Choices where rationality or irrationality seem irrelevant?

[fimp]

Hi, I'm new. I'm studying Objectivism by following the reading list at http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...ctivism_sugread - I am currently at number 20. Just to let you know where I'm at.

However, I haven't yet understood by which method and based on which values man chooses, for instance, which color to paint his house, which flavour of ice cream to like, which branch of a rational career to choose (both an engineer and a philosopher can have a rational career, but what makes man choose between the two), etc.?

Does Objectivism tell us anything about this kind of personal tastes and interests - none of which seem any more or less rational than the other?

Edited June 17, 2008 by fimp

[Tenure]

Only to the extent of painting our house luminious pink, whilst expecting its retail price to stay the same.

If you read 'The Romantic Manifesto', I forget which chapter it is, it might be the one where she discusses music, but Ayn Rand postulates a hypothesis for the objective rating of music, in that a man who likes dissonance over harmony is more likely to have irrational premises. But, I mean, this is one of these things that requires a ton more research into how the human mind works, into how he actually forms tastes, before we can say anything.

Officially, though, there is no Objectivist (i.e. Ayn Rand's creation) theory on tastes and hobbies.

[~Sophia~]

However, I haven't yet understood by which method and based on which values man chooses, for instance, which color to paint his house, which flavour of ice cream to like, which branch of a rational career to choose (both an engineer and a philosopher can have a rational career, but what makes man choose between the two), etc.?

You should be asking yourself: What do I like/enjoy? Why do I like it? instead of What should I like and why?

[DavidOdden]

which color to paint his house

White with blue trim. I know this from having considered and actually lived with other options, and seeing how white with blue trim suits me as compared to other choices

which flavour of ice cream to like

Cod

which branch of a rational career to choose

Linguistics. YMMV.

Does Objectivism tell us anything about this kind of personal tastes and interests - none of which seem any more or less rational than the other?

For man, the rational animal, it does not. For a specific man, it does. Very roughly, "that which is best for you, given your nature".

I was kidding about the cod. Mackerel.

[Dr. Radiaki]

I was kidding about the cod. Mackerel.

Everybody knows that the best ice cream is, objectively, marlin. Sheesh.

[tito]

All Objectivism will offer you in this respect is that such things are your responses to your premises. Choosing the colour of your house isn't just some foolish mental sequence of emotion. You need to ask yourself, for example, what do I like in art? Why do I like it? Is this a good reason to like it? Do I still like it?

[D'kian]

Everybody knows that the best ice cream is, objectively, marlin. Sheesh.

Obviously you've never tried garlic ice cream. I haven't, either, but I do hear there's such a thing.

Back to the main question, personal tastes are just that: personal. They vary from peroson to person in innumerable ways. There's no such thing as a most rational color for your house (except for some exceptions, like using light colors in warm, sunny climates to prevent the absorption of too much heat; but even then if you can afford the utility bill, you could rationally paint your house black).

As has been mentioned, you should be able to know why you pick a particular color. Maybe it blends well with the surroundings, maybe it makes the hosue stand out from the surroundings, maybe it's your favorite color, maybe it was the cheapest paint you could find and you don't care because you don't look at the facade of your house very often. These are all valid reasons.

As to a career, that is more serious, but equally wide open. You should pick a productive field of endeavor. Past that, which field you choose depends on your personal interests and goals. If you like medicine and want to find a cure for a given disease, then maybe you'd be best off studying molecular biology, but maybe also studying medicine and working on research rather than treatment afterwards. If you like to fly and wish to help defend your country, then clearly you should try to join a branch of the armed forces (all branches in the American military operate combat and combat-support aircraft). If you like to play football and want to earn a lot of money, you should try to become an NFL pro.

Molecular biology is no more nor less rational a achoice than medicine than Air Force fighter pilot. Except if the choice conflicts with your interests and goals. If you want to research cancer, you won't do it flying F-15s over Iran, or playing tight end for the Steelers. That would be an irrational choice given your interests and goals.

As to ice cream flavors, or any other sort of culinary choices, there are no absolute standards for flavor. There are standards for what you should eat and in what amounts, but not on what it should taste like. The general rational rule would be to eat such things as you find enjoyable in proportions that are good for you (no single food is entirely good or bad nutriotionally, but rather depends on how much of it you ingest). So for example you shouldn't eat burgers at every meal, but a burger every now and then is ok. You shouldn't eat only lettuce, either, but you can have a salad or two with diner and/or lunch every day. And so on.

[JMeganSnow]

It is important to ask yourself *why* you like a particular option, but in some cases the answer is *so* difficult to root out that there's just no point. The importance of the choice viz your life is something you consider when deciding whether it's necessary to figure out why you prefer yellow over green for your house trim. Since your career, for example, is of huge importance to the course of your life, it's equally important to figure out *why* you feel you want to go into medicine. It's not so important to know why you like triple fudge brownies.

[Acount Overdrawn]

However, I haven't yet understood by which method and based on which values man chooses, for instance, which color to paint his house, which flavour of ice cream to like, which branch of a rational career to choose (both an engineer and a philosopher can have a rational career, but what makes man choose between the two), etc.?

Does Objectivism tell us anything about this kind of personal tastes and interests - none of which seem any more or less rational than the other?

Hi fimp.

I'm certain that the methods you're referring to don't exist within Objectivism. There is no "rationality pyramid" which shows to all of us what is the most rational thing to do, with a descending hierarchy of less-rational things to do. Within the requirements of living well (flourishing), different particular values (like foods) will be more-or-less rational to different people for different reasons. Considering my interests and abilities, it would be more rational for me to pursue a career like philosophy as opposed to, say, one in medicine, while the reverse could be true of someone else.

In certain situations, one decision may be equally rational in comparison to another, such as what flavor of ice cream to eat; a proper philosophy guides us in our actions, it does not force us to renounce our independent judgment and dictate to us every decision of our lives thereafter.

I think this optionality of values is discussed in Tara Smith's Viable Values and Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, page 323 on the latter.

[Breschau]

I'm also new to Objectivism, so I can't speak to that as yet from an Objectivist POV.

However, from a absolutist point-of-view, it would be: Yes, it matters.

In absolutism, there are three types of actions: good, evil, and neutral.

In absolutism, there is no shade of gray. Good and evil are destructive opposites. The presence of any evil in an act destroys any good. The reverse is also true. Either an act is good or evil, with nothing in between.

Typically, things like which ice cream you prefer and what color you paint your house are neutral. However, you have to follow the money.

By purchasing a CD that promotes evil you are promoting evil. If the lyrics promote good, but the members of the band commit evil acts with your money, you are responsible. If the lyrics promote good, and the band commits good, you are also responsible. You cannot escape responsibility by downloading the music without paying. That is an evil act because it's taking someone else's work without just compensation.