Objectivist Esthetics, R.I.P.

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

"Why"? That counts about the fourth time we've gone through this cycle. Because definitions matter to a mind. Because reality matters.

Bullshit. Definitions mean absolutely NOTHING to you. Reality means NOTHING to you. You invent your definitions (or parrot Rand's), and then immediately ignore them at whim. You allow contradictions and double standards. And you get very upset when I challenge you to objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by your definition and criteria. You twist yourself into pretzels to avoid reality.

Your concern with definitions and reality is all bluff.

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

J. This is an example of bad faith argumentation.

No, it's an example of you being an idiot, and inventing positions that others haven't taken, and then being a douchebag when you're caught lying and making shit up.

J

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

 (I realize your intention is to defend abstract art. Are you now going to defend everything, clay pots and all?)

My intention is NOT to defend abstract art. Tony, idiot, stop trying to assign me motives. You're really, really bad at it.

My intention IS to challenge Rand's followers to objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by her definition and criteria (or by their own variations of her definition and criteria).

You can't do it. Hahaha! That's why you're assigning me positions that I don't take, and then arguing against them. Ha. You need distractions, and you need to change the subject.

So, let's repeat the challenge once again: Nothing has ever been objectively demonstrated to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria, or by any of the variations that her followers have come up with. Nothing. Ever.

J

[anthony]

56 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

My intention is NOT to defend abstract art. Tony, idiot, stop trying to assign me motives. You're really, really bad at it.

My intention IS to challenge Rand's followers to objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by her definition and criteria (or by their own variations of her definition and criteria).

You can't do it. Hahaha! That's why you're assigning me positions that I don't take, and then arguing against them. Ha. You need distractions, and you need to change the subject.

So, let's repeat the challenge once again: Nothing has ever been objectively demonstrated to qualify as art by Rand's definition and criteria, or by any of the variations that her followers have come up with. Nothing. Ever.

J

This is not discussable it is so untrue. "...to assign me motives". What has mainly caused your anti-Rand diatribes, for years, is the subject of "abstract art" and its unintelligibility. It IS art!! Over and over. Any reader can attest to this.

Have you realized that the untenable positions that Dutton takes and their logical refutation by Torres, and my own comments above, have left you little room to debate further? - so - more diatribes as cover-up.

"...objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by her definition"? Have you lost it entirely?

This ain't rocket science. It is self-evidently clear. (It's certainly not the impossible 'demonstration' of how abstract art 'qualifies'). 

"A re-creation of reality" - means - that the picture is depicted reality, selected and made in a manner of the artist's choosing.

Which means - you can *see* it.

Which means - you can *think* about it.

Which means - you can place *value* in it.

Which means - you can *feel* about it.

But you're the art-empiricist and demand empirical, scientific proof of that process. Haven't you woken up to Objectivism by now? The existence of something requires no proof, it IS. Can you maybe transfer that concept to the existents in an artwork?

 

[anthony]

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain (1917)

 January 29, 2012 Stephen Hicks  6 Comments Fountain (1917), Marcel Duchamp

“With his Fountain (1917), Duchamp made the quintessential statement about the history and future of art. Duchamp of course knew the history of art and, given recent trends, where art was going. He knew what had been achieved — how over the centuries art had been a powerful vehicle that called upon the highest development of the human creative vision and demanded exacting technical skill; and he knew that art had an awesome power to exalt the senses, the minds, and the passions of those who experience it. With his urinal, Duchamp offered presciently a summary statement. The artist is not a great creator — Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object — it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling — it is puzzling and leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. He could have selected a sink or a door-knob. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.”

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

This is not discussable it is so untrue. "...to assign me motives". What has mainly caused your anti-Rand diatribes, for years, is the subject of "abstract art" and its unintelligibility. It IS art!! Over and over. Any reader can attest to this.

Have you realized that the untenable positions that Dutton takes and their logical refutation by Torres, and my own comments above, have left you little room to debate further? - so - more diatribes as cover-up.

"...objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by her definition"? Have you lost it entirely?

This ain't rocket science. It is self-evidently clear. (It's certainly not the impossible 'demonstration' of how abstract art 'qualifies'). 

"A re-creation of reality" - means - that the picture is depicted reality, selected and made in a manner of the artist's choosing.

Which means - you can *see* it.

Which means - you can *think* about it.

Which means - you can place *value* in it.

Which means - you can *feel* about it.

But you're the art-empiricist and demand empirical, scientific proof of that process. Haven't you woken up to Objectivism by now? The existence of something requires no proof, it IS. Can you maybe transfer that concept to the existents in an artwork?

 

What you're saying in the above, with lots of huff and puff, is that you can't objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's criteria, and you're very upset about it, so your standard face-saving maneuver is to claim that no proof is necessary, and anyone who asks for proof is anti-Objectivist! Hahaha! "The existence of something requires no proof, it IS." OMG, what a ridiculous twat!

You seem to believe that promoting Rand's aesthetic theory to axiomatic status will magically solve the problem of all of the holes, contradictions, double standards, and nonsense. It doesn't. Plus it clashes with Rand's views on axioms.

I'm loving the idea of imagining Rand hearing that you've promoted art to an axiom. Hahaha!

J

 

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Marcel Duchamp, Fountain (1917)

 January 29, 2012 Stephen Hicks  6 Comments Fountain (1917), Marcel Duchamp

“With his Fountain (1917), Duchamp made the quintessential statement about the history and future of art. Duchamp of course knew the history of art and, given recent trends, where art was going. He knew what had been achieved — how over the centuries art had been a powerful vehicle that called upon the highest development of the human creative vision and demanded exacting technical skill; and he knew that art had an awesome power to exalt the senses, the minds, and the passions of those who experience it. With his urinal, Duchamp offered presciently a summary statement. The artist is not a great creator — Duchamp went shopping at a plumbing store. The artwork is not a special object — it was mass-produced in a factory. The experience of art is not exciting and ennobling — it is puzzling and leaves one with a sense of distaste. But over and above that, Duchamp did not select just any ready-made object to display. He could have selected a sink or a door-knob. In selecting the urinal, his message was clear: Art is something you piss on.”

Heh. Stephen Hicks. He's another Rand-following "authority" who couldn't handle my criticisms (on his blog) of his mistaken beliefs. My fondest memory of him is that he put his faith in the belief that Newberry knew what he was talking about, and therefore joined Newbsie in blaming Kant for the Sublime (and claiming that the Kantian Sublime was the cause of postmodernist art), not realizing that the concept existed long before Kant, and that it's actually the aesthetic style of all of Rand's art. Shoddy, sloppy work on his part. I think that it says a lot about him.

 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

 

Have you realized that the untenable positions that Dutton takes and their logical refutation by Torres...

Don't be an empiricist! Dutton's views are axiomatic, so they can't be logically refuted.

Anyone can play your stupid game, idiot.

J

[anthony]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:30 PM, Jonathan said:

What you're saying in the above, with lots of huff and puff, is that you can't objectively demonstrate that anything has ever qualified as art by Rand's criteria, and you're very upset about it, so your standard face-saving maneuver is to claim that no proof is necessary, and anyone who asks for proof is anti-Objectivist! Hahaha! "The existence of something requires no proof, it IS." OMG, what a ridiculous twat!

You seem to believe that promoting Rand's aesthetic theory to axiomatic status will magically solve the problem of all of the holes, contradictions, double standards, and nonsense. It doesn't. Plus it clashes with Rand's views on axioms.

I'm loving the idea of imagining Rand hearing that you've promoted art to an axiom. Hahaha!

J

 

 

"A selective re-creation of reality..."

...is a re-creation of *existence*.

Existence is an axiom. Identity, an axiom.

"... according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

--denotes an artist's *consciousness*.

Consciousness, identification, also axiomatic.

 

 

[anthony]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:40 PM, Jonathan said:

Heh. Stephen Hicks. He's another Rand-following "authority" who couldn't handle my criticisms (on his blog) of his mistaken beliefs. My fondest memory of him is that he put his faith in the belief that Newberry knew what he was talking about, and therefore joined Newbsie in blaming Kant for the Sublime (and claiming that the Kantian Sublime was the cause of postmodernist art), not realizing that the concept existed long before Kant, and that it's actually the aesthetic style of all of Rand's art. Shoddy, sloppy work on his part. I think that it says a lot about him.

 

Once again, "sublime" is simply an (heightened) emotion like "ecstasy", "ecstatic". Nobody and no artist and writer has a monopoly on expressing, portraying or describing extreme emotion. But be happy you've rebutted Newberry and Hicks! Everything either one goes on to argue about Kant in future, has been overturned by an [inconsequential] error, you'd have it. Even accepting that Kant wasn't the first or last to proclaim the Sublime, as 'a concept', he was its most famed and prolific advocate, to my knowledge. btw, I've read other scholars making that link to postmodernist art.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

"A selective re-creation of reality..."

...is a re-creation of *existence*.

Existence is an axiom. Identity, an axiom.

"... according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments."

--denotes an artist's *consciousness*.

Consciousness, identification, also axiomatic.

 

 

Damn! I was only laying out absurdity to steer you back from the edge. I wasn't actually expecting you to be stupid enough to endorse the idea that Rand's aesthetics theory is actually axiomatic and that it therefore needs no proof! By your "reasoning," all propositions which make any reference whatsoever to some element of reality are axiomatic and don't need to be proved.

A: "But you haven't proven your contention that collectivism is objectively the best system both morally and economically."

B: "I don't have to prove it since it's an axiomatic truth! After all, collectivism exists, and existence is an axiom, therefore collectivism's being the best is an axiom!"

A: "So, now there are four axioms in Objectivism? The original two, existence and consciousness, have now been supplemented by Tony with Rand's theory of art, and by you with the belief that collectivism is objectively the best system."

B: "Yes, and new axioms can be added any time that someone wants to make an assertion but doesn't want to, or can't, prove it. 'Whales are lighter than air. Prove it, you say? Fuck you and your irrational demands of proof! It's an axiom, dumbshit! Whales and air exist, existence is an axiom, therefore whales being lighter than air is an axiom. Holy cripes, learn Objectivism already!'"

A: "Okay, so that's five axioms now. This is going to get out of hand. We should start an Objectivist Axioms Wiki site so that we can keep track of the millions of new axioms that people will be identifying."

B: "Cool, but how are we going to monetize something like that?"

A: "Um, lets just make the site's monetization the sixth axiom!"

B: "Yeah, then it HAS to happen automatically!"

 

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Once again, "sublime" is simply an (heightened) emotion like "ecstasy", "ecstatic". Nobody and no artist and writer has a monopoly on expressing, portraying or describing extreme emotion..

No one has claimed that they did.

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

But be happy you've rebutted Newberry and Hicks! Everything either one goes on to argue about Kant in future, has been overturned by an [inconsequential] error, you'd have it.

Inconsequential? Hahahaha! Their misinterpretation of the Sublime is a major flub. It's zealot zombie stuff. It's not something that anyone who wishes to have a reputation as a serious scholar can leave uncorrected,

 

2 hours ago, anthony said:

 Even accepting that Kant wasn't the first or last to proclaim the Sublime, as 'a concept', he was its most famed and prolific advocate, to my knowledge. btw, I've read other scholars making that link to postmodernist art.

Do you you mean other Objectivist "scholars"? Do you mean non-Objectivist scholars whom Objectivist "scholars" have falsely reported as having made that "link," due to the Objectivists tainting everything they read with hostility for Kant? If so, yeah, I've seen that too. There are many people out there who have been led astray by having trusted Newberry. It's become an echo chamber of idiots citing each other, as if their number and imagined stature is a valid argument. "Well, Enright cited Hicks who cited Newberry citing Enright citing Newberry, so lots of 'scholars' involved there, and they came to the same conclusion after reading all of the 'reaearch.'"

Anyway, I've seen scholars make the observation that Rand's works are examples of the Kantian Sublime, and that it was her signature style. I originally thought that I had been the first person to make that connection, but later discovered that I was quite late to the party.

 

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Damn! I was only laying out absurdity to steer you back from the edge. I wasn't actually expecting you to be stupid enough to endorse the idea that Rand's aesthetics theory is actually axiomatic and that it therefore needs no proof! By your "reasoning," all propositions which make any reference whatsoever to some element of reality are axiomatic and don't need to be proved. 

blablabla....

 

 

3

Major hot air. Existence doesn't need to be proved. Same for *a re-creation* of existence.

Have you never understood until now what "re-creation of reality" means?

At last!! You see the light...!

Objectivist esthetics, R.I.P. - rises from the grave!! This is a Xmas miracle!

You slipped a smart switcheroo in there. I did not say and would never say: "Rand's aesthetics theory is actually axiomatic and ...needs no proof".

You did.

A. Her theory is ~conceptual~ based on the axioms (as is everything) - therefore needs -  explanation and expansion.

B. An *artwork* doesn't need "proof". It is a "re-creation" of "reality". An existent in reality don't need "proof". It needs one's vision.

("... to steer you back from the edge".  Thank you. How sweet. LOL! You wouldn't steer me out of a puddle if my life depended on it. LOL).

You blew and you knew it. But now you see the "Reality" light...

Xmas Miracle, I tell ya!

 

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Jonathan said:

 

Anyway, I've seen scholars make the observation that Rand's works are examples of the Kantian Sublime, and that it was her signature style. I originally thought that I had been the first person to make that connection, but later discovered that I was quite late to the party.

 

1

The scholars are making a logical error. They reverse causality and confuse an emotion with 'a concept', like Kant (etc.) did. I couldn't estimate how many times in many passages of novels, I have had the feeling of euphoria, bliss, ecstasy, and so on -- self-evidently the deliberate construction and intention of the authors. Resulting from characters, descriptions, events (etc.) in the story. The "signature style" of just about every author and artist, to invoke these intense emotions, became elevated into "a concept" because of its profusion, probably. But they are emotions only. 

Values -> (Applied to a specific situation) -> Emotions. Especially experienced from fiction, film and artworks and music. 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Major hot air. Existence doesn't need to be proved. Same for *a re-creation* of existence.

 

Actually, an alleged "re-creation" of reality DOES have to be proved. You don't just get to arbitrarily assert that something qualifies as a re-creation of reality, such as a piece of music, and then when someone challenges you to identify specifically what has been re-created in a specific work, and you can't identify anything, you don't get to claim that it's just axiomatic that it re-created something.

Besides, "re-creating reality" is only the beginning of Rand's theory. It is an element that is necessary but not sufficient. There's more to the definition and to the criteria. Art, according to her, must do specific things beyond "re-creating reality." It must communicate an intended meaning. Rand demanded it when discussing art forms which she assumed would not meet that criterion. Kamhi and Torres demand it. YOU'VE demanded it. None of you ever thought to consider if the art that you've accepted as valid actually meets that criterion. You've just uncritically accepted Rand's assertions that it does, and brought no further thought to it.

Heh. I did think of it. Now, after I've tested many Objectivists and revealed how laughably incompetent they are at identifying "artist's themes," including in representational realist works of art, you're starting to realize that you no longer like that criterion, and, in fact, now you're very upset about the idea of proof in itself. 

It's amazing how willing you are to absolutely piss all over the Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology in order to evade admitting to the anti-Objectivist fuckeduppedness of the Esthetics.

 

 

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The scholars are making a logical error.

No, they're not. Rand's work is the Kantian Sublime. It presents the heroic reaction to threatening phenomena of immense magnitude.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

They reverse causality and confuse an emotion with 'a concept', like Kant (etc.) did. I couldn't estimate how many times in many passages of novels, I have had the feeling of euphoria, bliss, ecstasy, and so on -- self-evidently the deliberate construction and intention of the authors. Resulting from characters, descriptions, events (etc.) in the story. The "signature style" of just about every author and artist, to invoke these intense emotions, became elevated into "a concept" because of its profusion, probably. But they are emotions only. 

Values -> (Applied to a specific situation) -> Emotions. Especially experienced from fiction, film and artworks and music. 

You don't understand the concept of the Sublime. It's been clear in our discussions that you don't want to understand it. You're a lot like Newberry in that respect: You're so addicted to the Kantian Sublime (via your exposure to it in Rand's work) that you need fixes of it constantly, and your biggest fix comes from experiencing the Sublime by making Kant a villain of immense destructive influence and magnitude which you feel you can heroically stand up to and feel the strength of your power to resist. That includes vilifying his views on the Sublime.

The Kant that you imagine, project, and assign beliefs to is nothing like the real man who existed. The one that you've created is a fantasy which does nothing but feed your psychological needs.

[regi]

44 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Objectivist Metaphysics

What objectist metaphysics? There is no Objectivist metaphysics, or ontology.

There's an ITOE, but there's no ITOM or ITOO. Both Rand's mistaken view of the nature of perception and her epistemology could have been corrected if based on a sound ontology.

Don't think any questions of aesthetics are going to be answered by appealing to Rand's non-existent metaphysics.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, regi said:

What objectist metaphysics? There is no Objectivist metaphysics, or ontology.

There's an ITOE, but there's no ITOM or ITOO. Both Rand's mistaken view of the nature of perception and her epistemology could have been corrected if based on a sound ontology.

Don't think any questions of aesthetics are going to be answered by appealing to Rand's non-existent metaphysics.

Okay, then the "So-Called Objectivist Metaphysics." The simple, rough outline that Rand presented in the place of a formal metaphysics. That. Tony is pissing on that in order to cling to the dead corpse of the O Esthetics.

J

[anthony]

4 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Actually, an alleged "re-creation" of reality DOES have to be proved. You don't just get to arbitrarily assert that something qualifies as a re-creation of reality, such as a piece of music, and then when someone challenges you to identify specifically what has been re-created in a specific work, and you can't identify anything, you don't get to claim that it's just axiomatic that it re-created something.

Besides, "re-creating reality" is only the beginning of Rand's theory. It is an element that is necessary but not sufficient. There's more to the definition and to the criteria. Art, according to her, must do specific things beyond "re-creating reality." It must communicate an intended meaning. Rand demanded it when discussing art forms which she assumed would not meet that criterion. Kamhi and Torres demand it. YOU'VE demanded it. None of you ever thought to consider if the art that you've accepted as valid actually meets that criterion. You've just uncritically accepted Rand's assertions that it does, and brought no further thought to it.

Heh. I did think of it. Now, after I've tested many Objectivists and revealed how laughably incompetent they are at identifying "artist's themes," including in representational realist works of art, you're starting to realize that you no longer like that criterion, and, in fact, now you're very upset about the idea of proof in itself. 

It's amazing how willing you are to absolutely piss all over the Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology in order to evade admitting to the anti-Objectivist fuckeduppedness of the Esthetics.

 

 

Very weak. In spite of recently picking up a few things up on the fly, more blowing smoke.

"Proof!" "Music!" "Rand!" "YOU!" "Kamhi!""Torres!" "Newberry!"

Can't you arrange an original argument that is not negatory of some other person?

Seeing you recently know all about Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics, please advise me of where I get it wrong, in detail.

"Themes", I've done those. What's the problem?

Perceived, identified, integrated, assessed. That's Objectivist. Not "proven".

Now here:

"....the artist starts with a broad abstraction which he has to concretize, to bring into reality by means of the appropriate particulars; the viewer perceives the particulars, integrates them and grasps the abstraction from which they came, thus completing the circle. Speaking metaphorically, the creative process resembles a process of deduction; the viewing process resembles a process of induction.

"This does NOT mean that COMMUNICATION is the PRIMARY PURPOSE of an artist. His primary purpose is to bring HIS VIEW OF MAN AND EXISTENCE INTO REALITY; but TO BE BROUGHT INTO REALITY, IT HAS TO BE TRANSLATED INTO OBJECTIVE (therefore, COMMUNICABLE) TERMS".

[emphases mine: Art and Sense of Life p.35]

You've read that numerous times, so WHERE did you conclude the fakery you've kept repeating:  ["Rand demanded] Art ... must communicate an intended meaning"??

Not "MEANING", either: "His view" is "brought INTO REALITY". By representation of real things. And if you have to ~prove~ whatever entity you see in reality, you have a problem.

I'll remind you once more, that your insistence on 'abstract art' having identifiable intelligibility and your constant insistence on "proof" - prompted me to suggest an experiment on abstract artworks by 'art experts' - to validate that very proof, and your claims. You haven't done that, of course. Nobody can, except perhaps for some 'perceiving' generalized sensations in some samples, and likely non-consensus on even those. But "proof" has not once been MY criterion for art, it's yours.

.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually Rand did elaborate some metaphysics, but as George Smith pointed out, her metaphysics is sparse. (I think he said that or something like it in Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies.)

Her view of existence is that it is self-evident, to be accepted, not proven. The nature of existence falls outside of human life and perception and encompasses all of human life.

From the human perspective, existence was, is and always will be. And consciousness, which also is to be accepted and not proven, is a way to detect this. As to afterlife, she once told an interviewer (I think it was Phil Donahue) that when you are dead and your body is in the grave, you are not there.

She also came up with an idea of a benevolent universe where humans could triumph, but without any guarantees.

That's about all the metaphysics I can think of in Rand, but it is metaphysics.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a monkey-wrench for "selective recreation of reality."

What if the process for selecting the reality for recreation is blank-out of the rest?

Is it still art?

 

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[...]

From the human perspective, existence was, is and always will be. And consciousness, which also is to be accepted and not proven, is a way to detect this. As to afterlife, she once told an interviewer (I think it was Phil Donahue) that when you are dead and your body is in the grave, you are not there.

[...]

Hey MSK, that was the Tom Snyder interview, when she said that it kind of stuck with me:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

18 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Hey MSK, that was the Tom Snyder interview, when she said that it kind of stuck with me:

Korben,

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Incidentally, if you take out the stories and personification, Rand's notion of existence is very similar to the Hebrew God.

This is one reason I believe Objectivism constantly resonates with some Jews and Christians. Rand is not winning some kind of religious/philosophical war with those people. She is merely reframing what they already believe.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Incidentally, if you take out the stories and personification, Rand's notion of existence is very similar to the Hebrew God.

Rand's  ethics and metaphysics  has Jewish DNA, notwithstanding the fact that Rand was an atheist.  Jewish atheists almost always remain Jewish at the core. It turns out that the Jewish people partially by luck and  mostly because of their historical experience developed one of the most thorough "conditioning"  programs for bringing up the young.  If a Jewish child is Jewish up to his/her 13 th year (year or bar mitzvah/bat mitzvah)  the person will retain a Jewish outlook and a Jewish sensibility  his/her entire life  whether or not that person rejects the ritual and theology..  This was certainly true in Rand's case. Also notice that the First Generation Objectivists were almost all brought up Jewish even though they rejected the ritual and the synagogue. This Jewish imprint shows up most strongly in the domain of ethics. Also note that Judaism is the least  altruistic  of the Abrahamic  religions.  

I have given up mostly on the literal existence  of  G-D as that G-D is portrayed in the Jewish holy books and rabbinic commentary (scripture, talmud, commentaries etc)   but  I am Jewish down to the molecular level  in terms of my ethics, my sense of right and wrong and my "sense of life".  Furthermore I have seen this again and again in hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Jews I have encountered in my life (going for 82, G-D willing and the bridge don't collapse).  Along with the ethics  is a strong love of life.  How many people do you know  who have a toast "to life"  (l''hayim).  Even our Muslim enemies, the Jihadis mock us for our love of human life and existence and consider it our weakness.