Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
epistemologue

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

Rate this topic

42 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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).

KyaryPamyu likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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".

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hqdefault.jpg

Proof that death is necessary for life to have any meaning.

She makes me want to die and become a vampire stud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

Proof that death is necessary for life to have any meaning.

She makes me want to die and become a vampire stud.

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  

DonAthos likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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.

KyaryPamyu likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.