DPW

Oh, well that's just the division of labor and that's completely proper. There is nothing wrong if your own focus is on theoretical mathematics, just as there is nothing wrong if your focus is on theoretical science. The point is that a theoretician must never forget that the value of his work is in its application to human purposes -- to man's life. Most importantly, he must not oppose the application of his work to human life. But this does raise an interesting question: how can a theoretical mathematician, who is working on math that does not yet have an application in reality, stay reality oriented? There I don't have a good answer. This doesn't come up in other theoretical sciences -- theoretical physics is not theoretical in the same sense that math is. It is about reality, not about our means of knowing (i.e., measuring) reality. The best advice I can offer is just of the general sort I've already indicated. He must keep in mind that math is not a platonic game but the science of measurement. He must keep in mind the ultimate purpose of his work (even if he doesn't carry out this purpose) is the application of his work to reality. If he does that, I don't think he's doomed to rationalism.

I'm not a mathematician, nor have I studied that matter in depth, but for what it's worth: mathematics is the science of measurement. It exists to work out the process by which we perform actual measurements. The way to keep it reality oriented, therefore, is to know what kind of things in reality it's used to measure. In other words, you must keep in mind its applications.

I just want to note that Craig Biddle is a magnificent speaker. I encourage anyone who make either of these talks to do so.

See this recent thread. If you don't have time to read the entire thing, just read my posts. I dealt with this issue at length.

My dog's name is Logos, as in "logic."

Rand's point was that since value makes sense only in relation to an alternative, and since all alternatives are reflections of the fundamental alternative of life or death, that therefore to value something IS to value it FOR your life. In other words, for you to claim that you value something is to implicitly say, "This is good for my life." The question is: is that thing actually good for your life? That's what ethics tells us.

But it goes even deeper than that. Happiness isn't a primary -- the question is, why does your child's welfare make you happy? What evaluation is at the root of that emotion? What you'll see is that, assuming the emotion is based on a rational premise, it's an evaluation that your child's welfare is good for YOU, for YOUR life. Your child's welfare is NOT an end in itself, and you can't simply assert that something is an end in itself. You have to explain WHY it is that. Only life, because it involves the fundamental alternative, can do that.

Right now I'm planning on one free article per issue. I don't think that justifies an RSS feed given the other priorities.

Some tips if you want helpful answers: -Use proper capitalization and punctuation. -Read at least some of Ayn Rand's works before you ask a question. -Consult past threads before asking a question.

More likely, it would be something akin to the comments section of a blog. We'll see.

Mike, That is something I would like to do, but I need to look into the technical aspects first. Also, I have to make sure it won't be a nightmare to manage. If it's restricted to subscribers, I don't think that should be too much of a problem. In any case, expect something...but not in the very near future.

Perhaps I'm not articulating the point clearly enough. You can't just assert whatever ultimate value you want. You must demonstrate why it is your ultimate value. So let me ask your hypothetical parent: why is his child's welfare a value? I'll wait for your hypothetical answer.

If you find that way of looking at things helpful, then okay, but I confess that I just don't get it.

Okay, but even ignoring the point that you wouldn't have emotions or sensations were it not for the life or death alternative, how would you judge what would make you happy? How would you determine which values to pursue? I don't know if you subscribe to Axiomatic, but I will be addressing this very question in our November issue. I think you'll find it helpful.

Check your premises. Objectivists and libertarians don't share the same ideas. You said you read Peter Schwartz's article: then you'll remember his conclusion. "The truth is, however, that Libertarianism deserves only one fundamental criticism: it does not value liberty."

Felix, Are you purposely ignoring everything I've written on this subject? I answered all these points here, here, and here.

Felix, I'm not going to spend the time writing a lengthy response if you won't even read "The Objectivist Ethics." There Ayn Rand discusses in detail the relationship between happiness and life. Her point isn't that we pursue happiness in order to live -- it's that life and happiness are two perspectives on the same issue: the achievement of life-sustaining values.

Referring to Angelina Jolie, Dave writes: I think the reason women are so drawn to her is that Angelina Jolie combines to characteristics that aren't usually combined: she is tough and independent, but feminine and sexy.

This goes back to a point I made in the is/ought thread: you are equivocating on what it means to live. Life isn't static -- it's a constant process of action moving in one of two directions: toward greater health, vitality, efficacy; or toward sickness, impairment, death. You say as long as you eat and sleep you stay alive. This flies in the face of common sense. Do homeless people, who rarely die of hunger, survive as long as those who aren't homeless? Do people who live in the west live longer than people in the third world? Does modern man live longer than hunter/gatherers? Think of it this way. Do we say of people who live paycheck to paycheck that they are meeting the requirements of financial health, since they can pay all their bills? Or do we say that they are in desperate need of savings and investments? There are always unexpected events: lost jobs, car accidents, Acts of God, etc., etc., etc. If financial health is the standard, then we must do more than meet our immediate financial needs. And if life is the standard, we must do more than what is required not to drop dead at that moment. But what? Well, that's what ethics is for. Ethics identifies the course of action a man must follow in order to achieve optimal functioning. When a man pursues this course, when he achieves a code of rational values, happiness is the result. What is the survival value of happiness? It is "the emotional payment for successful action and an incentive to continue acting." The flip answer to your question is: fine, then don't choose to live. But you do raise a legitimate question, which is, what does the choice to live really consist of? Interestingly, Rand's answer is tied directly to your previous question: "In psychological terms, the issue of man's survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of 'life or death,' but as an issue of 'happiness or suffering.' Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death. Just as the pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is an indicator of his body's welfare or injury, a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death -- so the emotional mechanism of man's consciousness is geared to perform the same function, as a barometer that registers the same alternative by means of two basic emotions: joy or suffering" (VOS 30). In my view, we experience the choice to live psychologically as the choice to pursue values. I don't usually think to myself, "I want to live." Rather that's implicit in my choice to pursue the things that will make me happy. I determine what those things are based on the factual requirements of man's life. Seen in this light, your problem disappears. So long as I have the ability to pursue and achieve values, I will. It doesn't matter that at some point, I won't be able to. Moreover, my choice isn't a choice to live "right now." Rather, it is a choice to live so long as value-pursuit is possible to me.

Close. An ultimate value is an end in itself that gives rise to all other values. In other words, it's not merely preferable to all other values; all other values are values because they are a means to it. Sure, and in a manner of speaking that's true. Art and sex, to take two examples, can properly be described as ends-in-themselves. But in a deeper sense, they aren't that. They serve man's life. Theoretically, yes. But if we're talking about life, that doesn't apply. Life is and requires a constant process of action to sustain it. An ultimate value, as I have said, is an end-in-itself, which is not a means to any higher value, and to which all other values are a means. That doesn't mean un ultimate value doesn't have a justification -- it just means that its justification is different from all other values. All other values you justify in terms of the higher value to which they are a means. The ultimate value you justify by showing that it is the soure of all values. You show that, if you choose to live, you must pursue it as your ultimate value or else be engaged in a contradiction. I mean that to say something makes a difference to an entity is to say it makes a difference to that entity's life. Nothing can make a difference to a rock or a pillow, because nothing is at stake for those things. Living organisms can go from being animate to inanimate -- a rock already is inanimate. By asking them, why is that a value to them? Either they say, "Just 'cause," in which case they are engaging in emotionalism so we can simply discount them, or they answer the question by appealing to some higher value. If they appeal to a higher value, they are saying that getting their children married isn't actually their ultimate value. But now you can't ask someone, why is your life a value? That question translates to, what difference does it make to you whether you're alive or dead? That is literally a nonsensical question. If you are dead, nothing makes a difference to you, which is to say that staying alive makes every difference to you. If you choose to live, life has to be your ultimate value. You may subvert and contradict it, but you can't replace it.

No, not multiple ultimate values. An ultimate value is a value to which every other value is a means. Why can't you have multiple ultimate values? Because then you would have no basis for resolving conflicts between these values -- you would have no higher value appeal to. This would make ethics inherently subjective since you would have no reason for serving this ultimate value rather than that one. I thought I explained this point. You can't simply choose any ultimate value you want. You have to explain why that is your ultimate value. What I say is that no answer is possible for any proposed ultimate value other than life. And I offered proof for this point -- or more precisley, Rand offered proof for this point. For something to be a value, whether or not an entity achieves it must make some difference to that entity -- and all differences are ultimately reducible to a basic difference, a fundamental alternative: existence or non-existence, life or death.

Ugh...I wrote up a lengthy, detailed reply to your comment but it vanished. How frustrating. In any case, I'll try my best to re-write it even though I'm sure it won't be as eloquent... What I mean is that the quality/quantity distinction is a false one. It is a variant of an error I identified the masturbation thread: it conflates avoiding death with pursuing life. Life is not static. It is a constant process of action moving in one of two directions: toward life or toward death. You are either enhancing your ability to survive or you are hindering it. You are either living or dying. An elderly man who is immobile, in chronic pain, or losing his faculties is in the process of dying -- as is a dependent like Peter Keating, or a destroyer like James Taggart. Seen in this light, the quality/quantity distinction disappears. If someone spends their golden years pursuing values at the expense of a few years of slow deterioration, he is in fact extending his life in every relevant sense. He lives longer, regardless of the number of times his heart ultimately beats. There is no essential distinction between quality of life and quantity of life. Quality is a means to quantity, and quantity is a means to quality. It's the same issue.

http://www.noumenalself.com/archives/2003/...l_redux_wh.html

I said dying, not dead. "Recall that life is a process of actions. This process can be flowing in one of two basic directions: life furthering or life diminishing, making the person more fit and likely to live or less so. A person can be described as dying when his actions proceed in a life-diminishing direction" (Tara Smith, Viable Values, 114). You hit the nail on the head. Everything that his volitional is subject to moral evaluation, including what you fantasize about. I'm not talking about something that pops into your head -- I'm talking about the imaginations toward which you purposely direct your mind. That's not to say that it's immoral to fantasize about anything that would be immoral in action, but it is to say that there are still standards, even within the realm of your own consciousness. To indicate just one reason: most so-called "crimes of passion" are the end result of years of vicious fantasizing on the part of the criminal. Where you direct your mind, even in the privacy of your own mind, has consequences.

I mean that a child's welfare can't be your ultimate value because the only way to justify it as a value is by reference to a higher value, ultimately your life. If someone says, "I value my child's welfare," you can sensibly ask him, "What difference does your child's welfare make to you?" It's only when you reach your life that that question becomes untenable. Not quite. There is no clear distinction between quality and quantity, since each depends on the other.