The Immortal Robot and "Knowledge for its own sake"

[Epistemological Engineer]

Knowledge for its own sake is not a value, according to Objectivism. Initially, I had a strong (negative) reaction to this viewpoint, based on my values. The more I read OPAR and understand the hierarchy of Objectivist philosophy, thought, the more I understand this position and harmonize with it. Nevertheless, we observe many examples of people who love knowledge for its own sake. I believe that if I were immortal, I would continue to absorb and discover knowledge, and I would never stop loving the process. What can account for this?

The best explanation I have come up with goes like this: the root of the love of knowledge lies in the desire to understand/make sense of the natural world. This desire, in turn, has its root in the desire to create material values, either in the immediate sense (i.e. survival) or in the long-term sense (i.e. exchanging values or passing them on to future generations.)

Today, however, some branches of knowledge have become so abstract that they appear to have no connection whatsoever to man's survival or well-being. But this doesn't seem to bother the exponents of these fields (no pun intended), many of whom love discovering this abstract knowledge without "disdaining the practical world." How is this possible?

In mathematics, there are many "existence" proofs that establish the existence of a mathematical object without actually constructing it. (That is: one proves the existence of the object by demonstrating that its nonexistence would lead to a contradiction.) I believe there is an analogy here: namely, that the love of abstract knowledge for its own sake is indeed connected to the desire for survival and well-being, but the actual hierarchical chain of values that connects them would be very difficult to explicitly uncover, so an existence proof is the best we can do.

[JMeganSnow]

I believe that if I were immortal, I would continue to absorb and discover knowledge, and I would never stop loving the process. What can account for this?

The fact that your reactions would remain those of a creature that is *not* immortal. It would be very much like what would happen if you relocated to the Moon. All your automatic responses are based on some previously existing condition, so it would be difficult for you to move around, for instance. Weight, speed, inertia would all seem very deceptive to you. It'd take you time to become acclimated to the new conditions. Unlike transport to the moon, however, nothing about being immortal would really *force* you to become acclimated. So you could cheerfully continue to fool yourself for as long as you liked (you'd have to, because otherwise your mind, which isn't set up to handle immortality, would go CRAZY from the boredom and contradictions).

I don't think the chain connecting a love of abstract knowledge to the requirements of survival is at all difficult to uncover, but pointing out how it operates requires psychology in addition to philosophy.