What we are

[Jake_Ellison]

A circle is the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

And then asking:

What is the fundamental nature of a circle? => Answer: The fundamental nature of a circle is that it consists of the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

Quick correction (hope I don't get this wrong, that would be embarrassing):

First off, let's assume that we are living in a 2D world, on a single plane.

The fundamental nature of a circle, in this 2D world, is that there exists a point in the world from which all the circle's points are at an equal distance.

The definition of "circle": The circle C(O,R) is that collection of points which are at distance R from the point O.

So both your statements are wrong, any geometry constructed upon them would run into all sorts of nasty contradictions pretty quickly. Also, even if you were right about the definition of a circle in Euclidean geometry(a man made, theoretical concept), whatever conclusion you may reach about it you shouldn't just apply to all other concepts, as you do.

[JuleBrenner]

Consciousness certainly can be defined. Everything that exists has identity, therefore one can say more about the attributes of consciousness, compare it with other forms of awareness, and define it as a type of action performed by some living entities. Consciousness is explainable, we just do not have the explanation yet. The axiomatic status of consciousness means that one cannot ever validly reach the conclusion that consciousness does not exist. Reductionism that denies consciousness exists is invalid. Explanations of how consciousness is possible are not reductionism.

The denial that consciousness has identity, or that if it did it would no longer be consciousness, is the essential position of Kant.

The notion that everything that exists has identity simply means that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time. Why would this mean that everything must be definable? There would be an infinite regress of definitions. A definition identifies something via terms already defined. I would say that consciousness can only be referred to ostensively, not by means of definition.

Why would any type of action performed by some living entities suffice as a definition? If you attempted this with animals or human beings, you would just have a circular definition. Because notion of man or animal, implies consciousness. So any attempt at saying "Consciousness is this and that action performed by an animal or a human being" would use terms that implicate consciousness as a definition, which is invalid. You will find this out by listening to your definition and continue asking "OK, and what is man? What is animal?". You produce some definitions for those, e.g. "Man is a living being that survives on reason.". Next: "All right, and what is reason?" Here we go. You might try to avoid the use of "consciousness" in your next definition, by circumscribing it with some other terms. But ultimately even these terms need to be clarified and you'll end up using "consciousness" in your definition. Which means, if we trace the whole story back, that:

"Consciousness is...........................................................involving consciousness".

So nothing has been defined at all.

[Grames]

You are right, but in this case, it would appear that the remembering occurs before the learning. One does not really gain anything new by first defning man, and then trying to define the fundamental nature of man. It is like saying:

A circle is the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

And then asking:

What is the fundamental nature of a circle? => Answer: The fundamental nature of a circle is that it consists of the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

It is not hostility to the possibility of knowledge, but doubtfulness of the point of trying to define already identified objects via the same aspect repeatedly.

Sorry, maybe we had a misunderstanding.

And also, already having definded man as a being that survives on reason, with all the established definitions of life, reason etc. inherent in that, would make the observations of self-sustainance (piercing bullet etc.) unneccessary, since that is information we already have in our definition of man. It means that we have already decided what the fundamental nature of man is, before even asking the question.

So, I think it would be more proper to begin with less information and focus on a less comprizing view of ourselves and begin there. If the term "man" is already given away, then one could define "X" as a certain physical object (with certain visible extremeties) that we can observe, together with a consciousness. Don't forget: We are referring to "X" as those concrete objects of a certain visual appearance that we can OBSERVE, together with a consciousness, not to ANY such objects. This is important, because that way we are really just referencing concrete objects of which we don't pretend to know very much more about. So we are talking about a limited number, that we simply identify through their visual appearance, and their consciousness, without having any clue, initially, of what else their existence entails.

And then we can ask: "What is the fundamental nature of THOSE objects?" An answer to THIS question would really produce NEW information compared to our consciously held information the question rests on. Provided, of course, the answer is not just a repition of the definition of X. And we would try to answer this question on the basis of ADDITIONAL observation of the X-objects.

Hmm...I hope it becomes clearer now what I mean?

Ok I see now what you mean.

I agree that a concept must come before its definition. Concepts can be poorly defined, or even undefined while being created because the ultimate meaning of a concept is the referents, the things that actually exist. Definitions are based upon observations of the referents, so the concept must come first in order to know which observations are of the referents and that observations of other things are irrelevant. Technically, concepts before they are defined are referred to as 'implicit concepts'. There is a discussion of 'implicit concepts' in the appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Implicit concepts are created by noticing similarities. So when we create the concept of a circle, we first start with a number of particular shapes which are similar based on their attribute of circularity (even the word for circularity has to come after the concept circle was fully formed and defined.)

[JuleBrenner]

Quick correction (hope I don't get this wrong, that would be embarrassing):

First off, let's assume that we are living in a 2D world, on a single plane.

The fundamental nature of a circle, in this 2D world, is that there exists a point in the world from which all the circle's points are at an equal distance.

The definition of "circle": The circle C(O,R) is that collection of points which are at distance R from the point O.

So both your statements are wrong, any geometry constructed upon them would run into all sorts of nasty contradictions pretty quickly. Also, even if you were right about the definition of a circle in Euclidean geometry(a man made, theoretical concept), whatever conclusion you may reach about it you shouldn't just apply to all other concepts, as you do.

So what is supposed to be the difference between your definition of a circle and mine? Other than that you put it into symbolic terms C(O,R), and I put them into verbal ones?

[Grames]

The notion that everything that exists has identity simply means that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time. Why would this mean that everything must be definable? There would be an infinite regress of definitions. A definition identifies something via terms already defined. I would say that consciousness can only be referred to ostensively, not by means of definition.

I will just respond to this part of the post for now, I must get away from my computer.

To have identity is to have form, particularity, boundaries, borders, limits, and finiteness. To be finite means to be definite. It is always possible to define the definite. There can be no infinite regress from the finite, or from the relations of finite things to each other. And because some definitions are ostensive, it is not the case that definitions are always in terms already defined and therefore circular.

[JuleBrenner]

Ok I see now what you mean.

I agree that a concept must come before its definition. Concepts can be poorly defined, or even undefined while being created because the ultimate meaning of a concept is the referents, the things that actually exist. Definitions are based upon observations of the referents, so the concept must come first in order to know which observations are of the referents and that observations of other things are irrelevant. Technically, concepts before they are defined are referred to as 'implicit concepts'. There is a discussion of 'implicit concepts' in the appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Implicit concepts are created by noticing similarities. So when we create the concept of a circle, we first start with a number of particular shapes which are similar based on their attribute of circularity (even the word for circularity has to come after the concept circle was fully formed and defined.)

OK.

[JuleBrenner]

Now, back to one of my previous posts.

What am I doing wrong if I am looking for that which must be fulfilled in order for me to say "I want no more there to be fulfilled, this is the best I can have", after comparing that state of fulfilment with all other possible states of fulfilments that could have been? To me, this seems the only possible way of putting something like "my ultimate natural striving" into language without making any restrictions that I might later regret.

Shouldn't an investigation into what we are ultimately striving for be made via a comparative study of all the possible alternatives facing us, and on which of these possible alternatives produces the most positive emotional response upon imagining that path of continued existence longterm?

Edited March 28, 2009 by JuleBrenner

[JuleBrenner]

And another thing:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal at all, versus maybe several distinct goals? Distinct, but not fundamental, if fundamental means causing ALL the other aspects of the nature of a thing. After all, according to Objectivism, "goals" are result-orientated observations. So why not?

Edited March 28, 2009 by JuleBrenner

[anonrobt]

So what is supposed to be the difference between your definition of a circle and mine? Other than that you put it into symbolic terms C(O,R), and I put them into verbal ones?

Actually, the definition is wrong - that is, incomplete... what is omitted, and included in any definition I ever heard on this is the beginning phrase - "On a plane,..."

And another thing:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal at all, versus maybe several distinct goals? Distinct, but not fundamental, if fundamental means causing ALL the other aspects of the nature of a thing. After all, according to Objectivism, "goals" are result-orientated observations. So why not?

The fundamental goal is your own happiness, which can be achieved thru many directions or goals [or careers, if you will], and these may well show themselves according to the changing circumstances of your life in the context of your age, growth of knowledge, experiences, and the environment you are in...

[JuleBrenner]

Actually, the definition is wrong - that is, incomplete... what is omitted, and included in any definition I ever heard on this is the beginning phrase - "On a plane,..."

Well, all right, but I hope you got the point anyway.

The fundamental goal is your own happiness, which can be achieved thru many directions or goals [or careers, if you will], and these may well show themselves according to the changing circumstances of your life in the context of your age, growth of knowledge, experiences, and the environment you are in...

The thing is that, Objectivism is a philosophy that holds life as a fundamental goal and equates happiness to the successful achievement of life. Nothing else. This means that happiness is happiness, ONLY if it has something to do with the fact that the continuation of the biological process has been achieved. And this disqualifies many forms of enjoyment as happiness. It means:

To smoke Mary Jane and enjoy emotional "highs" is NOT happiness, not matter how strong and enjoyably intense the feeling. Even if that enjoyable feeling is more intense than anything else you know, it is not happiness. You are called to sacrifice that intense an emotion for the goal of life, since this, according to Objectivism, is your fundamental nature.

To enjoy a burger, without any conscious thoughts of its life preserving functionalities is NOT happiness. You should enjoy that burger only because of knowing the digestive consequences, the way that those nutrients will integrate into your biological organism, and NOT only because it tastes good. And since a burger most times isn't healthy, there is little or no happiness to be accepted from it, no matter how good and delicious it tastes. Unless your diet plan allows for some necessary surplus of fat once in a while, but then you are only to call yourself happy, if you are eating your burger because of THAT.

For anything that feels good, you are supposed to find its meaning to life, i.e. the role it plays in preserving your biological organism. You are not supposed to just enjoy something, because it is "fun", or because you like it like hell. Any operation that does not consciously consider the mission goal of life, which is, I repeat, simply the preservation of your biological organism, is to be aborted brutally, until you have verified its relationship to that preservation. Only then are you allowed to say "mission goal accepted".

Such uncompromizingly clear a goal setting (life) requires a very high level of certainty regarding it's rightousness, in the light of so many seemingly "great" experiences that this philosophy could potentially cause oneself to sacrifice. Willful indulgence in intense, spontaneous joy is therefore IMMORAL, because such a behaviour could potentially imply the waste of time or a missed opportunity to label such indulgences as "bad habit" for future reference and rejection. And there must be no doubt that this rejection is called for, as long as no relationship to life can be established. Even if there is doubt that it ever will. ESPECIALLY if there is doubt that it ever will. Even if it, in fact, never does. ESPECIALLY if it, in fact, never does.

So given these strong conflicts that such a philosophy can cause, situation after situation, one better be sure, and that is, VERY sure, of doing the right thing.

This is why it is so important to ask again:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal, that is, ONE goal to "rule them all" at all?

Edited March 29, 2009 by JuleBrenner

[anonrobt]

Well, all right, but I hope you got the point anyway.

The thing is that, Objectivism is a philosophy that holds life as a fundamental goal and equates happiness to the successful achievement of life. Nothing else. This means that happiness is happiness, ONLY if it has something to do with the fact that the continuation of the biological process has been achieved. And this disqualifies many forms of enjoyment as happiness. It means:

To smoke Mary Jane and enjoy emotional "highs" is NOT happiness, not matter how strong and enjoyably intense the feeling. Even if that enjoyable feeling is more intense than anything else you know, it is not happiness. You are called to sacrifice that intense an emotion for the goal of life, since this, according to Objectivism, is your fundamental nature.

To enjoy a burger, without any conscious thoughts of its life preserving functionalities is NOT happiness. You should enjoy that burger only because of knowing the digestive consequences, the way that those nutrients will integrate into your biological organism, and NOT only because it tastes good. And since a burger most times isn't healthy, there is little or no happiness to be accepted from it, no matter how good and delicious it tastes. Unless your diet plan allows for some necessary surplus of fat once in a while, but then you are only to call yourself happy, if you are eating your burger because of THAT.

For anything that feels good, you are supposed to find its meaning to life, i.e. the role it plays in preserving your biological organism. You are not supposed to just enjoy something, because it is "fun", or because you like it like hell. Any operation that does not consciously consider the mission goal of life, which is, I repeat, simply the preservation of your biological organism, is to be aborted brutally, until you have verified its relationship to that preservation. Only then are you allowed to say "mission goal accepted".

Such uncompromizingly clear a goal setting (life) requires a very high level of certainty regarding it's rightousness, in the light of so many seemingly "great" experiences that this philosophy could potentially cause oneself to sacrifice. Willful indulgence in intense, spontaneous joy is therefore IMMORAL, because such a behaviour could potentially imply the waste of time or a missed opportunity to label such indulgences as "bad habit" for future reference and rejection. And there must be no doubt that this rejection is called for, as long as no relationship to life can be established. Even if there is doubt that it ever will. ESPECIALLY if there is doubt that it ever will. Even if it, in fact, never does. ESPECIALLY if it, in fact, never does.

So given these strong conflicts that such a philosophy can cause, situation after situation, one better be sure, and that is, VERY sure, of doing the right thing.

This is why it is so important to ask again:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal, that is, ONE goal to "rule them all" at all?

Where did you get this idea? not from Rand... there is, per example, an aesthetics to life as well as utilitarian, so there is indeed nothing wrong with relishing that burger, even as you renourish yourself with it - else you might as well engage in Soylents... and perhaps the enjoying is not happiness to you, the same with a toke now and then, who are you to define it as not happiness to another - there are short range happiness as well as long range, and they need not be in conflict...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ajrwka2RE...feature=related

[Grames]

Why would any type of action performed by some living entities suffice as a definition? If you attempted this with animals or human beings, you would just have a circular definition. Because notion of man or animal, implies consciousness. So any attempt at saying "Consciousness is this and that action performed by an animal or a human being" would use terms that implicate consciousness as a definition, which is invalid. You will find this out by listening to your definition and continue asking "OK, and what is man? What is animal?". You produce some definitions for those, e.g. "Man is a living being that survives on reason.". Next: "All right, and what is reason?" Here we go. You might try to avoid the use of "consciousness" in your next definition, by circumscribing it with some other terms. But ultimately even these terms need to be clarified and you'll end up using "consciousness" in your definition. Which means, if we trace the whole story back, that:

"Consciousness is...........................................................involving consciousness".

So nothing has been defined at all.

Continuing with the idea that a concept is not to be equated to its definition:

Definitions of concepts serve the purpose of identifying the referents, and doing it in such a way as to distinguish one concept from another. Some definitions can be done ostensively, others are written in terms of other concepts. Definitions make explicit the relationships and hierarchy between concepts. A correct definition will specify genus and differentia. See Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Chapter 5. Definitions.

Although "consciousness exists" is a metaphysical axiom and can only be demonstrated ostensively, there is more that can be said about consciousness. This is because everything exists in a relationship to everything else that exists. A genus will point out a similarity relationship while a differentia will point out a distinguishing element in contrast to all those that are similar.

Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. It is the power to be aware of something. Consciousness as concept refers to the entirety of the subject, the object, and their relationship. Although any entity can be the object of awareness, only some entities are capable of being the subject that is aware. Those are living entities. Living entities continue to exist by continuously acting, and of their many types of actions perceiving other things and being aware of them is just one. To be conscious of something is a type of action establishing the relationship of awareness between the subject and the object of awareness.

[JuleBrenner]

Hmm...Your remarks about consciousness make a lot of sense. I will go into them later.

But in the mean time, I find my other question relating the issue most urgent:

How do we know, that there has to be a fundamental goal about us, at all?

[Grames]

Hmm...Your remarks about consciousness make a lot of sense. I will go into them later.

But in the mean time, I find my other question relating the issue most urgent:

How do we know, that there has to be a fundamental goal about us, at all?

There is always a fundamental, or you wouldn't be able to have a clear thought of what a concept is about. In this case, I would equate the fundamental with the 'conceptual common denominator' described by Rand in ITOE. The CCD is what unites a concept with its genus.

The fundamental goal of remaining alive is simply inherited from his nature of being a living entity. It really is the broadest thing one could say about action. There is no getting behind it or beneath it.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Interesting thread, having read it all.

Hmm...Your remarks about consciousness make a lot of sense. I will go into them later.

But in the mean time, I find my other question relating the issue most urgent:

How do we know, that there has to be a fundamental goal about us, at all?

What do you mean by "fundamental goal"? It sounds like you are referring to that oft-asked question, "What is the meaning of life?".

One thing I learned early on in my reading of Objectivism is that the proper question to be answered is not, "what is the meaning of life?" but rather "What is the meaning of your life?" To discover one's meaning of life one must identify one's essential purpose in life. Such a purpose is simply what it is that you wish to do with your life. Once you identify that purpose I think it will become your fundamental goal, in that your happiness will become synonymous with its achievement, or at least with the knowledge that you are making progress towards its achievement.

I do think the "fundamental goal" of humans is to achieve happiness. Easier said than done, of course, because achieving happiness requires a great deal of effort. One must identify as many possibilities of purposes as one can, and then select from them first which one wants to spend one's life working on, i.e., identify one's purpose in life, and then identify how to go about achieving that purpose.

[AllMenAreIslands]

I've thought about this some more, JuleBrenner, and I would add this.

For a goal to be fundamental it must be one that is a direct product of our natures. Our nature is that we must choose to be rational, to find one's happiness in being rational. As we know, generations of human beings have managed to "survive" and reproduce more humans but the survival mechanism often gets turned the wrong way round with irrational philosophy and religion. So people do not achieve happiness by rationality's standard. Such people have human form but not human substance, since they have not actively chosen rationality but instead allowing themselves to be dictated to by others.

One might say the fundamental goal then is making the choice to be rational, and to seek to be happy rationally and rationally happy.

It would follow then that every choice one makes in life can and should be rational, including the choice or not to eat or smoke or drink a given substance. Applying some thought to one's choices in life is all it takes to fulfill one's fundamental goal - it's really about knowing why you choose what you choose.

[JuleBrenner]

Hey, easter holidays took me off for a couple of days.

Well, I've read your replies and will go into them further at some time...

...meanwhile just some new important thoughts:

Well, let us get into this. It is important to read the rest of this my posting as a whole from here, and not just start somewhere in the middle.

There is always a fundamental, or you wouldn't be able to have a clear thought of what a concept is about.

Of course you are right there. And remember talking about "implicit concepts"? So, my "implicit concept" of myself is "me as a conscious thing that faces the choice to experience certain specific things or face dissatisfaction, dissatisfaction being an urge to discontinue my existence." Whatever that implicit concept may imply or not imply. Whatever it implies is not directly known to me at first hand. I wouldn't say that any such thing as "a process of self-generated and self-sustaining action" is somehow understood or grasped within that implicit concept of mine.

So, having identified my implicit concept of myself, the next step would be to identify that which is fundamental about it. And with "fundamental" meaning "that which causes all the other aspects of its nature", plus looking at the nature of what my implicit concept of myself says, one lands at a dead end as to what else to detect as my "fundamental nature", other than - as already expressed in other terms in my implicit concept - a movement towards a state in which the urge to experience a certain set of things in my consciousness has been satisfied to the maximum extend. Period.

In OPAR, Peikoff identifies the fundamental nature of us via looking at the result, right? What strikes me is, that the result HE gives most consideration to is the continuation of life. But I wouldn't know why one would - of all the possible results and aspects of results to mention - consider exactly THAT result to be important. The result I would confirm wouldn't be the mere fact that a biological entity continues the process of self-generated and self-sustaining action. More importantly, I would stress the result that my consciousness gets into a state in which the urge to experience a set of things in my consciousness has been satisfied to the maximum extend.

In this case, I would equate the fundamental with the 'conceptual common denominator' described by Rand in ITOE. The CCD is what unites a concept with its genus.

The fundamental goal of remaining alive is simply inherited from his nature of being a living entity. It really is the broadest thing one could say about action. There is no getting behind it or beneath it.

What do you mean, "the broadest thing about action"? What is the meaning of "broad" in this context?

You have to stay alive in order to experience certain things.

But you can as well say that you have to experience certain things in order to stay alive, because otherwise your willingness to stay alive could vanish.

Both "staying alive" and "experiencing certain things" are ACTIONS.

So there is nothing, really, that makes the "stay alive" approach less arbitrary than my "experience this and that" approach, if you get what I mean.

You could say, that both "staying alive" and "experiencing certain things" have something in common, namely: "Staying alive".

And you could also say that what they have in common is "experiencing certain things" as well.

Well, where does all of this land us? Right: "Staying alive" is equivalent to "experiencing certain things". But then again, since these two things are different aspects of the same thing, each of these aspects would entail a different aproach when setting goals:

The "search radius", if you like, for pursuing the goal of "staying alive" is rather a biological one: find out everything there is to know about medicine, your organs and their functions, the effects of different foods and physical environments on your body, plus all the exercise necessary etc., to find out how best to nourish your biological organism.

The "search radius" for pursuing the goal of "experiencing certain things", however, is: Try to make an awful lot of experiences, from climbing the Empire State Building to dancing salsa in the Carribean, from having the most bizarre and kinky sex in some exotic harlot to composing, singing and recording volumes of self-made music. After gathering all these experiences, pursue exactly that combination of those experiences that you will respond most positively to longterm.

One would expect that both ways I have just described here should leed to the same result, since the two goals pursued are equivalent.

But somehow I feel, they do not. And the reason why I think they don't is that the "search radius" for pursuing the goal of "staying alive" does - as of today - NOT provide us with sufficient data for achieving maximum success. Whereas the "search radius" for pursuing the goal of "experiencing certain things" much more often does.

That's why, I find setting the goal of "experiencing certain things" much more practical. Moreover, that aspect is much more identical to the aspect of the thing that my implicit concept of myself refers to, which makes it even easier to pursue.

Edited April 25, 2009 by JuleBrenner

[JuleBrenner]

I've thought about this some more, JuleBrenner, and I would add this.

For a goal to be fundamental it must be one that is a direct product of our natures. Our nature is that we must choose to be rational, to find one's happiness in being rational. As we know, generations of human beings have managed to "survive" and reproduce more humans but the survival mechanism often gets turned the wrong way round with irrational philosophy and religion. So people do not achieve happiness by rationality's standard. Such people have human form but not human substance, since they have not actively chosen rationality but instead allowing themselves to be dictated to by others.

One might say the fundamental goal then is making the choice to be rational, and to seek to be happy rationally and rationally happy.

It would follow then that every choice one makes in life can and should be rational, including the choice or not to eat or smoke or drink a given substance. Applying some thought to one's choices in life is all it takes to fulfill one's fundamental goal - it's really about knowing why you choose what you choose.

Hmm...including the choice to notice that direct orientation towards the goal of survival might not always lead to just that, may it be due to a lack of available data. In this case, an orientation towards an experience-based goal-setting, as described in my previous post would rationally seem more appropriate, wouldn't it?

[Grames]

Hmm...including the choice to notice that direct orientation towards the goal of survival might not always lead to just that, may it be due to a lack of available data. In this case, an orientation towards an experience-based goal-setting, as described in my previous post would rationally seem more appropriate, wouldn't it?

I'm not done here, but I need to review the thread.

[JuleBrenner]

I'm not done here, but I need to review the thread.

No problem. Take your time. I will be glad to resolve this ;-)

[JuleBrenner]

So? Any new thoughts?

Hope I didn't miss anything...my inbox showed me "1 New Messages", although I didn't find anything in my inbox, maybe there's something wrong with the programming.

[Grames]

My favorite way to do a lot of reading is to print it out, then read it while enjoying a bottomless cup of fresh coffee at a local diner. This came to 44 pages, I suppose mostly from the quoting, and I was unwilling to use that much paper and ink that way. Reviewing the thread online and skipping parts already read made it much shorter.

The thing that I am "fundamentally striving for" is that which must be fulfilled in order for me to say "I want no more there to be fulfilled, this is the best I can have", after comparing that state of fulfilment with all other possible states of fulfilments that could have been. To me, this seems the only possible way of putting it into language without making any restrictions that I might later regret.

Of course living is no good as an answer to this. You can never achieve a state of life once and for all with no need for further action. The way the question is posed rules out a dynamic process of action in favor of static achievement. The problem is the question.

You have to stay alive in order to experience certain things.

But you can as well say that you have to experience certain things in order to stay alive, because otherwise your willingness to stay alive could vanish.

Both "staying alive" and "experiencing certain things" are ACTIONS.

So there is nothing, really, that makes the "stay alive" approach less arbitrary than my "experience this and that" approach, if you get what I mean.

Life is (constitutes) a series of experiences. I understand your attempt at drawing the equivalence. But there are all kinds of different experiences possible. How is it possible to discriminate among them to pick "certain things" and not others, for what reason? Simply responding "This is the thing that fulfills me the most" begs the question as it can still be asked "Why does it fulfill you?" Where do values come from?

I detect a trace of a certain attitude here, that "alive" is so crassly materialist, and "experience" is more versatile and possibly spiritual. They are not different in the end.

[JuleBrenner]

Sorry for returning so late.

Of course living is no good as an answer to this. You can never achieve a state of life once and for all with no need for further action. The way the question is posed rules out a dynamic process of action in favor of static achievement. The problem is the question.

Hmm...sorry, I think I might have formulated it the wrong way. I still find the question meaningful the way I actually meant it, so let me rephrase it:

The thing that I am "fundamentally striving for" is the set of events I want to happen within the span of my expected lifetime in order for me to say that I want no more to happen, this is the optimal set of events there could possibly be, after comparing that set of events with all other possible sets of events that could have been. To me, this seems the only possible way of putting it into language without making any restrictions that I might later regret.

Life is (constitutes) a series of experiences. I understand your attempt at drawing the equivalence. But there are all kinds of different experiences possible. How is it possible to discriminate among them to pick "certain things" and not others, for what reason? Simply responding "This is the thing that fulfills me the most" begs the question as it can still be asked "Why does it fulfill you?" Where do values come from?

How is it possible to pick "certain things"? Well, I guess that's what you just know from experience. Gathering an ever growing amount of experiences, their evaluation stored in form of emotions. Some emotions are unpleasant, some pleasant, some very pleasant and some even feel like heaven. It is not easy to assign values of negativity or positivity to these emotions, but something like that can be indirectly done by reconsidering the set of emotions so far experienced, letting your memories pass through your mind. That's how you come to conclusions like "hey, that thing I did that time was great, greater than that other thing, but not as great as THAT thing before that" etc. You can set up your own priority levels for each event to pursue that way and decide - on that basis - what to pursue to what extend.

So you come to the conclusion "This is the thing that fulfills me the most". Namely a specific set of events to pursue. Specific to each and every human being. The only way that this is "life" is due to the fact that it may be the only aspect that all humans will have in common pursuing their specific set of events. The only "common denominator" that can be established, observed among mankind. Doesn't mean that a particular human sets life as a goal. Nor that the purposeful pursuance of that goal necessarily makes him happy.

You ask "Why does it fulfill you?". Well, I think the way I rephrased my idea of "fulfilment" earlier in this response by putting the emphasis on events rather than on static achievement, makes that question rather pointless, doesn't it? If "fulfilment" for a particluar human being IS exactly that set of events, then you could only answer "because that is my nature". And that values ARE ultimately those events pursued, it is then needless to ask where they come from, because they ARE what they ARE, particular to each human being.

How come this and that human's nature is the pursuance of this and that set of events you might ask? Well, how come every human beings' nature is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action? Again, both are just actions, aren't they? Be it self-sustainance or the pursuance of a particular set of events.

I detect a trace of a certain attitude here, that "alive" is so crassly materialist, and "experience" is more versatile and possibly spiritual. They are not different in the end.

Well, I do realize that life is not static, but dynamic. As for "materialist", well, yes, the immediate idea of the goalsetting of living implicates mainly biological processes. A lot of other urges remain unexplained to me when trying to accept the root of all values in life itself.

[JuleBrenner]

Well, I hope I'm not giving anybody a headache here.

[Grames]

It can be a difficult topic. I'm currently working on a set of notes for Greg Salmieri's lectures on "Ayn Rand's Conception of Valuing" so substantial replies will come after that is complete. 1 of 3 lectures is already complete.