Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abstractions and Concretes, with Life as the standard of Morality

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

One should strive for ideals.

Ideals are abstractions, that with productive effort directed by reason, can be realised as concretes.

The question here is one of application, not of theory.

Take a starving artist for example. Take Howard Roark, from the Fountainhead.

We know that morality is guided by that which is pro-life, that is, that which benefits one's life.

(As a rational being)

Beyond basic needs, what can be objectively viewed to benefit life? More money?

Should an artist with vision, such as Howard Roark, take the risk of starving for the sake of achieving his ideals?

How does one justify one's ideals as rational? Is this self evident?

By what objective standards do you judge : 1) Having a secure life, and, 2)Throwing yourself out in the line for the sake of your ideals (which are abstractions yet to be realised), as more rational than the other? Or does the issue of personal vision come into play as well. Yet that would negate objectivity, because there HAS to be one option that is better than the other, is there?

Does ''that which benefits my life as a rational being'' include taking the risk of starving for the sake of something not yet realised? (An abstraction)

For what, for the sake of fulfillment, and happiness?

That, itself, is an abstraction, is it not? Fulfillment can never be realised as a concrete.Does that not lead us down the path of hedonism? Happiness is the achievement of one's rational values, rationally. And what sets the standards for our values is what is good for our life. My life, in this case.

What is rational about wanting to paint, or design buildings like Howard Roark did, in his own personal vision, as compared to any other option, all which would ensure one's survival as a rational being?

Is the pursuit of values in the name of one's life, merely a pursuit of whims using rational means and applying rational methods? Wouldn't that make us advocates of reason only in the sphere of pursuing our goals (Which might not be rational, but conform to Objectivist morality i.e. ''Don't infringe on other people's rights etc)

Surely there must be some sort of objective standard of evaluation one can apply to one's own life.

If money is to be obtained with pride, as a sign of value obtained via productive effort by a free mind, then does that not mean more money = good? And that being poor means that somehow, in some fundamental respect, you have failed as a rational being? I know this to be untrue, because there are irrational rich people, yet it is hard to reconcile both facts. And what if the pursuit of your ideals beggars you? What then? Values are concretes, are they not? Yet if you have no concretes to show for your work, will you have failed as a human being? ( I am using a lot of ''yets'' I noticed)

I am confused in this respect, please enlighten me. A detailed response would be appreciated. Sorry if it is very disorganised, I sort of allowed my rather confused thoughts to be made tangible by typing whatever came to mind, since it was so hard to pinpoint the exact dilemma directly. I am not sure if all these questions stem from a single source or contradiction, or they are the result of many. So if it has been a difficult read, so sorry.

I would still appreciate a response though, it really IS bothering me quite a bit.

Edited by Xavier Koh Yan Hui
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the pursuit of values in the name of one's life, merely a pursuit of whims using rational means and applying rational methods?

For me it is not the pursuit of whim, but rather of my interests, passion, and goals.

A "whim" is a desire experienced by a person who does not know and does not care to discover its cause.

I know exactly where my pursuits arise from; it's called inspiration, personal expression. I check them, though, I just don't act upon them, like whims would have you doing. I also have responsibilities too, like my daughter, to which I never have defaulted on, nor failed in fulfilling and so I check them to see if those pursuits are in my best interests of my primary values and of my ultimate value: life.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it is not the pursuit of whim, but rather of my interests, passion, and goals.

I know exactly where my pursuits arise from; it's called inspiration, personal expression. I check them, though, I just don't act upon them, like whims would have you doing. I also have responsibilities too, like my daughter, to which I never have defaulted on, nor failed in fulfilling and so I check them to see if those pursuits are in my best interests of my primary values and of my ultimate value: life.

I am sorry, I fail to see the difference between whims and interests/passions. Please give me a clearer definition of it. My definition of whim is an urge or desire which has no logical basis. I would consider my urge to produce music a whim as well, though one could call it the urge for self expression. I suppose I call it a whim because it, like I said, has no basis in reality. As in, there is no reason why I SHOULD feel that way, yet I do.

Take your daughter for instance, do you choose to maintain her as a value because she is beneficial to your life? By your life, I mean your happiness. Of course you do. But by what standard of evaluation do you decide what contributes to your happiness? Why does it contribute to your happiness? Is it irrational? Those are the questions I am asking.

Finally, is the difference between personal expression and whim is the fact that in personal expression you take the time to examine your impulses before acting on them? But then again, I could take all form of self directed action as a form of personal expression.

Thank you for your response.

Edited by Xavier Koh Yan Hui
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consider my urge to produce music a whim as well, though one could call it the urge for self expression. I suppose I call it a whim because it, like I said, has no basis in reality. As in, there is no reason why I SHOULD feel that way, yet I do.

If you call producing music as an urge for self-expression, there's no whim about it then, you just found it's basis, the cause of producing that music: self-expression. You have to have some reason as to choose that art form over other art forms to express yourself in too, and that also presupposes something to express. It may be due to ability, or finances which art form you choose to express yourself in, and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand now, thank you.

Regarding money as a distinguishing aspect of success is only correct if gathering money is your goal. Other people paying you for a product or service is only an indication that other people value what you are doing. Building a a building creates pride for Roark regardless of whether he gets paid for it. It does this because the building of it is his primary goal. It is not a stepping stone to something else. So the pride ought to come from your own capacity to create.

To receive pride from the monetary result of the action is usually second-handed. Lots of money can be made by catering to people's irrationality, for example. If a person succeeded financially in this way, they would try to derive pride from the money rather then the action. It's hard to derive pride from being good at manipulating people emotionally, so they take what they can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding money as a distinguishing aspect of success is only correct if gathering money is your goal. Other people paying you for a product or service is only an indication that other people value what you are doing. Building a a building creates pride for Roark regardless of whether he gets paid for it. It does this because the building of it is his primary goal. It is not a stepping stone to something else. So the pride ought to come from your own capacity to create.

To receive pride from the monetary result of the action is usually second-handed. Lots of money can be made by catering to people's irrationality, for example. If a person succeeded financially in this way, they would try to derive pride from the money rather then the action. It's hard to derive pride from being good at manipulating people emotionally, so they take what they can get.

Well described, aequalsa. The "second-handed" point is a good one.

Since you require money, the goal could be to make money so that you can do what you want to do. Sometimes you have to do a lot of what you don't want to do, so that you can do what you want to do. Of course, doing what you want to do and making money in the process is the ideal situation.

There was a Confucius saying atop this page some time back, something to the effect "The man who does what he loves, never works."

Okay, so my first paragraph above comes across as a bit comical when you read it with all of the "to dos" in it, but it does make sense! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xavier Koh Yan Hui:

Wow!! Now those are some serious questions!

Here are a few short answers -- though their explication and proof would take more space than this forum has available. Books have been written on the subject. In fact a proper answer to your questions would encompass the entire philosophy of Objectivism.

We know that morality is guided by that which is pro-life, that is, that which benefits one's life.

(As a rational being)

Beyond basic needs, what can be objectively viewed to benefit life? More money?

I suppose so, if money makes you happy. Ideally, doing the thing that makes you money, makes you happy.

Should an artist with vision, such as Howard Roark, take the risk of starving for the sake of achieving his ideals?

You shouldn't starve and you shouldn't compromise your ideals or integrity. Remember, when Roark had no clients he worked in a quarry for a while.

How does one justify one's ideals as rational? Is this self evident?

The justification of a rational philosophy is far from self evident.

Or does the issue of personal vision come into play as well. Yet that would negate objectivity, because there HAS to be one option that is better than the other, is there?

Personal vision, as long as it is connected to reality, does not negate objectivity. All else being equal, would one person's choice to be a doctor be more rational than someone else's choice to be an architect?

Does ''that which benefits my life as a rational being'' include taking the risk of starving for the sake of something not yet realised? (An abstraction)

I guess that depends on the thing not yet realized. How about freedom?

For what, for the sake of fulfillment, and happiness?

Yes.

That, itself, is an abstraction, is it not? Fulfillment can never be realised as a concrete.Does that not lead us down the path of hedonism?

Have you never felt happy or fulfilled? If not, I am profoundly sad for you. Fulfillment and happiness come from pursuing rational values not whimsical ones, which you seem to acknowledge here:

Happiness is the achievement of one's rational values, rationally. And what sets the standards for our values is what is good for our life. My life, in this case.

Have you validated and integrated this statement with the rest of your knowledge? If not, then you should proceed with the validation and integration. If yes, then you have already answered many of your own questions; like this one:

What is rational about wanting to paint, or design buildings like Howard Roark did, in his own personal vision, as compared to any other option, all which would ensure one's survival as a rational being?

and this one:

Is the pursuit of values in the name of one's life, merely a pursuit of whims using rational means and applying rational methods? Wouldn't that make us advocates of reason only in the sphere of pursuing our goals (Which might not be rational, but conform to Objectivist morality i.e. ''Don't infringe on other people's rights etc)

(Leaving aside the concept: ''Don't infringe on other people's rights", which is a political concept)

and this one:

Surely there must be some sort of objective standard of evaluation one can apply to one's own life.

If money is to be obtained with pride, as a sign of value obtained via productive effort by a free mind, then does that not mean more money = good? And that being poor means that somehow, in some fundamental respect, you have failed as a rational being?

If you substitute the word "value" for the word "money" in the first question perhaps you will see that the answer to the second question is: not necessarily.

Values are concretes, are they not? Yet if you have no concretes to show for your work, will you have failed as a human being?

If you consider happiness and fulfillment good things, then the answer is again: not necessarily.

Hopefully these answers have whetted your appetite and will encourage you to study Objectivism further.

If textbook type explanations are amenable to you I would suggest: Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff.

If artistic concretizations are more to your liking then Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a masterpiece.

For a short explication of a rational morality read "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...