Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Valuing John Galt

Rate this topic


WorthyLoverOfExistence

Recommended Posts

John Galt says "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value".

Yet John Galt is unreal, so any value ascribed to him must be done so dishonestly.

I recommend that you begin a study of logic by studying the fallacy of equivocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Galt says "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value".

Yet John Galt is unreal, so any value ascribed to him must be done so dishonestly.

John Galt is Ayn Rand’s presentation of an ideal man. How is John Galt not real? He isn’t and never was a living person, but he exists - just as any other work of art.

There is nothing wrong with valuing good art... Dishonest not it is :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is John Galt not real?

I consider his unreality to be pretty obvious. There is no such person, there is no evidence of his having actually existed. I think asserting that he is real is the positive assertion, so the onus would be on you to prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Galt says "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value".

Yet John Galt is unreal, so any value ascribed to him must be done so dishonestly.

Is this just to test how many people in this forum will immediately identify the fallacy blatant in your syllogism?

John Galt qua fictional character IS real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider his unreality to be pretty obvious. There is no such person, there is no evidence of his having actually existed. I think asserting that he is real is the positive assertion, so the onus would be on you to prove it.

The unreality of 7 is equally "obvious". There is no such thing, there is no evidence that it actually exists or existed. I assume that you do not consider 7 to be real (would that mean that it is imaginary?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Galt says "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value".

Yet John Galt is unreal, so any value ascribed to him must be done so dishonestly.

If you are serious about this -- if this is not meant as a silly joke -- then at least educate yourself and look up the logical fallacy of equivocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are serious about this -- if this is not meant as a silly joke -- then at least educate yourself and look up the logical fallacy of equivocation.

The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context, but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as he goes in such a way to achieve equivocation by equating distinct meanings of the word.

Could you please tell me which word or concept I'm equivocating on ?

Another way of stating the issue I'm interested in might be "when is self-deception not dishonesty" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you please tell me which word or concept I'm equivocating on ?

You are equivocating on the meaning of "unreal" (or, equivalently, "real"). When you say that John Galt is "unreal," you mean it in the literary sense of "not a real human being that has ever lived." This has a legitimate use in characterizing fiction, and one may thus accurately say, in that context, "John Galt is not real." However, in the quote by Rand, she is using "unreal" in the sense of "never existing period" or "fantasy." John Galt does exist--as a fictional character in a novel--and fictional characters offer plenty of value, otherwise we wouldn't spend time reading about them.

There are other things that do not exist--God, say--and that is what she is referring to. Because God is unreal, it can have no value, Pascal's wager not withstanding. (That doesn't mean the notion of God has no value--it could be used to demonstrate the fallacy of an omnipotent God. But the notion of God is not unreal: God is.)

Another way of stating the issue I'm interested in might be "when is self-deception not dishonesty" ?

I don't see how this is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Galt *is* the concretization of the Objectivist ethics projected through a specific scope: the ideal man within the setting of AS. If you have a problem with how he is expressed then say so, otherwise don't cower behind "he is not a real person".

As I see it, you are clearly denying induction in philosophy(ie. sweeping aside concretes and their nature/importance) the validity/role of deduction in art(projecting concepts) and as FC said, hero worship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are equivocating on the meaning of "unreal" (or, equivalently, "real").  When you say that John Galt is "unreal," you mean it in the literary sense of "not a real human being that has ever lived."  This has a legitimate use in characterizing fiction, and one may thus accurately say, in that context, "John Galt is not real."  However, in the quote by Rand, she is using "unreal" in the sense of "never existing period" or "fantasy."  John Galt does exist--as a fictional character in a novel--and fictional characters offer plenty of value, otherwise we wouldn't spend time reading about them.

I agree that fictional characters offer plenty of value, but I don't agree that they are real; hence the adjective "fictional".

Why do you classify "fantasy" as unreal, but "fiction" as real ?

Isn't engaging in the enjoyment of either a form of self-deception ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word (un)real.

Now that I think about it, I am not surprised at this, since now I recall that in my last encounter with you, you were advocating "rational religionists."

Right. So how is a rational Objectivist's admiration for John Galt fundamentally different from a rational Hindu's admiration for Krishna ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, maybe because the fictional character Krishna never gave a speech applicable to reality? :)

I wouldn't consider the specific speechs or actions of the two to be a fundamental distiction in the context of this discussion of their (un)reality, and the appropriateness of using them as sources of value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, if one fictional character has great values for living on earth, and goes through tremendous struggle to realize these values, while another fictional character has great values for dying on earth, and goes through tremendous struggle to realize these values, the two should be admired equally?

Edit: by the way, your username would be great for a pseudo-Oist True Believer :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that fictional characters offer plenty of value, but I don't agree that they are real; hence the adjective "fictional".

Why do you classify "fantasy" as unreal, but "fiction" as real ?

The whole point of equivocation is that they are both "real" and "unreal," depending on the context. John Galt was never a "real human being," but he was a "real fictional character." John-Galt-the-protagonist-of-Atlas-Shrugged IS REAL (though John-Galt-the-flesh-and-blood-person" is not). His story is printed on real physical paper which you can buy at a real physical bookstore. The fact that it's written down in a book does not mean there was ever a human being named John Galt, but it does mean there is a fictional character named John Galt.

The sense in which you mean "real" is "is this character a depiction of a human being?" While that is a legitimate use of the word "real," it is not the only one. My claim is that you are missing the relevant sense: John Galt is a real portrayal of a human, though not a real portrayal of a real human (as also opposed to John Rjieklfdjifeildsfdsfdnpow, who does not exist in any portrayal anywhere).

Isn't engaging in the enjoyment of either a form of self-deception ?

So something that offers "plenty of value" can also be "self-deception"? How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. So how is a rational Objectivist's admiration for John Galt fundamentally different from a rational Hindu's admiration for Krishna ?

It isn't, from the point of view that both are admiring what they consider a description/personification of an ideal (caveat: I know little about Hinduism and would not have brought up Krishna on my own). It is, when you consider what that ideal is. But I don't fault a Hindu for admiring a fictional idea--I fault him for what that idea stands for.

I have to say that it doesn't seem like you are trying to understand reality as much as you are trying to find ways to interpret words in argumentative way. The two different ways in which the word "real" can be used is easily understood by children. Once they understand the way that Rolie Polie Olie is "imaginary," they still understand that it's a real cartoon and that they really are watching it, not just making the whole thing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean, if one fictional character has great values for living on earth, and goes through tremendous struggle to realize these values, while another fictional character has great values for dying on earth, and goes through tremendous struggle to realize these values, the two should be admired equally?

Edit: by the way, your username would be great for a pseudo-Oist True Believer  :)

I'm trying to focus on the nature of the mental action involved when we engage in fantasy or fiction, and how it is that the subjects of it can be sources of (dis)value, when they don't even exist. Is this not a form of dishonesty; of denying that the unreal is unreal ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said Doug. I don't think anything else can be said about this topic, it has been thoroughly explained. And is Worthylover a troll?

I have to say that it doesn't seem like you are trying to understand reality as much as you are trying to find ways to interpret words in argumentative way. The two different ways in which the word "real" can be used is easily understood by children.

It's sad that as people are suppose to mature as they get older, they instead seem to decline. How odd. What factors do you think have influenced this 'anti-reality' mentality, or is it subconscious evasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...