happiness

[earwax]

Okay I just read the Objectivist ethics in VoS and the chapter on Happiness in OPAR. I have a question. Ayn Rand asserts here that one can only experience pure happiness if they are rational goals. Now I know plenty of people who have irrational goals[religious mainly] who seem to be happy. How is it we can know that these people are incapable of real happiness? How can one prove that real happiness is attained by people who are rational? Is this theory of happiness falsifiable? Can you enjoy something that did not have something to do with your survival as a human being? If one finds happiness in a hobby how does that fit in with the Objectivist view of happiness?

[necrovore]

There is more about this in the section of OPAR on emotions. (Chapter 5.)

Happiness is an emotion and, like any other emotion, can be rationally justified or not. For example a person could murder somebody and feel happy about it. But this happiness would not be rationally justified, because that person would have just put his own survival in grave peril. Of course, a person could feel happy about committing suicide.

The Objectivist ideal is to experience a happiness which is rationally justified. That justification includes a consideration of one's nature as a rational being. That justification is what makes happiness "real," because if you are happy, and your reason tells you that you should be happy, and your reasoning is correct, taking into account all the relevant facts, then what can endanger your happiness?

An irrational happiness, on the other hand, is subject to being ended or tainted by reality, by thinking, or even by ideas in a person's head which the person refuses to think about.

[Moebius]

I don't think Ayn Rand had exactly what I would consider a happy life. In fact it seemed like she was rather bitter and disillusioned toward the end of her life.

[Ifat Glassman]

I don't think Ayn Rand had exactly what I would consider a happy life. In fact it seemed like she was rather bitter and disillusioned toward the end of her life.

I suggest you back this up with facts, or keep your (something something) opinions to yourself.

To remind you, you owe your participation in Objectivism-Online to Ayn Rand. If you choose to make personal evaluations of her emotions, at least have the decency to back it up.

Also, what's the point of what you're saying? Suppose Ayn Rand was not happy at some point of her life. Are you making this into some general statement about the relation between rationality and happiness without explicitly stating so?

[Moebius]

I suggest you back this up with facts, or keep your (something something) opinions to yourself.

To remind you, you owe your participation in Objectivism-Online to Ayn Rand. If you choose to make personal evaluations of her emotions, at least have the decency to back it up.

Also, what's the point of what you're saying? Suppose Ayn Rand was not happy at some point of her life. Are you making this into some general statement about the relation between rationality and happiness without explicitly stating so?

Fair enough. Since there really isn't any way I can comment on Ayn Rand's happiness, given that she's dead and I don't read minds, I withdraw my statement.

I brought it up merely based on reading excerpts from Barbra Brenden's books, which while potentially biased (since I guess Rand did have an affair with her husband), were first hand accounts based on her time spent with Rand. Feel free to pick up a copy if you haven't already read it.

As for my point, it's that since Rand personifies Objectivism, it just seem both curious and ironic that it didn't seem like she was a happy person at all, given her portrayal in Brenden's biography. Again since I really have no way of corroborating the truths of that book, I respectfully withdraw my statement.

[KendallJ]

Fair enough. Since there really isn't any way I can comment on Ayn Rand's happiness, given that she's dead and I don't read minds, I withdraw my statement.

I brought it up merely based on reading excerpts from Barbra Brenden's books, which while potentially biased (since I guess Rand did have an affair with her husband), were first hand accounts based on her time spent with Rand. Feel free to pick up a copy if you haven't already read it.

As for my point, it's that since Rand personifies Objectivism, it just seem both curious and ironic that it didn't seem like she was a happy person at all, given her portrayal in Brenden's biography. Again since I really have no way of corroborating the truths of that book, I respectfully withdraw my statement.

You've said it yourself. I woud check out James Valliant's Passion of Ayn Rands Critics, and you'll get a sense for just how biased they were. There are plenty of other folks who remember differently, and say so, and don't have axes to grind.

[Ifat Glassman]

As for my point, it's that since Rand personifies Objectivism, it just seem both curious and ironic that it didn't seem like she was a happy person at all, given her portrayal in Brenden's biography.

If you ever see her interview with Donahue, you can judge for yourself just how "depressed" she is. The interview was about a year (I'm not sure) after her husband's death. It was years after her relationship with Branden ended. I recall that one of my strongest impressions from that interview was how much her love of life is visible, despite the difficult time and old age, the core of her behavior showed, to me, curiosity and enthusiasm about thinking and discussing.

There was another interview where she was asked about death, and she speaks about her life briefly, saying "it was a good life".

Anyway, even without knowing anything about her life - it is quite clear from her writings that a person with such intense love of life cannot possibly be bitter. At least not during the years when she wrote her books. You tell me if it makes sense to you that a bitter person would be able to squeeze such creations from themselves while struggling such mental state. I think not.

[Moebius]

Anyway, even without knowing anything about her life - it is quite clear from her writings that a person with such intense love of life cannot possibly be bitter. At least not during the years when she wrote her books. You tell me if it makes sense to you that a bitter person would be able to squeeze such creations from themselves while struggling such mental state. I think not.

Well I guess that's one opinion. If you're going to make a case for my negative evaluation of Ayn Rand's emotional state, the it should go both ways. Anyway saying that "well she wrote this way, therefore she couldn't have been bitter" is completely and utterly baseless.

[RationalBiker]

I brought it up merely based on reading excerpts from Barbra Brenden's books, which while potentially biased (since I guess Rand did have an affair with her husband), were first hand accounts based on her time spent with Rand. Feel free to pick up a copy if you haven't already read it.

Anyway saying that "well she wrote this way, therefore she couldn't have been bitter" is completely and utterly baseless.

You have to love the irony here. Don't believe Rand's words when talking about Rand; instead believe Barbara Branden's.

[RationalBiker]

Well I guess that's one opinion.

Actually it's at least two because I've seen that interview and I concur with her evaluation. I would recommend watching Ayn Rand - A Sense of Life narrated by Sharon Gless. Given the glimpses you see of her later life, perhaps you will at least see what our viewpoint is based on even if you continue to disagree.

[LaszloWalrus]

http://aynrand100.com/lifeworks.html

Scroll down from the above link to hear Leonard Peikoff's "My Thirty Years with Ayn Rand"; it gives a good overview of her as a person.

[earwax]

I asked a question here and its been sort hijacked the purpose for which I created this thread. If I was in the least bit concerned about how happy Ayn Rand was during her life I would have posted a topic about that. It is irrelevant to the topic here whether she was a bitter old lady or happy every moment of her life. I want to know if her idea of happiness is valid or not. The response I got hasn't fully answered the question although I don't disagree with anything necrovere said.

[KendallJ]

Okay I just read the Objectivist ethics in VoS and the chapter on Happiness in OPAR. I have a question. Ayn Rand asserts here that one can only experience pure happiness if they are rational goals. Now I know plenty of people who have irrational goals[religious mainly] who seem to be happy. How is it we can know that these people are incapable of real happiness? How can one prove that real happiness is attained by people who are rational? Is this theory of happiness falsifiable? Can you enjoy something that did not have something to do with your survival as a human being? If one finds happiness in a hobby how does that fit in with the Objectivist view of happiness?

Earwax, you are so right.

My question for you is in what sense did your readings use the concept of happiness? I notice in your post you use qualifiers, "pure happiness", "real happiness". Sometimes you'll see Aristotle's eudaimonea trotted out in place to refer to a particular type of happiness. Tara Smith speaks of "flourishing" as interchangable with happiness.

This is really used to refer to a life of a particular character, as distinct from a particular feeling. That life should include such feelings, but witnessing such feelings does not necessarily confirm that a person lives a life a particular character. Here's Tara Smith's take on the subject,

None of this account of flourishing entails that it is easy to determine whether a person is flourishing. We have previously observed that life is an extended, wide-ranging enterprise. Whether something serves a person's life can be a difficult judgement, given the layers of effects that a thing can carry on the complex network of ends that compose a person's life. What superficially looks good is not always actually beneficial. Because flourishing is not reducible to some set of possessions of positions, a snapshot of aperson's condition at any moment is insufficient to justify conclusions about his flourishing.

[Moebius]

The Objectivist ideal is to experience a happiness which is rationally justified. That justification includes a consideration of one's nature as a rational being. That justification is what makes happiness "real," because if you are happy, and your reason tells you that you should be happy, and your reasoning is correct, taking into account all the relevant facts, then what can endanger your happiness?

But then it would seem like rationality does not in fact cause happiness, but rather only serve to reinforce or prolong it once you're already happy.

[softwareNerd]

Wow! Yes, your thread sure was hijacked there! The question of Ayn Rand's happiness is not completely irrelevant. Those who say she was unhappy are using a powerful variant of an ad hominemhominem -- if the main advocate cannot practice what they preach, it throws doubt on the message.

Okay I just read the Objectivist ethVoS in VoS and the chapter on Happiness in OPAR. I have a question. Ayn Rand asserts here that one can only experience pure happiness if they are rational goals. Now I know plenty of people who have irrational goals[religious mainly] who seem to be happy. How is it we can know that these people are incapable of real happiness? How can one prove that real happiness is attained by people who are rational? Is this theory of happiness falsifiable? Can you enjoy something that did not have something to do with your survival as a human being? If one finds happiness in a hobby how does that fit in with the Objectivist view of happiness?

The point you're making is that non-Objectivists can be happy. I agree. The question, then, is what makes them so? I'd say that they have figured out what types of things bring men happiness, and they have made those things more important in their lives. The best way to think about this is to consider some people (non-Objectivists) you know, who you would classify as happy and unhappy, and ask yourself what makes them so.

On the hobby question, hobbies are not incompatible with Objectivism. Ayn Rand herself was an enthusiastic stamp-collector.

You allude to "survival", and you might have the common misconception that Rand is saying: stay alive at any cost, and that's all that matters -- quality of life is nothing. That is not what she meant by 'life as the standard of value'.

[Spano]

I think the following section from Galt's speech is relevant (p. 939):

"Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy—a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your mind's fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

Notice the formulation - "non-contradictory joy". To me, this is the key to understanding how "seemingly happy" people fail to meet the criteria for true happiness. The ideal is not to be happy most of the time, and to push the bad thoughts, guilt, etc out of your mind most of the time -- it's to experience pure happiness that derives from *true* identifications of reality.

Consider as an example the "happy" nun. She professes that given her relationship with God, she feels happy all the time. But this simply can't be the case, because it is false. That faux happiness is mixed with doubts every time something happens that doesn't seem to be consistent with God's Plan, or guilt every time she feels a temptation to do something God forbids (e.g., sex), or dread of indepedent thought and action stemming from epistemological dependence on faith.

With Galt, on the other hand, there is no tainting of his happiness, which stems from his achievement of values and basic efficacy, all of which is actually true, not faked. The nun may experience contradictory joy, but only the rational man can achieve noncontradictory joy.

Hope that helps.

[KendallJ]

On the hobby question, hobbies are not incompatible with Objectivism. Ayn Rand herself was an enthusiastic stamp-collector.

In fact there is a thread around here somewhere where you can tell us yours.

I collect fountain pens, and train my dog (although it doesn't show very well sometimes).

I've always had hobbies, but I confess I used to think collecting was a bit neurotic. No longer (or else I'm getting senile in my late 30's)

[Prometheus98876]

But then it would seem like rationality does not in fact cause happiness, but rather only serve to reinforce or prolong it once you're already happy.

Rationality is not a cause of happiness. One being rational does not and cannot in itself result in one being happy. Happiness comes about when certain events take place in a way that correspond to ons values.

However a largely irrational person is going to find it more difficult to achieve non-destructive values. Any happiness they achieve will be fleeting and somewhat

A rational person is more capable of dealing with reality and consistently achieving values that are in ones self-interest, of acheiving proper values, by taking the proper actions.

So rationality does not cause happiness, no, however to be happy in the long-term and more than for the odd moment, one must BE rational. Its more of a prerequisite of prolonged happiness, not a cause.