Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does death give life meaning? Does happiness require struggling to survive?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

I kind of doubt that. KPP is a celebrity. More girls will copy her look. Who's going to copy the one on the right? Nobody. That makes her a rare gem in my book. I especially like the old school microphone accessory. That's super hot! How many women go around holding a big microphone? Like two or three in the whole world, right?

Extremely exotic. How do I get her number? My loins are on fire.

The question shouldn't be "which is more scarce" in the sense of "rare", the question should be "which is harder to get". At least that's how the marketing trick that creates the illusion of scarcity to sell you on things works: it exploits our desire to compete with others, and buy something that is rare (and therefor possessing it sets us apart), rather than something that we need to better our lives.

That's why so many people value scarcity irrationally: western culture often values competition above more rational paths to self esteem, and that causes people to put unwarranted extra value on things not everyone can possess.

And it's a bad habit that's relatively easy to break, once you're conscious of it and look for it within your decision making. It's certainly not "a part of human nature". Just because it's easy to ascribe faults we have to "human nature" when we don't understand the cause, doesn't mean we should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:
  • if visual preferences can be changed by subsequent knowledge, conceptual thinking, culture, connotation (e.g. by knowing about the characters of the two women).

[...]

If you showed a picture of MEG to the second woman's husband, and the husband was madly in love with his wife, I think he would still be able to say that the pop singer is visualy superior, even though he romanticaly prefers what he already has.

Just to speak briefly to this issue (as a married man).

I can recognize that there are many women in the world who are "visually superior" to my wife, but there are no women I find more attractive than my wife.

Furthermore, what I experience when I look at a woman (in terms of what I would describe as "attraction") absolutely does depend on subsequent knowledge. There are women that I might initially find "hot," but when I get to know their character, my reaction on the whole changes such that I no longer feel any sexual draw.

Does that mean that I can no longer recognize the visual characteristics that led me to consider them "hot" in the first place? No. If someone else were to say, "Wow, she's great looking," I could agree... but without enthusiasm, or in a qualified way. Conversely, a woman who draws only a tepid reaction from me initially can become much more attractive, when I know her better, such that when I see her, I "see her differently" thereafter, in terms of my emotional/sexual reaction. Yet I can retain the perspective as well that such a woman probably will not do a Maxim photo shoot.

And even further, I believe that all of these attractions are fundamentally connected to values. (Which is not to put myself on one side or the other of the "innate values"/"free will" discussion.) There are women that most of the world, it sometimes seems, considers attractive -- just in terms of the "visual." Yet I tend not to be drawn to certain types, which I account to a... misplaced focus, or an unreality, that their appearance suggests to me. Off the top of my head, I could mention Pamela Anderson or even Jessica Rabbit. My rejection is not alone based upon my knowledge of their individual character(s), but what the visual suggests of character (to be amended later by better or fuller knowledge).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that we've hijacked the main topic here! 

Back on the main topic, there's a "Twilight Zone" episode "A Nice Place to Visit" that tries to visualize what heaven might be like. Worth watching, since art is often better than a series of syllogisms.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2016 at 5:42 PM, KyaryPamyu said:

From your own link: "Some suggest that psychological sexual arousal results from an interaction of cognitive and experiential factors, such as affective state, previous experience, and current social context "

So your own link lists everything except "human nature" as the cause of a psychological reaction, directly contradicting your claim.

Besides, you still haven't explained what sex has to do with your claim that valuing scarcity is "human nature".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2016 at 7:42 AM, Nicky said:

The question shouldn't be "which is more scarce" in the sense of "rare", the question should be "which is harder to get".

I'm sure Microphone is harder to get. I have no earthly idea who or where she is. But with a little effort I could at least send KPP flowers, a card, and boxed chocolates through her agency, and then with some extra effort I could attend her next public event and try to kidnap her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nicky said:

From your own link: "Some suggest that psychological sexual arousal results from an interaction of cognitive and experiential factors, such as affective state, previous experience, and current social context "

So your own link lists everything except "human nature" as the cause of a psychological reaction, directly contradicting your claim.

In proper context, the purpose of the link was to contradict your claim that sexual arousal is not part of the things studied by the field of Psychology, as quoted below:

Quote

Not sure how you got from there to the field of Psychology...which doesn't claim anything of the sort.

Since then, your views seem to have evolved from your original claim of sexual arousal being:

Quote

an automatic physiological response (caused by human nature, coded in our DNA) to physical or visual stimulation.

...to also calling it a psychological reaction. Although you were merely describing the contents of the link, so you might or not have agreed that sexual arousal is part of Psychology.

Did I make claims about human nature? no. If you read through my posts, you'll see that I was always talking about Psychology. I think I made it clear that my definition of Psychology is the same as Eiuol's.  I am quoting it from his post:

Quote

Human psychology refers to the nature of the human mind. One's psychology is a different concept than psychology the nature of human thought.

I used the phrase 'human nature' only once, and only because this term is in the name of the popular debate that's going on right now about whether the mind has any innate cognitive structures, such as those that decode cues of female physical attractiveness (not to be confused with Kantianism).

Quote

Besides, you still haven't explained what sex has to do with your claim that valuing scarcity is "human nature".

I have not claimed that valuing scarcity is "human nature". Here's the actual claim:

Quote

In brief, it's part of human psychology to value things that are scarce.

And regarding the connection between sex and valuing scarcity, I will have to repost the contents of the previous post in which I adressed your claim:

Quote

Just to be clear, I am not tying the sexual response to scarcity, as some of you thought. I'm adressing the broader question of what can be properly classified as human psychology, which studies a lot of different things. If you really want to know what the field of human psychology has to say about scarcity, read on wikipedia about the Scarcity Heuristic.

-------------------

On 31.12.2016 at 9:05 PM, softwareNerd said:

I see that we've hijacked the main topic here! 

Back on the main topic, there's a "Twilight Zone" episode "A Nice Place to Visit" that tries to visualize what heaven might be like. Worth watching, since art is often better than a series of syllogisms.

 

Thanks for reminding me of that episode, softwareNerd. It's an absolutely brilliant take on the pursuit of happiness.

MisterSwig, some insight on Microphone girl. Her name is Jennifer Lien and she played the alien Kes in Star Trek: The Voyager. Here is a picture of her during the Star Trek days, but I warn you... don't look at it if you believe in marriage: fd51a9a65a521f6cb665bd6920320c21.jpg

6 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

But with a little effort I could at least send KPP flowers, a card, and boxed chocolates through her agency, and then with some extra effort I could attend her next public event and try to kidnap her. 

Don't you dare touch my woman :)

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

In proper context, the purpose of the link was to contradict your claim that sexual arousal is not part of the things studied by the field of Psychology, as quoted below:

Here's the full post you were responding to:

Quote

 

I'm rejecting your assertion that we share a common psychology, similarly to the way we share a common biology (presumably, through DNA), as an unproven, arbitrary claim.

Not sure how you got from there to the field of Psychology...which doesn't claim anything of the sort.

 

Just so you know why you won't be getting any replies from me anymore:  I have a general policy. When I have to quote back posts to someone I'm talking to, because they're blatantly lying about what's in them, I stop talking to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Here's the full post you were responding to.

Nicky, you posted that as a response to a very specific claim I made on sexual arousal. Hence, it appeared that you were refering to 'common psychology' in the context of sexual attraction. I put those brackets when I quoted you back, in case you might object to my understanding of your post. Since you didn't say anything I asumed that it was indeed what you meant.

No hard feelings about your 'policy'.

quote.png

Edited by KyaryPamyu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 2:28 PM, epistemologue said:

Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful? Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness?

1.  Death is not avoidable.  The nature of the universe as understood currently is that it is expanding and growing colder, taking into account that it is a finite system of finite size - it also has finite energy, and that all processes necessarily increase overall entropy, eventually... and it will be a VERY VERY VERY VERY, long time from now... processes such as consciousness and life will be impossible.

Remember, "forever" is NOT just a long time from now... it literally implies something continuing indefinitely into the future.

There literally is no "when we achieve immortality" so discussions of "what to do" when that happens are pointless.

 

2.  Survival requires "work".  Expenditure of energy and effort, in order to sustain it.  Work is NOT suffering unless one is has a deeply flawed view/expectation of existence and life.

 

Happiness does not require suffering, but it does require "life" which requires effort.

 

One can choose to be alive and unhappy or alive and happy, but for either choice one must do what is required to live... and one cannot live long, happy or not, without effort of any kind.  You see, life requires effort and happiness is a condition only of the living.  If you wish a life of happiness you need to accept effort as a part of life.

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

At least we're back on topic... (barely). I guess trolling is part of universal Internet Psychology.

After giving you and Nicky a hard time, I figured the least I could do was sort of get back on topic.

Death doesn't give life meaning. Life gives life meaning. Death gives life a purpose, though, which is to stay alive--usually.

I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
On 1/2/2017 at 9:47 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

1.  Death is not avoidable.  The nature of the universe as understood currently is that it is expanding and growing colder, taking into account that it is a finite system of finite size - it also has finite energy, and that all processes necessarily increase overall entropy, eventually... and it will be a VERY VERY VERY VERY, long time from now... processes such as consciousness and life will be impossible.

Remember, "forever" is NOT just a long time from now... it literally implies something continuing indefinitely into the future.

There literally is no "when we achieve immortality" so discussions of "what to do" when that happens are pointless.

This claim is unproven and completely uncertain. It is absurd to assume that one's self and the universe as a whole are headed toward inevitable doom and eternal oblivion, there's no justification for making a malevolent assumption of this nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, epistemologue said:

That is not a reasonable "understanding" of the universe.

Feel free to deny the conclusions of physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, but to be persuasive you need to identify what in particular is incorrect with it (whether thermodynamics, the cosmological constant, etc.)

An arbitrary assertion that current knowledge about reality is flawed, in order to arrive at a conclusion you wish to be true, is arbitrary and a gross evasion.

 

As understood currently everything in the universe will undergo heat death.  Please feel free to show, using evidence of reality, i.e. principles of physics and astronomy and evidence, why it is not the case.  I'll respond IF you do so.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StrictlyLogical said:

Feel free to deny the conclusions of physics, astrophysics, and astronomy, but to be persuasive you need to identify what in particular is incorrect with it (whether thermodynamics, the cosmological constant, etc.)

An arbitrary assertion that current knowledge about reality is flawed, in order to arrive at a conclusion you wish to be true, is arbitrary and a gross evasion.

 

As understood currently everything in the universe will undergo heat death.  Please feel free to show, using evidence of reality, i.e. principles of physics and astronomy and evidence, why it is not the case.

Heat death is wild, theoretical speculation, and it's a ridiculously malevolent assumption to make about the universe. It is a theory, it is not a known conclusion, it is not "knowledge about reality". There is no "understanding" that the entire universe is doomed. That is an absurdity, and so it's quite meaningless as a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
On 28/12/2016 at 5:58 AM, epistemologue said:

Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful? Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness?

I've heard Objectivists and others argue that we have to struggle for survival, and if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves, because we have no purpose anymore and therefore happiness is impossible, since happiness is defined by a struggle to survive.

This position is incomprehensible and very disturbing to me. I love my life and I'm happy to exist despite the struggle to survive - if we were immortal and survival weren't a struggle that would be a load off of my back, I could settle into just pursuing the things that make me happy, without needing to worry about this survival problem.

Yep. It's absurd. Throw it out.

What makes life worth living has nothing to do with conditional state of existence. The idea that an immortal human would have no reason to act totally ignores the reality of human psychology. If I'm immortal, I can still enjoy the same things, so why wouldn't I? I don't enjoy myself to survive, I enjoy myself to enjoy myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nerian said:

The idea that an immortal human would have no reason to act totally ignores the reality of human psychology.

It ignores "the reality of human psychology" because it's a hypothetical. It's not reality, it's a wild fantasy.

That's the premise here: the idea of an immortal human ignores human nature in general, including psychology, and replaces it with something else. What that something else is, is the question:

What would an immortal entity's psychology be like? Psychology is a consequence of our circumstances. Fundamentally different circumstances would lead to a fundamentally different psychology. An immortal human (I mean really immortal: indestructible, not just someone who doesn't age or get sick) would be nothing like a regular human. It wouldn't even be alive (or dead... it would be a third category).

Quote

I don't enjoy myself to survive, I enjoy myself to enjoy myself.

Okay, now we left the hypothetical, and we're back in reality. You're talking about yourself...and you're ignoring the reality of human psychology. Our psychology can't escape our nature. Our psychology is a consequence of our nature. And we are mortal. That's the essential attribute of not just humans, but living entities in general.

So, like it or not, enjoying yourself enables you to survive. You don't enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself, your enjoyment has an ultimate purpose, and that ultimate purpose, just like the ultimate purpose of everything else living entities do, is to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nicky said:

It ignores "the reality of human psychology" because it's a hypothetical. It's not reality, it's a wild fantasy.

That's the premise here: the idea of an immortal human ignores human nature in general, including psychology, and replaces it with something else. What that something else is, is the question:

What would an immortal entity's psychology be like? Psychology is a consequence of our circumstances. Fundamentally different circumstances would lead to a fundamentally different psychology. An immortal human (I mean really immortal: indestructible, not just someone who doesn't age or get sick) would be nothing like a regular human. It wouldn't even be alive (or dead... it would be a third category).

Okay, now we left the hypothetical, and we're back in reality. You're talking about yourself...and you're ignoring the reality of human psychology. Our psychology can't escape our nature. Our psychology is a consequence of our nature. And we are mortal. That's the essential attribute of not just humans, but living entities in general.

So, like it or not, enjoying yourself enables you to survive. You don't enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself, your enjoyment has an ultimate purpose, and that ultimate purpose, just like the ultimate purpose of everything else living entities do, is to survive.

But now we are talking on two seperate levels of reason for doing things. My subjective reason for doing things, and the reason for my psychology being set up to enjoy certain things. We enjoy sugar because it has calories and that helps our survival, but in the first person subjective experience, I don't eat to survive, I eat because I feel hungry or because I enjoy the sweet taste. 

Quote

You don't enjoy yourself just to enjoy yourself

Oftentimes, what we enjoy doing is counter to our survival. From the first person perspective, I enjoy myself for its own sake. It's what makes being alive even worth it in the first place. Survival is just a prerequisite, merely an instrumental value, to get what I really want.

 

Edited by Nerian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the Abstracts. Beyond that, dive in for the swim.

 

“Would Immortality Be Worth It”

In this paper, one is invited into a carefully composed thought experiment about the meaning of life. In discussions touching on the meaning of life, one hears ordinary folk and beginning students of philosophy rather complacently assume that immortal life in heaven is the goal of life and that no more questions need be asked. The common contrary position is the view that since in reality we are not immortal, life is ultimately empty of value. Both positions rest on the premise that only immortality, and infinite life span, would make life worth living. This is the premise Hick’s thought experiment challenges.

 

“Can Art Exist without Death”

Reviews the currently envisioned [1993] theoretical biological limits on human life span; barriers to the human impulse to live effectively forever. Discusses the validity of the concept of infinity, distinguishing the metaphysically infinite from the physically infinite and from the mathematically infinite. Surveys carefully how and what Einstein's general theory of relativity, in its contemporary development, can tell us about the physical infinity of spacetime (in the large). Assimilates the possibility of effectively endless life with Rand's thesis that the concept of life—as we know it, vulnerable life—is what makes the concept of value possible. Elaborates and extends Rand's gedanken of the immortal, indestructible robot. Answers the question "Can art exist without death?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I hesitate to participate in this thought exercise because immortality is not even possible.
How many memory cells do we have in our brain? 
When will the limit be reached?

More importantly, the current nature that we have now will not allow the tolerance of immortality.
If you are immortal, you will not be able to kill your self. It may be something you will wish to do.
Our current makeup is that we end up with satiation.
Like drinking water, you drink so much until you are done.
Life also will have a point when you are done with it.
If you are forced to drink water when you are not thirsty at all, you will vomit.
The mental equivalent state of satiation is called boredom.

There may be a specific threshold, let us say 153.3 thousand years.
Anything past that threshold will be boring and eternal boredom is a terrible fate.
We currently don't have protection against eternal boredom.
Eventually, everything will be experienced and it will be abstracted.
"Been there done that" will become been at that type of place and experienced it.
To be immortal certain modification will have to be made to our Psychology.
We will not be human anymore.

Philosophically death is part of the definition of life.
Psychologically death does give meaning to life.
Even if, life just "is".
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:

I hesitate to participate in this thought exercise because immortality is not even possible.

Why do you think that?

On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:

If you are immortal, you will not be able to kill your self. It may be something you will wish to do.

I don't see why immortality implies a lack of ability to kill yourself. It certainly isn't necessary to the point of this thread - one could imagine such a strong power of resilience that involuntary death is a solved problem, while voluntary death is still entirely possible.

Secondly, why should one wish such a thing?

On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:

boredom

Why should one ever be bored? Does a rose not smell sweet having smelled one before? Is a kiss not enjoyable because you've kissed before? I enjoy the sunrise despite having seen a thousand of them. It holds intrinsic beauty and pleasure. I enjoy art for art's sake; it's an end in itself. I'm intrinsically happy in my own person. I'm happy just to be able to see a sunrise. I'm happy just to be alive; just to be conscious is inherently enjoyable and meaningful.

There are an endless number of things I wish I had the time to do. I want to play every game, I want to learn every language and every musical instrument, I want to see every part of the world, I want to learn all of history, I want to meet every person alive, I want to have great-great-great...-grandchildren. I want to explore and prove all of mathematics. I could give you more than a hundred thousand years of things I want to do right now. I love myself and I love my life. This is a permanent, undying, and insatiable love.

On 9/23/2017 at 3:35 AM, Easy Truth said:

We will not be human anymore

What I'm describing is what being a human is like. All of the things I've mentioned aren't unique to me, they are intrinsic in human nature. It's death that is anti-human.

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...