Nerian

Good to hear. I don't mind pain. I just don't see the point of life if it's 99.999999999% pain. Nah. Life is still a thoroughly lame experience.

Do you have anything to look forward to afterwards? That might make it worth it.

I think you're mistaken about what humans need to be psychologically healthy. Those are specialized fields that no human has to study.

What if the daily grind of living just doesn't bring you any sort of happiness? What if life just isn't worth the struggle? All the work? To me, as of the last year, life seems like nothing but drudgery with tiny moments of relief. These tiny blips seem hardly worth the mountain of pain required to get them. I cannot understand why people are keen to be alive. The best time of my life is between falling asleep and waking up. I can't think of any future state I want to achieve. It's all so empty. Why choose to live? I'm over it.

Imagine someone were convinced of Objectivist ethics and went about their self interest. What if they found the whole enterprise painful and not at all fulfilling? What would be the point?

Absolutely not. They are mixed economies and very much capitalist in essence.

I'm expressing my thoughts in an open forum in the hopes for constructive feedback. That is not preaching. I'm not attempting to teach others anything. Please. I am not the boogie man. I am not your enemy. I'm not telling anyone what they have to think. I'm not forcing my opinions on anyone.

There are more pleasures than physical pleasures. I agree with Mill that there are higher quality pleasures that are worth pursuing. A qualitative hedonism. When I say pleasure, I include psychological pleasures. I do not equate them with emotions. The pleasure we get when we satisfy one of our desires. Our desires are innate and amoral. An emotion can have positive valence, but emotions are not the only type of psychological pleasure. People have different drives and psychological pleasure conditions. In fact, one professor suggests that we 16 basic desires, and each person has a different amount of each . How much each desire you have innately will define the things you enjoy doing, ie what gives you pleasure. https://explorable.com/16-basic-desires-theory Sex is pretty much the only physical pleasure that I'd chase, and half the fun of sex is psychological. Here are some examples of such pleasures I have come up with: Fun - a class in itself, many autotelic activities that one personally finds enjoyable (ie. it triggers one or more of your innate pleasure conditions) Music Russian cuties Beauty in any form Reading fiction Understanding and learning (The little jolt of pleasure when things click) Dancing (Fun) Chasing tail & flirting (Fun) Working out (Pleasure of power over yourself) Endrophins (Endogenous morphine feels good) Laughter Hanging with friends Thrills like driving real fast, or doing a flip, or shooting a gun. Sports (Fun) This is not an exhaustive list, and such a list will be particular to each person by their nature. Writing this list has gotten me all excited about life. God damn. And I wouldn't do any of it for the sake of 'survival'. I want to survive for the sake of these types of things. Life has no value except for doing things and experiencing things that are inherently enjoyable, ie. that are intrinsically pleasurable. Objectivist ethics in my mind now stands merely as, "here are some things you need to do to survive as an animal with a volitional consciousness". Then the massive leap that successful living will make you happy. As Tara Smith says: Objectivism doesn't just teach you that you should be happy, it teaches you how to be happy. As Peikoff states: virtue is a necessary but also sufficient condition for happiness. But unfortunately ethics cannot do that. It tells you nothing of what to do with life once you obtain it. It doesn't tell you what the point of life is as a consciousness experiencing it. It doesn’t tell you why you should want to live. It says nothing about what matters IN life. It says nothing about the fact that our desires and the things we enjoy - psychological and physical - are ultimately set by our natures. The Objectivist answer to “what should I do?” is “you should survive by reason”. But for what? In service of what? Living? Why live? To be happy. How to be happy? Pursue values that let you live. Why? Because it will make you happy. It's circular and has no relation to how human's actually attain happiness or what actually motivates us in life. Life is the standard of value for survival, but it is an instrumental value, not the standard, for life-as-conscious-experience. The standard of value in consciousness is pleasure. Joy is the highest quality pleasure. Everything in life, everything you want concretely, comes down to the passions. Reason is needed to determine proper means for maximizing pleasure long range, such that one does not get morbidly obese or get HIV, which would be very unpleasant, and limit pleasure. Obviously. But the point of it is indeed to maximize your pleasure. It's rational hedonistic-interest. The value of life, the instrinsic good of being conscious, and the reason why one ought to want to survive, the point of living, is the satisfaction of one's desires and the attainment of joy. This also means suffering in the pursuit of difficult goals. As Nietzsche points out: Though I don't agree exactly, the gist is there. Improving your capacities certainly does give one a certain higher quality pleasure, there are studies that show people place more meaning of things they had to work hard for. I think this is an innate trait in humans. We need to be doing something hard that we find worth doing in order to feel some sense of meaning in our lives. Struggle (suffering in a sense) in the pursuit of some lofty goal then, should not be avoided by, but embraced as part of the process of attaining the highest pleasures. Nietzsche eloquently explains: Indeed, this is probably not far from the truth. Objectivist Ethics makes some good suggestions on how to go on surviving. Rationality. Independent judgement. Productive activity. I remain on board that these are good survival values. Does being snarky ever get you anywhere? ;)

Am I making a mistake by finding information to support my statements and presenting it?

I think you misunderstand. I wasn't claiming that. There's a structure that forms the 'pleasure center' and there's no seperate one for 'psychological' and 'emotional' pleasures. The patterns of activation may be different for different pleasures, but pleasure is pleasure. This is what I mean.

Here is an example of the hell a person creates for themselves if they think ethics is going to make them happy http://www.philosophyinaction.com/podcasts/2014-04-20-Q2.html In her response, she says that the questioner is being 'rationalistic' and needs to discover 'what they really like to do rather than what thye think they should like.' This is exactly my point. You do not choose it. And ethics only role is to help you live so you can continue to get more of it. I feel for the questioner who I think actually was listening to the Objectivist ethics as it is stated. Peikoff has said that virtue is a necessary but also sufficient condition for happiness. Unfortunately, in my opinion, no it is not. A life filled with the things you enjoy, meaningful activites, and a whole host of things that cannot be deduced out of thin air, that have things to do with the very nature of our brains is what will make you happy.

I disagree. Many experiences give us psychological pleasure, for seemingly no reason, and different people enjoy different experiences. Some people enjoy snowboarding, others do not. Are you suggesting that the psychological pleasure a person gets from snowboarding is a result of their beliefs and ideas? Why do we laugh? Is it because we chose to laugh? Or did we simply find something funny? And did we choose what we find funny, or do we simply respond to things that are funny to us? Do you think our sense of humour is a result of our beliefs and our ideas? Why do some people enjoy learning so much? Why do some people enjoy sports so much? They are gaining a psychological pleasure from these experiences, but it has nothing to do with their beliefs or ideas. They never chose the kinds of activities they enjoy, any more than what tastes they enjoy. Why do some people like music so much? Why do some people not like music at all? Neuroscinece has shown that people with musical anhedonia have less connections between the auditory cortex and their nucleus acumbens, which is the pleasure center. So people who don't like music, don't like it, because it doesn't give them pleasure. People who like it, like it, because it gives them pleasure. And this was never chosen. Furthermore, neuroscience shows us that there is really only one pleasure center in the brain. There is no actual neurological between physical pleasure and psychological pleasure. I'm not saying that our emotions are not sometimes the result of our evaluations, and that emotions are not also a source of pleasure or pain, but I am not merely speaking about emotions. But certainly, not always, otherwise we would have to say all depression and all mania comes from a person's evaluations. This is simply counter to known neurological facts. Furthermore, I would have to ask why one would evaluate anything as good or bad and thereby get an emotion from it? Why would you feel anxious or fearful about something if not because you anticipate physical or psychological pain? And I suggest that what gives one psychological pain is no more chosen than physical pain. In fact, the more you look into the actual science, the more you realize, science is aware of all this. Ethics cannot tell us what to value, it can only tell us how we ought to act to get it. I suggest that the choice to live is only made as a contingent instrumental value to the things that we value intrinsically, those things that in themselves give us physical and psychological pleasure. Ethics can then tell us, given that you want to live for these things you want, here are some groundrules for not destroying yourself in the process, so that you may continue enjoying yourself. That is my current conception. I think, strangely, Hume figured this out and I never understood the profundity of it until now. Reason can only figure out how we can get what we want, and it can also order our innate drives and desires in the service of the desire of enjoying ourselves more fully. Such that, I won't sit here eating chocolate, but I'll have a chicken breast and vegetables instead, because that is going to give me a higher oder of pleasure in life than the immediate base pleasure of some chocolate. So an action is only irrational if it doesn't lead to its intended goal. But reason cannot say whether we ought to enjoy this or that activity, or whether or not this or that type of woman should be attractive to us, what kind of lifestyle we should enjoy, what kind of activities we should pursue. All of this is merely discovered by us, and the things that we enjoy form the only basis for choosing to live in the first place. These are my current thoughts on the matter. Criticisms welcomed.

That is all I'm doing. I assure you. I'm setting the context. All I mean by it is "consider this is a proposition made by Objectivism", or if you like, "this is an Objectivist idea", and here are my thoughts or problems with it. I have no interest in disproving Rand, or getting props for finding errors for the sake of it. I am looking for truth. I have no interest whatsoever in social props. I came here to get feedback. Other people are useful for working through ideas.

I've read it many times. It doesn't answer my problems. It side steps them. The question of where do our desires com efrom? Why do certain thigns give us pleasure? I appologize for the length of this post. These ideas are very hard to articulate, and I'm still working through it in my mind, and trying to get the terminology straight. On the physical level, Objectivism agrees that what gives us pleasure is not chosen. I merely contend that the same is true on the psychological level. Rand asserted a blank slate, but any sort of introspection or extrospection, including scientific work in psychological and biological easily proves otherwise. Our drives are set up. What gives us satisfication is set up. We merely find the concrete things that trigger those circuits that gives us pleasure. Some people get a thrill from dangerous things. Othre people do not. Some people are innately curious and get a high from learning and exploring things. Others do not. None of this was chosen. It has been said that anyone who has had more than one child understands that the people come out from day one with different temperaments and personalities. Furthermore, if we came out with no innate values, we would have no drives to do anything. If we had to choose a goal by the standard of life bferoe it gave us pleasure, then how would a baby do this? It makes no sense. You were enjoying things and valuing long before you read about philosophy. Rand said value is that which one acts to gain or keep. My question is why does anyone act to gain or keep anything? What is the point? My answer is because you enjoy it. And the reason you enjoy it was not chosen (in the sense of physical and psychological, and ultimately the pleasure of living well by satisfying our innate drives and desires in a way that properly maximizes it) The standard of value is indeed pleasure. It's the only intrinsic value there is. "Value whatever you already value." My answer is we cannot do otherwise. We are wired up for it. The denial of our nature is incidious. And it makes no sense. Where do any of our goals come from? Knowing one must pursue productive work, why does one person enjoy working as a teacher and the other as an engineer? Is it because someone chose to value this or that and thereby starts deriving pleasure from it? That is absurd. How would one choose it if not by feeling? Then where did the feeling come from? It was wired. Certain aspects of this or that work satisfy your innate psychological desires and that gives you pleasure. In other words, you like it that's why you chose it, you didn't choose it and that's why you like it. People enjoy (get pleasure from) different concrete experiences not by choice but by nature. Someone said justify to whom. Objectivism says we must justify our values to ourselves rationally. I say, you cannot. Reason can show us the way to our values, it cannot decide on them. Unless you want to reserve the word value for merely the things we cognitively decide to pursue and keep. (In the sense I was using it, it means the things that give us pleasure) Then fine. I'll use the word desire, but the issue remains the exact same. You decided to pursue the values because of the enjoyment you will get, either directly or indirectly, because of your innate desires or drives. And Objectivism says we must justify our values to ourselves rationally, and yet the only reason to value this or that is because of the pleasure it gives us, and the reason it gives us pleasure cannot be justified by reason. Now you say, I pursue things because it is in my rational self-interest. This is a linguistic bait and switch. What on earth is self-interest? That which is for the organism. What is for the organism. That which serves its continued existence. Then how does pleasure factor in here? You might say pleasure needs to be there because it is necessary for spiritual well-being and spiritual well-being is necessary for survival. But why? What is it about not having any pleasure that is against the organisms life? And we come full circle, because in life as conscious experiences, the motivational system and our desire to live, the real reason to live life-as-experienced is for the pleasure of it. And none of the things that give us pleasure were chosen and they cannot be justified with reason, nor do they need to be. And thus we are still pursuing the pleasure for its own sake. It is the reason why you pursue anything, an instrumental value (a thing that serves an instrisic value) or an instrinsic value (the thing for its own sake). Even Rand admits this. She does not advocate life for life's sake at all. It's about happiness. The standard of value then is not life-as-survival, but life-as-experienced, which is an allusion to life in the sense of our conscious experiences of it. And in consciousness, the intrinsic good is pleasure. It's the thing enjoyed for its own sake. And neurobiology has shown that all pleasures physical and psychological do indeed actually come from roughly the same place. Our biological drives are not chosen, yet we pursue them. Why? Because suffering is intrinsically bad in our consciousness, and the pleasure we get from the satisfication is intrinsically good. A hedonistic egoism works because it is merely a return to normalcy. To some extent, I recognize the problem here is partially the use of terms. But if I use the Objectivist definition of value, the issue remains the same. I can identify what I mean by using the word drive or desire. Our desires are not justifiable by reason, and it is our desires that we aim to satisfy when choosing our values. And the only reason to satisfy our desires is for the pleasure of it. What do I mean by desire? I think everyone understands it on a physical level. Hunger drive is easy to understand. But we have psychological drives too, and I suggest that is at the heart of all of our values, for example such as curiosity. Curiosity is different in different people. Some people get more pleasure from the experience of discovering new things and learning. Hence, that person will choose values that satisfy that drive. But the curiosity was never chosen, and there is nothign to justify rationally the pleasure the person gets from satisfying their curiosity. They do it for its own sake, even if it has coincendental instrumental value. They still do it for its own sake. Now other people do not get that pleasure. And so for that person learning is a value only when it serves some other of their drives. Learning is insturmental, and they aren't going to do it for its own sake. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is possible that a person could get something out of learning, if they wired it up someway to another innate desire. If a person has an innate desire for the experience of having control over their environment, but is not innately curious, and then they realize rationally that knowledge is power, they may start to read voraciously on what they think is useful knowledge and enjoy the process because now it's satisfying a desire. Objectivism says nothing about our desires because it doesn't even consider our natures relevant. Since I have gone down this rabbit hole, I have started looking into the actual science, and I am somewhat confused how I missed this error for so long. It's so obvious to me now, and it makes perfect sense why I always had a problem with Objectivism's view of sex. It's scientifically and introspectively false, but I never made the connection why which is because of the rejection of any innate drives or nature. I'm trying to formulate how to fit these news ideas together. I still consider myself an egoist. I've just come to my first strong rift with Objectivism. I must have spent hundreds of hours studying Objectivism and Objectivist's works at this point. This was all sparked by a philosophy PhD friend of mine.

I still agree that the only way to be a consistent hedonist would be to be an egoist first, but I think a synthesis is required that looks at the reality of our consciousness and the instrinsic 'positiveness' of pleasure, physical and psychological.

I appologize for the length of this post, and I understand if no one wants to read it. I just feel frustarted with these ideas and needed to get some thoughts out there, for any who care to listen. To what extent is it rational to pursue pleasure? To what extent do we have to justify our desires? How can anyone justify their desires? If you desire something, isn't that alone reason enough? Even if it is somewhat self destructive, isn't the enjoyment of life more important? Certainly, many Objectivists would object to obstaining for eating chocolate if one enjoys it, even though there is only a spiritual benefit to eating chocolate, the pleasure. Chocolate isn't good for you, so why can anyone condemn someone for doing something purely for pleasure when the detriment to one's health is higher than that of eating chocolate if it's only a difference in degree, not of kind? Many desires seem to come out of nowhere. One cannot always identify why one gains pleasure from this or that, or why one enjoys this or that. Isn't the enjoyment of the thing the only rhyme, reason and justification for doing it? If the desires are a result of one's past experiences and part of one's subconscious, they are not chosen, and so still arbitrary. IF they are innate, they are arbitrary, and if they are random they are arbitrary. Or is it a case that one decides to value one's arbitrary desires? If we are told not to, then where does the joy of living come from? If we are repressing everything we want as arbitrary, then why do anything? Life would be a dutiful drudgery. To put it another way: How is Dagny's interest in railroad's anything but arbitrary? In psychology, from what I have learned, we are wired with a few basic innate drives and pleasures. All other pleasures on the psychological level are learned by association to the basic intrinsic pleasure. We feel good when we make money because we have associated money with getting the things we want. The things we want are the concrete pleasures that we do for their own sake. Such as Listening to music. Enjoying food. Sexual relations. Beautiful imagery. The fun of an activity done for its own sake. Laughing. Etc. Essentially you can think of it like a hierachy of values down to the intrinsic value of positive conscious states. Pleasure is the root of it all, and what gives you pleasure on that level is not chosen. If one never experienced pleasure during development, one would never be able to develop more abstract values such as friendship or productive work or social standing. Why would they be values? Those are just things one needs to get at basic pleasures in life, and that's why they are values. One could not enjoy anything without it being tied back to the innate pleasures. And this brings me to people with issues with their brains not producing pleasure. In these people with anhedonia, nothing has any value anymore. For such people, there's no reason to pursue anything. No amount of philosophical argumentation about life as the standard of value will make them want to be productive at work. Pleasure is the psychological ends in themselves. You don't aim at pleasure for some other reaosn, in the same way you don't aim at happiness for some other reason. I still agree that you want to aim at a happiness that does not contradict your nature, such that it is pure, and without penalty or hangover. But that's still valuing it for itself, you're still only wishing for it to be pure so that it can be fully enjoyed without being lessened in any way. Now the Objectivist points out that there are monks and mystics who would denounce pleasure and seek a path of suffering for the sake of suffering. This is valuing suffering in the abstract, but not in the intrinsic. Suffering still feels bad. One cannot consistently value suffering because if one were achieve it, one would gain psychological pleasure from that achievement, and thus contradict ones own pursuit of the suffering. The only way to pursue suffering is to do so inconsisently. In this sense, it is impossible and that's why it's irrational. Clearly, life is the standard of value in so far as pleasures are contingent upon its existence, and the pleasure reward circuitry of our brains was set up mainly to aid survival of the individual. But the reality of evolution is that our pleasure circuitry was not set up to guide the survival of the individual life exclusively, but in the self interest of his genes, the individual's life is merely contingent. This is the idea behind the 'Selfish Gene'. BUT WHAT VALUES? Morality and philosophy cannot imbue as with those. They are given to us. Once again, imagine you had never experienced pleasure. Nothing would be a value to you. Life's value to you on the conscious experiential level only stems from the experience of positively valenced mental states in the first place. Egoist Ethics in my mind is the identification of proper meta-values. These are the abstract values that everyone must adopt in order to maximize one's concrete values. Any other set of meta-values are a contradiction with life and your nature and thereby impossible. Meta values guide you consisently achieve life, upon which your pleasures are contingent, so that you can go on enjoying yourself. It's not merely that improper meta-values lead to death, but improper meta-values are also impossible to achieve consisently. Altruism, as Objectivists have stated, is impossible consistently achieve. One must be selfish to some extent, and thus always be guilty. Egoism, the identification that one ought to act in one's own self interest, is still valid, but one's self interest in not merely defined by survival, but by 'flourishing qua man', which means you are embracing your biological drives. You refuse to not be what you are. You refuse to renounce yourself in any way. You treat what you want as sacred and justified unto themselves. Happiness stems from a confluence of various pleasures, innate and abstract, and is itself another pleasure, and all pleasure are psychological ends in themselves.

I think it'd be entertaining if he won. At least he isn't afraid to say what he wants. He has his own money, and he can't be worse than the rest. I'm not a US citizen though, so I just get to sit back and watch the show.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Learn economics please. I could sit here and painstakingly explain the whole entire field of economis to you, or you could just go read about it, because I know from this one statement that you have not done that yet. I'm sure you are well meaning, but please consider the following: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard

What on earth are you on about, mate? hahaha. What is your question?

Objectivism is a whole philosophy that makes claims about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, politics. Anarcho-capitalism is a political and economic system. Objectivism advocates laissez-faire capitalism in politics. As you can see, they are different in kind. You cannot compare the two directly. Anarcho-capitalism is not a philosophical system, and Objectivism is not a political system. Laissez-faire capitalism (advocated by Objectivism) and Anarcho-capitalism can be compared as two different political systems, and they do indeed differ. The main way they differ is in the way arbitration is solved. Under capitalism, the state has monopoly control over arbitration and the use of force. Under anarcho-capitalism, there is no central monopoly of arbitration and no central monopoly over the use of force. In capitalism law courts, police and army are performed by the state. In anarcho-capitalism, law courts, police and army are all provided on the market. The details are complex and very involved, and so I can't explain them all here. You will have to read about laissez-faire capitalism and then compare it to anarcho-capitalism yourself.

Your friend Peter is just stealing these tickets from his company and giving them to you. So it's just an example of theft. You know the tickets are stolen, so accepting them is as good as theft. Theft is not in your self interest. Theft is irrational. It will make you a parasite. And it's a contradiction (you assert your right to property and yet deny it to the company you are stealing from) You will not be creating the values you need to survive, but taking them. This will harm you in many ways, but the most important is your psychology. If you agree that theft is not in your self interest then I need not continue. You will not be surviving by the use of your own mind but defaulting on that responsibility and merely sucking off the values created by the minds of others making you depedendent, etc etc.

What if he just had a different opinion? I don't like that anyone who has very different opinions from the norm, or opinons that offend, is automatically crazy. He makes some good points.

I really liked it. I thought it was a well executed portrayal of a great man. It is a fiction movie based on a true story, so it doesn't have to be historically accurate. That is not the point. It is not a documentary.

It seems he just completely misunderstands the fight-or-flight response, because of what it is called. It is just the heightened metabolic response when faced with danger which enables greater physical activity temporarily. But the dismissal of all instinct to me has always seemed unwarranted. Sure, we are conceptual tabula rasa, but instinct does not require conceptual content.

Very simple. The very reason virtues are virtues is because they serve the self, they are in a human's self interest. As such, they are all virtues of selfishness.