Hi. A little help.

[Placebo]

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm an objectivism supporter but still learning. A problem I am having however is explaining myself succinctly when debating with someone about Rand's metaphysics and epistemology. An example would be an argument I had with someone recently on an internet forum. He brought up what he thought was a Rand contradiction, here it is:

1."Let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life"

and

2."the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex – from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man – are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of an organisms life"

Contradicted by

3. "If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer"

Now, I asked for the page numbers because it was hard for me to answer without some context behind what else Rand was saying in the paragraph.

The guy never got back to me so this isn't for the argument but it's for me personally, can someone please dispel this 'contradiction' in a succinct way as I feel I know the answer but just can't put it into words.

Help would be much appreciated. Thanks guys.

Rand was saying those quotes just to clarify.

Edited April 6, 2009 by GreedyCapitalist
Duplicate text

[JJJJ]

1."Let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life"

and

2."the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex – from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man – are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of an organisms life"

Contradicted by

3. "If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer"

Im sorry, but where is the contradiction? The first quote is part of a segment where Rand talks about why values can never be understood separately from the facts of reality, and that the entities life is its ultimate value, as it sets the standard by which all other values are evaluated . The second quote actually precedes the first one, and is about the physical nature of living organisms, and how the lifesustaining actions are generated by the organism itself for the sake of maintaining the entitys life, thus making it a living entity. Its existence is sustained by itself. It is about automatic actions, like the examples Rand gives. I dont know if you are confusing "actions generated by the organism itself" with "volitional actions", but that is the only contradiction i could see if that is what you think.

Because the third one is part of a segment where Rand talks about the role of emotions:

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to pro­gram—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

But since the work of man’s mind is not automatic, his values, like all his premises, are the product either of his thinking or of his evasions: man chooses his values by a conscious process of thought—or accepts them by default, by subconscious associations, on faith, on someone’s author­ity, by some form of social osmosis or blind imitation. Emo­tions are produced by man’s premises, held consciously or subconsciously, explicitly or implicitly.

Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that some­thing is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mecha­nism from the role of his guardian to the role of his de­stroyer. The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher. If a man desires and pursues contradictions—if he wants to have his cake and eat it, too—he disintegrates his consciousness; he turns his inner life into a civil war of blind forces engaged in dark, incoher­ent, pointless, meaningless conflicts (which, incidentally, is the inner state of most people today).

So if you could tell me exactly where you think the contradiction lies, i can give a further answer. If you thought the contradiction was in the fact that you thought Rand on the other hand said that all of mans actions are always directed at the maintenance of its own life, and that on the other hand she said that man can choose irrational self-destructive values then i understand what you mean. But you have to remember that the second quote pertains to automatic actions like blood circulation and regrowth of bone etc. and not to volitional actions. She was simply giving a definition on what makes something living vs. non-living: the fact that the lifesustaining actions are generated by the organism itself.

Edited April 5, 2009 by JJJJ

[phibetakappa]

I agree: in a "succinct way" would you please state what the contradiction is supposed to be?

[Placebo]

See, that was the problem I was having. I couldn't actually see the contradiction myself and I didn't have VOS with me to look at what parts the guy was talking about. He didn't actually explain his contradiction in the slightest but he went on to use the following points as if they were proof:

"She shows here that the ultimate value she claims is a necessity, is indeed not one. If it were a necessity to value our own survival we would have to do so, however it is possible to value ones death. She has admitted this here, and has contradicted herself in a formal sense, these values can be claimed to be irrational, but to maintain consistency they need to be impossible to possess. The contradiction here is more evident when we realize that we can value our own death by espousing the virtue of purpose,and pride(imagine a scenario where someone who's purpose in life is to be a parent must choose to save their own life or that of their children), virtues she claims are necessary for survival.

She also claims that parasitic behaviour is necessarily something which will go against life as the ultimate value of ones life - in VOS she claims that looters ensure their own destruction. Ghengis Kahn would have a thing or two to say about that, he lived a very long life by living off others, so have many others. She essentially claims that parasitic behaviour is by necessity destructive and will result in death, yet when such behavior is required to value one's survival she cannot deny consistently that it is necessarily destructive.She does, and shows how poor her argument is."

[Tenzing_Shaw]

"She shows here that the ultimate value she claims is a necessity, is indeed not one. If it were a necessity to value our own survival we would have to do so, however it is possible to value ones death. She has admitted this here, and has contradicted herself in a formal sense, these values can be claimed to be irrational, but to maintain consistency they need to be impossible to possess. [...]"

Rand states that living organisms act invariably to preserve their own lives. She then states that man is a special case, in that he possesses volition, which permits him to work purposefully for his own destruction-an action which would be impossible for any other organism (notice that bodily functions still act to preserve life even in a self-destructive human, as a previous poster pointed out). The point of this argument is to show that man needs a code of ethics.

So this objection is a clear example of context-dropping. Suppose I say that prime numbers are odd, except for 2, which is even. If we take each part of this statement out of context, we come up with A "prime numbers are odd" and B "2 is a prime number", which implies C "there exists an even prime number". Now C contradicts A, so my original statement is a contradiction "in the formal sense".

Rand never claims that all living things always act to preserve their lives without exception, nor does her argument ever assume this claim.

"She also claims that parasitic behaviour is necessarily something which will go against life as the ultimate value of ones life - in VOS she claims that looters ensure their own destruction. Ghengis Kahn would have a thing or two to say about that, he lived a very long life by living off others, so have many others. She essentially claims that parasitic behaviour is by necessity destructive and will result in death, yet when such behavior is required to value one's survival she cannot deny consistently that it is necessarily destructive.She does, and shows how poor her argument is."

If this person starts the argument again, you might ask him whether he himself could live a happy life as a murderous barbarian. Mere survival is a necessary but insufficient condition for the kind of life which Rand speaks of preserving.

Edited April 6, 2009 by Tenzing_Shaw

[Placebo]

Thanks guys. I found my copy of VOS so I looked up the quotes and realised where he had gone wrong.

Thanks for the replies.

[JJJJ]

Ghengis Kahn would have a thing or two to say about that, he lived a very long life by living off others, so have many others. She essentially claims that parasitic behaviour is by necessity destructive and will result in death, yet when such behavior is required to value one's survival she cannot deny consistently that it is necessarily destructive.She does, and shows how poor her argument is."

Here he makes a common mistake, that i see many critics make. He is confusing "destructive action" with something that will result in instant destruction. The fact that i rob the occasional Mars-bar from the store is not going to kill me instantly on the spot, but that action is still destructive, as if humans "lived" that way consistantly, life would not be possible. Its like not understanding that hitting the ball wide on purpose in Tennis is detrimental to winning the game, just because you dont lose the game immediately after your first wide-on-purpose shot.

Also, the psychological factors have to be remembered. I mean, your not going to find any happy massmurderers out there, no matter if they have been caught or are walking free.