Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by brainsage

  1. On 11/8/2018 at 9:51 AM, Grames said:

    This place is for Objectivism (capitalized, proper noun, the philosophy of Ayn Rand) not objectivism (lower case) the name used by contemporary philosophers to denote the position that moral judgements can be true or false as opposed to mere opinion.  In the usage you presume objectivism is merely taken to be the contrary position to moral relativism.

    Rand posited a three-way ethical (and epistemological) divide: the subjective, the intrinsic and the objective.



    There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of "good" from beneficiaries, and the concept of "value" from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

    The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man's  consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, "intuitions," or whims, and that it is merely an "arbitrary postulate" or an "emotional commitment."

    The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of reality.

    The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of "things in themselves" nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or "concept-stealing"; it does not permit the separation of "value" from "purpose," of the good from beneficiaries, and of man's actions from reason.


    TL;DR :  We can't help you here.

    Thanks Grames,

    Sorry for bringing up the topic here. I was lucky to receive an official report by the linguist, Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Daniel Altshuler, with this company publications, and found a couple of valid resources, mostly concentrating on the expression of emotions superficially, but still.


  2. Greetings,

    Perhaps, someone here knows where to find the pdf files (or any other format) of the Emotions vs Objectivism books? Or the related materials. I've been searching the online libraries and there's only a limited access (several pages). In particular, I'm interested in the non-verbal expression of emotions and how they are treated from the rejection point of view.

    I've been analyzing emotional space of the text, so I need to concentrate on the three specific aspects of non-verbal expression: optical-kinesthetic, acoustical and autonomic symptoms. And then the task is to compare the possibility of rejection in each of the three cases.

    Hope to find at least something..




  • Create New...