Easy Truth

Sense of life is likely more of a passive component: how a man sees the world and his interaction with it.  "Sense" implies an input or means of "viewing" or contemplating.
 
Character although there is the passive component of how a man sees himself, is more active, and deals with something a man introspectively participates in, choice of principles and values.  It is also more akin to "nature" or "identity", i.e. what a man IS, and as a result likely to do.
 
These two are of course closely intertwined, but a man with a strong principled character can still have a sense of life which is for lack of a better term is "pessimistic" and a person whose sense of life is more on the sunny side can still be unprincipled.

Move very far away then get psychological therapy.
Learning Objectivism is not your most pressing need now.

During one of Harry Binswanger's lectures, he relates a story about providing a young lady student with a copy of The Fountainhead. Some time later, he asked her what she thought of it. She responded with something about it being boring. Using a more direct question, he asked her about what she thought of difference between Howard Roark and Peter Keeting. Her response was that Howard Roark was a genius, but Peter Keeting wasn't that bright.
Judging from the package deal Steven creates around capitalism, just reading Ayn Rand is no guarantee of knowing it. Rand even says to her readers in Galt's Speech: "Some of you will never know who is John Galt."
I thought that was an odd way to word a statement. My initial thought was it ought read "Some of you will never know who John Galt is."

Okay so regarding DonAthos's example, are you saying that the Potential Astronaut has to know his nature first to make an ethical choice? Or that depending on his being good or bad (his nature) he will choose something?
Don, are you also Stipulating that this person's passion is so strong that it is NOT malleable? Such an integrity of thoughts that he will not change his mind when it gets really hard?
Would that mean that the highest ethical question/task be to "know thyself"? (know thy nature, who you really are)

No.  First, I want to know the truth about reality, i.e. to hold the correct philosophy.  Secondarily, I would want others to also know the truth about reality and hold the correct philosophy (it would make life better for me).  Merely having "an impact" of any kind as such has no value... it is only the particular kind of impact that might result which matters.  If everyone already knew the truth and had the correct philosophy I would not be pining and wishing to have an impact on someone.
You imply by your OP and other posts that either A) the philosophy is incorrect/erroneous, or that B ) the philosophy is correct but people are inherently flawed and cannot accept it.
You then admonish us to action of one sort or another, which make little sense. 
An individual surely must seek out the truth and on the evidence he/she should accept a correct philosophy and reject a false one, and insofar as possible and when it is in his self interest to do so, to teach what he knows to others, thereby increasing their potential spiritual and economic value to him.
If A) is the case, then only by evidence and reason can a person be shown that A) is the case.
If B ) is the case, then a person who knows the truth can either try to convince others, or simply refrain from doing so.  Since you seem to indicate that people just don't accept it, you imply it is futile to attempt to convince others. 
I see you are already trying to show why A) is the case (in other threads).  If you are implying the philosophy is wrong, I take it you are proceeding in the attempt to show that. 
If B ) is the case, then logic would dictate from your premises, that since it is futile, one should not try to convince others.  Which is odd, because at the same time you state we should "want" to convince others.  All I can think is that maybe B ) is that case, but not all people are impervious to the truth (after all there are people who have heard the evidence and accepted the philosophy) and hence attempting to convince others, although difficult, is not futile.
The point of your OP and your ensuing argument, if there is one, is elusive.  Please be more succinct if you would like a direct answer.
 
 

LoBagola
 
 
Words in and of themselves do not elicit emotions generally primarily because a contextless word is nearly meaningless.  "Anger" could mean your anger towards abuse of power or a child's anger towards a square peg not fitting in a round hole.  Without the context you do not and cannot know whether to fume or to laugh.
 
Statements however and conceptualization are not merely word play or games of the mind they are in reference to reality.  Being a fully integrated and alive person means that your concepts and your thinking are not divorced from reality, they are connected to it, and more importantly to your own personal life. 
 
Concretization is an important part of chewing on any concept or idea or chain of thinking.  If you get in the exercise of making it real (as to opposed to disconnected by way of some false dichotomy) your emotions and your intelligence will be more in synch and integrated.
 
There is no abstract thought "If I get in a terrible accident and lose both arms" as apart from the concrete realization from b4lls to bone of what it would be like and how you would feel to experience that accident and also live the rest of your life.  The mere "fact" of losing the arms is necessarily tied by causation to how it would affect you and to "think" about the fact while ignoring causal consequences, the real personal ones, is some kind of failure of integration and concretization.
 
So if you have the inclination, try to indulge in fully concretizing ideas when you can. 

Ontology in Objectivism and the distinction between primary and extended senses of the word entity are discussed in the thread Existents and Entities (only 4 pages)
 
There is also a kind of taxonomy of what exists and discussion of what metaphysics is limited to.
 
edit: added here some of my contributions in that other thread:   This is all that is metaphysically important about the "categories of existents".   An entity is a solid thing with a definite boundary within the human perceptual scale.   a) primary existents   a1) living entities - those entities engaging in self-sustaining and self-generated action. a11) human beings - the rational animals a12) non-human beings - all other animals and plants   a2) non-living entities   b ) non-primary existents   b1) entities in an “extended sense” b11) entities not self-evident or only self-evident to augmented perception b12) collections and collective nouns with indefinite boundaries - fluids, flocks b13) parts of entities or "extended sense" entities   b2) non-entity existents b21) attributes b22) actions b23) relationships    "Entity" needed to be defined. The genus is existents, differentia is the things with perceivable boundaries. This sets up the vocabulary necessary for further reasoning and the rest of philosophy, and it is accessible without any scientific background. The whole business with the 'extended sense' is how scientific knowledge of other kinds of entities is integrated into this scheme. The laws of identity and causality are explained in terms of entities. For the purpose of making it clear that identity and causality apply to things known only by inference they too are identified as entities, but in an extended sense that preserves the original distinction. 

Okay, I think I get it now.

Is this a correct understanding:

To directly perceive something is to see it and/or touch it in its entirety and without altering Man's perceptual faculties (without giving him special perceptive powers beyond his natural perceptive abilities).
All entities are existents, but not all existents are entities. Some entities can be perceived directly - they can be seen and/or touched in their entirety without altering Man's perceptual faculties; these entities are referred to as "primary entities." Some entities require altering Man's perceptual faculties (e.g. to see the microscopic, to see the very far away, etc.), but in order to gain knowledge of these entities we must first understand the entities perceivable to the unaided senses. Classifying entities in this way helps us understand the way we form concepts.

Religion and Art are the spiritual motivators... insofar as religion was been "supernatural" only it is a no go... art is where its at for now.

"Entity" needed to be defined. The genus is existents, differentia is the things with perceivable boundaries. This sets up the vocabulary necessary for further reasoning and the rest of philosophy, and it is accessible without any scientific background. The whole business with the 'extended sense' is how scientific knowledge of other kinds of entities is integrated into this scheme. The laws of identity and causality are explained in terms of entities. For the purpose of making it clear that identity and causality apply to things known only by inference they too are identified as entities, but in an extended sense that preserves the original distinction.

Existents are not toggling between being entities and not being entities, they are entities known because they are self-evident and entities known only by inference. Furthermore there isn't even any toggling: once a person knows an entity in the primary sense it is remembered as such and is never again an extended-sense entity to that person.

This is all that is metaphysically important about the "categories of existents".

An entity is a solid thing with a definite boundary within the human perceptual scale.

a) primary existents

a1) living entities - those entities engaging in self-sustaining and self-generated action.
a11) human beings - the rational animals
a12) non-human beings - all other animals and plants

a2) non-living entities

non-primary existents

b1) entities in an “extended sense”
b11) entities not self-evident or only self-evident to augmented perception
b12) collections and collective nouns with indefinite boundaries - fluids, flocks
b13) parts of entities or "extended sense" entities

b2) non-entity existents
b21) attributes
b22) actions
b23) relationships

Except that it isn't.
If life is what you want, you must pay for it, by accepting and practicing a code of rational behavior. Morality, too, is a must—if; it is the price of the choice to live. That choice itself, therefore, is not a moral choice; it precedes morality; it is the decision of consciousness that underlies the need of morality. OPAR Pg. 245
Miss Rand addresses this with the exchange between Dagny Taggart and Hugh Akston in the valley:
So long as men desire to live, I cannot lose my battle."
"Do they?" said Hugh Akston softly. "Do they desire it?
 

This baffles me...
Consider an avid computer person, he loves making simulations with his computer, he loves making fractal art with his computer, he loves making 3d rendering and animations with his computer, he loves coding cellular automata with his computer... he loves all the things he can do with his computer and he can do only with his computer.
One day the computer has a problem, he fixes the computer with use of the Manual, one which describes how to care for and maintain the computer, to keep it operational.  Being interested only in his love for what he could do with his computer, he never learned about nor even cared about the computer itself.  The things he did with the computer were values in themselves, whereas the computer itself ... well in and of itself, was wholly uninteresting and useless to him.
Now, however, realizing that the computer makes all he loves to do with it possible, specifically its being operational, he realizes that fundamentally ALL the things he loves doing with the computer depend fundamentally upon its being operational.
As a rational person, he decides to read and learn everything from the Manual about caring for and maintaining the computer's operation.  He realizes he cannot overclock it too much (this could cause it to fail permanently) so he has to give up some speed for his simulations, but he decides this is OK because there is so much more he does not want to lose at the cost of a little simulation speed.
He adopts the Manual as a guide, and follows it religiously because everything he values about the computer depends upon it being operational.  He does not stop doing all the wondrous things with the computer which he loves, he does so now with the understanding that he has the power to help guarantee he can continue to do those wondrous things.
 
You speak of choosing particular states of existence, and those particular states of existence as having value, while at the same time stating that existence "in itself" has no value.  But those particular states of existence presuppose existence, they are species of existence, they wholly and utterly depend upon existence.  Existence "in itself" has no value???   It makes ALL values possible, NO values are possible without it.  It therefore has fundamental and ultimate value.
Your adopted guide to action whose standard is life, helps you objectively to stay alive.  It does not and cannot tell you what to live for, or what to love about your computer.  You still have to choose and do that for yourself.  Morality is a guide you adopt for your use, not your master or your teacher or your parent...you are not a servant of Morality it serves you.

I think this helps illustrate important facts about purpose.
1. Chosen: Purpose is volitionally chosen, not automatic, and therefore it's most likely a uniquely human thing. (I doubt chimps could have a human-like purpose.) It's possible to not choose a purpose, in which case we would act pre-volitionally like a baby or post-volitionally like an emotion-driven looney.
2. Good or bad, harmony or discord: Because man is fallible, his chosen purpose might be good or bad for his individual survival. Likewise, it might be in harmony or discord with his particular moral code. The two evaluations are separate and unique questions, meaning that a particular purpose could be good for survival while in discord with one's moral code, and vice versa.
3. Complex: Man is capable of setting short, mid, and long-term goals. And so there may be multiple chosen purposes for any particular action. When properly integrated, these single purposes become one complex purpose which we use to guide our entire life process. It's possible for man to set only short-term goals, in which case he drops the context of a future life and lives only for the present purpose. It's also possible for man to have a longer-term goal but lack the planning skills or ability to achieve it, in which case his shorter-range goals will not be integrated with the longer-term one, and ultimately he will fail or be frustrated, unless he learns and adjusts his goals accordingly.
4. Post-life: On account of having imagination, it is possible for man to set a post-life goal which is achieved (or not) only after and on account of his death. Despite not being alive to see this final purpose fulfilled, he can still act with purpose before death in order to best ensure that the imagined goal is achieved. And like all purposes, even this one can be good or bad for survival, and in harmony or discord with one's moral code.
To elaborate a bit on #4, a popular example of a post-life goal is: to get into Heaven and be with God. Religious folk may or may not attempt to integrate this final goal with their short, mid, and long-term goals in life before death. They may routinely choose to drop the context of such a supernatural afterlife and focus on pursuing more this-worldly purposes such as making money and raising a family. But if they do pursue Heaven, then they must do so according to some standard of value, such as whatever moral code they can glean from their favorite religious text. If they should decide that getting to Heaven and being with God requires killing infidels because that's what their favorite prophet said, then their shorter-range goals in life will probably include waging war upon non-believers. They might even conduct a suicide mission against the enemy to prove their devotion to their ultimate purpose.
Another popular post-life goal is: helping loved ones. This is accomplished by creating a will and bequeathing property to the people we love. But in order to have something to bequeath, this purpose must be properly integrated with pre-death goals, such as making a good living and buying valuable property. If one chooses to live hedonistically and spend everything on booze and gambling, there may be nothing left for loved ones in the end.

Hi Kierkegaard,
 
Welcome to the forum.
 
 
There is plenty of room in Objectivism for optional values. For example, the virtue of productivity simply says that man must provide himself with the material values necessary for existence. It doesn't say, you have to create value by being an architect (Roark) or by being an industrialist (Rearden) or by being an artist (Halley). The choice of a career is an optional one based upon your specific, objective, experiences and preferences. I, unlike you, prefer cake to ice cream. I prefer cake for objective reasons- the texture in my mouth is more enjoyable to me- but ultimately it comes down to the context of my own life. Both are desserts and we both have individually acquired tastes for different desserts. The same is true for many many other things, like preferring tennis to soccer. Both are sports. Which one you prefer depends on your individual experiences and value judgements in the context of your specific life (which sport you grew up watching, etc).
 
 
 
This second question is a point of much misunderstanding, especially among people that are new to Rand. When Ms. Rand refers to 'life' she refers to the full meaning of the concept 'life'. She doesn't just refer to a beating heart or open eyes but to the entire meaning of the concept. Thus, the goal of the Objectivist morality is not merely to extend your life for as long as possible. If this were the goal, I agree that you could argue that eating any dessert is immoral. You could probably even argue that leaving your house is immoral because of the probability you get run over crossing the street.
 
But what Rand means by 'life' is a full life specific to man. In other words, man is a certain entity with a specific identity. He is rational, experiences emotions, has two arms, etc. Living, for a human being, means living in accordance with your nature. Which means living a rational, fulfilling life, with deep emotions, relationships, and all of the wonderful values that are distinctly human. Merely existing in a miserable state is not living in the true sense. Yes, you are alive in that you are fulfilling the minimum requirements to continue the process of being alive- but you are not living in the full sense of the concept. Existing as a slave may be the kind of life proper to an animal but you would not be living a flourishing life in accordance with your identity as a man.

With objectivity, we give our self the best chance of knowing the absolute truth.
One cannot delve deep into every area of reality. Some things are and will be accepted at face value by each one of us. Even if we are committed to being objective, we have to stop delving and confirming at some point.
When one is committing to being objective and open to examining every area, it is finite, within reason.
Many things are accepted uncritically. We can't know everything to the point of infallibility. We won't put much effort in certain areas but walk away with superficial facts. It is, in fact, the best choice. You can't read every book in the library. You have to live with some of your cursory assumptions in certain areas.
With objectivity, we only give our self the best chance of obtaining the truth.
But the knowledge we have is limited, fallible.
Which means it is different from absolute reality.
Which means it is different from each other.
 

Sure.  According to my standard of morality, choosing a life of eating ice cream with a slightly shorter duration is immoral.  Why?  Because I firmly believe, that due to the complex nature of man and a wide and varied  complex reality, there exists something else, which would give you just as much pleasure as the ice cream, without slightly reducing the length of your life.  In fact I would submit there are countless activities and things which could replace your ice cream and in fact provide you with pleasure much greater and perhaps extend your life even longer.  Given the almost endless possibilities and alternatives to ice cream, yes, choosing it with it known effect of reducing the length of your life is immoral.
 
I may respond to other details of your post.  We may not agree but the subject of objectivity and whether or not the life-death alternative  truly is or is not fundamental to Objectivist ethics is something I would like to address.

But there are some major differences. 
Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices. We learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction.
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/aristotle/section8.rhtml

"Man writes Ayn Rand, “has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice.”" OPAR (p. 214). "“Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it." For the New Intellectual, 121 
Her definition does not limit virtue to be a disposition, a tendency or habit, but an action. Values can change, therefore virtues change with them. I also notice a tinge of replacing volition, as in virtue is a habit that happens automatically. 
It seems like Aristotelean virtue is sort of eternal rather than case by case basis, based on consequence to human life, not a consequence to human nature.

 
 
 
 

"Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue—and happiness is the goal and the reward of life."
-John Galt (from John Galt's speech)
Atlas Shrugged
by
Ayn Rand

For those who might read the thread later, I'm posting this thread shortly after the Vegas mass shooting in October, 2017. Every media analyst in the western world is searching for the shooter's "motives", and looking for them everywhere, except on their own news channels, and the front page of their own news sites or papers. That's your motive: the world's attention is focused on this dull, unimportant idiot who could've never commanded attention any other way except through the most unimaginative, copycat act of murder in the history of crime.
Sorry to the victims, it's a tragedy for them and their friends and families, but, as far as everyone else is concerned, nothing notable happened in Vegas. Some people were killed by some moron. No special achievement, no special misfortune in the overall scheme of things. Just some personal tragedies. They happen. To everybody, eventually.
And covering it as if it's the most important event in the world, for the next week, will benefit no one. Especially not the victims, or the victims of future copycats. If it was at least interesting, like Ted Bundy going on a seduction/torture/murder/necrophilia spree, or Charlie Manson and his exploits, then there would be some reason for the coverage. It would still be despicably exploitative, but it would be a reason: it would be telling the audience something they've never heard of before.
There's no reason for covering these mass shootings to this extent. They're not interesting, they're not even frightening (at least not to anyone with an ability to evaluate the danger rationally), it's just the same coverage, every single time some loser does the same exact thing (knowing that that's what it takes to get into the headlines).

This is intriguing, I searched the internet for it but can't find anything. This is definitely attributed to her?
Is she saying that we have a tendency toward the morality of altruism?
The only connection I could find was:
It is obvious why the morality of altruism is a tribal phenomenon. Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism’s perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological: the men of self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without tribal leadership and “protection” against reality. The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value-they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice—they have no firsthand inkling of such things as intellectual integrity, love of truth, personally chosen values, or a passionate dedication to an idea. When they hear injunctions against “selfishness,” they believe that what they must renounce is the brute, mindless whim-worship of a tribal lone wolf. But their leaders—the theoreticians of altruism—know better. Immanuel Kant knew it; John Dewey knew it; B. F. Skinner knows it; John Rawls knows it. Observe that it is not the mindless brute, but reason, intelligence, ability, merit, self-confidence, self-esteem that they are out to destroy.

“Selfishness Without a Self,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 50

Yesterday, in this thread about raising awareness about Objectivism, this happened:
 
 
Now, I've actually found that I really kinda like this idea, but it is too much for me to try single-handedly.  If anyone else likes it too, wants to help or has any suggestions - that's what this thread is for!  I'll also be fleshing it out more, here and there, whenever something strikes me.
 
What's the worst that could happen?

It'd start out with some kid (let's call him "Will") eating breakfast with his mom and dad. He'd listen to them talk about the weather or bills (etc.) and they'd ask if he was excited for his first day at school and he'd give a non-committal kinda "yes", and after about a minute they'd all get up, throw their dishes in the incinerator and go outside.
Outside there would be flying cars, massive buildings that don't seem possible, androids walking down the street and just a few blocks away a skyscraper, stretching far beyond the clouds and making some loud sort of ascending noise. His dad would make a mildly displeased comment about missing the 7:25 before his parents walked him down into the skyscraper and inside of something that looked like a Subway car standing on one end, strapped him into a seat between two other children and kissed him goodbye.
After a few seconds he'd introduce himself to the other kids and they'd talk for a while about their parents' jobs before being interrupted by a countdown over the intercom, followed by that loud ascending noise and lots of vibrations. One kid would try to make a joke about it (which everyone would pretend to laugh at) and as the interior of the skyscraper sped past the windows they'd all fall silent. Over the course of about thirty seconds you'd see beams and girders flying past at a steadily-accelerating rate and then suddenly there'd be nothing out the window except bluish-white, slowly fading to black.
A bit later the noise and vibrations would stop, the voice on the intercom would give them permission to unbuckle themselves and they'd all do so. A game of zero-G tag would probably ensue. Then their teacher would come in, welcome them all to the orbital ring, give them a few tips on moving around without gravity and invite them to follow him to the classroom. As they filed out of the space elevator some benevolent and overly-chivalrous kid would be holding the hatch open for everyone, but accidentally release it onto Will's fingers. He'd yell and cradle his hand for a minute (obviously determined not to cry in front of girls), the poor kid who'd dropped the hatch on him would be on the verge of open blubbering, the teacher would investigate and make sure everything was okay before rubbing a "topical anesthetic" on his hand. After a brief pause Will would marvel at that, openly; asking how it worked.
 
This would prompt an explanation of nerves, for a while, back in the classroom. The teacher would demonstrate that knee-jerk reflex test on the jokester (he volunteered), explaining how the brain is where thinking happens and how some efferent nerves are built straight into the spinal cord but most of them won't fire without an impulse from the brain, itself: "which is why your arms and legs can't move themselves unless you think them to - which is a very good thing, indeed!" And they'd learn how certain kinds of stuffs (like anesthetics and chocolate) can do very funny things to neurons. He'd briefly mention that the human brain is completely made out of neurons and that the human brain is the most complicated and amazing thing we've ever found before.
A somewhat grubby-looking girl, in clothes clearly inferior to the others', would've been floating by a window and looking down on the Earth this whole time. She'd sigh wistfully, then, and say: "this place is pretty amazing to me. How is any of this even possible?"
Hearing that, the teacher would chuckle: "What makes it possible? My dear, it's all a matter of figuring out what things are. What any thing is ... and what it could be..."
She'd spin around to face him with an astonished "what?!?!!" to which he'd respond "oh, my! It's time for lunch!"
 
Lunch would include a musical number (by Phil Collins, of course) Every episode would center around a different member of the class. If I ever see this on TV, without my permission - good for you! The world needs more of it!!!
I'll be here all week!
 
P.S:
Yes, there is an excellent reason to put a school on an orbital ring: because it would be fucking awesome.

"When we call altruism "evil" what makes that assertion conceivable,...."
 
"....can anyone actually live amorally?"
 
When Rand uses the terms "altruism" and "amorality" (taken from other philosophies, not hers), you need to understand that, in her mind, they are "floating abstractions" which cannot be practiced.  They are not "options" .  She is demonstrating the logical fallacy of the concepts.

Now see, your question leads me to the problem I have with how people typically conceive of "certainty" (or at least how that conception presents itself in discussion). I think I'd mentioned elsewhere that "certainty" (like evasion) needs further exploration, and I don't know if I'm equipped for it at present.
But as a shorthand, if we look at the skills necessary for what I believe to be "good thinking," which includes strategies for rooting out one's own potential for evasiveness, and etc., and say -- "well, yes -- but when can we be certain?" -- then we are looking for the wrong thing. The process of being willing to examine (and re-examine) one's own beliefs, in the face of new evidence or new arguments (or even a fresh perspective) doesn't have a stopping point, a point at which you can rest and not perform any of that work anymore. It is an ongoing process. Certainty, whatever it is, cannot be threatened or compromised by the idea that we must be on guard against the possibility of our own evasion.
Peikoff says of "certainty": "Idea X is 'certain' if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative..."
And this is fine; I use "certainty" in, I'm sure, this way (or very nearly so). But all of these assessments that we make (for instance, when we decide that "all the evidence supports X" or "there is no evidence to support any alternative") -- there is yet the potential that we may make a mistake in such an assessment. When we consider ourselves certain about X, that is not some guarantee for the correctness of X (or the correctness of our evaluation of our own certainty) such that we are permitted to stop thinking.
I'm not saying that we cannot consider ourselves "certain" on some given point. We can. (And in fact, I think we must.) But this does not relieve us from the duties of thinking, of rooting out the potential error -- even in those cases where we consider ourselves certain.