New Developments re Harriman Induction book

[PDS]

This is why Diana has learned to be so insanely polite and so incredibly deferential to authority figures these past several years. She has learned that dissent leads her right back to where she started: a concept of "open" Objectivism. So she's learned to tiptoe, to pretend to the maximum possible extent that there is no dissent, by dressing it up in a nice polite outfit.]

You know, there's a slang name for people like that which stems from a very old profession, and outside of using it to refer to certain people in fields like politics, etc., I tend to avoid invoking in in polite company. The only main difference in subcategories are that some go after higher-end clients than others.

I mean, you can always say things like "the only thing missing here is a totally flat head so you would have somewhere to put down your beer while they're . . ."

But anyway I'm sure y'all get the picture.

rde

Nor does she brook dissent on her site very well, as is evidenced by the number of (non-conforming) comments deleted with what Campbell once called "Javertian zeal". It's really quite embarrassing, especially in light of "weird dogmatism" phrase you highlight above.

[sjw]

The issue was about concretes.

Rand, ITOE, p. 10: "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e. that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind." (Rand)

This statement by Rand works quite well with e. g. tables and chairs, but what are the unlimited unlimited number of "concretes" terms like "unicorn" "pixy" and "angel" stand for?

I think Rand often wrote in terms of saying how she thought something ought to be when she appeared to be saying how something actually is (as if saying something very emphatically would make it actually be so). The truth is, it's my mind, they are my words, they are my concepts/ideas/thoughts, and I can make them stand for whatever the hell I want. What I should make them stand for is an entirely different matter.

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

And that is the truth about meaning as it relates to words and concepts. But it is true that if we wish to be most mentally fit, if we wish to communicate optimally with rational people, then we should use our concepts in certain ways, and avoid using them in other ways. A central issue here is unit economy -- our mind has a limited capacity, and to get the most out of it, we need to account for economy. We must follow Einstein's "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Nor does she brook dissent on her site very well, as is evidenced by the number of (non-conforming) comments deleted with what Campbell once called "Javertian zeal". It's really quite embarrassing, especially in light of "weird dogmatism" phrase you highlight above.

I have put up several comments on Noodlefood threads concerning the McCaskey/Harriman/Biddle whoopup . . . and none have been deleted. This is surprising, since she had earlier consigned me to the Inner Circle Of Heck because of my satirical comments back when she got snuggly with Perigo.**

I believe Diana has moved on somewhat since her titanic 14,000 word denunciation of Chris Sciabarra. If you watch/listen to her inaugural Videoblog, she seems to be honestly reaching for a durable set of principles by which Objectivists can wisely manage disagreements. I guess it is because the present whoopup simply cannot be contained, cannot be curbed, cannot be stifled -- and she very much wants to SAY SOMETHING STRONG (have a listen to the concluding remarks concerning the whoopup at around 47:30).

++++++++++++++++++

** "At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rand's 1968 bed for stains of evil.

La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All.

I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people.

As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy."

[George H. Smith]

Imo the Rand quote "concepts represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents" makes it very difficult to interpret "concretes" as objects of imagination.

The claim that Rand cannot account for concepts of imaginary entities is quite possibly the dumbest criticism of ITOE I have ever heard.

The issue was about concretes.

Rand, ITOE, p. 10: "Every word we use (with the exception of proper names) is a symbol that denotes a concept, i.e. that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a certain kind." (Rand)

This statement by Rand works quite well with e. g. tables and chairs, but what are the unlimited unlimited number of "concretes" terms like "unicorn" "pixy" and "angel" stand for?

I mentioned earlier that concepts of imaginary entities are abstractions from abstractions. From the summary to ITOE (p. 83):

Abstraction from Abstractions. When concepts are integrated into a wider concept, they serve as units and are treated epistemologically as if each were a single (mental) concrete.... (My emphasis.)

Thus Rand uses "concrete" to signify both material and mental entities. The "concretes" for which the name of a imaginary entity stands are all particular instances where that imaginary entity appears, e.g., in films, literature, verbal stories, dreams, etc. Imaginary entities, in Rand's terminology, are epistemological concretes, not metaphysical concretes.

You could have easily figured this out for yourself.

Ghs

[Xray]

I would rather scrub my genitals with a Brillo pad than wade through your posts looking for a specific point.

But what an 'abrasive' comment that is, George! (pun intended). Truly shocking!

The syllogism is in my post # 722 but I assume you'll now say that you'd rather use the Brillo pad than read it.

Lastly, you are as clueless about why Rand used the tautology "Existence exists" as you are about other aspects of her epistemology.

C'mon, all one needs to read is pages 3/4 in ITOE where she explains "Existence exists". Not hard to understand what she means, is it?

As for "other aspects of her epistemology", do you really believe that e. g. a child having "yet no knowledge of words" can perform mental operations as described on page 11 in ITOE?

[Quoting Rand, ITOE p. 83/84]:

Abstraction from Abstractions. When concepts are integrated into a wider concept, they serve as units and are treated epistemologically as if each were a single (mental) concrete....

Like the concept "dog" which then is integrated into the wider concept "animal", and in turn becomes a 'unit'?

The linguistic terms are hyponym and hypernym. Again, what's new?

Imaginary entities, in Rand's terminology, are epistemological concretes, not metaphysical concretes.

What is the difference between a "metaphysical" concrete and a "physical" concrete?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

(PDS on Hsieh)

"Nor does she brook dissent on her site very well, as is evidenced by the number of (non-conforming) comments deleted with what Campbell once called "Javertian zeal". It's really quite embarrassing, especially in light of "weird dogmatism" phrase you highlight above."

Not embarrassing for her, I guess. The woman has no shame. In between the sucking (up) to whoever she thinks is running at the front of the ARI pack, she fights like a sissy-- send out volleys (or edicts, or whatever you want to call that hypersnot), then cuts heads. Sort of a proactive approach to revisionist history. At least a badger knows how to fight properly, on its back. Ever see two drag queens go at it? They do better work.

I truly hope she gets what she wants someday. I hope she becomes the Red Queen of the ARI--you know? Sometimes wanting something is a whole lot more fun than having it.

rde

0

• 

Edited November 2, 2010 by Rich Engle

[kiaer.ts]

Nor does she brook dissent on her site very well, as is evidenced by the number of (non-conforming) comments deleted with what Campbell once called "Javertian zeal". It's really quite embarrassing, especially in light of "weird dogmatism" phrase you highlight above.

I have put up several comments on Noodlefood threads concerning the McCaskey/Harriman/Biddle whoopup . . . and none have been deleted. This is surprising, since she had earlier consigned me to the Inner Circle Of Heck because of my satirical comments back when she got snuggly with Perigo.**

I believe Diana has moved on somewhat since her titanic 14,000 word denunciation of Chris Sciabarra. If you watch/listen to her inaugural Videoblog, she seems to be honestly reaching for a durable set of principles by which Objectivists can wisely manage disagreements. I guess it is because the present whoopup simply cannot be contained, cannot be curbed, cannot be stifled -- and she very much wants to SAY SOMETHING STRONG (have a listen to the concluding remarks concerning the whoopup at around 47:30).

++++++++++++++++++

** "At the moment she has got herself in a stew of quite amusing contradictions over at SOLOPassionofbitchingaboutBarbaraBranden, where her toadies gush and Valliant and his demented wife continue to examine the sheets of Ayn Rand's 1968 bed for stains of evil.

La Mertz finds herself an able match in the quick-witted Shayne Wissler, but cannot acknowledge this because she has only the one eye in the middle of her forehead -- the one and only eye in the kingdom that Sees all, Knows All.

I'll tell ya, if she ran for meter-maid in my town, I would move to Costa Rica in fear she would take power and start killing people.

As it is, she has her universe, her castle, her king, her fellow maniacs and enough rectitude to fill the Bay of Fundy."

Is the videoblog available in a noncrashinducing format?

[william.scherk]

Is the videoblog available in a noncrashinducing format?

I don't believe she has converted it to a Youtube version, so you may be stuck.

If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood. The production values of the video are such that you would not miss much. The webcam stares at her as she reads off her computer screen and occasionally orients her eyes to the viewer.

[william.scherk]

If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood.

Here is the relevant five-minute selection featuring the final question, in which Hsieh discusses the virtue of politeness, in the context of recent whoopups bedevilling Objectivish folk:

http://www.vdoc.ca/musicFiles/hsiehnoodlecastLastQuestion.mp3

Incidentally, Paul Hsieh has posted a new article in which he discusses how the worried well should approach "whether McCaskey acted properly in publicly posting Leonard Peikoff's letter."

See Should McCaskey Have Released Peikoff's Letter?

[Rich Engle]

Is the videoblog available in a noncrashinducing format?

I don't believe she has converted it to a Youtube version, so you may be stuck.

If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood. The production values of the video are such that you would not miss much. The webcam stares at her as she reads off her computer screen and occasionally orients her eyes to the viewer.

So you don't get to see any nasty bits or such? What good is that? I was hoping for at least the flaming red eyes or maybe a couple of low-octave voice drops.

rde

[George H. Smith]

If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood.

Here is the relevant five-minute selection featuring the final question, in which Hsieh discusses the virtue of politeness, in the context of recent whoopups bedevilling Objectivish folk:

I couldn't find...um, um...any discussion of how civil discourse...um, um...is compatible with publishing...um, um...the private correspondence of a friend...um, um...so one can denounce him in public and...um, um...thereby further one's own career. That must have just been...um, um...an oversight.

Um, um.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood.

Here is the relevant five-minute selection featuring the final question, in which Hsieh discusses the virtue of politeness, in the context of recent whoopups bedevilling Objectivish folk:

I couldn't find...um, um...any discussion of how civil discourse...um, um...is compatible with publishing...um, um...the private correspondence of a friend...um, um...so one can denounce him in public and...um, um...thereby further one's own career. That must have just been...um, um...an oversight.

Um, um.

Ghs

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Look over there, a birdie! Yeah, look over there!

[kiaer.ts]

Is the videoblog available in a noncrashinducing format?

I don't believe she has converted it to a Youtube version, so you may be stuck.

If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood. The production values of the video are such that you would not miss much. The webcam stares at her as she reads off her computer screen and occasionally orients her eyes to the viewer.

My "Kaypro" is a six month old PC running Windows 7 - I'll have to try the Mac.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Rich Engle]

Damn, I had one of those Kaypros once upon a time. A formidable beast. I'm not sure anything ever worked on it but Wolfenstein.

[kiaer.ts]

<br />

<br />

Is the videoblog available in a noncrashinducing format?

<br /><br />I don't believe she has converted it to a Youtube version, so you may be stuck. <br /><br />If you can't watch it on her site or at Ustream without rupturing your Kaypro, she has <a href='http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/11/noodlecast-41-live-rationally-selfish.html' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow'>an audio-only version posted at Noodlefood</a>. The production values of the video are such that you would not miss much. The webcam stares at her as she reads off her computer screen and occasionally orients her eyes to the viewer.<br />

<br /><br />My "Kaypro" is a six month old PC running Windows 7 - I'll have to try the Mac.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Actually, I had never heard of a Kaypro. My first computer was a TRS80 on which I learned BASIC. I wrote a program that translated English sentences into Japanese.

[Xray]

I think Rand often wrote in terms of saying how she thought something ought to be when she appeared to be saying how something actually is (as if saying something very emphatically would make it actually be so). The truth is, it's my mind, they are my words, they are my concepts/ideas/thoughts, and I can make them stand for whatever the hell I want. What I should make them stand for is an entirely different matter.

That sums it up pretty well. Therefore problems will arise when a philosopher is trying to argue that his/her personal connotations witb a term "ought to" become the 'standard definition' the term.

If for example an Objectivist does not realize that the Objectivist connotation with a term like "sacrifice" is something else than its denotation, he/she will run into problems when trying to convince a chessplayer who won the game after sacrificing his queen that this was "no sacrifice". For per the standard definition of the term it was.

Every sacrificer perform the act in order to get a higher value in return. Whether you get what you expected is another story, and therefore one can of course hear laments in hindsight like "I sacrificed many years my life to .... and it was all in vain".

“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”

Again, the issue is about connotation, and problems arise if one is insufficiently aware of the difference between denotation and connotation. So I can hardly ask my husband at the breakfast table "Would you please pass me the Humpty Dumpty" when I mean 'butter' and tell him that from now on I have chosen "Humpty Humpty" to mean 'butter', expecting him and all others to go along with it.

And that is the truth about meaning as it relates to words and concepts. But it is true that if we wish to be most mentally fit, if we wish to communicate optimally with rational people, then we should use our concepts in certain ways, and avoid using them in other ways.

Absolutely. One has to be aware which language code to use in which communicational context, or the most grotesque situations will arise. Comedians and satirists often play with this for comic effect.

(italics mine)

I stand by my repudiation of "open Objectivism" 100%. It's a disaster in theory and practice, and it leads to weird forms of dogmatism.

Is it just me, or when anyone who knows anything about this whole dealio looks at that sentence, they are waiting for it to implode into the swirling vortex? Or for lightning to strike her down. Something. I mean, really now. Closed vs.Open: see parallel between that and in religion, Creed vs. Covenant. In either, which one naturally requires dogma (as far as "weird" goes, I guess that is just a matter of taste)? I'm going with door number 1.

Definitely getting her freak on these days. I'm thinking either Ibogaine, or human adrenal gland (bet she could eat a whole one of those).

Judas Priestess!

Yeah it's hilarious. I'm all for "closed" -- if that means Objectivism is a dead philosophical system and that we must move on, that Objectivism is literally what Rand said and only what Rand said. The minute you have a single individual who claims to actually be an Objectivist, then by the nature of philosophy, it can't be "closed", as every individual brings their own context and understanding. They are what they are, which includes being philosophically influenced by Rand, but a lot of other things as well. (I don't think any self-respecting person ought to adopt much other than "rational individualist", as it is generic enough of a term to not start smelling like religion. Leave the term "Objectivist" for the zealots.)

This is why Diana has learned to be so insanely polite and so incredibly deferential to authority figures these past several years. She has learned that dissent leads her right back to where she started: a concept of "open" Objectivism. So she's learned to tiptoe, to pretend to the maximum possible extent that there is no dissent, by dressing it up in a nice polite outfit.

Shayne

Good analyis. Sjw.

I can't think any closed philosophical or ideological system which has survived. Such systems can't survive because the violate the vita in motu principle. So the irony is that the most fervent advocates of closed systems in fact contribute to that which they wanted to avoid at all costs: the burial of the system.

As for Diana Hsieh, this lady clearly finds herself in a corner, and when some of the criticial bloggers were trying to keep her there, Hsieh obviously reacted by deleting their comments.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

If for example an Objectivist does not realize that the Objectivist connotation with a term like "sacrifice" is something else than its denotation, he/she will run into problems when trying to convince a chessplayer who won the game after sacrificing his queen that this was "no sacrifice". For per the standard definition of the term it was.

Every sacrificer perform the act in order to get a higher value in return.

Precisely the example I used some time ago when discussing sacrifice, I fergit which thread.

And this is what troubles me more and more over the now many years (eh, since maybe '78 or so) that I've been around Rand and O-world: the use of heavily loaded/redefined code words. Yes, in many life situations we use them to positive advantage; work teams use them, for instance, because they are expedient-- a kind of shorthand. Why does it bug me so here? Because mainly (and this has been gone over and over again) this is one of the primary markers of cult behavior. At first, it can seem kind of kewl. The word seems, suddenly, so much more pregnantly meaningful, and maybe you even feel like you are in an elite club. You can trot out one of the words when talking about someone or something, and look at one of your comrades in a knowing, nudge-nudge-wink-wink, smug kind of way. This can empower a certain feeling of superiority--a big ego-stroker!

In O-world, calling someone out repeatedly as an "evader" is about the same as saying they chop up little puppies and eat them. It is all very mean-spirited and snarky. And then (this particularly happens with Shiny New Objectivists) you can try it out when you are in lay company. You can play games with people at cocktail parties, and easily reduce them to rubble. Well, you might get them pissed and confused, anyway, but most times I think they end up thinking you are an asshole. Who in Haydes would want to nurture someone into this kind of effete, uh, effeteness?

It has been a long, long time since I was impressed by reading O-world folk who represent the power users of this snotty crap. It is uncomfortable to watch them go at it, because it makes me feel embarrassed for them, in a way. You just want to slap them in the back of the head and remind them that the outside world really, and I mean really, doesn't give a rat's tail about this supposed kewlness they are attempting to exude.

rde

Edited November 3, 2010 by Rich Engle

[anthony]

If for example an Objectivist does not realize that the Objectivist connotation with a term like "sacrifice" is something else than its denotation, he/she will run into problems when trying to convince a chessplayer who won the game after sacrificing his queen that this was "no sacrifice". For per the standard definition of the term it was.

Every sacrificer perform the act in order to get a higher value in return. Whether you get what you expected is another story, and therefore one can of course hear laments in hindsight like "I sacrificed many years my life to .... and it was all in vain".

Xray. Or, more accurately, Hydra.

You've heard this before:

RAND'S USE OF "SACRIFICE" IS THE CORRECT DENOTATION.

Philosophically, at least.

The chess-player, and you, and everyone else, have it wrong.

Giving up a queen in order to gain an advantage, and ultimately win the game, is a long-term INVESTMENT, motivated by SELF-INTEREST.

It is NO sacrifice - it is lesser value, to gain higher value.

If this is what you call sacrifice, then can you give me a word for the opposite, for the concept of relinquishing a high ideal (honesty,integrity, etc) for something minor, like 'going with the flow'; 'not rocking the boat'; kissing ass; coming over as a good guy; and so on? I don't think there is another one.

"Selling out" one's values, perhaps? Here is sacrifice.

There is no secret, in-house, Objectivist, "Code" involved. Sacrifice remains as the only accurate concept when discussing relative values. We are faced with two alternatives - 1.rational self-interest 2.sacrifice.

You don't like "sacrifice"? Or "selfish."?

Rand said it well: "I use that word precisely because you don't like it".(Roughly).

Now do you get it?

Tony (Hercules)

[BaalChatzaf]

If for example an Objectivist does not realize that the Objectivist connotation with a term like "sacrifice" is something else than its denotation, he/she will run into problems when trying to convince a chessplayer who won the game after sacrificing his queen that this was "no sacrifice". For per the standard definition of the term it was.

Every sacrificer perform the act in order to get a higher value in return. Whether you get what you expected is another story, and therefore one can of course hear laments in hindsight like "I sacrificed many years my life to .... and it was all in vain".

Xray. Or, more accurately, Hydra.

You've heard this before:

RAND'S USE OF "SACRIFICE" IS THE CORRECT DENOTATION.

Philosophically, at least.

The chess-player, and you, and everyone else, have it wrong.

Giving up a queen in order to gain an advantage, and ultimately win the game, is a long-term INVESTMENT, motivated by SELF-INTEREST.

It is NO sacrifice - it is lesser value, to gain higher value.

If this is what you call sacrifice, then can you give me a word for the opposite, for the concept of relinquishing a high ideal (honesty,integrity, etc) for something minor, like 'going with the flow'; 'not rocking the boat'; kissing ass; coming over as a good guy; and so on? I don't think there is another one.

"Selling out" one's values, perhaps? Here is sacrifice.

There is no secret, in-house, Objectivist, "Code" involved. Sacrifice remains as the only accurate concept when discussing relative values. We are faced with two alternatives - 1.rational self-interest 2.sacrifice.

You don't like "sacrifice"? Or "selfish."?

Rand said it well: "I use that word precisely because you don't like it".(Roughly).

Now do you get it?

Tony (Hercules)

The word "sacrifice" has several meanings (as most words do). Here are some I found using Google:

• forfeit: the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform etc.
• endure the loss of; "He gave his life for his children"; "I gave two sons to the war"
• personnel that are sacrificed (e.g., surrendered or lost in order to gain an objective)
• kill or destroy; "The animals were sacrificed after the experiment"; "The general had to sacrifice several soldiers to save the regiment"
• a loss entailed by giving up or selling something at less than its value; "he had to sell his car at a considerable sacrifice"
• sell at a loss
• the act of killing (an animal or person) in order to propitiate a deity
• make a sacrifice of; in religious rituals
• (baseball) an out that advances the base runners

Some of the meanings correspond to the one you gave. Some do not. Some sacrifices under some circumstances are just plain losses with no expectation of gain, or any gain. Some sacrifices are made with the hope of a compensatory gain. See the definition pertaining to baseball for example or the well known example from chess.

The problem with O-speak is that the Objectivists think they have the superior claim to the meaning of a word. In fact language and meaning are the result of consensus in usage. That is why some words have changed their meanings over the years. For example the word "gay". It used to mean happy and light hearted. Now it means homosexual. Ditto for "queer". In the Old Days it used to mean curious or strange. Now it means homosexual. How about the word "star"? At one time it mean some luminous body in the heavens. Now it means either a very large body of gaseous matter in which fusion is taking place or the leading actor in a dramatic production. The meaning change came about through usage and implicit agreement to the new meanings. In that sense, language is very democratic. The users of the language determine the meaning of the words and no one party has superior authority in the matter.

That is why institutions that purport to guard the "purity" of a language invariably fail. In France there is a board (government run and funded) which is supposed to keep the French language from being "corrupted" by foreign phrases. It does not succeed. People of one nation freely borrow words and phrases from the language of another nation when they are useful words and phrases. In the English speaking countries people have no problem with borrowing from other languages. But more important, in modern times, conditioned by the existence of mass media and the wide spread publication of the written word, word usages and meanings under-go rather rapid changes. This takes the form of meaning shifts of words in long time use or the introduction of slang and idiom.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 3, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

Ba'al,

Quite correct, as far as it goes. My dictionary gives various semi- conflicting definitions as well. One of them> "act of parting with, disposing of, something at a price below its supposed value.<"

I'm really not meaning to appear flippant, but if I were a baseball player, or when I played chess, I would be accepting of the conventions, and use the accepted connotation of sacrifice, to avoid confusion.

However, when in philosophical company ~ not only Objectivist circles ~ "sacrifice" should have no difficulty in being understood.

In the field of values, and comparative values, there is no other word and concept that clearly denotes higher value, for lesser.

To repeat, this is a not codified 'Randism', to baffle anyone.

When basic principles of a Philosophy rest upon this concept,

those whom it does consistently appear to baffle, should check their premises, and their intentions, in my opinion.

The by-play with definitions can too often be employed as a red herring to under-mine and avoid the ideas.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

If for example an Objectivist does not realize that the Objectivist connotation with a term like "sacrifice" is something else than its denotation, he/she will run into problems when trying to convince a chessplayer who won the game after sacrificing his queen that this was "no sacrifice". For per the standard definition of the term it was.

Every sacrificer perform the act in order to get a higher value in return....

The chess players that I know are a lot smarter than Xray. They understand that the use of a specialized word in chess does not necessarily indicate how that word is, or should be, used in other contexts. For example, they understand that the phrase "in passing" (the French en passant is used in chess) does not always or necessarily refer to "a move in chess in which a pawn that has just completed an initial advance to its fourth rank is captured by an opponent pawn as if it had only moved to its third rank." They understand that "in passing," when used in other contexts, can mean "by the way" or "incidentally." (American Heritage Dictionary.)

The word "sacrifice" has different meanings, and there is nothing idiosyncratic about Rand's usage. Xray's point, which has been made by others on OL, is merely a variant of psychological egoism, according to which we are always motivated by self-interested considerations. Some versions of this psychological theory have a legitimate role in some disciplines, e.g., in the praxeology of Ludwig von Mises, who writes: "Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory" (Human Action, 3rd ed., p. 13).

To say that a person will not act unless he desires a more satisfactory state of affairs, i.e., unless he subjectively values what he hopes to gain more than his present condition, is largely irrelevant to ethics. Rand certainly didn't disagree with this observation. When she speaks of sacrificing a higher value for a lesser value, she is speaking of objective values, not of subjective motivations.

We have discussed the problems of psychological egoism before -- NB covers them quite well in his article "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" -- and I am not going to repeat the objections for Xray's benefit. Xray is constitutionally unable to grasp crucial philosophical distinctions. I have encountered Pentecostal Christians with more flexible minds.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A few more comments about "sacrifice":

(1) We are told that when one sacrifices a queen in chess, one is giving up a lesser value (the queen) to attain a higher value (winning the game) -- and that this is what "sacrifice" really means. Thus if you pay $5 at a swap meet for an antique valued at $5000, you have engaged in a sacrificial act. You have sacrificed the lesser value of $5 for the greater value of $5000. Only a dogmatic psychological egoist could say this with a straight face.

(2)Consider another chess scenario. I am playing a young chess player who has become dispirited because he has never won a game of chess, and I decide to boost his confidence by deliberately sacrificing my queen so he can win our game. According to the logic of the argument we are here considering, in this case I am also giving up a lesser value for a higher value, because I subjectively value his winning the more than I subjectively value my winning the game.

(3) In the first case I gave up my queen with the intention of winning the game, whereas in the second case I gave up my queen with the intention of losing the game. My intentions were exactly opposite, yet we are told that in both cases my "sacrifice" consisted in giving up a lesser value for a greater value.

(4) Thus is the very possibility of a "sacrifice" in the Randian sense defined out of existence. The reason for this, as I explained in my last post, is owing to the ambiguities and confusions of psychological egoism. But the point I wish to make here pertains to the misleading use of the original chess example. It doesn't matter in the least why I sacrifice my queen. Whether I sacrifice it for the purpose of winning or losing is irrelevant; psychological egoists will reach the same conclusion in either case.

(5) Suppose an altruist preaches the value of self-sacrifice, insisting that individuals should sacrifice their own interests for the greater good of society. The psychological egoist will make nonsense of this statement as well. He will insist that people will sacrifice in this sense only if they value the good of society over their personal interests, so any such sacrifice also means giving up a lesser value for a greater value. Indeed, he will go so far as to insist that it is impossible to sacrifice our self-interest in the Randian sense for anything. Why? Because before I will sacrifice something for the good of society, my "self" must be more 'interested" in the social good (i.e., value it more highly) than any of my other interests that I am willing to give up. Altruism is therefore a chimera. All actions are self-interested.

(6) This type of circular reasoning, which is the trademark of psychological egoism, obliterates a host of important distinctions that are crucial not only in philosophy but in everyday life as well. I don't expect Xray to understand any of this; I gave up on her long ago. But my comments may provoke some other OL members to give this issue some careful thought.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

I don't fault her for not naming names, although, admittedly, I have never been on the receiving end of her moral certitude, so I understand your lack of patience.

PDS,

Dr. Hsieh's pattern is not unique to her. And I say this after being told, six years ago, that I would be instantly banned if I ever tried to comment again on NoodleFood.

If you go back through the amazon reviews and comments from earlier this year, concerning Bob Mayhew's book of essays on Atlas Shrugged, you'll discern an asymmetry.

Here's the typical pattern:

When ARIans don't like something about Rand or Objectivism written by another ARIan, under no conditions will they name the author.

When ARIans like something written by another ARIan, they will eagerly name the author.

When ARIans don't like something written by a non-ARIan, they, again, will eagerly name the author.

When ARIans like something by a non-ARIan, wild horses won't be able to drag the author's name out of them.

Granted, one of the cagey ARIans in those exchanges was Allan Gotthelf, who has never fully recovered from the Peikovian takedown of his book On Ayn Rand.

But even those ARIans who haven't had the personal experience that Dr. Gotthelf has had are painfully aware that the same could happen to them.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

(1) We are told that when one sacrifices a queen in chess, one is giving up a lesser value (the queen) to attain a higher value (winning the game) -- and that this is what "sacrifice" really means. Thus if you pay $5 at a swap meet for an antique valued at $5000, you have engaged in a sacrificial act. You have sacrificed the lesser value of $5 for the greater value of $5000. Only a dogmatic psychological egoist could say this with a straight face.

I don't think that's quite accurate. In a sacrifice such as giving up one's queen in chess, it's not any old "lesser value" that one gives up to attain a higher value, but a great value given up in order to attain an even greater value. Since giving up $5 in order to attain something worth $5000 is not an act of giving up great value to attain even greater value, it would not be a sacrifice.

J

[George H. Smith]

(1) We are told that when one sacrifices a queen in chess, one is giving up a lesser value (the queen) to attain a higher value (winning the game) -- and that this is what "sacrifice" really means. Thus if you pay $5 at a swap meet for an antique valued at $5000, you have engaged in a sacrificial act. You have sacrificed the lesser value of $5 for the greater value of $5000. Only a dogmatic psychological egoist could say this with a straight face.

I don't think that's quite accurate. In a sacrifice such as giving up one's queen in chess, it's not any old "lesser value" that one gives up to attain a higher value, but a great value given up in order to attain an even greater value. Since giving up $5 in order to attain something worth $5000 is not an act of giving up great value to attain even greater value, it would not be a sacrifice.

J

A queen is not a "great value" in chess if sacrificing it leads to a forced mate. The "great value" lies in the sacrifice itself. The same is true with the sacrifice of any lesser piece, such as a rook or even a pawn. That a queen is worth 9 points, a rook 5, and a pawn 1 -- all such valuations are irrelevant to the example.

As for my swap meet example, it can easily be adjusted to meet your criterion. To pay $5000 for a painting that one knows to be worth $50,000, or to pay $50,000 for a painting worth $5,000,000, is no more of a "sacrifice" than to pay $5 for a $5000 item. The amounts are irrelevant.

Ghs