What does "Sense of Life" mean?

[william.scherk]

Think of a night club stand-up comedian. Then imagine an obnoxious drunk in the audience. No matter how clever the joke or quip, the drunk bellows out, "Aw... That's an old one. You're full of crap!"

But, for your analogy to make sense and correspond to this thread, the person on stage would be who? Bob started the thread and you heckled him.

For as much competence, insight, cleverness, and just plain funniness the comedian responds, the drunk always has the same answer: "Aw... That's an old one. You're full of crap!"

But, you are the heckler saying Bob is full of shit, Michael. In this thread at least.

The same goes for a forum. People come here to discuss Objectivism (for the better or for the worse), not be constantly told [ . . . ]

1. Man has no mind.

2. Ethics is subjective (although there are some adherents to this and much confusion).

3. We need a killer for President (as a primary virtue).

4. Rand was an ignoramus.

Bob has answered this already. I will only add that you have reduced Bob's ethos to a pretty bare minimum.

Now I have 3 options.

(1) I can delete the offending posts. [ . . . ]

(2) I can ignore it. [ . . . ]

(3) Stand up to it with the same level of intelligence it is issued.

This is the way I choose, although I do try to curb in my own posts the nastiness of spirit [ . . . ]

You have more options than these, surely. You don't have to choose (3). You can choose:

(6) Moderate Bob.

I have no problem jumping into the intellectual pig-sty with [bob.]

I know. I know. This is the problem of being Emperor and Policeman.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

For my analogy, think bigger, man! The forum is the stage, not the thread.

The world is our oyster if we want it...

Michael

[Jody Gomez]

I think sense of life is a very objective term. I do agree with Barbara that we should see what Ayn said about it. Here is Ayn--

"...You might name the sense of life of your closest friend--though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know approximately the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing. Judge their philosophical convictions, not whether their feelings match their ideas. That's not for you to judge; it's of no relevance to you. ... Speaking of one's inability(emphasis mine) to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music."

[Jody Gomez]

To add to this, my favorite musical group is The Cure. Though many would take this knowledge and condemn me and accuse me of having a horrible sense of life, this is just not so. Echoing Rand, probably the only person who understands this fully is my wife Lydia. Certain songs, and certain lyrics of theirs touch the core of my romantic leanings. My sense of life is alive and very well.

[Dragonfly]

I think sense of life is a very objective term. I do agree with Barbara that we should see what Ayn said about it. Here is Ayn--

"...You might name the sense of life of your closest friend--though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know approximately the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing. "

And of course she herself never judged the sense of life of another person. Nooooo, never....

Anyway, if no one else is able to judge your sense of life, this is by definition subjective.

[Brant Gaede]

I think sense of life is a very objective term. I do agree with Barbara that we should see what Ayn said about it. Here is Ayn--

"...You might name the sense of life of your closest friend--though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know approximately the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that. You cannot judge the sense of life of another person; that would be psychologizing. "

And of course she herself never judged the sense of life of another person. Nooooo, never....

Anyway, if no one else is able to judge your sense of life, this is by definition subjective.

AR didn't have the kind of feedback anyone can get with Internet BB postings today. Getting that is not necessarily good. But remember, taking potshots at her is to shoot at a stationary target.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

AR didn't have the kind of feedback anyone can get with Internet BB postings today. Getting that is not necessarily good. But remember, taking potshots at her is to shoot at a stationary target.

As is taking potshots at Kant. (The rest I don't understand.)

[syrakusos]

That's kinda good, studio. I think "mood is to weather as sense of life is to climate".

As I recall, formally, psychologists make the analogy that mood is to climate as emotion is to weather. "Sense of life" would be the broader trend of climates. Despite ice ages and asteroid imacts, Earth is pretty much pro-life. Also, while not stated with the phrase "sense of life" I believe that formally, cultural anthropologists recognize that across our full range, human groups have members who are clearly "positive" and others who are obviously "negative." I can cite one illustrative case in point. The Yanoamo are called "the fierce people." Baby boys are rewarded for striking their fathers. The key researcher -- himself a target of fierce anthropologists -- is Napoleon Chagnon. (Not without his own depth of character, Chagnon was known here in Ann Arbor as someone who would go into gay bars to pick a fight.) Anyway, after skirtiing one narrow brush after another Chagnon finally met a man who helped him. Not a "chief" -- formally anthropologists have other expectations for that title -- but perhaps a "big man" -- again the technical term -- this guy was actually likeable and more or less liked by all including his enemies. Not one to back down from a club fight he seldom needed to resort to that ritual combat. So even among these fierce people of the Amazon here was someone with a good sense of life who was successful within his social context.

For this and other reasons, I believe that objective observation across cultures indicates that sense of life exists and is perceivable.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta

[BaalChatzaf]

For this and other reasons, I believe that objective observation across cultures indicates that sense of life exists and is perceivable.

How? The only moods you can perceive are you own. Anything else is an externality. You can perceive how other's behave (in same respects). You can hear what they say and read what they write. You can observe their posture, facial expressions and "body language". What you cannot perceive is anyone else's mood, unless you have recently acquired the gift of Mental Telepathy. When you see someone expressing emotion how do you know they are not putting on an act? Answer: You don't know with certainty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Barbara Branden]

A fact is a statement that most others will agree with in a given context, based on the evidence. An opinion is a statement that has no or very little evidence to substantiate it and is subject to wide variation among others.

Then at one time the earth was flat. And God created the universe in seven days. It is my opinion that you are mistaken.

Barbara

[Dragonfly]

A fact is a statement that most others will agree with in a given context, based on the evidence. An opinion is a statement that has no or very little evidence to substantiate it and is subject to wide variation among others.

Then at one time the earth was flat. And God created the universe in seven days.

In certain circles that is called "contextual truth".

[syrakusos]

The only moods you can perceive are you own. Anything else is an externality. You can perceive how other's behave (in same respects). You can hear what they say and read what they write. You can observe their posture, facial expressions and "body language". What you cannot perceive is anyone else's mood, unless you have recently acquired the gift of Mental Telepathy. When you see someone expressing emotion how do you know they are not putting on an act? Answer: You don't know with certainty.

You watch a carpenter driving a nail. Suddenly he jerks back, yells "Shit!" and sticks his thumb in his mouth. How do you know that he is not putting on an act?

Our evolution as social creatures includes the ability to perceive each other's emotions, moods, and senses of life. (Personally, I have my own experiential evidence for "mental telepathy" (so called; like "extra-sensory perception" this is a misnomer, but the phenomenon is real.)) You know when someone else is acting and when they are being real. Well, ok, maybe you do not because you are alienated from your own emotions. Also, just as people compartmentalize philosophical ("religious") contradictions and deny their feelings about their family members, etc., you can refuse to think, and remain ignorant of what you experience about what other people are experiencing -- and this, too, is socially normal. Otherwise on board an airliner you would say, "Miss, you don't really like me, so stop pretending that you do." You just let her smile at you while you put your seat in the full upright and least comfortable position.

We do know with the same level of certainty that lets us stop our cars on the broad white line in front of a crosswalk. Sometimes you are not right on it, but usually you are. Within an allowable error, we can be certain of what other people are feeling.

The more in touch you are with your own inner being, the more you can perceive others.

Nathaniel Branden addressed this at length in several books. Before him, there was Carl Rogers and at about the same time as Branden began, Arthur Janov, the Esalen Institute and a raft of others, like astronomers between Galileo and Newton, "sleepwalkers" getting close to the whole truth, but seeing only parts of it. That "whole truth" is nonetheless objectively real. You can know what other people are feeling... once you know what you are feeling.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta

[Barbara Branden]

A fact is a statement that most others will agree with in a given context, based on the evidence. An opinion is a statement that has no or very little evidence to substantiate it and is subject to wide variation among others.

Then at one time the earth was flat. And God created the universe in seven days.

In certain circles that is called "contextual truth".

Not by Ayn Rand.

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

The distinction between truth/fact and opinion are major themes in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It is a fair question. What is fact and what is opinion?

A fact is a statement that most others will agree with in a given context, based on the evidence. An opinion is a statement that has no or very little evidence to substantiate it and is subject to wide variation among others.

Fact is what is. It is not a statement asserting what is. Fact is Out There. Our statements about facts are In Here, processed by the language processing areas in our brains. Later they are represented in some external media.

If all the sentients in the cosmos disappeared, the Facts still remain. Nature does not need us to be what it is. Nature was what it is long before we emerged as an evolutionary hiccup and will go on being what it is long after we have disappeared, swallowed up by change, destruction and time. We are a glitch, a blip, a temporary short lived accident.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Basically semantical truths get the basic relationship of metaphysics and epistemology backwards.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Then at one time the earth was flat. And God created the universe in seven days. It is my opinion that you are mistaken.

Barbara

At one time "the earth is flat" was considered a factual statement. In fact, we don't know the exact shape of the earth and we never will, all we can do is produce better and better models. This has alot to do with the verb 'is', we can disregard any statement that purports to tell us what the earth 'is' at any rate.

[BaalChatzaf]

At one time "the earth is flat" was considered a factual statement. In fact, we don't know the exact shape of the earth and we never will, all we can do is produce better and better models. This has alot to do with the verb 'is', we can disregard any statement that purports to tell us what the earth 'is' at any rate.

Actually we do. We know it to about one part in ten thousand.

The gravity probes have established the gravitational field of this planet quite accurately.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

Then at one time the earth was flat. And God created the universe in seven days. It is my opinion that you are mistaken.

Barbara

At one time "the earth is flat" was considered a factual statement. In fact, we don't know the exact shape of the earth and we never will, all we can do is produce better and better models. This has alot to do with the verb 'is', we can disregard any statement that purports to tell us what the earth 'is' at any rate.

You said "At one time "the earth is flat" was considered a factual statement." And that's true. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether it actually was a factual statement. How is it possible for a person to make a "factual statement" when they don't know what they are talking about?

To simply say "I'm standing here and the earth looks flat to me; therefor it must be flat" is not a factually based statement. This is because what one portends to be talking about is "the earth"; all of it. Since its impossible to stand and see all the earth then isn't impossible to make a factual statement about what it is actually is from only that perspective.

What they were actually doing is reveling a belief. Similar to "I know that God exists." This is a belief based on the actual existence of nothing; and that is an absurdity. Such statements destroy the integrity of religion. Fortunately; for the devoutly religious, they are able to believe otherwise.

Edited February 14, 2008 by UncleJim

[sjw]

You said "At one time "the earth is flat" was considered a factual statement." And that's true. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether it actually was a factual statement. How is it possible for a person to make a "factual statement" when they don't know what they are talking about?

To simply say "I'm standing here and the earth looks flat to me; therefor it must be flat" is not a factually based statement. This is because what one portends to be talking about is "the earth"; all of it. Since its impossible to stand and see all the earth then isn't impossible to make a factual statement about what it is actually is from only that perspective.

You're getting to the heart of an important epistemological point that most Objectivists don't recognize. Leonard Peikoff himself stretches the idea of "true in my context" to absurd limits to defend any ancient idea regardless of how unfounded it was at the time (see his lecture defending Galileo's bogus pendulum formula). There is an irrational reverence given to good thinkers of the past, to excuse any error they made as rationally justified "in their context", as if pointing out that they in fact made a logical error even in their context would somehow impugn their character or some such. Which is why they are helpless to defend Newton's system as true. They wave the magic wand: "Context context context", and presto, they fail to convince any rational person that Newton's system is true.

This attitude among Objectivists is codified in Peikoff's "Fact and Value", where he pretty much declares that to be in error is to sin. Which explains why so many Objectivists refuse to recognize and correct their errors: they'd have to admit immorality on their part as well, and just can't stomach that, so then they engage in *real* immorality by subverting the virtue of pride, refusing to correct past errors.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

To simply say "I'm standing here and the earth looks flat to me; therefor it must be flat" is not a factually based statement. This is because what one portends to be talking about is "the earth"; all of it. Since its impossible to stand and see all the earth then isn't impossible to make a factual statement about what it is actually is from only that perspective.

But when do we see all of something? Never. So we can never make factual statements? "factualness" does not depend on "allness", it depends on repeatability and agreement with observations by others. That these observations change over time is not the issue. Facts evolve over time.

[sjw]

But when do we see all of something? Never. So we can never make factual statements? "factualness" does not depend on "allness", it depends on repeatability and agreement with observations by others. That these observations change over time is not the issue. Facts evolve over time.

You're wrong. Clearly there is a timelessness to many scientific truths. E.g., the world is with minor variances, a sphere. The earth revolves around the sun albeit not in a perfectly circular orbit. Both are scientific truths that only an insane person would say are possibly not true or will possibly "evolve" over time.

What modern science should be doing is trying to identify how we can reliably distinguish between these absolutely certain truths and mere hypothesis. Instead, people like you try to claim that everything is a hypothesis. Which again is tantamount to insanity.

Shayne

Edited February 14, 2008 by sjw

[tjohnson]

the world is with minor variances, a sphere.

This makes no sense. What you have said is that the world is NOT a sphere, because if it was it would not have "minor variances".

[sjw]

the world is with minor variances, a sphere.

This makes no sense. What you have said is that the world is NOT a sphere, because if it was it would not have "minor variances".

You are exceedingly obtuse. It is not a contradiction to specify a tolerance. Science can certainly say that the earth is a perfect sphere within a certain specified tolerance (in terms of variations from roundness and "bumpiness").

Being obtuse on this point is the final refuge of the modern skeptic. All you have to do is point out that the earth goes around the sun and that this is certain scientific knowledge that is not directly perceived--and they are quickly revealed as the crackpots they are. And there is a whole horde of such crackpots roaming around the universities pretending to be legitimate professors.

Shayne

Edited February 14, 2008 by sjw

[tjohnson]

You are exceedingly obtuse. It is not a contradiction to specify a tolerance. Science can certainly say that the earth is a perfect sphere within a certain specified tolerance (in terms of variations from roundness and "bumpiness").

Being obtuse on this point is the final refuge of the modern skeptic. All you have to do is point out that the earth goes around the sun and that this is certain scientific knowledge that is not directly perceived--and they are quickly revealed as the crackpots they are. And there is a whole horde of such crackpots roaming around the universities pretending to be legitimate professors.

Shayne

In case you haven't noticed my beef is with the verb "is". The earth IS NOT a sphere. It may be spherical, but it is not a sphere. In fact, no where does a sphere exist except as defined in mathematics. "Is" is the equivalent of "=" in mathematics and causes much confusion in natural language since it doesn't apply.

[sjw]

In case you haven't noticed my beef is with the verb "is". The earth IS NOT a sphere. It may be spherical, but it is not a sphere. In fact, no where does a sphere exist except as defined in mathematics. "Is" is the equivalent of "=" in mathematics and causes much confusion in natural language since it doesn't apply.

Define "spherical".

Shayne