MrBenjamatic

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health." They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence. So it is logical to calculate the probable length of your existence, and decide you would prefer it a bit shorter? As you have already said you would rather die than go on welfare, I presume the answer is yes. Being logical merely consists of accepting the law of causality (a thing is itself) as an absolute; and the law of causality is a corollary of the laws of logic: a thing is itself, contradictions cannot exist, either-or. See my earlier post to see how all contradictions, in order to be contradictions, always require that a thing not be itself (which IS the contradiction). I am logical as I accept the law of causality and the laws of logic as absolutes. I do not evade that a cigarrette is itself, that its contents are harmful to my health and that the consequences of smoking (cancer, heart problems, etc) are what they are. I am logical in chosing death when my only alternative is welfare, not because of my choice, but because I recognize that death is death (and all that it presupposes) and welfare is welfare (and all that it presupposes: violating others rights by robbery with a government gun). Does this make sense? Someone please correct me if logic consists of being moral (chosing that which respects others rights and sustains my life and gains and keeps my values). Please tell me who said it and their explanation of why, and how that why is a continuation of the definition of logic: the art of non-contradictory identification.

Statements like "I love to smoke" express personal preferences and are not objective arguments. The same goes for "The deliciousness of cigarettes is of greater value to me than my health." They're according to my metaphysical value judgements. And doesn't objective mean that which pertains to reality and thereby that which is logical? It could be argued that knowingly damaging ones health is illogical as it is logical to sustain ones existence. What would you define as objective. I held it as being that which is logical and thereby pertains to existence.

Those who know me have long understood that I have an animus toward peach and lavender cigarretres, albeit less so for bergamot. Don't take it personal. Do you know who makes them? I've been looking for them and couldn't find them which is why I wanted to make them myself. If you know who made the lavender and peach cigarrettes, please let me know!

For what? If you think what I've just said is illogical, which particular premises of mine contradict? Truth never contradicts truth. "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification" (Rand). Since I have not found my premises to contradict I can say that I hold the law of causality to be held as an absolute by each of my premises. A contradiction requires, in order to be held as truth, that a thing sot be itself. For example: 1+1=5 is a contradiction. In order for that to work 1 would have to be 4 and not 1 or 5 would have to be 2 and not 5. So long as ones premises don't contradict, one can say that one has held the law of causality to be an absolute. The law of causality being, of course, that a thing is itself. Does this make sense?

The good is that which sustains your existence and gains and keeps your values: virtue. Cigarettes are unhealthy and may cause cancer. I agree that, thereby, smoking cigarettes does not sustain one's existence. The purpose of my Benjamatic pursuit (my life purpose) is to create the means to please my senses. Producing lavender and peach, bergamot and other flavors of cigarettes pleases my senses. The only reason my pursuit of creating cigarettes Benjamatic is not virtuous is the fact that cigarettes are harmful to my health. There are degrees of evil; I now hold that smoking cigarettes is evil, but only to a small degree. Yes, it is, to a very small degree, evil for me to smoke cigarettes with full knowledge that I might get cancer from smoking. Yes, it is, to an utterly small degree, evil for me to eat a lot of sugar and sweets with full knowledge that doing so is harmful to my health. My virtue far outweighs my vice and those are my two vices that I permit myself; they are so trivial that my happiness (which comes from my virtue) is polluted to such a small degree that I don't notice the emotional consequences. I will admit that I have changed my premise that cigarette smoking is not evil to the premise that cigarette smoking is evil to a very small degree. PDS: I will tell you what I told my parents when they said I'd have no choice but to be on welfare were it not for them: I'd rather die than rob others and violate their rights. Just as I'd chose death over welfare so I'd chose cancer and death over using a government gun to force others to pay for my surgery. I thought I'd ask what causes your slight animosity towards the concept of lavender, peach and bergamot cigarettes? It seems you disprove and I'm curious as to why. Reidy: I know I'm logical. I hold that a every thing is itself, that contradictions don't exist (which is a corollary of the either-or law of logic which I also hold as an absolute). Whenever I reach a contradiction, I identify my mistake to correct it then all the hierarchical thinking polluted by the false premise(s). Knowledge is hierarchical. This discussion is a perfect example of that (believing versus thinking). I discussed reason in my case and it was you who corrected my that reason is the ABILITY to identify and integrate sensory evidence; I used to hold that thinking and reason were the same as I must have misread the Ayn Rand Lexicon a long while back. I corrected my case and I thought about it all day and corrected my premises as I know I have to be right in order to survive and achieve My Benjamin.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking? It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke This would mean that a person considers something they do as a 'sacrifice' (or not as a sacrifice) according to his/her subjective hierarchy of values. But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking? It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

Too funny! I can't stop laughing... I can just imagine this crazy religious woman who felt she was obliged by God to restore the portrait. They should probably keep it as is if they want to stick to their principle that the deformed are superior to the beautiful. If you think about it, their ideal man shouldn't look any better than Joseph Merrick and its an utter contradiction that Jesus is not portrayed as being deformed.

I only pretend to be stupid around incredibly evil people such as my parents. I haven't performed that pretend stupid act around anyone else other than my parents. If someone does or says something stupid sometimes I laugh it depends. I remember bursting out laughing while working on a floorplan or an elevation (I don't remember) and, on youtube, I heard Obama say, "You didn't build that somebody else made that happen". Consitering what I was working on, that's one of the funniest things I've heard. If I was in a room with a dictator who forced me, I would, undoubtedly, put on a down syndrome face and pretend to take him seriously when he talked and reply with the most stupid remarks I could think of. I guess that act is my way of dealing with being forced to hate people by their force which forces me to deal with them. Now that I think of it, it would be fair to say its my way of making fun of pure evil. I think its incredibly just and incredibly funny. I giggled just thinking about it and the face of Mom when I do it. Have you seen Dot from Madtv? That was a funny one. I probably wouldn't go as far as that, but God, how funny that girl was. Now that I think about it, if I was in a room with a dictator I wouldn't help him pretend that I'm stupid or that he's not a tyrant. It would be much more serious than dealing with my parents. I could run away from my parents. An American dictator I could not escape, there's no where to defect to. I would act as Galt did when held hostage in the hotel.

Thats debatable. One's sense of humor pertains to ones philosophy. My sense of humor consists of pretending to take the stupid seriously. Will Ferrell does, I think, the same only I take it to the extreme. For example, my parents are evil (and thereby stupid: its stupid to be evil and evil to be stupid). Stupidity consists of refusing to think. Whenever my parents tried to dictate to me, I used to and sometimes still do pretend to be incredibly dimwitted (as someone with down syndrome) and pretend to take what they say seriously or most recently pretend to take them on faith (still pretending to have down syndrome). I think its hilarious! I've been doing that since around age 4 or 5. They become furious (which is as funny as my act) and try to pretend that I'm actually stupid so to think that they're ability is greater than mine; they're utterly jealous of me. Now keep in mind I'm not making fun of down syndrome. The difference between down syndrome and stupidity is that down syndrome is something one is born with. Stupidity is a lifestyle choice. As for Ayn Rand, I;ve heard her crack jokes. She made a funny one about her view of Elvis.

Probably. But I don't agree with it and niether will any true Objectivist.

I'd gladly accept a commission from anyone if it weren't against the law.

I never looked into Gaudi until now. Yes, he was great. I can tell: he designed his own furniture, he didn't care what others thought of it, he loved his work and theres flow and integrity in his work. The second video I didn't at all find to be great. My work is going to be very grand in scale. It will also be expensive as I'll be using gems (my favorite being malachite) which will have to be tiled (the tiles somes being sculptured) and they'll be placed by hand. I will have some windows which are liquid crystal so I'll be able to project images and videos (of my work). I've been thinking of a way to have a glass, somewhat like this one tile I saw, be sensitive to rain; when its hit by a raindrop Benjamatic line will sprout from that point in all directions. That will be expensive and I don't even know if its possible to have liquid crystal in a non-flat form. It should be but it will be very expensive and obviously bespoke. My work will be very intricate. Incidentally, the purpose of my pursuit is to please my senses. For example I know I can integrate perfumed wax falls into my architecture; like waterfalls but lighted but insted sporting perfumed wax so to please my sense of smell. That is one of the many ways my architecture is voluptuous to the nose. I know a certain way to have a fire-fall (like a waterfall but fire) magnetically levitate and be perfumed and I know a certain way to control and change the color of the firefall electronically. One interesting thing about my work is the magnetically levitating elements, sculpture and furniture. I have discovered a way to move magnetically levitating objects that has never been done before; its the furtherance of the maglev trains. I don't like magnetic trains as they're wibbly wobbly so I created a solution. There will be holography in my work; the holography of Nasser Peyghambarian (whose still in his pursuit of completion and will start his very own holography company). To please my sense of touch all padding, seating and bedding will be sunmate by Dynamic Systems (created by the great creator of "memory foam": Charles Yost). I know the measurements and the amounts of the different types of memory foam I'll use as I'll be stacking them and they'll be custum to their surroundings. The windows will be shaped like sculpture and will be very intricate (and when I say sculpture I don't mean merely nudes and statues I mean architectural shape). Of course, to view nature, some windows will be flat and the sculptured windows will have sections that are flat. My panes will be metal. My architecture is not ample in wood and it is only used as decoration. My favorite woods are the burls and I'll only use those woods. No mahogany, no oak, no nonsense! My work will NEVER be supported by wood, only by Bainite Steel (7% stronger than steel, the newest and greatest metal on the market created by Gary Cola) and in 5-10 years Buckeypaper (which is been worked on at a university in Florida and which is 500 times stronger than steel and 10 times lighter). There will be a lot of fur in my architecture. All bedding will be magnetically attactched so it can be removed easily and each bed and chair will have (in its storage compartment) available a covering option of fur, jersey and silk (cashmere too if it gets very cold). I am also very good at placing speakers so to make excellent surround sound. I've been fiddling with things to make perfect arrangements for as loing as I can remember and i do it CONSTANTLY. Hmmm. My work will include fluorescence integrated into the architecture down to every detail in some areas. I plan on making molds to pour fluroescent rocks into (I'll have to call today as I found out a week ago my molding process won't workfor gems and rocks without ruining them or changing their color when I melt them to pour: I was told by a metallurgist it could be done but I should have called more people). There's sooooooooo much more thats new and luxurious about my architecture and I could talk about it for hours! THANKS FOR ASKING! I love talking about it! I'd build more sculpture if I wasn't poor and my parents didn't throw away all my clay from my apartment before I moved home. I've done other sculpture and I know that my sculptural work will be different once I find my hands on clay again. Since that scultpure was created my work has drastically changed. It's much more evolved. Once I have the money, which I plan to make by selling my book, I'll make sculpture have it 3d scanned and investment casted. I will also make perfume. Thats not too terribly regulated. I would create cigarrettes to sell but, with that damn crony Philip Morris, I will, for now, only make them for myself. I have a lot on my platter but my standards and my platter are no larger than my ability. Ones standards and pursuit is always bounded by ones ability. Btw, had Leedskalnin built the Coral Castle today he would be arrested and fined. Building anything which will be inhabited by humans and calling oneself or creating landscape architecture is against the law without government licensing and after that they control your work. In order to achieve their license, for interior design, architecture and landscape architecture I'd have to involuntarily serve three different "professional" regulation collectives. The local city boards can vote away your (architectural and probably landscape architectural) designs and permit you to do only what they allow; I think in landscape architecture, as with architecture, you have to have your plans approved before building. They can deny you because they think your work is ugly (but only by making that which you want to do against the law first). Even if I did get my architectural license I wouldn't be allowed to be a landscape architecture or design and arrange the furniture for my architecture. I'd have to get degrees in architecture, landscape architecture AND interior design. All those that regulate are mediocrities who hate their superiers and thereby force them with government guns not to be superior. May they choke on their intellectual sewage and drown. Carol: My absolutely logical court suit is my solution to the hurdle of red tape. My upcoming book and the job which I'm going to, but haven't yet, gotten are my means of escaping to this Hell under the whip of my parents. Creating my architecture is something I always pursue to make life worth living and this unjust hell in my way worth battling. As I think I said in another discussion, for all problems virtue is the only solution.

Nope, you got it.

That is what I mean. One must be right (moral) in order to remain in and sustain one's existence. One has a right to sustain his existence so long as he does not initiate the use of force on others. Thereby man has a right in order to be right; it is never right to initiate force and thereby having the right to be right is within each individuals realm of rights. Has Rand not said this? And if you hold one has the right to buy or sell, I thought I should point out that no one has that right. You have the right to offer to buy and offer to sell. The word offer makes clear that in order for it to be a right it must be volitional for both parties. if you had the right to buy something you would have the right to buy something that someone doesnt want to sell and they have no right not to sell it as you would have the right to buy it.

How very Objectivist of you! I was a republican before I discovered Ayn and stumbled into architectural terrorists; even as a republican I carried one copy of the Constitution in My Book (in which I carry my drawings), one in my peacoat and one in my blazer.

I think it is no coincidence that Rand, Mozy, Lionel Yu (my favorite composer) and I all started our pursuits at age 5. I wonder why she had Roark know he wanted to be an architect at the late age of 10 (or 11 I don't remember, but it's either or). Perhaps she pictured Henry Cameron as starting at a younger age as he created a new architecture which presupposed new means of construction whereas Roark took Cameron's work as material and originated the next step following, I think, Camerons means of construction (which he created and which his architecture presupposed). I would compare myself with Cameron, professionally, more than I would with Roark; just as I would compare myself more to Louis Sullivan more than Frank Lloyd Wright. Sullivan and the fictional Cameron did, in fact, take historic and already existing architecture as material, but the steps they originated went further from those historical styles than Roarks furtherance of Cameron's work and Wrights furtherance of Sullivan's work. When I say furtherance, I mean, of course, taking existing creations as material, using them, and originating the next step. I thought you and others might, as I did, laugh with (of course not at) this FLW quote I found. I don't remember it exactly and I can't find it online so it may not be word for word accurate but I'll capture the gist. Upon being asked whether he was a bit immodest in referring to himself (in a court trial) as the world's greatest architect, Frank Lloyd Wright replied, "Well I was under oath wasn't I?" Before I became a lawyer, I was inclined to compare myself to either Clarence Darrow or a young Abraham Lincoln, with a dash of Johnie Cochran thrown in somewhere. Oliver Wendell Holmes too. So, yeah, I do know how you feel. I know it. You knew why I posted that. ;) So you're an Objectivist lawyer. Thats so awesome!

Karl Jenkins:

Whoops! Took someone on faith. Where is your evidence that she started at that age. That makes more sense that she started at that age as she had Roark start at 10. I remember it being in a newspaper article published online. Why do you doubt its accuracy? I do agree about his philosophy. How far that man was from Roark. I've thought his sense of life is vulgar. Have you seen a video of that man? His early work is genius but looking at his later work, I think he was swallowed by mediocrity. He must have lost his sense of self. I don't like his work but I most definently know its great. His Guggenheim is, however, not. But, then again, I haven't studied him at all and I haven't studied modern architecture except for in college during which I couldn't bring myself to study what I was told. Had Frank been an Objectivist, I'm sure his work would be better. Objectivism furthered my work immensely. I wonder, sometimes, if Profokiev had agreed with and understood objectivism he would have been Romantic insted of surreal and abstract. Actually, I know he would have been, I just wish he had. His Sleeping Beauty Waltz is glamourous enough evidence that he was capable of Romanticism. I like his Dance of the Knights, I used to listen to it as a battle hymn when I thought I was a villain. Your interest reads you like music. My three favorite composers I discovered not so long ago and are all ingenius and unrecognized. Very much like non-fiction Richard Halleys. Have you heard of Lionel Yu (my favorite), Bogdan Alin Ota or Karl Jenkins. I'll post, for yours and others convenience links to a song by each (which are different from my earlier postings of them in this very discussion) Lionel Yu: Bogdan Alin Ota:

You're absolutely right that morality is based on metaphysics and epistemology. I've always held her basic premises regarding metaphysics. I didn't even have to study her metaphysics that much. So long as the laws of logic and the law of Causality is valid, metaphysics is understandable to me. In fact, I remember, the first question I ever asked about architecture (that I can remember) which I think began my pursuit, I asked when I was five in the car with dad; I asked Dad (but was really asking of myself), "Building a house shouldn't be hard. All I have to do is glue bricks togather -right?" No architect could be an architect without grasping metaphysics so far as his work is concerned and I made a point to do so. That being said, it was the epistemology that was a little bit of trouble. I took altruist morality on faith and accepted the unearned guilt of being evil (and my view of evil consitered it to be good to be evil; my view of the evil was pretty close to Rands view of the good). I did, incidentally, try to grasp and understand her morality before understanding a bit about Rands epistemology, and it was difficult so I realized that morality must be based on it. So, yes, I had to grasp her epistemology before grasping her morality. Though I didn't completely catch on to the fact that morality is based absolutely on epistemology and metaphysics, I did learn morality while not completely understand the basics of epistemology to the degree I did understanding the basics of epistemology. My pursuit of philosophy must be very odd as compared to others. I took what I thought to be the that upon which Objectivism is based and further it myself then compare my views to its creator, Ayn Rand, to check my premises and correct my contradictions. Because my pursuit is what it is, I was able to reach conclusions that Rand didn't reach that don't contradict Objectivist principles; as evidence I give you the end of this post and my political post. Many have said I've been bold and I think its fair to say that I have as I've come to different conclusions. But I've made a point to constantly check my premises and correct my contradictions. Like I said, I've been, since I began my conscious pursuit of philosophy, comparing my independent conclusions (which I reached by furthering the basic axioms and principles of Objectivism) to Ayn Rand using Ayn Rand Lexicon. That is why my premises are my own. How could they not be? In what specific section of my philosophy do you think I reached by rationalization? I'm interested. I completely agree with you. I do have a sense of life. J'aime la vie! J'aime la vie! Do you now understand why I only needed the "potted answers" of ARL because I did my own thinking based on Objectivist principles and axioms? Can you see how thats possible. I find my conclusions don't, at all, contradict Objectism; I'm reading Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal right now and I agree with AND AT THE SAME TIME understand all that I've been reading. Rand and I agree and reach similiar non-contradictory conclusions because truth is truth and the true never contradicts the true. Not a single thing of Rand that I've read has contradicted me, to the extent of my knowlege. *New: I said, in the first question, that my question might have began my pursuit of architecture. I thought for a second and realized I wouldn't have asked that question had I not yet been interested in architecture. I don't ask questions which I don't care about the answer to

I think it is no coincidence that Rand, Mozy, Lionel Yu (my favorite composer) and I all started our pursuits at age 5. I wonder why she had Roark know he wanted to be an architect at the late age of 10 (or 11 I don't remember, but it's either or). Perhaps she pictured Henry Cameron as starting at a younger age as he created a new architecture which presupposed new means of construction whereas Roark took Cameron's work as material and originated the next step following, I think, Camerons means of construction (which he created and which his architecture presupposed). I would compare myself with Cameron, professionally, more than I would with Roark; just as I would compare myself more to Louis Sullivan more than Frank Lloyd Wright. Sullivan and the fictional Cameron did, in fact, take historic and already existing architecture as material, but the steps they originated went further from those historical styles than Roarks furtherance of Cameron's work and Wrights furtherance of Sullivan's work. When I say furtherance, I mean, of course, taking existing creations as material, using them, and originating the next step. I thought you and others might, as I did, laugh with (of course not at) this FLW quote I found. I don't remember it exactly and I can't find it online so it may not be word for word accurate but I'll capture the gist. Upon being asked whether he was a bit immodest in referring to himself (in a court trial) as the world's greatest architect, Frank Lloyd Wright replied, "Well I was under oath wasn't I?"

Okay, now I get it. You are actually pulling our collective leg, aren't you? Well played, sir. Just noticed, for instance, that you want to "very much" smoke "lavender and peach" cigarettes. Of course you do. Very nice. Hilarious. I started mixing my own tobacco and creating my own flavors with herbs and spices and I've been pleased with myself so far. I think lavender is one of the most voluptuous means of pleasing my sense of smell and taste (though i haven't mixed it yet with my tobacco). I think lavender mixed with peach would make for a good flavoring of cigarrettes. Nothing can be luxurious if it doesn't please at least one of the senses to a highly satisfying degree.

I have found and have held as truth (for a while now) that all situations and all problems can only be solved by means of virtue. Virtue is the antidote of vice. One cannot be completely virtuous and completely unvirtuous at the same time. Virtue wipes out vice, and, even though the vice which your virtue cured existed, it is just for others to sanction and support your virtue. Moral redemption, I've discovered, can only be bought with virtue. If someone used to be horribly unvirtuous in their past but willed to be virtuous and morally redeem themselves by gaining their values, they are deserving of love. Virtue is the act of gaining and keeping one's values (Ayn Rand). You can only love others for gaining and keeping their values; so long as they've gained their values, and, whether they did or didn't do so in their past, they are worthy of love. Does this make sense?

And then there is Peikoff. . . Question: What does it it mean to forgive, and how does one get there? Some might argue that it is wrong to deal with other people as if one is a psychologist, and therefore Peikoff’s position is correct. It is not your place to teach people how to be moral. There is some validity to that position, at least in the context of people you don’t care about. But look again at the question that was posed: What does it it mean to forgive, and how does one get there? The questioner obviously wants to know if there is a way for a person to earn forgiveness. Branden says yes—if you care about the person, you try to understand where they were coming from, and then help them to see that what they did was immoral, because very often they do not see it. You do not have to be a psychologist to show someone you care about why what they did was wrong, and then give them a chance to earn redemption by correcting their behavior. Peikoff’s answer to the question “how does one do it?” is that you don’t. He clearly implies that, when it comes to evil, there is no such thing as forgiveness or redemption. To forgive is to sanction and encourage corruption. Banish the person to social Siberia. Period. End of story. Then Peikoff wonders why more people don’t flock to the Objectivist cause, and blames “tolerationists” like Branden for subverting the concept of objective moral judgment. Could there be a more vivid way of illustrating the stark contrast between "open" and "closed" Objectivism? I think it would be fair to say, as Branden was advocating, that brutishly insulting someones immorality won't help them. Didn't, however, Rand say that one musn't sanction and support evil (immorality)? (Rhetorical question of which the answer is yes). Can't one refrain from insulting anothers evils (immoralities) and at the same time refrain from sanctioning and supporting it. I niether approve of nor support some OL member's non-objectivist premises however I do not insult them. It is fair, I think, to say that to condemn someone would be to convict someone as being guilty. There is a difference between knowing someone is guilty of being immoral and checking their premises AND insulting them for being immoral or highlighting their immorality. Rand stressed her highlighting the good before the evil. In one of her interviews she was asked, "So it's important not to be guilty". She replied that it is important to be moral, and added that she stressed the positive and not the negative. It is always extremely practical to stress the positive before stressing the negatives (the cause and effects of not being moral). When I was condemned, as I've been many times, for condemning forgiveness, I've always ask, "have you ever forgiven someone for being good?" Forgiveness, I hold, is to sanction and support evil; to pat someone on the back after they are immoral and say it's ok. That is monstrous.

Nothing that is not alive can have its own purpose. I haven't heard Rand say that but I haven't, to the extent of my knowlege, contradicted any premises of mine in saying that. Do I make sense when I say only living entities can have a purpose? The only purpose of an instinctual or automatically acting living entity can be to sustain life. Does this make sense? And only man can set his own purpose. Only a sentient entity can formulate a goal. Ba'al Chatzaf Only sentient entities can have goals, if by goals you mean purpose. And only beings volitional consciousness can choose their goals and purpose.