StrictlyLogical

Really? Is that it? One could easily gather up comments from other scientists, philosophers, and artists from the 18th century and before that would amount to the same and possibly more than this. Therefor I submit, THIS cannot form the basis of a purported reason to specifically include Kant in the roster of originators of ideas of VALUE for Man to live his life in reality on Earth.

In an unfortunate world where there are schools of thought or ideas A, B, and C which are incorrect, and which are believed by many others with whom you must deal, then you must know A, B, C in order to deal with reality and to live. Such is equivalent to learning enough about DISVALUES: plagues, diseases, natural flooding, landslides, in order to avoid and or combat them, in order to live. These disvalues, which must be understood for survival, are to be distinguished from teachings/philosophies which are USEFUL to man. Also, Kant did not offer his work as an example of what NOT to think, or as something one must not believe, and not accept. My question remains open: for someone to provide an identification of something positive/useful/consequential of VALUE contributed by Kant to Man or to any individual man for that matter.

An open question to everyone: Has Kant contributed ANYTHING which addresses in a consequential manner any part Man's urgent and unavoidable need of knowledge for dealing with reality for his life on Earth? Assuming a man has learned from other Philosophers, scientists, artists, engineers, economists, ethicists, what was Kant's important/consequential contribution, such that that man should, in addition to all his other learning/readings, purposefully seek it out and add it to his body of knowledge? Please identify this with specificity and why it is relevant to the man's dealing with reality in his life on Earth. Anyone?

If you already know about Kant, Rand cannot mislead you. If you know nothing about Kant, you cannot know Rand would mislead you. If you want to know about Kant, or about Rand's position I encourage you to read up diligently on it. If you would rather complain in the absence of substance or knowledge, feel free to continue. More diplomatically, if you have a point of contention with Rand's views this IS the place to proffer your premises, evidence, and to discuss.

Just to clarify I am pro-"individual rights" which (if one has the correct understanding of what individual rights are) is completely enough to explain everything about my views on the issues of abortion.

I sound like one of those political correctness idiots I hate so much but... would it be more accurate to say you are "pro-choice" rather than simply "pro-abortion"? I mean I know what you mean... others might not...

Those acting for government in the capacity of government (and the government as such) cannot should not discriminate. Otherwise I would agree with you. Unfortunately we are living under an immoral mixed system where government FAR exceeds its proper role. It's a fallacy and an inversion of the concept "rights" to say a policeman has "a right" not to protect a "gay" man's rights because of the policeman's religious views.

He'd probably say he is and he isn't.

Emotions, feelings, and artistic tastes are not intrinsic, uncaused, parts of one's psyche and they are not as such, independent of (let alone diametrically apposed to) what you think. In some sense it does not matter whether the music or the "mood" came first. Seeking out and enjoying the negative, because it is negative, bleak, full of angst and anger ... IS an indication of something, hopefully something temporary, which can be overcome... so one can get back to... or to discover and start... to LIVE.

Read a bit more about the subjects above and you will realize a "guilty conscience" is the least of your worries if you have chosen to abandon the principle of honestly. Honesty as a policy serves self-interest (in a civil non-emergency context) and dishonesty works against your self-interest. To the extent announcements about one's environmental report card is fraudulent it is not in the rational self interest of the originator, whereas to the extent it is merely puffery, posturing, or bragging about the truth (assuming for the moment such is possible) it can in fact serve self-interest. That said, changing one's behavior in a self-sacrificial way to preserve the environment (as opposed to doing it for the purposes of self-interest) is ab initio generally not in one's self-interest. So in summary telling the truth about being self-sacrificial is right insofar as honesty is concerned, which is independent of the wrong already present: the self-sacrifice.

A corporation is not an individual... and in fact it is not alive, it is not conscious, cannot be rational have goals, a morality, or virtues. With regard to any individual who participates in a corporation, reviewing the concepts, morality, selfishness, virtue, and honesty in the Ayn Rand lexicon may be helpful. http://aynrandlexicon.com/

Mikee: Given your focus on measurement, what is it that is equivalent to it? Only "Free will", or "will" in general? What is the distinction between "free will"" and plain old "will" in the context of your focus on measurement? SL

I know you did not mean to say exactly that ... I will delay in order to reply to your restatement..

DAnconiaLead You are thinking of trying to do something which you see as valuable to you and your life. Otherwise you would not think of attempting to do it. To the extent others stand in your way in any way related to this video, it is from irrationality, emotionalism, mysticism, namely, from vices. If you have no shame in respect of the video (and you should not have any), no amount of "smearing" surrounding the video could possibly hurt you. You stand nothing to lose because of the video or because of your activity in connection with it. However you choose, to run or not to run, you should completely ignore the video, it is wholly irrelevant.

Why is this not a good staring point? All I would add is, try things quite different from those things you already do (which must already ALL not be your passion), try many of them, DONT QUIT UNTIL YOU ARE GOOD at them. The greatest rewards from doing anything often require you to get over the hump of effort per results curve. Self-doubt, and a feeling that one is not good at something can spoil the inherent doing of any activity, and since the results have little payback, it can seem it is not worth the effort. BUT that effort really should be seen merely as practice, you are LEARNING TO DO X... but you have NOT DONE X yet, so you cant know yet IF you'd love doing X. Only once you achieve a certain MASTERY in an activity (to some degree), will you be able to properly judge if it could be your passion. This goes for almost anything requiring skill, effort of mind or body.

"valuable in all contexts" is not equivalent to "intrinsically valuable TO the valuer" When you accept that all values (real ones) are outside the concept and definition of "intrinsic" you cannot simply revert to using that concept as an adverb. You thereby consign the value once again to the realm of a mystic anticoncept. Nothing is "intrinsically valuable"... it is either valuable or not. If something is valuable in "all contexts" or the thing that makes "all other values possible", you have defined an ultimate (foundational) value, not an intrinsic value. Remind you of anything?

Whether a "person A or B is an Objectivist" is true "for me", "for you"... or "for his purpose"?? ;p

I'd start with what proportion of the population are Atheist, then if there is a political breakdown within the Atheist population we'll have an upper bound for actual Objectivists: one cannot be agnostic or religious and actually an Objectivist at the same time.

Careful. Your understanding or use of the term "intrinsic" is likely reality based and individual-contextual. Intrinsic DOES not rely, imply, or has a basis in those. From a standard philosophic point of view "intrinsic value" as intrinsicists conceive of it, means value independent of a valuer, having value independent of to whom: a non-relational characteristic for which there is no reason. So rocks could be "bad"... in themselves. Not to you, for any particular reason, not because it is bad to liquids nor to light waves. It is divorced from all reality, it simply has some value which reason cannot address. What then IS value if not value for something, if not based on anything in reality or reason? It is like a property of reality, it simply is intrinsic in things, to more or less of a degree, except of course such a thing is a mystical construct, like the platonic forms. Technically speaking "intrinsic value" is a mystical fallacy.

"Moral subjectivism" is a concept which presupposes a standard of morality, and it's being subjective or influenced by the subjective. Objectivism holds that there IS only one standard of morality, and that is life. Life of the individual, who is the sole beneficiary of morality. If a person rejects life, he rejects morality because he makes it impossible. Objectivism is not subjective... it is objective. What you may be struggling with is whether a man can technically be labeled "immoral" prior to his adopting a morality. Certainly he is the sole beneficiary of morality (were he to adopt one) and he would see that his own life was the standard if he chose/discovered a rational and objective morality. Certainly from his first person view he is NOT being immoral prior to adopting a morality because he is completely ignorant of what morality is: hence he is, by first person standards, being amoral. Insofar as a man who has chosen death is dangerous to you, you must of course judge him (and his amorality) appropriately as regards your life, which is your standard of value. As such the immoral and the amoral, out there, in individuals should be seen as just as "evil" in that both can be a disvalue to you. Moreover, you know that actions by this amoral being are against his own life, so you know, Objectively, that his choices are immoral. The worst case is where a person, through no fault or virtue on their part, has come to know, rationally, what morality is, i.e. that the only possible standard is life, and all the possibilities for his capacity to live, love, laugh, achieve, etc. and yet, to make the irrational choice of death, (when life is still possible to him). Such a being who would make such a choice is an evil to YOUR life, whether you call it amoral, a-rational, or immoral or irrational. It really does not matter.

"anti-concept"... and I suggest you attempt not to understand what it "means" or what is "meant" as it will suffice only to understand what it wrong.... and why it is an anti-concept.

In an irrational society full of bigotry, gender stereo types, and so called gender roles, some individuals, because of who they are will be treated badly for who they are, e.g. a manly female or a feminine male. This results in pain and suffering, identity crises, and when unbearable, it is possible that the only way to live in that irrational society is to commit a metaphysical assault on that person's own identity in the pursuit of harmony or at the very least normalcy/anonymity. Like suicide ... but not quite.... such a choice may be rational in the right context.

LP would have a field day with this article. That said, I doubt he would be bothered to waste a second of his life looking at it let alone identifying the litany of errors and irrationalities in it.

When it comes to conceptualization according to objectivism... some things are.

If irrelevant considerations were relevant ...