Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Content count

    257
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  1. Truth as Disvalue

    Inquiring minds are waiting.
  2. A Complex Standard of Value

    Based on this, the ultimate goal is Balance. My only concern is that I know people who hold "Balance" as the ultimate goal and they are far from Balanced. Balance is not a clear and unambiguous direction. I suspect because they don't have an ultimate goal that arbitrates between the subgoals. Pain or pleasure or emotions are not a tool of cognition because they are not reliable. Sometimes they correspond what is "good" and sometimes they don't.
  3. A Complex Standard of Value

    This sounds like how a life coach would work with you, dividing your life into a circle that has slices that correspond to a different aspect of your life and you score them, both in current achievement and then what you want to improve. Each coaching school has their own "proprietary" slices. So in the system, you are proposing, let us say one would score knowledge 6 but want it to be 9, pleasure 4 but I want it to be 8 within two months etc. and then designing the steps to achieve them. But it is based on psychological needs and positive psychology determinations usually based on how Aristotle determined his definition of flourishing, basically by taking a poll of people how are doing well. My understanding is that Aristotle does not hold all goals together with one ultimate goal, it is a combination of states that in aggregate is flourishing.
  4. A Complex Standard of Value

    Is this the choice to live? Is this the choice that makes morality applicable? But if we think of it that way, wouldn't there be a choice to make the choice to make the pre-choice choice? Infinite regress?
  5. A Complex Standard of Value

    If you want to work with 3 aspects, then so be it. But what if someone else comes along and says I want to work with 5 aspects. How would you limit it? Also, why limit your self to 3? You could also have Psychological, Evolutionary, Longevity etc. added. I think of standard as The single (only) comparator (entity/aspect to compare with). I personally think that there should be one standard that incorporates all the aspects and I think that is what Rand attempted. I assume that some of the 3 aspects in a sense are being ignored compared to the others and that concerns you. Which one is not getting enough attention? The other question I have is, "knowledge as a value", isn't it derived from biological? Pleasure may also a be an aspect of biological.
  6. Truth as Disvalue

    It is the goal and reward, in that way it is part of the definition. I suppose if there were minimal facts available, complete unfamiliarity, maybe then, all you have is "gut feel" or intuition. When facts are available, facts win. Pleasure pain emotions are not reliable means of cognition and judgment. Agreed. "a man"? Sure. But a rational man with a clear concept happiness with integrated emotions and thought, no. There is no conflict. When one has not done his intellectual house cleaning (checked his premises) and lives with contradictions, the problem exists.
  7. Truth as Disvalue

    By definition "survival qua man" has happiness as part of its identity (part of its definition). Survival qua man devoid of happiness is really survival qua "plant". You seem to make a distinction that I don't understand. From the smallest to largest field of awareness, everyone can know what "a life worth living" is. That goes from caveman to a partially cyborg human, or from a 12-year-old to an 80-year-old, etc. In Romeo and Juliet, they died due to a mistake thinking that a life worth living was not available to them. We are not infallible. But where there is no volition, there is no moral evaluation. You taught me that. So this can't be an ethics question. What guides action? One's contextual certainty. You already know all of this so I don't know what you are really asking. You may have to give a concrete example. I hope others jump in because my brain is fried.
  8. Truth as Disvalue

    A morality that works in a subjective world can't be counted on in this universe. Like a map of a wrong city, it is useless in guidance, even if it promises to feel good. In a subjective universe, eliminating fear would remove a threat. In that world, fear creates (the concrete) "threat". Alternatively, the OP is considering fear as metaphysically equivalent to "threat", believing that evading fear is the same as getting rid of "threat". There is a deifying of fear, an overvaluing of fear's promise of safety and a logical mistake of equating fear and threat. The OP's morality belongs to a different universe. Deifying fear, worshiping fear is to give it a reverence and importance that fear does not deserve. This is due to thought, a belief that attention to fear is high in the hierarchy of values. Fear has its place, encouraging awareness and therefore protecting but fear is not a cognitive tool to determine value. Guidance of morality must be fact-based rather than directed by pain, pleasure or emotion. An evaluation by pain or pleasure, fear or joy may or may not correspond to what actually is a value. A partial reality means "not real", even with one deviation. A partially real universe pushes out the real universe from consciousness. The law of contradiction either applies or it does not without an excluded middle. A morality that is not completely based on reality provides guidance for a nonexistent world. Therefore guidance based on "nothing" is guidance that does not exist. The OP claims to adhere to a morality, but he is adhering to nothing. To claim "I am moral" when one's morality is "nothing" is dishonest, fraudulent, diseased and therefore reprehensible. To be pleased by a fiction that death does not exist can be enjoyed, the same way as we enjoy fiction. A temporary journey into an imaginary world. The fundamental choice is to know or to evade the fact that existence exists. Either way, it exists. Only adherence to a morality that takes an existence that is independent of consciousness into account will help in creating a real (existable) happiness (that is possible). In this one existent universe, if oblivion is eliminated, fear will disappear (in response). Instead, when fear by itself is eliminated, oblivion does not respond, it remains. Allowing oblivion to remain, letting go of the fear is the only life-enhancing choice available. A fictitious counterfeit morality will prevent the truly possible value from being achievable. This solution can be ignored or evaded but only an accurate map indicating possible routes avoids taking roads to nowhere. Where you are is where are, and your destination is where it is. A redrawn feel good map will NOT move locations, it will not bring the destination closer. A map changed through evasion will not change the actual distance to be traveled. To base one's moral code, arbitrarily or unrealistically, with the expectation of happiness will most likely prevent happiness. To embrace inevitable oblivion is to embrace life qua man which is not a carefree existence. The fact that the OP has chosen life and happiness bounds him to that standard. To achieve or maintain life or happiness he has to follow certain rules and a certain path. His choice shows that he is capable of an act of volition. The OP will say "I can't". In this context, it means "I won't, I am too afraid". There is a difference between "it is impossible" vs. "I am not willing". The OP can follow through with his plan but a continuous evasion of the knowing/awareness of a threat does not eliminate the threat. The OP will be under constant bombardment by the truth. Life will become an unnecessary war. The feelings toward oblivion may change temporarily but the threat will carry on to its conclusion. The head in the sand is no protection. If the OP is not willing to accept the truth that it is possible to accept the inevitability of oblivion, then the only way open to the OP is a prison of constant lies. Instead, there can be one more exercising of volition to create peace. When "awareness of dread" replaces "life" as the ultimate value, the contradiction leads to a dwindling consciousness, a death before its time. A false guidance born of a dependence on a false deity in the form of fear. Fear only has power when it is valuable, revered, worshiped. Like the Greek gods that lost their powers when no one worshiped them anymore. When fear is seen as a companion rather than a God, it allows a real life, to illuminate the path ahead, as the actual ultimate value.
  9. The Audit

    In business emails, you learn that people will read your first 3 sentences and if it does not get to the point, they don't read the rest. I would not have asked for your two cents if you were unbearably talkative. Do I think you are talkative? Sometimes. Do I want you to stop? No. I would rather you continue to be "whatever you are" rather than stop being as insightful and communicative as you have been. I think most people are too talkative in person so I am biased, not the best judge of this. I want my answer and nothing else, Furthermore, what exactly does being too talkative mean? Is there an objective measurement.Isn't talkative mostly in the eyes of the beholder? I notice you put likes and thanks on posts, is that being too talkative?? Why do you suspect that you are talkative?
  10. Truth as Disvalue

    So it all goes to the heart of the definition of value. Then a value that does not point to an "existent", attracts toward non-existence. If one defines values as that which one gains or keeps to live, then valuing "nothing" is in fact NOT "valuing", it's doing something else. Also, "non-existence is a value", it is a contradiction. It is in fact not a value or a fake value, a counterfeit value. It is a lie. In other words, if life is existence, and valuing is a means to existence, then valuing non-existence is a contradiction, it is not an act of valuing in the first place. Valuing existence (rather than nonexistence) is what means valuing. So the argument (to this logical OP) would go like this "What you think is valuing is not valuing at all, what you see (or feel) as valuable is not valuable". Life after death may seem or feel valuable but IS NOT valuable (by definition). This is where feeling good and valuing diverge. That's the best I can do, for now, hold off on the abyss. But ruminating about the abyss is usually worse than the abyss itself.
  11. Truth as Disvalue

    You seem to be making the case that value is absolutely tied to truth. That rationality is a value because it leads to truth. That truth is almost identical to value. Or that value, at its core, is the truth (a constituent). A plant can't go toward an untrue sun, an imaginary sun, it will die in darkness. The implication is that even one single evasion can't be a value.
  12. Sanity, or The Human Evasion

    Pathologically interested in other people? Interesting although too vague for my taste. One can be fascinated or focused on the powers that be (ones in control), simply to create the best life for themselves. An investor may be vigilant, sometimes overly vigilant about "the news" which is about other people. It helps with investing. Gold goes up when there is war, even if it is far away and nothing to do with oneself. One could ask "am I too interested in others?", "is my interested in others (as a whole), a waste of time?". When I ask it about others as a whole, I find that a lot of meaning in my life comes from others. Being interested in the nature of mankind is interest in others, isn't it? Is being interested in ethics a preoccupation with others? Altruism is about a positive valuation of oneself solely based on how much one helped others. Without helping another, one is worthless or evil. A self-interested person could help others by employing them or trading with them. Some of these self-interested people do not see any evil in altruism. They may feel like they have done their part. But they are vulnerable to being worthless with the "others" that they don't help, like "the competition". In discussions, I am noticing that altruism is interpreted as "no losers", as in no competition. To argue against altruism, I end up having to argue for competition and for the necessity of "losers". I wish it were as simple as calling altruism a pathology.
  13. Addiction: Coffee, TV, and laziness

    There is a problem with the statement "over-listening". How would one determine "I have listened enough to this music?". It also depends on if the music is all-consuming, turning one into an unmoving vegetable or allowing one to tolerate a difficult task. My understanding is that to determine if something is an addiction, it is interfering with one's proper function as a whole, that one's life is not at its best because a particular action/process is taking most of the available resources, like time or money. A person without goals would have a hard time determining if they have an addiction.
  14. Truth as Disvalue

    It was a good read, thank, I remember the scene and it is very impactful. Could Keating or Toohey have been woken up? Maybe not. But we are talking about falling into the abyss rather than finding our way back. It always depends on when you get to them. If the OP is at an early stage, maybe an argument can help. Is truth worth dying for? Is preventing evasion worth dying for? It goes without saying that every life has its own characteristics and same with the amount of tolerance for pain that a person has. This means that part of the solution would be a logical argument against what they want to do and then there would be the character of the person and his environment. I remember the Jones town Guyana mass suicides. I wondered where the evasions started, not only with Jim Jones but his followers. It reminded me of what was going on in "We the Living" and other stories about socialist countries like Cambodia with Pol Pot. If one of my friends had wanted to join the cult, what would I have done? Heaven's Gate members believed the planet was about to be "recycled". How can one argue against that? In the American Civil War, how did people choose to fight for the north or the south? How can one argue and make them fight for the other side, or better yet to flee to Canada? Is this in the realm of ethics of emergencies? Are they too far gone where there is practically no volition left? If so, the demarcation line would be the moment the person loses their ability to choose their way back.
  15. Truth as Disvalue

    No, not a contradiction, when the thread started with the post, especially in the climate that existed with the Peikoff tape regarding finding happiness and some other things, it was a heavy time. It was a sad moment to see SL having to do what SL was proposing. I was worried and believed many like you, Dreamweaver, donathos were worried. It was after his coming back and his post about "reprehensible" premises that I realized it was all made up. I was relieved that he would be okay but also annoyed that he had put me through something difficult. I also strongly disagree with some of his premises in his "coming back post" but it was just going to upset him so I let it be. I had discussed the original post with the local Objectivist group (they don't frequent the forum) and I was asked "why am I so hard on this guy, we all have trouble with the going into oblivion problem" and were mostly bothered by my discomfort. I was nevertheless very disturbed partially because I have felt as if I lost a friend (even though he is the last thing I would call a friend) and because I had expected to depend on SL's faculties and knowledge and I found them personally valuable. (even though I don't exactly get along with him in many cases). But mostly there was a sense of "what a waste of talent" and that this type of things "should" not happen in an Objectivist group, and that something was very wrong. In summary, I was worried when I did not know it was make-believe, I'm not worried after I found out. (what puzzles me is why you and dream_weaver seem to act like the OP was not make-believe) Thanks for the work on the Fountainhead thread, I read it but it was many years ago and will try to connect the dots.
×