Does death give life meaning? Does happiness require struggling to survive?

[epistemologue]

Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful? Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness?

I’ve heard Objectivists and others argue that we have to struggle for survival, and if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves, because we have no purpose anymore and therefore happiness is impossible, since happiness is defined by a struggle to survive.

This position is incomprehensible and very disturbing to me. I love my life and I’m happy to exist despite the struggle to survive - if we were immortal and survival weren’t a struggle that would be a load off of my back, I could settle into just pursuing the things that make me happy, without needing to worry about this survival problem.

[softwareNerd]

Rand ties human happiness to the biological process of life (perhaps we can even say “flourishing” life). In doing so, she pointed out that life is an active process: a spider, a deer, a lion, a human, have to enact something in order to stay alive. Hinder that action, or sink into inaction, and if some other life form does not support them, they die.  With this vocabulary, happiness is the emotional state that comes from taking those actions successfully, and thus continuing to flourish as living being. Using this background, Rand ties Purpose to Productiveness. 

To solve the issue of survival would be to solve the issue of Productiveness. In other words: if we created technology and machines that made survival pretty easy, we’d have addressed the issue of being productive enough: productive beyond day to day survival. In terms of technology, humankind is probably already at that point, or pretty close. The exceptions would be the various diseases and “accidents” that can cause early death. 

So, can humans be happy if they spend only a bare minimum amount of time and effort on being productive? I guess that’s how I would re-frame your question.

I doubt humans can be happy without purpose. So, the question morphs to: can humans have a truly fulfilling sense of purpose if there is no productiveness in the purpose?

[epistemologue]

2 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

To solve the issue of survival would be to solve the issue of Productiveness.

Why do you say that? I can imagine a thousand productive lines of work that don’t pertain directly to the issue of survival, and would still be valuable if that problem were solved - any form of art for instance.

[softwareNerd]

2 hours ago, epistemologue said:

Why do you say that? I can imagine a thousand productive lines of work that don’t pertain directly to the issue of survival, and would still be valuable if that problem were solved - any form of art for instance.

Yes, I agree.

[KevinD]

8 hours ago, epistemologue said:

I’ve heard Objectivists and others argue that we have to struggle for survival, and if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves, because we have no purpose anymore and therefore happiness is impossible, since happiness is defined by a struggle to survive.

To “achieve immortality” is an unreal concept. Scientific advancements may aid greatly in the extension of life and the improvement of physical health. But it’s really not conceivable that you’ll ever see the day when your continued survival has been rendered so absolutely inevitable that you cannot die.

It’s inherent in the nature of life that some effort, some struggle is necessary for its maintenance. This struggle in the face of alternatives gives rise to the issue of values — and values, not death or mortality per se, are what make life meaningful and enjoyable.

6 hours ago, epistemologue said:

I can imagine a thousand productive lines of work that don’t pertain directly to the issue of survival, and would still be valuable if that problem were solved - any form of art for instance.

Countless human values don’t directly contribute to man’s survival and physical well-being, but this doesn’t mean they don’t have significant “survival value” — particularly when one understands that man is a conceptual being, with needs of the mind and spirit as well as the body.

[epistemologue]

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

But it’s really not conceivable that you’ll ever see the day when your continued survival has been rendered so absolutely inevitable that you cannot die.

I don’t think such a thing is literally inconceivable, though I agree that it’s a high standard that is difficult to imagine.

 

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

It’s inherent in the nature of life that some effort, some struggle is necessary for its maintenance. This struggle in the face of alternatives gives rise to the issue of values — and values, not death or mortality per se, are what make life meaningful and enjoyable.

Well life is a metabolic process, there’s certainly some energy being burned to make the thing go, and it does require taking in energy in order to maintain it. I don’t know how much “effort” is strictly necessary, let alone “struggle”. A plant for example puts forth basically no effort to maintain its life, it simply takes in energy from the sun.

But it’s not the effort required to maintain one’s life that gives rise to all values. There are still choices that need to be made in the face of alternatives, and there are types of enjoyment that we can appreciate, that are not directly related to our survival. If you imagine an immortal person that doesn’t need to make any effort or go through any struggle to survive, you can still imagine that person facing alternatives that they need to choose between and enjoying values (whether it’s watching a sunrise, eating a meal, playing a game, contemplating a work of art, or whatever). There’s even still a standard of morality involved, one can fail to achieve the fullest values they are capable of (e.g. if someone is sitting and staring at a blank wall vs. another person who goes around looking at art, to make a simple comparison).

 

2 hours ago, KevinD said:

Countless human values don’t directly contribute to man’s survival and physical well-being, but this doesn’t mean they don’t have significant “survival value” — particularly when one understands that man is a conceptual being, with needs of the mind and spirit as well as the body.

I agree that values that don’t directly contribute to survival can still be instrumentally useful towards that end, for example how art is an emotional fuel for a man and can help inspire him to work harder. Yet it’s also true that, for example, art is an end in itself, and a pleasure to contemplate for its own sake. Its value doesn’t depend on its being useful toward the end of survival.

 

[softwareNerd]

6 hours ago, epistemologue said:

Yet it’s also true that, for example, art is an end in itself, and a pleasure to contemplate for its own sake. Its value doesn’t depend on its being useful toward the end of survival.

That’s not strictly true, in terms of the biology of it. There’s a relationship from any particular value, to flourishing life. 

I think you should drop the term “struggle” and use “effort”. A plant is a bad example: a higher mammal is a better comparison to man. And, with self-awareness and the need for self-motivation, humans need to put in a few more dimensions of effort into the production of values (compared to what we know about most mammals). Once you satisfy yourself about “effort”, then loop back and question “struggle”. On the other hand, if even effort is not needed, struggle is off the table.

Also, before answering your original question – i.e. whether immortality will change anything – there’s the basic premise that values arise as a result of the life-death choice, and this has created (mortal) mammals that expend effort in order to flourish as living beings. If this theory is unsound, then the question you asked would not arise. If the theory is plausible, then we get the next stage: what if one of these mammals achieves immortality? 

 

[KyaryPamyu]

Ayn Rand declared ‘Life’ to be the standard of value, but I highly doubt her account was survivalist. A key idea in Galt’s speech is that a moral man is primarily motivated by the desire to gain values, not by the desire to avoid of suffering, i.e. his ultimate goal is _pleasure _derived from things that enhance his life, rather than from momentary pleasures that will kill him in the long run. 

Imagine a fictional world where all things that preserved us - food, sleep, exercise and so on - gave us pain rather than pleasure. Would that be a life worth preserving? I believe Ayn Rand would not hesistate to say that what makes life worth living is _happiness, _not survival at any price. If the pain-body mechanism was skewed like that, life would cease to be a value. Galt’s talk about commiting suicide over losing Dagny strongly suggests that Rand did not regard all life as worth preserving, only a life where happiness is possible.

Here’s where I agree with Rand: human beings have a vast array or needs, physical and psychological. Some of them are unique to us (art, philosophy, variety, challenge) and some are common in the animal world (food, sunlight). But here’s where I disagree: her trying to box-in every human need into either the ‘preservation of body’ or ‘preservation of consciousness’ category.

My objection springs from a point of view that is not popular with objectivists, namely that human beings, like all animals, are genetically programmed to feel pleasure from things that enhance both survival _and _reproduction. Sex, romantic love and child rearing are utterly useless for your survival, but produce intense pleasure and spiritual fulfillment within people. Why? Because that’s the nature of your body.

Does this view contradict Rand? This view denies that all human needs are tied to survival. However, it does not contradict the essence of what Rand is saying, namely that man’s moral purpose is _happiness. _Rand went to great lenghts to point out that life is the standard of value, not happiness, because only a course of life-preserving values will actualy lead to happiness. But the point remains that happiness and pleasure are the stars of the game, and that the entire reason why we pursue life at all, is because life is very fun to live. If happiness requires struggle, then that struggle becomes eclipsed by how amazing happiness is.

In other words, if we replace ‘Life’ as the standard, with ‘Happy life’ as the standard, we get closer to what Rand herself meant, but her view that reproduction is merely ‘a characteristic’ of living organisms, and that every single human need serves a survival role, only confuses this part of her ethics.

[Nicky]

On 12/27/2016 at 9:28 PM, epistemologue said:

Do you think death is necessary to make life meaningful?

Mortality is part of the definition of life. Inanimate matter is immortal, life is not.

Having a defined time of death, on the other hand, isn’t necessary…if that’s what you mean. Life can still be meaningful if it goes on indefinitely.

On 12/27/2016 at 9:28 PM, epistemologue said:

Is the struggle for survival necessary for happiness?

“Struggle” gives it a negative connotation. I don’t struggle to survive, I work/act to survive.

And it’s necessary for happiness in the sense that it’s what defines life.

On 12/27/2016 at 9:28 PM, epistemologue said:

if and when we ever achieve immortality, we might as well kill ourselves

That’s a pretty obvious contradiction in terms.

Do you mean if we ever find a way to prevent the aging process and all forms of disease? Because that wouldn’t make us immortal. Or unhappy, for that matter, because it would require action, purpose, and all the other things that make us happy.

Immortality is not possible. The argument against immortality is the same as the argument against God (the second excerpt, by Peikoff): http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/god.html Curing disease and preventing aging, on the other hand, are both possible and desirable.

[epistemologue]

@KyaryPamyu, so what is your take on the original questions of the thread exactly? You don’t think that death gives life meaning, or that struggle/suffering is necessary for happiness, because happiness and the meaning of life is about more than bare survival?

[KyaryPamyu]

12 hours ago, epistemologue said:

@KyaryPamyu, so what is your take on the original questions of the thread exactly? You don’t think that death gives life meaning, or that struggle/suffering is necessary for happiness, because happiness and the meaning of life is about more than bare survival?

 In brief, it’s part of human psychology to value things that are scarce. I think a lot of people wouldn’t care that much about making the most of their lives if they knew that it went on indefinitely. None of their time would ever be ‘wasted’ on anything, since they have an infinite supply of time at their disposal. 

This is not to say this would make them suicidal, since the struggle for survival is not the definition of happiness. Here we are confusing the metaphysical with the psychological. Metaphysicaly, when we fulfill our needs, we are maintaining or improving our capacity to survive and reproduce. But psychologicaly, we are not after either of these, but after pleasure, which is the physiological incentive to pursue those needs in the first place. If we didn’t have emotional feedback mechanisms, there would be no reason to survive since emotions are our means of enjoying life. 

Regarding whether the struggle for survival is necessary for happiness, and whether happiness is defined by the struggle to survive: it’s true that every human need has some effect on either survival or reproduction, but not all of them require ‘struggle’ in order to get fulfilled. Solving the survival problem is the basic precondition of happiness - namely, the security of food, shelter, clothes and financial stability. Many people, especially those in first world countries, are well past this stage. People like that are freed to pursue less urgent needs that are nontheless essential to happiness. Is acquiring friendship, romantic love, making or consuming art, ordering pizza, working on your earth-shattering philosophical system a struggle? Those things might pose different levels of challenge, but it’s a pleasurable and fulfilling kind of challenge. 

The only people to whom survival is a struggle is those who actually need to toil day and night for their basic survival needs. Those people cannot be said to be happy, because their other needs go unfulfilled. Now, about longevity: who wouldn’t want that? But people don’t want to lenghten their life unconditionaly, they want to do it because it’s like extending their stay in Disneyland.

Quote

if we were immortal and survival weren’t a struggle that would be a load off of my back, I could settle into just pursuing the things that make me happy, without needing to worry about this survival problem.

Agreed.

[Nicky]

6 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

 In brief, it’s part of human psychology to value things that are scarce.

Psychology used as a common noun usually refers to the totality of our thoughts. The things that happen in our (according to Oism individual) consciousnesses. 

So, when I read that something is part of “human psychology” (singular, no less, not “human psychologies”), the only way that makes sense to me is by assuming some kind of collective consciousness.

There would be no other way for 7 billiion individuals to have the same set of thoughts, except if they share a consciousness.

We don’t share a psychology. We share a biology, and we develop our own psychologies. Some, more rational than others. And we certainly choose our own values, we don’t have any values that came with the frame. So attributing the irrational valuing of scarcity that some humans have, and marketers like to take advantage of, to human nature, is absurd. It’s not human nature to be irrational. You choose it.

[KyaryPamyu]

3 hours ago, Nicky said:

So, when I read that something is part of “human psychology” (singular, no less, not “human psychologies”), the only way that makes sense to me is by assuming some kind of collective consciousness.

We don’t share a psychology. We share a biology, and we develop our own psychologies.

This is the blank slate/tabula rasa vs human nature debate. I’m not arguing against free will. I totaly agree that you can develop your mind in a way that makes you immune to marketing tactics. Especially if you go to marketing school. But is absolutely everything a matter of your choice?

Let’s say a man sees the picture below and makes a snap judgement that he greatly prefers the first woman. How much time would it take him to change his psychology in order to prefer the second woman?  Let’s imagine that he also finds out that the first woman is irrational, dull, her character is terrible, she doesn’t have many hobbies. The second one is incredibly intelligent, rational, nurturing, her character is flawless and she has the same tastes in art as the man does.

Important note: the character traits I suggested are made up for the sake of the experiment. They’re not a real assesment of the women in the pictures.

[Nicky]

5 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

This is the blank slate/tabula rasa vs human nature debate. I’m not arguing against free will. I totaly agree that you can develop your mind in a way that makes you immune to marketing tactics. Especially if you go to marketing school. But is absolutely everything a matter of your choice?

No, just your values.

 

5 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Let’s say a man sees the picture below and makes a snap judgement that he greatly prefers the first woman. How much time would it take him to change his psychology in order to prefer the second woman?  Let’s imagine that he also finds out that the first woman is irrational, dull, her character is terrible, she doesn’t have many hobbies. The second one is incredibly intelligent, rational, nurturing, her character is flawless and she has the same tastes in art as the man does.

Important note: the character traits I suggested are made up for the sake of the experiment. They’re not a real assesment of the women in the pictures.

A man liking a picture of KPP wearing that outfit has nothing to do with values. You’re feeling sexual pleasure because you’re being visually stimulated.

Don’t confuse automatic sensations like physical pleasure with values.

[softwareNerd]

14 minutes ago, Nicky said:

A man liking a picture of KPP wearing that outfit has nothing to do with values. You’re feeling sexual pleasure because you’re being visually stimulated.

Don’t confuse automatic sensations like physical pleasure with values.

I’d say that man sees spots obvious value – to him – in the first picture, but may discover more values when he learns more about the two of them. (Maybe its a matter of phrasing rather than idea.) 

[Nicky]

38 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

I’d say that man sees spots obvious value in the first picture, but may discover more values when he learns more about the two of them. (Maybe its a matter of phrasing rather than idea.) 

If you want a value judgement, the people to ask would be women (since they wouldn’t get the physical reaction the first photo is intended to cause in men).

And even then, it’s an unfair comparison. The second woman doesn’t have the team of stylists and professional photographers the Japanese pop star in the first image has.

[just as a note: I know a little bit about the girl in the picture. Her name is Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, and she works hard to create a very interesting image for herself. I even like some of her songs (check out Fashion Monster on youtube, that’s probably her best video). But that has nothing to do with the picture. The picture shows a model, made up and photographed by professionals…just by looking at it, the safer assumption would be that the picture has almost nothing to do with the person in it, she might as well be an inanimate object someone else dressed up to look a certain way. Point is, there aren’t many objective value judgements you can make about the person in the picture, just by looking at it.]

[MisterSwig]

6 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Let’s say a man sees the picture below and makes a snap judgement that he greatly prefers the first woman. How much time would it take him to change his psychology in order to prefer the second woman?  Let’s imagine that he also finds out that the first woman is irrational, dull, her character is terrible, she doesn’t have many hobbies. The second one is incredibly intelligent, rational, nurturing, her character is flawless and she has the same tastes in art as the man does.

 

Which one is more scarce? That’s all that matters to me. I’m attracted to endangered women.

[Eiuol]

9 hours ago, Nicky said:

So, when I read that something is part of “human psychology” (singular, no less, not “human psychologies”), the only way that makes sense to me is by assuming some kind of collective consciousness.

This is totally dismissive about the field of psychology!

Human psychology refers to the nature of the human mind. One’s psychology is a different concept than psychology the nature of human thought.

16 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

In brief, it’s part of human psychology to value things that are scarce.

Now, at least value pertains to seeking some end by choice - and it is part of human nature to actively seek those ends by choice. What psychology shows, Kyary, is that people have an innate capacity to recognize scarcity. Scarcity is a major basis to decide value, because it is so easy and notable to recognize. As far as philosophy, this doesn’t say -why- life should or does have meaning.

[KyaryPamyu]

8 hours ago, Nicky said:

Don’t confuse automatic sensations like physical pleasure with values.

Sexual arousal is part of human psychology, which studies much more than the ‘thought-content’ of your mind. This is the meaning I was using.

8 hours ago, Nicky said:

A man liking a picture of KPP wearing that outfit has nothing to do with values. You’re feeling sexual pleasure because you’re being visually stimulated. Don’t confuse automatic sensations like physical pleasure with values.

Automatic sensations? Careful, lest somebody here calls you a Kantian, then proceeds to lecure you on there being no innate ‘instincts’ and that all pleasure responses are created by your internalized, chosen value judgements, since man is a conceptual being, and a conceptual being does not automatically know that hot young women are more desirable than older, less fertile ones. 

Quote

If you want a value judgement, the people to ask would be women (since they wouldn’t get the physical reaction the first photo is intended to cause in men).

It’s important to ask a very objective woman, since pictures like these tend to get on their nerves…

Quote

And even then, it’s an unfair comparison. The second woman doesn’t have the team of stylists and professional photographers the Japanese pop star in the first image has.

Precisely. A handful of stylists and professional photographers go a long way to influence our automatic… whoops - our conceptual, personaly chosen value responses which we have subconsciously habituated. I know they have a knack for tickling mine.

Quote

[just as a note: I know a little bit about the girl in the picture. Her name is Kyary Pamyu Pamyu, and she works hard to create a very interesting image for herself. I even like some of her songs (check out Fashion Monster on youtube, that’s probably her best video).

I might have confused some of you with my nickname. The girl in my avatar and in the comparision photo is a japanese singer that goes by the stage name MEG. She also has great music. Kyary Pamyu Pamyu and Fashion Monster are, of course, awesome. 

Quote

Which one is more scarce? That’s all that matters to me. I’m attracted to endangered women.

In terms of looks, the first one. For me it’s also very important that a woman shares some common interests of mine but hey. To each his own.

Quote

Human psychology refers to the nature of the human mind. One’s psychology is a different concept than psychology the nature of human thought.

Exactly, Eiuol. I rarely see people use that term to refer to specific thoughts, like Nicky claimed. Saying that this would imply a collective consciousness is like saying that, since people have bodies that are very much alike - eyes, legs, arms, physiological reflexes etc. - the only way to make sense of this is by assuming the existence of a collective human body.

Quote

What psychology shows, Kyary, is that people have an innate capacity to recognize scarcity. Scarcity is a major basis to decide value, because it is so easy and notable to recognize. As far as philosophy, this doesn’t say -why- life should or does have meaning.

Agreed. I was responding to this particular point because a great deal of objectivists tend to be skeptical about the human mind having a nature and innate capacities, such as the one to recognize scarcity, sexual and genetic fitness, beauty and so on. They find this claim to be a fierce attack on free will, because, according to them, this would ‘plant’ thoughts into their minds without their volition, alla determinism.

[softwareNerd]

12 hours ago, Nicky said:

If you want a value judgement, the people to ask would be women (since they wouldn’t get the physical reaction the first photo is intended to cause in men).

If I were to ask a woman, or a homosexual male, the value they derive from the photo of a pretty woman would be different from what I derive, as a heterosexual male. 

I think what you mean is that one would have to ask a woman, if one wanted a view of the model’s value, besides the value in the visual  (to me). But, here too, objectively, not knowing anything about either model, neither I nor a female observer would be able make a proper judgement. We’d just have to say we do not know. All we have is two photos. So, the only value we can derive is the value of the visual: the way one does in art, with an anonymous model. 

This is also not to say that there is clearly more value in the visual of Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. In that too, mileage can vary. Some aspects of the visual, and the connections they make, and the evaluations from those can be less obvious. So, more thoughtful contemplation can highlight other values, even from the visual alone.