An End In Itself

[Dglgmut]

As I brought up in another thread, Rand made the point that in order for our actions to be guided by reason, we must have an ultimate end in mind--an end in itself. She believed that life was an end in itself.

This obviously doesn't represent her view accurately, for we can conclude from this assertion that simply surviving as long as possible is a reason to be alive in the first place, and that would contradict many of her other premises.

What, then, is our end in itself? If we assume simple organisms can experience pleasure, then pleasure becomes their end in itself. Not life, but pleasure. The fact that they derive pleasure from life sustaining activity is coincidental, and for this reason they have been naturally selected.

Animals can associate pleasure and pain with entities, and emotions bridge the gap between perception and sensation. They anticipate pleasure or pain, and that anticipation is the most primary level of emotion.

Human beings anticipate pleasure and pain, but they can also anticipate emotions... Like an advanced chess player who can see many moves ahead, not looking to take pieces but to put himself in a particular position, human beings anticipate so far ahead that pleasure and pain become less important than the guiding emotions; being in position to obtain something becomes at least as good as having it, and further, being in position to obtain a position is at least as good as having the latter position. And this is how pleasure has become so far removed from the level of happiness we seek.

The end in itself, for human beings, is happiness. The only reason for us to do anything is that it would result in more happiness. The only thing that makes life worth living is happiness.

That being said, our task then becomes identifying the sources of happiness (effectively increasing our anticipation). Rand used human nature, and many of her own theories, in attempt to identify as many sources of happiness as she could (though she wouldn't have agreed). If she had known that's what she was doing, she may have been more open to the importance of social relationships (they don't fit with her life-as-an-end-in-itself premise).

It makes sense that we would derive happiness from forming good interpersonal-relationships, or, more accurately, feeling socially competent (able to form good interpersonal-relationships--more anticipation). It makes sense that we would associate friends and connections with more opportunities for happiness, and so making friends and connections brings us happiness.

Considering that happiness is the ultimate purpose of life, necessity must be defined as necessary for achieving happiness. Life is necessary to achieve happiness, and so everything that supports life is a necessity in turn. However, regarding the necessity of food to survival, we can look at an apple and know that though we do need food to live, we do not need this apple in particular to live. And so as we need happiness more than anything, we do not need any source of happiness is particular.

If human connection is necessary for achieving the deepest level of happiness we know, that does not mean any person or group in particular is necessary to our happiness. We can say we need to be loved, and yet we have many choices as to the source of the love.

Anyway, that's my attempt at a systematic theory of life, happiness and love. I hope it's reasonable.

[BaalChatzaf]

Anyway, that's my attempt at a systematic theory of life, happiness and love. I hope it's reasonable.

You work hard for years and years to get your sh*t straight and just about the time you have it right, you die.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

As I brought up in another thread, Rand made the point that in order for our actions to be guided by reason, we must have an ultimate end in mind--an end in itself. She believed that life was an end in itself.

This obviously doesn't represent her view accurately, for we can conclude from this assertion that simply surviving as long as possible is a reason to be alive in the first place, and that would contradict many of her other premises.

What, then, is our end in itself?

Our "end", literally speaking, is the ceasing of our organism's life.

But punning aside: as for "end" in the meaning of 'goal' -

Rand spoke of "life as an end in itself". I would interpret it more as a philosophical statement, which, while it may be assailable as incorrect from a purely scientific standpoint, yet expresses something essential: Rand's unequivocal stance on a crucial philosophical issue:

"Life is an end to itself" manifests her conviction that there is no 'deeper, supernatural sense' underlying existence. That life is what it is, and that any philosophy assuming that the universe has a 'divine purpose' has irrational premises.

[Dglgmut]

I know that she did not mean it literally, but she did say that we needed an end in itself to allow for reason to guide our actions, and so that end needed to be specified. After which, like I said, the sources of that end need to be looked at... as reason would dictate our actions.

[Dglgmut]

I am starting to think Rand did not want anyone to enjoy life, though that's what she claimed. She wished people could find joy in productive achievement alone, but she totally ignored human relationships as an end in itself. Take the scene from The Fountainhead when Wynand asks Roark about the purpose of life, and Roark says it is one's work... if life is an end in itself, then that means that one's work is the primary source of joy according to Rand. But we know that isn't true... it takes some serious mental evasion to not notice that work is a means to an end... that end being enjoying time with other people.

[Selene]

Calvin:

But we know that isn't true... it takes some serious mental evasion to not notice that work is a means to an end... that end being enjoying time with other people.

Really?

I am getting really sticky about statements like "...we all know that isn't true..."

How do we "all" "know" this?

Adam

[Dglgmut]

If you were on an island by yourself, what are you working for? Survival? How long would you keep that up for?

[Selene]

If you were on an island by yourself, what are you working for? Survival? How long would you keep that up for?

Calvin:

Logically there are several options to answer your question depending on the size and place of the island.

Care to give me the parameters?

Adam

[Dglgmut]

You don't have to get into specifics. If you knew you were never going to come into contact with another human being for the rest of your life, would you have much motivation to keep on living?

[Selene]

You don't have to get into specifics. If you knew you were never going to come into contact with another human being for the rest of your life, would you have much motivation to keep on living?

Ridiculous assumption. However, I will play.

My answer is I, would be absolutely motivated to keep on living. Shall we discuss why?

[Dglgmut]

What assumption? It's just a hypothetical question. Go on; I'm interested to why you think you'd stay motivated. I mean, even after months you don't think you would go crazy in such unnatural circumstances?

[Selene]

What assumption? It's just a hypothetical question. Go on; I'm interested to why you think you'd stay motivated. I mean, even after months you don't think you would go crazy in such unnatural circumstances?

Not at all. http://www.theminimalists.com/maneesh/

I certainly would work at getting off the island as well as making my solitary life as self rewarding as possible.

[anthony]

I am starting to think Rand did not want anyone to enjoy life, though that's what she claimed. She wished people could find joy in productive achievement alone, but she totally ignored human relationships as an end in itself. Take the scene from The Fountainhead when Wynand asks Roark about the purpose of life, and Roark says it is one's work... if life is an end in itself, then that means that one's work is the primary source of joy according to Rand. But we know that isn't true... it takes some serious mental evasion to not notice that work is a means to an end... that end being enjoying time with other people.

What's so complicated? If anyone can show me how one's values - life, and love of life, love of

other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences,

making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred

intact to another person...then I'll start questioning my life as "an end in itself."

Until then, I take it as a self-evident truth.

Geez - why make it so difficult? It is almost axiomatic. Nobody else can choose all

those entities for you - and nobody can take over ownership from you.

[william.scherk]

If anyone can show me how one's values - life, and love of life, love of other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences, making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred intact to another person...then I'll start questioning my life as "an end in itself." Until then, I take it as a self-evident truth.

How about this:

If anyone can indicate how one's values - life, and love of life, love of other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences, making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred to a child...then I'll start questioning life as "an end in itself."

I do not know if you are a parent, Tony, but if you are, try to imagine raising your children without teaching them, without trying to influence and shape their behaviour, without trying to instill in them the values that you know bring fruit. Try watching a child go forth in life with a 'selfish' parent in the normal sense of the world, a parent who always put its own interests ahead of the child's, who neglects its needs both moral and physical, who fails to discipline, who fails to love.

If self-love must come first, as a given, if a full freedom of self is the ultimate aim, what makes up love for a child and the nurturance we expend on each succeeding generation? What marks the more successful, moral, rational child?

[anthony]

Hmmm...nope. No contradiction. I'm rather surprised you see one.

What kind of parent would allow his "own interests" to surmount his child's -

what kind would lose his self-identity by dint of having a child?

You view it, I think, as win-lose, to me it's win-win.

(And there is a world of difference between "transfer" - and "demonstrate",

"communicate", "inspire" etc.)

[George H. Smith]

If anyone can show me how one's values - life, and love of life, love of other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences, making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred intact to another person...then I'll start questioning my life as "an end in itself." Until then, I take it as a self-evident truth.

How about this:

If anyone can indicate how one's values - life, and love of life, love of other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences, making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred to a child...then I'll start questioning life as "an end in itself."

I do not know if you are a parent, Tony, but if you are, try to imagine raising your children without teaching them, without trying to influence and shape their behaviour, without trying to instill in them the values that you know bring fruit. Try watching a child go forth in life with a 'selfish' parent in the normal sense of the world, a parent who always put its own interests ahead of the child's, who neglects its needs both moral and physical, who fails to discipline, who fails to love.

If self-love must come first, as a given, if a full freedom of self is the ultimate aim, what makes up love for a child and the nurturance we expend on each succeeding generation? What marks the more successful, moral, rational child?

A useful way of looking at this issue is that suggested by the Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler in his book on ethics, The Time of Our Lives.

Instead of thinking in terms of a summun bonum, i.e., a supreme good, such as happiness, to which all of our actions are (or should be) directed, Adler recommended thinking in terms of a totum bonum, i.e., a totality of goods which, considered together, comprise a good life. A concern for children and other people would constitute part of this totality.

In his essay on utilitarianism, J.S. Mill made a related observation which, though not original with him, was especially well put. According to Mill, the values we acquire throughout our lives, though they may have been originally chosen for utilitarian purposes (i.e., because they get us something we want) eventually become part of who we are, psychologically speaking. Such values, in other words, become integrated into our sense of self. This is an important point, since it provides essential answers to old chestnuts designed to stump ethical egoists, such as: Why wouldn't a rational egoist steal, if he was certain he would not get caught?

Personally, I decided during my college years that a happy life was not all that important, at least not as a goal, and that I should strive for an interesting life instead. I have never met many people whom I would describe as "happy," and I wouldn't describe myself that way, either. Indeed, I tend to distrust people who appear too happy. (Philosophers on OL will know that what Aristotle and other Greeks meant by "happiness" -- eudaimonia -- is not what we generally mean by the word today. But that is a topic for another discussion.)

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

One more thing....

The philosopher Schopenhauer once distinguished between two personality types. Some people avoid pain (negative feelings in the broad sense) above all else, whereas others cannot stand boredom. The former typically lead routine lives devoid of risk, whereas the latter are typically willing to take risks in order to keep life interesting, even though they know bad consequences will sometimes be the result.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

What's so complicated., Tony? I am not asking you to anoint a contradiction, I am inviting you to think about the words you use to circumscribe argument. By carefully inserting the qualifier 'tranferred intact' to your demandchallenge ... you wall off the door to considering lesser instances of that absolute. In other words, it is all or nothing. Not fruitful. Not explanatory of edge conditions, of the consequences of certain selfish human behaviours. Your life as 'an end in itself' is just words, it does not correspond to the behaviour as a parent.

(am I presuming here? You have raised children, right?)

I do not see a contradiction in your behaviour as a loving (I presume) parent, but your behaviour as a parent does not bear out the cliché of a selfish person. Since we for the sake of argument expect to find no facts in contradiction, it is the words that must give way, as inadequate or poorly chosen.

Merely fencing problems off by words, by wordplay or idiosycratic usage (as with your eyepatch over what you share in values and orientation with the modern skeptical community) does not solve problems. See poor Philip trying to come to terms with the limits of his own self-understanding, and his attempts at rational self-assessment. Words get in the way, carry too large a load, fence off too much thought.

I do not see a contradiction in your behaviour, just a small misuse of language that obscures things wonderful and human. We do not transmit intact a person's values as in your fish-trap sentence above. But we do something of the type, do we not?

Let me ask it this way: given that we cannot now (and likely never will) be able to transfer intact any complex of values to another, why do we try to do so in lesser ways? Why culture? Why schools? Why nurturance? What is the impulse and what would be the difference between a selfish and unselfish person's means and manner of trying to transfer values?

I cannot transfer intact to your psyche what I perceive, what I think you miss by hemming in your thoughts by fence-words, Tony, really. I cannot transfer my concerns to you, merely shine a light and hope you see what I see.

[william.scherk]

If anyone can show me how one's values - life, and love of life, love of other individuals, of activity, one's hobby, gaining knowledge, having different experiences, making something work, loving one's own mind, or simply loving one's dog - can be transferred intact to another person...then I'll start questioning my life as "an end in itself." Until then, I take it as a self-evident truth.

If self-love must come first, as a given, if a full freedom of self is the ultimate aim, what makes up love for a child and the nurturance we expend on each succeeding generation? What marks the more successful, moral, rational child?

Instead of thinking in terms of a summun bonum, i.e., a supreme good, such as happiness, to which all of our actions are (or should be) directed, Adler recommended thinking in terms of a totum bonum, i.e., a totality of goods which, considered together, comprise a good life. A concern for children and other people would constitute part of this totality.

I love when you crack open a book on previous wisdom. I was mixing up the emotional valence of two threads, this and the other I posted in today. I brooded on the messages between and within Tony and Philip's. Each asked for something, each pronounced something. I mixed up their personalities into a tableaux, Tony playing the 'tidying'. parent to Philip. This coloured my comments. Getting hung up on the words as reifications, making them carry too heavy a burden, using analogy in place of reason, making fish-trap linguistic challenges, this takes me away from things that concern me about the shortcomings of Objectivish explanations.

I tried to answer Tony back with the notion that a self is the firmware, always present, the background thrum of the machine, but as with Philip, that self is always in a matrix of Them, of others of the understandable and manipulable world of motivated beings.

It is congenial to my thinking to consider Adler's double caution -- to beware the absolute in its awesome abstraction, Good with a Capital G, like Thor or Jupiter. To beware the constrictions of too-narrow concepts. That there is a buffet of good in the world, a behavioural repertoire of human goodness. We do not all take as many trips to the buffet, nor put the same on our plates. This lets us circle the square between a properly self-ish person, actualized to his own needs and goals. It is of course in his self-interest to instruct his young in the most rational means to success, a very selfish thing to parent, given they are of your heart and flesh, kin, your own, as close to your own soul as anyone can get.

In his essay on utilitarianism, J.S. Mill made a related observation which, though not original with him, was especially well put. According to Mill, the values we acquire throughout our lives, though they may have been originally chosen for utilitarian purposes (i.e., because they get us something we want) eventually become part of who we are, psychologically speaking. Such values, in other words, become integrated into our sense of self. This is an important point, since it provides essential answers to old chestnuts designed to stump ethical egoists, such as: Why wouldn't a rational egoist steal, if he was certain he would not get caught?

Have you read that true-crime book about murderous thoughts in a young American cohort? The biggest motivator to not commit their fantasies on hated rivals and obstacles was the contextual certainty of getting nailed. I have long considered myself a semi-covert utititarian at heart in terms of reckoning good. I like the implication that we learn and transmit information about good actions, consequences, cost and benefit, the history and expression of the bad ...

We should be reassured at the fairly broad nature of agreement with principles here in Rand: the self, the individual, the necessity of a mind with singular selfish purpose. It is in the summing, and the description and the puzzles of Objectivish implications that I stop and consider. I thought that Tony married two things that should only be dating.

The Good is not the Selfish, but a rationally selfish person can identify Good quite well. Even if only in the sense of a cynical estimation of `best practice` ...

I decided during my college years that a happy life was not all that important, at least not as a goal, and that I should strive for an interesting life instead. I have never met many people whom I would describe as "happy," and I wouldn't describe myself that way, either. Indeed, I tend to distrust people who appear too happy. (Philosophers on OL will know that what Aristotle and other Greeks meant by "happiness" -- eudaimonia -- is not what we generally mean by the word today. But that is a topic for another discussion.)

Your calculation was honest and effective, it seems. How do we estimate or guess with confidence what it is about life that tweaks our own version of I? I think again of this young Philip intoxicated with self. How does he rationally calculate, like you and I had done, realistically, on what our happiness quotient would be and what we knew would gain us our best life?

One of the things I learned at OL is we may all be boxes of cheese, but we are not all Velveeta. Even when we disagree we seem to be reaching for an understanding just there beyond, often helping each other over fences.

One more thing....

The philosopher Schopenhauer once distinguished between two personality types. Some people avoid pain (negative feelings in the broad sense) above all else, whereas others cannot stand boredom. The former typically lead routine lives devoid of risk, whereas the latter are typically willing to take risks in order to keep life interesting, even though they know bad consequences will sometimes be the result.

I relish Schopenhauer for his sharp and nasty rules on winning arguments. Would make a worthy hijacking of this thread were we to get him, Mills and Adler in action again. Thanks, George!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thought.

If a person regards his own life as I have been thinking for some time, i.e., a larger part (say about 80%) as individual and a smaller part (the left over 20%) as species-related, when you say man's life is an end in itself, that would, by definition, extend to the species.

In other words, the human species is an end in itself, and it is made up of individuals, each of whom are ends in themselves. Thus, in addition to an individual being an end in himself, his life extends beyond himself in the smaller part. The capacity for reproduction is a good example.

This makes sense to me. You cannot have individual humans without the species, nor can you have the species without individuals.

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

Exactly. Without the species you or I wouldn't exist. Without you or I in existence,

the species *for all intents and purposes* would not exist.

You, I, and the human species, required some ugly thing to crawl out of a swamp.

I've sometimes referred to the wonder and respect I feel for the common cockroach,

and its incredible drive to live. And this fella is considered the lowest of the low.

So I don't believe I need to expand on the awe I feel for a. all life b. all human life.

You, after wrestling for years I'm sure, as I have, with this concept, have come to

the same conclusion: as with much in Objectivism, it is a HIERARCHY we must hold firmly

in mind.

Rand provided the piece to the puzzle, but maybe I glossed over it at first sight

as the obvious, the self-evident:

"The Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the STANDARD of value -- and his own life as the ethical PURPOSE of every individual man."[VOSp.25]

We can't escape it even if we wanted to - each of us is the highest point of his pinnacle of purpose.

[anthony]

What's so complicated., Tony? I am not asking you to anoint a contradiction, I am inviting you to think about the words you use to circumscribe argument. By carefully inserting the qualifier 'tranferred intact' to your demandchallenge ... you wall off the door to considering lesser instances of that absolute. In other words, it is all or nothing. Not fruitful. Not explanatory of edge conditions, of the consequences of certain selfish human behaviours. Your life as 'an end in itself' is just words, it does not correspond to the behaviour as a parent.

(am I presuming here? You have raised children, right?)

I do not see a contradiction in your behaviour as a loving (I presume) parent, but your behaviour as a parent does not bear out the cliché of a selfish person. Since we for the sake of argument expect to find no facts in contradiction, it is the words that must give way, as inadequate or poorly chosen.

Merely fencing problems off by words, by wordplay or idiosycratic usage (as with your eyepatch over what you share in values and orientation with the modern skeptical community) does not solve problems. See poor Philip trying to come to terms with the limits of his own self-understanding, and his attempts at rational self-assessment. Words get in the way, carry too large a load, fence off too much thought.

I do not see a contradiction in your behaviour, just a small misuse of language that obscures things wonderful and human. We do not transmit intact a person's values as in your fish-trap sentence above. But we do something of the type, do we not?

Let me ask it this way: given that we cannot now (and likely never will) be able to transfer intact any complex of values to another, why do we try to do so in lesser ways? Why culture? Why schools? Why nurturance? What is the impulse and what would be the difference between a selfish and unselfish person's means and manner of trying to transfer values?

I cannot transfer intact to your psyche what I perceive, what I think you miss by hemming in your thoughts by fence-words, Tony, really. I cannot transfer my concerns to you, merely shine a light and hope you see what I see.

William,

I don't want to strawman your objections, but will try to respond to what I think are your implicit views, along with the explicit. We start from different principles and I can't ignore that.)

No, it's not exactly a "contradiction", but rather a "gap" I sense you're exploiting.

That's the small gap between a person, (here a parent), as an end in himself - and his child, as eventual, potential, and existing, end-in-his-or-her-self. I therefore concede your point to a degree only: BUT, nothing that can't be overcome by self-awareness and awareness, self-responsibility and responsibility - both held as primary to a rational egoist. By definition.

Btw,it's a little disingenuous to invoke parenting in this general discussion of LIFE as 'end in itself', but I'll go with it.

(Could I argue that you are proving the rule by introducing the exception?)

From all I know, have seen and read, the more I learn about parenthood, I realise these are exceptional circumstances. How to describe a life you started, and are responsible for? Too much for now.

To cut it short, why should one not feel in part, humbled, by it all?

"Humbled" in the face of something bigger than you - creation and growth.

However, if anyone thinks that that mutually excludes rational-selfishness, then they probably don't comprehend what selfishness IS.

Another thing: watching a child, and inducing her behavior over time, should convince one that she seeks reality. Above and beyond the basics of nurture, affection, security and sense of belonging, she wants parents who are not floating abstractions of 'selfless' adoration and love.

Real parents, who show by their actions, that they are self-regarding too - is THE example of how to face reality; one that beats any verbal instructions to her.

Have you ever seen a tot struggling to put on her sweater and angrily refusing a parent's assistance? Those moments of burgeoning independence leave you feeling exalted -and awestruck - by this powerful lifeforce that has such certainty of her self-ownership.

(We well know Branden's 'visibility'. Taking a leaf from Paul Mawdsley's insights, I believe it's a two-way, reciprocal, process: our child needs to be 'visible' to us - and wants us to be equally 'visible' to her. Which is to be real, to be ends-in-ourselves.)

Do we want to "transfer" our values (culture and so on) to our child?

Is is always a 'good thing'?

It is crucial what values one has, after all.

Isn't it best that the child absorbs automatically some culture, as she will; takes on a sense of self-worth; and goes on to create her own mind and values?

Best, in the end, the reality that we cannot possibly "transfer intact" all our values to her. Metaphysically, epistemically, ethically - and psycho-epistemologically - she is also an end in herself.

[william.scherk]

What's so complicated., Tony?

Do we want to "transfer" our values (culture and so on) to our child?

Is is always a 'good thing'?

It is crucial what values one has, after all.

Isn't it best that the child absorbs automatically some culture, as she will; takes on a sense of self-worth; and goes on to create her own mind and values?

We are now asking the same questions, and they no longer pertain to only the self. Why do we want to transfer our values, culture, laws, morals, wisdom, experience ... to our children?

We agree some of the answers, don't you think? As MSK points out, there is also a dynamic above and beyond the self, and the dynamic applies to all primates. We, each self, are implicated in the species. The demands of life totum bonum include the demand to reproduce, a species necessity. If a parent (or culture) cannot transmit the functions into the new instances of the species, then it is doomed. Children do not automatically self-generate competent adulthood. They need the nurturance to survive and to learn, to fend for themselves when they become adult.

So, now, with George's help, we can get to the questions we now pose together, you, me, Mill, Adler, Rand and Schopenhauer, with a side-trip of Darwin.

[anthony]

What's so complicated., Tony?

Do we want to "transfer" our values (culture and so on) to our child?

Is is always a 'good thing'?

It is crucial what values one has, after all.

Isn't it best that the child absorbs automatically some culture, as she will; takes on a sense of self-worth; and goes on to create her own mind and values?

We are now asking the same questions, and they no longer pertain to only the self. Why do we want to transfer our values, culture, laws, morals, wisdom, experience ... to our children?

We agree some of the answers, don't you think? As MSK points out, there is also a dynamic above and beyond the self, and the dynamic applies to all primates. We, each self, are implicated in the species. The demands of life totum bonum include the demand to reproduce, a species necessity. If a parent (or culture) cannot transmit the functions into the new instances of the species, then it is doomed. Children do not automatically self-generate competent adulthood. They need the nurturance to survive and to learn, to fend for themselves when they become adult.

So, now, with George's help, we can get to the questions we now pose together, you, me, Mill, Adler, Rand and Schopenhauer, with a side-trip of Darwin.

Good that we can agree - as I think you have, tacitly - that nothing can be transmitted in toto to another human.

Good, since it's the most fundamental metaphysical fact of O'ism, that autonomy. Without it, Objectivism would be pointless.

Every young person starts anew.

As we know, you can take whole herds of horses to water, and it is up to each who will drink, but many will head out into the desert without drinking. (me and metaphors - couldn't help myself.)

With that 'end-in-oneself' principle taken care of, sure, we can look at carrying the torch forward, from generation to generation. Which values, why, and how?

Can one argue with a fundamental religionist that what he is inculcating in his (many) children is terrible nonsense, and harmful to them?

Is there merit in advancing one's own (and presumably self-adjudged "right" culture and values) to that debatable end of 'balancing out' others' irrational values on a societal scale?

Well, if you have the motivation, the time and the resources to do so - I say good luck, go for it.

(On a small, one on one, scale, I try.)

In terms of Objectivism in this context, it often strikes me that the difficulty in advancing the 'cause' is inherent in its very composition: iow, O'ism can't be promulgated primarily by persuasion; or by coercion and by decree -

or, as with political and religious ideologies - by which family one happens to be born into.

It presupposes, I think, a certain amount of independent spirit already existing in an individual - to attract him or her.

And that is at once its flaw, and its overwhelming virtue. A horse has to feel (to 'know') he's thirsty in order to want to drink.

However, it is libertarian ideas which CAN persuade and convince people in the political arena, and there lies the strongest case for dedicating energy to a generational cultural renaissance, or "good specie-ism". Carried forward within and by families, colleges, institutions, forums, publications, think-tanks and so on. Libertarianism holds the seeds to a groundswell of liberty, and where I'm sitting, that will be plenty, thank you very much.

[anthony]

Personally, I decided during my college years that a happy life was not all that important, at least not as a goal, and that I should strive for an interesting life instead. I have never met many people whom I would describe as "happy," and I wouldn't describe myself that way, either. Indeed, I tend to distrust people who appear too happy. (Philosophers on OL will know that what Aristotle and other Greeks meant by "happiness" -- eudaimonia -- is not what we generally mean by the word today. But that is a topic for another discussion.)

Ghs

It would be a worthwhile discussion, I think.

I just came across this from Thus Spake Zarathustra:

" Do I then strive after Happiness? I strive after my WORK!"

[FN]

(Incidentally, Ghs, your following post about Schopenhauer on boredom is fascinating.

While his distinctions are hugely broad, he was, - if I may be self-indulgent for a moment -

of course, talking about me. Damn, and I was told it's ADD...)