-K and explain it please.

Additionally, I would prefer you go over the next paragraph, as there are so many dyslexic like spellings that I would prefer to read it with clarity. Moreover, is that paragraph in support of the answer to how does the individual human come to know "the difference between fact and subjective validation?"?

I will reserve any comments or questions until you can respond.

Mr. Selene:

I'm not dyslexic but a sloppy typer (esp when in a hurry) - my apologies. I have now corrected the typos (at least those I didn't overlook again) in my # 242 post

As for the layout of your # 243 post, it could make readers think was you who wrote that part about the kindergartners, not me.

Also your "go over the next paragraph" does not make sense, I suppose you meant to write "go over the previous paragraph?

So it looks like we both have some correcting to do.

Assume I am in pre-K and explain it please.

Explain what exactly?

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Frankly, I often thought what Dagny's reaction would have been to John Galt had he looked like Quasimodo.

Are you trying to say that if you wrote a novel with a hero, your hero would look like Quasimodo?

Creating a 'hero' in a novel does not mean that this character has to look like Barbie's boyfriend Ken.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Creating a 'hero' in a novel does not mean that this character has to look like Barbie's boyfriend Ken.

You did not answer my question.

Frankly, I often thought what Dagny's reaction would have been to John Galt had he looked like Quasimodo.

Galt is a fictional character created by Rand. The thought that Rand would make her hero look like Quasimodo is purely arbitrary and insulting. Of course, that's no surprise coming from you.

[Selene]

Statement one: "...the answer to how does the individual human come to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?'"?

Statement Two: "There was not one kid who would have denied the fact that the sun was shining since they could see it for themselves when they looked out the window.

Their choice to either go outside or stay inside was no "whim" (Rand's derogatory term for people's subjective choices), but was a personal decision within their mental capacity to subjectively attribute value to something."

Two questions of clarification:

1) What about the blind child?

2) Statement two is an answer to Statement one, correct?

Adam

[Xray]

Statement one: "...the answer to how does the individual human come to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?'"?

Statement Two: "There was not one kid who would have denied the fact that the sun was shining since they could see it for themselves when they looked out the window.

Their choice to either go outside or stay inside was no "whim" (Rand's derogatory term for people's subjective choices), but was a personal decision within their mental capacity to subjectively attribute value to something."

Two questions of clarification:

1) What about the blind child?

2) Statement two is an answer to Statement one, correct?

Adam

1)In case of a child being blind, one could take the child outside to feel the warmth of the sun.

2)Yes.

[Selene]

Statement one: "...the answer to how does the individual human come to know 'the difference between fact and subjective validation?'"?

Statement Two: "There was not one kid who would have denied the fact that the sun was shining since they could see it for themselves when they looked out the window.

Their choice to either go outside or stay inside was no "whim" (Rand's derogatory term for people's subjective choices), but was a personal decision within their mental capacity to subjectively attribute value to something."

Two questions of clarification:

1) What about the blind child?

2) Statement two is an answer to Statement one, correct?

Adam

1)In case of a child being blind, one could take the child outside to feel the warmth of the sun.

2)Yes.

Excellent.

What about the case of the blind child whose skin cannot feel the heat due to a traumatic brain trauma?

Adam