Why bother studying philosophy?

[Ed from OC]

I think that all of one's actions ought to be integrated to one's central purpose in life, which may differ from person to person. However, making sure your choices all further your central purpose rather than hinder it is a matter of ethics. So I still think ethics applies to all choices, not just some.

How does saying "ethics applies to all choices" equate with "all choices are ethical issues?"

As I wrote: all choices should be consistent with one's ethics, but that does not mean all choices are in themselves ethical ones.

A question: do you believe there are optional values? These are values that lie within a range of options, but philosophy offers no means of ranking one option above another.

One example is choice of career. Ethics won't tell you which specific career to pursue. It can rule out some (mobster, drug dealer, tax collector), but beyond that, it cannot say a doctor or ditch digger is more moral than, say, an architect or scientist.

[Inspector]

A question: do you believe there are optional values?  These are values that lie within a range of options, but philosophy offers no means of ranking one option above another.

One example is choice of career.  Ethics won't tell you which specific career to pursue.  It can rule out some (mobster, drug dealer, tax collector), but beyond that, it cannot say a doctor or ditch digger is more moral than, say, an architect or scientist.

I don't believe in optional values. I think that for each person, there is a correct choice for each choice. Not everyone should choose to be an astronaut, but "Bill," who is good at the job and enjoys it, should be one.

I don't think that it is arbitrary what I even have for dinner. There is a best choice. Sometimes, I find it and am rewarded. Others I do not and am not. This is not to say that there is ONE right choice for everyone; since context is differant for each person and since their biological makeup and the contents of their minds differ slightly in innumerable ways.

So, for an individual, ethics WILL tell him the proper career, if he thinks about it long enough and draws all the right connections. The phrase "Know Thyself" comes to mind...

[Free Capitalist]

That's a rather dangerous view, Inspector. If you are good at being an astronaut, and enjoy it, it would be wrong to say that you ought to be an astronaut. I prefer to say, it would be a good choice. What if you're also good at engineering design, and enjoy spending days in the office, creating new machine designs? That is also a good choice. Why must there be one answer and one ultimate choice? Why is that a desirable state of mind, why is that the ultimate goal of "knowing thyself"?

What you eat for dinner is not arbitrary, but there's no one food that is right for you at that moment. What if I have sushi and a steak? That seems like a monkeywrench in your theory. Plus I just don't see the intention behind it.

[Inspector]

That's a rather dangerous view, Inspector. If you are good at being an astronaut, and enjoy it, it would be wrong to say that you ought to be an astronaut. I prefer to say, it would be a good choice.

Why would it be wrong? Why, other than a desire for subjectivism, would you prefer to say that? In my example, I am assuming that the full context is known and that being an astronaut is the best of all available choices open to "Bill." Would you still say that it is improper to say that he "should" become an astronaut?

And what is dangerous about it?

What if you're also good at engineering design, and enjoy spending days in the office, creating new machine designs? That is also a good choice. Why must there be one answer and one ultimate choice?

Because that is the nature of reality: either or. Since one can only make ONE choice (law of identity) then one must understand that there exists a single BEST choice and one should strive to make it. Given the complexities of the world, I think if someone comes CLOSE, then they're doing pretty good... but they still should acknowledge that for a given person in a given context, there is ONE, single BEST choice and all others are inferior.

Why is that a desirable state of mind

Why is what a desirable state of mind? I don't know what "that" refers to in your statement.

, why is that the ultimate goal of "knowing thyself"?

The ultimate goal of knowing thyself is to make the best possible choices. The goal of that is to support one's life in the best, most complete and rational way. The support of one's life (in the full context) is, of course, the ultimate goal of everyone. Perhaps I didn't understand your question?

What you eat for dinner is not arbitrary, but there's no one food that is right for you at that moment. What if I have sushi and a steak? That seems like a monkeywrench in your theory.

Your confusion is because you don't understand what I said. I did not say that there was one perfect FOOD, but that there was one perfect CHOICE. So "sushi and steak" IS a single choice.

Plus I just don't see the intention behind it.

The intention is to live the best life possible.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Inspector:

I must say that I love what you've said so far.

In general, I would like to say something about happiness. Although I am happier than I used to be, much more, I am not as happy as I am capable of. Until my chosen career is a more central part of my life, I don't think I can integrate the state of happiness I know is possible to me. I think it is a moral imperative that people actively investigate what careers best suit them. This is the tragedy I see in most people I meet.

My career is that which my mind always goes back to; to get back to it, is what fuels my life.

I think the Objectivist philosopher has the potential to be the happiest man around. An Objectivist philosopher all things being equal will be inherently more happier than an Objectivist physicist, let's say. What are peoples reactions to that statement?

Americo.

[Inspector]

Inspector:

I must say that I love what you've said so far.

Thank you. Just remember to keep context. The best possible career may not be an available choice for you to make at a given moment; so long as you choose the best among the choices available to you, you are doing the right thing and you will enjoy life the most that you can.

I think the Objectivist philosopher has the potential to be the happiest man around.  An Objectivist philosopher all things being equal will be inherently more happier than an Objectivist physicist, let's say.  What are peoples reactions to that statement?

That would really depend on the person. Galt, for example, could have chosen pure philosophy, but instead he chose an applied field. I think he made the right choice for him. Maybe it's just that that is what you would personally rather do? Or maybe it's what is more needed in the world right now to make it right?

[Patrick N.]

Inspector:

I must say that I love what you've said so far.

In general, I would like to say something about happiness.  Although I am happier than I used to be, much more, I am not as happy as I am capable of.  Until my chosen career is a more central part of my life, I don't think I can integrate the state of happiness I know is possible to me.  I think it is a moral imperative that people actively investigate what careers best suit them.  This is the tragedy I see in most people I meet.

My career is that which my mind always goes back to; to get back to it, is what fuels my life.

I think the Objectivist philosopher has the potential to be the happiest man around.  An Objectivist philosopher all things being equal will be inherently more happier than an Objectivist physicist, let's say.  What are peoples reactions to that statement?

Americo.

To be an Objectivist philosopher is my chosen goal. I still have a long way to go, however.

[BurgessLau]

I think the Objectivist philosopher has the potential to be the happiest man around.  An Objectivist philosopher all things being equal will be inherently more happier than an Objectivist physicist, let's say.

What is your argument in favor of believing that an Objectivist philosopher can be inherently happier than an Objectivist physicist?

What do you mean by "happiness"?

[Free Capitalist]

Why, other than a desire for subjectivism, would you prefer to say that?

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this, shall we? I have exchanged quite a few posts with you in the past, and although you often have had good insights, you hardly qualify for an aged wise sage who has spent decades learning about philosophy, and about people. You make it sound as if you have the experience of the ages behind you, and that this tremendously vast experience suggests to you that nothing else could be behind a statement like mine other than "a desire for subjectivism". Plus, I'd have thought that knowing me from our past discussions would at least hinder, if not impede, your excessive willingness to cast out accusations.

Your argument is essentially as follows:

Premise:

Since one can only make ONE choice

Conclusion:

then one must understand that there exists a single BEST choice

This is a non sequitur. The premise is correct, but the conclusion does not follow. Try again, or clarify the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

I may have makings of a astronaut, loving adventure, astronautical science, weightlessness, and I also may have makings of an engineer, abhorring the danger and stress of being in space and preferring the sedate and peaceful office environment where I can deal with schematics without any disturbances.

If I am forced to make a "then and there" choice between the two, then of course I will make the best choice for that situation based on my current mood, my current values, etc. But moods change, and values often shift within one's value hierarchy, even during a single day. Just because I will make a preference of one over the other in that stressful situation does not mean that the profession I chose is the best for me, period.

In some things there is precision, and there are "best" alternatives. In other things precision is undesirable because it breeds things like rationalism, and this is one of such cases. You say that all you need is a bunch of premises and you will be able to dole out a conclusion for what everyone ought to be, based upon a long chain of syllogisms.

The intention is to live the best life possible.

If that's the intention, as it ought to be, then I highly doubt your advice is the best way to achieve it (no pun intended).

[Inspector]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of this, shall we?

Alright, but you didn't HAVE to take that as a personal attack. I was commenting more that I did not know what would prompt you to say such a thing, besides the attitude that I stated.

A person with a desire for subjectivism, after all, would very much like to evade the fact that a person must make choices and that he must make the best choice he possibly can. Such a person would in fact like to say "well, choices don't matter... it's all a matter of preference, and preferences aren't objective. I needn't bother expending the effort to make choices, since they are all the same."

I see a lot of that in what you were saying. Does that mean that you are necessarily saying it to endorse subjectivism? No, not at all. That's why I said, "Why, other than a desire for subjectivism, would you say that?" I didn't say: "other than YOUR desire for subjectivism." I wasn't saying that you had such a desire. I was asking "why would you say such a thing?"

So calm down. I'm not attacking you. I just don't see where you're coming from.

This is a non sequitur. The premise is correct, but the conclusion does not follow. Try again, or clarify the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

Okay, that I can try. One's ultimate and final purpose is the choice: live or die. You and I agree that we have chosen to live, correct?

If so, then all decisions will affect this along a continuum. Most everything is not pure life or pure death, but everything will net out to some point on the continuum. For any given decision, there exist a number of choices and each choice exists somewhere on this continuum.

Therefore, for a person that has chosen life, there exists an ethical obligation to make the BEST choice; the choice that MOST supports life.

If you are suggesting that some choices are VERY CLOSE to each other in their value, then this is possible and often true. But that does NOT mean that they are exactly the same and that there does not exist a single BEST choice. It is most often quite complex, and it is the obligation of the individual to sort out these complexities and make his choices.

If I am forced to make a "then and there" choice between the two, then of course I will make the best choice for that situation based on my current mood, my current values, etc.

Yes, I did say "within a given context." I did NOT say that there existed some kind of "best choice as a floating absolute."

But moods change, and values often shift within one's value hierarchy, even during a single day. Just because I will make a preference of one over the other in that stressful situation does not mean that the profession I chose is the best for me, period.

I never said you weren't fallible, sir. I said that there existed a best choice for you to make. Ethically speaking, your only means of making it are in context and with the knowledge you have. That is the best choice that it is possible for you to make (though not always the one with the best outcome for you, given limited knowledge).

We need only concern ourselves about making the best choice possible to us given our knowledge and our context. It would be silly to feel guilty for not making a choice based on knowledge you did not have.

In some things there is precision, and there are "best" alternatives. In other things precision is undesirable because it breeds things like rationalism, and this is one of such cases.

No, in everything there is precision, because that is the very nature of the universe. A is A. A is PRECISELY A. Choices are the same.

You say that all you need is a bunch of premises and you will be able to dole out a conclusion for what everyone ought to be, based upon a long chain of syllogisms.

When did I say that? Just because there exists a best choice for a given person in a given situation does not mean that I presume to know WHAT THAT CHOICE IS! It is the responsibility of each individual to find the best choice and to choose it.

If that's the intention, as it ought to be, then I highly doubt your advice is the best way to achieve it (no pun intended).

That is my intention, and I would like to know why not. Also, what is your intention? You never answered me there. If not a desire for subjectivism, then what? Why the insistance that there is no best choice, if not to say "well, I couldn't help not making the best choice." I mean that question honestly, and not as an insult.

[Free Capitalist]

First you said,

for a person that has chosen life, there exists an ethical obligation to make the BEST choice; the choice that MOST supports life.

But then you said,

I did NOT say that there existed some kind of "best choice as a floating absolute."

Both of the quotes above are true. However you again seem to be using the first quote out of context, and showing that you are advocating the claim you reject in the second quote. I will explain more below.

I never said you weren't fallible, sir. I said that there existed a best choice for you to make.

I never said you said I was infallible. But fallibility is not even an issue here. Saying that our values are constantly shifting, that what one considers to be important at any specific moment may change the next, is not a confession of some ethical or epistemological fallibility. To put it bluntly, if my values of being an astronaut and being an engineer are sufficiently close to one another, it will literally be BEST for me to be an astronaut one minute, and an engineer the next; but there will not necessarily be an ultimate winner between the two, the one choice of the two that remains in the ring. This is where you are taking your first quote out of context. To reconcile the situation I just described, choosing either occupation will be good enough for a happy and moral life. Nothing further is required than to look at one's set of highest values and pick amongst them, without trying to determine which one is higher up on one's hierarchy of values at any concrete moment. There's no moral imperative to find that one value that edges out all others by a teeny-eensy-winsy margin; not only that, but such an attempt is often simply impossible, as I showed with my example of astronaut vs. engineer, and may actually seriously frustrate a person's attempts to achieve his goals of moral improvement.

No, in everything there is precision, because that is the very nature of the universe. A is A. A is PRECISELY A. Choices are the same.

No offense, but that's exactly what a rationalist would say. A is A, therefore... you can map out my whole life, if you have a full and complete knowledge of me and my values.

That is my intention, and I would like to know why not.

Because you are running the risk of rationalism, and therefore of dogmatism.

Also, what is your intention? You never answered me there.

My intention is very obvious - to avoid rationalism by admitting that sometimes trying to find two good answers to an ethical problem is better than trying to find one perfect one. I was taught this important lesson by the Greeks when I started studying their philosophy and culture. I think many non-expert students of Objectivism would do very well to study it; if they did, then the rest of the world would have little evidence for accusing Objectivism of being a dogmatic philosophy, or a religion. Whatever else one might say about Greek philosophy, it would be impossible to make any argument that would accuse them of dogmatism. Greek philosophy was highly inductive and its way of thinking very organic; I've found them to have a lot to teach me, a lot Ayn Rand speaks nothing about, while still remaining an admirer of Ayn Rand and an earnest student of Objectivism.

And also you shouldn't discount my argument by saying that the accusations of the world against Objectivist students are irrelevant. In some sense they aren't, because they are reflections of the Objectivist face to the outside. The world cannot make any arguments against the Greeks being dogmatic, no matter whatever else it accuses them of. As I said above, such an argument would simply be impossible, and no one would even think of making it. Why do you think that is?

The world can can make such accusations about many students of Objectivism, and therefore, unfortunately, about the philosophy they misunderstand. Not only can it, but it has made many such arguments against the philosophy, and in fact is probably the single most popular accusation made against its visible proponents (high school and college students). Why do you think that is?

The answer, contrary to what you may provide, is not self-righteous.

[Inspector]

Both of the quotes above are true. However you again seem to be using the first quote out of context, and showing that you are advocating the claim you reject in the second quote. I will explain more below.

Sorry, but your explanation still has not made it clear to me what you mean.

But fallibility is not even an issue here. The fact, that our values are constantly shifting, the fact that what one considers to be important at any current moment constantly changes, is not an admission of some kind of ethical or epistemological fallibility.

I wonder what you mean by saying that "our values are constantly shifting." An Objectivist's values, fundamentally speaking, should NOT be constantly shifting. And the lesser values; the ones that are existants and not concepts, change only when context changes.

When context changes.

Now, I will remind you that I said that "within a given context." At the very precise MOMENT of a choice, there exists a single best choice that one could make at that moment.

THAT is all I meant. And, I think you will see, it is clean of the rationalism you fear.

it will literally be best for me to be an astronaut one minute, and an engineer the next.

That is entirely possible and entirely consistant with what I said.

In the situation I just described, choosing either occupation will be good enough for a happy and moral life.

Again correct. That does not mean that both of them are the BEST choice. That is impossible. They could both be very good choices and also be very close to each other in the continuum. But one is still, by some tiny fraction, better. I never said it was worth losing any sleep over.

No offense, but that's exactly what a rationalist would say. A is A, therefore... you can map out my whole life, if you have a full and complete knowledge of me and my values.

That may well be what a rationalist might say, but I am not a rationalist. Yet I have said it, and it is true. I know of no way to acquire and process that amount of data, however. I doubt it is possible and furthermore that is not at all where I was going with what I was saying.

My intention is very obvious - to avoid rationalism by admitting that sometimes trying to find two good answers to an ethical problem is better than trying to find one perfect one.

I never said that the answer that someone should choose is that floating abstraction that will produce the best results but which someone has no way of knowing. I am saying that a person can and should choose the best answer his knowledge and context can give him. Even if I get it down to two good answers, I can't have them both. A is A: I can choose A and by doing so I eliminate the choice of B. So I must have a means, other than flipping a coin, of choosing. And I say that a responsible, rational individual will attempt to see which answer is BETTER and to choose that one.

And I am not so afraid of being dogmatic that I would run too far in the other direction and be TOO willing to compromise my values. I don't presume to know where you are on that continuum, FC, but comments about one's values being "constantly shifting" in nature do worry me.

The answer, contrary to what you may provide, is not self-righteous.

So what is it, then?

[stephen_speicher]

I don't believe in optional values. I think that for each person, there is a correct choice for each choice.

Should I spend 35 seconds or 36 seconds flossing my teeth? What is the "correct choice?"

You might want to think a bit about what Ed said. Or, see Leonard Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course for more detail on fundamental or primary values, and optional values.

[stephen_speicher]

Why would it be wrong? Why, other than a desire for subjectivism, would you prefer to say that? In my example, I am assuming that the full context is known and that being an astronaut is the best of all available choices open to "Bill." Would you still say that it is improper to say that he "should" become an astronaut?

A more important question might be: Why would an accusation of subjectivism be the only judgment that you make? You even admit that you were assuming a fuller context than the one which you specified, and it was to the context you specified that the reply was made.

[Inspector]

Should I spend 35 seconds or 36 seconds flossing my teeth? What is the "correct choice?"

You guys are not grasping what I am saying.

That's for you to decide. One is better than the other. That doesn't mean it is worth the effort on your part to figure out which is which. Just because values are close to each other does not mean that they are exactly the same. You can say that they are, for intents and purposes, but that's not what he said.

Basically, my point is that while values, and therefore choices, can be CLOSE to each other, that does not mean that they are EXACTLY THE SAME, which is what they would have to be in order for one to say that they are OPTIONAL.

You might want to think a bit about what Ed said. Or, see Leonard Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course for more detail on fundamental or primary values, and optional values.

Well, what do you and he mean by "optional?" You seem to be using it to mean something other than what I am taking from it... that could be the source of the confusion here.

[Inspector]

A more important question might be: Why would an accusation of subjectivism be the only judgment that you make? You even admit that you were assuming a fuller context than the one which you specified, and it was to the context you specified that the reply was made.

I've handled this in my reply to him. It's not an accusation. I saw it as a possibility and I mentioned it, just as he mentioned dogmatism as a possibility. We're just looking out for each other, not hurling insults.

[RationalBiker]

If you are suggesting that some choices are VERY CLOSE to each other in their value, then this is possible and often true. But that does NOT mean that they are exactly the same and that there does not exist a single BEST choice. It is most often quite complex, and it is the obligation of the individual to sort out these complexities and make his choices.

Prove that no two choices can have the same exact value. This seems to be your assertion so you must have proof, unless you are just expressing your opinion.

[Inspector]

Prove that no two choices can have the same exact value.  This seems to be your assertion so you must have proof, unless you are just expressing your opinion.

I was going on the idea that no two existants could be exactly the same, so therefore no two values could be, either. It's not a very strong connection and I welcome examination.

[Free Capitalist]

You are missing my point.

Take this example: At one point in time, you read my post and it is important for you to reply to me. A reply to me is currently high, for example's sake, on your hierarchy of values, so you go ahead and post one. Then, when I reply back to you, you read what I said and get frustrated with my response. You still feel it is important for you to reply to me, but you also feel you need to get over this frustration, plus you haven't had anything to eat yet, so you give it a rest until later that day, when replying to me is once again high enough on your hierarchy of values for you to pursue that course over others you could be doing.

That values constantly shift and alternate in relation to one another is not some unusual theory of mine, it is an empirical fact, quickly demonstrable through introspection.

Objective values are no different. Imagine a troll poster shows up on this forum, making wonderfully insightful arguments but still showing his intention to be inappropriate for a forum like this. You may value his rationality and his ability to connect the dots higher than his immaturity. Plus it seems like this poster is young, so you have some hope that you can convince him to change his aims, and his demeanor.

Let's imagine for this example that my values are different: though I am impressed by his ability to make connections, I cannot tolerate his irascability one bit, and although I too think that he can be improved with time, I simply cannot be bothered to do it, or tolerate his further participation on the forum. I value rationality, but in this example I value his rationality less than I value a forum unperturbed by annoying wannabes.

Tomorrow I have a wonderful day, and I am tolerant just a bit more, so if another poster just like that shows up, I may be willing to give him a little more slack, because I value his rational contributions more than my annoyance at him.

Etc.

So when you ask my hypothetical character whether he wants to be an astronaut or an engineer, the answer is that both are fine. At one point he wants to be one, at another point another, and this is perfectly fine if they are both near one another on his hierarchy of values (I'm not talking about people whose values are very far from one another, and swing to and from as if these people have a bi-polar disorder).

So in this guy's case, finding that one ultimate value is positively impossible. And if he's a young kid, and your advice is an important authority for him, you may screw him up because you will demand he make a choice between the two, and will accuse him of one sin or another, and inspire guilt in him, if he is unable to do that.

Now do you see my motivation?

[stephen_speicher]

You guys are not grasping what I am saying.

That may or may not be true, but it is clear to me that you have not grasped what Ed and others have said to you. You seem to be expressing a view that every choice or value is either correct and objective or arbitrary and subjective, either absolutely necessitated by the facts or completely disconnected from them. But in the cognitive realm not all choices you make, or values you seek, are so determined. Under many circumstances there is an optional range in regard to choice and value.

In ITOE Ayn Rand points out that the cognitive choice for classification under a particular concept is optional for the transitional shades of a color continuum. On what basis would you decide the "correct" choice? This is similarly true for an entire range of choices we make and values we seek; some of our values are primary and fundamental, while others are optional values.

[Inspector]

That values constantly shift and alternate in relation to one another is not some unusual theory of mine, it is an empirical fact, quickly demonstrable through introspection.

I suspected that was what you meant. I would not phrase it that way, however. It is not one's values that are constantly shifting, but one's evaluations.

So when you ask my hypothetical character whether he wants to be an astronaut or an engineer, the answer is that both are fine.

Agreed, both are fine. But both are not, strictly speaking, optional in the sense that there is no difference between them. There may be little practical difference, but that does not mean there is none at all.

Now do you see my motivation?

Yes, I see that now. Actually, I figured that was what you were getting at, but I could not come up with a way to express that the issues were often minute and were not worth getting guilty over. I certainly don't go around being guilty, nor do I recommend it.

[stephen_speicher]

I've handled this in my reply to him. It's not an accusation.

I see now (I had not read ahead) that it was taken as a personal insult, and rightfully so.

[Inspector]

That may or may not be true, but it is clear to me that you have not grasped what Ed and others have said to you. You seem to be expressing a view that every choice or value is either correct and objective or arbitrary and subjective, either absolutely necessitated by the facts or completely disconnected from them. But in the cognitive realm not all choices you make, or values you seek, are so determined. Under many circumstances there is an optional range in regard to choice and value.

In ITOE Ayn Rand points out that the cognitive choice for classification under a particular concept is optional for the transitional shades of a color continuum. On what basis would you decide the "correct" choice? This is similarly true for an entire range of choices we make and values we seek; some of our values are primary and fundamental, while others are optional values.

I was correct; I don't think I understand how you are using the word "optional." Regarding the color spectrum, I always assumed that Rand meant that it was an optional/abitrary choice given what we know about colors... not that it was truly optional/arbitrary.

Er, before we proceed, how does optional differ from arbitrary? That seems to be what I am stuck on.

[Inspector]

I've handled this in my reply to him. It's not an accusation.

I see now (I had not read ahead) that it was taken as a personal insult, and rightfully so.

Yes, and I replied to it as well, as you will hopefully see.

[Inspector]

Re: brushing teeth example:

Further pondering produced the following:

The choice of 38 or 39 seconds is not an arbitrary choice. Rather, the knowledge of which is the better option is not economic to obtain. Thus, it is in your interests to choose one of them without expending too much effort. A mental coin flip or whatever. I don't see how this is "optional."

An "optional" choice would be one in which 38 or 39 seconds produced the exact same result in the complete sense, right down to the very atoms of the universe. That is not the case. Unless you are using the word "optional" for the sake of expedience. As in: not optional in the absolute, but just optional as far as the individual is concerned.

I have also heard "optional" as meaning that something is complex and is up to the individual to decide: as in the astronaut example. I didn't think that Rand meant such choices were not open to ethical judgment.