DonAthos

There've been a few pekple who tried to secede here and there. They usually figure on the news when the cops surround their homes with military style vehicles and persuade them to come back into their voluntary, consensual citizenship,

“Discussions are always better than arguments, because an argument is to find out WHO is right and a discussion is to find out WHAT is right.”
I don’t know who said this. But it’s more profoundly true than you may know!
The issue here involves objective truth — and reason. Rational people seek to find out what’s true using reason. Reason, logic and facts are the way we discover and discern what’s true. Granted, it’s not always obvious what’s true. In complex areas, it can be debatable. Sometimes there are mere options and preferences. But it’s the methodology that counts here. When you’re disagreeing, either you do so in a rational way, using reason, or you let it degenerate into name-calling, hostility or personal attacks.
Reason and logic often get a bad name. “It’s cold to reason. What about emotions?” But it’s a false choice. You can be rational and still have emotions. The difference is that when using reason, your emotions don’t run the show. You utilize facts, reason and logic to guide your emotions. You don’t accept something as true just because you feel it, or someone else feels it. More than feelings are needed.
When an argument or debate collapses into name-calling, fact-evading, threats of violence or other forms of irrationality, it’s a symptom. It’s a symptom that somewhere along the way, the reasonable method and tone have been lost. When you find yourself dealing with someone irrational, then you have one of two choices: (1) take a break and walk away; or (2) use reason. It’s hard to use reason when things have become so emotional. Take it from a therapist: This is often a good time to ask questions. For example, “Help me understand what you mean? What’s important to you here? Where do you disagree with me? I’m trying to understand what you have to say, and I’m just going to listen.” And mean it.
WHAT is right matters more than WHO is right. When you focus on WHO is right, then it becomes personal. But think about it. If someone proves you wrong, they have not offended or insulted you. They’ve shown you something you didn’t previously know. If it’s better to know than not to know, isn’t this a good thing?
In personal or marital relationships, the biggest problem is treating your partner as an adversary when he or she is not. Your loved one is not an adversary. More than any other relationship in life, your romantic partner or spouse is the one you choose. You don’t choose your parents, your siblings and even if you choose to have children and raise them a certain way, you don’t choose the kind of people they become. And you don’t have a choice about the fact they remain your children.
But your spouse or romantic partner is the one you choose to be with, and with whom to remain for as long as you both choose. They’re not the enemy. If you take the simple step of not treating your friends or loved ones — chosen friends and loved ones — as enemies, the door is open to reasoning through any difficulty. That’s how you get to finding out WHAT’s right rather than WHO is right. If anyone is worth knowing or having in your life, it’s the only way to go.
In the end, we find out what’s true using reason. Something is never true because of WHO says it. Something is true or valid only because there’s a fact-based, convincing and rational case to back it up. If your goal in life is to be right, you’re set up for a constant series of battles based on an adversarial premise. If your goal in life is to know what’s true, the act and art of using your mind is one of the most beautiful things imaginable. Others, in this quest, are your potential friends, not your adversaries.
It’s a benevolent universe, because we’re capable of knowing what’s true and becoming better and better all the time for it. It’s only when people ignore this fact that things get ugly.
 
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!
Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.
The post WHO’s Right or WHAT’s Right? appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.
View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

Consider just this snippet, and let us assume it is true. What makes this person happy? It is not the dividend payments as such. Those are the enablers that allow him to do XYZ, and that XYZ -- in turn -- makes him happy. Can raising kids be a happy pursuit? Ask yourself that before making the leap to "is it moral"? 
Suppose you answer "yes", it can make on happy to spend one's time raising kids, or plants, or chickens. The next question would be: why? What aspect of it makes you happy? We're not speaking of some occasional laugh you get along the way. Rather: what is it about that pursuit that gives the person that deeper sense of happiness? Very often you'll find yourself answering something very close to: purpose. "Seeing a young person develop", or "helping a young person discover the world". 
The implication of Rand's ethics is that seeking purpose is an important -- indeed primary -- source of enduring and deep happiness. 

What a game!

Fatherhood and a greater interest in soccer combined long ago to make me only an very occasional viewer of the NFL. And so it was that I found myself watching Super Bowl LI yesterday -- at my wife's urging. I knew the Super Bowl was coming soon, but it wasn't until my wife asked me to pick up Super Bowl goodies from the store Thursday that I realized it was right on top of us. I expected the Patriots to win and, having lived in Boston, was rooting for them, but I fully expected them to put the game safely out of reach quickly enough for me to retire early. With the opposite apparently happening and not really having dogs in the hunt, I made the mistake of confusing Tom Brady for a mere mortal and went upstairs to get ready to move the kids to their beds.

When I returned, there was a football game on, the kind I'd never forgive myself for not watching. Like millions of others, I got to see Tom Brady and Bill Belichick make Super Bowl history against a fearsome opponent. I am happy to pay for that spectacle with the small price of feeling tired this morning. Seeing someone overcome what he did early in the season and for much of the game is something I needed, and it will be good to remember. Brady was on fire. There was a look in his eye that told me he would win or put up a valiant fight. He wasn't there just because he is a professional.

But football is just as much a mental game as it is a physical one, and it is worth reading about how the coaches and players engineered this comeback:
I recall hearing at one point in the first half that Belichick had said that a coach who waits until halftime to make changes is too late. This game proves it, although the payoff didn't become apparent until late in the game, after it seemed to me to be a lost cause.

Ignore the complaints about the NFL's tie-breaking procedure (which I admit is flawed) or the idea that the Falcons "choked." They were a worthy opponent, whom it took a coaching genius and one of the game's greatest players to defeat. They are young and, if they are as good as I think they are, this loss will galvanize them in much the same way Deflategate did the Patriots this year. They will have something to prove, and if they persist, I think they will prove it.

-- CAV Link to Original

This may represent my last contribution to this thread -- for a while, at least. No promises to stay away entirely (which is always difficult for me), but I feel I'm about at my limit to explain myself fully, and usually when I feel this way it's best to take a step back and recharge. So let me try to explain what I believe is actually going on with the "choice to live," at this point in the conversation, as clearly as I can. (And I think it might be close to some of your own beliefs, at this point, though perhaps that's not correct.)
I think that this is the general situation man finds himself in: man has choices to make, of his nature. (And this is as an adult, volitional, etc.) Some of these choices produce outcomes we'd roundly describe as preferable, and some that we would not want at all. We'd earlier considered "life" and "milk" and decided (or I decided, at least, though I suspect you concur) that what we want is "life and milk" or even more accurately "a life full of milk."
So the question becomes: how does one achieve this in reality? And ethics is the attempt to answer that question. It is the blueprint to achieve "a life full of milk," in reality, given the fact that we have choices to make where some choices will help us to achieve that "life full of milk," and some will not.
Okay. So. Given this perspective, a person could ask of himself of any given proposed action/choice -- "will this lead me closer to a life full of milk? Or farther away?" But this "takes for granted" that a man wants "a life full of milk."
And so philosophers, being who and what they are, have challenged this ethical perspective by asking, "Well, what if a man doesn't want a life full of milk? What then? Does the whole thing collapse?"
I believe that "the choice to live" is an attempt to respond to this question, in asserting that men have an initial ("primary") choice to pursue a life full of milk (which is "the choice to live," where "live" is understood in the more robust "flourishing" sense, rather than mere survival), which is itself amoral. Absent this choice, sure, a man does not need this ethics; but then such a man would need no ethics at all, because what is possibly worth pursuing except for a life full of milk?
Here's the (central) problem with this "choice to live": a "choice" is an actual concept, an actual thing, in reality. We talk of "choice," we know "choice," because we (volitional adults) make choices. And I do not believe that actual people, in reality, make this "choice to live" which is, again, an attempt to answer the question of "what if a man doesn't want a life full of milk?" I believe that no such "choice" exists in reality.
There are problems which then radiate outward from this central error, which Peikoff in various writings and lectures has attempted to address; but because there is no "choice to live," he can never manage to do so with complete consistency. Some of these problems include the supposedly arbitrary nature of a "choice to live," and the applicability (or lack thereof) of this doctrine to actual, human suicide. Defending this "choice to live" doctrine sews great confusion, to the extent that a person attempts to apply it consistently or even understand it. Some of that confusion results in the Craig Biddle video I'd responded to in the OP, where he attempts to say that it cannot be answered on the one hand, but that everyone "who has a context" can answer it on the other, or others attempting to assert that newborn babies somehow manage to "choose to live," despite a lack of understanding of what "life" even is. "The choice to live" is, in many respects, an ethical "god of the gaps."
Yet just as the "god of the gaps," none of it is necessary.
"What if a man doesn't want a life full of milk?" I don't know to what extent I'm able to defend this position, at present, but here's what I've come to believe the actual answer is: not that men make an amoral choice, outside of space and time, but that no such man exists or is able to exist. (Men may believe themselves to not want a life full of milk -- and hold an "explicit philosophy" stating as much -- but they are unable to make this true about themselves, or their nature, just as they cannot will themselves to fly to Mars by flapping their arms, even if they believe that they can.)
Insofar as we have accurately identified the "good" in life (e.g. "a life full of milk"), it is what men want, according to the nature of man. Those things that comprise the good -- that comprise "a life full of milk" -- being survival, pleasure and happiness -- we do not "choose" to desire, or value. We value them because that is part of our identity, part of our design, just as an actual baby does not "choose" to value the pleasure of his mother's actual milk, but simply does. There is no answer as to "why men value happiness," for instance, except that this is what happiness is. And pleasure (which I believe stands at the root of happiness, though this is also a position I am working on fleshing out--especially in this thread) is good, of its nature; it is, indeed, the root and source of our very conception of the good.
(I know you're bound to have objections related to "intrinsicism"; perhaps in the future we can examine those objections.)
"A life full of milk," yes?
Yes.
But this is all within the context of "what's possible." And indeed, there is no particular or necessary measure of "how much life" or "how much milk" is possible to any given man, at any given time. We wish as much milk over as much life as possible, in any given context. Or as Rand said: "Life is the purpose of life. You should enjoy your life. You should be happy in it. Your proper moral obligation is to pursue the highest form of happiness possible to you -- and can explain/prove your choice to yourself, in rational, logical terms."
I think this is the most succinct explication of ethics possible. (Possible to me, at least).
If one's proper moral obligation is to pursue the highest form of happiness possible to himself, given his context, then it doesn't matter if it's someone sixteen years old and at the beginning of his life, or one hundred and sixteen and at the very end. It is still his proper moral obligation to pursue the highest form of happiness possible to himself, given his particular circumstances.
When considering suicide, I think it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of vinegar. Just as we should like "a life full of milk," we wish to avoid "a life full of vinegar."
The idea of "justified suicide" is enough to establish that the standard you suggest (where "life would be the result of moral action") is flawed, and in need of improvement (here, that "life" is misunderstood in context). For even in "tragic circumstances," man still encounters the same basic situation which gives rise to ethics in the first place: man has choices to make, of his nature. Some of these choices produce outcomes we'd roundly describe as preferable, and some that we would not want at all.
When a man finds himself in a position such that milk is unavailable (or in exceedingly short supply), and all there is to drink is vinegar, there are still certain outcomes which are preferable to others, due to the nature of both milk and vinegar (and man).
Ethics remains our tool to assess among these various outcomes, to select the best possible option. Sometimes suicide is the best possible option, given a dire context, which is the sense in which it is both "justified" and moral.
A code of ethics is not fundamentally a "third party" affair. And absolutely a man needs a rational code of ethics to avoid pain (whether by "painless death" or "painless last month of life," which might represent the very same decision) -- because man's choices (including seeking relief from pain in various circumstances) are instrumental in determining whether he will or will not experience that pain.
For instance, I can direct you to arguments made on this very forum that it is good to experience pain, as such (because all experience is accounted good). That is an ethical argument, but it is deeply, woefully mistaken. Someone taught that by his parents should hope to discover some code of ethics (even via third party) which will allow him to cast it off, lest he suffer more pain than necessary or warranted.
And by the way, you should aspire to be in the position to tell someone that what they're doing in committing suicide (in select circumstances) is ethical. Presumably you wouldn't be so wooden in your communication, in context, but if someone asked you (valuing your rationality) whether you thought it was "right" of them to take their own life, given their exceedingly tragic circumstances (perhaps against some moral doctrine they were raised to believe, such as many religions present, where all suicide is considered evil), the proper answer is: yes.
There is a central misunderstanding reflected here, one which has the potential to corrupt all ethical understanding. Though I do not expect to participate in further conversation for a while, when I return (rested, rejuvenated), this might be a good place to resume.
Ethics can be thought of as being "for the long run" in certain valid senses, but it cannot rightly be thought of as "for the future." Life is nothing but a series of "nows," and each now is an end in itself. What that means is, we do not validate our decisions wholly from the perspective of some future self who looks back and says, "Yes, I picked right" or "No, I did not." If that were the case, then all of this would be moot, because in the long long long run, we will all be dead, and unable to evaluate our earlier choices.
Just as someone will not survive his suicide to judge whether he was right or wrong to have experienced some particular measure of pain, none of us will survive our deaths to pass judgement over our earlier choices, even those that may have led to our deaths. What matters is what we experience in the moment that we experience it. The suffering of needless pain is evil, and that evil is not obviated by the fact that -- at some point in the future (near or long-term) -- the agent suffering that needless pain will no longer have the capacity to regret the fact. It is wrong in the moment it is experienced.
The happiness that a man feels while alive is not rendered valueless or meaningless accounting to the cessation of death either, not even if his happiness was in his very last moment of life (as the monk who eats the strawberry). His happiness, in each moment it is experienced (including the last), stands eternally as its own justification, an end in itself.

Asking how logic applies to government is a lot like asking how physics applies to government. Governments exist as part of reality. Logic is about how reality functions and therefore applies to reality in general. That's how/why logic applies to government. Government is not some kind of weird floating exception to reality or apart from reality. Everything from there on out is just going to be specific examples of logic used on government. Is that what you really want though? Just a list of examples? From what I've seen, Rand didn't really use the heavily symbol laden "formal" logic much anyway, but to the extent the symbol-based version is still properly formed logic, what I said still applies.
 
You've made lots of threads here based on questions/objections to Objectivism. If you've said so before, sorry for the repeat, but aside from this forum, what are your sources of information on Objectivism? Also, do you yet consider any of your questions/objections to be sufficiently answered/resolved? I don't think I recall you saying before if you thought any of them were before you moved along to another thread and stopped posting in a previous one.

0:55: "Now, on the face of it that's paradoxical, because if it's primary it's the beginning, and yet if it's not groundless there must be grounds for it."
It's from an advanced seminar on OPAR. He goes through the entire book and explains what he wrote in more detail. The members of the audience each have their own copy of the book with them, so they can follow Peikoff and ask specific questions. 
At 0:21 he announces that he'll comment on a topic from the bottom of page 324. He then dicusses it for the rest of the video. In the final version of OPAR, which went for publication, the page is 247 (according to the booklet). I am reproducing the portion here:
"When they hear about the Objectivist ethics, philosophy professors from both groups [intrinsicists and subjectivists] ask, as though by reflex, the same question. "If the choice to live precedes morality,", they say, "what is the status of someone who chooses not to live? Isn't the choice of suicide as legitimate as any other, so long as one acts on it? And if so, doesn't it mean that for Rand, too, as for Hume and Nietzsche, ethics, being the consequence of an arbitrary decision, is itself arbitrary?
[...]
The professors I just quoted [...] seek to prove that values are arbitrary by citing a person who would commit suicide, not because of any tragic cause, but as a primary and end-in-itself. The answer to this one is: no.
A primary choice [primary = preceding morality] does not mean and "arbitrary,", "whimsical,", or "groundless" choice. There are grounds for a (certain) primary choice, and those grounds are reality - all of it. The choice to live, as we have seen, is the choice to accept the realm of reality. The choice is not arbitrary, it is the precondition of criticizing the arbitrary; it is the base of reason.
A man who would throw away his life without a cause, who would reject the universe on principle and embrace a zero for its own sake [...] would be disqualified as an object of intellectual debate. One cannot argue with or about a walking corpse, who has just consigned himself to the void. The void of the nonconscious, the nonethical, the non-anything. 
Ethics is conditional, i.e., values are not intrinsic."
(square brackets and bolded text mine)
A choice implies that you desire the end goal, either for its own sake, or as a means to another goal. The moment you act on a desire, you choose to act on that desire. Simple as that. Even people who act mindlessly, on random impulse, choose to follow that impulse instead of an alternative, e.g. thinking about the situation. If you restrict 'choice' to the conceptual level and forget that every action is a choice, whether it was triggered by whim or by logic, then I cannot convince you that every single action you do presupposes a choice. 
You can't conflate commitment with choice. Every choice made toward self-preservation implies a choice to live. Any protest against being harmed is an expression of that choice. At the root of your interest in learning and applying ethics, there is the implicit choice to follow your own desire for life. If that's not a choice, I don't know what a choice is.
Morality is conditional. It's source is an if.
I believed that no further explanation was required (the video text, as well as the video title are self-explanatory), but fair, I'll take heed of this advice next time and provide a summary of the contents. Leaving this point aside, I disagree that Peikoff is in any way unclear in the video.

And then the essence of statist tyranny enacted in the name of democratic will. The essence of everything that Rand fought so hard against.
Who needs Galt's generator when Rand is spinning so fast in her grave.

Is it an absurdity? Perhaps it is. Though if you had asked me a few years ago about Trump being elected President of the United States (let alone given the campaign he ran), I think I would have described that as an "absurdity," too. These are rather absurd times.
As I've said, I think we have to have war somewhere. I think Trump's demeanor alone demands it, and in the course of "Making America Great Again," you know, he'll want us to flex our muscles. So where will it be? Mexico seems nearly as likely to me as anything else, given the rhetoric and policy goals that Trump's employed throughout his campaign and in his early administration.
Is war with Mexico guaranteed? No. Though as I said, I fully expect military involvement in Mexico. Given Trump's approach, I'd expect that relations with America will become the hot button topic in Mexican politics over the next few years, and with trade agreements crumbling and increased tariffs and such, perhaps their economy suffers, too. The sum total could be quite destabilizing (though maybe I'm too ignorant of Mexican politics to comment on that), and -- who knows? -- maybe we'll be inspired to send a "peace-keeping force."
Or do you think it's absurd that the US would become militarily involved in Latin American affairs at all? Are you familiar with our history in that region? (Some of which is not all that old.)
All prognostication is fraught, naturally. I could direct you to quotes in this very forum about how Trump would not win the Presidency (and some older than that, guaranteeing Romney's win and such); knowing that A is A does not give one any particular insight into such complicated futures, though it does seem to inspire an undue level of certainty in our predictions. But working with what I have (which includes a decent, if not extensive, knowledge of history; and observing Trump over these last several months), I'm inclined to believe that many things we've considered "absurd" over the last few decades are going to become our new reality.

I'd like to think the chances of this are low, because American business interests in Mexico and with Mexico will put pressure in the opposite direction.
However, we know that Trump is clueless about economics. We know that he would rather stoke his egoless soul with sticking to a stupid idea than admitting he's wrong. We know that the trailer trash that cheered him on wouldn't mind apoorer Mexico that's worse off than they are. 
So, it is possible; though I still believe it is unlikely.
"A prosperous Mexico, caused by a capitalist-leaning Mexico"ought to be an important pillar of US foreign policy. So, it's no surprise that the clueless yahoos and their Dear Leader want the opposite.
Let me add a note of realistic optimism though...
We've all got an overdose of the idiot, but we have not seen reactions. The main reason is that everyone else is waiting to see what the idiot actually does; they don't want to react to his ravings alone. Reactions will come from home and abroad. 
The Mexican president cancelling his visit was one small reaction. Internal Mexican politics made it difficulty or him to meet Trump. Two days later, there are reports that he spoke to the Chiief Yahoo and they agreed not to talk about who will pay for a wall... Not just between themselves, but also in public.
Similarly, The Chief Yahoo said that NATO was obsolete. Then, his defense secretary contradicted him, saying that if NATO did not exist, we'd need to invent it. And, standing by him, Teresa May announced that he'd told her that he was 100% behind NATO, and Cheif Idiot quietly stood quietly by, dangling his bonnet and plume.
As time goes by, we'll see more reaction. It's even possible that the hoards of yahoos will thin as they see their Cheif being caught in more lies, and being bested by others. 

It’s easy to be stressed these days. Even the simple act of taking a vacation can cause anxiety. No matter what you are doing, stress management skills still have to be developed and maintained.
Taking the time to enjoy life’s pleasures is one of the most important aspects of managing the demands of everyday life. Obsessing on things you can’t immediately control increases stress and makes you more susceptible to depression and anxiety disorders.
Of course, refusing to think ahead or plan for the future can create its own kind of stress. Imagine if you never saved for your retirement, or didn’t carefully consider major life decisions. When the consequences of your poorly made choices finally come home to roost (and they will), your stress level would shoot sky high.
Allow yourself to live in the moment, while still managing the course of your life so you can guiltlessly savor the pleasures along the way. After all, the purpose of responsible planning is to make decisions that bring you happiness!
Without a healthy balance between these two outlooks, the resulting frustration can take one of two forms. The first consequence of evading the responsibility of planning your life is that things will consistently go wrong. “I’m having a bad day!” or “Everything happens to me!” become familiar phrases. As the emotional costs begin to mount, so will the feelings of unhappiness and frustration.
The other discontent is still self-inflicted, but it’s the opposite extreme. You get so caught up in commitments and responsibilities that you never stop to “smell the roses” – or the salty tang of the ocean, as the case may be. Life can quickly become a series of sad little regrets, linked by an endless chain of “what ifs.”
A big impediment to living in the moment is what mental health professionals sometimes call “irrational perfectionism.” Irrational perfectionists expect wisdom and insight to come to them automatically, without trial or error. They don’t fully appreciate the value of thought and reason in bringing about sensible conclusions to everyday problems. When they assess a problem accurately, they take it for granted that this is how it should be all the time. But when they make an error, it feels like a disaster.
Ironically, this unrealistic attitude keeps them from ever achieving the perfection they so cherish. Their frustration over being imperfect makes them feel that life is futile. Contrast this with a healthy person who might say something like, “Oh, I wonder what I did wrong! I’ll figure it out and correct it for next time.”
Note that this healthy response presupposes confidence in one’s ability to think and move forward. A healthy person doesn’t resent mistakes. Instead, he or she values the power of reason to solve problems, and engages it with conviction.
Perfection is definitely a full-time job and is a big price to pay for never enjoying any emotional refueling. Like a car without gas, a person without emotional refueling gets nowhere.
How do you emotionally refuel? Take some time to enjoy what you love: music, your pets, sports, whatever. Are you here on vacation? Then enjoy everything you came here to experience. Do you live here because you like the small-town atmosphere and the allure of the ocean? Then enjoy it every single day! Even an hour will do. Don’t let the life you’ve chosen pass you by.
Of course, it’s easy to agree with me in principle, and then go out and make excuses to not follow these suggestions. But remember: Commitments and responsibilities don’t have to keep you from enjoying every day, complete with its ups and downs. We’re all accountable for our own contentment, so allow yourself to delight in the pleasures that living in the moment can bring.
Plan and think about tomorrow, next month, or next year? Absolutely! But, in the process, don’t forget the precious minutes, seconds and hours.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!
Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.
The post Be Successful AND Enjoy Life (DE Coast Press) appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.
View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

I'd like to point out briefly that any time we talk about anything in the actual, existing economy we have in real life, we're talking about what's going on in a mixed economy. The situation under an actual capitalist economy could be very, very different for any given specific example from the real world that we may discuss. Walmart, its owners, and the wages of its employees are all impacted by things like minimum wage laws, child labor laws, OSHA, the EPA, licensing laws, alcohol and tobacco laws, anti-monopoly laws, roads and other infrastructure being tax-funded, tax codes in general, laws favoring offering health insurance as a job benefit over purchasing it independently, etc cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum. Our economy, including what job positions already exist, what new ones can be created and how easily, what happens and when if one becomes unemployed and so on are all extremely heavily skewed from what they would be in a capitalist system. The alternatives people face in the here and now vary greatly in many ways and specific cases from what they would be in a capitalist system.
Maybe Walmart would exist in a capitalist system, maybe it wouldn't. Maybe they'd exist and be a much smaller business. Maybe they'd be even bigger. They probably wouldn't be paying $9 an hour starting wages though since that's heavily influenced by minimum wage laws. Maybe they'd pay people less, maybe they'd pay more. There may be (if Walmart existed still) a lot more competition Walmart would be facing both in what other businesses they were competing with to sell products and in who they were competing with for getting people to work for them at all. If starting businesses wasn't so full of legal nightmares, more people may start them, including more people who could offer potential employees better compensation and people who may have otherwise worked for Walmart themselves. What jobs exist at Walmart could even be very different due to different products and services that may exist without all these legal hindrances. What hours people work at such a hypothetical version of Walmart may be very different too if it still was a relatively low paying option. It could be something people did fewer hours at and treated more as a supplement to incomes from other, higher paying jobs rather than being something so many people worked at as much as they could and heavily depended upon for large percentages of their income.
So, yeah, please don't assume that Walmart, or any other real business or job, is necessarily some perfect example of capitalism at work. People could have good intentions and goals and want and try to do things that would be in the spirit of capitalism and would be good to pursue under a capitalist system, and if so, that's great, praise worthy, very moral of them, but they're still going to have to work within and be impacted by the real world's heavily distorted mixed economy. Specific real world scenarios are always going to be needed to be taken with a whole shaker of salt when evaluating them against what would, could, and should be done under capitalism.
So, the actions of the owners of Walmart and of Walmart employees are not what they would be in a capitalist system. Anybody can try their best to pursue ends in a capitalistic manner though, they can still make morally correct choices out of far from morally ideal options. A and B may both be rotten options, and the only options, but B is definitely worse than A, so A is the moral choice to make. I don't know what the owner's end of things looks like to evaluate if they're making the most moral choices possible here as well as I could evaluate things on the employees' end, but you don't care about the owner's end in your first post anyway. Within the context of our flawed, flawed real economy, taking a relatively shitty job with relatively shitty pay is generally done because all other known options at the time are simply regarded as even worse. People don't take these jobs because they give a shit about the Waltons, they take them because they have some kind of unmet need of their own that this is the best thing they can find to try to fill it.
How much money the Waltons do or do not have is completely irrelevant, never even factoring into the decision to take the job or not. In our current, real economy, I doubt much would be achieved by trying to demand more pay just because the Waltons have a lot of money that, theoretically, they could give to employees. I doubt it since there are so many people out there just as desperate to get a paying job, maybe even more desperate. It's not that hard for people to simply be replaced in the here and now. If employees were to just get a bunch more money, just because they wanted it anyway, there's still so many employees and so much time to cover that I doubt you could go too long before the Waltons ran out of money and you had to go back to old wages again or the business got impacted in ways that may require cutting jobs or raising prices which could begin to make the business less successful or even fail too. You're not going to get more money, especially not for long, just because somebody you work for has more and you demand they give you what they have, especially not in the here and now. The current economy lacks incentive to pay people lots more for typical jobs at Walmart and paying them much more may not be feasible even if somebody tried. So, again, how much money the Waltons have is moot to deciding whether to work for their company of not. Somebody's life may still be notably improved over what it was before or what else they could have had by taking a job at $9 an hour even though it is still much less than what they may really want or need and much less than what they could have had in a real capitalist system. That's why people do it. They have their own self-benefiting motivations. They offer their time and services and find that $9 an hour is still worth it to them over the available alternatives.
(Side note, whoa, I haven't seen DavidOdden posting around here in aaaaaaaaages.)

I did before, so I'll mention them again and explain more.
Originally, I wrote: "Justification in Objectivism is pretty "thick" as not only must a belief cohere with other beliefs, it needs a foundation in perception, and the belief must involve things like intellectual honesty and desiring the truth." I explained before why the last one is in line with Rand. The others should be self-explanatory as to why Rand would like them. But, any explicit theory of justification (as opposed to piecing together Rand's ideas) is mine.
Coherence - All beliefs that one holds that are justified will be logically consistent with all other beliefs one holds
Perceptual foundation - All justified beliefs can be traced to perception at least indirectly. The "base" of the knowledge skyscraper is perceptual beliefs, which are beliefs that evaluate perceptual content.
Correspondence with reality - All justified beliefs are connected to reality as it is. Probably a broader way to state "perceptual foundation", which is the only way to find out how a belief corresponds to reality
Virtue - All justified beliefs are the result of intellectual actions and mental states. One needs to be seeking truth, by means of reason. This implies honesty as one, and if we get into it deeply, I'd explain these virtues as the same ones Rand used, and PERHAPS one or two that Aristotle used like courage.
Narrowness - All justified beliefs can only be as "wide" as the relevant classifications of a belief's corresponding existent. That a single TV shows an image of a dog leading you to say "it always shows a dog" is too wide when you are really just saying "it always shows a dog when I'm in the room at 2pm". 
 

Let me respond to the last, first, because I think it sets up an important context for our conversation.
I agree with this, 100%.
Whatever you take me to mean otherwise, please understand that I agree with this (metaphorical) methodology: specific experiences of pleasure are as the dots of paint to the, uh, painting of our lives. In a sense I have been building towards throughout this thread, pleasure is the paint.
If I may extend the analogy?
Certain kinds of cognitive/emotional/spiritual pleasures (including happiness most centrally) are like brush strokes.
Survival itself is the canvas.
And ethics is our guide to painting a masterpiece.
Exactly.
As I have said, I've seen disdain shown for pleasure among self-styled Objectivists. But embracing "life as the standard of value" ought lead to no particular suspicion or scorn of pleasure, let alone such animosity. Considering pleasure to be of value only when it serves survival is bad enough in my estimation, but the sense I have often gotten is that pleasure is somehow the enemy of survival (or at least that the desire for pleasure is the enemy of virtue).
To say the opposite, to stress the opposite, to affirm the deep value of pleasure -- not as a means to any further end, but as the enjoyment of life, an end in itself -- is no call for hedonism, and it is no blow against survival, for pleasure may be enjoyed in reason and in concert with overall well being.
To affirm the value of pleasure, rather, is to insist upon the celebration that life, life qua man, a life fully lived, can and ought to be.
I have seen it expressed (and explicitly so) that we live to work (or work to work). I have seen it that we live to achieve values (where sometimes "happiness" is kept on, seemingly in name only, as a sort of fringe benefit; pleasure, too, which is even more remarkable). I have seen it, at least implicitly and time and time again, that we survive to survive to survive to survive... and then to die, perhaps unavoidably, but that is best not discussed or even thought about--!
Though I'm not familiar with The Undercurrent/Strive, I agree with you.
It's sometimes amazing to me how Objectivism is so often (mis)understood in greater society (to the extent that it is known at all) as primarily being a political platform, and virtually nothing but. ("Selfishness" is sometimes known too, in distorted fashion, but typically held up as a flimsy rationalization for the Capitalist politics, which are themselves often misunderstood.)
Yet the point -- the point -- is individual happiness. Even politics is a means to that end.
But now, back to the beginning.
I don't quite agree. I think we ought to optimize our total life's experience. That said, we do live in the moment, one moment at a time, and so we must be aware that our experiences "now" matter to that "total life experience." (As do our experiences in the past, which is a subject which I expect I shall have more opportunity to reflect upon as I age.)
If we live always "for the future," then we never stand to reap the benefits of our efforts. We must strive to both invest and savor.
I can agree that pleasure evolved with respect to survival (or perhaps even more accurately, reproduction -- which is to say, survival... to a point ). Though this is important information, I have grown wary of drawing ethical conclusions on this sort of basis.
Pleasure is. How pleasure came to be, and how pleasure operates mechanically, only matters (philosophically) insofar as such information helps us understand us how best to achieve it, how best to survive, how best to be happy.
I agree with this. It has been my project to relate pleasure (and pain, in its turn) to this "integrated evaluation" which we call "good" or "evil," in full context. To insist that they have a role -- moreover a vital (or even a central) role -- and to attempt to demonstrate it.
But this is not to say that "any activity which is pleasurable is good" or "any activity which is painful is evil," a threadbare strawman version of my position which I've unfortunately had to disavow repeatedly. For after all remember that I introduced the "dentist example" myself in my OP, and concluded:
I have made reference to this idea repeatedly since, and never once have I said that "seeing the pain in a dentist's visit is good enough."
But rather what I have insisted upon is that the pain in a dentist's visit matters to our evaluation, even as adults, even with "life as the standard of value," and that the pain, in itself, is not ever good -- not even if we evaluate a trip to the dentist, pain inclusive, as good in context, good overall for our lives.
And I hold that I have demonstrated these claims by positing twin dentists who provide the same service, though one with pain and the other without it; even should the painless dentist cost slightly more, it might be the reasonable thing to do to select that alternative, which I believe would show, again, that the pain "matters," and that it is not "good in itself."
I agree with you that this is a great achievement.
Relating this to my own position, I don't think anything I've said can be fairly read as standing opposed to productive work, but if so, let me clarify that now: productive work is man's means to achieve his own life, his happiness, and (yes) the pleasures he means to enjoy.
Yet it is also important to understand how productive work serves these ends (especially when "productive work" is thought of, reductively, as an actual job or career) so that we can understand how and why a man might, say, enjoy retirement in his old age.
I can't speak reliably to most other philosophy, though I've studied a good deal of it in my past -- yet there's always more to be learned (and relearned). But as to the dilemma you describe, and Rand, I am unspeakably grateful for her efforts.
Yet if this ancient dilemma has been solved, I still find myself making mistakes, blundering occasionally against its horns, and seeing mistakes made around me, including persistent and recurring misunderstandings in the Objectivist community. To the extent possible to me, and in concord with my own life, pleasure and happiness (which I might call the Objectivist Trinity, if such irony can be borne), I hope to draw upon the lessons of these mistakes and offer such correction as I can, where warranted and beneficial.

I think you're trying to focus on the point-in-time thing we should try to optimize. Rand's "Objectivist Ethics" highlights two key linkages:
first, that this pleasure is -- in turn -- based on our biology.. on the survival of life (today we might speak of this in terms of the role of pain/pleasure in evolution). "Good" (i.e. recommended action) is thus (mostly) tied to survival in its original cause second, she takes the focus away from point-in-time pleasure, to acknowledge that there are causal links between things. Seeing the pain in a dentist's visit is not good enough, we have to understand the pleasures and pains from the visit as a causally linked set. That's how we get to: "how to we get a better mix". The decisions move from considering a single thing (imagine someone making an excuse not to visit the dentist, because he's focusing on the pain alone). "Good" is the concept that embraces the evaluation of such mixes, and going far beyond these small bundles, to encompass one's life. Good it is the integrated evaluation of pain and pleasure. Only by starting from these two ideas can Rand end up saying Productive Work is one of the highest ideals. That's quite a huge integration that includes hundreds of observations that aren't mentioned in the essay. That's her key achievement: not her focus on pleasure -- which hedonists already took a shot at -- but explaining how we go from there to a message that sounds like "work hard".
The hedonists had already praised pleasure, but nobody can take a short-range approach too seriously. Aristotle spoke of Eudemia, and his golden mean is one way of conceptualizing the various choices we have to make all the time. The Epicureans had spoken about enjoying life in a relaxed way. These were attempts integrate the idea that selfish pleasure is the core of Ethics with other observations about the world.
The Stoics took a different tack: they recognized that men are driven to do "big things" which cannot be explained by "live a relaxed life" or '"do only what you need to be comfortable". They admired these men. At some level, they were admiring productivity, but could not quite explain why it was the good. They ended up with a somewhat "duty ethics". The Bhagavad Gita got to the same point too: work (karma) is good because it is, because it is a universal law. They both assumed a feedback: where the universe rewards us for doing our duty. The only alternative to work seemed asceticism, and Eastern philosophies thought that was good too...but, we can't all be ascetics. So, working hard was what the typical person had to do... just because. There was no tie to happiness, leave along to pleasure.
Rand stepped through the horns of this ancient dilemma. 
In summary: I agree with you that pleasure is key, but it is key the way a dot of paint is key to a painting, or a word is key to Atlas. It's a starting point, but the bulk of Ethics is explaining how it comes together across our lives.
Post-script:  I think your focus on pleasure is important though, because some people read Fountainhead and Atlas as enshrining the virtue of hard work, but do not keep the link to pleasure and happiness in mind. By dropping that link, and by seeing work as an end in itself, drops the crucial justification for work. Work then is a duty: an end that we just do, because it is good... don't ask any more questions!
This is why I think the recent moves by The Undercurrent/Strive: abandoning the focus on Politics, and linking Objectivist Ethics to individual happiness, is great.
 
 

But Don, America is the land of liberty, it feels so true that the US was first - USA #1! We all know Thomas Jefferson outlawed slavery back in 1776 with the Constitution after Washington crossed the Delaware to join the Boston Tea Party!

Two basic precursors to learning are your own personal interests (for picking what to learn about) and your approach to new ideas. For maximum brain flow, go with what interests you most. For maximum brain saturation, question everything honestly until the answer becomes part of you (and even then, question from time to time).
My biggest personal setbacks to learning were/are rationalism and becoming emotionally charged about potential errors in my thinking or conclusions.

The way I see it, the key phrase is "the harder their work and the less their gain, the more submissive the fiber of their spirit". The passage you quoted is comparing and contrasting primitive totalitarianism, the kind that controls peasants, with more modern totalitarianism, the kind that attempts to control factory workers, and observing that the former kind of tyrant had an easier go at it, whereas the latter kind has to resort to expropriating factories in order to keep the people under his thumb. She is saying that although the modern dictators act as though they just want to collect the fruits of industrialization's labor, deep down psychologically they're motivated by fear of those factories' power: the power to enable free-thinking men when unhindered by the state.
A farmer in a primitive society isn't as likely to rebel against tyranny since it's so easy for the primitive tyrant to expropriate more and more from him (or just kill him). If you're the farmer in that situation, it's "rational" to submit, because otherwise you could lose your harvest and/or your life. On the other hand, the factory worker uses his mind more than the primitive farmer, needs to THINK more to do his job (you know, assuming his job involves technical expertise and not just working the assembly line), and, in a free economy, it provides him a higher standard of living than the primitive farmer (he doesn't have to worry about going hungry because of a failed harvest as market speculators will warn him through a gradual hike in food prices, giving him more time to plan for it by cutting other spending/dipping into his savings). He's more individualistic and not as easily pushed around, so long as the economy remains free. The modern tyrant needs to seize factories, impose price controls, etc., so that our factory worker has to work harder for a lower standard of living, all the while knowing that if he speaks out against the state it means the loss of his job (or worse). The modern tyrant has to "work" harder to keep people in line.
That some have claimed that "civilized men are docile and tame" shows how ignorant people are of how much civilization we've actually lost, even in relatively free countries like the U.S. Yes, in many ways we've gained tremendous advancements in civilization in terms of technology and social progress, but we've also gone backwards when it comes to government regulation of the economy. The latter is important as it has resulted in, to some extent, people having to work harder for not as high standards of living. Oh yes, overall, standards of living have gone up for everyone in spite of more regulation (don't let those pounding the drum on income inequality fool you), but who knows how much more wonderful things would be now had the past century gone another way?
If modern "civilized" people (especially Americans) act docile and tame, it's because they observe that they don't have it so bad, and government regulations only affect rich people anyway, they think, so what's there to rebel against? If they appear softer, it's because the insidiousness of a mixed economy has made it relatively easy for the government to conceal its role in making things a little more miserable than they otherwise would be, and so people have been lulled into the false belief that government controls are mostly benign, "for our own good", etc.
If you ask, "But what about our more individualistic forebears? Why couldn't they stop this massive increase in the growth of government controls?" 1) Because it wasn't massive for them for the most part, it was gradual over years and decades. 2) To the extent that they rebelled against radical new controls (the income tax, the New Deal, etc.), they lacked the right ideas to consistently oppose them, so they gave in and compromised needlessly.

A good starting point would be OPAR ch. 1, which says “Science is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation.” Science thus includes “specialized science” and philosophy. It differs from mere observation, which is not systematic. It differs from religion and emotion, which are not based on reason or observation. Philosophy (actual philosophy, not purported philosophy) is a science: again, OPAR ch. 1 “philosophy is a system of ideas. By its nature as an integrating science…”, Peikoff in “The analytic-synthetic dichotomy”: “Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, the science that defines the rules by which man is to acquire knowledge of facts…”. Rand says (“Philosophy: who needs it?”) that “Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. As against the special sciences, which deal only with particular aspects, philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe which pertain to everything that exists. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible”.

 
In the broader context, “science” refers to systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation, but in the narrower context where philosophy is distinguished, we would contrast philosophy and special sciences. In the appendix to ITOE, “Philosophic vs. Scientific issues”, Rand begins by noting “Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true”. Philosophy is not “the art of just making crap up”. In this context (which presupposes the distinction between science and philosophy), the simple term “science” is used where elsewhere “special science” might be used. This second sense of “science” as special science, specialized knowledge, is what is ordinarily called “science” especially by people who haven’t read OPAR and ITOE. Philosophy is science, in the broader sense, but not in the narrower sense.

 
“Evidence” is not, as far as I know, defined in Objectivism, but observation of how the word is used shows that it refers to knowledge in relation to a proposition – a fact supports a proposition, or it contradicts a proposition. A bit of knowledge can depend heavily on an immediate observation – “I just saw an eagle!” – or it can depend heavily on applying knowledge to previously gained knowledge (insert your favorite mathematical proof here). When people speak of “empirical evidence”, they mean knowledge that depends heavily on immediate observation. “Empirical evidence” brings us back to the axiomatic, because the distance from the axiomatic to the conclusion is shortened. All knowledge rests on observation, but some knowledge is separated by quite a distance from observation. It is true that some people treat philosophy as non-empirical, which allows patent nonsense to be promulgated as “philosophy”.

 
You have to consider the concept “evidence” from two perspectives as well, depending on whether it has been evaluated. People often look at the observation as being the “evidence”, in which case since you can’t deny the axiomatic, you end up with a very goofy notion of “balancing” evidence, and seeing truth as scalar. Which, b.t.w., is poppycock. This notion that evidence is the raw observation is wrong. An observation has to be logically evaluated and integrated with all of your knowledge, before it becomes “evidence” for or against anything. “Uncontrolled observations” then are not evidence, because there has been no validation of the relation between the observation and the proposition that the observation stands in a supposed evidentiary relation to. How does that observation integrate with other observations (all other observations, not just the ones of interest to the advocate of the position)?

 
The specific form of stupidity that you’ve identified is failing to consider alternative. There are alternative propositions that are consistent with the observation, and those alternatives are arbitrarily rejected. That means that the resulting emotion of “certainty” is achieved at the expense of acquiring knowledge.

Typically, when I refer to suicide, I mean it literally. I believe that there are times and places when opting to kill oneself may be the rational and moral thing to do.
But the kind of "suicide" that you're referring to? (A kind that one may yet survive.) I condemn it too -- and you're right that it is more fundamental.
A good test for Todd (or others) might be: if we allow that he thinks of himself as "full of joy" (though even that is debatable), in the name of wanting joy -- and who does not want to be joyful? -- would we take his lot?
I think that no one who has experienced pleasure does not want it. I think that no one who has experienced happiness does not want it.
These goods are "good" according to their nature (or more specifically, according to our nature); we derive our concept of good from them. I also believe men can reject many -- or all -- of the things which will allow him to achieve these goods. And that's the pity.
But is a True Nihilist possible, who would not even want pleasure and happiness for himself? That... rather beggars my belief -- and though I can imagine a hipster pretending, "Yeah, man. If God Himself offered me eternal bliss, I'd spit in his eye, 'cause that's just how hardcore I am" -- I believe that the same person on the cusp of actual happiness would not reject that experience, as such, but instead amend his mistaken beliefs, insofar as he is able. And that is what gives me hope.
I agree, but what does this "flourishing" consist of, if we were to examine it in terms of its constituent parts? I suspect it ultimately relates to pleasures and pains (speaking both physically and emotionally).
Well, that's the direction that I think a lot of Objectivists take (wittingly or not, whether they realize that this follows from their premises or not). Because they insist that the choice to live is amoral or pre-moral, then someone who explicitly rejects life -- or his own life -- can no longer be evaluated by the same moral standards. If the Objectivist were to tell Todd, "But if you keep up like this, you won't survive," Todd could easily reply, "I don't care." Or even: "I'm counting on it."
But here's what I would say fundamentally about Todd: his choices will not make him happy. Because I believe that "the good" is rooted in happiness (which is a kind of pleasure), and cannot conceive of morality outside of human experience, it is enough for me to say that he is "immoral." But what of that? I'm no Christian. I'm not consigning him to hell. To say that someone is "immoral" does not initially contain anything beyond the tautology that Todd's choices will not make him happy -- which is enough. (Which is everything.)
Is that sufficient to be a "bad guy"? Perhaps, in the sense that a mop may be a bad mop (one which will not draw water). He isn't "being a guy" very well. But that's more for Todd's sake than my own; and in truth, if Todd could somehow find his way to actual Earthly happiness, I think he would want to do so. He may reject survival, because he cannot find his way to happiness, but I do not believe he would reject happiness, as such.
When Todd decides to murder, he crosses another kind of line. Do I think Todd is a "bad guy" because he threatens the innocent (which I can relate to myself, as I do not believe I deserve what Todd's victims receive, and do not want their fates for myself)? I do. I evaluate things primarily as they relate to me and my experiences, and Todd's actions put him on track to destroy everything I find of value in the world -- everything which I would call "good." And politically, yes, we must certainly defend ourselves against Todd. (Even if we can sympathize with him to any extent, which I do. It is not for nothing that he is the protagonist of the tale.)
But it's worth keeping in mind that the root of ethical discussion is an individual's quest for "the good life," and that this applies to Sweeney Todd as much as anyone else. We cannot ask him to change his methods because it is better or worse for us if he does; we can only try to help him understand that changing his methods would be better for him -- insofar as that is true.
I agree wholeheartedly.

The new year often brings people into my office who tell me that they feel like they’re never going to get “caught up.” They’re always worrying about how (and when) they’re going to achieve all the goals they’ve set for themselves.
When it comes to goal setting, it makes sense to set general and attainable objectives such as being efficient, having clear priorities and being timely. Always striving to “catch up” sounds like preparing for a life where there’s no longer any forward motion. Catch up to what? Do we really want to have nothing to do, nothing to think about, and nothing to make time for? It might seem nice on the surface, but it sounds to me like the gateway to monumental boredom.
Beware of the tempting (but false) alternative that, “If I stop trying to catch up, I’ll let everything go and become irresponsible.” Cognitive psychotherapists would call this “all or nothing” thinking. You don’t HAVE to choose between being a disorganized slob and a compulsive, anxiety-ridden maniac. It reminds me of a little dog I used to have who constantly chased his tail. He never caught it, but he apparently clung to a vague optimism that he eventually would.
The key is to focus on what you can realistically accomplish today. By refusing to labor under the delusion that you’ll “finally” be caught up, you’ll get the same things done – minus all the nervous baggage. Imagine driving on a busy road with no traffic jam, but still lots of cars. You hurriedly weave around every possible car, cursing the slower drivers — and then, there you are at the next red light, sitting right next to those very same drivers. You achieved nothing but stress for all your rage and anxiety. Those unrealistic compulsions can arise from the inability to live in the moment. When I suggest to people that they reduce their stress by spending more time living in (and enjoying) the moment, their reaction is often, “I can’t do that. I’ll be disorganized! I’ll get behind!” Wrong. People often tell me they’re amazed that I get all the things done with my full-time practice, daily updates to my website, writing several columns and my other publications — while still finding time to walk on the beach. There’s no mystery: I simply MAKE the time. There’s nothing wrong with refueling your mind in whatever way suits you. If that seems like “wasting time” or “taking time away” from whatever, then you’re setting yourself up for unnecessary stress. You’ll be a slave to your responsibilities instead of treating them as part of what you want to have in order to enjoy your life.
Living IN the moment is not the same as living FOR the moment. How sad to drift irresponsibly through life, moment to moment, disregarding anything beyond today or tomorrow, with the only clear plan being to “hope for the best.” The obvious and much more reasonable alternative is to plan long-range, while still making time to experience the moment. You’re not obligated to choose one or the other. In fact, they work best together! The more you enjoy living in the moment, the more incentive you’ll have to be responsible; to pay your bills, live within your means and honor your commitments.
I have an old friend who is a very high-level event planner. When he finally takes a few days off to visit the beach, all he thinks about is what he has to do back at work. While dining in a fine restaurant, strolling the boardwalk or shopping the outlets, he’s constantly distracted and preoccupied as he anxiously maps out his “getaway” to wherever he has to go next. I’ve never once seen him unwind and quietly enjoy the moment.
So make every minute count, whether you’re working, playing or relaxing. Instead of always trying to “catch up,” catch on – and live a little.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
The post You’ll Never “Catch Up” (DE Coast Press) appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.
View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com

It is relevant though it is a different topic. It is relevant because it is about epistemological approach: i.e. your approach to the topic and to reading and understanding the text. 
If you read Rand you'll see her speak of man/humans as being rational animals. Fine; but, she also thinks that is a defining factor. So, prima facie, one could assume she is saying that non-rational humans (or at least lunatics) are not human. In fact, why would one not read this as an obvious implication?
Similarly, you interpret Rand as saying that there must be multiple actual existing concretes in order to come up with a concept. In fact, a concept is like a set in math. Of course the crucial reason we have the notion of sets is to think about multi-member sets, and then about intersections etc. This does not preclude empty sets or sets with 1 member. It does not preclude sets that start out with 10 members and then they all die out and we can still think of the set. 
We can come up with a concept even though there are zero existents in that concept; but, we would never be doing this whole process if the classification of various entities into some organized manner was not a crucial human need. 

Over the last few threads in which I've participated substantially (here, here, and here), I've been pushed to look more and more into a conception of ethics that I've been developing for quite some time. A conception I've temporarily labelled as "life-as-experience," which I contrast with the "life-as-survival" view I attribute to David Kelley1, among others -- where "life-as" refers to my understanding of what "life" in "life as the standard of value" means.
I hold that Kelley, et al., contend that Rand truly means that survival is the standard of value; whereas I think this fails to express Rand's full meaning, and moreover fails to express the truth of ethics, which is that it is not survival alone which is the standard of value, but "life as it is experienced." By "experience," I primarily mean as it is characterized by pleasures and pains.
I'm not yet ready to try to describe this idea in full. I have not yet settled on a terminology. I haven't satisfied myself that I even understand what I'm driving at, in totality, let alone thought the whole thing through in all of its application. I don't know whether I will finally accept this burgeoning concept or modify it substantially or discard it altogether. I don't know whether I will come to find that it still fits with Rand's ethics (though so far I think this is the case), or whether it will finally constitute a breach with Objectivism and the emergence of some new philosophy more reflective of reality.
This thread, then, is an attempt to try to "think out loud" about some of these issues -- it is an "exploration," rather than an argument (though arguments for or against my position are welcome in response). Specifically, I would like to explore the relationship between pleasure and value. It is my current position that there is a a deep and abiding relationship between the two. One that is under-realized and consequently underappreciated, or even absent from the stated ethical reasoning of other Objectivists. (I have even seen some Objectivists display what I would call hostility, or suspicion at the least, against the pursuit of pleasure.2 I believe that this sort of attitude is deeply misplaced.)
One of the key confusions that often plagues this sort of topic, I find, is that "pleasure" can refer to a variety of experiences. Eventually I mean to speak to all that sort of thing "pleasure" represents, in totality, but first and foremost we should consider pleasure in its most basic sense: a positive physical sensation. This is the pleasure of the taste of good food, or the soft caress of satin sheets, or the cooling of the skin from a breeze on a hot day, or the whole-body lightning of orgasm.
In the first place, we should wonder whether there is any relationship at all between such pleasure and value. Value is, as always, "that which one acts to gain and/or keep," but it is more to the point to ask whether there is any relationship between pleasure and that which a rational man values: value consonant with Rand's conception of ethics, holding "life as the standard of value."
I say that there is. Moreover that Rand was aware of this, describing this relationship thusly (in "The Objectivist Ethics"):
Consider first that this observation implies that it is pleasure (i.e. physical pleasure) which allows a man to have some conception -- any conception at all -- of "the good." It is through the experience of such pleasure that teaches man to discern good from evil (which finds its corresponding analogue in physical pain).
Now, this cannot be the end point of ethics. Moreover, the standard Rand refers to in that final sentence (His life.) is not describing the full standard of the Objectivist Ethics, where "life is the standard of value." If it were, then ethics would be as simple as equating pleasure to good and pain to evil: Objectivism would be hedonistic.
What we come to learn, however, is that some things our "natural standard" pronounces good (which is to say, that which we find physically pleasurable of our nature) will lead, in time, to pain and death. Even that which is very pleasurable, should it ultimately lead to pain and death, cannot be "the good," then, as we come to understand it conceptually, abstracting away from our experience of temporary, momentary pleasures -- which, remember, is our source of the very concept of "the good" in the first place.
How would this operate in a person? Rand describes the experience of pleasure/pain as the "first step in the realm of evaluation." Well, what are the subsequent steps? And where do they lead?
Consider a child. Or a baby. There are pleasure and pain for the baby ("innate," as Rand has it), and though the baby has no conceptual understanding of it initially, what these sensations communicate are the launch points for "good" and "evil." Pleasure is the good, it is what is desired, it is what is wanted, it is what is valued. And pain is not simply the lack of such pleasure, or a "neutral" state, but it is a negative analogue to pleasure. (Pain is no less "real" for that, and matters just as much as any other fact... despite any admirable sense of life which may eventually inspire a man to act as though some pain is "less important" than a corresponding pleasure). Pain is thus the evil, it is what is shunned, what is avoided, and I believe it sensible to say that it is disvalued in consequence.
The baby grows and matures. With experience and development comes the understanding that certain things cause pleasure and others cause pain. Concrete values follow suit, as the baby comes to value those things that bring pleasure and disvalue those that bring pain. Such simple associations develop and grow into childhood and can persist well beyond, into adolescence or even adulthood. The young child will, more than likely, not wish to go to the dentist. The young child sees no good in it, whatever lecture he hears, because for him the dentist is simply a bringer of pain. The young child wishes instead to eat ice cream, morning, noon and night. Ice cream is pleasurable, and the young child cannot conceive of even the mid-range consequences of overeating ice cream, let alone the long-term effects of habitual poor eating. Those long-term effects have no reality whatever to him.
But as the child grows, and acquires perspective (and continues to gain experience, and continues to develop mentally), he may come to see the sense in putting down the ice cream from time to time and going to the dentist. He understands that his forbearance from eating ice cream comes at the cost of some "good" now (i.e. pleasure), but will help him to avoid even greater "evils" (pains) to come. So, too, the dentist, such that eventually the mild pain of a regular cleaning may be borne for the sake of avoiding worse pains later, or to continue to enjoy the pleasures that having healthy teeth affords. It may be, in time, that the child can pronounce going to the dentist as "good" and eating too much ice cream as "evil" (though "bad" is more likely, but amounts to the same) -- just as an adult might -- because he finally and thoroughly understands the actual relationship these activities have with pleasure and pain, long-term.
As I'm describing it, it is not that man acquires some perspective which completely divorces pleasure from "the good" (or pain from evil), but that he comes to understand that the simple equation of pleasure to good (which is natural, "innate") will not serve him long-term, because it will lead to far more pain than pleasure. If he would like to have more pleasures as he lives, and fewer pains, then he must learn to value accordingly.
These are the "next steps" of evaluation.
But is it the last step? Is it ever the case that good and evil stand free and clear from pleasure and pain? (For instance, does the final conception of "life as the standard of value" have anything at all to do with pleasure and pain, apart from heritage? Or are they utterly separate by that point, such that one may evaluate "good," qua the Objectivist Ethics, without ever any need to consider such pleasures or pains, or even reference them?)
I will most likely approach this question more substantively in a later post, but for now, let me introduce another quote from Rand (per the Lexicon, from "Our Cultural Value-Deprivation" in The Objectivist, 4/66; and please note Rand's use of the term "experience" here, which obviously predates my own adoption of the term to express my meaning, but was wholly independent of it, as I was completely unaware of this quote at the time):
I am open to the interpretation of other intelligent, rational minds (as I always strive to be), but this suggests to me that the relationship between pleasure and "the good," or value more generally, is not just that pleasure provides some initial spark for evaluation, before they go their separate ways... but that there is an ongoing, vital relationship between them.
I would go so far as to say that a life without pleasure (again: this is "just" physical pleasure in my current usage, though I mean to argue that there is also a vital relationship between such physical pleasures and those of the corresponding cognitive/emotional/spiritual kind -- including happiness) is not worth living. The consequence of a life filled with pain is something else entirely, and far, far worse.
_____________________________________
1) Kelley's written position is a convenient way to address what I consider to be a widespread understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Objectivist Ethics, where he's written (in The Logical Structure of Objectivism):
2) The pursuit of pleasure can sometimes be misread as "hedonism," but these two things are not -- or need not necessarily be, at least -- the same thing. Hedonism is, as Rand writes, "the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality." Yet it is possible to reject the idea that "the good is whatever gives you pleasure" and that "pleasure is the standard of morality," while still wanting to experience some particular pleasure consonant with life, with man's nature, and with a rational standard of morality.
Pursuing such a pleasure, even for the sake of that pleasure alone, is not "hedonistic" but life-affirming.

SK:
Your perception is not wrong.  What you see is a very slightly curved surface from a relatively small height on an enormous sphere which is reality.  You see exactly what it is.  Your judgement is wrong and whether or not your claim that judgement is based on perception alone is true, judgement is not perception and the fact that your judgement is wrong does not make your perception wrong.

More like you perceive the world as what you call flat. But that's just the -way- it looks in the conditions given. It's "supposed" to look that way, so it isn't "wrong". To then claim Earth is geometrically flat is a judgment. Perception does not produce judgments or claims like that.