Death

[Aqualyst]

Everybody is going to die. Thats obvious. And this fact hinders my motivation a little for living life. Can anyone relate to this, to the idea that you occassionally choose to be lazy while shrugging off the notion of doing productive work because youre thinking neither decision really matters in the long-term? Or you choose to consistently eat a high saturated-fat diet even though you know it will probably shorten your lifespan, and you do this because you think a few extra years to life is meaningless anyways since those extra few years will come to an end too? Seriously, how important are our lives?

(Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood right now, although I dont think thats it.)

The fact that death is inevitable should not, by itself, hinder motivation or render decisions meaningless. On the contrary, the inevitability of death, by implication, gives meaning to life. It’s true that everyone will eventually die, but this fact has implications for action.

For the rational animal (man), the fact of his inescapable death gives rise to the need to gain the values that sustain and advance his life and make it worth living. To mortal man, every “is” implies an “ought;” every existent has implications for action. There are no meaningless decisions. Every decision matters, including whether or not to scratch an itch. All decisions have a positive or negative impact on the life of the mortal man.

Conversely, to an immortal consciousness, no action is superior to any other. It is the immortal man who should be ambivalent. There is no action he must perform -- no value he must gain -- to sustain his life. It is the immortal man who should ask, “How important is my life?”

Immortality is, in fact, the real meaning of hell; for it is a sentence to a life without the need to think or act. There are no values to be gained because the standard of all value (life) is guaranteed.

[BaseballGenius]

The main problem I see in your post is that you feel compelled to be productive nonstop. Just because you choose to live long term (and not short term) does not mean you have to work nonstop, and beat yourself up when you are being lazy (in response to the part of your quote that I emphasized).

(Please correct me if I misunderstood you).

Thats not quite it. What I dont like is the lack of pleasure in my life. I love playing baseball but I have never been able to think of another activity that really makes my blood bubble. Baseball takes up an hour or so each day and that leaves the rest of the day for boredom(going to work, watching tv, minute activities). I want another thing that I would really look forward to doing each day.

A part I don't get about your post is why would the non-infinity (or "finity", if there was such a word) of your life reduce the value of your life in the present?

What I dont like about the length of our current human lives is that I will end up striving hard for a long term goal(such as playing pro baseball) and when I finally reach that goal, I can only enjoy the accomplishment for such a short time because human health inevitably decreases over time. If humans lived extremely long lives in good health, then they could enjoy their accomplshments for a longer time. Of course, they would probably get sick of the activity eventually.

[BaseballGenius]

Conversely, to an immortal consciousness, no action is superior to any other. It is the immortal man who should be ambivalent. There is no action he must perform -- no value he must gain -- to sustain his life. It is the immortal man who should ask, “How important is my life?”

Immortality is, in fact, the real meaning of hell; for it is a sentence to a life without the need to think or act. There are no values to be gained because the standard of all value (life) is guaranteed.

I think youre missing one thing. An immortal man may not be able to die in the physical sense, but that doesnt mean he cant be happy. So that right there gives his decisions a standard of value.

[DavidOdden]

An immortal man may not be able to die in the physical sense, but that doesnt mean he cant be happy. So that right there gives his decisions a standard of value.

Do you think that physical pleasure and happiness are the same thing? If not (a leading question if ever...), what does it mean to be happy?

[BaseballGenius]

Do you think that physical pleasure and happiness are the same thing? If not (a leading question if ever...), what does it mean to be happy?

No, they are two different things, although certain physical pleasure can contribute to your happiness. Happiness means you feel in control of your life and achieve your rational values.

I have a quick question for you. I know you are a veteran in life and apply Objectivism consistently to your decisions. How do you regularly feel, psychologically? Is it a strong contentedness or what?

[DavidOdden]

Happiness means you feel in control of your life and achieve your rational values.

So as far as the latter goes, what's the difference between a rational and an irrational value, especially in the context of an immortal, as we wuz talking aout?

I have a quick question for you. I know you are a veteran in life and apply Objectivism consistently to your decisions. How do you regularly feel, psychologically? Is it a strong contentedness or what?

Yeah, when I do consistently apply Objectivism. Mostly. Lemme put it another way -- when I get distracted from The Main Goal, then I can get irritated. The blissful feeling of contentedness comes when I accomplish something that I set out to do. So it's not like I'm in a constant state of euphoria, because sometimes I'm a week or a month from finishing the paper. But I've tried to structure my life so that I get one of those feeling-of-accomplishment rushes as often as possible. I don't know how to translate that into your interests, but for me it means having a half dozen projects going at all times (some lasting over a decade, some only a few months), so I'm rarely bored for more than a day.

[Aqualyst]

I think youre missing one thing. An immortal man may not be able to die in the physical sense, but that doesnt mean he cant be happy. So that right there gives his decisions a standard of value.

Focusing on happiness changes the context of the discussion from existence to the contents of consciousness. Nonetheless, if happiness is to be defined as the state of consciousness that proceeds from gaining or keeping values; then the argument from happiness becomes circular. It goes straight back to values and from whence they derive.

If life is the standard of value, and the immortal being has not life, but rather perpetual, assured existence; then the immortal being has no standard by which to judge any action or its consequences. The concept of happiness would therefore not apply to an immortal being.

[BaseballGenius]

So as far as the latter goes, what's the difference between a rational and an irrational value, especially in the context of an immortal, as we wuz talking aout?

A rational value supports your happiness if it's achieved, while an irrational value is the opposite.

The blissful feeling of contentedness comes when I accomplish something that I set out to do. So it's not like I'm in a constant state of euphoria, because sometimes I'm a week or a month from finishing the paper.

What state of mind are in when youre inbetween the accomplishment of those projects and working again? Just focused and unaware of your emotional state?

but for me it means having a half dozen projects going at all times (some lasting over a decade, some only a few months), so I'm rarely bored for more than a day.

What are "projects", exactly?

[BaseballGenius]

If life is the standard of value, and the immortal being has not life, but rather perpetual, assured existence; then the immortal being has no standard by which to judge any action or its consequences. The concept of happiness would therefore not apply to an immortal being.

Why cant the standard of his actions be what contributes to his happiness? Why cant an immortal man be happy?

For instance, if a cure for death had been figured out, then all of a sudden humans couldnt be happy anymore? I dont see how the achievements of your values wouldnt bring you happiness any longer. You just get to live longer.

[DavidOdden]

A rational value supports your happiness if it's achieved, while an irrational value is the opposite.

This sounds rather circular. You said that happiness is when you achieve your rational values, and now you say that a rational value supports your happiness when it's achieved. You can't define happiness in terms of rational value and then define rational value in terms of happiness. You can decide "Well, I think happiness is a primitive and man's primary goal", in other words, do with the physical feeling aspect. Or, "value" could simply be something arbitrary, so that death, pain, money, baseball, big house etc could all be arbitrarily selected as your value. How do you get out of defining "rational value" and "happiness" in terms of each other.

What state of mind are in when youre inbetween the accomplishment of those projects and working again? Just focused and unaware of your emotional state?

There isn't a "working again" stage -- I'm always working. Sometimes I'm in the middle of something, somethings the project is complete, and I get that feeling of accomplishment.

What are "projects", exactly?

Vaguely speaking, a paper that I'm writing or paper-like object (a web page); or it could be an aspect of the preparatory research.

[BaseballGenius]

This sounds rather circular. You said that happiness is when you achieve your rational values, and now you say that a rational value supports your happiness when it's achieved. You can't define happiness in terms of rational value and then define rational value in terms of happiness.

Sorry, but I just cant understand whats wrong with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that happiness is the achievement of one's rational values.

[DavidOdden]

Sorry, but I just cant understand whats wrong with what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that happiness is the achievement of one's rational values.

What's wrong is that you can't explain to me what rational values are, except circularly by saying "whatever makes you happy to achieve". You apparently can't reduce "happiness" to anything more basic or more axiomatic. I suggest that what you really mean is that "happiness" is a primitive hedonic feeling, i.e. "pleasure" -- something irreducible and axiomatic, a sensation like hearing. If you have that view of happiness, then you can use "happiness" as your ultimate standard of value, the basis for deciding if some action is "rational" (because it brings you happiness, i.e. pleasure).

[Tenure]

Are you saying then, that yes, the judgement of whether a value is rational, is if it meets the ultimate standard of happiness? And that happiness is... an axiomatic feeling? I always thought it was what BG said, that happiness comes from the achievement of rational values, and that rational values are judged as ones which are productive (i.e. life-sustaining in more than just the basic sense of survival).

[DavidOdden]

Are you saying then, that yes, the judgement of whether a value is rational, is if it meets the ultimate standard of happiness? And that happiness is... an axiomatic feeling?

That is what I said, but not what I'm saying. I'm trying to show why I think BG's theory of value and happiness is in error. So I'm certainly not advocating the position that happiness is an axiomatic feeling. Rather, I would (as Objectivism does) derive happiness by reference to a specific standard, namely "existence" and my fundamental choice to exist. From that flows the hierarchical relationship, that a "rational value" is that which makes me live. Happiness then is the mental state that comes from achieving my values, namely "living".

I always thought it was what BG said, that happiness comes from the achievement of rational values, and that rational values are judged as ones which are productive (i.e. life-sustaining in more than just the basic sense of survival).

With emphasis added. Yes, that's what's needed, to connect "rational value" with "life". Now the problem is that an immortal being is no more capable of "value" than a coffee cup. He has no choice but to exist, and his actions are ineffective in terms of chosing between existeing and non-existence. Life can't be a goal for him, it isn't something that he works to keep, since it's given automatically. The concepts of value and therefore happiness are logically dependent on the fact that life is not metaphysically given to the living. If life were guaranteed, the only possible "value" system that I can imagine is the purely hedonic "give me physical pleasure" one.

[Aqualyst]

Why cant the standard of his actions be what contributes to his happiness? Why cant an immortal man be happy?

For instance, if a cure for death had been figured out, then all of a sudden humans couldnt be happy anymore? I dont see how the achievements of your values wouldnt bring you happiness any longer. You just get to live longer.

Philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as an “immortal man.” Implicit in the concept “man” is mortality. A “cure for death” does not make man immortal. A newly discovered means of thwarting death becomes simply one more value that man has to gain to sustain his life.

Conversely, the immortal being must enact no cause to gain the effect of sustaining his existence. Continued existence for the immortal is guaranteed and requires no action. Hence, no values are possible to the immortal being because values arise from life. Hence, happiness doesn’t apply to the immortal because life is not what he has, but rather assured existence.

Life, too, is an existent. It has definite characteristics. It can be defined. It is neither guaranteed nor infinite. Implicit in the concept of life is that it has an end. It is finite. Life, as such, is not what an immortal being has.

Happiness, as a state of consciousness, is only possible to a being that possesses life that can end, and who must act to gain the values that feed such a conscious state. Attributing such conscious states to immortal beings is the province of mystics when they refer to the “reasons” for the deeds of their Gods.

The original post proposed that the existence of death could be sufficient to hinder the motivation to act for the furtherance of one’s life. Philosophically, arguments have been given against such a proposition. Psychologically, however, a particular consciousness may conclude any number of things, including the idea that the existence of death makes moot any life-promoting decisions.

[Seeker]

Implicit in the concept of life is that it has an end.

I am confused as to how you reached this result. It is true that most concrete examples of life have ended, but that finite nature is not essential to the concept. Life is a process of self-generating, self-sustaining action. Fundamentally, there is nothing that requires it to end. Does "implicit" mean "disregarding the essentials and examining a nonessential aspect that happens to have belonged to most concretes"? If so, I can agree, though I don't know what significance that has. And I respectfully disagree with your observation, if it is intended to mean anything else.

Happiness may depend upon life's contingent nature, but not upon finite duration. Contingent does not mean terminal. I don't need to think that my life is going to last 80 years only, as opposed to an indefinite duration, to be happy.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Seeker

[Aqualyst]

I am confused as to how you reached this result. It is true that most concrete examples of life have ended, but that finite nature is not essential to the concept. Life is a process of self-generating, self-sustaining action. Fundamentally, there is nothing that requires it to end. Does "implicit" mean "disregarding the essentials and examining a nonessential aspect that happens to have belonged to most concretes"? If so, I can agree, though I don't know what significance that has. And I respectfully disagree with your observation, if it is intended to mean anything else.

Happiness may depend upon life's contingent nature, but not upon finite duration. Contingent does not mean terminal. I don't need to think that my life is going to last 80 years only, as opposed to an indefinite duration, to be happy.

Implicit – understood – inherent – contained – implied. There is nothing in the concept of implicit that says “essential”. Hence, there is nothing in the sentence in question that says that “finiteness” is essential to life; but rather simply a part of life.

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Ergo, Socrates is mortal. Does this syllogism not contain implications about life having an end? Have not the lives of all men ended?

The sentence in question was part of the context of a post. It was not intended to stand on its own, out of context, but rather as a logical extension of the integration of the knowledge of life, as such. It was intended as one more nail in the coffin of the idea that an immortal being could value.

The fact that a particular consciousness can conceive of no fundamental requirement for life to end does not necessarily mean that there is no such requirement. Perhaps man will someday discover what it is about life that renders it finite. Or, perhaps man will discover that life “just is” finite and that this fact simply has to be accepted; in the same way that existence has to be accepted. Existence is what it is. Life is what it is. Neither can be infinite.

[Seeker]

Have not the lives of all men ended?

The lives of men living today have not ended.

The sentence in question was part of the context of a post. It was not intended to stand on its own, out of context, but rather as a logical extension of the integration of the knowledge of life, as such. It was intended as one more nail in the coffin of the idea that an immortal being could value.

The fact that a particular consciousness can conceive of no fundamental requirement for life to end does not necessarily mean that there is no such requirement. Perhaps man will someday discover what it is about life that renders it finite. Or, perhaps man will discover that life “just is” finite and that this fact simply has to be accepted; in the same way that existence has to be accepted. Existence is what it is. Life is what it is. Neither can be infinite.

We know what renders life finite: aging and disease. But I see no reason why cellular aging is any more essential to my life than my appendix. If one day a way to refresh my cells can be found, I'll embrace it eagerly. The solution for disease is to find cures.

Death may be unavoidable for us. That does not make it part of life, but rather the end to life. Death is not an attribute of life, but a consequence of aging and disease. Life in and of itself does not entail death. Life is not necessarily finite, though our lives, as presently constituted with our current technology, may be.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Seeker