JayR

Does "worst" mean "best" now? I didnt get the memo.

Voilition is part of the identity of (human) consciousness. Its a corolary of the axiom of consciousness. Objectivism doesnt regard free will as a wild card severing the mind from causality, it regards it primarily as the choice to focus or not focus our cognitive equipment. There neednt be a volition center in the brain in the same way there isnt a need for an area where consciousness takes place. or, to get all Socratic: Why do you think that human actions that result is disaster can be evaluated morally, while those same types of actions performed by an animal are regarded not as morally right or wrong, but just part of nature?

No. I concur.

Psychotherapy is employing a trained professional to assist you in working through a deep psychological issue. Self deluding yourself into believing a prostitute, or "friend" is fulfilling a need (or whim) youre experiencing is not a rational equivalent.

Good thoughts here. Absolutely. Why should the objective evaluation of the beauty of nature be any different than than any other objective value judgement. The necessary requirements being the understanding of the absolutism of existence seen through a perspective that takes the nature of consciousness into account. more of my (probably subjective) thoughts: The first time I visited New York I was blown away. But for me at least, theres something about the natural world that has more effect on my sense of life. The only way I can describe it is this: New York city as beautiful and inspiring as it is, is already there. Once its known to me, theres nothing more it can offer. I already have my life to focus on, and theres nothing more I can add to it, or gain from it. It gets old. Theres something about the stars, or the wilderness that to me will always be new, a never-ending quest for understanding or contemplation. I realize this is all a "feel" that I get and probably completely subjective, but to have a sense of never-ending wonder, whether it be scientific/esthetic (my love for astronomy) or physical and challenging like sleeping in a tent somewhere, its a personal thing, and the only sense of immortality this athiest has found.

Thank you.

Bullshit. Christ, stop pretending you dont understand what I said. Im done with this thread. Ill let others explain why you (and others) are wrong. Or at least I think youre wrong, I found most of what you said to be incoherent.

The analogy to the restaurant is no good unless we accept that the Government owns the country in the same way the restaurateur owns the restaurant.

No. Heirarchy is irrelevant in this context. What Rand meant by "qua man" in this context is exactly "living to the full extent of rational egoism", or as Tara Smith and others say "flourishing". also, about the choice to live.... I think my post from the previous page is applies here, "choosing to live" can be summed up as, "choosing to pursue values". And I might get disagreement here... Those might be irrational values. The objective theory of value takes the contextual nature of knowledge into account. If a person is living in a way that you deem immoral, in his mind he might honestly believe hes living according to a rational standard of value. (altruism, a monk, mother theresa, whatever) Hence the "choice to pursue value" i.e., live, is pre rational. Whether those values have been evaluated as wrong based on an objective standard and still pursued is where morality comes in. No?

How you answer this question probably says a lot about your sense of life. Prima facie Id say no, but Im open to the possibility. Aspects of nature can flood your senses with beauty, and make you feel small. While a beutiful work of art can lift your spirit, and make you feel all powerfull. Your reasons for picking yes or no are more important than the answer itself though.

I was going to give a detailed philosophical analysis exploding your cinnamon bun statement, citing the primacy of existence principle, and the law of causality as applied to odiferous gasses, but my time is of too much importance to waste on trivial matters!

True, something else is going on. Rand showed abstract principles in concrete form, so naturally it will appear to be more than just dressing a certain way, or wearing a certain hairstyle. Its like trying to parrot a sense of life, and the irony is in the parroting of integrity. This gives it the illusion of depth, when its anything but. Its life as a floating abstraction.

I think that exactly what it is. Young people trying to "find themselves" see an easy answer in parroting characters they admire. As we get older, a sense of identity naturally sets in with experience, and sometimes the reverse happens, we recognize ourselves in a character we admire. I think with age and experience some gain an admiration of abstract ideas and virtues rather than concrete actions.

Theres also a section in OPAR that discusses volition as an instance of causality rather than a violation of it. In the simplest terms possible: causality is the law of identity applied to action, part of the identity of mans consciousness is volition. Recognition of the fact that consciousness has a specific identity, and specific rules and requirements for proper, objective methods of reasoning might seem obvious, but Rands formulations on the matter were/are a huge breakthrough in epistemology.

Oh sorry, its not what it means to me, its what it means. To accuse me of being arbitrary and irrational for using words in the way theyre supposed to be used rather than dropping/mixing contexts as to make them fit my argument is irrational. The point I was making about the water in the above example was to drive home the fact that in order to say anything has intrinsic value you need to drop context. Im not surprised you missed it. to be clear, I reject intrinsic value all together.

Value to you, sure. But I take "intrinsic value" to mean value without the need to reference any context. Its like saying gold has intrinsic value, ok, that seems to make sense until you meet a man with bars of gold whos dying of thirst in the desert. Now your 16 ounce poland springs is looking intrinsically valuable.

Better by what standard? "Experience" is not an end in itself. Mans life is the pursuit of values, if a rational adult no longer has means to that end, life qua human being is no longer possible. Mans life as the standard of value doesnt mean its the source of value, it means its the compass that determines what our values are. Yes, life is what makes values possibe, but life qua being alive isnt a standard by which we determine our values. Granted, the context required for suicide to be rational is extreme, but the fact that a rational person could deem their life no longer worth living is proof that life qua breathing alone is not intrinsiclly valuable.

Look at it this way, if you dont like the phrase "choice to live" equate it with "choice to pursue values". And where did you get the idea that someone choosing to live and die as a suicide bomber can be considered outside the scope of morality?

This reminds me of the line "every group has a loser: if you cant pick him out, youre him". Meanwhile Im thinking, "Im not like that at all,.... although,......."

Who or what would be responsible for arbitrating such a law? Trying to come up with an answer to that question without relying on an arbitrary assumption is impossible. Many before have tried, and failed. The best explanation so far has been (loosely paraphrasing) existence just is, consciousness is the faculty for percieving that which just is. I enjoy astronomy, these questions remind me of fellow amateurs who get hung up on the fact that "we are the universe pondering itself", yeah, cool, what next?

Funny, those were the excact words I was thinking. (cart before the horse) It seems that hes groping for an answer to how a bunch of material "stuff" can experience happiness, or exaltation. The link between matter and consciousness is diffucult to grasp, and can easily lead to "spirtual" explanations. Theres no doubt that man has spiritual needs, in the sense that looking at a piece of art, or gazing at the stars can be spiritually uplifting. But were not "given" consciousness to pursue spiritual needs, we pursue spiritual needs because that is part of the nature of a conscious, conceptual mind.

The first charge is akin to saying that our senses dont provide us with pre-packaged bundles of knowledge about reality, therefore they are invalid. It denies the identity of consciousness, and conflates perception with perceptual judgement. As to the second, Im not sure but it appears that they are forgetting that concepts are mental entities that can be differentiated and integrated with the right process. If concept formation is that concrete bound than we should never speak of unicorns, Santa, or God. Im sure someone can break these down better than I can.

This, along with her inclusion in the Stanford EP is a good sign that things are changing. But I honestly dont care how or if shes accepted in academia, Objectivism rejects the idea that 50 million dead philosopher worshipping french men cant be wrong, and promotes the idea that reality is the ultimate arbiter.

I think this is where the confusion lies. Youre using two distinct contexts. Objectivism regards the choice to live as pre-rational. While I agree that the choice to live is a necessary prerequisite for morality, it cant be contrasted with suicide as if it was the literal opposite. I consider the choice to live to be implicit in every rational activity. Choosing to live means pursuing basic day to day values that sustain life, it doesnt mean contemplating "should I live or should I die?". Hence, its pre-rational. Suicide however can be rational in certain contexts, and this all goes back to debate over whether life has intrinsic value. I submit that it does not. If a person is no longer able to pursue value, spiritual, or existential, what value can his life possibly have? The only question is: has he rationally weighed his options? edit: typo

I like how he says "could see nothing but good in....blah blah", like theres plenty bad to see, she just wasnt capable of seeing it. Funny that his definition of "rational" is on the same page.