enlighten me

[Faust06]

I'd like an "objectivist" take is on what really matters to us. I'm guessing an answer not far off from nihlism and hedonism, which is fine by me.

I'm not talking about some inherent purpose.. we have the freedom to decide what should be done, what matters most to us, etc. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything aside from fullfilling some basic desires (including work/productivity, knowledge).

I myself can't imagine the human race being around merely to sustain itself and live peacefully. There would be no point in evolving, no point in moving forward... that is what we want, isn't it?

What does it mean to move forward? What are we trying to achieve, collectively? Is the product of our work merely for convenience, for sustainment of life?

[Kat]

I am not exactly clear on what you are asking. Every person sets their own standards for their own life. Objectivism is an individualistic philosophy and it is certainly not nihilism or hedonism, both which lack a moral compass. Here is what Ayn Rand said about hedonism in the Virtue of Selfishness (taken from Wikipedia - Hedonism and Egoism).

Ayn Rand, one of the biggest modern proponents of Egoism, while rejecting hedonism in a literal sense as a comprehensive ethical system, but still viewed pleasure as the proper end of ethics:

To take "whatever makes one happy" as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one's emotional whims. Emotions are not tools of cognition. . . . This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism--in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. "Happiness" can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man's proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that "the property value is whatever gives you pleasure" is to declare that "the proper value is whatever you happen to value"--which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.

[Alfonso Jones]

I'd like an "objectivist" take is on what really matters to us. I'm guessing an answer not far off from nihlism and hedonism, which is fine by me.

I'm not talking about some inherent purpose.. we have the freedom to decide what should be done, what matters most to us, etc. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything aside from fullfilling some basic desires (including work/productivity, knowledge).

I myself can't imagine the human race being around merely to sustain itself and live peacefully. There would be no point in evolving, no point in moving forward... that is what we want, isn't it?

What does it mean to move forward? What are we trying to achieve, collectively? Is the product of our work merely for convenience, for sustainment of life?

Faust06 -

Are you familiar with the writings of Ayn Rand? I would suggest picking up a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness (available economically in paperback) and reading at least the first article - The Objectivist Ethics. That should get you started with a basic understanding on the subject, and make it very clear to you that Objectivism has NOTHING to do with hedonism or nihilism.

Bill

[UncleJim]

I'd like an "objectivist" take is on what really matters to us. I'm guessing an answer not far off from nihlism and hedonism, which is fine by me.

I'm not talking about some inherent purpose.. we have the freedom to decide what should be done, what matters most to us, etc. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything aside from fullfilling some basic desires (including work/productivity, knowledge).

I myself can't imagine the human race being around merely to sustain itself and live peacefully. There would be no point in evolving, no point in moving forward... that is what we want, isn't it?

What does it mean to move forward? What are we trying to achieve, collectively? Is the product of our work merely for convenience, for sustainment of life?

As one begins to understand not only that they are alive but that they are worthy of life is when they begin to understand what happiness is. To be happy one must first be alive and then one must understand that that is mans purpose. Happiness is that emotion which naturally occurs from understanding what mans purpose is and that one is able to achieve it.

To be or become happy one must first be alive. Remaining alive is; then, mans ultimate purpose. For man, remaining alive, requires production of the conditions, products and services necessitated by the achievement of that goal.

"Moving forward" is a natural resultant of mans nature as the only known creative being in the universe.

[Faust06]

To take "whatever makes one happy" as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one's emotional whims.

I'd say that, to be "guided by nothing but one's emotions" just means lack of foresight, lack of tactical thinking. In the end, everything in our "interest" as I understand it is to maximize our happiness/pleasure, and taking the logical steps to get there. So, I don't think it's far off.. just that hedonism is associated with blind pursuit, with impulse, when it isn't necessarily so.

Every person sets their own standards for their own life.

This is true, and I expect some diversity in what people deem important, but I also expect a strong correlation when it comes to objectivists. I'd like to be an objectivist, but I'm not sure I meet the criteria yet.. anyway, I'd like to know exactly what your "standards" are in this case.

Remaining alive is; then, mans ultimate purpose.

That doesn't sound so hard.. except for the fact that we inevitably die anyway.

[Mike11]

To take "whatever makes one happy" as a guide to action means: to be guided by nothing but one's emotional whims.

I'd say that, to be "guided by nothing but one's emotions" just means lack of foresight, lack of tactical thinking. In the end, everything in our "interest" as I understand it is to maximize our happiness/pleasure, and taking the logical steps to get there. So, I don't think it's far off.. just that hedonism is associated with blind pursuit, with impulse, when it isn't necessarily so.

From my reading of Rand she would often identify "whim" as something random, shiftless, or inherently wrong. The only definition I read from her though was simply any impulse whose cause is not consciously known which is something different entirely.

If you want to get an idea of Objectivist ethics you need to understand the idea of "Man Qua Man". I'm not going to comment on it though as it seems fairly specious. Eventually this question will have to go there.

[tjohnson]

Remaining alive is; then, mans ultimate purpose.

I'd say this is the goal of all life - to maintain the life process. Every conceivable lifeform has this built in to it. I think man needs something more "special" than this to be his ultimate purpose. Or as Steve Martin said "'my special purpose" , in the movie The Jerk. If man wants to do something different from animals and other life it needs to be something they can't do - something like science.

[Faust06]

How does one "do" science?

I think we have an inherent desire to understand, but that alone doesn't satisfy me.

It seems the possibility that existentially something SHOULD be done aside from our own self-preservation and happiness is slim to none.. we'd just delude ourselves into thinking so. But the thing is, I WANT there to be something else. I don't want to live for the sake of living, for the sake of comfort and physical/emotional pleasure.. I just don't care, don't ask me to justify it. This seems childish, but it bothers me every day.

Of course, that also leads to the theory that part of being human is never being satisfied, ever. There is acceptance, but not satisfaction. Otherwise we wouldn't "move forward", we wouldn't keep digging for truth and pleasure... it would have to stop somewhere, but that's impossible.

I've always equated buddhist thought with giving up. Acceptance, suppression of desire, and just being a vegetable really. I don't believe we can just "be".

Edited February 12, 2008 by Faust06

[tjohnson]

How does one "do" science?

I think we have an inherent desire to understand, but that alone doesn't satisfy me.

I think you under-estimate the emotional potential of 'understanding'. This has been a driving force in mankind since he began to evolve language - for maybe 100 thousand years or so. Actually, science is also related to human survival, but at a species level more than at an individual level.

[UncleJim]

I'd like an "objectivist" take is on what really matters to us. I'm guessing an answer not far off from nihlism and hedonism, which is fine by me.

I'm not talking about some inherent purpose.. we have the freedom to decide what should be done, what matters most to us, etc. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything aside from fullfilling some basic desires (including work/productivity, knowledge).

I myself can't imagine the human race being around merely to sustain itself and live peacefully. There would be no point in evolving, no point in moving forward... that is what we want, isn't it?

What does it mean to move forward? What are we trying to achieve, collectively? Is the product of our work merely for convenience, for sustainment of life?

When I look at what exists I see two fundamentally different kinds of things. Things that live and things that don't. The difference is called life. The living things are the different ones because they possess the differentiating characteristic (or attribute).

In other words: The existence of life is responsible for what the idea of difference means. Notice how life only makes a difference to living things; to non-living things it makes no difference at all.

Also notice how the existence of the life of a living thing is contingent. It's contingent on the actions of the living thing – within which it exists. If a living thing acts contrary to its nature it will cease being what it is because its life will expire and the living thing will die.

Since this is the case, then, the proposition that any individual living thing (human or otherwise) can choose whatever it wants to do and remain a properly existing living thing is simply wrong thinking. Again; if a living thing does not (or cannot) achieve those goals which its life requires that it achieve, that living thing will cease being what it is.

And this addresses the issue of happiness. Happiness is that emotion which naturally occurs when a properly functioning HUMAN realizes they are alive and are worthy of the life they possess.

[tjohnson]

Since this is the case, then, the proposition that any individual living thing (human or otherwise) can choose whatever it wants to do and remain a properly existing living thing is simply wrong thinking. Again; if a living thing does not (or cannot) achieve those goals which its life requires that it achieve, that living thing will cease being what it is.

Living things die no matter what "actions" they take. Your argument assumes a living thing can take steps to NOT die but in reality it is more like prolonging or improving life experience. We then get into the area of quality of of life and what actions can improve the quality of life, or as you put it "properly existing". To this end it is true that humans in general need to learn methods to enhance their life experience and to avoid activities that degrade their life experience. Humans are unique in that they even have this problem/opportunity.

[Faust06]

And this addresses the issue of happiness. Happiness is that emotion which naturally occurs when a properly functioning HUMAN realizes they are alive and are worthy of the life they possess.

I'm not too concerned about it. We inevitably experience it, in spurts, in certain situations anyway. What I'm talking about is something of a "peace of mind" that I'm doing the right thing for myself. I don't expect or want people to tell me what to do.. I'm just wondering how they deal with it themselves, particularly objectivists.

I think you under-estimate the emotional potential of 'understanding'.

You may be right. Speaking for myself though, there isn't much I desire to completely understand.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Faust06

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Faust06,

You are absolutely on the right track.

Serenity is the base of all healthy spiritual growth. All the rest, the answers to the meaning of life and existence, to what you value, to why you don't value some things you should and vice-versa, to what attracts you to people, to why you are sometimes attracted to some people who sound wrong and repulsed by others who sound right, to how much others really think of you matters and why, to what you should do in normal living and in emergencies, to why there is both beauty and joy alongside ugliness and suffering in the world, to why we have to die, to where love comes from, to all the questions that arise and will arise, mean nothing (or next to it) if you do not have serenity as your spiritual base. But if you do have serenity, you will almost always seek the path of wisdom instead of dogma or doubt.

Just as reason is your cognitive treasure for learning and analyzing, serenity should be your emotional treasure for learning and analyzing. Passions are for acting, not mental growth. What greater sense of rightness and certainty can a man have when he is doing something with a great deal of intensity than to know (on a fundamental level) that the actions his passions are prompting him to do have been tempered and guided by knowledge acquired with serenity? It just doesn't get any better.

All the rest, what Objectivism (or any other body of thought or belief) presents about this or that, is secondary—and a long second at that. Presuming that you have a healthy and functioning rational faculty, then you must think for yourself to acquire serenity. No one else can do it for you.

Also, by the fact alone of having a healthy and functioning rational faculty, you can never achieve the serenity of some of the mentally impaired you might chance to encounter. Some bodies of thought teach that their state of serenity is the ideal. And it is—for them. It is not for one who can think conceptually. Our path is our own and the base—the part that cannot be substituted—is thinking for oneself.

This is the true meaning of Socrates' statement: "I only know that I do not know." If you truly understand the spirit behind that statement, you will use it as a procedure to prepare your mind serenely for acquiring new knowledge when you examine something.

I suggest you reflect on all your questions about happiness, life, and why this and why that, through the lens of the root of man's purpose as given in Objectivism: "Man is an end in himself."

A very good starting point would be to say to yourself, "That statement is another way of saying we don't know if there is a higher purpose than simply existing." Then go on from there. I almost envy you the long hours of thinking and mulling over this point in looking at the world around you (should you choose to do so). Whatever you conclude from that kind of thinking will be your own in the most self-centered sense possible. It will be thinking done firsthand. Even if you arrive at a different place than Objectivism. That is a true path to serenity.

You have a good mind. I am sure it will take you to good places.

Michael

[Faust06]

That's an incredible compliment! You made my day, thanks.

Advice noted. I'll think about it.

[UncleJim]

Since this is the case, then, the proposition that any individual living thing (human or otherwise) can choose whatever it wants to do and remain a properly existing living thing is simply wrong thinking. Again; if a living thing does not (or cannot) achieve those goals which its life requires that it achieve, that living thing will cease being what it is.

Living things die no matter what "actions" they take. Your argument assumes a living thing can take steps to NOT die but in reality it is more like prolonging or improving life experience. We then get into the area of quality of of life and what actions can improve the quality of life, or as you put it "properly existing". To this end it is true that humans in general need to learn methods to enhance their life experience and to avoid activities that degrade their life experience. Humans are unique in that they even have this problem/opportunity.

There is a reason for you're existence. I ask you to consider what you are. You are a living being. Another living being did something which resulted in your existence. As a matter of fact two other living beings agreed to do something which they knew in advance of doing it could (no guarantee here) result in your existence.

Notice (and this is very important): At the fundamental level of what those others are - it still exists. And you are the evidence which proves that it still exists. Their existence will not cease to exist when the life carried within their individual bodies is extinguished. You are the reason their existence will remain beyond their death.

What you are able to do; and then what you actually do, will determine whether what you are will continue to exist beyond your death.

[UncleJim]

And this addresses the issue of happiness. Happiness is that emotion which naturally occurs when a properly functioning HUMAN realizes they are alive and are worthy of the life they possess.

I'm not too concerned about it. We inevitably experience it, in spurts, in certain situations anyway. What I'm talking about is something of a "peace of mind" that I'm doing the right thing for myself. I don't expect or want people to tell me what to do.. I'm just wondering how they deal with it themselves, particularly objectivists.

The objectivist philosophy is a philosophy of observation. Objectivists look at what exists; necessarily including the existence of their-self. Since observation can only take place in-reality then the objectivist philosophy is strictly a reality oriented philosophy.

Since this is the case; then, all normally functioning persons; by default of how normally functioning persons act, are objectivists. Not very many of them realize this but that does not deny it.

The issue of "peace of mind" which you bring up has to do with whether or not you can rationally consider your-self to be a normally functioning human-being.

An objectivist would ask you to look at the evidence. In other words: Is the consequence of your actions supportive of what you are. If yes then the naturally occurring emotion is happiness. If not; then it's despair.

I think you under-estimate the emotional potential of 'understanding'.

You may be right. Speaking for myself though, there isn't much I desire to completely understand.

I disagree! You're the one asking the question copied here "What I'm talking about is something of a "peace of mind" that I'm doing the right thing for myself. I don't expect or want people to tell me what to do.. I'm just wondering how they deal with it themselves, particularly objectivists."

Objectivism is strictly against telling people what to do. Under objectivism that is called force. The motive aspect of objectivism is called persuasion.

When you begin to understand that you do exist and that there is a reason as to why you exist: And that the relationship existing between what you're existence is and the reason for it becomes more clear, you will be persuaded (by your own mind) to think about how you ought to be acting.

The when you discover you are acting as a properly functioning human-being the naturally occurring emotion which you will experience is called happiness. Happiness is unavoidable; but only to an Objectivist.