4 replies to this topic

[Dormin111]

Rand talked a lot about "value" in an ethical context. But she never mentioned or addressed "anti-value," or something which actively destroys your life. From her readings, it seems like an individual can either collect value and flourish or fail to collect value and suffer. Is anti-value inferred in this analysis?

[aleph_1]

Rand talked a lot about "value" in an ethical context. But she never mentioned or addressed "anti-value," or something which actively destroys your life. From her readings, it seems like an individual can either collect value and flourish or fail to collect value and suffer. Is anti-value inferred in this analysis?

I think Rand was rather dialectical in regards to value. To her, if something didn't add to your life, then it subtracted from it. I think this was wrong because of the Principle of Surplus Capacity by which any successful organism must be capable of producing in excess of what it consumes. This principle implies some interesting things, such as the fact that our activities are not necessarily limited in classification to those that support our life or destroy it, but there is an additional category of activities that are irrelevant to our existence.

[Grames]

The logical negation of 'value' is 'non-value'.  All non-values are by definition anti-life, regardless of how quickly or slowly they destroy ones life.

[Vik]

What would qualify as an "anti-value"?

[tadmjones]

I like non better than anti, anti is too specific. Rand said value implies to whom, for what.

 

Would cold be anti-hot, or visa versa? Could there be antiwarm? Or rather what purpose would the concept serve?