Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Figuring out my standards

Rate this topic


Barquentine

Recommended Posts

Upon leaping onto the first beginner step, I have come to realize with the help of a friend that I need to answer a basic question, which is:

How can I possibly choose something over another if I do not have a standard to base the decision on?

How can I have any preferences at all, for that matter?

I guess I can make a decision by listing the pros and cons of both sides, drawing upon anecdotal evidence from past decisions and making use of facts and knowledge to deduce the best choice.

I can discount for the sake of this exercise that referrring to anecdotal proof isn't a valid decision making tool because to have made that decision means I needed to have used the first or the last techniques I mentioned.

The same can be said for the first tool. To weight the pros and cons means I need to already have an idea of what is true and false.

So I guess the only way I can make decisions is by using things that I know to be definitely true.

I know the chain doesn't end there, but for now I think I made progress.

Let me know if I'm on the right track please

Barquentine

Edited by Barquentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this question about choices in general or the choice to pursue life specifically? Once one has made the choice to pursue their own life, then that becomes the standard by which other choices are guided by. If you are asking about the choice to live, there isn't really a standard one uses to judge what you should pick initially, the choice is made without a question of shoulds or shouldn't. As to why the choice to live is so typical and the choice to just give up and die is so relatively rare instead of it being about a 50/50 ratio of people aiming to live and people laying down to wait for death, that may require specialized sciences perhaps to answer that.

Purely speculation, but I've mentioned elsewhere my hypothesis. I suspect that early in life one is incapable of taking control over whether one dies or lives since parents typically are taking care of babies and the babies are pretty much immobile and unable to and thus for a while one has to give life a trial run. Along the way they find some experiences life has to offer to be pleasant, like tasty food and a comfortable bed. Then once they are capable of making their own choices they already have things they have found in life that they want to keep getting more of which means having to keep living to do so. I don't know how one would have to go about gathering hard evidence for something like this, but it sounds sensible and plausible to me at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this question about choices in general or the choice to pursue life specifically? Once one has made the choice to pursue their own life, then that becomes the standard by which other choices are guided by. If you are asking about the choice to live, there isn't really a standard one uses to judge what you should pick initially, the choice is made without a question of shoulds or shouldn't. As to why the choice to live is so typical and the choice to just give up and die is so relatively rare instead of it being about a 50/50 ratio of people aiming to live and people laying down to wait for death, that may require specialized sciences perhaps to answer that.

Purely speculation, but I've mentioned elsewhere my hypothesis. I suspect that early in life one is incapable of taking control over whether one dies or lives since parents typically are taking care of babies and the babies are pretty much immobile and unable to and thus for a while one has to give life a trial run. Along the way they find some experiences life has to offer to be pleasant, like tasty food and a comfortable bed. Then once they are capable of making their own choices they already have things they have found in life that they want to keep getting more of which means having to keep living to do so. I don't know how one would have to go about gathering hard evidence for something like this, but it sounds sensible and plausible to me at least.

this is completely wrong and misguided. you've completely misunderstood and misrepresented the philosophical issues here

suffice to say BC's philosophy is best characterized as deathist. personally I think deathism is obviously irrational (and horrifying), and I do not think objectivism is compatible with any sort of deathism.

Barq, these kinds of issues that I raised with you (that is, the one's you're asking about in this thread) are addressed in The Objectivist Ethics by Ayn Rand, so I would suggest you read that before proceeding.

Edited by epistemologue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me what you contend I misconstrued specifically. I'd especially like you to specify what about this is "deathist." Nothing in there was "pro-death." I most certainly didn't say anything like, "Hey, go ahead, kill yourself, there's no logical imperative not to so you may as well!" If you think that is what I said then it is you who has misconstrued me. That I think you cannot judge what one should do according to the standard of life before one actually chooses to live does not mean anybody is about to go change their minds based upon this about which they have chosen among life or death. I already gave you an idea I have on how and why people would typically choose to live. You don't need to be logically or otherwise compelled to live - thanks to evolution, life supporting stuff gives us pleasure, death supporting stuff gives us pain and that is plenty to tip the scales toward getting people to want to choose life early on. As time goes by pursuing life more potential for greater pleasures is found which reinforces the desire to live. I think the built in capacity for pleasure in pursuing life is why people are typically choosing it even in the absence of anything telling them they must do so. After all, it makes evolutionary sense. If we had to count on proper philosophic knowledge just to to get us a better than 50/50 ratio of people choosing to live versus choosing to die then the chances of the human species lasting long enough to develop that philosophy are pretty darn low. So people are choosing to live and then philosophy comes into the picture and it doesn't need to be otherwise. We've been doing plenty well on the choosing to live part for ages now. It's the part about how to best pursue life after making that choice that has just been poorly understood for so long and which was in need of vast improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me know if I'm on the right track please.
I'm not quite sure if I understood your post. Are you saying that you're listing pros and cons for various choices and potential values? For instance, taking something you do today or are contemplating doing (say, playing some instrument, or choosing some course of study), are you trying to list the pros and cons of these activities? Edited by softwareNerd
Grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

suffice to say BC's philosophy is best characterized as deathist. personally I think deathism is obviously irrational (and horrifying), and I do not think objectivism is compatible with any sort of deathism.

It's not 'deathist' to say that one cannot be logically argued into valuing one's life. Either you do, or you don't. Given that you do, then philosophy can establish a standard to guide your actions, based on what is good for your life or bad. However, the ultimate given is the fact that you choose to live.

I think all that is a little beside the point with regards to the question. Although it's unclear, the question seems to focus on the standard to guide one's life, given this choice has been made. To answer that question, the only coherent standard is to organize your life and values around what is good for you personally: a fulfilling career, rewarding friendships, healthy living habits, etc. Some of this is objective and universal, and some of it depends on your preferences and personality. Rand's ethics is an attempt to outline the universal principles that one must adhere to in order to live well, so I'd go there for more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not 'deathist' to say that one cannot be logically argued into valuing one's life. Either you do, or you don't. Given that you do, then philosophy can establish a standard to guide your actions, based on what is good for your life or bad. However, the ultimate given is the fact that you choose to live.

I think all that is a little beside the point with regards to the question. Although it's unclear, the question seems to focus on the standard to guide one's life, given this choice has been made. To answer that question, the only coherent standard is to organize your life and values around what is good for you personally: a fulfilling career, rewarding friendships, healthy living habits, etc. Some of this is objective and universal, and some of it depends on your preferences and personality. Rand's ethics is an attempt to outline the universal principles that one must adhere to in order to live well, so I'd go there for more information.

I completely disagree with everything you said here except your very last sentence. Just for the record

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...