Why Live In The First Place?

[softwareNerd]

Then, as the young person begins to understand philosophy, they are struck by this basic conflict: if life is fun and happiness is what I life for, then why should I not be doing drugs, robbing banks, etc. What is wrong with hedonism?

And some people (a great many) never even reach that point.

Yes. I should have clarified, that I was talking about an ideal case.

[Capitalism Forever]

The wish to live is as much a part of man's nature as are his faculty of reason and his capacity to exercise it volitionally. We ALL wish to live. Even the suicide terrorists do: They hope Allah will reward their act with 72 virgins and all the other prequisites of life in Paradise. Even the sick or bereaved person who is about to end his life wishes he could live qua man; he regrets having no better alternative than death. The same goes for the man who chooses to die rather than live as a slave. Even the nihilists who hate life hate life because they wish it were different.

You have no choice about whether you wish to live. What you can choose is whether or not you do what is necessary in order to live.

When you make a choice, you choose between two possible actions. You choose by considering the likely consequences of either action and evaluating them with reference to some standard. In the case of the fundamental choice, the actions you choose between are the use of reason and evasion; the consequence is either your survival or your death; and the standard you use is the wish to live that is part of your nature.

[orangesiscool]

The answer is so obvious, Why live/ struggle too? Simply:

BECAUSE I CAN HAVE FUN WHILE LIVING.

By fun I also mean what I want.

[dondigitalia]

When you make a choice, you choose between two possible actions. You choose by considering the likely consequences of either action and evaluating them with reference to some standard. In the case of the fundamental choice, the actions you choose between are the use of reason and evasion; the consequence is either your survival or your death; and the standard you use is the wish to live that is part of your nature.

Considering the consequences presupposes that one has already made the fundamental choice, so the fundamental choice cannot be made by reference to any standard whatsoever. Any consideration at all is done in hindsight, and it is a consideration of whether or not to continue with the earlier choice.

The answer is so obvious, Why live/ struggle too? Simply:

BECAUSE I CAN HAVE FUN WHILE LIVING.

By fun I also mean what I want.

Fun is only a value by reference to a standard. You can't use that as a reason prior to holding a standard. It begs the question, just as every other explanation of why one might choose to live in the first place.

[DavidOdden]

The answer is so obvious, Why live/ struggle too? Simply:

BECAUSE I CAN HAVE FUN WHILE LIVING.

By fun I also mean what I want.

So you're saying that whimsical pleasure of the moment is why we should live? How do you decide between huge amounts of pelasure that results in you living half as long, vs. half as much pleasure and twice the life-span? I think you've suggested the proper ethic is "live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse". Is that a fair summary of your morality? If not, why not?

[cellar door]

I think the best immediate response to the ultimate question: "Why should I choose to live?" is: "Why would you choose NOT to live?"

Think of the countless reasons which could make your life worth choosing over nonexistence: getting your PhD, enjoying a fine Cabernet, making that girl you like laugh, jogging 5 miles, etc. These reasons JUST ARE the responses to "Why should I choose life?" There isn't some further abstract principle doing the final ethical justification: the concrete, inductively grasped facts of what makes life worth enjoying speak for themselves.

A philosophical validation of why these activities are worth pursuing requires some work, but from an experiential standpoint, the proof is in the pudding. (For instance, I can feel awesome after writing a poem regardless of knowing WHY I feel that way.)

To demand some further principle answering the ultimate question is akin to saying: "I know existence exists. But what proves THAT?" The existence axiom is implicit in perceiving concrete entites. Likewise, the 'axiom' of your life's ultimate worth is implicit in experiencing that which brings you happiness or fulfillment. (Of course, the facts surrounding what activities bring noncontradictory joy and what do not is a complex discussion belonging to another thread.)

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I'm concerned with some of the above posts if they're claiming that the Objectivist position on the ultimate choice to live is that the choice is arbitrary. "Arbitrary" means "unsupported by good reasons." If the ultimate choice to live is, in fact, arbitrary, then the nihilist or the typical academic philosopher can get away with asking why one should accept the Objectivist ethics as opposed to something else.

But the ultimate choice to live is not arbitary. For healthy individuals in relatively free societies, there are lots of reasons favoring them to seek/enjoy their lives. Given those reasons, what basis - on balance - would give them better reasons to choose death?

[dondigitalia]

"Arbitrary" means "unsupported by good reasons." If the ultimate choice to live is, in fact, arbitrary, then the nihilist or the typical academic philosopher can get away with asking why one should accept the Objectivist ethics as opposed to something else.

The nihilist or the typical academic philosopher cannot get away with asking that, because by asking that question, they are engaging in a conceptual activity which means they have already implicitly chosen to live. There is an alternative to the Objectivist ethics, and that alternative is to lay down, shut one's mouth, turn off ones mind and let oneself die (remember what happened on Miranda in Serenity?)

Now, for a person who has already chosen life, that seems grotesque. And it is grotesque--by reference to the life standard. A person who has chosen the life standard has values he can use to make this decision, such as all the ones you named, all of which are values according to a standard. One cannot have concepts of "good" or "better" or "preferable" prior to holding a standard of value, so any reference to value judgment cannot play into the intial decision.

Most people (the vast majority) needn't worry about how the fundamental decision is made, whether it is arbitrary or according to a standard, because it's largely unimportant in regard to their own lives--they have already chosen, and now have a standard that tells them life is better. The only people who need to worry about this question are those with an interest in technical philosophy; it's definitely more of a philosophy for Ragnar thing than philosophy for Reardan.

That said, I keep seeing the same basic (fallacious) counter-position over and over, so unless I see something truly new, like a reason for choosing one way or the other that does not appeal to some standard of value, I've said everything I have to say here.

Edited February 7, 2006 by dondigitalia

[Capitalism Forever]

Now, for a person who has already chosen life, that seems grotesque. And it is grotesque--by reference to the life standard. A person who has chosen the life standard [...]

You don't choose the "life standard." You have it. It is a part of your nature: As a living organism, your goal is to survive.

You can choose to identify and act on this fact, or you can choose to evade it and pretend that you are pursuing some other goal, or no goal at all. But you cannot alter the fact that you are a living organism and that life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action.

[dondigitalia]

You don't choose the "life standard." You have it. It is a part of your nature: As a living organism, your goal is to survive.

You can choose to identify and act on this fact, or you can choose to evade it and pretend that you are pursuing some other goal, or no goal at all. But you cannot alter the fact that you are a living organism and that life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action.

Thank you for posting something new, instead of the same exact argument that has been popping up repeatedly in this thread. (I see that you posted it once before and I missed it.)

It is interesting to think of it that way, but I disagree. I think it's imprecise. The statement "as a living organism, your goal is to survive," while true for most organism, is not universally true. There are some whose goal is simply to reproduce, take the praying mantis, for example, for whom reproduction is suicide. There are probably others, but even one counterexample disqualifies a universal.

Also, in the case of other organisms whose goal actually is to survive, that's not entirely the same thing as it means for a human to have a life-standard. For them, it is mere physical survival. For us, it is having a happy life, a life that is proper to a rational animal. For us, it is a goal dependent on the conceptual faculty.

Since, for man, it is dependent on the conceptual faculty, having that goal depends on using the conceptual faculty. Prior to using it, there is no goal. As you know, Objectivism holds that the conceptual faculty is used by choice. And, as I said earlier, as soon as one makes that choice (which, to the best of my knowledge, we all do, to some degree), one also adopts life as the standard of value.

[Capitalism Forever]

as soon as one makes that choice (which, to the best of my knowledge, we all do, to some degree)

If we all do it, could it be that it is not a choice at all?

IMO, the metaphysically given processes of a child's development prompt all men to begin to think. (This is why, for example, even the dumbest people have been able to learn to speak.) It is the continuation of thought that is up to the individual's choice.

[dondigitalia]

If we all do it, could it be that it is not a choice at all?

That would be the Empiricist Fallacy.

IMO, the metaphysically given processes of a child's development prompt all men to begin to think. (This is why, for example, even the dumbest people have been able to learn to speak.) It is the continuation of thought that is up to the individual's choice.

In a way, I think you're right. I tend to look at it this way: Either you're not in focus at all, or you are willing some sort of focus. Prior to going the focus route, you have no standard by which to choose one over the other, so it's basically a toss-up. Once the coin goes in the "in focus" direction, though, even a little bit, you have a standard which tells you, stay like this. Of course, this is pure hypothesis. I think validating it would require some sort of pre-conceptual introspection, which is impossible.

[Capitalism Forever]

That would be the Empiricist Fallacy.

I was not saying, "We all do it, therefore it is not a choice." I was saying, "Given that we all do it, it makes sense to take a critical look at the premise that it is a choice."

A newborn baby cannot yet choose to think, nor to evade thoughts; its consciousness is pretty much like that of an animal. All its actions are metaphysically given reflexes, serving the goal of the baby's survival like the reflexes of an animal serve the animal's survival. The process by which the baby's mind learns to integrate sensations into percepts is still doubtlessly automatic, and is again directed towards the goal of the baby's survival. Eventually, these automatic processes bring the baby's mind into a state where it's ready to conceptualize.

Now, does conceptualization begin automatically, or does it require an act of volition on the child's part? My hypothesis is that the goal-directed automatic processes "push" the child towards forming his first concepts, giving him a "momentum," sending him off on a course initially headed towards his survival.

As an analogy, imagine a man who has the choice whether or not to run (and how fast, and whether forward or back)--but when he "wakes up" and first gets to make the choice, he finds himself running at a steady speed in the forward direction. He cannot stop abruptly; his momentum is carrying his legs forward for at least a few more paces. But from then on, it is up to him whether he tries to maximize his speed, slacks off, or reverses his course with an effort.

[Felix]

Reminds me of the book of Genesis. We live in Paradise and then we eat from the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil!), are thrown out and can't go back.

[dondigitalia]

I was not saying, "We all do it, therefore it is not a choice." I was saying, "Given that we all do it, it makes sense to take a critical look at the premise that it is a choice."

I understand that you weren't asserting that (a question doesn't assert anything), I was just saying that it isn't good evidence of anything. It's ok for a hypothesis, though.

A newborn baby cannot yet choose to think, nor to evade thoughts; its consciousness is pretty much like that of an animal. All its actions are metaphysically given reflexes, serving the goal of the baby's survival like the reflexes of an animal serve the animal's survival. The process by which the baby's mind learns to integrate sensations into percepts is still doubtlessly automatic, and is again directed towards the goal of the baby's survival. Eventually, these automatic processes bring the baby's mind into a state where it's ready to conceptualize.

Agreed so far.

Now, does conceptualization begin automatically, or does it require an act of volition on the child's part? My hypothesis is that the goal-directed automatic processes "push" the child towards forming his first concepts, giving him a "momentum," sending him off on a course initially headed towards his survival.

I think it must require an act of volition. I don't see why the conceptual level would operate any differently at that age than it does at any other age. Even as adults, there are times when we are not using the conceptual level at all and are operating on a perceptual basis. I don't know if you're morning person, but I'm not, and a lot of times when I get up in the morning, I'm pretty much a zombie for the first 10 minutes or so--I'm not thinking about what I'm doing, I'm not in focus, I'm just going through my morning routine, which has been automatized as a series of perceptually retained, non-volitional actions. (We all have actions that were volitional at one time, but have now been mastered to the point of non-volitional automization; think of driving, for instance.) When I finally do start to think, it's by choice. Of course, as an adult it's by reference to the standard I adopted long ago, but the choice is the same.

What reason is there to assume its any different for a child? Positing a difference without evidence for one is arbitrary.

Edited February 7, 2006 by dondigitalia

[dark_unicorn]

Reminds me of the book of Genesis. We live in Paradise and then we eat from the fruit of knowledge (of good and evil!), are thrown out and can't go back.

Note: I believe most of Genesis is to be taken as a figurative description of events that actually did occur, the development of man's free will in concert with his rational faculty, and thus the consequence of choosing to do good or evil, two things which I believe we all agree actually exist as actions for a given end.

I've often speculated (being a Catholic) as to the implications of the result of the consumption of the fruit of knowledge. The Bible seems to treat it as being negative because mostly wrong choices are identified by the early actions of the first people with the ability to choose.

Essentially we can treat the pre-Original Sin (this term is often misunderstood by fundamentalist Christians) as a period in which man was a being whose choices were automatic (much the way animals are). Once knowledge was attained about choosing to either act in a way that keeps one alive versus choosing to be self-destructive/destructive (one essentially becomes the other), we are no longer solely pushed towards the good choice of sustaining one-self. That is the so-called negative result of what Christianity calls Original Sin (oddly, certain sects. of Christianity take the Pelagian path and deny the existence of Original Sin). However, obviously the positive of this act is the ability to manipulate nature and thus create wonders of greatness, which I believe more than makes up for the potential to err. One could essentially argue that by being aware of the possibility of doing evil, we are in fact more strongly capable of realizing the good.

This of course being my interpretation of something that was written in several historical texts (Yahwehian, Priestly, et cetera), all of which have some slight variations, in complete disregard of any notion of fundamentalism.

So how does this all tie into Why live? Naturally I'm stating a Non-Objectivist doctrine, but the gist of it all is the pursuit of the good, and the forsaking of evil, which becomes choosing to live rather than not to live.

[dondigitalia]

Note: I believe most of Genesis is to be taken as a figurative description of events that actually did occur, the development of man's free will in concert with his rational faculty, and thus the consequence of choosing to do good or evil, two things which I believe we all agree actually exist as actions for a given end.

It's interesting that you say that, because that is the same way I interpret Genesis. I would wager that my evaluation of it differs from yours tremendously, although I've found religion to be kind of a futile topic, so I don't want to really get into a in-depth discssion of it, especially since I've observed you to be a pretty nice, benevolent guy so far, who I have no interest in offending. (Note: By evaluation, I don't mean interpretation of the allegory, but something more akin to a moral appraisal of it.)

[Capitalism Forever]

I don't see why the conceptual level would operate any differently at that age than it does at any other age.

There are two facts that make the hypothesis plausible: 1, that ALL men have begun to conceptualize, without any known exception, and regardless of how good or evil they grew up to be later; 2, that it is the beginning of a process, and beginnings often have something special about them (for example, when you turn on a car's engine, the first few rotations are provided by the starter motor, not by the combustion of the fuel).

Fact #1 wants an explanation. The hypothesis could provide a possible explanation. Fact #2 helps explain the hypothesis.

[dark_unicorn]

It's interesting that you say that, because that is the same way I interpret Genesis. I would wager that my evaluation of it differs from yours tremendously, although I've found religion to be kind of a futile topic, so I don't want to really get into a in-depth discssion of it, especially since I've observed you to be a pretty nice, benevolent guy so far, who I have no interest in offending. (Note: By evaluation, I don't mean interpretation of the allegory, but something more akin to a moral appraisal of it.)

Obviously moral appraisal and interpretation are not the same thing, and besides, this kind of goes off-topic anyway. Religion is something I usually tend to keep out of most discussions precisely because it always leads to dead ends. Hense my Thomas Jefferson quote.

[hunterrose]

As far as I understand the Objectivist Ethics, the choice to live is the fundamental choice.

I'd say that the choice to focus is fundamental.

All this means that philosophy cannot answer the question:

"Why live?"

I disagree that the question is unanswerable or arbitrary.

You should phrase the question as "why live pleasurably or happily" - IMO the answer is clearer. There is no reason to live a life sans the possibility of happiness, but there is every reason to live a happy/pleasing life.

"Why should one be happy?" I could simply say that everyone wants to be happy. But deeper, happiness connotes a preferred state, and the only person who doesn't have a preferred state is the one who falls down, refuses to act, and let reality to to him what it will. And even this person had a preferred state, but has chosen to reject it.

Why should one prefer a preferred state? If it's taken for granted that, at some point in time, some status is preferred, then why one prefers it is a valid question, but not why one prefers that which one prefers.

Why live/ struggle too?

BECAUSE I CAN HAVE FUN WHILE LIVING.

I personally thought that was the best answer.

Fun is only a value by reference to a standard. You can't use that as a reason prior to holding a standard. It begs the question, just as every other explanation of why one might choose to live in the first place.

But there is a standard - everyone starts out with a standard of pleasure and pain.

So you're saying that whimsical pleasure of the moment is why we should live? How do you decide between huge amounts of pelasure that results in you living half as long, vs. half as much pleasure and twice the life-span? I think you've suggested the proper ethic is "live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse".

I can't speak for orangeiscool, but "have fun" isn't necessary a short-term viewpoint.

[Styles2112]

Rationally, one has to drop the supernatural element. Then, the meaning is why one chooses to stay alive. Sometimes, people decide that their life has becomes meaningless, and people should have the right to terminate their life in such case.

SoftwareNerd,

Interesting post. But, given what was said before, don't you CHOOSE to have a meaningful life? Or, maybe rephrased, those who who "decide" their life is meaningless have made the choice not to think, and therefore the choice to terminate their own life? If one is thinking, and life is the standard of value, wouldn't there be meaning in that?

Sorry if this belongs in another topic. Thanks for any response, though.

[dondigitalia]

There are two facts that make the hypothesis plausible: 1, that ALL men have begun to conceptualize, without any known exception, and regardless of how good or evil they grew up to be later; 2, that it is the beginning of a process, and beginnings often have something special about them (for example, when you turn on a car's engine, the first few rotations are provided by the starter motor, not by the combustion of the fuel).

Fact #1 wants an explanation. The hypothesis could provide a possible explanation. Fact #2 helps explain the hypothesis.

In the context, I don't think fact #1 is very significant at all. Statistically, it's not a momentary 50/50 choice that all men happen to make one way with no standard. Rather, it's a constant 50/50 choice one makes, every waking moment that could tip in either direction, until it actually does tip in the other direction. So just by sheeer statistics, you can say say that 99.99999999% of all men are eventually going to choose to think (made-up statistic).

And, while beginnings might often have something special about them, it is arbitrary to assume that they do with out evidence.

At any rate, I don't think one can really prove much of anything about the mechanics of that choice, other than to say: it happened, so I'm just going to let it rest after this.

But there is a standard - everyone starts out with a standard of pleasure and pain.

Pleasure and pain presupposes the life-standard. Non-volitional actions are taken according to the life-standard from birth, but the non-volitional is the amoral, so it really isn't entirely proper to talk about them having a standard at all. They are the metaphysically given--they just are. Prior to taking volitional action no moral standard exists. It can't, since morality depends on choice.

[softwareNerd]

... don't you CHOOSE to have a meaningful life? Or, maybe rephrased, those who who "decide" their life is meaningless have made the choice not to think, and therefore the choice to terminate their own life? If one is thinking, and life is the standard of value, wouldn't there be meaning in that?

When I mentioned people who choose to terminate their lives, I was thinking of suicides. Such people are usually hopeless. They may be a mistaken. Or-- as in many assisted suicide situations -- it is rational. Some recent threads have got me thinking about the philosophical error in hopelessness (not the psychological part), but that's is something for a different thread.

If one is thinking, and life is the standard of value, wouldn't there be meaning in that?

I'm not sure I follow your question. Could you elaborate? Why, for instance, would life be the standard of value?

[hunterrose]

Pleasure and pain presupposes the life-standard. Non-volitional actions are taken according to the life-standard from birth, but the non-volitional is the amoral, so it really isn't entirely proper to talk about them having a standard at all. They are the metaphysically given--they just are. Prior to taking volitional action no moral standard exists. It can't, since morality depends on choice.

Pleasure/pain presupposes life, but it doesn't presuppose life being an infant's standard IMO. (Are you saying that all of an infant's actions are non-volitional? Some of a baby's actions can be considered reflexive actions, but I believe that some are indeed volitional.)

[dark_unicorn]

Pleasure/pain presupposes life, but it doesn't presuppose life being an infant's standard IMO. (Are you saying that all of an infant's actions are non-volitional? Some of a baby's actions can be considered reflexive actions, but I believe that some are indeed volitional.)

I spent a half-hour observing my 2 month year-old nephew and I saw some definate patterns in the way he observed various objects around the room. Most of it was probably the perceptive stage that precedes actual abstraction, but all of it seemed very purposeful. Life is a very complex set of equations that begin with a single choice of affirmation or denial, though it seems that at that early of a stage the affirmation is almost a given.

[Aquila]

I think people who need an abstract mathematical formula to justify their being alive are dead inside, and should seek therapy or seek a change in worldview.

Goodness knows I know from my own experience why someone does this.