About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 5:06pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Not all values are universal - but viable values are.... however, values must first be discovered, then grasped and understood - and in earlier times, before such viable values were known [or some at any rate], then context must be use in judgment making... BUT - once such viable values ARE discovered, grasped and understood - then they're applicable to all humans, wherever they reside, even if not recognised by the authorities and brethrens...



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

To Each His Own

Just as are thoughts, all values are values of individual persons. Some values are objectively valid at a certain level of abstraction for all people who wish to live happy lives. For example, good nutrition could be said to be a universal value but in the particular circumstance it may mean limiting sugar for diabetics and increasing carb intake for laborers or drinking milk for children but avoiding milk for the lactose intolerant adult.

Much of this comes down to an individual's biology and psychology, and while you may look good wearing primary colors, I only look good in earth tones. Freedom and the rule of law are indeed universal values, but most of life involves the pursuit of optional values which vary according to our individual natures. The subject of values per se is much too vast to explore in a few short words. They range from universal political principals to which Dr.Machan alludes to personal and perhaps unique aesthetic choices. Objectivism deals well with the first, but dismisses much of the latter as "matters of taste." But in a society where our universal political values are for the most part secured, most of our lives are lead pursuing values for which Objectivism provides no real guidance other than Rand's own aesthetics as expressed by her praise of such things as smoking, cats, and the color blue-green. In so far as Objectivists are concerned, I think toleration for the values of others which do not harm us is a good way to look at others, and exploring ways to maximize our own long-term joy is the best rule of thumb for our own aesthetic choices.

That raises the question, "What is joy?" Joy is not hedonism. Hedonistic pleasures are sensations which last only so long as the stimulus that prompts them. Joy is the non-localized (i.e., not on the tongue or the skin) cognitive pleasure of the contemplation of a value whether it be expected, experienced, or recalled. Getting drunk might bring pleasure but it never brings about joy in retrospect. Joy about a value can be experienced in perspective of the past, present and future. The best personal values, pride in one's honesty and accomplishments, the knowledge of great goods pursued and obtained, these are the joys that comprise a happy life. Objectivism provides no list, we each have to devise our own.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/13, 12:34pm)




Post 2

Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
  Even the values of words change when we take the connotational and denotational aspects of them, consider these statements and the opposites of them 1)rational animal 2) successful abortion 3) temporary insanity.  Would that then make it  irrational  Human , unsuccessful pregnancy  and permanent sanity?    Interesting  



Post 3

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 12:18amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Brunton,

While this response of mine is purely semantic/pedantic, that only rarely prevents me from contribution. In your post about opposites, you change -- midstream -- about what it is that constitutes an opposite of something. You wrote:

1)rational animal 2) successful abortion 3) temporary insanity.  Would that then make it  irrational  Human , unsuccessful pregnancy  and permanent sanity?
Each of the 3 examples which you gave include an adjective and a noun. In the 1st example, you change the adjective (to its opposite) but you indirectly keep the noun (i.e., humans are technically animals; the opposite of animate things would be inanimate things). However, in the 2nd and 3rd examples, you change both the adjective and the noun to their respective opposites. That -- while possibly merely an innocent error of focus -- is contradictory.

Furthermore, it is a common use of language -- when stating the opposite of a qualified noun -- to keep the same noun and simply reverse the adjective. Examples would then be things such as ...

The opposite of "capital gains" is capital loss
The opposite of a "positive number" is the negative of that same number
Etc.

Ed




Post 4

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 2:26amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I was discussing political values or principles and whether they are lasting, stable so that if it is true that individuals have rights, is this true in 1776 AD, 500 BC, and 2007 AD.  Of course, there are many individual values that are not universal (although objective), but that wasn't the issue I was addressing. (Oddly, nearly every contribution I make to RoR generates comments that seem completely off point.  Go figure!)



Post 5

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I granted your political point in case you missed it, Tibor. But the headline you chose raised questions which I decided to answer. Your remark that I went beyond the subject you wished to address could quite easily be countered with the suggestion that you say exactly what you mean. Had you added Political to the title, the entire future history of the world might have been different.

Was anything I said in my post confusing? Or do you exclude me from your general dismay? One would think that published writers would know how to say what they mean and that philosophers on a public forum would have something more to say about a respectful contribution than that its scope fell outside his intended purview. Go figure!

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/15, 1:34pm)




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Saturday, December 15, 2007 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
" ... if it is true that individuals have rights, is this true in 1776 AD, 500 BC, and 2007 AD[?]"
Yes, because rights aren't derived/originated from any specific Governing Body or even from any specific Society, they originate from a specific Identity (of humans).

This is what Rand meant when she said (in a 1972 Ford Hall Forum) that: " ... men are endowed with rights by ... Nature" and it is what she meant when she wrote (in PWNI, The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made) that: " ... the philosophical system based on the axiom of the primacy of existence (i.e., on recognizing the absolutism of reality) led to the recognition of man's ... rights."

Ed




Post 7

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 1:57amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Titles really are just that, titles. The content of the piece made clear it was about political ideas. My comment about folks getting sidetracked was more general, historical--I have noticed that whenever one of my missives generates lots of comments, after one or two they tend to go off in directions having nearly nothing at all to do with my theme(s).  At times, when I feel a bit paranoid, I am tempted to think this is deliberate--so as to indicate how little my theme actually matters.  Alas, those are rare moments. :-)



Post 8

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dr. Machan,

I can assure you that not all sidetracks are deliberate -- and, instead, merely made by someone with too short of an attention span to fully digest and grasp the scope of what it is that you have written. I know this to be true because I am an example of it! Earlier in this very thread, I was pulled "off the track" in order to pedantically settle a side-point made by another "side-tracker."

I've never been diagnosed with Adult Attention Deficit Disorder; but would not be surprised if I was. I find myself having to break up another's argument into several small points in order to effectively deal with it. I notice that that's not true of some others here. I find it very energy-costly to think -- so I adjust the scope of my attention accordingly, in order to be effective.

In fact, my argumentative method & style has been noted by others (Rodney Rawlings called it "staccato"-style reasoning) and I've even been criticized for it (MSK disparagingly referred to my "short quote-counterpoint-short quote-counterpoint" posts as "tiger-striped" and he asked me not to break up his written words so much). Phil Coates has also had a few choice words for me regarding my method & style.

Bottom Line:
At least some sidetracks are explained by the extensive depth & breadth of your thoughts, coupled with a few participants who have a hard time finishing the task of fully digesting and grasping what it is that you said -- rather than hijacking the thread merely out of any kind of mischievousness.

Ed



Post 9

Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I don't post on a topic that I don't find interesting. The thoughts I expressed both addressed poloitcal values - which are objectively universal even if people don't recognize it - and other values which are not. Perhaps, if the relativists understood the difference between which values are particular or uniquely personal - say a couple's homosexual love for each other - and which are universal, such as human rights and the rule of law, then we wouldn't have the disgusting spectacle of gays and feminists marching in our streets to oppose the overthrow of the Taliban because it is GWB, a devote Christian, protecting these naive and coddled secularist children from an enemy which would kill them for their personal values in the name of its theocratic "ideals."

I think one has to address particular and universal values together in order to allow for diversity without embracing or tacitly supporting relativism.

As for people hijacking threads, it happens to the best of us. You can present a man with wisdom but you can't make him think. I won't apologize for some posts here and elsewhere which seem to be not non-sequiturs, but rather epileptic fits. Nonetheless, there is no need for paranoia. I simply make an additional post on a thread which I think is getting off track, and refer not to the diversions of others, but to the direction in which I want to go.

Ted Keer

PS, what is the Magyar verb for "dutzen" or "tutoyer" and do you mind my "Dutzung" here? A funny anecdote. I study linguistics and have surveyed the Uralic tongues as well as many other linguistic phyla. I am half Ruthenian from what is now Transcarpathian Ukraine and what was, when my forbears left it, the NE frontier of AustoHungary. I have been mistaken by Hungarians for a Hungarian myself. I sat on the train on the day before this last Thanksgiving, listening to three travelers speaking a foreign tongue, and when I recognized it, I spontaneously spurted "A magyar nyelv!" I was immediately bombarded with inquiries in Hungarian. They did not speak English and I could only make my apologies understood when I said. "Ja nje ponimaju, Ja nje Magyar, Ja Ukrainetz" in my broken pseudo-slavic. They smiled politely, and ignored me for the rest of the trip.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/16, 12:55pm)




Post 10

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Sorry my Hungarian is barely functional--I lack the pracatice and it takes me days of struggle with it to recover enough to carry on a conversation. (And my relatives, those sneaky ones, all speak very good English!) All I know is that Hungarian is a Fin-Ugoric language. Only a few words, like "vaj," are the same in both Finnish and Hungarian ("vaj" means butter). When a Hungarian hears Finns speaking from far off, they sound like they are speaking in Hungarian. (I assume the revers is also the case.)




Post 11

Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

I simply know, as a bit of random accretion, that "a magyar nyelv" literally means "the Magyar tongue." Finnish and Hungarian aren't particularly close (no more close than English is to Russian) but both have a similar avoidance of initial consonant clusters, and stress on their first syllables. Here are the Lord's Prayer in each from christusrex.org which lists that prayer in several hundred languages:

FINNISH

Isä meidän, joka olet taivaissa.
Pyhitetty olkoon sinun nimesi.
Tulkoon sinun valtakuntasi.
Tapahtukoon sinun tahtosi myös maan päällä niin kuin taivaassa.
Anna meille tänä päivänä jokapäiväinen leipämme.
Ja anna meille anteeksi velkamme,
niin kuin mekin annamme anteeksi velallisillemme.
Äläkä saata meitä kiusaukseen,
vaan päästä meidät pahasta.
(Sillä sinun on valtakunta
ja voima ja kunnia iankaikkisesti.)
Aamen.

HUNGARIAN

Mi Atyánk, aki a mennyekben vagy,
szenteltessék meg a te neved;
jöjjön el a te országod;
legyen meg a te akaratod,
amint a mennyben, úgy a földön is.
Mindennapi kenyerünket add meg nekünk ma;
és bocsásd meg vétkeinket,
miképpen mi is megbocsátunk
az ellenünk vétkezöknek;
és ne vígy minket kísértésbe;
de szabadíts meg a gonosztól!
Ámen.

It is interesting that the last two words of the second line of each example is "thy name," in Hungarian te neved and in Finnish sinun nimesi. Finno-Ugric and Indo-European share the same roots for the words name, thy, water and much else, and Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Finno-Ugric can be shown to be related in a large trans-Siberian family that also includes Turkic, Mongol, Korean, Japanese and Eskimo-Aleut, as well as the less well known Siberian tribal tongues Nivkh, Yukaghir, and the Chukchi-Kamchatkan phylum. Most of these groups are either horse or reindeer herders, and their origins probably lie in a group of dog-sled Lapplander-like hunter-gatherers who lived near Lake Baikal at the end of the last ice age. The original Hungarian homeland lies to the SE of Yekaterinburg.

Ted Keer



Post 12

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 12:46amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The Hungarian word for "exaplain" happens to be "to render into Hungarian," or "elmagyarazni." Cool!



Post 13

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Well, since we are hijacking your thread, the common East European name Nimitz = Nemec = Namath comes from the Slavic ethnonym for Germans, and literally means "he doesn't speak [Slavic]." The word Slav itself may be the same as the Slavic root slov- "word" Deutsch, Dutch, and Tedeschi, (i.e., Teuton) are congeners of Latin totus ("all" - i.e., "everyone") and Irish Tuatha. The origins of Magyar have been attributed to a root found in the ethnonymn Mansi meaning "man" and the root Ar- meaning noble. This analysis is controversial, since these are Indo-Europen roots. But it is quite certain that Uralic (Finno-Ugric plus Samoyed) and Altaic (Turkish/Mognol/Manchu/Korean/Japanese) are the closest relatives of Indo European. The Indo-European ethnonym Aryo-(man-) means "noble" and is reflected in the names of Iran, Armenia, and perhaps Ireland. The word Aryan, was co-opted by certain Nazi-favored racists. But the term applies equally to Slavs, Hindus, Spaniards and Greeks. Indeeed, the same root is found in Aristotle.

World-wide, the most common word of an ethnicity for itself is "the people" or often, "the real people." But the name "the enemies" is also common, and is adduced to explain the ethnonyms Sioux and Comanche.

Finally, a root similar to DVNV- is worldwide

Tuatha de Danaan - an Irish tribe
Danaos - a name for the Greeks
Diné - Navajo

This may be a word that refers to settled land along a river or coast. E.g., Den-mark, Danube, and even the Canadian territory of Nunavut (with d>n) meaning "our land." The names Kalaalit Nun-aat and Den-mark may turn out to be extreme eastern and western synonyms separated by an order of ten millennia.

Ted Keer



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.