Ayn Rand's concept of a Hero

[Xray]

> This exchange between Phil and Selene illustrate once more how fast the thin veneer of civilization can come off. Threats of initiation of force, bawdy slurs - and all that on a Randian hero thread - tsk, tsk.

Xray, we're just joking. You didn't pick that up? - tsk, tsk.

Of course I picked up the bawdy jokes. Who wouldn't have?

I guess the nuances of the English language are just as hard for you in ordinary conversation as in reading Ayn Rand? Heh, heh. .. . .

Reading Ayn Rand often gave me the impression that it was she who struggled with the English language. For how on earth could she claim that plants can "seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to commit suicide.

( BTW on a more serious note, have you scanned any German translations of Rand...and are they good translations or bad? ...I would like to ask DF the same question about Dutch translations if he's scanning this thread...)

No, I have never read AR in German. Would be interesting to give it a try though, just to see how certain things have been translated.

For example, it would interest me how "chuckle" is translated in the German version of AS. For those Randian characters seem to "chuckle" a lot. They chuckle in situations where I ask myself: What reason is there is here to chuckle at all?

I have the impression that Rand wrongly thought of "chuckle" as a "one size fits all" term for situations in which the characters found something funny (or odd) and uttered sounds accompanying the feeling.

You gave me an idea, Phil: I'll see if I can get a German translation of AS.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to comit suicide.

Or that Xray ever uses a spell checker.

--Btrant

[Xray]

"seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to comit suicide.

Or that Xray ever uses a spell checker.

--Btrant

In case you have missed it: that typo had already been corrected by me before you posted.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

"seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to comit suicide.

Or that Xray ever uses a spell checker.

Says someone who writes "They'd stil be in touch and Galt would have to pump him for information in other circumstances."

[Brant Gaede]

"seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to comit suicide.

Or that Xray ever uses a spell checker.

Says someone who writes "They'd stil be in touch and Galt would have to pump him for information in other circumstances."

You Western Europeans always stick together.

--Brant

committed to comit

[Philip Coates]

> I've seen a few pages of the Dutch translation of The Fountainhead. It didn't seem to me a good translation, already in the fourth sentence the translator makes a serious error: the "frozen explosion" is translated as "droge knal" ("dry bang"), meaning that the translator thinks there is a real explosion at that moment! Curiously enough that translator (Jan van Rheenen) had a rather dubious past to put it mildly. During the 2nd world war he was a member of the SS and worked for a Nazi publishing company. After the war he became an expert on dogs and wrote a well-known dog encyclopedia, for which an uncle of mine made the illustrations (in later editions replaced by photos). There seem to exist two Dutch translations of Atlas Shrugged, the first one ("Wereldschok") only available in second-hand bookshops. I found a page of the second translation ("Atlas in staking") on a libertarian site. It was not a good translation, typically the work of an amateur (it was in fact done by an enthusiastic amateur who was frustrated that there was no (longer) a Dutch translation available). His translation is stiff and follows much too literally the original text, which results in awkward sentences in Dutch (it sounds sometimes like an old translation of the Bible!).

Thanks, DF. That's an enormously detailed - - and thus helpful answer. Even though Rand has been translated into most of the major European languages plus more recently Chinese, Turkish, etc., I've had the suspicion that because she is not considered a major world figure, translations have not been assigned to the top tier translators but have instead been taken up by fans, second level people...or as you said 'enthusiastic amateurs'.

And this would have a major impact on her failure to 'translate' as much as otherwise possible beyond American-Canadian-Indian shores.

Any thoughts on this?

Edited November 1, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Dragonfly]

Thanks, DF. That's an enormously detailed - - and thus helpful answer. Even though Rand has been translated into most of the major European languages plus more recently Chinese, Turkish, etc., I've had the suspicion that because she is not considered a major world figure, translations have not been assigned to the top tier translators but have instead been taken up by fans, second level people...or as you said 'enthusiastic amateurs'.

I think that the market for a Dutch translation of Atlas Shrugged is far too small, as the people who read that kind of books generally read them in English. In the larger book stores that carry a fairly large number of English books I've always found copies of the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and sometimes also some of Rand's non-fiction books (in the past also books by Nathaniel Branden, but those seem to have disappeared later), but I've never seen any of those works in a translation there. Those can be in practice only be ordered on libertarian sites or the Dutch equivalent of Amazon. The (second) translator of Atlas Shrugged (Jan de Voogt, an octogenarian) published it on his own, which cost him 15000 euros and so far he's sold only 500 copies. No wonder that no publishing company wants to invest in such a project.

[Philip Coates]

> I think that the market for a Dutch translation of Atlas Shrugged is far too small...The (second) translator of Atlas Shrugged (Jan de Voogt, an octogenarian) published it on his own, which cost him 15000 euros and so far he's sold only 500 copies. No wonder that no publishing company wants to invest in such a project.

DF, I wonder if it could be either or both a translation and a marketing shortfall. If Mr. de Voogt is either a bad translator or can't publicize, then the first could lead to bad word of mouth, bad knowledge and the second to no word of mouth, no knowledge. As for size of the market for a translation, I do know that Atlas in Swedish was a bestseller two or three years ago and both N and S are comparably small countries [wait a minute, I'm googling populations --> 2009 - Netherlands=16,499,084.... Sweden=9,316,256]. If I recall, Atlas in Swedish was translated and marketed a bit by Timbro a Swedish free market think tank. So, perhaps more professionalism, business savvy, connections with bookstores and book reviewers?

[Dragonfly]

DF, I wonder if it could be either or both a translation and a marketing shortfall. If Mr. de Voogt is either a bad translator or can't publicize, then the first could lead to bad word of mouth, bad knowledge and the second to no word of mouth, no knowledge. As for size of the market for a translation, I do know that Atlas in Swedish was a bestseller two or three years ago and both N and S are comparably small countries [wait a minute, I'm googling populations --> 2009 - Netherlands=16,499,084.... Sweden=9,316,256]. If I recall, Atlas in Swedish was translated and marketed a bit by Timbro a Swedish free market think tank. So, perhaps more professionalism, business savvy, connections with bookstores and book reviewers?

Another possibility is that Swedes in general tend to read more translations than the Dutch, who, at least the more educated ones, prefer the original version of literary works. Perhaps we can ask our new Swedish correspondent... Hej Tommy! Kan du berätta något om svenskarnas läsfärdighet och om deras attityd till översättningar och originalliteratur i allmänhet? Tackar på förhand!

Another example is that the Dutch in general really hate the dubbing of German television (I'll never forget an American cowboy saying "Hallo Puppe!" Ye gods!), we vastly prefer subtitling. It can help you to understand what is said while you at the same time still hear the original voices and accents. Further I detest it when I want to listen to someone in a TV report and I can't understand him or her because a voice-over is presenting a translation at the same time, generating a two-voiced mess. Arrrggh!

[Philip Coates]

> Another possibility is that Swedes in general tend to read more translations than the Dutch, who, at least the more educated ones, prefer the original version of literary works.

Well then, we'd have to see how many copies of Rand's work have been sold in English in both countries.

Of course there is still another possibility, it's that the Dutch are simply not as good people as the Swedes...... B)

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Did I see a philosophical dueling gauntlet dropped at my feet!

Been a while, but the protocols mean that I have a choice of the weapons.

Now here I thought you were cold and callous, but you are really quite emotional! [reference Lee Marvin - The Dirty Dozen.

I will declare the weapons on Tuesday. Who will be your second?

See you on the field.

Adam

I see you have switched roles again, Mr. Selene. Now it is the dueling hero, lol.

One has to give you that: you are entertaining in a way. Every forum seems to have posters enjoying the role of jester. ;)

But Selene, sorry to spoil the fun for you here: we are not going to duel at the Epistemology field.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue. What you perceived as a 'gauntlet' was a shovel. You'll need it.

But if you absolutely want some competition, okay then, we can bet on who is going to find out the truth faster. Agree?

So I'm off to "check (the) premises" pun intended: a suitable field at Epistemology where we can discuss it.

Ms. Xray:

Get to work. Define the words in red.

Instead we are going to work there, digging for the treasure of truth about this issue.

Post when your task is completed.

Adam

already bored to tears

[merjet]

Reading Ayn Rand often gave me the impression that it was she who struggled with the English language. For how on earth could she claim that plants can "seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to commit suicide.

What is nonsensical about a plant seeking values? Some plants are heliotropic. Sunflowers are well known for it. Roots "seek" water. Plants do not seek the same way animals do. Hence Rand used "seek" somewhat metaphorically. So what?

By the way, here is what Rand said:

A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. (VOS 19)

The comparison to a tree committing suicide is far-fetched and demeaning. Suicide involves volition, intent and self-awareness. Rand did not say that plants have these characteristics. Indeed Rand said the opposite:

But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction. (VOS 19)

Edited November 3, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Brant Gaede]

Reading Ayn Rand often gave me the impression that it was she who struggled with the English language. For how on earth could she claim that plants can "seek values"? This makes about as much sense as claiming that a tree is able to commit suicide.

What is nonsensical about a plant seeking values? Some plants are heliotropic. Sunflowers are well known for it. Roots "seek" water. Plants do not seek the same way animals do. Hence Rand used "seek" somewhat metaphorically. So what?

The comparison to a tree committing suicide is far-fetched and demeaning. Suicide involves volition, intent and self-awareness. Rand did not say that plants have these characteristics.

If they were subjective values they'd be nonsensical. Those are the only values allowed into her cosmology.

--Brant

[Xray]

By the way, here is what Rand said:

A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values its nature has set it to seek. (VOS 19)

The comparison to a tree committing suicide is far-fetched and demeaning. Suicide involves volition, intent and self-awareness. Rand did not say that plants have these characteristics. Indeed Rand said the opposite:

But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction. (VOS 19)

Precisely. And that's why a plant can't seek values. Rand herself pointed out that valuing implies a consciousness capable of acting in the face of an alternative (e.g. a plant can't choose not to seek water), and that where no such alternative exists, no values are possible.

Edited November 4, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray continues to confuse seeking values with volition which she has to do to maintain her subjectivity premise.

--Brant

[Xray]

Xray continues to confuse seeking values with volition which she has to do to maintain her subjectivity premise.

--Brant

It is Rand, not me, who believes non-volitional entities can seek values.

"A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and

innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the

values its nature has set it to seek." (Rand)"

"A plant has no choice of action". Right. The plant has no choice because its identity is insentient, hence, no capacity to choose. A plant does not act (volitional). It reacts. (Non conscious response). A plant has no capacity to pursue; no volition, hence, no capacity to pursue any goals. Its nature is purely reactive.

Do word arrangements depict the real, or do word arrangements create the real? That is the question.

If the term, value (attributing value) is connected to reality via a sentient, volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity, does it not logically follow that the use of the term, value, in the absence of sentient being, volition and choice, is a disconnect from reality, hence, fallacy?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

If they were subjective values they'd be nonsensical. Those are the only values allowed into her cosmology.

What is nonsensical is the assumption that plants can seek values at all.

The comparison to a tree committing suicide is far-fetched and demeaning. Suicide involves volition, intent and self-awareness.

Bingo! Thanks for making my point.

"....Rand did not say that plants have these characteristics. Indeed Rand said the opposite: "But whatever the conditions, there is no alternative in a plant's function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction."

Identity of human individual: consciousness, volition, awareness of alternative, valuation (attributing value), capacity to act in pursuit of goal

versus

Identity of tree, plant, etc.: non-consciousness, non-volition, non awareness of alternative, non valuation (attributing value), non-capacity to act in pursuit of goal.

Do strings of words (disconnected from reality) presuming to homogenize these opposites create a "new entity" with "life as a standard of value?"

Rand's intent (albeit unconsciously) was to establish "life as a natural standard" as a philosophical, psychological, linguistic vehicle to present her personal, subjective, valuations as mandated by "objective nature", hence, "absolute."

Of course, this is very easy to do if not restricted by the need to connect terminology to reality.

And an audience needed only to resonate with the same emotional cord to become devotees of the philosophy, "life as a standard" with the "standard" being "life proper to man."

Edited November 5, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Precisely. And that's why a plant can't seek values. Rand herself pointed out that valuing implies a consciousness capable of acting in the face of an alternative (e.g. a plant can't choose not to seek water), and that where no such alternative exists, no values are possible.

Xray, do you ever tire of relentlessly repeating yourself? I addressed your argument here.

Do you know the difference between literal and metaphorical?

1. Do plant roots seek water? Yes or no?

2. Do heliotropic plants seek sunlight? Yes or no?

If you wish, consider "seek" as a metaphor. However, it is not necessary. A meaning of "seek" here is "to bend one's efforts toward."

Ayn Rand did not say that plants choose to seek water. You made an innuendo that she did.

There is an alternative. A plant gets the water it needs to live or it doesn't and dies.

[merjet]

Xray continues to confuse seeking values with volition which she has to do to maintain her subjectivity premise.

That's probably right. However, there are probably many arbitrarily formed categories that permeate Xray-speak that I haven't observed. The risk of arbitrarily formed categories -- like Xray insists they are -- is that they conflict with one another and leave blind spots.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

The comparison to a tree committing suicide is far-fetched and demeaning. Suicide involves volition, intent and self-awareness.

Bingo! Thanks for making my point.

No, you missed the point. You made the comparison and made up the absurd notion of a tree committing suicide. Bingo!

Identity of human individual: consciousness, volition, awareness of alternative, valuation (attributing value), capacity to act in pursuit of goal

versus

Identity of tree, plant, etc.: non-consciousness, non-volition, non awareness of alternative, non valuation (attributing value), non-capacity to act in pursuit of goal.

I disagree with the last stipulation -- a plant acts for its survival. Its parts have functions*. Life does not require consciousness, volition, awareness of alternatives, nor "attributing value". More fundamental are metabolism, organized cells, homeostasis, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation, and reproduction. (source)

Vegetative organs are essential for maintaining the life of a plant similar to animal organs, such as a heart, being essential for maintaining the life of the animal. Or do you deny that a heart functions for the survival of the organism?

*A function is part of an answer to a question about why some object or process occurred in a system that evolved through a process of selection. Thus, function refers forward from the object or process, along some chain of causation, to the goal or success. Compare this to the mechanism of the object or process, which looks backward along some chain of causation, explaining how the feature occurred. (source)

[Xray]

Merlin Jetton:

Xray:Identity of tree, plant, etc.: non-consciousness, non-volition, non awareness of alternative, non valuation (attributing value), non-capacity to act in pursuit of goal.

I disagree with the last stipulation -- a plant acts for its survival. Its parts have functions*. Life does not require consciousness, volition, awareness of alternatives, nor "attributing value". More fundamental are metabolism, organized cells, homeostasis, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation, and reproduction. (source)

Vegetative organs are essential for maintaining the life of a plant similar to animal organs, such as a heart, being essential for maintaining the life of the animal. Or do you deny that a heart functions for the survival of the organism?

*A function is part of an answer to a question about why some object or process occurred in a system that evolved through a process of selection. Thus, function refers forward from the object or process, along some chain of causation, to the goal or success. Compare this to the mechanism of the object or process, which looks backward along some chain of causation, explaining how the feature occurred. (source)

Life is no more a "goal" than death. The plant has no say in the matter. It's all about energy changing form per nature.

Every living organism requires sustaining nutrients in order to survive during the life cycle. I know of no one who argues against this fact. But, please tell me, what on earth does the biological 'functioning' of an insentient plant have to do with philosophical choices of a sentient being?

Edited November 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Merlin Jetton:

Xray:Identity of tree, plant, etc.: non-consciousness, non-volition, non awareness of alternative, non valuation (attributing value), non-capacity to act in pursuit of goal.

I disagree with the last stipulation -- a plant acts for its survival. Its parts have functions*. Life does not require consciousness, volition, awareness of alternatives, nor "attributing value". More fundamental are metabolism, organized cells, homeostasis, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation, and reproduction. (source)

Vegetative organs are essential for maintaining the life of a plant similar to animal organs, such as a heart, being essential for maintaining the life of the animal. Or do you deny that a heart functions for the survival of the organism?

*A function is part of an answer to a question about why some object or process occurred in a system that evolved through a process of selection. Thus, function refers forward from the object or process, along some chain of causation, to the goal or success. Compare this to the mechanism of the object or process, which looks backward along some chain of causation, explaining how the feature occurred. (source)

Life is no more a "goal" than death. The plant has no say in the matter. It's all about energy changing form per nature.

Every living organism requires sustaining nutrients in order to survive during the life cycle. I know of no one who argues against this fact. But, please tell me, what on earth does the biological 'functioning' of an insentient plant have to do with philosophical choices of a sentient being?

While plants are insentient they can sense and seek although not as an act of volition. A living thing doesn't need sentience, volition or philosophy to seek out what it needs to flourish--and those are its values.

I do not know why you keep implicitly insisting that most here accept your reasoning as a given while you keep trying to stamp out deviation by continual mere asseveration. This is not "Subjectivist Living."

--Brant

[Xray]

While plants are insentient they can sense and seek although not as an act of volition. A living thing doesn't need sentience, volition or philosophy to seek out what it needs to flourish--and those are its values.

It takes a conscious entity in order to attribute value.

Some posts on that:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4630&st=0

# 5 General Semanticist:

: Re values: Value implies a valuer and so is necessarily personal, subjective, etc.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4630&st=0

# 6 Michael Stuart Kelly:

I agree that a value presupposes a valuer. One of Rand's most famous statements is from The Fountainhead (p. 376):

Rand said:

To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'

Rand's own words confirm this: (bolding mine)

"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."

"An entitiy capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative" refers to conscious and volitional.

I do not know why you keep implicitly insisting that most here accept your reasoning as a given while you keep trying to stamp out deviation by continual mere asseveration. This is not "Subjectivist Living."

Brant,

The alleged "subjectivist" which you think I am exists only in your imgination. It looks like youhave taken the arguments presented by by Rand's fictional strawmen (e. g. 'subjectivist' enemy figures like Dr Pritchett) at face value, while actually they

were poorly orchestrated attempts by Rand to set up an "ideology" opposing' that of her Objectvist heroes.

Like for example when Dr. Pritchett dismisses the feelings of the mother holding her dead son by saying (AS, p. 498)"How does she know he ever existed?" This balderdash gives the passage in the novel almost a comical flavor certainly not intended by Rand.

Or here (AS, p. 917):

There was ... the goal of all the savages of the non-objective, the non-absolute, the relative, the tentative, the probable - the savages who, seeing a farmer gather a harvest, can consider it only as a mystic phenomeneon unbound of causality and created by the farmers omnipotent whim,

Hello??? Utter nonsense again. Those alleged "subjectivsts" - who on earth do they refer to in reality? Aren't they mere residents in Rand's brain?

Edited November 6, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Slow down, you move to fast, ....[great song by Tom and Jerry].

"The concept "value" is not a primary."

Do you agree, or disagree, with that proposition.

Adam

[merjet]

Brant and Selene, try this. It's much like dealing with Xray and more fun.