Is Objectivism against drugs?

[RationalBiker]

Food is a drug.

You appear to be saying ALL foods are drugs, not simply some food contains drugs or something to that affect. Is that what you mean, all foods are drugs?

If so, can you please provide me with your operating definitions of "Food" and "Drug"?

Also, if food is a drug, are drugs also food? Which one is the subset of the other?

This leads to additional questions like, what food group does cocaine fall under? What classification do bananas fall under, barbituates, stimulants, etc.?

And based on your premise that food is a drug, I think I can fairly ask the question, what kind of drugs did you have for breakfast this morning?

Edited January 22, 2006 by RationalCop

[Felix]

You appear to be saying ALL foods are drugs, not simply some food contains drugs or something to that affect. Is that what you mean, all foods are drugs?

Yes. Everything you eat has an effect on your body and mind. It may be a small one and only become apparent when the dose of the responsible substance is high enough, but that's just a matter of degree.

If so, can you please provide me with your operating definitions of "Food" and "Drug"?

Hm. Defining "Food" was harder than I thought, but here it goes:

Food: Everything that you can eat which contains nutrients you need and that doesn't kill you when you eat it.

Drug: Every chemical that alters your mind or body, when you put it into your body.

This leads to additional questions like, what food group does cocaine fall under? What classification do bananas fall under, barbituates, stimulants, etc.?

I usually order my food according to its main macronutrient (fat, protein, carbohydrates), everything that doesn't contain a lot of macronutrients is a supplement:

cocaine, barbitrurates, stimulants, etc.: supplement

bananas: carbohydrates

But I think that you don't usually eat cocaine. In all the movie I have seen they snorted it. But since you can eat it without dying (at least in certain amounts) it could fall under the food category. Same goes for barbiturates and stimulants. These drugs, however, are not food if they don't at least contain vitamins or minerals.

I don't know that, so take that categorization with a grain of salt (which falls under the category of food, or more specifically: supplements).

And based on your premise that food is a drug, I think I can fairly ask the question, what kind of drugs did you have for breakfast this morning?

Ahem. I had a protein shake, a piece of fruit and a vitamin pill.

I hope that helped. At least, it was a fun exercise.

[RationalBiker]

Yes. Everything you eat has an effect on your body and mind.

Not only do I disagree that this qualifies food as a drug, but I also think that this falls well outside the context of any drug or drug effect that is consistent with the discussion in this thread. Under this premise, one can properly state that everyone is a drug addict because there bodies are addicted to food. Drugs in the context of this discussion have been referring to chemicals which have specific, substantial mind-altering effects, such as distorting the perception of reality, impairing judgements, etc., and which are used outside of the medical prescription (specifically recreational use). Anything that can be consumed that can have some vague or slight effect on the body is not of concern.

However, there are some inconsistencies in your statements and definitions;

1.

Food is a drug.

This states that food is a subset of the substances knowns as drugs.

2.

A drug is more like functional food.

This implies that drugs are a specific type, or subset of the substances known as food.

Which is it?

3.

Food: Everything that you can eat which contains nutrients you need and that doesn't kill you when you eat it.

Using the idea that drugs are "functional food", any number of the these "functional foods" can kill a person upon ingestion. This is why drugs are typically prescribed by persons with advanced medical knowledge, for specific health related reasons, and usually only when they are required to address a health deficiency or disease. Also, many substances more typically identified as food can kill a person when ingested depending on the amount ingested, or a person's specific physiological tolerance to that food, as is the case in allergies. The fact that a person might die from eating peanuts does not preclude peanuts from being food.

I may have more to say on this later, possibly including how I would define the terms "food" and "drug", but I'm too tired to continue at this point. Additionally, considering my thoughts of the context involved, I think this is a may be an insiginificant distraction from the issue that thread is about.

[Felix]

This implies that drugs are a specific type, or subset of the substances known as food.

That was inconsistent. You are right.

My statement is that food is a subset of drugs.

If you are allergic to peanuts I doubt that you consider peanuts a food (except for other people). You consider it a poison.

And I still maintain my position that food is a drug and has similar effects. If you have a diet that is too high in protein, you become aggressive due to a higher production of testosterone.

If you eat too much sugar, your blood sugar level swings, making you moody and in the end tired, impairing your mental functioning.

The foods you eat control a big part of your hormone levels. They determine whether your arteries are clean, if you are fat, how much effort it takes to be concentrated for a long time etc.

You can't doubt that food qualifies as a drug when you look at these obvious effects.

You don't eat the food for these effects, but for the nutrients they contain, which is why you are not a drug addict simply because you eat. However, you will be affected by the foods you eat.

I agree that this is not the core issue of this thread, but I think it's useful to keep it in mind.

Edited February 6, 2006 by Felix

[RationalBiker]

You can't doubt that food qualifies as a drug when you look at these obvious effects.

Yes I can. As I said, I disagree with your premise that just because you eat a substance and it affects you that that makes it a drug.

If you are allergic to peanuts I doubt that you consider peanuts a food (except for other people). You consider it a poison.

No, I'd still consider it a food, just a food I wouldn't eat because it would be LIKE poison to me. A is A. Food is food. The "kill" part of your definition is immaterial. Remember, it's called "food poisoning", not "poison poisoning".

Edited February 6, 2006 by RationalCop

[Felix]

Yes I can. As I said, I disagree with your premise that just because you eat a substance and it affects you that that makes it a drug.

Okay. Then please define drugs and food.

No, I'd still consider it a food, just a food I wouldn't eat because it would be LIKE poison to me. A is A. Food is food. The "kill" part of your definition is immaterial. Remember, it's called "food poisoning", not "poison poisoning".

No. Food poisoning is when you think it's food and eat it not knowing that it's poisonous. Like fish with salmonella or something like that.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Felix

[RationalBiker]

Okay. Then please define drugs and food.

Basically, I would define food similar to how you have, but I think the part about dying is unnecessary. The drug definition I'm still considering, but below I'll highlight my current line of thought. I still disagree at this point that your definition is accurate. According to your definition, literally any solid, liquid or gas is a "drug". Everything consists of "chemicals", and I am presuming that anything a person would ingest would have some "effect on your body or mind". This is far too broad to be useful as a definition, or to fit contextually with any previous understanding or usage of the term "drug" that I'm aware of, let alone this conversation.

Just as food is defined largely by it's purpose for humans ((or possibly all animals) a substance consumed by all humans which is required to provide nutrients essential for life and growth), drugs would also be defined largely by their purpose for humans. While some type of food (though not any one specific type of food) is required by all humans (sick or healthy) to maintain life, drugs are only required when a human body has some deficiency or disease (and then it is usually a specific drug(s) or one specific type of drug that is required for a specific deficiency). This means that drugs are more like the "functional food" to which you referred earlier, and thus make drugs a subset of food rather than vice versa. That makes more sense to me. This also fits with the my idea that some foods may contain some drugs, but the entirety of the food is not a drug or does not consist of drugs.

Now the subset of drugs that we have been discussing, recreational drugs, are generally used with a different purpose in mind. They are not required for human life, but they are consumed because they have a substantial "pleasurable" effect on the central nervous system, and are usually taken without the benefit of sound medical advice. Some of these drugs may well be prescribed for purposes I described above, but again when they are prescribed in such a fashion, it is because they are needed to treat a deficiency or a disease of the human body.

Food poisoning is when you think it's food and eat it not knowing that it's poisonous. Like fish with salmonella or something like that.

(my bold highlight)

Defining food poisoning has nothing to do with one's knowledge of the food being poisoned, or containing poison. The fact that the food contains poisonous bacteria (the salmonella) is not dependant upon a person's knowledge of that fact. The food itself is not the poison; the poison is the bacteria that has now "grown" into or invaded the food. The only bearing your knowledge has is whether or not you would consume it or whether you know (or need to know) how to properly prepare the food so that the poisonous bacteria is rendered harmless (or the food is rendered incapable of supporting the life of the bacteria).

[Felix]

... but I think the part about dying is unnecessary.

No, it has to be in there. Otherwise a poisonous plant is food even though it contains vitamins and carbohydrates.

According to your definition, literally any solid, liquid or gas is a "drug".

Practically, yes. Which is why I have to include food in my category of drugs.

I don't see how else one can define them without leaving some drugs out.

I first wanted to include that they are supposed to have beneficial health effects, but then heroin doesn't have such an effect. And I also can't put "getting high" into it. I have yet to see the person high on aspirin.

Your "only for sick people"-requirement sounds promising, but if recreational drugs are "needed" by say, mentally sick people, that would be a justification for taking drugs, because they are "needed". The question would be how that "being needed" could be defined for mental sickness.

The funny thing I recognized about my definitions of food and drugs is that marijuana can be considered food. Up to this day there is not a single reported case of someone who has died from the health effects of marijuana use.

Defining food poisoning has nothing to do with one's knowledge of the food being poisoned, or containing poison. The fact that the food contains poisonous bacteria (the salmonella) is not dependant upon a person's knowledge of that fact. The food itself is not the poison; the poison is the bacteria that has now "grown" into or invaded the food. The only bearing your knowledge has is whether or not you would consume it or whether you know (or need to know) how to properly prepare the food so that the poisonous bacteria is rendered harmless (or the food is rendered incapable of supporting the life of the bacteria).

But salmonella-fish is not food. Non-salmonella fish is. As far as I know, beans and even potatoes are poisonous in their natural state and have to be prepared. They are only food in their prepared form. Otherwise they are poison (and have been used by Inca-tribes as such with success). Most of the plant-food we eat includes some sort of poison. I doesn't kill us, but it keeps the nutrients from being digested and assimilated. You can taste this. Vegetables that taste bitter contain more of such chemicals. That's why we have that taste in the first place. The plants that were less edible survived during evolution. You can't see the food and the poison seperately, which is the reason I added the "death"-clause to my definition of food.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Felix

[RationalBiker]

No, it has to be in there.

No, it doesn't, but I'm not going to keep arguing this.

Practically, yes. Which is why I have to include food in my category of drugs.

Then we remain in disagreement.

but if recreational drugs are "needed" by say, mentally sick people, that would be a justification for taking drugs, because they are "needed". The question would be how that "being needed" could be defined for mental sickness.

First, that is why we have individuals who spend considerable time researching and educating themselves in the area of mental illness. Of course I can see the allure of discarding of the knowledge or advice of a trained physician or psychiatrist over an 16 year old bud who says, "Hey dude, let's get lit!". (yes, that was sarcasm)

Back to your quote above, that's why I said;

Some of these drugs may well be prescribed for purposes I described above, but again when they are prescribed in such a fashion, it is because they are needed to treat a deficiency or a disease of the human body.

Prescribed generally refers to that act a doctor performs after he's evaluated a patients condition and determined what substance is needed to best address a deficiency or disease in a patient. And yes, if a person needed a drug that is otherwise typically used for recreational purposes, that would be justification for taking the drug. However, then we would not be talking about "recreational use" anymore, we would be talking about medical treatment. Many folks out there engaging in "recreational use" may well think they are self-medicating, but the vast majority of them are doing so with dangerous drugs under the wrong conditions and without the benefit of a person with advanced medical knowledge advising them if the drugs they are using to self-medicate are the drugs that will effectively treat their problem, or whether they need drugs at all to address their problems.

If a person "needs" drugs to see that there exists a state of hapiness in the world, then that person may have some deficiency in their mind or body that has to be addressed chemically. This is another reason why I said;

I find it difficult to accept that any evaluation of life experienced through drugs can be any more reliable than any evaluation of life through a healthy objective mind.

A healthy mind does not need chemical assistance to properly interpret reality. A healthy mind can see a piece of art, a good movie, or a good book and understand and integrate why it's life affirming. The best that a drugged mind can do, maybe, is catch-up to the healthy mind. But in the case of "recreational use", it does so at very significant risk.

Not all people who have such deficiencies necessarily need drugs. Some simply need to discuss problems in their life or in their interpretation of reality with someone trained to help them regain perspective. Many people out there self-medicating may simply need some psychological counseling to address their issues. Instead, they risk their lives by placing their interpretation of reality and judgment into the hands of some substance produced under who knows what conditions, containing who knows what other substances, that frequently create "realities" that aren't real, and without the knowledge of whether that substance is actually needed to address their problem.

[Felix]

No, it doesn't, but I'm not going to keep arguing this.

Then we remain in disagreement.

Hm. Okay. I can't force you. But I still think that you are wrong.

And why a harmless use of recreational drugs is wrong is still beyond me.

Another thing is: Why do you have to be sick to take drugs. You can take them if you are healthy to sometimes go beyond your abilities. I have read of students taking ritalin to study for several days in a row to get their grade, which is something they couldn't have done in their normal state because concentration would drop. It didn't affect them negatively, after all this stuff is given to lots of children whose parents just refuse to take some responsibility for not teaching their child to have a concentration span over 2 seconds. It can't be that harmful. I think that overdoing recreational drugs is harmful no matter which drug it is. I also think that there is some stuff you should never ever touch. But then there are drugs where the dose makes the poison. And there it is ok to take them sometimes as long as you stay within borders.

[Aquila]

Ayn Rand's opinions and writings are not the measuring unit of Goodness, Rightness, Morality. Nor is the opinion of an Objectivist, nor the opinion of someone you respect.

Ideas and paradigms are tools that you hold in your hand. Objectivism is one such tool. I would argue that it is the best tool, and if anyone has a better one, I invite them to show it to me.

When someone asks "Is Objectivism against drugs" or "Is abortion wrong", the first question I ask is "What does it have to do with you personally?" Unless you are presently faced with or are somehow affected by the problem, why are you thinking about it?

I will assume one that asks if Objectivism is "against drugs", that they do drugs recreationally. I have done drugs in the past, and certainly they are fun. But the fun comes at a cost, and there are better ways of having fun.

Unless you can produce your poison of choice on your own, you must associate with the dregs of society. Metabolites found in your urine can lose you your job quicker than any amount of incompetence. And last but not least, there are negative consequences on your health and state of mind.

If you deny any of the above, then so be it. Enjoy your poison. When good ol' reality gives you your "reward", don't expect me to waste one moment feeling sorry for you.

[RationalBiker]

And why a harmless use of recreational drugs is wrong is still beyond me.

I would posit that the "harmless" part is what is largely open to debate in this thread.

Why do you have to be sick to take drugs.

You don't have to be, you can take then whenever you please.

As for me, my drug use will be when needed for specific medical-related needs, and serious drugs will be at the advice of a physician. Furthermore, I will judge my acquaintances accordingly. If they want to toke up, snort, shoot, swallow, or whatever, that is their choice and their consequence. I just don't have to like it or support it.

[Felix]

If you deny any of the above, then so be it. Enjoy your poison. When good ol' reality gives you your "reward", don't expect me to waste one moment feeling sorry for you.

The funny thing is that I don't take any drugs. I don't even smoke cigarettes.

I would posit that the "harmless" part is what is largely open to debate in this thread.

On that I take the stance that there are some drugs you should never take and some drugs where the dose makes the poison. I say that the latter ones may be taken in those amounts that are not harmful. That this is possible is what's challenged.

[softwareNerd]

The funny thing is that I don't take any drugs. I don't even smoke cigarettes.

How come? To stay within the law? If all drugs were available to you legally, do you think you'd be a more regular user? If yes, that's fine -- you've previously explained your motivation. If no, then why not?

[Inspector]

On that I take the stance that there are some drugs you should never take and some drugs where the dose makes the poison.

Where does pot fall in this division, in your opinion?

What is this "dose" that makes it poison? I've previously said a very similar thing in this very thread... but I don't think you mean by it what I did.

I meant that enough to get you intoxicated was the dose that made the poison. No rational man should seek to become intoxicated for its own sake... not if life is still his standard of value. That was my position since the beginning of this thread and I still can't think of any examples to prove that statement wrong.

[Felix]

How come? To stay within the law? If all drugs were available to you legally, do you think you'd be a more regular user? If yes, that's fine -- you've previously explained your motivation. If no, then why not?

If I would take a drug, I guess it would be pot. Well, the law is the reason that this stuff is hard to get. If it were available everywhere, I guess I would smoke a joint once every several month. But since that's not the case, I'll travel to the Netherlands once, maybe even this year and there I will try to learn to reproduce that feeling via self-hypnosis on a regular basis. It's getting harder and harder to reproduce once the memory starts to fade. I'll learn to do this right once and then I'll practice it, so that I'll have all the benefits of that feeling whenever I feel like it. I think that I would have tried to learn this even if it were legal, after all that stuff costs money and I hate smoking and having that smell in my clothes is something I can do without.

It's funny. If it weren't for this thread, I guess I would have never come up with this idea. I almost forgot that feeling.

I guess that answers your question.

Inspector, do you think that getting high causes severe irrepairable brain damage? Does it also occur if I enter that state via hypnosis? If it didn't cause brain damage, would it be okay then? And if it is so bad to your health, why did -up to this day- nobody ever die from cannabis use?

My point is that pot is one of the least harmful drugs, even less harmful than alcohol or nicotine. And it also helps induce a state of overall well-being, something neither alcohol nor nicotine are capable of. And if the state causes no damage, I see no reason not to use it. Especially if it helps you feel that the world is a good place. You seem to attack the very feeling by assuming it was caused by brain intoxification. This is not the case as I am capable of reaching that state via hypnosis without any drugs. The drug just induced the feeling. I already learned the feeling and given proper training I can reproduce it. And if there is a problem with feeling good instead of bad for no reason, tell me.

[Inspector]

Inspector, do you think that getting high causes severe irrepairable brain damage? Does it also occur if I enter that state via hypnosis? If it didn't cause brain damage, would it be okay then? And if it is so bad to your health, why did -up to this day- nobody ever die from cannabis use?...

…And if there is a problem with feeling good instead of bad for no reason, tell me.

Lots of questions there. All of which depend on the drug. Do you mean cannabis?

As to, "if it didn't cause brain damage, would it be okay then?" I assume that by "it" you mean "intoxication." I would respond to this that a rational man seeks his pleasure from achievements and reality, of which intoxication is neither. The seeking of pleasure for pleasure’s sake, divorced from any values to earn that pleasure is called hedonism and I do not believe that is a life-serving philosophy. Do you really want me to go on about what’s wrong with hedonism? Its conflict with reality and causality? The damages of it, both physical and spiritual? I’d say just ask Mr. Franscisco D’Anconia about that.

I can only warn you that your pleasure/pain mechanisms are a powerful survival tool that is not to be taken lightly. When you get intoxicated, you’re divorcing your pleasure/pain mechanism from reality. Once you take that train off the rails, just how do you plan on getting it back on there? If you think that you can just “screw around” with it, without risking your psychological health, then you are sorely mistaken. This is the old fallacy that consciousness does not have identity, that you can just shovel whatever garbage you want in there, and expect to be happy and well-centered. (only this time in reference to chemicals, and not ideas)

No, like RationalCop said, I like my drugs delivered by medical professionals, thankyouverymuch.

Suffice to say I don’t think that one should seek to experience pleasure “for no reason.” If one is feeling bad, one needs to seek the cause of why one is feeling bad and bloody do something about it!

That’s the biggest problem with pot: it is famous for rendering the user in a state where they just don’t care. This is, I think, a necessary and unavoidable consequence of intoxication. Intoxication, in order to switch “on” your pleasure centers in the way it does, must necessarily mess with your judgment, your motivation, and other vital faculties.

The consequences of this can range in danger from the severe, such as in the commercial where the girl isn’t stopping that guy from crawling all over her (followed by who-knows-what), to the ordinary, such as that guy who lives in his parents’ basement and just never applies himself to life.

At best, it’ll turn you into a de-motivated, lay-about, slacker who never really amounts to anything. Some people think that’s just “groovy,” but I expect better from life than that.

Will one joint do this? Clearly not. But I think I’ve made it clear that there is no value to be gained from hedonism, so there’s no reason to risk even one joint.

[Felix]

I don't intend to replace my striving for values with taking drugs. Just as I don't replace it with eating, watching movies, meeting with friends, sex, taking a vacation, sleeping late, reading books, jogging, playing badmindton or debating on this forum. Do all these things destroy my ability to live? Do they screw up my willingness to work for my own good? No they don't. Even though I do them for their own sake. I don't achieve to enjoy later on. I enjoy achievement. That's why I do it. And I also enjoy many other things. Why this ruins my ability to achieve is beyond me, sorry. I honestly believe your stance on this to be overgeneralized. The reason for this is that achievement can give me a feeling no drug can ever give me: a feeling of competence. There are many ways to feel happy. Happiness is just an umbrella term for many many different states. I don't want to miss any of them. And I see no reason to.

[Inspector]

I don't intend to replace my striving for values with taking drugs. Just as I don't replace it with eating, watching movies, meeting with friends, sex, taking a vacation, sleeping late, reading books, jogging, playing badmindton or debating on this forum.

You say that as if drug use can be equated with any of those things. It can’t. All of those things are, themselves values. Drug use is not.

Even though I do them for their own sake.

There’s your error right there. Those things aren’t, properly, done “for their own sake.” They are done because they are beneficial values to your life. Of course most people don’t examine this, and so it would seem to them that one does things “just because.”

Now I can see why you have been able to equate an empty, valueless, fake pleasure, such as drug use, with fulfilling, value-laden, real pleasures such as those you mentioned: because you never bothered to examine them any deeper than “This gives me pleasure.”

Now it makes sense.

As I said, your argument and understanding operates on the premise of hedonism, i.e. “the good is that which gives me pleasure.” But as I said, that is a disasterous philosophy that does not give its adherents pleasure; it gives them misery, because it is an anti-reality approach to life, and all such approaches result in ruin.

I enjoy achievement. That's why I do it. And I also enjoy many other things. Why this ruins my ability to achieve is beyond me, sorry.

You don’t know how it will ruin your ability to achieve? It’s quite simple and I’m surprised you haven’t figured it out.

Look at your own words: “I enjoy achievement. That's why I do it.”

Now, what will happen if you find a way to get enjoyment (which is why you achieve) without having to put in the effort of achievement? How motivated will you be to put in that effort, when the “same” enjoyment is attainable as simply as lighting a joint? How long do you think you can teach your subconsciousness this lesson before it concedes to your input and simply stops putting out any motivation to do anything? Do you think you give causality the slip? That you will retain the subconsciousness of a motivated, dynamic individual by feeding it the input of a drugged-out hippie?

I don’t think you do. As you say, you don’t do drugs. Have you ever asked yourself why?

See, you’re advocating one viewpoint, but you live your life based on its opposite. (my viewpoint!) And then you present your own, sensible life as proof of your argument’s validity. I think you need to check yourself here. What do you really believe? What code are you actually living by?

[Felix]

Now, what will happen if you find a way to get enjoyment (which is why you achieve) without having to put in the effort of achievement?

...

As you say, you don’t do drugs. Have you ever asked yourself why?

See, you’re advocating one viewpoint, but you live your life based on its opposite. (my viewpoint!) And then you present your own, sensible life as proof of your argument’s validity. I think you need to check yourself here. What do you really believe? What code are you actually living by?

Hm. Good point. Maybe I really haven't been introspecting enough here. I always held the viewpoint that if something feels good, that's as deep as I can get. Pain and pleasure have always been primaries to me. However, I have recognized that there are several different qualities of enjoyment. The joy of achievement is different from the joy of a good meal. But the fact that they are enjoyable has always been a point for me to stop thinking. This leads, as you said, to hedonistic influences in my philosophy of life. I really don't understand why the feeling of achievement is different. I know that I can't live a happy life without it. But I don't know why. I can't get the kind of enjoyment I get from achievements from any of my past-time activities. Watching movies is no substitute. Neither is good food. And neither is that drug-induced feeling. I somehow need both. Feeling good for feelings sake and the feeling I get from achievement. That's the distinction I have now. But I think that interaction with friends is another thing that can't be substituted with other pleasures.

My basic idea has always been that Objectivism is some sort of intelligent, long-term hedonism. With overall happiness and pleasure in your life as a goal, but with the intelligence to look past the present to see that one may wreck one's future happiness by present indulgence.

[Inspector]

The difference between you and most people who operate on the premises of hedonism is that, while everyone can recognize the difference in quality of pleasures, and the necessity of the pleasure from achievement, hedonists spend their efforts evading this fact. You, on the other hand, have focused in on it.

Good for you!

This last post of yours is very much on the right track. Discovering why you can't live a happy life without genuine achievement is something that Objectivism will help you do in spades. As you've purchased living life, I think the answers will soon be in your grasp.

I think it will be very useful to pause here and let those questions of yours sink in. They are the right questions to ask, and the answers will lead you to the right conclusions. Now practice the virtue of independence and go find them!

As for Objectivism's relation to hedonism, well, I'd say that's damning it with faint praise. Here is the Objectivist view of happiness and its relation to the hedonistic view:

The Objectivist view of happiness differs in every essential from the two views dominant in today's culture. One of these, the intrinsicist approach, regards happiness as low or evil. The other, a subjectivist approach, is hedonism.

Intrinsicism, whatever its promises in regard to another life, leads in this one to suffering. Enjoyment as such thus becomes suspect; it becomes a sign of ethical dereliction—of selfishness, ambition, "materialism." There can be no question, therefore, of pursuing happiness; one's moral destiny is the opposite: duty, loss, sacrifice. This kind of philosophy urges on men the adoration of pain, a condition eloquently symbolized in the West by the acceptance of crucifixion as an ideal. Such adoration reached unprecedented virulence in the modern, Kantian era.

To an Objectivist, the adoration of pain is literally unspeakable. Morally, there is nothing to say about it beyond noting that its cause is the worship of death.

Hedonism, at first glance, may seem to be an opposite viewpoint. Hedonism is the theory that pleasure (or happiness) is the standard of value. In order to determine values and virtues, the theory holds, one must ask whether a given object or action maximizes pleasure (one's own and/or that of others). The emotion of pleasure, however, is a consequence of a man's value-judgments, so the theory is circular. It amounts to the advice: value that which you or others, for whatever reason, already value. This means, in practice: do whatever you feel like doing.

Happiness is properly the purpose of ethics, but not the standard.(18) One must choose values by reference not to a psychical state, but to an external fact: the requirements of man's life—in order to achieve the state of enjoying one's life. It is self-defeating to counsel the pursuit of pleasure as a primary ethical guide, because only the pleasure attendant on the achievement of rational values leads to happiness. The pleasure-seeker, therefore, must first distinguish the rational <opar_342> from the irrational in this field—by means of an objective approach to ethics.

That's just a taste. If you want to know more, you'll have to get the book.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Inspector

[Felix]

The difference between you and most people who operate on the premises of hedonism is that, while everyone can recognize the difference in quality of pleasures, and the necessity of the pleasure from achievement, hedonists spend their efforts evading this fact. You, on the other hand, have focused in on it.

Good for you!

Thanks.

This last post of yours is very much on the right track. Discovering why you can't live a happy life without genuine achievement is something that Objectivism will help you do in spades.

Well, I hope so. I'm curious.

As you've purchased living life, I think the answers will soon be in your grasp.

Hm. I've purchased Viable Values. And I still have to finish OPAR (apparently ). I'd better read that first.

I think it will be very useful to pause here and let those questions of yours sink in. They are the right questions to ask, and the answers will lead you to the right conclusions. Now practice the virtue of independence and go find them!

That's what I plan to do. I prefer to make up my own mind first and then seek possible correction. As you have seen, I'm hard to convince unless you bring forth the right arguments. Then I accept them immediately. This is something I'm very proud of.

It may take a while until I will post here again.

Thanks for the advice.

[Rosmerta]

I was just reading through this thread, I dont know if anyone else has said anything about this but I feel I have to. Awhile back a poster said that ADD was not real. I have to disagree with this, there have been proven diffrences between a normal brain and an ADD brain. One and probably the most important is that the frontal lobe of an ADD brain is around 30% smaller that that of a normal brain. Also, there is evidence that the harder a person with ADD trys to use there fortal lobe the less blood flow there is to it.

I myself have dyslexia (there are more folds in the outer layer of the brain of a dyslexic then in a normal brain but its over all smother) and go to Landmark College a specialized school for people with LDs. But I never let it get in my way I have read both Atlas and the Fountainhead though it did take me a very long time. I dont like people that use it as an excuse for everything, but there are somethings that they just cannot do.

As for drug use, its completely illogical since it detacts from enjoyment of life, but Im not agaist having a drink now and then.

[FeatherFall]

My brother went to Landmark. It is excellent. The school is not even comparable to the typical public school (even those in Wisconsin, which are often above average).

[Rosmerta]

It is an amazing school but with a lot of stoners. It one of my only complaints about this place, when did your brother go to Landmark? What was his LD?