Now I may be digressing considerable with the question, but I’d like to hear what your opinions are. So the purpose of my existence is happiness, contentment, peace, pride, etc. All of those, by their nature, reduce down to emotions or pleaure. Granted, those emotions are significantly different from, let’s say, the feeling one gets after eating an enjoyable meal, or the pleasure one gets from sex, etc. The goal of happiness demands setting goals and achieving them, which takes much longer and involves much more energy. When the dust settles, however, the end result is an emotion/pleaure. Hedonism, by definition is :
"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses.
Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Psychology. The doctrine holding that behavior is motivated by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain. "
(source - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hedonism))
Apart from the short sightedness and Nietzchean implications of such ideas, are we as value seekers hedonists? Is it possible to divorce the aforementioned characteristics from hedonism, or are they inexorably linked?
So the purpose of my existence is happiness, contentment, peace, pride, etc. All of those, by their nature, reduce down to emotions or pleasure.
No, the purpose of one’s life is to achieve one’s values. Happiness is the consequence of doing this successfully. The emotional response is not the focus, achieving one’s values is.
Philosophy. The ethical doctrine holding that only what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is intrinsically good.
Objectivism does not hold that “what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is *intrinsically* good”. In fact I doubt it would hold anything but life as *intrinsically* good.
Objectivism holds that what is right (what supports and maintains one’s goal of life) is good, and ultimately-pleasant. That is an effect, not a cause-of value judgement.
I just want to point out that pleasure and happiness are two different things. If I remember what I read correctly, then pleasure is a sensory faculty, and happiness is a conceptual one. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
No, the purpose of one’s life is to achieve one’s values. Happiness is the consequence of doing this successfully. The emotional response is not the focus, achieving one’s values is.
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life , with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” —Ayn Rand
The bolded parts in each quote seem to contradict. Anyone care to explain? Perhaps once we have agreement on this conundrum we can proceed to answer the original question.
Within the context of the first post, Free Thinker separated happiness from values. I attempted to make the connection.
Within the context of the quote you have, this connection is presupposed. Happiness IS the successful achievement of rational values. When I said “no,” I was saying no to happiness as a concept apart from values. Perhaps I should’ve clarified.
Hedonism essentially separates happiness from values, essential makes the concept of happiness arbitrary.
From Galt’s speech:
Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.
I understand your argument a bit more clearly now. Still, I most presist with my conclusions with a few modifications/clarifications. I agree that hedonism with its claim to “intrinsic value of pleasure” makes it incredibly short sighted, thus immoral. I also agree with you that pleasure isn’t necessarily value achievement. Let me explain with an example. One of the goals of my life is to find a woman who I love romantically - a woman who esteems my deepest principles and convictions. Let’s say tommorow I met such a woman, and we fall in love and begin a wonderful journey. That acheivement would (eventually) create positive emotions - specifically the emotion of happiness. Would one pursue values without the end result of happiness? No - those “values” cease to become values. Would one pursue values without the end emotion? Probably not. Ergo, if one pursues any value, one is pursuing happiness, and by default an emotion. Please clear up my confusion.
I’m not sure if this will clear anything up for you. I’m too busy to get properly involved in the semantics of this at the moment. I came across this, however, and thought about this thread and had to post it.
“I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivsim holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgement can be regarded as moal, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality.” --Ayn Rand
This was in an article about Ayn Rand in a book called “Contemporary Authors” and supposedly the quote was said in an interview with an Alvin Toffer. Sadly, this book does not cite where exactly the quote was originally published.
I understand your argument a bit more clearly now. Still, I most presist with my conclusions with a few modifications/clarifications. I agree that hedonism with its claim to “intrinsic value of pleasure” makes it incredibly short sighted, thus immoral. I also agree with you that pleasure isn’t necessarily value achievement. Let me explain with an example. One of the goals of my life is to find a woman who I love romantically - a woman who esteems my deepest principles and convictions. Let’s say tommorow I met such a woman, and we fall in love and begin a wonderful journey. That acheivement would (eventually) create positive emotions - specifically the emotion of happiness. Would one pursue values without the end result of happiness? No - those “values” cease to become values. Would one pursue values without the end emotion? Probably not. Ergo, if one pursues any value, one is pursuing happiness, and by default an emotion. Please clear up my confusion.
Happiness IS the result of achieving one’s rational values. For a young adult, for example, whose sense of life reacts positively to Objectivism, it may be painful to follow the right moral principles as he judges them. One may have been given the christian-altruist ideal all one’s life and still has a subconscious guilt. One may have felt guilty about wanting pleasure and now in a state of rebellion one may indulge in one’s emotions, whims. One of the first things one must come to grips with is the necessity to follow one’s conscious convictions. Objectivism is a rare philosophy that says that if one follows one’s principles one will eventually achieve happiness (pleasure). However, psychologically, this will take time. So that for our young adult, it may be painful at first to follow reason. For example justice may be a hard and painful principle to follow. Just think of all the people with whom one will now need to be just to, i.e., punish, like mother, brother, father, friend, teacher, priest, etc.
What Objectivism promises is that if one retains one’s integrity, over time, happiness will be the result. Check out Rand’s essay Philosophic Detection in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT. Towards the end she discusses briefly the idea of “psychological Atlantis” if one accepts and understands five crucial points. (I.e., “Objectivism while standing on one leg”).
Americo.
Happiness IS the result of achieving one’s rational values. For a young adult, for example, whose sense of life reacts positively to Objectivism, it may be painful to follow the right moral principles as he judges them. One may have been given the christian-altruist ideal all one’s life and still has a subconscious guilt. One may have felt guilty about wanting pleasure and now in a state of rebellion one may indulge in one’s emotions, whims. One of the first things one must come to grips with is the necessity to follow one’s conscious convictions. Objectivism is a rare philosophy that says that if one follows one’s principles one will eventually achieve happiness (pleasure). However, psychologically, this will take time. So that for our young adult, it may be painful at first to follow reason. For example justice may be a hard and painful principle to follow. Just think of all the people with whom one will now need to be just to, i.e., punish, like mother, brother, father, friend, teacher, priest, etc.
What Objectivism promises is that if one retains one’s integrity, over time, happiness will be the result. Check out Rand’s essay Philosophic Detection in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT. Towards the end she discusses briefly the idea of “psychological Atlantis” if one accepts and understands five crucial points. (I.e., “Objectivism while standing on one leg”).
Americo.
I just wanted to clear up my position one last time. I do not equate happiness with simply a momentary pleasure. My question is simply one of “semantics”, or of the proper means of identifying happiness. I know that pleasure divorced from ideas is a null ethical system, it is that of an animal. What I am persisting with is simply that if happiness is an emotion, and the goal of our lives is that happiness, are we seeking an emotion?
Yes, you are seeking an emotion. But seeking the value is more fundamental because the pleasant emotion might not follow from achieving a certain value, i.e., condemning the actions of an evil father. The value is the primary value. With a healthy mature psychology it will be hard to split up the value from the emotion. This is all I’m saying.
Americo.
“I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivsim holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgement can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality.” --Ayn Rand
I also seem to be a little confused/unsure about Rand’s logic here too. She seems like a bit of a killjoy. Or as if she believes in virtue and goodness for their own sake. (She doesn’t literally believe this–but sometimes it sounds uncannily like this.)
I don’t think philosophical hedonists say pleasure is a “first cause” but rather a final result. To say that pleasure “is not a guide to action” seems to deny the pleasure/pain principle upon which all of life and flourishing is based. The deepest and widest pleasure is overall happiness–but it’s still pleasure and an emotion. Rand usually implies that philosophical hedonists are mindless or stupid–which isn’t very fair. I think it’s interesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica puts “egoism” and “hedonism” under the same heading. <_<
I also seem to be a little confused/unsure about Rand’s logic here too. She seems like a bit of a killjoy. Or as if she believes in virtue and goodness for their own sake. (She doesn’t literally believe this–but sometimes it sounds uncannily like this.)
Just one more reason why Miss Rand is so frequently misinterpreted. But if you understand what she meant, why mention it?
I also seem to be a little confused/unsure about Rand’s logic here too. She seems like a bit of a killjoy. Or as if she believes in virtue and goodness for their own sake. (She doesn’t literally believe this–but sometimes it sounds uncannily like this.)
I agree. I think that that’s here the conclusion of “dogmatism” comes in. I of course am not accusing her of that, but am simply saying that it is a possibility with her followers.
I don’t think philosophical hedonists say pleasure is a “first cause” but rather a final result. To say that pleasure “is not a guide to action” seems to deny the pleasure/pain principle upon which all of life and flourishing is based. The deepest and widest pleasure is overall happiness–but it’s still pleasure and an emotion. Rand usually implies that philosophical hedonists are mindless or stupid–which isn’t very fair. I think it’s interesting that the Encyclopedia Britannica puts “egoism” and “hedonism” under the same heading. <_<
I think that because most people do not have a solid understanding of ideas or of principles, hedonism is often the course most people take. I think that, like I stated before, hedonism has serious short-sighted and Nietzschean implications. I don’t think that Objectivism is hedonism. Like others have commented on in this thread, Hedonism says that pleasure is good, Objectivism the good leads to pleasure, but not necessarily both ways. We have to understand that principles are not simply devoid of referent to reality, “the moral is the practical”. (Which I believe is the consensus here). My conclusion? Happinesss is the ultimate good, but it is still an emotion. Nothing escapes reality.
Objectivism does not hold that “what is pleasant or has pleasant consequences is *intrinsically* good”. In fact I doubt it would hold anything but life as *intrinsically* good.
Life is not intrinsically good. It is only a good to the one who chooses it. It is an objective, chosen value, not an intrinsic, absolute, categorical, commanded value.
Life is not intrinsically good. It is only a good to the one who chooses it. It is an objective, chosen value, not an intrinsic, absolute, categorical, commanded value.
I am noy sure if I agree with you. I believe that the whole meaning of value, “intrinsic” or not, has to be related to man. Intrinsic means “in it of itself”, which I do believe life is. What else could possibly meet that definition? If nothing, then what is life?
Free Thinker, “intrinsic” means that a value exists without anyone to value it. For example, “chocolate will still be good even if all of humanity disappears” is an intrinsicist position. There are no intrinsic values, because to say something is valued presumes that there will be someone who will value it.
And in regards to the main topic of this thread, “hedonism” is defined as pursuit of physical pleasure above all other considerations, including happiness, fulfillment, etc. As such, no we’re not all hedonists, at least the good ones among us.
I strongly suggest a great emphasis on proper definitions, because by just focusing on the definitions of two words, “intrinsic” and “hedonist” was enough for me to reply to your objections.
Free Thinker, “intrinsic” means that a value exists without anyone to value it. For example, “chocolate will still be good even if all of humanity disappears” is an intrinsicist position. There are no intrinsic values, because to say something is valued presumes that there will be someone who will value it.
And in regards to the main topic of this thread, “hedonism” is defined as pursuit of physical pleasure above all other considerations, including happiness, fulfillment, etc. As such, no we’re not all hedonists, at least the good ones among us.
I strongly suggest a great emphasis on proper definitions, because by just focusing on the definitions of two words, “intrinsic” and “hedonist” was enough for me to reply to your objections.
Okay, I understandwith your position - but I have a few questions.
I understand two schools of thought pertaining to value -subjectivist and intrinsic. What is the proper name for the Objectivist valuing system ie value as it benefits and extends man’s life?
I understand the definition of hedonism and have already conceded that Objectivism is not a hedonistic philosophy. If you recall, my question was one of semantics. To restate: If life’s purpose is to gain as much happiness as possible, and happiness is an emotion, is our whole life dedicated to the pursuit of an emotion (however different and substanitive an emotion happiness may be)?
Okay, I understandwith your position - but I have a few questions.
I understand two schools of thought pertaining to value -subjectivist and intrinsic. What is the proper name for the Objectivist valuing system ie value as it benefits and extends man’s life?
I understand the definition of hedonism and have already conceded that Objectivism is not a hedonistic philosophy. If you recall, my question was one of semantics. To restate: If life’s purpose is to gain as much happiness as possible, and happiness is an emotion, is our whole life dedicated to the pursuit of an emotion (however different and substanitive an emotion happiness may be)?
Actually, Objectivism is NEITHER subjective or intrinsic.
Subjective, in Rand’s terminology, means ‘completely arbitary.’ Intrinsic means ‘valuable in itself, regardless of agents.’ Intrinsicism falls prey to the fact that value is meaningless without an agent for something to be valuable to. Subjectivism ignores that as well and says value is a matter of will and being in orgasmic throes of “Saying YES! to life” (Nietzsche). Think of value as, under Objectivism, being analogous to a mathematical derivative of a relationship between an agent and this agents relevant context.
The best term to use is the economic term (rational self-interest, or rational selfishness). To my knowlege, the only people that come close to Rand’s value theory are the Austrian economists (yes, they called their theory Economic Subjectivism, but they never stated that value was an arbitrary whim).
and happiness is an emotion
No, happiness is not an emotion. Pleasure is an emotion.
Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one’s values.
happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance to virtue