hull Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE". who can truely decide what our purpose is? maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 I suggest you read something first hand to dispel your false view of Objectivism. I'd recommend the essay title "Objectivist Ethics" in the compilation titled "Virtue of Selfishness". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 A starting point, something to consider when you go into reading "Objectivist Ethics", is to consider whether you seriously dispute that the most important choice a man can make is whether to live or die. Determine whether you believe in some controlling deity or force that sets your purpose; or do you believe that man has free will and can actually decide. If you don't want to survive, they you should kill yourself immediately. If you haven't killed yourself by now, determine why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hull Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 A starting point, something to consider when you go into reading "Objectivist Ethics", is to consider whether you seriously dispute that the most important choice a man can make is whether to live or die. Determine whether you believe in some controlling deity or force that sets your purpose; or do you believe that man has free will and can actually decide. If you don't want to survive, they you should kill yourself immediately. If you haven't killed yourself by now, determine why not. becuase i havent wanted to kill myself i slightly missed your point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 becuase i havent wanted to kill myselfBut have you wanted to live? Why would "wants" control what you do? If you think that you have no control over your life and that some evil external force is controlling you, then that's useful information for us. If you think that you can actually make a choice, then what is it that determines your choices? Is it based on the emotions of the moment? Or is there something more long-term? Suppose you did do something really shocking and embarassing and you thought for a moment "I wish I were dead"; would you snuff yourself? If not, why not? In other words, analyze your wants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hull Posted May 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 But have you wanted to live? Why would "wants" control what you do? If you think that you have no control over your life and that some evil external force is controlling you, then that's useful information for us. If you think that you can actually make a choice, then what is it that determines your choices? Is it based on the emotions of the moment? Or is there something more long-term? Suppose you did do something really shocking and embarassing and you thought for a moment "I wish I were dead"; would you snuff yourself? If not, why not? In other words, analyze your wants. but i dont get taht...... there are people who commit suicide are you drawing a general universal conclusion from your own person experience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelH Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 but i dont get taht...... there are people who commit suicide are you drawing a general universal conclusion from your own person experience? Each individual must choose to live or die. You choose to find/buy/obtain food, or not. You choose to seek shelter from the elements, or not. These are conscious, rational choices that require the use of reason to succeed. However, there is no golden calf. You choose whether the ethics apply or not, by choosing to survive or not. If you do not choose to live, no ethical values are appropriate or necessary. You'll be dead soon. If you do choose to live, Objectivist ethics apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 but i dont get taht...... there are people who commit suicide Yes there are some people who kill themselves, and it would be absurd to hold up their ethics as the standard by which reasonable men make judgements regarding morality. For those who choose death, morality is of no consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L-C Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 becuase i havent wanted to kill myself Living isn't automatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 but i dont get taht...... there are people who commit suicide are you drawing a general universal conclusion from your own person experience? I am trying to determine what drives your decisions in life. Most people who have implicitly chosen death as their ultimate goal are not aware of that fact -- they have evaded the long-term consequences of their actions. Those who have openly chosen death are, of course, long gone. Then there are those of us who have chosen to live. Since you suggest that your purpose is to leave this "hell hole" immediately, I was wondering if you were in a category of people who think they have actually chosen death but just can't be bothered to speed the process up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James I Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE". who can truely decide what our purpose is? maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? I read the original poster's question as asking 'why should we choose to live?' rather than 'what should we do if we choose to live?'. Does Objectivism answer the former with the latter and if so isn't that begging the question? As to my thoughts on the OP question: well, we seem to have a natural attitude for self-preservation, and in evolutionary terms all animals are 'designed' to survive. Man differs from other species because we appear to have free will and the capacity to think, so our 'goal' isn't as clear to us as, say, an ant or a dog which as I understand it have largely automatic values. Human values include pleasure, knowledge, morality etc. Edited May 14, 2009 by James I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I read the original poster's question as asking 'why should we choose to live?' rather than 'what should we do if we choose to live?'. Does Objectivism answer the former with the latter and if so isn't that begging the question?Objectivism says that the question is invalid because it presupposes a contradiction. See Tara Smith's Viable Values for a clear exposition of this. See Galt's speech My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live for the hard-core nutshell statement of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KendallJ Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Another way of saying this is that the choice to live is what brings into existence the need for a code of morality. "Should" as in an ethical should only applies once the choice to live has been made. The choice to live is not the province of morality. It brings morality to the forefront as a necessity. In a statement such as "if you want to live, you require a code of morality," the phrase "if you want to live" is what is known as meta-ethical basis. That is, it is the reason upon which a code of morality is based. In Objectivism this meta-ethics is not based upon personal feelings or whim. It is based in the objective requirements of life. Only if you choose to live do you need morality. The choice to live therefore is "pre-ethical." There is not reason why you should choose to do so. It is only if you do choose, that the idea of a should comes into being. If you choose not to live then you have no need of morality, as dying is an incredibly easy thing to do. Also, choosing to live, and choosing not to die are not the same thing. Living is not the avoidance of death. Nor is it pulse maintenance, i.e. survival. Rand never said anything to the effect that our purpose is to survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 but i dont get taht...... there are people who commit suicide You may want to reconsider your premise (or as others have mentioned, do more reading). Objectivism does not dictate that man must choose to live. Rather, Objectivism says IF man first chooses to live, this is how he should live based on his nature as a volitional being. Ayn Rand didn't find it necessary to write material on "if you choose to die, here's how to kill yourself". maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? Here's another thing to consider; why are these questions important to you? How do answering these questions impact whatever it is that you have chosen as the purpose for your existence? Why is it you are seeking to learn ANYTHING? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE". who can truely decide what our purpose is? maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? There is no such purpose foisted upon us. There is no final authority in ethics, there are no duties. If you want to live then there is a right way to go about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I agree with KendallJ that Objectivism doesn't say our purpose is to simply survive. It does provide a powerful validation (paraphrasing, hopefully not too badly) that our purpose is to live our own life as fully and completely and wonderfully as our abilities allow us. The basis of this is simply without your own life, there can be no concept of purpose, or goals, or meaning, or a whole lot of anything else for that matter. Dead people don't have a purpose, or goals, or meaning. Life is the primary driver for man, and your life is the primary driver for you. Objectivist ethics holds life as the standard to measure what is good and what is evil, and your own life and that which you value as the moral benefactor of your actions. Why would one want to put "life" as the standard, vs "surviving", or even death? I put a form of this question to Dr John Ridpath and Dr Allan Gotthelf at a lecture in Toronto. After a lot of lively discussion, the fundamental answer was living can be "profound fun", and your purpose is to make your life just that. This is one of the major reasons I embrace Objectivism. It lays out in big bold letters that my life is mine, and the most noble thing I can do is live it to the hilt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kainscalia Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Wat makes me curious is the reasons for which hull chose to make this his (her?) very first topic after registering for the board. What are you looking for here? Is it validation, verification? to discuss or to vent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slacker00 Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE". who can truely decide what our purpose is? maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? purpose something set up as an object or end to be attained I think purpose is what one must bring to Objectivism. I don't think Objectivism can give one a purpose. One has to come up with a purpose on their own. Objectivism is more of a vehicle to hone in on that purpose and achieve that purpose. Objectivism does speak about survival, but more as a vehicle to fulfill one's purpose, whatever that may be. One has a tough time fulfilling a purpose if they do not physically exist, I imagine. Survival is not an end in itself unless that happens to be one's sole purpose. The choice of purpose seems to me to be outside the scope of Objectivism. Although choice of purpose is outside the scope of Objectivism, Objectivism does put constraints upon what type of purpose one must choose. For example, if one's purpose is in any way irrational, Objectivism will be in conflict because Objectivism claims rationality as a core concept. So, even though one has a wide range of choice in purpose within Objectivism, there are absolutely some limitations especially if one's choice of purpose is unrealistic or irrational. As an aside, I know the question of purpose might be a foreign concept to one that is coming from a religious background. The Bible defines a pretty specific purpose for one's life: worship God. Worship basically entails, following the scripture and rituals as well as trying to live by the concepts of whatever of the various religions that exist at any point in time. Many of us are probably familiar with western culture and Christianity, so purpose revolves around "the reckoning" or afterlife or whatever. For Objectivists, by comparison, there is no afterlife, so whatever purpose there might be is strictly defined within the scope of one's mortal life span, at least that's my understanding and an interesting contrast to Christianity, for example. Edited May 14, 2009 by slacker00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phibetakappa Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE". Objectivism does not say we "have" a purpose. It states that purpose is a basic value, i.e., that purpose is a necessary condition for sustaining our life and/or enhancing our life, i.e., that basic survival, normal living, and enhanced living, all depend on selecting a purpose, because the things you need for living are not going to come to you automatically; and if you choose not to pursue them, then someone else, necessarily, has to bring them to you. Someone has to pay for food, clothing, shelter, goods and services, etc., and part of the payment is a given man's purpose of pursuing and producing the given good and/or service. Objectivism does not say, dogmatically, that thou shall select purpose. I certainly recommend you go somewhere in the woods and choose the purpose of having no purpose. If you survive the not having a purpose, it may be a valuable learning experience for you. Or if you are currently “surviving” in this manner; i.e., if you are currently a dependent of someone else; please describe what life is like for you. If you are against making one’s purpose one’s life and well-being; then what do you propose people make their purpose? Or if you believe that men can literally live without purpose, I’d like to hear the details how you believe that works in practice. who can truely decide what our purpose is? It's always a revealing take statements like this and put them in first person. "I cannot decide what MY purpose is." maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. Maybe it is. If that is a person's committed purpose, then it will be their last one, and it's not hard to achieve, just sit still long enough and you will achieve your purpose. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? A valid description of living and/or life is that it is self-sustained and/or self-generated action; and for man-kind life is purposeful action, because for man he has free will. Goal directed action is one of the basic features possessed by a living organism, and it is an aspect of how that life is maintained biologically. Maintaining goal-directed action for a living organism is a necessary condition for sustaining life and/or enhancing life. This I just an observable fact we can view by studying living things. For men, we do have a choice, and we can choose the purpose of not sustaining our lives. But we have no choice about the results. By our nature, we are still a certain kind of being, which has certain factual requirements for its continued existence. If you choose not to sustain your live via purposeful, goal directed action, then someone else will have to be purposeful to bring you what your survival needs, or you will die. So, the purposefulness has to be supplied from someone. If you refuse to take the responsibility, someone else will have to if you are to continue living. Like, I said. I highly recommend you make it your purpose to go out in the wilderness and have no purpose there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 who can truely decide what our purpose is? You have to decide for yourself what your purpose in life is. It's no-one else's job to do that for you, and anyone who tells you otherwise is seeking to control you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kainscalia Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Hull has obviously returned to his spot under the bridge. Is there any point in continuing the thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slacker00 Posted May 20, 2009 Report Share Posted May 20, 2009 Hull has obviously returned to his spot under the bridge. Is there any point in continuing the thread? Why not? What would you like to discuss? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincer Posted May 21, 2009 Report Share Posted May 21, 2009 one thing that has put me off objectivism is the idea that we have a purpose.... and it is to "SURVIVE". who can truely decide what our purpose is? maybe our purpose is to see who is the fastest to leave this hell whole. why have you put 'survival' as the golden calf? I am pretty sure it is Scientology that claims our purpose is to "survive". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q.E.D. Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Wat makes me curious is the reasons for which hull chose to make this his (her?) very first topic after registering for the board. What are you looking for here? Is it validation, verification? to discuss or to vent? Perhaps a logical argument so he can stand on his own mind rather than accepting things on faith? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Perhaps a logical argument so he can stand on his own mind rather than accepting things on faith? Have you read his post? I'll tell you what, if you provide a logical argument to support his position, then I'll provide one to refute it. Edited May 28, 2009 by Marc K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.