Value: To "act" or "seek", that is the question.

[RSalar]

I have just finished listening to Dr. Peikoff’s "Reminiscences," and he explains (track 21) that Ayn changed her definition of "value" from "that which one seeks to gain or keep," to "that which one acts to gain or keep." I would be interested in discussing the significance and implications of the change. All living organisms “act” to gain the necessities of life, so is it proper to say that plants “value” water? Doesn't a living organism need to be conscious in order to value something? Am I confusing a noun with a verb, or what is going on here?

[Felix]

I have just finished listening to Dr. Peikoff’s "Reminiscences," and he explains (track 21) that Ayn changed her definition of "value" from "that which one seeks to gain or keep," to "that which one acts to gain or keep." I would be interested in discussing the significance and implications of the change. All living organisms “act” to gain the necessities of life, so is it proper to say that plants “value” water? Doesn't a living organism need to be conscious in order to value something? Am I confusing a noun with a verb, or what is going on here?

I suppose this difference lies in the fact that the things you actually act to gain or keep are obviously your values. The rest can be just lip service. That's my interpretation. I never read/listened to (is it just audio?) 'Reminiscences', so this is all I can say, I suppose.

The other question you raise is the relation between action and volition. If values are only existent for living beings (and a plant is a living being), they act to achieve their values. Therefore water is a value to plants.

One reason Rand may have chosen 'act' over 'seek' may be that 'seek' could be mistaken as volitional. Telling that a plant 'seeks' something would mean anthropomorphism. I guess that's why she changed it.

[softwareNerd]

I once attended a seminar by Andrew Bernstein, where he spoke about values and action. The point he was making might have been different from the reason Ayn Rand changed her definition. Still, I will throw it out there because it is something worth remembering.

Values, Dr. Bernstein pointed out (my paraphrase) are not something to which one pays lip service. You love your wife: how? Do you take actions that mesh with that? You say money is a value to you: well, what have you done to earn some? If one asks: "what values do you seek? ", the answer may sometimes not be the same as if one asks: "what values are you actively seeking (i.e. taking action toward acheiving)?" It is a psychological difference rather than a philosophical one. Psychologically, using the term "act", does not let the thinker break into a thought-vs-action split.

[RSalar]

One reason Rand may have chosen 'act' over 'seek' may be that 'seek' could be mistaken as volitional. Telling that a plant 'seeks' something would mean anthropomorphism. I guess that's why she changed it.

I guess I would have thought about that differently. I wouldn't have said that plants "seek" things; I would have said that plants do not seek things. And if plants do not seek things, they do not value things (this follows logically from her first definition). But if all a plant (or any living thing) has to do is “act to gain or keep” something for it to be a value, then they do value things. It seems a little odd to say that plants have values. Like many things that she declared, this seems a little "different," but that doesn't mean she was wrong. And I may be unintentionally misrepresenting what she meant by these terms.

[RSalar]

Values, Dr. Bernstein pointed out (my paraphrase) are not something to which one pays lip service.

Does the reciprocal also hold true; that which I do not act to gain or keep I do not value? I value my freedom of speech, but I do not act to gain or keep it. The government is gradually violating many of our rights and freedoms--we do value them, but do we always take action to protect them?

I never read/listened to (is it just audio?) 'Reminiscences', so this is all I can say, I suppose.

Centenary Reminiscences of Ayn Rand By Leonard Peikoff Ayn Rand Bookstore

[KevinD]

Does the reciprocal also hold true; that which I do not act to gain or keep I do not value?

Keeping in mind that a human being can only act within the realm of the possible, the answer is emphatically YES.

Perhaps a prisoner of war has an excuse; this side of a bamboo cage, if you want to claim to "value" a thing, you'd better be DOING something to achieve and/or maintain it.

A person who openly acknowledges that he's doing nothing — that he's sitting by idly while the things he purportedly values are being maligned, attacked and destroyed — is, simply put, not a valuer in any important (or even any unimportant) sense of the term.

Edited October 15, 2005 by Kevin Delaney

[rohan]

I wouldn't have said that plants "seek" things; I would have said that plants do not seek things. And if plants do not seek things, they do not value things (this follows logically from her first definition). But if all a plant (or any living thing) has to do is “act to gain or keep” something for it to be a value, then they do value things. It seems a little odd to say that plants have values. Like many things that she declared, this seems a little "different," but that doesn't mean she was wrong. And I may be unintentionally misrepresenting what she meant by these terms.

The point would be, whether the plants volitionally act to gain water? Do the plants have volition in this matter(or in any other matter, in fact)?

I believe to volitionally act to gain water would be to "seek" water, in the present context.

However, in the case of a man, one who seeks things/values, but does not act to gain them, does not value them.

Edited October 15, 2005 by rohan

[JMeganSnow]

It seems a little odd to say that plants have values.

They do, just not conscious values; they act automatically to ensure their survival. Automatic values are possible.

[dondigitalia]

They do, just not conscious values; they act automatically to ensure their survival. Automatic values are possible.

We have some automatic values ourselves. Just look at oxygen. Our pursuit of oxygen, for all practical purposes, is just like the values of a plant. (Except, of course, that we can choose not to pursue it.)

[JMeganSnow]

Not without drastic measures . . . you can't hold your breath until you die, because first you pass out and start breathing again. But you could, say, drown yourself.

[dondigitalia]

Not without drastic measures . . . you can't hold your breath until you die, because first you pass out and start breathing again. But you could, say, drown yourself.

Or do the old hose-from-the-exhaust-pipe routine. Or any other number of things.

[jwoolcutt]

It may be that values require action, but must that action be physical? I'm thinking of the prisoner scenario (which by extension can apply to many people without the immediate capacity to perform some specific action). Perhaps the action taken by the prisoner is mental--rehearsing his beliefs or formulating a plan upon his release. In fact thinking is a physical process (it happens in reality and accordingly with the function of the brain), but of course my point is that this "mental" process does constitue action.

It would be impossible to speak out or act on every possible human rights violation that occurs which doesn't mean you don't value human rights. It just means that you were not aware of it or you made a judgement to do something else--like going to your job--than to, say, rally against the latest infringement of the freedom of speech.

[RSalar]

They do, just not conscious values; they act automatically to ensure their survival. Automatic values are possible.

AR -vos_p16: ""Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."

I have to go back and list again to Dr, Peikoff's explaination of why Ayn changed her definition, because it would seem from the above quote that Ayn intented there to be volition involved.

Note: I obtained the quote from Oliver Computing's excellent CD --"The Objectivist Research CD_ROM" and I highly recomend it. You can search virtually everything she wrote for a word. In this case I selected Virtue of Selfishness (because I knew that is where the term, "value" was defined), typed "value" in the search window and clicked Query. Bingo - every instance of the term "value" is highlighted and you can move from one to the other. You can also copy and paste directly from the CD. http://objectivism.net/order_cdrom.htm

[dondigitalia]

AR -vos_p16: ""Value" is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible."

Both Ayn Rand and Dr. Peikoff, while using the "acts" definition, refer to automatic values.

From "The Virtue of Selfishness," page 19:

"A plant has no choice of action; the goals it pursues are automatic and innate, determined by its nature. Nourishment, water, sunlight are the values it's nature has set it to seek." (emphasis mine)

I haven't heard the lecture you mention, but I have a hunch that the reason Ayn Rand switched definitions to emphasize tha values are gained and/or kept through action, rather than just wanting them.

In answer to jwoolcut: Yes, some values are gained and/or kept through non-physical action; some values though physical action; most values through a combination of the two.

[RSalar]

I haven't heard the lecture you mention, but I have a hunch that the reason Ayn Rand switched definitions to emphasize tha values are gained and/or kept through action, rather than just wanting them.

Seek:

1. To try to locate or discover; search for.

2. To endeavor to obtain or reach: seek a college education.

3. To go to or toward: Water seeks its own level.

4. To inquire for; request: seek directions from a police officer.

5. To try; endeavor: seek to do good.

6. Obsolete. To explore.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

"Seek" seems to imply action for a specific purpose--it implies volitional choice.

Maybe there is no significant difference between the two different definitions and she just chose one over the other. It is interesting that Dr. Peikoff specifically stated that the change was intentional and it had significance.

[dondigitalia]

"Seek" seems to imply action for a specific purpose--it implies volitional choice.

Maybe there is no significant difference between the two different definitions and she just chose one over the other. It is interesting that Dr. Peikoff specifically stated that the change was intentional and it had significance.

Be wary of using dictionary definitions. More often than not, they are typically formulated with regard to social convention, rather than definition-by-essentials. Besides that, one of the definitions you gave describes water as "seeking its own level." Is water volitional?

Volition occurs only in conceptual consciousness. Objectivism clearly states that all life pursues values, including non-conceptual life, including non-conscious life. This observation is the fundamental point of Objectivist ethics. To divorce value from life and attach it to volition is to place volition as the standard of value.

I suggest you read (or re-read) "The Objectivist Ethics," in TVOS. I also suggest Chapters 6 & 7 of OPAR. Actually, this topic is discussed at more length in OPAR than TVOS, so you may want to start there.