Why Does Kira Lie To Leo

[intellectualammo]

I’m still trying to gain a full understanding of just why Kira lied to Leo by saying that the money she had gotten for him, to go south for a stay in the Crimea, was not from the person who she had really gotten it from: Andrei.

Here’s what I have so far.

He gets a letter, that Kira asks his relatives for money, and it really upsets him that she did that:

Leo said, "So you're meddling in my affairs now? So you're writing letters? Who asked you to write?"

On the table, she saw an envelope with a German stamp. It was addressed to Leo. "What does she say, Leo?"

"You want to know? You really want to know?" He threw the letter at her face.

She remembered only the sentence: "There is no reason why you should expect any help from us; the less reason since you are living with a brazen harlot who has the impudence to write to respectable people." <wtl_214>

So if going to that length to try to get money upsets him that much, then telling him the truth of how she had gotten the money later on by using Andrei would have done much more, right? She wants him to be alive longer, to be healthy enough to stay alive, and so forth. A very selfish interest is in it for sending him south.

Does she lie, in part, because of that?

Again, I think that why Kira lied to Leo, in part, was maybe because he would not have wanted her to go to such a length to potentially benefit his health. I gather that from the scene in which he comes back from the south and hates her for the benefits he had gained healthwise from his stay in the Crimea. Here is the part that I am speaking of:

“Did you really think I'd bless this health you gave back to me? I hate it because you gave it back to me. And because I love you." She laughed softly: "Would you rather hate me, too?"

"Yes. I'd rather. You are that which I've lost long ago. But I love you so much that I'm trying to hold on to it, to that which you think I am, which I know I was, even though I can't hold on much longer. And that's all I have to offer you, Kira."“(p.249)

I also gather some support for that from the following quote in the scene (before the others mentioned)in which Kira came home from talking to Leo’s doctor about his condition. Leo says to Kira:

"I think it's because I was frightened. But I'm not—now. Everything seems so much simpler—when there's a limit set. ... The thing to do now, Kira, is not to talk about it. Don't let's think about it. There's nothing we can do—as the doctor probably told you. We can still be together—for a while. When it becomes contagious—well ..."

She was watching him. Such was his manner of accepting his death sentence.

She said, and her voice was hard: "Nonsense, Leo. You're going south."(p.210)

When he speaks of how there is “a limit set”, a limit on his existence, because of the tuberculosis, that is what tips me off there. If he was to get better, as he did later because of her persistent “crusade”, that limit wasn’t set again. I think that that may play a small part in why she lied to him...somehow....at least to the length she was going to get the money.

Anyone want to contribute, disagree, or be able to explain just why she lied to him as to how she had really gotten the money? I’m having trouble, obviously, in trying to find that myself.

Edited January 23, 2006 by intellectualammo

[Unconquered]

I think it's straightforward - Kira knows that Leo will die unless he goes south, and "failure is not an option". If she tells him that the money came from Andrei, he'll reject it, and reject her. Then he'll die.

The context to keep in mind here is that Kira and Leo's lives are in a continuous state of emergency, not a normal state of being. Every second of their existence is at the mercy and whim of brutes with guns who have annihilated the country and taken them prisoners. They are effectively living in a giant prison run by evil men. That's the entire point of the story - no level of effort could make such conditions livable to human beings such as Kira and Leo. Kira does survive intact, psychologically, until the end - Leo is saved bodily but dies psychologically. So, in the end, they are both gone. The only option for life was to escape.

You might wonder why the end is such a downer. As I recall, Ayn Rand said (my paraphrasing) that Kira has to die attempting to escape because literarily it represents the impossibility of most Russians to escape that hell, in that time. In fact she spent years trying to extract her family from Russia, without success, and her parents died in WW2. She found out later that her sister had survived, but she, like Leo, had long ago lost herself, and was an embittered Soviet citizen who hated America - she visited New York City with A.R.'s help, but chose to return to Russia.

[intellectualammo]

I think it's straightforward - Kira knows that Leo will die unless he goes south, and "failure is not an option". If she tells him that the money came from Andrei, he'll reject it, and reject her. Then he'll die.

Great. Thank you. Now my understanding is less foggy, less approximate. I am pressed for time, so let's see if that's all that is needed for me to fully understand.

The context to keep in mind here is that Kira and Leo's lives are in a continuous state of emergency, not a normal state of being. Every second of their existence is at the mercy and whim of brutes with guns who have annihilated the country and taken them prisoners. They are effectively living in a giant prison run by evil men. That's the entire point of the story - no level of effort could make such conditions livable to human beings such as Kira and Leo. Kira does survive intact, psychologically, until the end - Leo is saved bodily but dies psychologically. So, in the end, they are both gone. The only option for life was to escape.

Well said. They both chose different ways of "escaping" it.

As I recall, Ayn Rand said (my paraphrasing) that Kira has to die attempting to escape because literarily it represents the impossibility of most Russians to escape that hell, in that time. In fact she spent years trying to extract her family from Russia, without success, and her parents died in WW2. She found out later that her sister had survived, but she, like Leo, had long ago lost herself, and was an embittered Soviet citizen who hated America - she visited New York City with A.R.'s help, but chose to return to Russia.

Yes, that's all correct.

Edited January 23, 2006 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

I think it's straightforward - Kira knows that Leo will die unless he goes south, and "failure is not an option". If she tells him that the money came from Andrei, he'll reject it, and reject her. Then he'll die.

Okay then. Let me see if I understand something correctly in a slightly different way.

Kira doesn't tell Leo because "he'll reject it, and reject her", *because* he is not the Leo "that could have been". If he was, with every context remaining the same in the novel, I am absolutely convinced that what she did with Andrei would be clearly understood by him, she might have even have told him prior to doing it. It was because of the way Leo viewed himself and his relation to existence, that had kept Kira from telling him the truth about how exactly she had gotten the money, essentially lying and using.

Does anyone agree/disagree at all with what I typed?

Just a side comment here...

Now she didn't directly sell her body in exchange for money, either. He had given her money for her family before she lied and said that she loved him and they have a sexual encounter, and after that sexual encounter, money for family.

Does anyone agree/disagree with that?

[Unconquered]

Okay then. Let me see if I understand something correctly in a slightly different way.

Kira doesn't tell Leo because "he'll reject it, and reject her", *because* he is not the Leo "that could have been"

I wouldn't put it that way. It doesn't really make sense to divorce the rest of the context from that one event. It is the fact of their entrapment in a dictatorship that sets the stage for the disintegration to follow. In a free or semi-free society, both Kira and Leo could pursue their values and their love and no such situation would arise.

Also, it is clear that Leo is a very proud man - as he exists qua Leo, and not the degraded entity that he becomes, it is within his character that he would rather die than to see Kira sleep with Andrei in order to get money for him to have a chance to live. And it is consistent with Kira's character that she knows that, and in fact would be disappointed in Leo if he did not feel that way. But in the emergency situation in which they exist, she chooses to do so and to personally accept the consequences in order to save one of her highest values. Bear in mind as well that Andrei is not really a terrible villain. She doesn't "sell herself" randomly - Andrei is portrayed as an essentially honorable man with terribly mistaken ideas, who commits suicide once he realizes how wrong he was and the damage he's helped to create - one more casualty of communism.

[Evan]

Nobody said "randomly" or not....but she does indeed sell herself.

See these threads for my arguments regarding whether or not what Kira does is prositution or not.

Link 1

Link 2

Edited January 25, 2006 by Evan

[EC]

@Evan Here's a better question--assume for the sake of argument that a "whore" is a "prostitute". Why is this word such a horrible thing for Kira to be labeled withing the context of the novel in your eyes. Is prositution always a vice and an indicator of immorality in you opinon? Regardless of context?

[Evan]

@Evan Here's a better question--assume for the sake of argument that a "whore" is a "prostitute".

Lol. Alright. Sure...we can "assume" that...if you really think it is necessary to "assume" to linguistic equality of synonyms...*laughs.*

Why is this word such a horrible thing for Kira to be labeled withing the context of the novel in your eyes.

If you "assume" that the label is correct (as you just had me do), then the act of labeling something by it's true name is NOT a horrible thing, it is necessary and proper assuming that your goal is not evasion through non-precise defintions. It is pretty clear in Objectivist literature the importance of definitions as conceptual/epistomological tools and why playing fast and loose with those tools ends up leading to subjectivism/cognitive chaos. A is A, right? If Kira is a whore/prostitute, then she IS a whore and a prostitute. I don't pretend that words can mean anything we want them to mean.

Whore/prostitute does NOT mean "vendor of cookies." You and I both know this. Given this, why do you assume that I think it IS a "horrible" thing for Kira to be labeled a whore?

Why do you put normative implications in my mouth that I myself have never made?

A better question for you to have asked would have been "DO you think that it is a horrible thing for Kira to have been labeled a prostitute/whore within the context of the novel?"

I know I'm being picky about the built in assumptions contained in your question and I hope you can understand why I AM being so picky. Precision is important and muddying the waters with assumptions isn't a good way to start off.

Do you see the difference between asking, "Do you think X?" and "Why do you think X?"

Is prositution always a vice and an indicator of immorality in you opinon?

OF COURSE NOT. Look, prostitution is a business transaction when both parties know what is going on.

For men of self-esteem, it is an unnecessary business transaction...one that is never needed for them.

When one party doesn't know what is going on, you get Anna Nicole Smith type situations...where a woman is only involved because of money and the degree of manipulation that goes with that. Do I agree with such dishonesty or find it virtuous? No.

Here is what I said about how I look at Kira in a wider context:

I see Kira as the ideal woman in the sense that she fought for objective values with all she had. She tried shrugging as soon as it was possible (when she and Leo tried to escape the country) and she always lived for herself. She doesn't share the dysfunctionalism of Dominque or the errors of knowledge that Dagny have. I respect the fact that Kira was willing to go all out when it came to fighting for her values. I respect the fact that she was willing to prostitute herself out to save the man she loved. That is a very very very powerful love indeed. It is also a very powerful woman...a woman of steel and fire.

I see Kira as being an ideal woman in unideal circumstances. I see those circumstances as coloring the actions I don't like (her not being honest with Leo or Andrei). I can't imagine Kira doing what she did in the United States. Not only would it not be necessary, but she would have had the opportunity to accept inner peace/freedom as the norm and not the exception. I think part of what bothered me was the fact that Kira did what she did without talking to Leo at all.

I mean...doesn't he have the right (considering he was pretty much her common law husband) to say, "You know...I don't WANT you to whore yourself out in MY name?" I see each individual in relationships as being sovereign and operating under the trader principle. It is in the best interest of both to be honest and communicate openly. Each person sets their own terms and if they aren't acceptable, either party is free to leave and seek value elsewhere. I think Leo had a right to know where the money came from that was saving his life. Kira might have been fine with her decision and it WAS her decision (I'm not saying it wasn't)...however Leo had a right to at least understand the full context of what was going on.

I think the choice to have another sexual partner (for WHATEVER the reason) is something that MUST be discussed by both parties because it has to do with trust. Kira and Leo (at least to my knowledge) were operating within the bounds of an exclusive relationship.

To make an analogy...if my girlfriend needs medical attention and (because I'm living in a crappy place like the USSR) the only way I can make money to pay for her treatments is by selling cocaine, doesn't she have a right to know where the money came from and reject it if she so chooses? If I'm doing my actions on her behalf and in her name (so to speak) then doesn't she have a right to say, "I want no part of your actions and I don't want to be associated with such actions for whatever the reason?"

Assuming prostitution is legal...secretly whoring yourself out to a wealthy Communist to pay for your real lover's medical treatment compromises exclusivity, trust, etc. I think I would have a lot less of a problem (though I would still have a problem) with the Kira/Leo situation if it was talked over and open/honest.

What I'm basically going for here is the fact that I see Kira as an ideal woman that did what she felt was right in order to protect her values. I could NEVER knock her for that. As a man...I imagine myself in Leo's position or Andrei's position and I can't imagine that I would be really forgiving in that situation. If I was Leo and Kira was my girlfriend, I would feel betrayed in the sense that I wasn't consulted regarding an action done on my behalf. I would understand that my health at that point would end up being of greater value to Kira than the relationship itself. After all, in Kira's eyes, the world would have been a bit more dark if Leo had died and it would have hurt her MORE than to have him find out the truth and end their relationship.

Did Kira have the right to really hurt Andrei by faking reality (morally prostituting herself out by pretending she reciprocated his feelings? I dunno. What do you think?

Do you think that virtue isn't context sensitive, EC ?

Regardless of context?

OF COURSE NOT. I said nothing indicating that I thought the act of prostitution itself was good or bad...let alone good in ALL cases irrespective to contexts. Lol.

I would be a pretty damn big idiot if I said, "Yes, I think prostitution should be judged the same (ethically speaking) no matter what the situation/context."

Context is made up of facts. When facts differ between situations and create different contexts, the situations cannot be judged the same due to the fact that you are dealing with different FACTS. If you aren't evaluating the "facts" in your moral judgement...you are whim worshiper and a subjectivist.

So no.

To answer your question....No, I'm NOT A subjectivist.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Evan

[intellectualammo]

She doesn't "sell herself" randomly

You are absolutely correct, and I absolutely agree with that fact.

What I was trying to say is that if both, were like Kira, if Leo was a fighter like Kira was, all that "he could have been", he became or "all that she was" he was, then I don't think she ever would have had to lie, that he wouldn't reject her, that in the given politcal-economic system that they were "living", or rather existing in, he would have understood, not gotten upset, and truly and fully comprehend this...as Kira says to Andrei that "I never loved him as much as I loved him in your bed". So if they were more the same in spirit like a Kira, then I can't see her even having to lie, or him even getting upset. All it would do is reaffirm the way they think and feel about each other. That was along the lines of what I meant in the other reply.

But I definiately appreciate you as contributing much to my now fuller understanding of just why she lied to him. Thank you!!

[softwareNerd]

On a Mod note, isn't the other thread having the same discussion? Should they be merged into one or are two distinct ideas being discussed?

[intellectualammo]

On a Mod note, isn't the other thread having the same discussion? Should they be merged into one or are two distinct ideas being discussed?

They definately were distinct in the initial postings, but this one now is starting to become like my other one you have a link to. I think it may end up heading more in that direction as well, but I think that they should stay separate, but they may eventually have to be merged. Wait and see?

[EC]

Sorry Evan, My questions should actually have been addressed to intellectualammo. I agree with you and the confusion in this thread caused me to write the wrong name.

What I want to know is why intellectualammo thinks it would be horrible to label Kira a "prostitute", not you.

[Evan]

Sorry Evan, My questions should actually have been addressed to intellectualammo. I agree with you and the confusion in this thread caused me to write the wrong name.

What I want to know is why intellectualammo thinks it would be horrible to label Kira a "prostitute", not you.

Ah. No worries. This debate sort of is dealt with in more detail under the "Kira and Andrei" thread that JMeganSnow closed if you are interested in following the debate. It sort of jumped threads from the "We The Living" thread to this one and then over to "Kira and Andrei."

Edited January 26, 2006 by Evan

[intellectualammo]

What I want to know is why intellectualammo thinks it would be horrible to label Kira a "prostitute", not you.

It wouldn't necessarily be horrible, but it would be wrong to call her a prostitute without proving that that new posititve claim to knowledge can coincide with the context of the novel. Since I am not the one who has called her something she was never called in the novel, or referred to as, and since what she did was never called or referred to as "prostitution" as Evan has, in the novel, all I can do is show that since the "street women" are so very different than Kira (who is only described/referred/self-described as being a "whore")that there exists a clear distinction between her and they, in the novel, and that those words("street woman"and"whore") might be considered or are synonomous, we must have to question any other foreign, outside the novel terms, or synonyms used to describe her, in light of the clear distinction between a "street woman" and a "whore" in the novel. Looking at the defintion of synonym:

"From M-W:

syn·o·nym

Pronunciation: 'si-n&-"nim

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English sinonyme, from Latin synonymum, from Greek synOnymon, from neuter of synOnymos synonymous, from syn- + onyma name -- more at NAME

1 : one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses"

So, synonyms can have "nearly" the same meaning....in "some" or "all senses". That being so, we have to look at the sense it was in the novel. Kira was not like the other "street woman" as described in the novel. This is the only way that they are described in the novel in the sense of the novel as well...And I quote,

"She saw women with lips painted scarlet on faces powdered snow-white, with red kerchiefs and short skirts, and legs squeezed by high shoes laced too tightly. She saw a man taking a woman's arm and disappearing through a glass door." p.51-2

So, Kira is very clearly here, NOT a "street woman". So in the novel, in the sense of the novel, you can't even say that a "street woman" and a "whore" are synonyms, let alone introduce a "foreign" word(a word outside the novel, never used once) such as "prostitute" and say, assert, claim that to describe her. In the "sense" of the novel, and that synonyms can "nearly" mean the "same", you cannot introduce that word to describe her at all, unless the onus of proof principle is met. I would say, at best, you would be *nearer* in describing the "street woman" as "prostitutes" or that they are, at best, closer synonyms than describing Kira as alledgedly being one. Since in every act of "prostitution", a "prostitute" is involved, in that sense, that is what is implied with the "street woman" and ABSOLUTELY not with Kira, since what she did to Andrei, was not an act of prostitution.

Edited January 26, 2006 by intellectualammo

[intellectualammo]

Q:In prostitution, there is ALWAYS a prostitute involved, a prostitute is inherent in prostitution.

If no prostitution took place, can you call a person a prostitute?

A:No, in that sense. But a “prostitute” also has many synonyms.

Q:Okay, can you use “prostitute” as a synonym for “whore“, in the novel?

A:No, not with Kira, but at best you can with the “street woman” since it is undoubtedly implied that they were involved in “prostitution”, but Kira was not.

Q:Okay, so then you can use “prostitute” to correctly describe the “street woman” in the novel, in the sense that they are used in the novel, and not to describe Kira as one?

A:Yes.

Q:Why?

A:The very definition of synonym only let’s us use “prostitute” , at best, more correctly in describing the “street woman” as being more synonymous with “prostitute” than it does in describing Kira(“whore”) as alledgedly being a “prostitute“, in the sense they(“street woman” and “whore”) were used in the novel, "prostitution" being the distinction in that, and the way the "street woman" are described as being, as distinctly different than Kira, in the novel.

Edited January 26, 2006 by intellectualammo

[Evan]

EC:

Steve's horrible use of the word synonym (as well as responses to all of these other barely there arguments) were addressed on the recently closed thread titled "Kira and Andrei."If you wish to see more detailed arguments refuting everything Steve says here, just go to that thread and read what I wrote before the thread was closed.

My main problem with Steve's bad arguments is that he bastardizes the word synonym. He ignores the fact that there are two instances of the word "or" in the defintion which give us FOUR ways to define the word "synonym." Steve picks the least restrictive one and tries to force all synonyms for "prostitute" into that category and then evades actually having to justify why he made such a choice.

Let's go back to my defintion of synonym that Steve quoted so you can see what I mean:

"one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same OR nearly the same meaning in some OR all senses"

That says "SAME" OR OR "NEARLY THE SAME" meaning in "SOME" OR "All" senses.

Did I make it clear enough for anyone reading the thread that the word "OR" is important because it gives the defintion of "synonym" varying levels of clarity? So do the words "same" and "nearly the same" as well as "some" or "all."

Upon further analysis, the defintion CLEARLY gives us FOUR different "types" of synonyms. Some words are closer synonyms than others. Here are the types:

1) You can have two words with the SAME meaning in ALL senses and that qualifies as a synonym.

These types of synonyms are interchangable because they have the exact same meaning across the board. Since language is a tool of communication, you can use the words interchangably because the communicated meaning is the exact same for either word.

an example would be "whore" and "prostitute" or "joyous" and "glad"

look up up in Merriam Webster's Online dictionary (www.refdesk.com). You can definitely see that they have the same meaning in every way. You can also do the same for "whore" and "prostitute."

Shocking...you would almost think I didn't make this argument already if you hadn't have seen it before! *sarcasm.*

2) You can have two words with the SAME meaning in SOME senses (but not all of them).

These words are close, but not exact. An example would be "glad" and "tickled." There is some overlap with the words because they share the same intended purpose of conveying happiness, but there is a definitely difference defintionally speaking.

3) You can have words with NEARLY the same meaning in ALL senses.

An example of this would be "cool" and "cold" (talking about temperature).

both are defined as :" having a low or subnormal temperature"

However if I said, "It is cool outside right now where I live" I'm probably not talking about as extreme of weather as if I said, "It is cold outside right now where I live."

They NEARLY the same meaning in ALL senses (temperature and low/subnormal), but they aren't exactly the same in all senses.

4) You can have two words with NEARLY the same meaning in SOME senses.

An example would be "glad" and "blisful"

You could NOT just swap out the two words because one means (roughly) "experiencing pleasure" and the other means "experiencing complete and total pleasure/happiness." They have nearly the same meaning in some sentences, but not enough to where you can just swap out the words for each other.

Steve implies that because the defintion says there CAN be similarities without exactness, that we must somehow ignore the other types of synonyms assume that "whore" and "prostitute" are similar but not exact synonyms (despite the fact that the defintion only says that is ONE out of FOUR possibilities but is definitely not the only way to understand word "synonym"). Steve then says that because the word prostitute isn't directly mentioned , that we need to make to unwarranted comparisons between how street women (a type of prostitute) and the vulgar expression "whore" are compared in the book.

Steve's argument boils down to saying, "Kira is a self-labeled whore, but she isn't like the street-women in the book...so whoring can't be compared to prostitution." The only way he tried to get away with making such an argument is by evading what the defintion of synonym actually says by picking and choosing what parts of the defintion he wants to look at. Steve isolates "nearly the same meaning" and "some senses" to muddy the waters and make us think that synonyms are by nature inexact when in truth they CAN be inexact or they can be really precise and exact depending on what type of synonym we are talking about. Talk about using whim, subjectivism, and evasion.

Here is what Steve says EXACTLY and my response to it (argument-wise):

So, synonyms can have "nearly" the same meaning....in "some" or "all senses". That being so, we have to look at the sense it was in the novel. Kira was not like the other "street woman" as described in the novel.

<-----------Steve's words, not mine.

A synonym can also have "the SAME meaning" in "some" or "ALL" senses. Steve forgot to mention that part, I wonder why? Perhaps because that fact destroys the house of cards argument that he has built up here. Put the defintions next to each other and it is clear that they have the same meaning in ALL senses...not just "nearly the same meaning" in "some" senses.

The funny thing is that you CAN be a whore without being a street woman (or a high priced call girl) and the defintion of whore makes no mention of whether or not a guy knowingly solicits a prostitute or what type of prostitute you are (call girl, street woman/walker, or amateur). Steve claims that the guy has to know he is buying a prostitute for a woman to be engaging in a prostitution...to which I ask "What about the girl who has sex with a guy so she can live a rich and fancy life but really has no interest in the guy at all? The guy doesn't know...but can we not call her a prostitute?" Mysteriously, Steve is silent on this point like so many others. I also ask why Steve assumes that a guy has to know he is explicitly buying a prostitute (paying for sex) considering that the defintion makes no mention of HOW a woman goes about having sex for money or whether or not she uses deceptive or honest means (an open business transaction or manipulation).

Once again...that argument went ignored as well on Steve's end.

Compare the defintions of prostitute and whore SIDE BY SIDE and see which type of synonym you think prostitute and whore are. It is brutally obvious that the words have the SAME meaning in ALL senses. Thus, they are NOT ONLY synonyms, but they are synonyms in the strictest and closest way possible (the first category) unlike "whore" and "street woman" which are different in the sense that one is a broad category and one is a very specific type of prostitute (and thus fall into the third category because they are NEARLY the same in SOME senses...but definitely not all). You can do prostitution once and never do it again and that act is STILL prostitution. You can do such prostitution in a brothel, on the streets, from an expensive escort service. Hell, you can do it without even doing it professionally as a business.

If my girlfriend offers sex to a celebrity just so she can date him with the intention of getting high priced jewlery out of the deal (let's say she doesn't care about the actual celebrity in question or actually HATES the celebrity) then she is a prostitute DESPITE not walking the streets and regardless of whether the celebrity knows she is manipulating him or not. She is also a whore and you can use that word interchangably because it fits in the category of having the SAME meaning in ALL senses.

In fact, the defintions "prostitute" uses the word "whore" as PART of it's defintion. The defintion of the word "whore" uses the word "prostitute" IN it's defintion as well. The reason why is because the words are EXACTLY the same...not "nearly the same in SOME senses" as Steve fallaciously claims. There is no reason we have to do unwarranted comparisons between "street woman" and "whore" or use some extra sensory mystical perception as Steve might have you think. You can use the dictionary defintion of both prostitute and whore to come to the conclusion that JUST BECAUSE AYN RAND DIDN'T EVER USE THE WORD WHORE IN THE NOVEL DOES NOT MEAN THAT WHORE AND PROSTITUTE ARE NOT THE EXACT SAME DEFINITIONALLY SPEAKING. EVASION WILL NOT CHANGE THAT FACT. Once again...if you or anyone else reading this thread is tempted to buy into Steve's horrible arguments, place the defintions of prostitute and whore side by side along with the defintion of synonym. This just isn't that hard.

In fact...here they are once again for your reading pleasure, EC:

whore = 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman

prostitute = 1 a : a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse especially for money : WHORE

In case anyone wants to get silly and say that the presence of the word "immoral" in the defintion of "whore" is significant, it isn't. The word "also" indicates that we can also accept (if we chose) that a whore can be a promiscuous OR immoral woman (they don't necessarily have to be both).

Promiscuous is in both defintions. Immoral is a normative term and calling someone "immoral" has more force than simply describing them.

"Prostitute" is descriptive whereas "whore" is descriptive AND normative in nature. This is why whore is often used in a vulgar sense wheras the word prostitute isn't considered to be a vulgar term despite the fact that it describes the same thing as the word "whore."

EC, you made this point earlier when you *Correctly* identified the fact that whore is just a more vulgar way of saying "prostitute." It has normative and descriptive power instead of just having descriptive weight.

Prostitute and whore describe the exact same thing defintionally speaking. The defintion of synonym talks about MEANING (the content as described by the defintion) and not normative implications...so we can see that semantically...prostitute and whore DO mean the SAME thing in ALL cases.

Here are some more of Steve's arguments that are bad:

it would be wrong to call her a prostitute without proving that that new posititve claim to knowledge can coincide with the context of the novel. Since

First you have to accept a standard of proof first. I think most reasonable people can see that my positive claim has been proven in spades so to speak. The context of the novel uses the word "whore" and Steve admits that. I have shown how "whore" and "prostitute" are synonyms in the most strict sense of the word "synonym" which labels a type of words that have the SAME meaning in ALL senses . Thus, I haven't dropped the context of the novel. The words can be swapped out and used interchangeably as I have proven time and time again.

we must have to question any other foreign, outside the novel terms, or synonyms used to describe her, in light of the clear distinction between a "street woman" and a "whore" in the novel.

Once again, "prostitute" isn't a foreign term since defintionally it is EXACTLY the same word in meaning as "whore." Moreover, a street woman is a type of whore. That is why the words are different. You can't just assume that all words are necessarily different from each other AT ALL in meaning just because they are synonyms. Just because there is a clear distinction between whore and street woman doesn't mean that such a difference will necessarily exist between whore and prostitute. In fact...the easiest way to prove that there ISN'T such a clear distinction is to quit being evasive and look at the damn defintions.

So, Kira is very clearly here, NOT a "street woman". So in the novel, in the sense of the novel, you can't even say that a "street woman" and a "whore" are synonyms,

Actually, you can say that they are synonyms in any sense (novel or not)because "whore" and "street woman" have NEARLY (see that word "nearly") the same meaning in SOME senses. Whores and street women both share the fact that they engage in acts of prostitution. They differ in the fact that street woman work on the street. A whore can be a street woman, a call girl, or a one time amateur prostitute that is a gold digger. So they ARE synonyms. Look it up in a thesaurus if you don't believe me. Steve needs to quit using mystical undefined terms like "in the sense of the novel" as well.

What exactly IS "the sense of the novel."

The novel is made up of words. Words have defintions. Defintions can be found in dictionaries. If a word has a defintion OUTSIDE of the dictionary (like a philosophical or legal defintion) then it must be defined in a specialized dictionary (like a law defintion) or defined WITHIN the context of the novel. "Street woman" is consistent with a dictionary defintion of the word "street walker"

Here is the defintion:

street·walk·er

Pronunciation: 'strEt-"wo-k&r

Function: noun

: PROSTITUTE; especially : one who solicits in the streets -- compare CALL GIRL

The novel is compatible with dictionary defintions because Ayn Rand wasn't stupid and didn't make bad word choices or use words in non-intelligble contexts. She wasn't a whim worshiper who said that "street women were penut butter sandwhiches." She didn't make up her OWN defintions whenever she saw fit UNLESS a complex as of yet unknown defintion was unavailable (like the defintion of Objectivism for example...since she started the philosophy and had the burden of defining exactly what the philosophy of Ayn Rand really was). Unless Steve is some Kantian posititing phenomenology or is a resurrection of Plato espousing that silly extra-dimensional form/idea stuff...there is NO reason to use fuzzy defintions and bad terms like "in the sense of the novel" as if the novel had it's own meaning outside of the parameters of it's words... which have strict meanings in the language it was expressed in. There is NO logical reason to accept Steve's silliness that we must look to the "sense of the novel" as if that was incompatible with a simple dictionary or as if the defintion of street woman was context sensitive (imagine a streetwalker only being a streetwalker by virtue of the fact that she whored on a certain street...lol).

I initially was conflicted over whether to post here or not. I decided not to post in response to Steve because I have given him numerous opportunities to make intelligble arguments and he stopped doing so which means that interacting with him (on this subject at least) doesn't give me any benefits whatsoever.

I decided to post for the main reason of protecting the sanctity of truth by showing how explicit counter arguments have already been made on other threads. This debate spans three threads actually...and one of them was closed. I want to make sure that people don't get taken in by Steve's bad arguments and have the full context of what was said which is easily empirically verifiable (all one needs to do is that I quoted Steve exactly in ever case on the other threads and quoted him here as well). I believe that if people have the full context of the evidence that they can rationally judge for themselves unless they are in the business of evasion. If they are evaders, the truth or falsity is really irrelevant to those people anyways. In such cases it doesn't matter which side an evader picks to support, because either choice would be made through the arbitrary whim of such a judge. I don't believe in a malevolent universe. I believe that there are definitely good people worth talking to and worth dealing with. I'm on a board for Objectivists. Unless you prove yourself to be something that isn't Objectivist (subjectivist, anarchist, socialist, satanist, communist, statist, purposeful evader, etc) I give you the benefit of the doubt. That is why I'm posting here.

If anyone other than Steve wishes to take the side of Steve's arguments because they honestly believe them...feel free to debate me so long as you don't ignore every argument I just made as a counterpoint.

Unless such a person exists or really supports Steve, I think such a thread could be closed because I really doubt this debate has much more room to go anywhere. Besides, the forum rules do state that posts "devoid of intellectual content" will not be tolerated. I think it is pretty obvious that MANY of Steve's last posts are so devoid. If you wish to empirically verify that fact, read them and then compare them to mine. I'm confident in my ability to stand before the jury in the marketplace of ideas. Judge and prepare to be judged after all right?

-Evan

Edited January 27, 2006 by Evan

[softwareNerd]

Take heed of what Jennifer posted. At this point, I suggest that neither "side" make any more posts unless they can explain the motivation behind their argument: not just what their position is, but why anyone should care.

[Evan]

Take heed of what Jennifer posted. At this point, I suggest that neither "side" make any more posts unless they can explain the motivation behind their argument: not just what their position is, but why anyone should care.

I explained why people should care about this issue, Softwarenerd. In essence my explanation was simple. I don't want a forum with crappy arguments. Why should we care whether or not there are crappy arguments? Not everyone has the same level of understanding. I want a forum with good arguments so people new to Objectivism don't start thinking A can = whatever the heck anyone wants to put in on the right side of the equals sign? A can only equal non-A if you are an idiot, an evader, or a NON-Objectivist.

I don't think I really have to explain why definitional precision is important (why one word can't mean whatever the heck anybody wants it to mean just by virtue of the fact that they want it) do I? Unless I'm mistaken, I AM dealing with Objectivists on this board who by the simple virtue of accepting the terms and services make an agreement to not post anti-Objectivist ideas. Someone who repeatedly evades any attempt at precise defintion while failing to justify such an evasion, is posting stuff that is devoid of intellectual content (against the forum rules) as well as utilizing subjectivism when making arguments. I have not violated the forum rules in ANY way...either technically OR in spirit. If you believe I violated the rules, I hold you to an objective standard of proof just like I would anyone else. Just because you are a mod doesn't mean you are except from having to make and prove your case. You don't get the "privilege" (yeah right) of the arbitrary any more than I do. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that you ARE being arbitrary or even WOULD be arbitrary. I'm not accusing you of being a board Nazi or being a person corrupted by station. What I AM saying is that, I have absolutely NOTHING to heed, nor have I ever. Jennifer's comments asked Steve why he felt that a synonym was such a big issue in his mind. In essence, she asked him (as I have) to make the distinction in explaining how his claim that there WAS a distinction was important.

That wasn't addressed to me and I wish to make that explicitly clear.

I don't think I really need to explain why someone denying that a key event in a book happened (Kira prostituting herself out to Andrei) would effects its theme and meaning which are essential when critically evaluating a work of art (I can cite the Romantic Manifesto to back this point up as Objectivist if you wish). Semantics are important. The fact that logicians exist in philosophy/mathematics departments can verify the importance of precise meaning. This IS OBJECTIVISMonline.net. Not subjectivismonline.net as you know. You are afterall, a MOD on this forum. You must know this fact better than anyone else. Pointing out crappy arguments and why they are crappy serves an epistomological function for those who are as of yet unable to make the distinction for themselves (due to a lack of formal training in the realm of argumentation or whatever). If you have kept up with the thread in it's entirely and have the FULL context of this issue...then you do not NEED my explanation. It is self evident. If you want my original explanation (as quoted) for why I felt justified in posting here it is:

Here is the quote:

I initially was conflicted over whether to post here or not. I decided not to post in response to Steve because I have given him numerous opportunities to make intelligble arguments and he stopped doing so which means that interacting with him (on this subject at least) doesn't give me any benefits whatsoever.

I decided to post for the main reason of protecting the sanctity of truth by showing how explicit counter arguments have already been made on other threads. This debate spans three threads actually...and one of them was closed. I want to make sure that people don't get taken in by Steve's bad arguments and have the full context of what was said which is easily empirically verifiable (all one needs to do is that I quoted Steve exactly in ever case on the other threads and quoted him here as well). I believe that if people have the full context of the evidence that they can rationally judge for themselves unless they are in the business of evasion. If they are evaders, the truth or falsity is really irrelevant to those people anyways. In such cases it doesn't matter which side an evader picks to support, because either choice would be made through the arbitrary whim of such a judge. I don't believe in a malevolent universe. I believe that there are definitely good people worth talking to and worth dealing with. I'm on a board for Objectivists. Unless you prove yourself to be something that isn't Objectivist (subjectivist, anarchist, socialist, satanist, communist, statist, purposeful evader, etc) I give you the benefit of the doubt. That is why I'm posting here

If you disagree with my justification or my motives, speak now or forever hold your peace. I don't want anyone misconstruing what you said as an "explicit" warning if it is anything but explicit. If you think that I'm not heeding Jennifer's warnings [she didn't warn me btw...she gave me a "hint" concerning the fact that people will often claim that dictionaries are inherently non-objective( I disagree with the automatic supposition that dictionaries are inherently bad or good because such a label ignores the context of what makes a good definition and if any particular defintion meets that standardFrom what I understand, Jennifer agrees with me on that as well).], show me in specific instances, quotes, or some empirical fashion. If you don't, then do not include me when you say, "I suggest that either side....."

Let me once again stress that my purpose is NOT beligerence towards you for any reason, nor is my purpose to anger you. I just take this issue EXTREMELY serious and I think that the moral justification is clearly on my side. If you have ANY doubts to that at all, take a survey of all three threads and read them thoroughly. My purpose when addressing you OR anyone on this thread is clairity (regardless of what post you cite)

-Evan

Edited January 27, 2006 by Evan

[intellectualammo]

At this point, I suggest that neither "side" make any more posts unless they can explain the motivation behind their argument: not just what their position is, but why anyone should care.

Okay. This is my last reply, sofwareNERD. Evan made the last reply, I at least will take the chance now, since the thread is still open, to say that I am still in disagreement with Evan as I was from the very beginning of all of this, when he labeled what Kira did to Andrei as "prostitution" and later calling her a "prostitute." I also will say that Evan was right, I have stated before that I do have trouble with reading comprehension, but that had to do with other questions I had had on other topics, not necessarily with this topic. After reading all of Evan's replies, I can see that I have had no problems with reading comprehension with the current topic. SoftwareNERD, I replied, restating my position, because I did not want to sanction anything in his last reply.

My "motivation" behind my arguments was/is to not sanction Evan incorrectly identifying, incorrectly describing what Kira did to Andrei as "prostitution". It was not prostitution.

My next "motivation" was making sure a person knows whether or not that they have the epistemological right to use specific synonomous words interchangeably when referring to a character in a novel, especially when the definition of synonym is examined and applied correctly. She was not a prostitute, in the sense of the novel, for she did not engage in prostitution with Andrei, and if the synonym "prostitute" is to even, at best, be applied correctly at all to the novel, in the sense of the novel, I have to wonder why he called Kira a "prostitute" when the "street women" in the novel, who it is undoubtedly implied that they engage in prostitution, are nearer synonyms, than Kira and one.

Reading comprehended.

[Groovenstein]

SN's name does not appear in all caps, so why did you put the Nerd part in all caps? Also, placing words in quotation marks can be an indication of belittling or sarcasm. Why did you put motivation in quotation marks?

You and Evan both have used words or symbols indicating emphasis in ways that could suggest some attitude. Let me nip that in the bud right now. Give some thought to whether you would like to be here for long, and if so, whether giving lip to an administrator is a good way to achieve that goal.

[intellectualammo]

SN's name does not appear in all caps, so why did you put the Nerd part in all caps?

Thank you for pointing out the error I made. I thought that when I looked at his name, the last part was in all caps. I absolutely did not do it intentionally as emphasis, or as sarcasm. Just a simple error on my part. I also have no problems with the mod, as my reponses and so forth will show.

Also, placing words in quotation marks can be an indication of belittling or sarcasm. Why did you put motivation in quotation marks?

Why? Definately not for sarcasm or anything of that nature. I only put it into quotations, (it was actually put into italics by softwareNerd), to emphasis that I was making a response to what he suggested we reply to, "motivation" behind the arguments, if we want to continue. I put it into quotations for emphasis only, to indicate that in my reply I was addressing "motivation". I'm not a person here who has any problem with what the mods have done so far in regards to the topics I have posted.

Thanks for making me aware of my spelling mistake with softwareNerd's name.

[Evan]

You and Evan both have used words or symbols indicating emphasis in ways that could suggest some attitude. Let me nip that in the bud right now.

Well, Groovenstein...as I pointed out to softwarenerd (and Steve for that matter), if you are going to make positive assertions, you too have the burden of proof. If you are going to make suggestions that I have an attitude problem based on words and symbols that I have supposedly used, first you need to actually show that instead of just suggesting it. Any accusations of bad conduct that needs to be "nipped in the bud" should be highlighted so that way we aren't dealing in vagueries. I value precision. I hope that isn't a problem.

Saying things like, "you have used words indicating emphasis in ways that could suggest attitude" aren't helpful. Please, let's get past the suggestions and possibilities here. Either I have attitude or I don't. Please don't suggest that I might or might not. That isn't useful for my understanding or anyone else's understanding on this board. I'm a rational guy. If you show me a problem, I can fix it. Dancing around it serves no purpose.

Moreover, what do you mean by "words and symbols." Words ARE symbols linguistically speaking (take semiotics if you don't believe me), so if you separate the two with the word "and" you are making a distinction here that is pretty important. I didn't use any graphic representations of words or concepts. I didn't take a symbolic action like flipping anyone off (not like you could see it anyway) so what are you talking about when you say "symbols?"

If you wish to take the position that I have attitude, I suggest you prove that having attitude a bad thing.

at·ti·tude

4 a :a mental position with regard to a fact or state b : a feeling or emotion toward a fact or state

7 a : a negative or hostile state of mind

Attitude is clearly a state of mind or a mannerism adopted in response to facts or states.. It is PROPER to have negative attitudes towards negative facts or states. I don't believe that an Objectivist should have a "good attitude" (good state of mind or emotion) towards subjectivism whether it is put forth on objectivismonline.net in a classroom or on the news. Emotions are automated responses to facts. Facts are derrived from contexts. Thus there isn't any "one size fits all" emotion that is proper for every situation irrespective of what is going on. That is why the term "Good attitude" is a bromide that people use to support the WORST things.

For example: A bright kid that is bored out of his skull in public school is told to have a "good attitude" to the compulsory education system that forces him to be in classes that offer him little to no value. If you wish to say that what I have said here on this thread has attitude, you're damn right it does. I make no apologies for being against "smiling diplomacy." I went through Steve's original arguments with the intention of helping him and trying to provide clarity. In fact he PRAISED me for it. Anybody who suggests that I have a bad attitidude needs to go back and see how the debate started and how EVEN Steve thanked me in that thread for being clear, patient, etc. On the original thread I was praised for this and Steve asked relatively decent question. Then he stopped and kept repeating the same bad arguments as if they were his personal mantra.

I have also shown how it is against forum rules to make posts "devoid of intellectual content" and how Steve violates that fact in MANY of his lasts post (like the last one for example). I make no apologies for having attitude towards a forum violator.

Give some thought to whether you would like to be here for long, and if so, whether giving lip to an administrator is a good way to achieve that goal.

You are clearly talking to both of Steve and I here as what I just quoted is found immediately proceeding the "you and Evan" line. Thus, I feel obligated to respond. I did NOT "give lip" to an administrator unless by "give lip" you mean disagree intellectually which is NOT a bad thing as you imply. Softwarenerd and you aren't above intellectual disagreement by virtue of the fact that you are a mod or an admin as I'm sure both you and softwarenerd realize. That is the equivalent of arguing from authority which is a logical fallacy. Mods and admins aren't above reproach or disagreement. When they post arguments on various threads, they don't suddenly lose the burden of proof when they make positive claims just because they have the little text saying "mod" or "admin" under their username. They don't magically not have to prove their assertions or respond to good arguments (if they expect to be taken seriously at least) either.

Me pointing that out isn't "giving lip" or being deviant/bad in some way. All it shows it that I value good argumentation and precision. I am pointing out a true fact and a true argument that is objectively true. If that is "giving lip" then I have no problem with such a label. If you wish to suggest that I have given lip to ANY administrator, stop being vague and show me exactly where and how I have "given lip" to an administrator. For that matter, would it hurt to define that as well? If my future on this board is being threatened by accusations that I'm "giving lip" to administrators, then I have a right to no exactly what that as-of-yet undefined term is or how I supposedly meet it's defintional criteria.

If you wish to use this very post as an example, that is fine. I have done nothing wrong and I have justified each one of my arguments and problems with what has been said. I haven't started preaching subjectivism or some philosophy in oppositional to Objectivism nor have I used vulgarities, attacks on a person's character, or accusations of irrationality. This post can certainly not be misconstrued as "devoid of intellectual content" as the content can be found in the arguments I made...which were GOOD arguments. It is GOOD to demand that mods (or anyone for that matter) define their terms instead of being vague.

If you wish to say that such actions are tantamount to "giving lip" (whatever that means) or devoid of intellectual content somehow, then I want no part of this board.

A board that would discourage an honest Objectivist that demands precision and makes clear arguments is not a board I want any part of.

Good day.

-Evan

As far as why and how I use quotes in the way I do, here is an explanation. I use quotes prolifically in my writing so that way there isn't any confusion. If I quote you saying "giving lip" it isn't sarcasm or me demeaning you. If I'm going to be sarcastic or demeaning, it will be obvious because I will label them as such. When I use quotes it is so that way it highlights the fact that I'm responding to words that I myself did not use.

When I said, "Show me how I'm 'giving lip'" that was not intended to be sarcastic. It is to show that I'm using someone else's term (your term in this example) so that way it can't be misconstrued that I'm putting words into anyone's mouth If it is really clear in those cases (like in the example I just gave you) that I'm using the other person's words. This leaves no room for people to be evasive and claim that I'm putting words in their mouth or that I straw manned their position by using words that they themselves didn't use.

People who say, "I didn't use that exact word...you aren't responding to what I really said" would have to be convinced at that point by me going back to the defintion of synonym and showing how I conform to it. That is too much of a pain in the butt, so I just use quotes instead so that way I avoid what we in debate call a "time suck."

I also use quotes like I did just there with the term "time suck" to identify the fact that the phrase shouldn't be taken literally and to highlight it as important. In the case of this thread, I used quotes (and so did Steve) a ton so we could keep track of important terms.

When I'm talking about the defintion of the word "whore" I need to use quotes.

Otherwise my sentences look like this:

Steve, You fail to meet the defintional requirements of the word whore.

See how that reads? Someone would probably try to stupidly imply that there is a person who is a "word whore" who mysteriously has defintional requirments that Steve failed to meet. Perhaps might think that I forgot a comma after the word, "word," which would be unfortunate because then they would think that I was insulting Steve like:

Steve, you fail to meet the definitional requirements of the word, whore.

That would DEFINITELY not be my intention which is why I use quotes. It prevents even more confusion when you are engaged in a defintional debate. I have no intended sarcasm or shadowy purpose when I use quotes. It is a measure I use for clarity.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Evan

[intellectualammo]

I have also shown how it is against forum rules to make posts "devoid of intellectual content" and how Steve violates that fact in MANY of his lasts post (like the last one for example). I make no apologies for having attitude towards a forum violator.

A "forum violator"? Wow, I will make absolutely sure that a mod does see that quote, so that they can pronounce that judgement upon me, if they think that my replies were "devoid of intellectual content".