Choosing your values


RobinReborn

Recommended Posts

Objectivism holds that an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness. How exactly an individual does this varies from person to person because people have different values. Happiness can be relatively easy to achieve if your values match up with what people consider to be needs ie food, clothing and shelter. If your values are to be rich and/or famous you'll have a harder time achieving them and might spend your entire life unhappy. If you have too many values, you might find that pursuing one limits your ability to pursue another.

What is the rational and conscious way of choosing your values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds that an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness. How exactly an individual does this varies from person to person because people have different values. Happiness can be relatively easy to achieve if your values match up with what people consider to be needs ie food, clothing and shelter. If your values are to be rich and/or famous you'll have a harder time achieving them and might spend your entire life unhappy. If you have too many values, you might find that pursuing one limits your ability to pursue another.

What is the rational and conscious way of choosing your values?

The answer is in your question.

--Brant

who are you, btw, and are you from Georgia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds...

I have a real problem groking this...

It's not the notion of looking into the Objectivist canon and finding arguments, stipulations, axioms, examples, etc.

It's the false authority of Mr. or Ms. "Objectivism Holds" in the presupposition and the false transfer of authority to the person starting a statement that way, however partial that may be, that makes it hard for me to grok.

I hold my own mind to be sovereign. I already have enough trouble with my genes, history, social environment and reality in general.

The volition left over is mine and mine alone.

I don't need to bow to any other authority.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds...

I have a real problem groking this...

It's not the notion of looking into the Objectivist canon and finding arguments, stipulations, axioms, examples, etc.

It's the false authority of Mr. or Ms. "Objectivism Holds" in the presupposition and the false transfer of authority to the person starting a statement that way, however partial that may be, that makes it hard for me to grok.

I hold my own mind to be sovereign. I already have enough trouble with my genes, history, social environment and reality in general.

The volition left over is mine and mine alone.

I don't need to bow to any other authority.

Michael

I'm not sure what you mean by grok.

If you disagree with my interpretation of Objectivism, let me know. If you value having a sovereign mind more than following Objectivism, that's fine but I think following Objectivism (while still questioning it) will help you achieve your goals. And what's the value of having a sovereign mind or volition if you don't use it to pursue your values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with "Objectivism holds" is it doesn't hold anything. It's other people telling you their ideas telling you it's "Objectivism," including Ayn Rand. Here's the current classical sequence: Peikoff holds that Rand holds that Objectivism holds. It's only a sequence of authorities. Now that Rand is dead he can ball it up to Rand-Objectivism. After studying Rand a lifetime he's the world-class authority on the catechism. The irony is he's not professionally qualified to be a philosopher, only the teacher of the catechism. That's because he's inside it looking out, not outside it looking in. When you run any philosophy between you and reality, reality becomes opaque. This does not mean there's not great value in the philosophy. It's up to interested all and sundry to jump into the Objectivism bucket and root around for it. Just remember the bucket has no brain--that's not it's job. It has no job. It has no authority. It put not one thing into itself, not even the label. So don't forget to breathe the oxygen of reason.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism holds that an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness. How exactly an individual does this varies from person to person because people have different values.

Yes, people do have different values, but not all values are consistent with Objectivism. You can choose between being a musician specializing in works of certain Romantic composers or a guitarist who expresses himself in "wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy." You can choose between being an industrialist or "the driver of a hotrod car" ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, pb 31).

The best way to choose values in accordance with Objectivism is to read the words of Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by grok.

Google is your friend.

If you disagree with my interpretation of Objectivism, let me know. If you value having a sovereign mind more than following Objectivism, that's fine but I think following Objectivism (while still questioning it) will help you achieve your goals. And what's the value of having a sovereign mind or volition if you don't use it to pursue your values?

I don't agree or disagree with your interpretation of Objectivism.

I disregard it.

If that stings, I suggest you check a premise or two about your own motivations.

You will find no flock to be gathered here.

Only independent minds who stand for their own thinking. We all just happen to like Rand's works, or were impacted by them, but there are a lot of different disagreements and applications. There is no "Objectivism holds (yada yada yada)."

There is no preaching.

That's one of the main reasons people come to OL.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by grok.

From the Robert Heinlein novel "Stranger in a Strange Land" To grok something is to comprehend it to the fullest. To completely understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with "Objectivism holds" is it doesn't hold anything. It's other people telling you their ideas telling you it's "Objectivism," including Ayn Rand. Here's the current classical sequence: Peikoff holds that Rand holds that Objectivism holds. It's only a sequence of authorities. Now that Rand is dead he can ball it up to Rand-Objectivism. After studying Rand a lifetime he's the world-class authority on the catechism. The irony is he's not professionally qualified to be a philosopher, only the teacher of the catechism. That's because he's inside it looking out, not outside it looking in. When you run any philosophy between you and reality, reality becomes opaque. This does not mean there's not great value in the philosophy. It's up to interested all and sundry to jump into the Objectivism bucket and root around for it. Just remember the bucket has no brain--that's not it's job. It has no job. It has no authority. It put not one thing into itself, not even the label. So don't forget to breathe the oxygen of reason.

--Brant

I believe in rationality, but I think there needs to be some basic premises that Objectivists agree upon or it's a string of arbitrary assertions connected by reason. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's basically the same as being a rationalist and not all rationalists are Objectivists. Here's a Rand quote (note she uses the word holds just as I did).

"My Philosophy, Objectivsm, holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

  2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

  3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

  4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church"

I'd assume that most Objectivists would agree with the first three, but not necessarily the last one.

Objectivism holds that an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness. How exactly an individual does this varies from person to person because people have different values.

Yes, people do have different values, but not all values are consistent with Objectivism. You can choose between being a musician specializing in works of certain Romantic composers or a guitarist who expresses himself in "wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy." You can choose between being an industrialist or "the driver of a hotrod car" ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, pb 31).

The best way to choose values in accordance with Objectivism is to read the words of Ayn Rand.

Thanks! I think choosing values has a lot to do with who you are as an individual and reading Ayn Rand can only help so much.

I'm not sure what you mean by grok.

Google is your friend.

If you disagree with my interpretation of Objectivism, let me know. If you value having a sovereign mind more than following Objectivism, that's fine but I think following Objectivism (while still questioning it) will help you achieve your goals. And what's the value of having a sovereign mind or volition if you don't use it to pursue your values?

I don't agree or disagree with your interpretation of Objectivism.

I disregard it.

If that stings, I suggest you check a premise or two about your own motivations.

You will find no flock to be gathered here.

Only independent minds who stand for their own thinking. We all just happen to like Rand's works, or were impacted by them, but there are a lot of different disagreements and applications. There is no "Objectivism holds (yada yada yada)."

There is no preaching.

That's one of the main reasons people come to OL.

Michael

I'm not trying to gather a flock or preach. I am asking a question based on my understanding of Objetivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not whether a statement about Objectivism is right or wrong and isn't this and that one obviously right? It's about appeals to authority. Such are not truly congruent with Objectivism. I know you were speaking in shorthand, but that form is kinda bad. Almost everybody here knows what Objectivism "holds." We don't need Objectivism 101. If this were Objectivism 101, then you'd only be a fellow classmate standing up in the middle of class declaiming on it. So when you relate this "hold" stuff you are talking down to us, whatever your intention.

Reactively is another matter, but you started the thread this way. OL is a difficult place to come into ignorant of what goes on here.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking a question based on my understanding of Objetivism.

That's great.

In my understanding of Objectivism, an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness.

I have no problem with a statement like that.

Objectivism holds an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness.

That sounds to me like someone is trying to be an authority, a guru wannabe, and that sets off my warning bells.

Why only your understanding and not "Objectivism holds"?

Because your statement insinuates rationality is the only thing involved. And that's misleading if you are speaking about Objectivism as a whole.

It is true Rand holds happiness to be "that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values" (from Galt's speech), but this is based on cardinal values: reason, purpose, self-esteem, morality, creativeness, sexual pleasure, and joy, and virtues: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.

I gleaned these from Galt's speech, but there are probably more she mentioned. I've never dived deep enough into this to make a full list. (Note, some people talk about "the three cardinal values" because of her essay in The Virtue of Selfishness, where she claims three are the basis of Objectivist ethics, along with three corresponding virtues, but that's not all she identified as cardinal values or virtues.)

Also, productive work is the value that serves as the standard to make ordinal values. I'm being a bit of a smart-ass here to use the term "ordinal values" because Rand based her concept formation on algebra, so I imagine cardinal values to be fixed and ordered like cardinal numbers are, and ordinal values to be ordered by comparison. I am unaware that Rand ever used the term "ordinal values," though. Instead, she talked a lot about hierarchy of values.

Please note that rationality is one virtue among several to help achieve happiness. That is if you really want to talk about what "Objectivism holds" and actually look at what Rand wrote instead of doing a Dear Abby kind of thing.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my understanding of Objectivism:

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues"

Ayn Rand

(This motivated my post elsewhere on Artificial Intelligence and Objectivism... if you believe computers can be more rational than humans than they could also be more virtuous than humans... an interesting dilemma.)

However, reminding me of the other vitures mentioned in the virtue of selfishness is useful, it's been a long time since I've read that book so perhaps a rereading is in order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my understanding of Objectivism:

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues"

Ayn Rand

(This motivated my post elsewhere on Artificial Intelligence and Objectivism... if you believe computers can be more rational than humans than they could also be more virtuous than humans... an interesting dilemma.)

...

Read the next paragraph where you got that, an explanation of what rationality is. Computers in 2014/2015 can't be rational. They can't recognize and accept reason as their only source of knowledge; they can't have awareness and focus; they can't perceive reality; they don't know that they exist; they don't have goals and values; and so on thru that long paragraph.

Computers have no intelligence of their own. They just follow instructions. Computers can't think but can extend the power of thought. Like a telescope can't see but can extend the power of sight. And a microphone can't speak but can extend the power of the voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my understanding of Objectivism:

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues"

Ayn Rand

(This motivated my post elsewhere on Artificial Intelligence and Objectivism... if you believe computers can be more rational than humans than they could also be more virtuous than humans... an interesting dilemma.)

However, reminding me of the other vitures mentioned in the virtue of selfishness is useful, it's been a long time since I've read that book so perhaps a rereading is in order.

~

If a computer can't be irrational it can't be rational, only non-rational--which is a computer right now and which a computer has always been. Rationality is a profoundly moral issue and all moral issues are free will issues.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the limits of computers (current) rationality is that their values are simple. Watson beat humans at Jeopardy, but doing so was its only value. Same with Deep Blue, its only value was winning chess games.

Humans have more complicated codes of values than computers, but that doesn't mean they'll achieve as much as computers. They may be able to do so, but to maximize their success they have to prioritize their values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, you could say the same thing about most humans. Their values come from parents, society and their DNA. Surely you must feel that society exerts some pressure on you to accept certain values.

Though computers are programmed by humans, they are sometimes programmed in complicated ways that lead to behavior which can't be predicted by humans. You can say they have no values, but if a computer beats a human at chess it's not much of a stretch to say that the computer values winning at chess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, you could say the same thing about most humans. Their values come from parents, society and their DNA. Surely you must feel that society exerts some pressure on you to accept certain values.

Though computers are programmed by humans, they are sometimes programmed in complicated ways that lead to behavior which can't be predicted by humans. You can say they have no values, but if a computer beats a human at chess it's not much of a stretch to say that the computer values winning at chess.

If a car goes from point A to point B, does the car value going from point A to point B? If a hammer (wielded by a human) drives a nail, does the hammer value driving the nail? A computer is as stupid as a box of rocks. A computer merely does what it is told to do. The instructions are called a program. When a computer plays chess at Elo 3200 (highest human Elo ever: 2882), using instructions called Komodo or Stockfish, it is still as stupid as a box of rocks. It looks smart because the programmers who made Komodo or Stockfish are smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, you could say the same thing about most humans. Their values come from parents, society and their DNA. Surely you must feel that society exerts some pressure on you to accept certain values.

Though computers are programmed by humans, they are sometimes programmed in complicated ways that lead to behavior which can't be predicted by humans. You can say they have no values, but if a computer beats a human at chess it's not much of a stretch to say that the computer values winning at chess.

If a car goes from point A to point B, does the car value going from point A to point B? If a hammer (wielded by a human) drives a nail, does the hammer value driving the nail? A computer is as stupid as a box of rocks. A computer merely does what it is told to do. The instructions are called a program. When a computer plays chess at Elo 3200 (highest human Elo ever: 2882), using instructions called Komodo or Stockfish, it is still as stupid as a box of rocks. It looks smart because the programmers who made Komodo or Stockfish are smart.

Human values are often achieved with the aid of tools and usually the human is credited with the accomplishment, rather than the tool. But tools are growing increasingly complicated and the average human understands them less and less. As the tools become more and more powerful (assuming there's no a stop in their exponential growth or some sort of luddite revolution), they'll be more and more responsible for human achievements. You can attribute all of human accomplishment to the human mind, but the tools of earlier humans are critical to human survival.

You can attribute intelligence to the programmers of Komodo or Stockfish, but they only look intelligent because they were able to leverage technologies (not all of which they developed themselves) to beat humans at a game which could be reduced to a set of problems which are relatively easy to analyze on a symbolic machine.

Genetic Algorithms are a subset of Artificial Intelligence. If you can specify a problem and a satisfaction criteria (ie, explain how good or bad a potential solution is, basically specify a value the computer is trying to accomplish), you can use randomness to create approximate solutions which will incrementally improve. That's one form of Artificial Intelligence which can be said to have values and purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now