Maybe the reason for the axioms (e.i. existence exists, consciousness is perception, and the law of identity) is so that we can pursue our happiness? Objectivist spirituality?
Maybe the reason for the axioms (e.i. existence exists, consciousness is perception, and the law of identity) is so that we can pursue our happiness? Objectivist spirituality?
The reason for the axioms is guidance in proper thinking, and proper thinking is the means toward the pursuit of happiness. So your first sentence is true.
Your second sentence attempts to identify a certain similarity between a philosophy and that non-philosophical practice called spirituality. Although even Rand recognized that philosophy and religion were in the same category of activity, logically it is religion and spirituality that is a type of philosophy not the other way around.
I guess what I’m trying to say, and I’m still developing this idea, is that we were “given” consciousness, which Miss Rand identifies as the spirit, so that we may choose to pursue happiness. I’m still trying to explain “given”, but I think this is a spiritual matter because I’m not sure if our actual experience of reality is something that can be dissected and explained through material science.
In principle, nothing that exists is unknowable. (This is a claim about particular facts not knowers, so not a claim that any person could ever be omniscient.)
I guess what I’m trying to say, and I’m still developing this idea, is that we were “given” consciousness, which Miss Rand identifies as the spirit, so that we may choose to pursue happiness. I’m still trying to explain “given”, but I think this is a spiritual matter because I’m not sure if our actual experience of reality is something that can be dissected and explained through material science.
That’s OK by my reckoning, but don’t you think you’ve got the cart before the horse, in a sense?
What I’m getting at is that (as you infer), we were not “given” anything.
Man’s consciousness just is.
Where happiness enters, in my opinion, is that by understanding ourselves and reality, through utilizing consciousness to its max - we are better equipped to make choices towards happiness - and also, to feel efficacious (confident and effective) about our relation to the world.
There is a further aspect of ‘spirituality’ that I’m interested in, but it is probably more psychological, and this is the drive in many (O’ists in particular) to unflinchingly seek the truth - if only for the sake of being ‘right’, in ones own esteem.
After all this, little wonder that Rand identified consciousness as “man’s self-made soul.”
That’s OK by my reckoning, but don’t you think you’ve got the cart before the horse, in a sense?
Funny, those were the excact words I was thinking. (cart before the horse) It seems that hes groping for an answer to how a bunch of material “stuff” can experience happiness, or exaltation. The link between matter and consciousness is diffucult to grasp, and can easily lead to “spirtual” explanations. Theres no doubt that man has spiritual needs, in the sense that looking at a piece of art, or gazing at the stars can be spiritually uplifting. But were not “given” consciousness to pursue spiritual needs, we pursue spiritual needs because that is part of the nature of a conscious, conceptual mind.
Yes, consciousness is. Yes, reality (as outlined by the axioms) is. But, isn’t it an interesting convenience that these two are set in a way to allow us to pursue pleasures unknown to any other species on this planet?
Isn’t it interesting how there appears to be a sort of “hierarchy of pleasure”? For example, the more you delve into a certain subject the more your range of pleasures expand to other things you thought you could not find pleasurable, but only if you choose the desire to pursue happiness. The result is having people in different spots of this “pleasure hierarchy”, and the ones below have a difficult time grasping the pleasures of those above.
Am I talking crazy?
Am I talking crazy?
Pretty much. The sort of reasoning you are suggesting is just like some sort of intelligent design. You do realize the whole point of the idea of self-interested pursuit of happiness is that BECAUSE of the axioms such as existence imply certain facts and thus how to pursue happiness? The convenience is only present, because that’s what you use as basis to figure out just how to achieve and pursue happiness. I don’t see why you need to throw in any additional explanation here, there is no reason to suspect “reality exists as it does by design,” that’s what it seems like you are leaning towards.
But I don’t think consciousness is necessary to achieve happiness. I mean house pets that are loved by their owners do it every day. There’s something interesting to us having consciousness so we can achieve pleasure no other creature on earth can even grasp.
But I don’t think consciousness is necessary to achieve happiness. I mean house pets that are loved by their owners do it every day.
Even animals have consciousness.
I mean like we do, rational volition. Because these greater pleasures come to us only when we make the choice to desire them. We have no prior knowledge of them because they are too “high up the pleasure hierarchy”. It all has to come with the choice first. I don’t think animals can do that. I find it interesting that it has all been set up that way.
Ever wonder why you possess your current consciousness and not anothers?
Because these greater pleasures come to us only when we make the choice to desire them. We have no prior knowledge of them because they are too “high up the pleasure hierarchy”.
Greater by what measure/metric? Your argument about some sort of hierarchy is incrediblhy vague at this point.
Ever wonder why you possess your current consciousness and not anothers?
What does that even mean? Your personality is the sum of your experiences and actions. Of course you have “yours” and not someone else’s. Whatever perspective you’re trying to communicate, you’re not making much sense.
Greater by what measure/metric? Your argument about some sort of hierarchy is incrediblhy vague at this point.
Let me try to illustrate with a weird example based on personal experience.
There are these three people who are smoking a joint. First person is insecure and hates himself deep inside. He smokes a joint, becomes paranoid, and generally doesn’t have a good time. Second person is more comfortable with himself but is not a person of ambition. He smokes a joint and enters this state of escapist hedonism. Third person values himself considerably more and has great ambitions. He has chosen within himself to pursue happiness. When he smokes a joint he is entertained by in-depth observations of reality and is able to achieve deep philosophical insights which he can carry on to his sober life.
The first person cannot grasp the pleasures experienced by the second person, and the same with the second to third person. But, I think the pleasure of the third is greater than the other two.
What does that even mean? Your personality is the sum of your experiences and actions. Of course you have “yours” and not someone else’s. Whatever perspective you’re trying to communicate, you’re not making much sense.
I don’t mean personality, I mean just that you perceive and experience things with your current body and not any other, especially at this point in time of human history.
I don’t mean personality, I mean just that you perceive and experience things with your current body and not any other, especially at this point in time of human history.
Not sure what you mean by asking “why”? Are you asking why human beings experience things with their bodies, as opposed to … something else?
I mean why you, as the individual conscious mind that you are, perceive reality from your current body in the 21st century. I see no universal law that makes me born into the body I am from these parents in a certain place and time, so on and so forth. Why couldn’t I have been born Socrates in Athens for example? What is responsible for regulating consciousnesses in all of space and time?
I mean why you, as the individual conscious mind that you are, perceive reality from your current body in the 21st century. I see no universal law that makes me born into the body I am from these parents in a certain place and time, so on and so forth. Why couldn’t I have been born Socrates in Athens for example? What is responsible for regulating consciousnesses in all of space and time?
Are you talking about the faculty? If so, you’re talking about this as if consciousness is somehow different from your body. This is like asking, why was this stomach born with this liver, and why was this liver born with these legs and so on. If you mean the contents rather than the faculty of consciousness, then it is not something that is “born” as such.
I see no universal law that makes me born into the body I am from these parents in a certain place and time, so on and so forth. Why couldn’t I have been born Socrates in Athens for example? What is responsible for regulating consciousnesses in all of space and time?
Who or what would be responsible for arbitrating such a law? Trying to come up with an answer to that question without relying on an arbitrary assumption is impossible. Many before have tried, and failed. The best explanation so far has been (loosely paraphrasing) existence just is, consciousness is the faculty for percieving that which just is.
I enjoy astronomy, these questions remind me of fellow amateurs who get hung up on the fact that “we are the universe pondering itself”, yeah, cool, what next?
I mean why you, as the individual conscious mind that you are, perceive reality from your current body in the 21st century. I see no universal law that makes me born into the body I am from these parents in a certain place and time, so on and so forth. Why couldn’t I have been born Socrates in Athens for example? What is responsible for regulating consciousnesses in all of space and time?
The answer to that is the spiritual guidance given by the first axiom: existence exists. And also: existence is identity. If you were born in ancient Athens, you would be a different person, not a different version of you. There would be no continuity of self. Although you have many similarities to other persons, you exist as a unique particular, not an instance of an eternal class of existents called consciousness.
The structure of ethics and particular values mirrors the structure of concepts in epistemology. Thus, a “hierarchy of pleasure” is perfectly reasonable and understandable.
I enjoy astronomy, these questions remind me of fellow amateurs who get hung up on the fact that “we are the universe pondering itself”, yeah, cool, what next?
Navel-gazing with a telescope, eh? B)
Dingbat, I have the sense that you are struggling with the refuted mind/body dichotomy, as well as primacy of existence.
If you’ve read Dawkins’ The God Delusion, you will have got an inkling of not only how huge were the odds against Man existing in the first place; but the vastly higher odds against you personally, ‘Dingbat’, being alive today.
Our minds just cannot fathom the scope of time and causality involved in our coming into being - so we hunt around looking for easy ‘reasons’ for our life. And ‘what-ifs’ about having another body in another time, and place. It can be fun, but it is an exercise in frustration when taken further.
I’d advise starting from scratch, so to speak, with considering YOUR consciousness that has been developing for x years, and is developing at this very moment.