Ayn Rand

A#1.2315... wrote

VoR rules...too bad he doesnt come here all that often.

Well...what can I say. Thanks, I gues.

Actually I am here often, I post once to twice a day--and THIS is my second one today. :cool:

But I guess, it'd depend on what you mean by 'often'.

Well, Logicman. besides supporting her arbitrary choice to base her values on her SUBJECTIVE perception of "reality" (are you trying to say she had OBJECTIVE knowledge of "reality") you are now arguing in a circle.

And as your statement that the choice has to be based on realilty...who says? Sounds nice, but its still arbitray.

And VOR, face it...she was a castrating bitch; it IS hard to believe Nathaniel Branden actually fucked that dog.

You sure seem to have a hard on for her, though.

Hello Jimmy,

VOR if he decides to respond (and I know he is better at this then me) will get to word definitions, so I will go this way:

Reality; the universe in which we exist and everything in it functions in a defineable way. We, as a species, are fortunate enough to have a brain capable of abstrative and associative functions that allow us to figure out the defineable universe in which we exist. But you should not make the mistake of thinking that anything that is in matter is subjective.

Know this that to make a personal attack on someone instead of making an arguement on the topic they put forth (in this case Rand's Objectivism) is the act of intellectual incompetence. Most people here respect an honest attemp at making an arguement. They will not respect personal attacks.

Who cares what who thought of who. What do you think of it (it being the topic at hand Rand's Objectivism)

LogicMan wrote

You are mistaken. There are only two real ways to choose "values" (value system). That which is based on reality. Reality being the nature of the universe in which we live and how it functions, and who we are as a species. Then there is the random mystical way.
...

See, objectivism uses a lot of vocabulary words that I just don't understand. Could you expound upon this thought?

To me, a value is a thing like "You should hurt people as little as possible", which is not really based in reality; It's a statement of an ideal which we try to achieve. Reality comes into play when we decide how best to implement those values.

Hello LES,

I do not think of myself as anything other than a scientist (a person who seeks only the facts as to the nature of things). In other words only that which is objective (facts) and not that which is subjective (opinions). I may sound somewhat like VOR, but I am not a person thoroughly versed in Rand's Philosophy. It just so happens that Rand, and if I understand it correctly, Objectivism are about the same thing. Dealing in facts.

I normally try to get points across using suitable metaphor as it saves time. The reason for this is that people are really not well educated in a couple of crucial areas. One is vocabulary and the other is the importance of strict definitions (to which I can not claim to be all the great at either).

Vor is the one to define value system for you if you want the accurate Objectivist definition.

LogicMan wrote

Hello Jimmy,

VOR if he decides to respond......
[...]

LogicMan, you are making a mistake if you think that Jimmy cares for answers—he does not. He’s just scavenging for attention to help him fake a temporary sense…I mean delusion, of self-esteem. Just look at the manner he formulates his posts—a total lack of decency, and absolute carelessness, mingled in with pitiful smears, and malicious feelings of envy and hatred—which are nothing but a concession, an admittance of his own defeat and helplessness in the face of rational arguments.

He’s nothing but a nihilistic, inconsequential, half-brained, little non-entity who does not even deserve the recognition of existence, or the waste of valuable, irrecoverable time. It is things like him that are the cause of the doubt around the theory of evolution, because I’m sure that if his ancestors had started off as apes, he’d still be an ape—but then again, I can’t be certain of what it is that’s sitting behind his monitor—he might just be the Missing Link scientists have been looking for all along.

As for his insults to Ayn Rand, she has seen and endured worse in her time…and this…coming from a non-entity that could never hope to equal half her intelligence…this is nothing. He hates her for the same reason that a cockroach hates light. And if his intention is to—somehow—affect me in some way, then he’s taken the wrong approach, and his attempts are futile, at best.

I will make it a rule to ignore him, as I will do with every Guest from now on—because that is the first sign of a troll. And if you, or anyone else, value your time and the content of your mind, I suggest you save it for someone worthwhile—i.e.: someone who seeks to know the truth, not a crusading, anti-conceptual irrationalist.

Ya I thought about that. I generally give people two chances to make a real attempt at rational behavior then I'm done with them. I think I agree with your new policy. If a person starts out with a personal attack, rather than a legitimate attempt at making a point, they are too irrational to deal with.

As for Rand; I frankly can't imagine the fight she had especially given the time in history she started. Certainly not a time that was favorable to Independent women, let alone a ruthlessly scientific one.

LES wrote

Could you expound upon this thought?

Please specify.

LES wrote

To me, a value is a thing like "You should hurt people as little as possible",

First of all, I wouldn’t call THAT a value. It’s a PRINCIPLE—and a shabby one at that. Why would you want to hurt people AT ALL?—which brings me to my second point: who determines what “as little as possible” means? See the lack of objectivity there? That ‘principle’ could mean anything.

“Value” is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. It is the worth, importance, and usefulness OF something TO someone. I elaborated on this in the “Laissez-Faire” thread with LogicMan.

LES wrote

…which is not really based in reality.

If it isn’t based in reality, then it is by definition, false, irrational, and impractical.

LES wrote

It's a statement of an ideal which we try to achieve.

Ideals as such are meaningless—one can hold anything as an ideal. Realistic ideals are the only practical ones. Attempting to practice falsehoods is futile, as reality is absolute.

LES wrote

Reality comes into play when we decide how best to implement those values.

I don’t fully understand what you mean here, but I’d say that one must always stay grounded in reality—both in theory, and in practice. Anything less is a flight of fancy.

Interesting that both Rand and the Communists she hated were atheists...they claimed to base their views on reality as well.

So... objectivism is a series of values, then?

What I meant is that there doesn't seem to me to be any sense where one set of values is more objectivly sane then any others, except in that they lead to certain results.

If A leads to B and C doesn't, then A is more valuable then C, assuming that B is your goal. But as far as I can tell, the universe doesn't care which goals we aim to achieve.
On the other hand, I'm not a moral reletivist; I tend to agree with Objectivism that each man is an end in himself. I can't bring myself to say "the Nazis were moral because their society had different standards then ours".

At the same time, I can't see how the statement "We should try to do A" can be proven in the same way that "A exists" can.

By the way, you tend to have a sort of religious zeal when it comes to objectivism; You seem to take attacks on it very personally. The religious language you use to defend it just makes me want to criticise it more to see your reaction. I know that makes me a terrible person, and I'm sorry.

Little Earth Stamper wrote

By the way, you tend to have a sort of religious zeal when it comes to objectivism; You seem to take attacks on it very personally. The religious language you use to defend it just makes me want to criticise it more to see your reaction. I know that makes me a terrible person, and I'm sorry.

I know I should leave this for VOR but it applies to all who put in the time to find answers. Not just superficial observations which are not contextually grounded. It take a great deal of effort, especially in a world of people who's general intellectual state is only superficially developed, to try to explain concepts. The problem is that when people do not know something...they do not know what they don't know. So when you try to explain things (concepts) to people that they have no knowledge of (and if the have a week ego) they try to attack you (for irrational fear based reasons).

Hence VOR's appearant zeal as you call it.

Oh ya ... It has absolutely no relation to religion, but rather to proper science.

LES wrote

So... objectivism is a series of values, then?

I can’t say that I know what you mean, but NO. Objectivism is a full, hierarchical, consistent, rational and integrated philosophy, i.e.: with its own metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics.

LES wrote

If A leads to B and C doesn't, then A is more valuable then C, assuming that B is your goal.

Well…I can’t write a treatise in Ethics in single post, but I can tell you this: values are objective and contextual. What YOU are describing is some sort of hedonism. In Objectivism, values are derived from facts, i.e.: what IS determines what OUGHT to be. So for a simple example, if you ARE human being, and life IS your goal, then food is what you OUGHT to value, not poison. So pursuing any mindless whims won’t do.

However, there are fundamental values for every human being which are necessitated by the nature of reality—values which Objectivism identifies as Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem--all of which have to be achieved by one's own effort. And from these values, six fundamental virtues are derived: Rationality, Independence, Integrity, Honesty, Justice, Productiveness, and Pride.

What Objectivism give you is principles—which you have to apply to the specific concrets of YOUR life through your own thinking. I can’t lay out the full process here, so if you’re interested, you’ll have to read the books. Galt’s speech is not a bad start.

LES wrote

By the way, you tend to have a sort of religious zeal when it comes to objectivism; You seem to take attacks on it very personally.

First, I will take that as a compliment.

Now, I do have a ‘zeal’ [as you like to call it] when speaking of Objectivism, but that’s because it is of selfish importance to me, and I happen to care about ideas—rational ideas—believe it or not, ideas do have consequences. I am not going to insult your intelligence by saying that you wouldn’t understand.

However if you mean to imply some form of ‘religious’, i.e.; dogmatic, fanatical zeal, then you have never more wrong.

LES wrote

The religious language you use to defend it just makes me want to criticise it more to see your reaction. I know that makes me a terrible person, and I'm sorry.

Suit yourself. I wouldn’t advise such a course of action though.

And for the record, I do not see any form of religiosity in my posts—unless I’m discussing religion, of course.

Actually, Jimmy's observation about Rand and the Communists is quite true...both were atheists, both were materialists.

Rand chose her values.

Stalin chose his.

So what"s to argue about?

Schaeffer wrote

Actually, Jimmy's observation about Rand and the Communists is quite true...both were atheists, both were materialists.

Yes and both were BiPedal, and both were of the same species, and both had hair, and both had ten fingers and ten toes, etc, etc.
Normally I do not take this tact, but you just posted what amounts to nothing.

Schaeffer wrote

Rand chose her values.

Stalin chose his.?

Of course both had completely different motives and value systems. You need to check these things...though I know by your carelessness that you do not care to.

Schaeffer wrote

So what"s to argue about?

As no case has been presented that is a good question.

I've watched this conversation with interest. VOR has given everyone plenty of material to digest and research. He's displayed more than adaquate patience in an attempt to get across profound concepts. He should be thanked.

Schaeffer has it completely wrong. Ayn Rand was not a materialist. She was an atheist but that is not a primary. Reality exists as an Objective absolute. Therefore if there was the slightest evidence of "higher powers" Objectivists would be compelled by respect for reason and reailty to accept it. There isn't any such evidence. Objectivism is totally at odds with any type of faith or mystical.

Rand regarded the "soul" as your consciousness. Materialists like Stalin thought the body was the only thing that mattered. But Objectivists regard man as an INTEGRATED being. Mind and body. (Not MIND in the mystical sense as in World Mind or World Spirit).

Also, Rand chose RATIONAL values. Stalin could at best be said to hold anti-values. There is simply no relation between these two people beyond them both being human, and Stalin just barely.

I'd suggest you reread VOR's posts and then do some follow-up reading to help you clarify your understanding. The nature of a fully integrated philosophy cannot be fully explained in a few short posts. If you really want to know then you have to do the work.