What does "Sense of Life" mean?

[BaalChatzaf]

What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?

Or is it merely a subjective judgment on the way someone lives, thinks, expresses him/her self?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[studiodekadent]

Its basically the emotional "climate" of your psyche.

[Laure]

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

[BaalChatzaf]

Its basically the emotional "climate" of your psyche.

I don't have a psyche. I have a functioning brain. And psyches (presumably) are not convective weather systems so what meaning does the phrase emotional "climate" mean. And how would anyone know what anyone else's emotional "climate" is? Are their working telepaths out there?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

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

Are these things objectively determinable or are they mere opinion?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't have a psyche.

Are these things objectively determinable or are they mere opinion?

See what I mean by infantile?

Where is there any discussion of any ideas in this?

Preaching. Preaching only.

And preaching pure crap.

LET'S ALL GIVE BOB SOME ATTENTION FOLKS. HE'S STARVED FOR IT.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Re Bob. Tell us what you really think!

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't have a psyche.

Are these things objectively determinable or are they mere opinion?

See what I mean by infantile?

Where is there any discussion of any ideas in this?

Preaching. Preaching only.

And preaching pure crap.

LETS ALL GIVE BOB SOME ATTENTION FOLKS. HE'S STARVED FOR IT.

Michael

The distinction between truth/fact and opinion are major themes in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. It is a fair question. What is fact and what is opinion? I simply asked the fair question. Since when is asking an Objectivist whether a certain position is true is crap or preaching. You did notice the question marks didn't you?

I don't preach. I simply inquire as to what facts, what experiences ground an assertion? I recall learning from the works of a certain Russian born novelist that one should trace his/her ideas back to their perceptual roots. Don't you think this is a good idea?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

I don't see why Bob's question is "infantile", "crap" or "preaching", I think it is a valid question on a forum for discussing Objectivism. It would be more constructive to try to answer his question. At most you could say that it is a trivial question, as the answer is of course: no, you cannot objectively determine someone's "sense of life". You have only to look at some of the examples given by Rand to see how absurd that notion is: the characterization of the sense of life of Vermeer as being reflected in his "bleak naturalism" and painting "folks next door to kitchens" (not heroic enough, I suppose), or the "malevolent universe" of van Beethoven. I found the following comments about van Beethoven on Hsieh's site also quite amusing: "For example, the opening to the second (?) movement of his 7th symphony is certainly malevolent" and "The slow opening of his piano concerto "Moonlight Sonata" has a malevolence written all over it". Apparently anything in a minor key is malevolent music! To be fair I should mention that the commenter also writes "the benevolent passages are among the best of their kind that I've ever encountered in classical music", so his conclusion is that van Beethoven is a mixed case, but this shows that determining the malevolent/benevolent sense of life on the basis of that kind of examples is of course just a highly subjective enterprise.

[Chris Grieb]

My first thing is a nit pick. Isn't it Von Beethoven?

I too sometimes get annoyed with Bob although I have to say that in this case he may have a point

At least he isn't calling for death for all followers of Islam.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Dragonfly]

My first thing is a nit pick. Isn't it Von Beethoven?

No it is not. Wrong nit!

[Brant Gaede]

I have a greedy sense of life.

--Brant

[Barbara Branden]

Would it not be a good idea to quote Rand on the meaning of "sense of life" before arguing further?

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Would it not be a good idea to quote Rand on the meaning of "sense of life" before arguing further?

Barbara

Barbara,

Good question.

Sometimes I wonder why a thread like this even gets started. On an Objectivist forum, it is reasonable to presume that some basic works by Rand have been read for discussions of this nature.

Why not start a thread asking what any of the following mean, also?: laissez-faire capitalism, selfishness, individual, productiveness, plot (in literature), etc.

Or how about starting a thread asking who Ayn Rand was? I think she wrote books, didn't she?

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Ok, here is Rand's definition:

A sense of life is a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence. It sets the nature of a man's emotional responses and the essence of his character.

and

What began as a series of single, discrete conclusions (or evasions) about his own particular problems, becomes a generalized feeling about existence, an implicit metaphysics with the compelling motivational power of a constant, basic emotion—an emotion which is part of all his other emotions and underlies all his experiences. This is a sense of life.

First, how do we know that such a thing exists, a single determinant, a basic emotion that is part of all your emotions? Where is the evidence? And if we assume for the sake of argument that such a single determinant exists, how could we determine it objectively? By using our infallible intuition? By reading tea leaves? Or by judging art works (minor key, "muddy" colors = malevolent sense of life)? There is nothing objective in the whole notion, it is just a tool for psychologizing, to pigeonhole people, to divide them into sheep and goats, and ultimately to condemn people. It is Pop Psychology and it is as arbitrary as Peikoff's DIMwit notion and it serves the same purpose. In other words, it's pure Subjectivism.

[studiodekadent]

First, how do we know that such a thing exists, a single determinant, a basic emotion that is part of all your emotions? Where is the evidence? And if we assume for the sake of argument that such a single determinant exists, how could we determine it objectively? By using our infallible intuition? By reading tea leaves? Or by judging art works (minor key, "muddy" colors = malevolent sense of life)? There is nothing objective in the whole notion, it is just a tool for psychologizing, to pigeonhole people, to divide them into sheep and goats, and ultimately to condemn people. It is Pop Psychology and it is as arbitrary as Peikoff's DIMwit notion and it serves the same purpose. In other words, it's pure Subjectivism.

As much as I agree that Rand's own judgements about someone's sense of life are flawed and simplistic, I disagree that the term has no referent.

Now, just to put this in perspective, the vast majority of the music I like is in minor keys, all of the music I make is in minor keys, and I wear a fuckload of black (although I like my dark colors vivid and strong). I also happen to be an Objectivist so Rand's concept of "Sense Of Life" is flawed.

However, certainly in my experience, "Sense Of Life" is a real psychological phenomenon, albiet it is a more complex thing than Rand supposed. I agree that a Sense Of Life is basically the emotional "climate" generated by someone's subconscious beliefs. However, I do not think that it is solely related to "the world" as a whole. Someone like myself may have a benevolent view of the metaphysical world and a malevolent view of the social/man-made world (and I think Rand herself was in this situation when she was very depressed).

Another example. If someone is, subconsciously, a skeptic (in the philosophical sense), then they obviously hold the subconscious premise that they are not fully capable of comprehending the world. As I wrote in another essay, since to understand or not is to live or to die (and I think everyone has a subconscious knowlege of this... its like the first fact of the human condition we encounter in our lives), to think one cannot understand will make one somewhat fearful. No, they will not be running around in blind terror screaming that the end is near, but they will probably have a larger degree of trepidation than most, they will be less enthusiastic about novelty, etc.

Certainly Rand's initial conception of "Sense Of Life" is oversimplified, but I think she identified a valid psychological phenomenon.

[william.scherk]

I don't see why Bob's question is "infantile", "crap" or "preaching", I think it is a valid question on a forum for discussing Objectivism.

I agree . . . though I would ask Bob to show a little linguistic charity. Dekadent and his thoughtful minion, Laure found a means to express their definition through a bit of poetic language, or metaphor. By so doing, they essentially agree with Bob's contention that "BOBJECTIVELY, THERE IS NOTHING TO CONSIDER, YOU FOOLS!" -- but in a nice way. Indeed, Bob the Ba'al, in his tricksome way, asked what is the "meaning." Well, sweet mother of gawd, it is but a short leap to "BOBJECTIVELY, NONE, YOU FOOLS!"

Michael, your heart is in its right place, between your lungs and beating with a furious samba rthythm, but you might take heed of your own warnings. What you are falling into is a trap, clearly labeled: TRAP.

When Ba'ab gets up on his hind legs, the bristles on your rump stand up and you lunge. That shows the sense of life of a Doberman against an intruder. In reality, the intruder strides up the front path every day, delivering your daily paper, in which the headline is, most days, "BOBJECTIVELY, AYN RAND'S PHILOSOPHY HAS HOLES IN IT."

You can easily stop Ba'ab the mailman from coming by at all, merely by letting your dog out of the castle, and taking off his muzzle, and not feeding him for a couple of days. As I have said before, you cannot properly be Emperor and Policeman at the same time. That is what Emperigo does, with uncertain results.

I totally agree with Studio/Laure, and I totally agree with Ba'ab and I totally agree with Juffertje: they are all saying the same thing.

Edited December 9, 2007 by william.scherk

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't see why Bob's question is "infantile", "crap" or "preaching", I think it is a valid question on a forum for discussing Objectivism.

I agree . . . though I would ask Bob to show a little linguistic charity. Dekadent and his thoughtful minion, Laure found a means to express their definition through a bit of poetic language, or metaphor. By so doing, they essentially agree with Bob's contention that "BOBJECTIVELY, THERE IS NOTHING TO CONSIDER, YOU FOOLS!" -- but in a nice way. Indeed, Bob the Ba'al, in his tricksome way, asked what is the "meaning." Well, sweet mother of gawd, it is but a short leap to "BOBJECTIVELY, NONE, YOU FOOLS!"

Charity???!!!!!! Moi????!!!!!. You have come to the wrong place, you have.

I ask no quarter and I give no quarter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Laure]

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

Are these things objectively determinable or are they mere opinion?

Ba'al Chatzaf

These things are opinion, but why the qualifier "mere"? No, we don't have a way to measure sense of life with a scientific instrument by doing some sort of brain scan yet, but everyone forms opinions of other people's moods/senses of life/intentions/mental states constantly. We have to do it in order to have any sort of semi-successful social interaction. The statement that you "don't have a psyche" is just ridiculous.

[tjohnson]

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

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

[BaalChatzaf]

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

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

A fact is what is. A statement of fact is In Here. Facts are Out There. Facts are the territory. What we say about the facts is the map.

I did mis-speak. Aristotle distinguishes between knowledge and opinion. Knowledge is statement of fact. Opinions are suppositions concerning facts but are not themselves statements of fact.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

A fact is what is.

This is completely unworkable. The first thing we do to establish 'facts' is to state them and so they become a statement. What exists is independent of us but in order to compare what we "get" from it we must make statements.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

When Ba'ab gets up on his hind legs, the bristles on your rump stand up and you lunge. That shows the sense of life of a Doberman against an intruder. In reality, the intruder strides up the front path every day, delivering your daily paper, in which the headline is, most days, "BOBJECTIVELY, AYN RAND'S PHILOSOPHY HAS HOLES IN IT."

William,

This is a cute image but not quite accurate in terms of what is going on in my head. My problem has more to do with entertainment than intellect.

Think of a night club stand-up comedian. Then imagine an obnoxious drunk in the audience. No matter how clever the joke or quip, the drunk bellows out, "Aw... That's an old one. You're full of crap!" For as much competence, insight, cleverness, and just plain funniness the comedian responds, the drunk always has the same answer: "Aw... That's an old one. You're full of crap!" The night goes on and the audience stops laughing. The only thing they can focus on is the attention hog constantly bellowing "Aw... That's an old one. You're full of crap!"

After a while, the audience goes away. It came to laugh, not watch a drunk repeat the same old non-thinking belligerence.

The same goes for a forum. People come here to discuss Objectivism (for the better or for the worse), not be constantly told that man has no mind (thus Objectivism is crap), ethics is subjective (thus Objectivism is crap), we need a killer for President (thus Objectivism is crap), Rand was an ignoramus about science (thus Objectivism is crap), Rand was an ignoramus about math (thus Objectivism is crap), and so on. All statements are veiled messages of "Aw... That's an old one. Objectivism is full of crap!"

The difference with Bob from this is that he sometimes makes some intelligent posts. You claim that others are agreeing with his bellowing, but I doubt the ones you claim are agreeing actually do agree with the following:

1. Man has no mind.

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

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

4. Rand was an ignoramus.

5. Etc., etc., etc.

I think they agree with the intelligent part. This gets muddied because agreement with intelligence does not have to mean agreement with crap, just because both are issued by the same person. For the record, I think we all agree that Objectivism has some holes in it. As a matter of fact, I think everybody was in agreement with that way before Bob even showed up. He preaches that, but gawd knows who he is preaching to. The converted? Not one of use needed such preaching to use our own minds to come to that conclusion.

Now I have 3 options. (1) I can delete the offending posts. I do not like that option and take recourse to it only when the point of no return has been reached (see the case of Pross for a good example of how that has played out with me, where I was actually too generous). (2) I can ignore it. I have a problem with this because any good mind-control student knows that a lie becomes the truth through nonstop uncontested repetition. I will not allow my forum to be used to try to brain-wash people by preachers. (3) Stand up to it with the same level of intelligence it is issued. This is the way I choose, although I do try to curb in my own posts the nastiness of spirit and foul language that is present when Bob gets on one of his nasty rolls. I prefer to let Bob dictate the level of intellect in those cases and, as I have demonstrated, I have no problem jumping into the intellectual pig-sty with him.

In fact, this solves the entertainment problem.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The difference with Bob from this is that he sometimes makes some intelligent posts. You claim that others are agreeing with his bellowing, but I doubt the ones you claim are agreeing actually do agree with the following:

1. Man has no mind.

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

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

4. Rand was an ignoramus.

5. Etc., etc., etc.

answers to

1: We have brains which function wonderfully. Who needs a mind?

2. Since ethics is not -determined- by the laws of nature, but merely constrained by them, any ethical system is conventional. Conventions are free choices and there are subjective factors in which ethical systems is preferred. Homo sapien has been around for between a quarter and a half million years and he has yet to determine a one size fits all system of ethics. We don't even have a universal meta-ethical system.

3. We do need a killer. We are at war and we need to kill a very nasty and persistent enemy. Churchill was a killer and he hired a killer to kill German women and infants. My hero -- Arthur "Bomber" Harris. Harry Truman hired several killers among whom is Curtis LeMay who specialized in burning Japanese cities to ashes. He order the incineration of women and infants. My kind of a guy. Harry Truman also ordered the nuclear destruction of two cities. My kind of a guy.

4: Rand was an ignoramus -in matters of science and mathematics-. I have proven that conclusively. Many other people are ignorant the same way, but they do not start intellectual movements that pretend to have the answer to all our problems and (get this!) a veto power over science. If Rand had restricted her ignorance to constructing plot McGuffins I would not have said boo.

5: etc etc etc.

Rand was a good novelist and a middle brow intellectual. She had valid points on matters of government and economics. And that is all. Her pretensions in the realm of aesthetics and psychology are galling. She even psychoanalyzed Beethoven who died 80 years before she was born, just by listening to music he composed. Like all of us, her artistic taste and preferences were in her mouth. Aesthetic judgment is 100 percent subjective. There is no basis in physical law for beauty. Symmetry yes, beauty no. Beauty is strictly in the eye of the beholder and nowhere else. One man's masterpiece is another man's piece of garbage. There is no single objective definition of beauty and there never will be. Her obsession with Romanticism was ludicrous. There good romantic stories and their are good naturalistic stories. By good, I mean stories that people like and will pay to have access to.

The human race has survived and procreated without Romance. Romance and $1.67 will buy a hot coffee at Dunkin' Donuts™. Romance is just fine for the romantic, but it has no privileged position in how people judge their interpersonal affairs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 9, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Romance and $1.67 will buy a hot coffee at Dunkin' Donuts™.

Nothing like hard science...

At least now I know this. I had never hear/read it before. Never. Ever. Not once. That means it has not happened. Without exception. In no way, shape, size, form or manner.

Or wait...

"Aw... That's an old one...."

Michael