stephen_speicher Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Er, before we proceed, how does optional differ from arbitrary? That seems to be what I am stuck on. The arbitrary is the subjective, that which is not based on evidence of reality. In ITOE Ayn Rand makes clear that "there is no room for the arbitrary in any activity of man." By contrast, the optional, as I and others have described it here, is fully objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Yes, and I replied to it as well, as you will hopefully see. Yes, I have seen your reply. You did not own up to the insult then, just as you are not owning up to it now. Do as you wish; I have nothing more to say about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Yes, and I replied to it as well, as you will hopefully see. Yes, I have seen your reply. You did not own up to the insult then, just as you are not owning up to it now. Do as you wish; I have nothing more to say about this. I don't owe you anything. If you want to post things like the above without reply from me, do so via PM. And I refuse to "own up" to something that does not merit apology. I said what I said and I stand by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 By contrast, the optional, as I and others have described it here, is fully objective. Could you be more specific? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 I suspected that was what you meant. I would not phrase it that way, however. It is not one's values that are constantly shifting, but one's evaluations. One's evaluations? Hmm. Value and evaluation are the same exact thing. Agreed, both are fine. But both are not, strictly speaking, optional in the sense that there is no difference between them. There may be little practical difference, but that does not mean there is none at all. If you admit that the distinction you make has little practical significance, i.e. has no useful way of improving your life, then why persist in making it at all? The number of epistemological categories we make, and the number of details that we choose to split a category into, should be dependent solely on how this increased mental labor will improve our lives, teach us a new ethical lesson, expand our understanding, etc. If what you're saying is that you are pursuing this angle solely for some abstracted academic benefit that really has no application to men, then you have conceded the argument the moment you first proposed it. I second Stephen's suggestion and recommend further looking into the distinction between objective values (reason is good) and optional values (chocolate ice cream is the best). Moreover, since you agreed that our hierarchy of values is constantly shifting about what's more important at any particular moment, then this you've conceded your argument from that angle as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 then you have conceded the argument the moment you first proposed it. Well, I would say that I wasn't arguing what you thought I was arguing. It's not like I've changed my position or anything, it's just that now you understand that we don't really have a conflict here. Am I splitting hairs here? I don't think I am... I was defending the position that all choices are objective and not arbitrary. I'll look into the meaning of "optional" via the resources you mentioned and see what I can see. That's probably where the rub is. One's evaluations? Hmm. smile.gif Value and evaluation are the same exact thing. Oops, I meant one's "evaluations of existents" versus "one's values." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 I was going on the idea that no two existants could be exactly the same, so therefore no two values could be, either. It's not a very strong connection and I welcome examination. I do not think your premise logically leads to your conclusion. For the sake of argument let's say that the gold exchange rate was currently $500 an ounce. Therefore: a $500 bill (one existant) = a one ounce ingot of gold (a different existant). The existants are not exactly the same, but their value is the same. I would further suggest that the Trader Principle demonstrates the idea of different existants having a mutally agreed upon ( or equal ) value at the time of trade. Edit: Better yet, two separate $1 bills are separate existants of equal value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Here's what you said previously, which set off my reply: I think that for each person, there is a correct choice for each choice. I don't think that it is arbitrary what I even have for dinner. There is a best choice. If taken literally, it gives rise to our argument. But even it given the benefit of the doubt, it is not a practical statement, as you yourself admitted, and does not aid man's life in any meaningful way. That's the whole reason we're having this discussion. Even at best, this statement is misleading and not meant for practical consumption and application. And that's what gave rise to my tirade about students of Objectivism, and against rationalism. I think it's clear how it all came together. Oops, I meant one's "evaluations of existents"... which are one's values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 That's the whole reason we're having this discussion. Okay. I appreciate your efforts then, if it has made the matter more clear. ... which are one's values. No, I think there is a difference... "I think this food is good for me." Is differant from saying "I value good food." The former is an evaluation; a ranking of a concrete existant against one's values. The latter is a value, which is a conceptual abstract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 What about "I value this food?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What about "I value this food?" Are you talking generally, as in "I value pizza" or about something specific as in "I value this pizza right here?" An evaluation is where you take an existent and then compare it against the heirarchy of your values. Evaluations can change frequently with context. Your values should be relatively stable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What I'm trying to point out is that the following quote of yours is not true a value is [by definition] a conceptual abstract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 What I'm trying to point out is that the following quote of yours is not true As I understand it, a value may be categorized as a conceptual abstract but it is defined as that which one acts to gain or keep. Please correct me if I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 As I understand it, a value may be categorized as a conceptual abstract but it is defined as that which one acts to gain or keep. Well it can be a conceptual abstract, that is not in question. The question is: must it be? One can say "I value our conversation," but I don't think the conversation is "a value." Instead, I would say that the conversation is "of value" because the conversation is not one of your values, but rather it fulfills your values. Maybe someone can come up with an example to prove this wrong? It's only a hypothesis at this point... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 "Spudz MacKenzie knows when to say when." You just don't get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 "Spudz MacKenzie knows when to say when." You just don't get it. I am bewildered by your post. What is its point? In particular, what does "it" refer to? P. S. -- Forum Rules (under Moderation Guidelines) prohibit "posts devoid of intellectual content of any kind." Does this apply to your post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 I am bewildered by your post. What is its point? In particular, what does "it" refer to? P. S. -- Forum Rules (under Moderation Guidelines) prohibit "posts devoid of intellectual content of any kind." Does this apply to your post? If you want to report me to the forum administrator, BurgessLau, then by all means be my guest. As I see it, Inspector's response to my post was devoid of intellectual content and, for that matter, so is yours. I suggest that you both take a refresher course in high school grammer and, after that, go read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 If you want to report me to the forum administrator, BurgessLau, then by all means be my guest. As I see it, Inspector's response to my post was devoid of intellectual content and, for that matter, so is yours. I suggest that you both take a refresher course in high school grammer and, after that, go read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology again. It would have been helpful if you had quoted me in that post, so at least I would know it was me you were sniping at. BTW, what is the deal with your sig? It reminds me of Mr. State Science Institute's "What makes you think you think." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 It would have been helpful if you had quoted me in that post, so at least I would know it was me you were sniping at. BTW, what is the deal with your sig? It reminds me of Mr. State Science Institute's "What makes you think you think." 'Sorry about that, Inspector, I am new to this forum and the default did include a quote. I deleted it for the sake of clarity and ended up confusing things. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Still, I stand by what I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 'Sorry about that, Inspector, I am new to this forum and the default did include a quote. I deleted it for the sake of clarity and ended up confusing things. I'll try to be more careful in the future. Still, I stand by what I said. I can take a little ribbing here and there, and I know the tone was humorous, so it's cool. As you said, this is most likely covered in ITOE and is in any case a matter of grammar. What does that quote mean, though? Something along the lines of "what do you think of your thinking?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick N. Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 If you want to report me to the forum administrator, BurgessLau, then by all means be my guest. As I see it, Inspector's response to my post was devoid of intellectual content and, for that matter, so is yours. I suggest that you both take a refresher course in high school grammer and, after that, go read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology again. Perhaps it is you who should take a refresher course in how to spell. For starters, learn to spell the word “grammar.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 Perhaps it is you who should take a refresher course in how to spell. For starters, learn to spell the word “grammar.” Thank you for pointing that out Patrick N. I will certainly be more careful next time. I would edit it and give you credit for correcting me but I do not see any edit button on this forum. What does that quote mean, though? Something along the lines of "what do you think of your thinking?"It is not a quote. It is a parody on the title of the book Why Do You Think You Think? which is mentioned in Atlas Shrugged. "What do you think of your thinking?" is a close enough interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodOrigamiMan Posted December 9, 2004 Report Share Posted December 9, 2004 It is not a quote. It is a parody on the title of the book Why Do You Think You Think? which is mentioned in Atlas Shrugged. "What do you think of your thinking?" is a close enough interpretation. I interpreted it as knowledge of one’s own methodology… was this part of your intention as a parody? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Publius Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 I interpreted it as knowledge of one’s own methodology… was this part of your intention as a parody? Bingo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Capitalist Posted December 10, 2004 Report Share Posted December 10, 2004 Ok guys remind me again what's the point of this thread? Other than the interesting discussion with Inspector, which was actually off topic anyways? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.