Concrete examples of values

[Reidy]

(Hate to keep hijacking the thread, but I can't resist.)

I could imagine Ayn Rand loving that design.

She did. If you read Wright's autobiographical account of the building against her fictional account of the Stoddard Temple you'll see that the first was a source for the second.

(And DID you know that the photo at left [as of ,today; no telling what will be there when scholars pore through these archival treasures a century hence] was taken at UT? The background is the inner side of one of the colossal planter boxes shown e.g. in #21.)

If I must address the topic: much of the current conversation has turned on a failure to distinguish between values and appropriate, conducive-to-life values. An alcoholic acts to gain / keep alcohol, so it's a value to him. To point out that it's a bad value does not contradict this.

Pleasure need not be conducive to productivity. Sometimes it is, and sometimes not. Do you think Hank and Dagny were fucking in order to make themselves more productive? If you insist that pleasure needs to be for productivity then you haven't solved anything, because you then have to ask yourself why we should be productive. As Aristotle and Rand both pointed out, these means-end series have to stop somewhere. Pleasure is one kind (maybe the only kind) of end in itself, and you need ends-in-themselves to stop the infinite regress.

The question seems more complicated than it is, largely because most of our value decisions don't require us to go all the way back to the source of the means-end series. When you order in a restaurant you consider what you like plus price and maybe some health concerns. The right decision is conducive to life, and if you wanted you could spell out the argument, but you don't have to take that explicitly into consideration. The only times where you might are situations of extreme duress that most of us never face - do I value this person enough to risk my life? do I live with ALS or opt for assisted suicide?

[Mikee]

Hi Tony,

If we can define a purposeful action as pursuing a value, suicide is an action in the pursuit of some value. That value is apparently higher to that person than their own life. Think of ordering every value you can think of in a decision matrix. Different people, even objectivists, would weigh the various entries differently. They might end up in the same order for different self defined groups but even then have different weightings from individual to individual. I think these differences are subjective. Vive la difference.

[anthony]

Howzit, Mike! I'm all for "la difference", but I think those "different weightings" by no means point toward subjectivity of values. You judge, you choose, you spend time and thought on various elements: so do I. But they all come down to the same categories - love, friendship, creativity, self-worthiness, mental and physical output, appreciation of arts...and so on. There are only so many, and only so much time. Naturally, each Objectivist, say, will find a different value-order, and at any time of his life it will be different to another time. One period, it'll be his kids growing up - another time it's writing his memoirs. Heh. And 100's of variations on that theme.

It is a fine line. But each individual is apprehending reality and adding value to his life, objectively. Subjectivism is fundamentally a denial of reality. Not to argue from authority (ha!) but I can't find a quote by Rand - maybe in her 'Letters' - where she exclaims "And don't talk to me about subjective values!"(As I recall).

The suicidal man cannot have higher value in death, as I see it. He's simply lost all ability to value, which is the value in life.

In a basic way, all of virtue and value, and all the rest on ethics - aids men and women in never getting to that point. The first choice to the final choice is to choose to value or not.

Reidy: Thanks for your insights, it bears more thinking about. I don't see how you can be "hijacking this thread" - after all, you've provided the only "concrete[ahem]example" requested by the OP.

[Darrell Hougen]

It seems there’s still a good bit of conflation going on here. What one does to gain or keep a value is not the same as the value itself. To use Darrel’s example, the mother’s value is not attendance at her children’s events. Her value is the bond with her children. Attending events that are important to her children is the action she takes to gain and keep that bond. In the situation where there is a conflict, and she must choose one event over another, the value doesn’t change. Her actions do. For instance, she may need to weight the events according to the impact they have in the life of each child. Whichever event she chooses to attend, she will most likely do something to “make up” for missing the other because the value is not the event, but the relationship.

Perhaps I’m nit-picking, but this is an important distinction. If you conflate value with action, then you create conflict rather than resolve it. Your values should drive your actions which cannot happen if you aren’t clear about what they are. The mother in the example would be hopelessly deadlocked about how to resolve the dilemma if event attendance was the only goal. Whereas, knowing that her goal is to maintain a healthy long term relationship with her children, her options become identifiable and therefore, manageable, even predictable.

I guess what I’m getting at is that if you are identifying values at the level where action is necessary, then it’s too late. Identify your values at higher abstraction and then decompose downward when you must act.

Hi Deanna,

I didn't really get around to discussing the hierarchical nature of values in my post. Identifying the hierarchical nature of values is the key to unwinding your apparent conundrum.

It's not that I'm conflating values with actions. Values are assigned to goals or ends and may be assigned to any goal or end, from the most mundane to the most abstract. Actions are taken to achieve goals or ends. So, in effect, a value can be assigned to any potential action, depending upon the end or goal that the action is meant to achieve.

The question of which action to take is determined by weighing the costs and benefits of taking that action --- weighing the values that are gained and lost in terms of the goals that are achieved and those that are not.

You are right that lesser goals or ends are pursued in an effort to achieve higher goals or ends. Lesser goals or ends are the means to achieving higher goals or ends. So, if it is impossible to achieve two lesser goals because they conflict with each other, then it makes sense to return to the more abstract goal and look for other ways to achieve it.

Sometimes higher goals or ends may also be impossible to achieve simultaneously. So, it isn't sufficient to just remove oneself one level from concrete action. In the example of the mother and her children, in desperate times it might be impossible for her to maintain a strong bond with her children while making sure they are safe and have enough to eat.

It is not unusual, for example, for mothers in China to leave their children in the countryside with their grandmother while working in a city hundreds of miles away and to only return once or twice a year to see them. It is unsafe to bring the children to the city where the parents share a small apartment with several other people, but the mother must work to make enough money to support them. There is a conflict between the desire to maintain a strong bond with her children and the goal of making sure they are safe and well fed, so she must go higher up the hierarchy and think about the overall well-being of her children.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Bob writes:

I has clean lines but it is rather stark.

It is austere... but that also conveys dignity and a lack of pride. It is a remarkable how concrete can literally communicate values. I could imagine Ayn Rand loving that design.

Greg

Lack of pride is not a value or virtue.

Darrell

[dldelancey]

Actions are the evidence that something is valued. The relation of the two is sometimes not immediately evident. The important thing is, if you don't act to gain or keep something, you don't value that something higher than something else. Value is subjective and therefor sometimes hard to figure out what people value. Their actions are simply evidence that they value something.

The relation of the two is also sometimes non-existent. I don't think "value is subjective" is the correct explanation for why it's sometimes hard to figure out what people value. A better explanation is that people haven't figured it out themselves and therefore their actions are contradictory and confusing. They have nothing to guide their actions.

[Darrell Hougen]

Pleasure is one kind (maybe the only kind) of end in itself, and you need ends-in-themselves to stop the infinite regress.

Really? Is that a statement you want to stand by? Is that consistent with Objectivism?

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Hi Tony,

If we can define a purposeful action as pursuing a value, suicide is an action in the pursuit of some value. That value is apparently higher to that person than their own life. Think of ordering every value you can think of in a decision matrix. Different people, even objectivists, would weigh the various entries differently. They might end up in the same order for different self defined groups but even then have different weightings from individual to individual. I think these differences are subjective. Vive la difference.

The differences could be subjective, but they could be a result of the fact that two different people live objectively different lives.

Darrell

[dldelancey]

It seems there’s still a good bit of conflation going on here. What one does to gain or keep a value is not the same as the value itself. To use Darrel’s example, the mother’s value is not attendance at her children’s events. Her value is the bond with her children. Attending events that are important to her children is the action she takes to gain and keep that bond. In the situation where there is a conflict, and she must choose one event over another, the value doesn’t change. Her actions do. For instance, she may need to weight the events according to the impact they have in the life of each child. Whichever event she chooses to attend, she will most likely do something to “make up” for missing the other because the value is not the event, but the relationship.

Perhaps I’m nit-picking, but this is an important distinction. If you conflate value with action, then you create conflict rather than resolve it. Your values should drive your actions which cannot happen if you aren’t clear about what they are. The mother in the example would be hopelessly deadlocked about how to resolve the dilemma if event attendance was the only goal. Whereas, knowing that her goal is to maintain a healthy long term relationship with her children, her options become identifiable and therefore, manageable, even predictable.

I guess what I’m getting at is that if you are identifying values at the level where action is necessary, then it’s too late. Identify your values at higher abstraction and then decompose downward when you must act.

Hi Deanna,

I didn't really get around to discussing the hierarchical nature of values in my post. Identifying the hierarchical nature of values is the key to unwinding your apparent conundrum.

It's not that I'm conflating values with actions. Values are assigned to goals or ends and may be assigned to any goal or end, from the most mundane to the most abstract. Actions are taken to achieve goals or ends. So, in effect, a value can be assigned to any potential action, depending upon the end or goal that the action is meant to achieve.

The question of which action to take is determined by weighing the costs and benefits of taking that action --- weighing the values that are gained and lost in terms of the goals that are achieved and those that are not.

You are right that lesser goals or ends are pursued in an effort to achieve higher goals or ends. Lesser goals or ends are the means to achieving higher goals or ends. So, if it is impossible to achieve two lesser goals because they conflict with each other, then it makes sense to return to the more abstract goal and look for other ways to achieve it.

Sometimes higher goals or ends may also be impossible to achieve simultaneously. So, it isn't sufficient to just remove oneself one level from concrete action. In the example of the mother and her children, in desperate times it might be impossible for her to maintain a strong bond with her children while making sure they are safe and have enough to eat.

It is not unusual, for example, for mothers in China to leave their children in the countryside with their grandmother while working in a city hundreds of miles away and to only return once or twice a year to see them. It is unsafe to bring the children to the city where the parents share a small apartment with several other people, but the mother must work to make enough money to support them. There is a conflict between the desire to maintain a strong bond with her children and the goal of making sure they are safe and well fed, so she must go higher up the hierarchy and think about the overall well-being of her children.

Darrell

I don't have a conundrum, Darrell, but thank you for your concern. We're generally in agreement. Whatever we're saying differently, I think is about semantics and not substance.

[Darrell Hougen]

I don't have a conundrum, Darrell, but thank you for your concern. We're generally in agreement. Whatever we're saying differently, I think is about semantics and not substance.

I'm glad to hear you don't have a conundrum, Deanna. Perhaps I was conflating "conundrum" with something else. Anyway, I'm glad to hear we're in such violent agreement.

Darrell

[moralist]

Darrell writes:

Lack of pride is not a value or virtue.

You're right. The lack of a vice isn't a virtue because it is not positive or affirmative.

Humility is a virtue.

Greg

[Marcus]

There is evidence that humans do have some "built-in" values, that is, values that are not learned or neccesarily chosen.

For example, in nearly all societies, there seems to be a strong taboo and emotional revulsion against incest. Or that babies as young as 1 know the difference between good and evil and desire to punish evil.

There is also the universal appeal of sex, food, facial symmetry etc. All are clear values to most people, regardless of culture or upbringing.

I don't totally agree with the objectivist idea that *all* values are learned or chosen.

[Nerian]

I don't totally agree with the objectivist idea that *all* values are learned or chosen.

No, nor do I, and therein lay some of my confusion.

I think our rational values are all chosen.

The question is: are there any 'values' that are in-built that are self destructive? And if so, how can we fight our own natures? If a rational value is in conflict with our in-built values how can we overcome this, or should we even try?

I think Rand was trying to tell us that it was up to us to figure out how to use ourselves to for rational ends. It's not an option that orgasms feel good, but it's an option whether or not we have one, or who we have it with. It's not an option that chocolate tastes amazing, but it is an option whether we eat a kilogram of it or not. It's not an option whether we find someone physically attractive, but it is an option whether we date them or not. Where there truly is no choice, there is no morality. So it is only in our choices that we can be moral.

Only question is: can we make choices like that and not go crazy? And it suggests something ominous. If you are gay, you cannot choose your attraction, but you can choose not to be with men if you think it's irrational and self destructive to do so as Rand suggested. Let's say only food that tastes bland or gross to you in good for you. How long can you go without eating pleasurable food and feeling like life is worth it? Hell, even Peikoff likes wine and cake. He said he'd rather have that than live an extra hundred years.

How does Peikoff justify eating cake? It must be for the pleasure of it. It has calories, and very little nutrition, with a self destructive sugar content. In this case, he's advocating 'rational pleasure seeking' for the sake of pleasure seeking. Rand said to say you did something because you 'felt like it' was an evil. I might be missing the context she was speaking in. So what is right here? :

[Nerian]

Apparently "acting in accordance with one's nature" is moral according to the Atlas Society.

One of the main beefs I have is with Objectivism's view of sex.:

"Sex, "[t]o a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence" (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 2). And for this man (or woman, mutatis mutandis), sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love, "his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire"" - http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral

In all my readings of objectivism not once have I ever found any proof or reasoning for this claim. It is simply asserted as self evidently so. I think it is rationalism. At best, you can assert that since sex is so pleasurable, sex can be used in this way, and to do so would contribute to happiness. It doesn't follow that this is then the only proper use of sex.

[anthony]

There is evidence that humans do have some "built-in" values, that is, values that are not learned or neccesarily chosen.

For example, in nearly all societies, there seems to be a strong taboo and emotional revulsion against incest. Or that babies as young as 1 know the difference between good and evil and desire to punish evil.

There is also the universal appeal of sex, food, facial symmetry etc. All are clear values to most people, regardless of culture or upbringing.

I don't totally agree with the objectivist idea that *all* values are learned or chosen.

Rather a mixture of culturally-learned values (for the well-being of groups of men and woman through preceding generations) and 'animal-instinct values'.

My four dogs have an instinctual 'sense of justice', based on, I'd think, the hierarchy and authority of age, strength, gender, aggressiveness etc. in their group or pack. The "universal appeal of sex, food, facial symmetry" is shared by and applies to them, too. One can learn a lot about human nature from watching the interplay of domesticated animals.

So what's new? Man is rational animal. But put him in the savannah at infancy or youth, and he will starve or get eaten. Naturally, he/she needs protection and nurture and "learned values" until his conceptual faculty kicks in. At that stage and interim stages, his/her values become increasingly chosen - and presumably, rational.

Certain values are self-evident, which means gained from self-awareness, and that can't be taught.

[dldelancey]

I don't totally agree with the objectivist idea that *all* values are learned or chosen.

No, nor do I, and therein lay some of my confusion.

I think our rational values are all chosen.

The question is: are there any 'values' that are in-built that are self destructive? And if so, how can we fight our own natures? If a rational value is in conflict with our in-built values how can we overcome this, or should we even try?

I think Rand was trying to tell us that it was up to us to figure out how to use ourselves to for rational ends. It's not an option that orgasms feel good, but it's an option whether or not we have one, or who we have it with. It's not an option that chocolate tastes amazing, but it is an option whether we eat a kilogram of it or not. It's not an option whether we find someone physically attractive, but it is an option whether we date them or not. Where there truly is no choice, there is no morality. So it is only in our choices that we can be moral.

Only question is: can we make choices like that and not go crazy? And it suggests something ominous. If you are gay, you cannot choose your attraction, but you can choose not to be with men if you think it's irrational and self destructive to do so as Rand suggested. Let's say only food that tastes bland or gross to you in good for you. How long can you go without eating pleasurable food and feeling like life is worth it? Hell, even Peikoff likes wine and cake. He said he'd rather have that than live an extra hundred years.

How does Peikoff justify eating cake? It must be for the pleasure of it. It has calories, and very little nutrition, with a self destructive sugar content. In this case, he's advocating 'rational pleasure seeking' for the sake of pleasure seeking. Rand said to say you did something because you 'felt like it' was an evil. I might be missing the context she was speaking in. So what is right here? :

I won't attempt to speak for Peikoff, but I can say that I don't enjoy cake and wine simply because I feel like it. Just as I don't go to the gym simply because I feel like it. Pleasures can be rationally consumed. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing proposition. If given the choice between occasionally enjoying cake and living an extra 100 hundreds after all my loved ones have died and after I have probably also become significantly physically diminished myself, that's a rational no-brainer. We're not talking about hedonism here where you do whatever you please whenever you please with zero amount of thought or reason.

Also, Rand's views on sexuality are questioned by many, especially here at OL. You are certainly not alone on that.

[Mikee]

Howzit, Mike! I'm all for "la difference", but I think those "different weightings" by no means point toward subjectivity of values. You judge, you choose, you spend time and thought on various elements: so do I. But they all come down to the same categories - love, friendship, creativity, self-worthiness, mental and physical output, appreciation of arts...and so on. There are only so many, and only so much time. Naturally, each Objectivist, say, will find a different value-order, and at any time of his life it will be different to another time. One period, it'll be his kids growing up - another time it's writing his memoirs. Heh. And 100's of variations on that theme.

It is a fine line. But each individual is apprehending reality and adding value to his life, objectively. Subjectivism is fundamentally a denial of reality. Not to argue from authority (ha!) but I can't find a quote by Rand - maybe in her 'Letters' - where she exclaims "And don't talk to me about subjective values!"(As I recall).

The suicidal man cannot have higher value in death, as I see it. He's simply lost all ability to value, which is the value in life.

In a basic way, all of virtue and value, and all the rest on ethics - aids men and women in never getting to that point. The first choice to the final choice is to choose to value or not.

Hi Tony,

It's so rare that I disagree with you in the slightest. Here is one of those cases. Not just a semantics quibble I don't think. In "The Psychology of Self Esteem" Nathaniel Branden said something to the effect that the only laboratory we have to understand the psychology of others is our own mind. Unfortunately that comes with some insurmountable limitations. We cannot really know the thoughts in another persons mind. Our values are driven by our natures which differs slightly from person to person and also is modified by our experience. We cannot judge the value systems of others on an 'objective' scale except for our own. We can judge their actions related to our well being and according to our own moral values only. As far as others values we can only classify them as subjective and deal with their actions only. It's difficult enough to unravel the objectiveness of your own value system let alone that of others. As far as the suicidal man having lost all ability to value, what of the soldier nearest the grenade who falls on it to save his fellows?

[moralist]

Mike writes:

We cannot really know the thoughts in another persons mind.

And it would be a fatal mistake to indiscriminately act on the thoughts in our own mind. For we possess the unique talent of choosing to act contrary to our own thoughts, and it is this talent which makes us moral beings.

Our values are driven by our natures which differs slightly from person to person and also is modified by our experience.

Our values are also driven by how we respond to our nature.

As far as others values we can only classify them as subjective and deal with their actions only.

Absolutely.

Actions are the very finest and most reliable indicator of a person's moral character. Whereas value systems are of lesser importance, as not all actions conform to a value system when we are free in any moment to act outside of them... for better or for worse.

Greg

[anthony]

One of the main beefs I have is with Objectivism's view of sex.:

"Sex, "[t]o a rational man…is an expression of self-esteem—a celebration of himself and of existence" (Ayn Rand, "Of Living Death," The Objectivist, Oct. 1968, 2). And for this man (or woman, mutatis mutandis), sex is properly a physical expression of romantic love, "his response to his own highest values in the person of another—an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire"" - http://www.atlassociety.org/homosexuality-moral

In all my readings of objectivism not once have I ever found any proof or reasoning for this claim. It is simply asserted as self evidently so. I think it is rationalism. At best, you can assert that since sex is so pleasurable, sex can be used in this way, and to do so would contribute to happiness. It doesn't follow that this is then the only proper use of sex.

Rand: "To a rational man, sex is an expression of self-esteem -- a celebration of himself and existence. To the man who lacks self-esteem, sex is an attempt to fake it, to acquire its momentary illusion.

...that is why I consider promiscuous sex immoral. Not because I consider sex is evil, but because sex is too good, too important".

============

Peter, If as you say, "...sex can be used this way..." - it follows that anyone CAN "use" it this way, and therefore that one should, and one will.

Not so simple, I think.

Before one throws out Rand's views on sex, maybe it's important to see if there's a baby in that bathwater.

I used to also believe that Rand's attitude to sex was rationalistic - I've been changing my mind. [On gender stereotype, I continue to disagree].

Looking back (always easier) it is clear that for many years I didn't have enough self-esteem to begin to pull off such an ideal. I thought I had. I certainly did often "fake it to acquire its momentary illusion". Being with (uh, 'dating') a beautiful girl, or a plainer one; both seem, briefly and superficially, to 'enhance' one's self-esteem, either by association - or by comparison. (And beauties do not always/seldom possess it themselves).

For that reason it was a little too easy for me to place the fault with what I saw as Rand's high-minded rationale, not with myself where it belonged.

If one asks anyone about his or her level of self-esteem, very seldom do you not hear a positive response. Some have it, many are faking it, perhaps most don't truly know at the time. It's largely in retrospect I believe that one realises that it was low, by seeing how many bad choices one made in the past through poor self-esteem.

I still maintain that sometimes an honest, guilt-free frolic between two healthy and independent adults is great. But I think too that Rand - at the very least - set a

standard and a worthwhile goal to aim for. But without "faking" this, either...

[Reidy]

When I said in #26

Pleasure is one kind (maybe the only kind) of end in itself, and you need ends-in-themselves to stop the infinite regress.

Darrel asked in #32

Really? Is that a statement you want to stand by? Is that consistent with Objectivism?

Yes, I would stand by the claim that pleasure is an object we can pursue for its own sake and not for the sake of some further object. Some claims I'm not making here are:

- Pleasure is always a sufficient reason for picking some course of action;

- Pleasure is always preferable to any other end;

- Pleasure is, by definition, what makes some object and worth pursuing.

Rand was aware, in "The Objectivist Ethics," of the fact that ends-means series have to reach an end. VoS p. 17:

Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means. A series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible.

Aristotle makes the same point:

If something is the goal of actions which we choose for its own sake and other objects on account of it, and if we don't choose every object for the sake of some other (for that would proceed to infinity and desire would be vain and empty), clearly that would be the good and the best.

(Nichomachean Ethics 1:2 1094a18 ff)

They both say, and I say, that a series of means to ends needs an ultimate end. Rand says this is life, and Aristotle says it is eudaimonia (whose correct translation is beside the point here).

Some philosophers have pointed out that this, if you take it a certain way, is fallacious. Every means-end series has to stop someplace does not entail there is someplace where they all must stop any more than everybody loves somebody entails that there is somebody whom everybody loves.

One solution is to distinguish between two kinds of purposive explanation. I've never seen the distinction in the Objectivist literature, but I don't see that it's inconsistent. We might call one kind "first person." It's the what we do when deliberating technically about our own actions. The other, then is "third person," which we do in ethical analysis. (Calling them "third person" doesn't mean that we can't do them about our own pursuits, but this is still a different kind of explaining.) Pleasure can be (I didn't say "always and necessarily is") adequate. We can have indefinitely many ends in themselves that are strong enough to complete an explanation. When we do the other kind of deliberation, by contrast, we need to go further. Third person is the kind of explanation that can go all the way to an ultimate end but which we hardly ever need to make up our minds in practice.

One analogy might come from biology. Somewhere I read that when we walk or ride a bicycle or drive a car we constantly solve differential equations in order to stay on course. Even if you know what a differential equation is you can get around. A first-person explanation here might have to do with where you're going, what are traffic conditions and what obstacles might be in the way. An engineering explanation would need to spell out those equations, but you don't.

Others might come from economics. You make decisions about what to spend and what to save and which available good to buy, and in doing so you participate in the setting of interest rates. An economist needs to know what's going on in these respects, but you don't.

[anthony]

Good explanation. It touches on "implicit-explicit'. I think there might be an unintentional tendency in Objectivism to permit a divide between the implicit and the explicit, usually at the cost of the former. One 'isolates' for examination, as Reidy has with 'first person" and "third person".

But there's no such division in the identity, or function, of consciousness.

[Nerian]

I have recently realized something about Rand's definition of happiness:

Non-contradictory state of joy.

I had not considered the importance of the word 'non-contradictory'. I think it is crucial here. It implies that one can feel a contradictory state of joy. Such a joy, is the feeling of psychological pleasure generated by the brain for reasons that are counter to man's life.

These quotes clarify further,

Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless “kicks,” like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment’s relief from their chronic state of terror. - Ayn Rand

In other words, a man can experience the pleasure of the state of joy which is a state generated by the brain, but it is not this state of joy at which one is aiming. A rational man is aiming for an integrated state of joy that reflects the extent of the achievement of his values that serve his life. It is a non-contradictory state of joy. Joy is merely the ultimate psychological pleasure.

The next quote,

The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.
But the relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed. It is only by accepting “man’s life” as one’s primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness—not by taking “happiness” as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. 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; to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one’s stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see.

Rand is acknowledging here what I was suspecting. We are to make our emotions work for us, and be rewards for the achievement of our rational values. In this way, they serve as an intrinsic reward for correct action further motivating us to pursue such action.

I believe I had been misunderstanding 'the pursuit of happiness' and I feel as though I've come to an epiphany on this point. What I must strive for is clearer now.

The following is a part of my current thought processes on this:

I have attempted to define joy in the full context of my knowledge.

Joy: the final feeling of great psychological pleasure. / The intrinsically positive emotional state produced by the brain [as a reward].

Clearly it is not merely pumping up one's brain to get it to release the correct chemicals or fire the right pathways to give the reward that is the good. If that were so, drugs would be the answer. However, that is a contradictory state of joy or pleasure. It destroys one's life.

An other example of contradictory joy is the Buddhist or monk who sits in one spot and through various methods generates the feelings of intense joy, and at the same time continues to remain living in poverty and filth, becoming starved and frail, developing pressure sores from prolonged sitting, achieving nothing, pursuing nothing, losing the very ultimate value that is his life. Let alone to mention that he earns no money to gain access to medicine and such. He feels joy, but he is not happy, and cannot achieve happiness in this way. The Buddhists seek to gain happiness through short circuiting the brain. In this way, I submit to you, the Buddhist is akin to a drug addict. Pumping his emotional state by natural means rather than through chemical means is his only goal while the facts of his life and survival are left abandoned. A monk who would do this is engaging in hedonism where the only moral pleasure is the state of joy. The logical result is self destruction. It is death by failure to recognize one's life as one's ultimate value. The Buddhist or monk does not embrace life, but accepts death in exchange for pleasure.

[Mikee]

I have recently realized something about Rand's definition of happiness:

Non-contradictory state of joy.

I had not considered the importance of the word 'non-contradictory'. I think it is crucial here. It implies that one can feel a contradictory state of joy. Such a joy, is the feeling of psychological pleasure generated by the brain for reasons that are counter to man's life.

These quotes clarify further,

Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values. If a man values productive work, his happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his life. But if a man values destruction, like a sadist—or self-torture, like a masochist—or life beyond the grave, like a mystic—or mindless “kicks,” like the driver of a hotrod car—his alleged happiness is the measure of his success in the service of his own destruction. It must be added that the emotional state of all those irrationalists cannot be properly designated as happiness or even as pleasure: it is merely a moment’s relief from their chronic state of terror. - Ayn Rand

In other words, a man can experience the pleasure of the state of joy which is a state generated by the brain, but it is not this state of joy at which one is aiming. A rational man is aiming for an integrated state of joy that reflects the extent of the achievement of his values that serve his life. It is a non-contradictory state of joy. Joy is merely the ultimate psychological pleasure.

The next quote,

The maintenance of life and the pursuit of happiness are not two separate issues. To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value, and one’s own happiness as one’s highest purpose are two aspects of the same achievement. Existentially, the activity of pursuing rational goals is the activity of maintaining one’s life; psychologically, its result, reward and concomitant is an emotional state of happiness. It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it. And when one experiences the kind of pure happiness that is an end in itself—the kind that makes one think: “This is worth living for”—what one is greeting and affirming in emotional terms is the metaphysical fact that life is an end in itself.

But the relationship of cause to effect cannot be reversed. It is only by accepting “man’s life” as one’s primary and by pursuing the rational values it requires that one can achieve happiness—not by taking “happiness” as some undefined, irreducible primary and then attempting to live by its guidance. If you achieve that which is the good by a rational standard of value, it will necessarily make you happy; but that which makes you happy, by some undefined emotional standard, is not necessarily the good. 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; to be guided by whims—by desires whose source, nature and meaning one does not know—is to turn oneself into a blind robot, operated by unknowable demons (by one’s stale evasions), a robot knocking its stagnant brains out against the walls of reality which it refuses to see.

Rand is acknowledging here what I was suspecting. We are to make our emotions work for us, and be rewards for the achievement of our rational values. In this way, they serve as an intrinsic reward for correct action further motivating us to pursue such action.

I believe I had been misunderstanding 'the pursuit of happiness' and I feel as though I've come to an epiphany on this point. What I must strive for is clearer now.

The following is a part of my current thought processes on this:

I have attempted to define joy in the full context of my knowledge.

Joy: the final feeling of great psychological pleasure. / The intrinsically positive emotional state produced by the brain [as a reward].

Clearly it is not merely pumping up one's brain to get it to release the correct chemicals or fire the right pathways to give the reward that is the good. If that were so, drugs would be the answer. However, that is a contradictory state of joy or pleasure. It destroys one's life.

An other example of contradictory joy is the Buddhist or monk who sits in one spot and through various methods generates the feelings of intense joy, and at the same time continues to remain living in poverty and filth, becoming starved and frail, developing pressure sores from prolonged sitting, achieving nothing, pursuing nothing, losing the very ultimate value that is his life. Let alone to mention that he earns no money to gain access to medicine and such. He feels joy, but he is not happy, and cannot achieve happiness in this way. The Buddhists seek to gain happiness through short circuiting the brain. In this way, I submit to you, the Buddhist is akin to a drug addict. Pumping his emotional state by natural means rather than through chemical means is his only goal while the facts of his life and survival are left abandoned. A monk who would do this is engaging in hedonism where the only moral pleasure is the state of joy. The logical result is self destruction. It is death by failure to recognize one's life as one's ultimate value. The Buddhist or monk does not embrace life, but accepts death in exchange for pleasure.

Peter,

The difference between your definition of joy and mine is I don't believe it is a 'final feeling'. The joy is in the process of achievement, the pursuit of your highest values and knowing you are doing it in the best way you know how. Being yourself, the best yourself you could possibly be and knowing it as a profound objective truth.

That said, I like what you've written. I think you are far ahead of where I was at your age.

[Nerian]

Peter,

The difference between your definition of joy and mine is I don't believe it is a 'final feeling'. The joy is in the process of achievement, the pursuit of your highest values and knowing you are doing it in the best way you know how. Being yourself, the best yourself you could possibly be and knowing it as a profound objective truth.

That said, I like what you've written. I think you are far ahead of where I was at your age.

In terms of the temporal aspect of it, I suspect it comes in brief bursts of intensity and then fizzles down to a low background hum as you continue the process of life. I suspect the background happiness would mount the higher and higher you climb in life. I certainly did not mean that once you feel it, you can stop living, you've achieved life, you've won at life, now you can stop. haha. I am sure it happens during the whole process as well as after particular moments of triumph.

[moralist]

I experience joy as a vector and not a locus. Like feeling the Sun shining on your face while you're hiking.

Greg