Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
whYNOT

"Man's life"? Or, "your life"?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 10/14/2019 at 1:11 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

 

 

On 10/14/2019 at 2:27 AM, MisterSwig said:

No, I called your argument rationalistic. 

No, without Rand's evidence and reasoning, I probably couldn't have worked out the principle. But I definitely couldn't have worked it out without my personal experiences and observations which allow me to recognize the validity of her argument.

Again, you have it backwards. Values and virtues are not derived from an ethical principle. Your values precede any standard of values. You can't have a standard of something if that something doesn't first exist.

There is only conceptual integration between experience (etc.) and principles. Not rationalism, not empiricism. How many times must I endorse that? 

I don't care who one is, it will take any intelligent individual most of his life time to assess that *this* is a virtue - and works, in gaining my values...  and that is a vice - immoral and impractical. 

Yup, and then we validate the efficacy of our virtues, by their application and further experience. 

So what's your gripe? I have not set a dichotomy, I mentioned integration earlier here. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

One has no notion of what man/men can do, until one understands what he HAS - i.e.,  is capable of. That's understanding the identity of consciousness. Which ~specific~qualities and virtues he needs to promote and maintain, in order to survive and live as man, are contingent on the understanding of existence, of facing reality. 
'jettisons principles" and the rest is nonsensical. 

 

?  When you are ready to stop evading, ready to talk and to think let me know.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

?  When you are ready to stop evading, ready to talk and to think let me know.

I've no idea what you want.

Question: do you think (in Objectivism or outside of it) an individual's standard of value is his own life? Yes/no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

 "Man's life" (whatever that is) 

 

 

 

 

 

There's the problem. Calls for a refresher reading of The Objectivist Ethics .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wish is to discuss not simply to engage in didactic pronouncements and quotations absent any thought.

In response to my asking if you wish to talk and think... you ask me to stop thinking and essentially not engage in a real conversation.

 

I am asking if you are willing to discuss the hierarchy of knowledge and how that would apply to any rational application of a standard, and yes I think using the apple tree as an example will help clarify thinking on the subject... precisely because it is unpolluted by all the baggage associated with human social interaction.

Can we discuss this?

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was struck thinking about this, about how remarkable was Rand's accomplishment in her ethics. She recognized, identified and placed --objective--value in man, mankind, the individual, in oneself - when all else has been a. intrinsic value and/or b. subjective value. Objective value: Of value to whom - and for what purpose? The alternatives in human valuing were and are, automatic value, revealed value, mystical value, emotional value,... all fake. No wonder ethical philosophers have not come to grips with Rand's rational selfishness, the premises are hardly comparable with any they know. That one regards *objective* value in one's own life and self (by an objective standard...) is too revolutionary: Of value? to one, and his purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

So what's your gripe? I have not set a dichotomy, I mentioned integration earlier here. 

I think the title for this thread represents the dichotomy you've set here. I don't see a clear attempt to integrate anything. Frankly, I find your replies to be unfocused, evasive, and poorly written. I've made a real effort to contribute something, because you're investigating a very tough and fundamental question. But it doesn't seem like you're actually interested in criticism ("gripes"?!). It sounds like you want to rant. So I'll leave you to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I think the title for this thread represents the dichotomy you've set here. I don't see a clear attempt to integrate anything. Frankly, I find your replies to be unfocused, evasive, and poorly written. I've made a real effort to contribute something, because you're investigating a very tough and fundamental question. But it doesn't seem like you're actually interested in criticism ("gripes"?!). It sounds like you want to rant. So I'll leave you to it.  

 

Man's life (as the standard if value) - or one's own?

That is not a dichotomy. One statement is true, one is false. It's a metaphysical proposition: Pursuing empirical validation, as some appear to want, is barking up the wrong tree. 

The explanations by Rand should suffice.   

And if my style of communication doesn't suit you, instead, argue with Rand's formulation - but to reject the substance out of hand is your evasion, not mine.  

One's life, clearly, is not the *standard* of value. Even the definition of standard tells one that. One's life as a "standard" to one's own life is self-referencing, leaving nothing else to measure oneself by. End of standard. And - one's acquired individual standards for gaining values and living (the virtues) follow from "man's life". The misinterpretation of this key principle, will eventually compromise the supreme value which rests in one's own life: "The capacity to value and the source of value" -- by THE standard of value, man's life. 

  

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2019 at 12:47 AM, whYNOT said:

 

. The misinterpretation of this key principle, will eventually compromise the supreme value which rests in one's own life:

  

 

The two must conflict: One's life as being the ultimate value vs. One's life as being the standard of value. They can't coexist long in a consciousness nor in action. This self-contradiction, I think will play out for the individual to the detriment of his "ultimate value", widening the gap, as contradictions do.

They could be phrased by the causal statements, A."It is good, therefore I chose it", or, B."I chose it therefore it is good".

The proper order: perception-identification-evaluation - could easily be turned around. A thing, a fact, an entity, person, or issue, all need to be assessed or judged - after knowing their identity. Follows then... is this "thing" good for my life, or not? Set against the persisting background of -  "good" for "man's life"? 

I venture that "man's life" (existence and consciousness) is the ethical standard of value precisely as reality is the "standard" of reason. What do I know and how do I know it? Inseparable from, What is "good" for my life and how do I gauge the "good"?

(Nature to be *enjoyed* must be obeyed...;))

Not to go so far as suggesting this (i.e. "Objectivist ethics holds man's life as ..."etc.) to be the ... 'ethical axiom'. But I'm considering the statement to be the ~corollary~ of the Objectivist axioms applied in ethics. Any thoughts welcomed.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose."

Is the objective to set man's life as the consideration for both or your own life in as the consideration for both? A code of values sets the code of morality. From the values that are eligible to be part of the code of morality, it is your own life to which you must set purpose.

Rand set order to her own mind before she asked others to consider the selective content she poured out onto paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose."

Is the objective to set man's life as the consideration for both or your own life in as the consideration for both? A code of values sets the code of morality. From the values that are eligible to be part of the code of morality, it is your own life to which you must set purpose.

Rand set order to her own mind before she asked others to consider the selective content she poured out onto paper.

Right, setting the "order" is critical. "Man's life" is a metaphysical abstract, one's life is the solid, "concrete" purpose. Ie.: Which specific values? (Goals, etc.) The hierarchy needs to be observed conceptually and acted upon, personally in one's real life.

What's problematic, I clearly stated, is presuming on one's own life "the standard of value". In which case the hierarchy breaks down.

Anyone who prefers to think I made a dichotomy will have to re-read what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

Right, setting the "order" is critical. "Man's life" is a metaphysical abstract, one's life is the solid, "concrete" purpose. Ie.: Which specific values? (Goals, etc.) The hierarchy needs to be observed conceptually and acted upon, personally in one's real life.

What's problematic, I clearly stated, is presuming on one's own life "the standard of value". In which case the hierarchy breaks down.

Anyone who prefers to think I made a dichotomy will have to re-read what I said.

What is it about the apple tree example which scares you?

If I err, why not show how I would be wrong in that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Anyone who prefers to think I made a dichotomy will have to re-read what I said.

 

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The two must conflict: One's life as being the ultimate value vs. One's life as being the standard of value.

If they must conflict, then you set up a dichotomy. If they oppose each other, then they are separate and distinct things. They don't actually conflict, they are just different aspects of the same question ("how do we measure value objectively?"). You can't really separate life (the particular life you lead) from life (the thing all people do). 

12 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The proper order: perception-identification-evaluation - could easily be turned around.

If you turn it around, that would be rationalism. But what you described isn't turned around... So I don't know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

If they must conflict, then you set up a dichotomy. If they oppose each other, then they are separate and distinct things. They don't actually conflict, they are just different aspects of the same question ("how do we measure value objectively?"). You can't really separate life (the particular life you lead) from life (the thing all people do). 

If you turn it around, that would be rationalism. But what you described isn't turned around... So I don't know what you're talking about.

 I've repeated, one's life can NOT be the "standard of value".  That's the preserve of "man's life". So, no dichotomy - it is a false notion in every way. And - then - if one *also* considers one's life as the highest value (true, and recognized by every O'ist)) this will clash with one's life as the standard of value. No dichotomy, a contradiction.

"Standard" ( in my own life)  -contra- "highest" (my own life). One is true, the other false, and trying to hold both together, an impossible feat in the end, is self-defeating (and harmful).

"Highest value" - must be objectively be met with: by what standard?  If one believes the standard is oneself or one's own life, this nullifies an objective "standard", and the result would negate one's objective conviction, "highest value", too, and one will likely end up with neither. 

Just because men exist does not automatically, from Nature, entitle us to being granted value as a species, as mankind nor as an individual. We lack any 'instincts' and built-in tools for the simplest survival-value, and especially for knowing and asserting one's self-value. Nature and the universe doesn't know mankind and individuals exist, nor care. And there's no god who knows and cares either. These realizations eliminate man's intrinsic value (which seems to hang around, even with Objectivists). 

But man has consciousness and it is by that mind that one comprehends the need for objective value in one's own life, in order to live and live well ... through one's mind.  This is what is man's metaphysical nature (and a man's single advantage, if he knows and applies it).

Conclusion: an individual's standard of value is ~man's life~ i.e. living in accordance with the above and dedicated to his unique purpose and his specific values.

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A dichotomy means that you set it up so there are two distinct options that can't be unified. It doesn't mean both options are valid. So... Yeah, you set up a dichotomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

 

If you turn it around, that would be rationalism. But what you described isn't turned around... So I don't know what you're talking about.

Yes, ascribing and arrogating to one's own life the abstraction, "the standard of value", could well be an outcome of rationalism.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

A dichotomy means that you set it up so there are two distinct options that can't be unified. It doesn't mean both options are valid. So... Yeah, you set up a dichotomy.

[Dichotomy: Division into two; binary classification; repeated bifurcation.]

I reject the mistaken premise: "One's life, the standard of value." This "option" is an unintelligible non-option.

I uphold the principle: "one's life one's supreme value".

Therefore, I maintain the two cannot even be considered in unity, as some would have it.

No dichotomy and no "division into two", but a contradiction in terms. 

 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I uphold the principle: "one's life one's supreme value".

You are incoherent. You said this creates a conflict. Now you say it doesn't. You don't make any sense. Nothing you write makes any sense. I don't mean I disagree, I mean it literally doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

You are incoherent. You said this creates a conflict. Now you say it doesn't. You don't make any sense. Nothing you write makes any sense. I don't mean I disagree, I mean it literally doesn't make sense.

Whew. You can do better.

I said several times, the attempt at holding both "one's life, one's highest value" AND one's life the "standard of value" creates a conflict. (mental and external)

How can one continue to hold the highest objective value in one's life - by a subjective standard of value? Impossible.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious: how does all this relate to your stance on abortion? You have said that a viable fetus is a distinct life. Does that mean that its standard of value is man's life or its own, particular life as a fetus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

How can one continue to hold the highest objective value in one's life - by a subjective standard of value? Impossible.

This is a double standard and a straw man.  No one said anything about a “subjective standard”.

Your life is no less objective than the life, survival, and flourishing of an apple tree.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

This is a double standard and a straw man.  No one said anything about a “subjective standard”.

Your life is no less objective than the life, survival, and flourishing of an apple tree.

Why is this so hard to understand? OK, once more.

No straw man. *I* identified what's clearly a subjective 'standard' assumed by some O'ists I read and heard.

Man's life is the standard of value. (Agreed?) As I've related in Rand's view, that was for her, an objective standard. Which is why we have an *objective* and rational ethics. (One isn't an egoist because one merely *feels* like being one).

IF, however, you take *a* man's life, an individual's, or one's own life - to be the *standard* of value, this 'standard' is no longer objective. You've now defeated the purpose of and negated an "objective standard".

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm curious: how does all this relate to your stance on abortion? You have said that a viable fetus is a distinct life. Does that mean that its standard of value is man's life or its own, particular life as a fetus?

Good one. I brought that into the abortion topic since I think that extreme term abortion is a rationally-moral, not a rights, concern. Can it be "right and proper" - by the standard of man's life, qua man - for an individual to abort an already living entity, able to survive independently? So, not by the fetus' standard of life, by "man's life" standard of value.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Why is this so hard to understand? OK, once more.

No straw man. *I* identified what's clearly a subjective 'standard' assumed by some O'ists I read and heard.

Man's life is the standard of value. (Agreed?) As I've related in Rand's view, that was for her, an objective standard. Which is why we have an *objective* and rational ethics. (One isn't an egoist because one merely *feels* like being one).

IF, however, you take *a* man's life, an individual's, or one's own life - to be the *standard* of value, this 'standard' is no longer objective. You've now defeated the purpose of and negated an "objective standard".

This is bald assertion... not an argument.

You do not understand what the word “objective” means.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
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...