Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Values without a valuer

Rate this topic


Ifat Glassman

Recommended Posts

As I understand it, it does mean just that. Happiness as the purpose of morality is just the second side of the coin, but it is not included in "survival of man qua man". In the later she actually talks about survival.

You are making a really big intellectual mistake in thinking that man's survival qua man does not include happiness. Man is a being of both mind and body integrated into one entity, and man's life as the standard takes all of that into account, not just his physical survival. When Miss Rand is talking about man qua man she is also including psychological factors, such as happiness. There is no dichotomy between living one's life as a man and seeking happiness.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon has a whole page on man's life as the standard, where she talks about the difference between a standard and a purpose. You seem to have a dichotomy between the two, when there isn't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making a really big intellectual mistake in thinking that man's survival qua man does not include happiness. Man is a being of both mind and body integrated into one entity, and man's life as the standard takes all of that into account, not just his physical survival. When Miss Rand is talking about man qua man she is also including psychological factors, such as happiness. There is no dichotomy between living one's life as a man and seeking happiness.

The Ayn Rand Lexicon has a whole page on man's life as the standard, where she talks about the difference between a standard and a purpose. You seem to have a dichotomy between the two, when there isn't one.

Survival of man as a man includes survival of his cognitive abilities as well - of his emotional capacity, ability to reason, etc'. Still survival and achievement of happiness are two different things.

Survival of man means his actual survival as in life vs. death. To quote Peikoff on this (OPAR, page 213)

In regard to the sum of reality as such, however, there is nothing to do but grasp; it is- and then, if the fundamental alternative [life/death] confronts one, bow one's head in a silent "amen" amounting to the words: "This is where I shall fight to stay". That, in effect, is what plants and animals (and rational men) do. It is why they act and what they act for. ... Only the alternative of life vs. death creates the context for value-oriented action, and it does so only if the entity's end is to preserve its life. By the very nature of "values", therefore, any code of values must hold life as the ultimate value."

...

Objectivism says that remaining alive is the goal of values and of all proper action.

Now let us see how the principle of life as the standard of value applies to specific kinds of organisms - above all, to man.

He is talking about "life" in the sense of survival - life vs. death (physical and mental). I think the quote makes it pretty clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is talking about "life" in the sense of survival - life vs. death (physical and mental). I think the quote makes it pretty clear.

The argument that values derive from life is the strongest objective argument that can be made to validate valuing and values. The "second turn of the spiral" to integrate the psychological phenomenon of happiness into the understanding of valuing notes the major distinguishing characteristic that happiness is fallible. To the extent that happiness is the result of conscious decisions (as opposed to being tickled) one can be happy as a result of achieving an objective disvalue.

In the good life, the flourishing life of man qua man, one's values are all objective values and one always chooses the right value from among several. I think at one of Ifat's points is that it costs time and effort to pick the right value; time and effort not necessarily justified by the stakes involved. One should not be too perfectionist about always choosing the right value, and that emotion gives valuable information about what you value most in such cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that values derive from life is the strongest objective argument that can be made to validate valuing and values. The "second turn of the spiral" to integrate the psychological phenomenon of happiness into the understanding of valuing notes the major distinguishing characteristic that happiness is fallible. To the extent that happiness is the result of conscious decisions (as opposed to being tickled) one can be happy as a result of achieving an objective disvalue.

One can get pleasure, but not happiness by Ayn Rand's definition of happiness as achievement of values that do not contradict one another (joy without contradictions). Happiness is fallible in the sense that one may be mistaken in one's choice of values, and as a result not achieve happiness. Happiness has specific requirements. Just a small correction.

In the good life, the flourishing life of man qua man, one's values are all objective values and one always chooses the right value from among several. I think at one of Ifat's points is that it costs time and effort to pick the right value; time and effort not necessarily justified by the stakes involved.

No, I don't know how you understood that from what I said. My main point here is that values need to be chosen to match one's unique personality and preferences. It is not enough to just get a productive career, it is crucial to get a productive career (within the possible) that is right for you. That is my main point and everything after that is just a side discussion with Miovas, not very connected to my essay or to this point as I see it.

One should not be too perfectionist about always choosing the right value, and that emotion gives valuable information about what you value most in such cases.

The second part I did say, but not the first one. I am not saying "don't over-think things, you'll waste your life trying". I'm saying that the method of trying to reduce everything to man's life as the standard in the same way a philosopher would do it requires way too much thinking, is impractical and does not serve one's life very well. That is what one should not do - waste time thinking in a wrong method that requires a lot of effort and time. One should definitely spend a lot of time and effort thinking about important, life changing, life shaping decisions - but using the right method. Peikoff presents the right method in his course "Judging, Feeling and not being moralistic".

To put it shortly, as I understand it he presents a process of checking facts relevant to the choice of pursuing a value, combined with examination of your emotions at every step of the way, in a way that takes under account both one's personal preferences, and the Objectivist ethics.

For example: if you want to rent an apartment you consider its benefit to you (practical and emotional), what it will cost you - if there is something else you'd have to give up like clothes - then ask yourself if buying clothes is more important than the apartment (matter of personal preference) and make an informed decision.

I think the course is brilliant and it presents the perfect method of choosing values.

My essay does not present the actual method of choosing values (this is something Miovas brought up)- it is focused on another point, of morality as duty vs. choice (which also implies, morality as anti-personal or personal).

I hope I'm clearer now. Feel free to ask if not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can get pleasure, but not happiness by Ayn Rand's definition of happiness as achievement of values that do not contradict one another (joy without contradictions). Happiness is fallible in the sense that one may be mistaken in one's choice of values, and as a result not achieve happiness. Happiness has specific requirements. Just a small correction.

I wonder if it is overstating the case to say that the immoral man cannot be happy at all. However I see that the state of noncontradictory joy deserves a name.

The happiness of the immoral man is necessarily inferior to the happiness of the moral man. This is because one becomes immoral by permitting contradictory thoughts, contradictory to each other and contradictory to reality. When one desire is satisfied a contradictory desire is denied, limiting and "boxing in" the amount of experienced joy. A moral man will have no contradictory desires so his joy will be unbounded in this way.

When Obama was elected president many people were pleased, even happy. The limits on their happiness will come in the future in the form of economic realities.

No, I don't know how you understood that from what I said. My main point here is that values need to be chosen to match one's unique personality and preferences. It is not enough to just get a productive career, it is crucial to get a productive career (within the possible) that is right for you. That is my main point and everything after that is just a side discussion with Miovas, not very connected to my essay or to this point as I see it.

It comes from the discussion of optional values and numerous examples of trivial values. I lost sight of the fact that big important values are also optional. My mistake.

The term "optional values" has some interesting connotations it could be useful to drag into the open. For example, if some values are optional are other values necessary or mandatory? Aren't all values optional? "Universal vs. particular" values might be better but universal values must not be construed as impersonal values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that all values are optional, except in the sense that we have free will and therefore it is an act of choice to pursue values in the first place. But it is called "optional values" in the sense that for the rational man, reason, purpose, and self-esteem are non-optional, if you want to live life as a man. However, within the range of pursuing actual values that are beneficial to you (by man's life as the standard), you have many options of how to achieve your personal happiness.

Choosing a silver car over a black car (everything else being nearly equal) as I did comes down to a personal preference. I wouldn't have been miserable with a black car, but I thought the silver car looked more stylish, so it was an option. What wasn't optional to me was having enough horsepower to be able to navigate in traffic more easily. After having a low horsepower car for over twelve years and having trouble getting onto the freeway at highway speeds, I wanted a more powerful car, and I had options for that type of car. And aside from some minor design issues, I am quite happy with my car and enjoy driving it; which is the point of choosing optional values well -- to enjoy them.

However, within my range of what I could afford (again, man's life as the standard), getting a Lamborghini was not an option, since it would have driven me to the poor house <_< I love the way they look, and it would be a blast to drive, but at my income level, it wasn't an option.

post-2508-1244552714_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if it is overstating the case to say that the immoral man cannot be happy at all. However I see that the state of noncontradictory joy deserves a name.

The happiness of the immoral man is necessarily inferior to the happiness of the moral man. This is because one becomes immoral by permitting contradictory thoughts, contradictory to each other and contradictory to reality. When one desire is satisfied a contradictory desire is denied, limiting and "boxing in" the amount of experienced joy. A moral man will have no contradictory desires so his joy will be unbounded in this way.

When Obama was elected president many people were pleased, even happy. The limits on their happiness will come in the future in the form of economic realities.

You're using a different definition of 'Happiness' here. See my previous post about two possible meanings.

It comes from the discussion of optional values and numerous examples of trivial values. I lost sight of the fact that big important values are also optional. My mistake.

The term "optional values" has some interesting connotations it could be useful to drag into the open. For example, if some values are optional are other values necessary or mandatory? Aren't all values optional? "Universal vs. particular" values might be better but universal values must not be construed as impersonal values.

Some values are not optional - you must have them to survive. I think the virtues is one example - the virtues are required for survival and happiness, it's not a matter of personal preference to be independent in thought or to blindly rely on others. If you're not independent in thought you are not equipped to live. Same for honesty. You can't "prefer" to lie to yourself as part of your pursuit of happiness. It's not like saying "I rather be a cook than a teacher". To the best of my understanding this is what Peikoff means by "optional values".

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion, because it is drifting away from the content of my essay too much. I certainly don't see a point continuing a discussion with Miovas, judging by his last post, communication isn't really working, and also I don't like it when people ignore (as in not answer) a written challenge/refutation of their viewpoint, like avoiding questions that challenge their view, and yet present their view again. For me that's a sign that talking is useless. As I see it; either the person doesn't see your questions as making sense, or he doesn't want to deal with a threat to their view. In either case, communication is not possible.

If anyone wants to discuss the essential ideas in my essay I can do that. But I don't like the kind of 40 pages threads that go on about anything and everything except the actual topic.

Cheers!

Ifat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it; either the person doesn't see your questions as making sense, or he doesn't want to deal with a threat to their view. In either case, communication is not possible.

I assume you are talking about the issue of suicide, which is not a contradiction to living the life of man qua man by man's life as the standard. The reason you see it as a contradiction is because you think man's life as the standard does not include personal happiness. So, no, it wasn't a threat to my views of what man qua man means, nor what man's life as the standard means (and it means much more than mere physical survival).

If one cannot obtain life in terms of man qua man, then suicide is an optional choice, according to Objectivism.

Check your premises :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one cannot obtain life in terms of man qua man, then suicide is an optional choice, according to Objectivism.

There is no duty to live in Objectivism; but that doesn't mean that one ought to just throw away one's life if there is a chance of obtaining living by man's life as the standard. I certainly do not recommend suicide, as it is a final option, but keep in mind that Objectivism is for assisted suicide for those with incurable and painful illnesses. It is also an option if one is living in some pest hole with no means of getting out; such as Andrea in We the Living.

Living life of man qua man requires more than 400 calories and a glass of water a day. If you can better your situation, then definitely do that; and if you have to be in survival mode for a while, then do that. But if your life is abjectly miserable and you see no way out, then suicide is not immoral. It is immoral to just give up the struggle, but there is no requirement to pull yourself through many, many years of abject misery with no end in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are talking about the issue of suicide, which is not a contradiction to living the life of man qua man by man's life as the standard. The reason you see it as a contradiction is because you think man's life as the standard does not include personal happiness. So, no, it wasn't a threat to my views of what man qua man means, nor what man's life as the standard means (and it means much more than mere physical survival).

I think it is a contradiction to YOUR view, not A contradiction.

If anyone is interested in this topic, here is a good thread with good presentation and good questions on this very topic:

My problem with Objectivist meta-ethics, Does Objectivism collapse to hedonism?

I ask anyone who wants to continue this line of discussion to do so there, where it belongs. Then, if there are conclusions that apply to this topic, we can discuss them here.

Check your premises :dough:

You are consistent in thinking (or saying) that I present my own confusion or questions to others. I was directing these questions to you, to point out problems in your viewpoint, for you to think about and respond.

I think it is very obvious.

You are also using a condensending tone again, as if I were your student. I suggest you introspect why you see it appropriate to talk to people (or me) that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last thing is that I'm sorry if I discouraged anyone from posting here by displaying impatience. I like discussing topics when there is a mutual desire to understand the topic, even when there is disagreement. I do lose patience though when it comes to certain things.

But please don't hesitate to post on-topic questions, opinions or disagreements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I have come across a good example to illustrate my view here: art (and a second example: Playing games).

Most people (even Objectivists) do not understand in what way art promotes man's life, they don't understand the cognitive role it plays nor the role it plays in concretizing ethics and so on. It takes a genius and many years to figure out in what way the value of art actually promotes man's life (man's physical survival).

Yet people need to make decisions all the time about going to see movies, watching T.V. or other art forms. They cannot possibly reduce this subject to "man's life as the standard" in full philosophical terms. The best people can do is notice that art makes them feel enjoyment and perhaps also that it has an overall positive effect on their life long-term (though that is hard to notice as well). So all that is available to most people is that they feel an emotional need for art (music or movies) and that they enjoy it, and the effects it has on their life (does it depress them or encourage them and so on).

People need to make a decision based on that. So, in my view, if a person goes after the enjoyment of art, having considered the total effect it has on their life - they are taking their life as a standard of value. They need not understand that art integrates their conceptual faculty with their senses, nor that art concretizes ethics, nor that it promotes man's physical survival through all these things. That is the task of a philosopher, not of your regular Joe.

What Joe does need to do is make sure that this source of enjoyment has an overall positive effect on their life. If they use art as an escape from reality, for example, then it has a net negative effect on their life, despite the pleasure it might provide in the present. What one needs to keep in mind is one's happiness, both short term and long term and aim for that enjoyment which satisfies both. Art viewed in the right amount provides inspiration - which is both enjoyment in the short-term and improvement of life in the long-term (to contrast with someone who escapes into books or other art forms).

The focus therefore, is one's emotions - the achievement of positive emotions and not one's physical survival (although that is certainly a requirement for being happy). My view is that having this goal in mind and making decisions based on their full consequences and based on the full context IS using one's life as a standard to judge what is of value to one.

Another example is playing games. One may not realize in philosophical terms what role games play in one's life (that they provide a sense of accomplishment and efficacy in a 'short-term' reward environment), and may not see how they have a net positive influence on "man's life". What IS available to one is that playing games is fun. That one enjoys them in the present time of playing them and that one feels well rested as a result. This is enough to make a decision to play qualify as "using one's life as one's standard of value". If, however, one is playing games as an escape from reality and tries to use it to replace productivity (even though one is capable, psychologically to be productive) then one is not using one's life as one's standard of value.

Point being, again, that the meaning of "using life as the standard" is to consider the total effects of something on one's emotions short and long term (= the effects on one's life, since we cash in and experience life through emotions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to games:

... What IS available to one is that playing games is fun. That one enjoys them in the present time of playing them and that one feels well rested as a result.

You aren't doing it right. :confused:

(Fundamentally you are correct. The restfulness lies in breaking up the routine, so it is primarily a mental phenomena as the context makes clear. One can be physically and mentally exhausted from playing a game, and it can still be considered a rest relative to the normal routine of life.)

The spiritual value of a good game performance is specifically the faux productivity. Always preferring faux to real productivity is wrong (don't be a hedonist) and always preferring real to faux productivity is wrong (don't be a Calvinist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good post, Ifatart. I've come to look forward to reading the posts you make here. They are always enlightening.

I'll also take the suggestion you made about how to encourage a child to read as a good rule of thumb for raising children, as I would like to have some someday. If/when that time comes, I want to be prepared, so as to raise a "pure" child, ie raise my children better than I was raised. I can only imagine how unstoppable properly raised Oist children become when they grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to games:

You aren't doing it right. :confused:

(Fundamentally you are correct. The restfulness lies in breaking up the routine, so it is primarily a mental phenomena as the context makes clear. One can be physically and mentally exhausted from playing a game, and it can still be considered a rest relative to the normal routine of life.)

The spiritual value of a good game performance is specifically the faux productivity. Always preferring faux to real productivity is wrong (don't be a hedonist) and always preferring real to faux productivity is wrong (don't be a Calvinist).

Well, that depends on the game (I see your point). But even in games which are demanding, both physically and mentally one still gets recharged by playing, or has a feeling of being rested.

In any case... at the risk of pushing personal publicity - :D - I wrote an essay about the nature of games: Work, games and self esteem. I just noticed I didn't put it up here on Objectivism Online - I'll do it later and then we can have a discussion there (I think it will be a good introductory post for the nature of games, but if you prefer you can start another thread/ find an existing one).

Very good post, Ifatart. I've come to look forward to reading the posts you make here. They are always enlightening.

I'll also take the suggestion you made about how to encourage a child to read as a good rule of thumb for raising children, as I would like to have some someday. If/when that time comes, I want to be prepared, so as to raise a "pure" child, ie raise my children better than I was raised. I can only imagine how unstoppable properly raised Oist children become when they grow up.

Thank you. I'll try to continue to justify this judgment/ feeling in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychologically this view of morality puts a wedge between his self esteem and desires; because he needs to choose if he wants to be good and obedient, or pursue his own desires and goals and give up being good (which means to give up self-esteem).

Like Craig Biddle put it, in altruism being good isn't good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...