Furthermore, what is the point of a healthy mind when you still live to be 85?
A happy life is a more rewarding life.
… if the only answer is “what point would there be if your only goal was physical existance?” then are we not being subjectivists in the sense of “well, find your purpose, whatever suits you, and then achieve it so you can feel your pleasure”?
Saying “happiness is an end” does not imply that happiness can be achieved by any means, nor does it mean that happiness is synonymous with the achievement of any desire, without further inquiry into the nature of that desire.
Furthermore, what is the point of a healthy mind when you still live to be 85?
On the other hand, what’s the point of living to 85 if it’s a life without joy?
I don’t understand her jump from this (which seems to be just physical life) to live life “man qua man.”
The jump is that man is not capable of living qua animal or qua plant. Via the law of identity, qua man is the only way that man can live. Attempts to live other ways are actually in fact a defiance of the nature of man and thus a defiance of reality. To attempt to live via defiance of reality does not and cannot work and such attempts are suicidal.
Furthermore, and perhaps this is the part that you are looking for, man is more than just “an organism which lives.” Recognition of qua man is the recognition that man is a creature of both mind and body and that both his mind and body possess identity and therefore have objective requirements for health and therefore survival.
I do not want to move into a full fledged prudent predator discussion,
But invariably that’s what it’s degenerated to in the past.
Furthermore, what is the point of a healthy mind when you still live to be 85?
Why is significant that one would not want a healthy mind at an old age? What about old age makes a healthy mind undesirable?
The jump is that man is not capable of living qua animal or qua plant. Via the law of identity, qua man is the only way that man can live. Attempts to live other ways are actually in fact a defiance of the nature of man and thus a defiance of reality. To attempt to live via defiance of reality does not and cannot work and such attempts are suicidal.
Agreed! We either live as the kind of animals we are (and we -are- animals) or we die. It is as simple as that.
As to the nature of man, this nature encompasses a rather broad array and spectrum of modes of living. That is why there are so many cultures and languages. Man is an adaptable beast and is capable of living in various ways.
Ba’al Chatzaf
Am I understanding this properly?
-
Man must want to not only live, but live with happiness.
-
Happiness is only achievable through man qua man.
If it is for reasons beyond “mere survival,” then why?
I think it’s because we have physical and non-physical aspects to us, and we face the fundamental alternative as a whole. So it’s not just physical survival - it’s survival of *you* as a whole. Which means survival of your individuality in some sense - so you need self esteem and indepedence to enable that.
Am I understanding this properly?
Man must want to not only live, but live with happiness.
Happiness is only achievable through man qua man.
What do you mean by “this”? Are you asking whether you understand the Objectivist view properly? If that’s your summary, no. Living, or existing, meaning existing as something – “qua man”. If you live qua man, that will result in the cognitive state known as happiness. You have inverted the relationship: happiness is a consequence, not a primary goal. No philosophy that I know of holds that happiness is a primary goal; at best, simple animal pleasure is a primary goal, for hedonists.
sNerd, Robert, RationalBiker, and Inspector are correct. You would do well to pay attention to what they said as well as what I have said.
When one asks you “why do you care about doing X, when all you need to survive is Y.” You tell them: “because that’s what I am. Live man qua man!”
This is hardly satisfactory. So why live “man qua man”?
So far it is vaguely linked to survival, and vaguely linked to long-term-feelings of pleasure (happiness), but none of them seem to be the reason to live “man qua man” over just survival. Again, this is how I’ve understood the responses:
ME: Why should I live man qua man as opposed to living for just survival?
RESPONDERS: Because you wouldn’t be happy.
ME: So I’m living for happiness?
RESPONDERS: No. Happiness is only the consequece of living man qua man.
(Rinse and repeat the original question)
Do you see how this is confusing me?
Man is the only being on this planet that is capable of holding values and seeking to achieve values. But if one wishes to achieve values, one must act in accordance with his nature, i.e. must “live man qua man”. Man cannot achieve values by trying to act as a cow, a bush, a rock or as anything other than human, not if he wishes to gain and keep his values, or for that matter to live. He is a man, his life and his values require that he act that way, he cannot succeed by living in any other way.
Happiness is the consequence of living qua man and achieving values, of knowing that one is fit to live on this earth as one should, as a moral person capable of achieving and enjoying values. It is not what a man seeks primarily, a man seeks to fulfill values, if they are proper values and if he achieves the morally he will be happy as a result. he will know this, he will know that he will be happy if he seeks and achieves his values, and this gives him more reason to achieve values.
He knows that to seek happiness directly should not be his goal, happiness like anything else must have a cause, he must earn it. So if he seeks happiness he must act rationally, morally to achieve his goals, then happiness will follow. But happiness is NOT his prime goal, but a consequence that motivates him to never forsake seeking values.
I know theres a little repetition in there, but I hope it is clear this time…
Man is the only being on this planet that is capable of holding values and seeking to achieve values. But if one wishes to achieve values, one must act in accordance with his nature, i.e. must “live man qua man”. Man cannot achieve values by trying to act as a cow, a bush, a rock or as anything other than human, not if he wishes to gain and keep his values, or for that matter to live. He is a man, his life and his values require that he act that way, he cannot succeed by living in any other way.
Happiness is the consequence of living qua man and achieving values, of knowing that one is fit to live on this earth as one should, as a moral person capable of achieving and enjoying values. It is not what a man seeks primarily, a man seeks to fulfill values, if they are proper values and if he achieves the morally he will be happy as a result. he will know this, he will know that he will be happy if he seeks and achieves his values, and this gives him more reason to achieve values.
He knows that to seek happiness directly should not be his goal, happiness like anything else must have a cause, he must earn it. So if he seeks happiness he must act rationally, morally to achieve his goals, then happiness will follow. But happiness is NOT his prime goal, but a consequence that motivates him to never forsake seeking values.
I know theres a little repetition in there, but I hope it is clear this time…
Yes, that is it exactly. Well, said, Dwayne. However, I doubt it will clarify things for him if previous posts are anything to go by.
When one asks you “why do you care about doing X, when all you need to survive is Y.” You tell them: “because that’s what I am. Live man qua man!”
This is hardly satisfactory. So why live “man qua man”?
Living as a man means choosing your values. You cannot escape the fact that you are a choice-maker. You have volition. You even need to choose to live, because you always have the option of committing suicide.
Man is not a subjectivist merely because he must choose his own values. He is a subjectivist when he believes that whatever he chooses is the good simply because it is his whim.
An Objectivist chooses objective values, meaning he chooses to pursue that which is actually, in reality, good for him, regardless of personal whim or feelings. An Objectivist uses reason and science, not emotion and faith, to determine what is good for him.
How much of the good life you pursue is up to you. As long as you don’t violate my rights, I don’t care if you hook yourself up to a life-support machine and watch reruns of Gilligan’s Island all day and night. It’s your life.
An Objectivist chooses objective values, meaning he chooses to pursue that which is actually, in reality, good for him, regardless of personal whim or feelings. An Objectivist uses reason and science, not emotion and faith, to determine what is good for him.
This is an excellent point which ties into another important point about choosing values. It is, that such choices derive from discoveries about our own metaphysically-given natures. To put it another way, our choices matter in the context of circumstances that we cannot choose. So for example, since we did not choose to be human as opposed to plant or other animal (that being a metaphysically given fact of our natures), our choice of values must be proper to life as a human, that is, qua man. Or, as Ayn Rand put it, “nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed”.
Objectivism in no way commands anyone to live a life-by-machine, sacrificing one’s own values and rational self-interest in the process, contrary to what human nature requires. A gross misunderstanding of human nature and its central role in Objectivist ethics seems to be the root of the problem. One may argue (incorrectly) that a life-by-machine is consistent with human nature, but not to say that Objectivism compels that result!
ME: Why should I live man qua man as opposed to living for just survival?
Because that would be arbitrary (living just for survival). It is all of you that faces the alternative of existence or non-existence. On what basis does one pick and choose? On what basis does one say “I will focus on my physical needs and the rest be damned?”
You have been given many good reasons for living qua man instead of a mere physical survival. Now I suggest you take our comments to mind and think about them. If you do so honestly you will see the truth of them.
All I know is that Rand said life, whether in plants, animals, or man, is biologically the highest possible value (it also makes other values possible). I don’t understand her jump from this (which seems to be just physical life) to live life “man qua man.”
Many people have trouble going from the is to the ought, from the given facts of reality to “what should I do”. This was Ayn Rand’s greatest intellectual achievement, the development and proof of an objective morality which up until then was considered impossible. It is important to understand Ayn Rand’s method for answering all such questions because it is reflected constantly in her writing. Understanding her method will greatly improve your comprehension of her writing. Her method is always: look at reality – what are the facts (metaphysics), apply reason (epistemology), arrive at a universal principle intended to further human life (ethics).
Do you see that your question sits on two different levels?: life is the highest possible value as opposed to why should I live as man qua man.
The facts:
-
only living things value
-
there is no value apart from life
-
life is the highest value
-
man is a creature with a certain identity
-
man has volition
-
man must act in order to survive
-
all of man’s actions originate in his mind
-
man’s basic means of survival is his rational faculty
It is a fact that in order to value you must be alive, so remaining alive is very important. But it is also a fact that man has volition and he must choose how to live. Would you enjoy living as a slave or would you rather die fighting to escape your oppressor? Would you rather live the last year of your life in constant pain or would you call Dr Kevorkian?
A should presupposes a choice. When you ask: why should I do a certain thing, what you are really asking is: why should I do this particular thing as opposed to this other thing, this is the province of ethics. So when you ask: why should I live as man qua man, what you are really asking is: why should I choose to act as man qua man as opposed to man qua vegetable (hooked-up to a life support machine) or as man qua animal (dictator or thief).
Ask yourself: can I be happy as a vegetable? Never acting volitionally to achieve values, never knowing the satisfaction of achieving values, never playing sports or playing with your kids. Growing roots through your bedsores and IV’s you don’t enjoy the taste of food. Ideas don’t matter because you cannot act on them. Everyone pities you.
Can you be happy as a dictator? Force is how you deal with people. Every person who comes in contact with you fears you. Every woman you summon despises you and wishes you dead. Love and benevolence are non-existent, in their place is hatred and malevolence. You are responsible for the unnecessary deaths of millions. You have declared your mind and rationality in general impotent. You fear everyone and everything including reality itself.
Wow, excellent post Marc K. If I’m understanding you correctly, it’s that in the process of living I should strive to enjoy it. In other words, I could live qua vegetable or qua animal but I would be miserable. Since I am a man I should thus live qua man in order to get the fullest satisfaction. I still see this as valuing happiness, the consequence of living qua man, over life itself (especially since you implied you would call Dr. Kavorkian if you were in constant pain).
Mb, your reply doesn’t address these three critical points:
man must act in order to survive
all of man’s actions originate in his mind
man’s basic means of survival is his rational faculty
Also, you have yet to address my post. It is not simply a matter of happiness. It is a matter of mental health.
If life is the only ultimate value, why does it matter whether I am living as an independent man with purpose, self-esteem, etc. when I could be hooked up to a machine that breathes and nourishes me?
Because you are using the word “life” to denote a different concept than what Rand was using in that statement “life is the ultimate value”, which indeed generates self-contradictions when you try to apply it with your meaning of life.
Objectivists often claim that it is not mere survival that morality is for, but for living as “man qua man.” I don’t understand why this is necessary.
The criterion of what is good or bad for every organism is what supports or goes against it’s existence (life) - when by “existence” the meaning is all the aspects of it’s existence. For plants this means mere physical existence, for animals it means some cognitive and emotional existence as well, etc’.
“Life qua man” refers to all the aspects of existence of man. The main 2 groups of existence are physical and spiritual. On the spiritual level, man has certain basic cognitive abilities, emotions and psychological needs. To create code of behavior that refers to some aspect of man’s existence while ignoring others is to create a moral code which is incompatible with man’s nature. Man’s nature is such that it is both spiritual (with certain basic attributes) and physical.