Pleasure and Value

[Nerian]

Around the 35:00 mark he says

Quote

We are getting pretty high up in your hierachy values. If I ask you why do you wan those things you will say, “Now stop! I want those things as ends in themselves. I want them for the happiness they bring me.” Well exactly, these are the things that make your life worth living to you, that give it meaning.

BOOM. Game. Set. Match. He just admitted it. They mean the joy, the positive emotional experience, that is what gives it the value, that’s why you choose it as a value. 

But he then glosses over this as if he didn’t just admit it was the joy, the feeling, that gives it meaning.

But then what is it? Do these values make you feel joy because you achieve them? Or do you achieve them because they give you joy? I think they have it backwards.

How could anyone choose them? Oh yeah, you really sat down and decided that logically friendship is good for you objectively, so therefore you are going to enjoy spending time with friends? Yeah, no. It doesn’t work that way!

You enjoy their company and then you go, “god damn I like having friends!” and so friends are a value to you.

[Nerian]

Why do you enjoy laughing? Is it really because you sat down and decided life is your standard of value and then determined these things serve your life so I better damn well feel good when I do them?

I simply do not think it works that way, and we all know damn well we enjoyed laughing with friends long before we learned of Objectivism.

 

[Eiuol]

3 hours ago, Nerian said:

Why do you enjoy laughing? Is it really because you sat down and decided life is your standard of value and then determined these things serve your life so I better damn well feel good when I do them?

I’m not sure who you are arguing against here. Try to keep it all in one post rather than 3 in a row. All Biddle said is the question is invalid because value can only measured to some degree by taking action towards life. This implies that choosing to live has no -objective- reason. There are subjective reasons, literally any reason.

No one said values are chosen as sitting down and deciding one day. I mean, it’s interesting to ask the depth of all the ways to discover values, but it won’t tell us about if the origin of why a newborn would choose life. Rand’s reasoning was pleasure is the why; pleasure as the -reason- to choose life is pretty subjective. Nietzsche said one has a “will to power”, a willing to embrace life and one’s power within it, but he stopped there and refused to offer a moral code. I believe Existentialists said there really is no reason to do anything at all except whatever you declare you want. That’s like the Camus quote.

[Nerian]

10 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I’m not sure who you are arguing against here. Try to keep it all in one post rather than 3 in a row. All Biddle said is the question is invalid because value can only measured to some degree by taking action towards life. This implies that choosing to live has no -objective- reason. There are subjective reasons, literally any reason.

No one said values are chosen as sitting down and deciding one day. I mean, it’s interesting to ask the depth of all the ways to discover values, but it won’t tell us about if the origin of why a newborn would choose life. Rand’s reasoning was pleasure is the why; pleasure as the -reason- to choose life is pretty subjective. Nietzsche said one has a “will to power”, a willing to embrace life and one’s power within it, but he stopped there and refused to offer a moral code. I believe Existentialists said there really is no reason to do anything at all except whatever you declare you want. That’s like the Camus quote.

If I’m saying we do not choose our values, and that they are innate, then I guess I’m arguing against Objectivism proper.

[KorbenDallas]

3 hours ago, Nerian said:

If I’m saying we do not choose our values, and that they are innate, then I guess I’m arguing against Objectivism proper.

When I think of value I often think, “what standard”?  Surely people use different ways for choosing values, perhaps they think they are ‘innate’, perhaps they believe they are intrinsic, perhaps they think it’s determinism, perhaps by caprice, perhaps by consensus (whether the group is present at the time, or thinking about the group), perhaps trying to uphold or gain prestige, perhaps by emotion, … and so on.

Nathaniel Branden described* value as presupposing a few things: an object (whether tangible or intangible, like an idea), a standard, a purpose, and necessitated action to gain or keep the object in light of alternatives–these are the concepts that hierarchically lie beneath “value”.  I drew attention to the standard part earlier, which helps define what value is, and we know Objectivism says it’s “that which one acts to gain or keep.”  But even if one doesn’t accept that definition, there is still the object, purpose, and action–these are a matter of identity and causation.

So if you’re saying that value is “that which gives you pleasure,” then yes, you’re arguing against Objectivism and any form I know about.  With emotionalism, all bets are off in having that argument because it will be largely based off of your emotion, not reason, trying to use your emotions as a standard of judgment–reality is something we can all talk about**… it’s objective.

______

* From The Basic Principles of Objectivism lecture series, also in book form as The Vision of Ayn Rand
** From Ayn Rand and the “New Intellectual” interview

[DonAthos]

On 1/13/2017 at 5:04 PM, Eiuol said:

I recall some saint, I forget who, that thought torture was good for the receiver, so pain in itself was good.

You don’t happen to mean saint epistemologue, do you?

On 1/13/2017 at 5:04 PM, Eiuol said:

I would say that neither pain nor pleasure are good or bad stimuli. Red isn’t a bad stimuli, purple isn’t a good stimuli.

I agree that neither red nor purple are “good” or “bad” (until we specify some context; if I want a red house, red paint is good for the job, and purple paint not so much); and neither any situation which involves either pain or pleasure. Sans context, sans a specific valuer in a specific situation, we cannot say that X pleasurable action is good (e.g. eating a slice, or ten, of cheesecake) or X painful action is bad (getting a tooth drilled).

But there is an abstract sense in which pleasure is good and pain is bad – and this is fundamentally and profoundly different from red and purple. It is the point of this thread, in a certain sense, to examine this difference – and its further implication for ethics (if any).

This is to say, the existence of red and purple cannot provoke man to a conception of “value”; but pleasure and pain can. Pleasure and pain, in this abstracted sense, are what what allow us to conceive of the universe (and all the facts therein) in terms of value. It is pleasure and pain which both give rise to and animate our understanding of value.

On 1/13/2017 at 5:04 PM, Eiuol said:

A child may find that pleasure is nice, therefore good, but as an adult, the child needs to grasp “good for what?” Then pain/pleasure ceases to be an essential. It becomes possible that a pain IS good, or that a pleasure IS bad. Stimuli provide information but lack a value.

You continue to discuss this in a manner that I believe both hides important information and (consequently) lends itself to confusion.

It is not that “a pain IS good,” but that a situation, or choice, or value, or action – one that might involve pain – is good. Going to the dentist, under normal conditions, is good. It’s painful, but good. Yet the pain, in itself, is not good. And the reason why I continue to insist on preserving this distinction can be shown by the example I’d raised to demonstrate it: given two dentists providing the same services, one with pain and one without, it would be reasonable to select the dentist without pain.

(All else need not strictly be equal, either. Suppose the painless dentist cost slightly more? Yet it might still be worth the money to go pain-free.)

There is a question as to whether pain/pleasure “ceases to be an essential.” I have not made my full argument for that yet – I’m not there all the way there yet, myself, though I believe that the concept of “maximizing experience” points the way. But the first step is to recognize that pain and pleasure remain a feature of ethical reasoning. Pleasure – pleasure itself – is a motivating factor, apart from whatever pleasure’s role might be in terms of “fuel” or “survival.” That’s like what you were talking about with respect to “mere pleasures,” although I believe that “mere” undersells the vital role that pleasure has in our experience of reality.

And further, if it were true that “stimuli provide information but lack a value” – if that were utterly true with respect to pain and pleasure, then we should never have any concept of value at all. Then they would be like red and purple. But if you want to appreciate the actual role of pain and pleasure in life, and in this thread, then you first have to look at the reality of it. And the reality is that pain and pleasure are not mere stimuli. They are charged with respect to value, of their nature.

@ Nerian and KorbenDallas, I hope to address your comments soon(ish).

[DonAthos]

On 1/15/2017 at 8:07 AM, Nerian said:

Wow!

I appreciate your enthusiasm.

On 1/15/2017 at 9:45 AM, Nerian said:

Exactly! 

This reminds me of a short recording of Rand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki12zyW2zac

 

And I’ll amend that life is experience through consciousness and value in consciousness is experienced through pleasure.

I think the most salient part (for this discussion) starts at 0:50, when Rand says, “Life is the purpose of life. You should enjoy your life. You should be happy in it. Your proper moral obligation is to pursue the highest form of happiness possible to you – and can explain/prove your choice to yourself, in rational, logical terms.”

I recognize that this is Rand speaking extemporaneously, which is a meaningful context and worth bearing in mind… but at the same time, she is speaking about the very issues we’re trying to understand. And insofar as this gets at the heart of the Objectivist Ethics, I would trust that Rand has some understanding of what she’s trying to say, extempore or not.

Can we note that she begins by invoking the term “life,” as in “the standard of value.” But then what does she say about it? Does she say, “You should seek to live as long as possible?” or “Your moral obligation is to be as fit for survival as possible?” No. She says immediately that you should enjoy your life and that your “moral obligation” is to pursue the highest form of happiness possible to you.

I’ve emphasized that last phrase, because that is another important element. It is not simply to pursue the highest form of happiness possible (to man), but possible to you, given your specific context. (I believe that has heavy implication for questions of “justified suicide.”)

As to your amendments, Nerian, I agree with you that life is experienced (and most importantly, enjoyed) through consciousness, and that value in consciousness is experienced through pleasure. I think Rand would agree, too:

“[Man’s] emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life.” (Playboy, 3/64)

“The form in which man experiences the reality of his values is pleasure.” (“Our Cultural-Value Deprivation,” in The Voice of Reason)

Quote

There are some constaints about our nature that we must abide by to maximize ‘the area under the curve’ as Softwarenerd so elegantly explained, but god damn it, the only bloody justification for maximizing the area under the curve is the experience of it!

This has my sentiment almost exactly, although your choice of “constraint” does not quite capture my feeling. It isn’t so much that our nature “constrains” us in our pursuit of pleasure (or: positive experience), but that it allows for it – and sets the terms by which it may be accomplished.

Thus, in order to achieve such positive experience (or pleasure), we must understand our nature, and our context, and then take the right action to achieve it (which is called “morality”).

Quote

Some things give me positive emotions, and I have no idea why, and it has nothing to do with life as my standard of value. I enjoy music. I enjoy dancing. Some people do not. I enjoy the sound of the French language, and I dislike the sound of Chinese. Some people experience the opposite. I like skinny girls, some people like plump girls. Whence come such emotional responses? Values. Whence come those values??? If they are not chosen, they are either random, conditioned by environment or innate, but in every case where such values are unchosen they are pretty arbitrary.

I’m not certain that Rand could have explained in any great detail why she liked “tiddlywink music.” Knowing that this music gave her joy, however, was probably sufficient, in context, to value it to the point of listening to it insofar as she did.

Was there some reason why that music provoked the experience in Rand that it did? Undoubtedly. And thus we have hope in the study of music, or etc. (It is on this basis that musicians study in the first place; if man’s reaction to music was utterly arbitrary, what would there be to “study”?)

So… you might not be aware of why you like French and dislike Chinese, but I take it as certain that there is some reason for it. Must you invest yourself in discovering these kinds of answers, or can you act on the fact of your preferences without doing so? That’s an interesting question. My suspicion is that in most contexts, it is fine to simply incorporate your preferences into your reasoning without hounding out their roots. (However, if one day you were appointed ambassador to China, you might have to do a little digging.)

Quote

I think many such values are innate. I know this goes against Objectivist doctrine.

I question the notion of “innate” value, except (as this thread demands) for one: pleasure. I believe that pleasure is uniquely good (and pain uniquely bad), of our nature, such that they allow us to conceive of “good” and “evil.”

(This is different from having preferences whose origins may be currently unknown to the individual holding them, such as for the sound of French or the look of a slender woman; I would not say that you were born with a preference for the sound of French.)

Quote

And after years of self doubt, repression and wondering how I can justify what I want, I feel like I’m coming round to embracing the absurdity of the arbitrary desires I have. “Screw it. It gives me joy. What more justification do I need?”

Well, it depends on whether the joy you take in X desire/activity will allow you to have still more joy – or less – in the future. If you’re looking not only for an experience in a given moment of time, but to maximize your total experience over the course of your life, then you will have to justify your choices to that extent.

This is the essential difference between what I’m advocating and hedonism.

On 1/15/2017 at 10:08 AM, Nerian said:

…I think it is possible to experience ‘pain’ or ‘discomfort’ with a positive emotional veneer. When I’m lifting weights, the pain definitely accompanied with a positive emotional response It feels pretty awesome to feel the burn. When I’m on the bike, I embrace the burn in my legs, I feel a sense of power when I’m pushing hard, and the ‘discomfort’ has a positive veneer.

It is possible to psychologically embrace the suck, so to speak.

Agreed.

It is also possible to experience pleasure with a negative emotional veneer.

On 1/15/2017 at 4:57 PM, Nerian said:

For someone who doesn’t want to live, [Kelley] says really the thing to do is to get them to connect with values. In other words, to get them to do things they enjoy… and we come full circle back to pleasure being the whole point - could one even say that it’s the only reason anyone would choose to live.

I have not yet listened to Kelley’s remarks – I’m relying upon your description of them – but it’s a curious thing, this.

If someone doesn’t want to live, given a survivalist ethos, we shouldn’t have any reason to believe that we could get them to “connect with values.” Presumably it is the desire to live which gives rise to their values in the first place, and absent that desire to live, how could any “values” exist for such a person at all?

On 1/15/2017 at 5:30 PM, Nerian said:

Around the 35:00 mark he says

Quote

We are getting pretty high up in your hierachy values. If I ask you why do you wan those things you will say, “Now stop! I want those things as ends in themselves. I want them for the happiness they bring me.” Well exactly, these are the things that make your life worth living to you, that give it meaning.

BOOM. Game. Set. Match. He just admitted it. They mean the joy, the positive emotional experience, that is what gives it the value, that’s why you choose it as a value.

LOL. Usually I don’t have a lot of use for rhetoric like “Game. Set. Match.” but here, I almost want to say that it’s justified.

Although it is a further question as to whether the things that a person might want “as ends in themselves” are utterly subjective or arbitrary, or whether they are objectively of value to a person (leading him to value life as such, and thus recommending the adoption of some objective moral code to secure life, to achieve those things which are of fundamental value).

Quote

But then what is it? Do these values make you feel joy because you achieve them? Or do you achieve them because they give you joy? I think they have it backwards.

There’s… a loop. Isn’t there?

We come to value some thing because it gives us pleasure (in the first place) – like candy, or the feeling of the sun on our skin. But then as we grow and learn, we begin to understand reality (and our own nature) such that we can recognize that the pleasure, in itself, does not mean that whatever activity that gives rise to it is “good for us” (in the long run; in terms of “maximizing experience”) and thus we might still have candy… but only occasionally, so that we can avoid tooth decay and the pain (and expense) involved in dentistry. Or we might wear sunscreen if we’re going to be in the sun for a long time, lest we get cancer.

When we “achieve our values” such that we can retire to a life on the beach, say, there is a joy in the achievement itself. But where does that joy come from? If we trace it all the way down back to reality, doesn’t that joy come from experiences such as laying out on the beach, feeling the sun warm you, or the foam of the waves tickling your toes? (And your expectation that, in your retirement, you have fully earned that enjoyment – which is to say that you have paid the price reality demands of you, in order to take that pleasure, and enjoy it fully, without further worry as to long-term consequence; all long-term consequences have been thought through and addressed. It is not a case of pleasure now, pain later; but pleasure now and pleasure later.)

On 1/16/2017 at 8:13 AM, Nerian said:

If I’m saying we do not choose our values, and that they are innate, then I guess I’m arguing against Objectivism proper.

 

On 1/16/2017 at 11:19 AM, KorbenDallas said:

So if you’re saying that value is “that which gives you pleasure,” then yes, you’re arguing against Objectivism and any form I know about.

If I could wave a magic wand (well, I could, but what good would it do me?), I would try to get people (and especially Objectivists) to relax a bit on the issue of whether something is or is not “Objectivism proper.” At least at first: there is a fine, but secondary, conversation to have as to whether or not something is or is not Objectivist, strictly speaking.

What we ought to discuss at first, rather, is whether something is or is not real. Whether we’re describing reality accurately, and in concord with reason. I dare say that this approach is “the Objectivist approach,” which is itself more essential to Objectivist philosophy than any specific position (except the embrace of reason and reality in itself).

If it turns out to be the case that something is real, but inconsistent with Objectivism, well then, so much the worse for Objectivism. If it turns out that something is real, and consistent with Objectivism, but that our earlier understanding of Objectivism was flawed (such that what we believed to be a “contradiction” was not), then there is no actual conflict.

In either case, what matters most (by far) is: what is real.

[KorbenDallas]

5 hours ago, DonAthos said:

On 1/16/2017 at 11:13 AM, Nerian said:

If I’m saying we do not choose our values, and that they are innate, then I guess I’m arguing against Objectivism proper.

 

On 1/16/2017 at 2:19 PM, KorbenDallas said:

So if you’re saying that value is “that which gives you pleasure,” then yes, you’re arguing against Objectivism and any form I know about.

If I could wave a magic wand (well, I could, but what good would it do me?), I would try to get people (and especially Objectivists) to relax a bit on the issue of whether something is or is not “Objectivism proper.” At least at first: there is a fine, but secondary, conversation to have as to whether or not something is or is not Objectivist, strictly speaking.

What we ought to discuss at first, rather, is whether something is or is not real. Whether we’re describing reality accurately, and in concord with reason. I dare say that this approach is “the Objectivist approach,” which is itself more essential to Objectivist philosophy than any specific position (except the embrace of reason and reality in itself).

If it turns out to be the case that something is real, but inconsistent with Objectivism, well then, so much the worse for Objectivism. If it turns out that something is real, and consistent with Objectivism, but that our earlier understanding of Objectivism was flawed (such that what we believed to be a “contradiction” was not), then there is no actual conflict.

In either case, what matters most (by far) is: what is real.

Sure, but that’s a bit out of context to me, ‘Objectivism proper’ was Nerian’s premise which I was responding to.   The entire context of my reply to him began with recognizing reality, then building a definition, presenting it (also saying, "But even if one doesn’t accept that definition,…), and then contrasting it with his current view.  I agree Objectivism proper/not-proper doesn’t lead to fruitful conversations.  Rand’s philosophy is part of what exists, and it is up to the individual to judge whether or not it is for them, aspects of it, different versions, or whatever.

[Nerian]

On 19/01/2017 at 2:29 AM, DonAthos said:

What we ought to discuss at first, rather, is whether something is or is not real. Whether we’re describing reality accurately, and in concord with reason. I dare say that this approach is “the Objectivist approach,” which is itself more essential to Objectivist philosophy than any specific position (except the embrace of reason and reality in itself).

Hell yes_._ I care not for Objectivism. I care for truth. In my estimation, there’s a great deal of truth in Objectivism.

I can hear Peikoff yelling in the distance, “if you reject any part, you must reject the whole for it is an integrated system!!!”

lol

I wanted to say this because it’s the most salient thing that jumped out at me, but I want to go to the gym very soon, so that I may pursue the value of an aesthetic physique, so I may attract the women that I arbitrarily find sexually attractive due to my monkey brain wiring, so that I may satisfy my arbitrary monkey drives, and thereby experience pleasure, which is the only reason to live, but I was told to reply to everything in one post, rather than making several consecutive posts, but maybe moderators can understand that to do that I would have to type up everything all at once, read everything, formulate all my responses to everything into one large post, and then post it, or else I’m not allowed to respond to that which I have not responded yet, and I don’t have the patience nor the stretches of time to sit here and respond to everything all at once. Is there any way I can get a pass for responding in dribs and drabs? Pleeeeeeaaaase.  

Or shall I just construct a gigantic response in a word document over a period of time and dump it all at once? Is this the fate to which I am cast? Grand overlords?

[DonAthos]

3 hours ago, Nerian said:

Hell yes_._ I care not for Objectivism. I care for truth. In my estimation, there’s a great deal of truth in Objectivism.

I can hear Peikoff yelling in the distance, “if you reject any part, you must reject the whole for it is an integrated system!!!”

lol

These are delicate topics. I would say that because there is a great deal of truth in Objectivism, I care for it – but only to that extent. If I ever found Objectivism and truth in conflict, surely I would love truth more.

Frankly, I don’t expect to find any Objectivist (worthy of the title) who would feel any other way, including Leonard Peikoff.

3 hours ago, Nerian said:

I wanted to say this because it’s the most salient thing that jumped out at me, but I want to go to the gym very soon, so that I may pursue the value of an aesthetic physique, so I may attract the women that I arbitrarily find sexually attractive due to my monkey brain wiring, so that I may satisfy my arbitrary monkey drives, and thereby experience pleasure, which is the only reason to live…

This sounds tongue-in-cheek…? But just to clarify, and speaking only for myself, I don’t consider my attractions to be arbitrary, and neither would I reduce the kinds of “pleasures” I’m talking about (or intend to talk about, at least) to sex, or etc. Though I mean to argue that they are sourced in physical pleasure, eventually there are many kinds of pleasure, including (most importantly) happiness.

(Neither do I mean to discount sex, but that topic is a whole can of worms.)

3 hours ago, Nerian said:

…but I was told to reply to everything in one post, rather than making several consecutive posts, but maybe moderators can understand that to do that I would have to type up everything all at once, read everything, formulate all my responses to everything into one large post, and then post it, or else I’m not allowed to respond to that which I have not responded yet, and I don’t have the patience nor the stretches of time to sit here and respond to everything all at once. Is there any way I can get a pass for responding in dribs and drabs? Pleeeeeeaaaase.  

Or shall I just construct a gigantic response in a word document over a period of time and dump it all at once? Is this the fate to which I am cast? Grand overlords?

This forum typically exercises a fair degree of latitude for posting style, in my experience.

There is something, at times, a bit obnoxious about finding someone posting three, four, five, six posts in a row (some consisting of a single sentence or etc.), but lots of people do that occasionally. I tend to favor long and thorough posts myself, though I’m sure others find that obnoxious, too.

Ultimately, use your best judgement about what seems appropriate, given the culture as you find it (it may take a bit of time to adjust). I’d advise taking Eiuol’s request into serious consideration, and if it turns out that you drown the forum in an endless series of posts – you know – then we’ll have to take further action to correct for that. But I’d bet things never reach such a point.

[softwareNerd]

On 1/13/2017 at 6:27 PM, DonAthos said:

But apart from that quote, what did you make of my attempt to answer the questions you’d posed? You’d asked, in part, what the implications for action might be in adopting my understanding – and I tried to demonstrate some. What did you make of that?

I think you’re trying to focus on the point-in-time thing we should try to optimize. Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” highlights two key linkages:

• first, that this pleasure is – in turn – based on our biology.. on the survival of life (today we might speak of this in terms of the role of pain/pleasure in evolution). “Good” (i.e. recommended action) is thus (mostly) tied to survival in its original cause
• second, she takes the focus away from point-in-time pleasure, to acknowledge that there are causal links between things. Seeing the pain in a dentist’s visit is not good enough, we have to understand the pleasures and pains from the visit as a causally linked set. That’s how we get to: “how to we get a better mix”. The decisions move from considering a single thing (imagine someone making an excuse not to visit the dentist, because he’s focusing on the pain alone). “Good” is the concept that embraces the evaluation of such mixes, and going far beyond these small bundles, to encompass one’s life. Good it is the integrated evaluation of pain and pleasure.

Only by starting from these two ideas can Rand end up saying Productive Work is one of the highest ideals. That’s quite a huge integration that includes hundreds of observations that aren’t mentioned in the essay. That’s her key achievement: not her focus on pleasure – which hedonists already took a shot at – but explaining how we go from there to a message that sounds like “work hard”.

The hedonists had already praised pleasure, but nobody can take a short-range approach too seriously. Aristotle spoke of Eudemia, and his golden mean is one way of conceptualizing the various choices we have to make all the time. The Epicureans had spoken about enjoying life in a relaxed way. These were attempts integrate the idea that selfish pleasure is the core of Ethics with other observations about the world.

The Stoics took a different tack: they recognized that men are driven to do “big things” which cannot be explained by “live a relaxed life” or '“do only what you need to be comfortable”. They admired these men. At some level, they were admiring productivity, but could not quite explain why it was the good. They ended up with a somewhat “duty ethics”. The Bhagavad Gita got to the same point too: work (karma) is good because it is, because it is a universal law. They both assumed a feedback: where the universe rewards us for doing our duty. The only alternative to work seemed asceticism, and Eastern philosophies thought that was good too…but, we can’t all be ascetics. So, working hard was what the typical person had to do… just because. There was no tie to happiness, leave along to pleasure.

Rand stepped through the horns of this ancient dilemma. 

In summary: I agree with you that pleasure is key, but it is key the way a dot of paint is key to a painting, or a word is key to Atlas. It’s a starting point, but the bulk of Ethics is explaining how it comes together across our lives.

Post-script:  I think your focus on pleasure is important though, because some people read Fountainhead and Atlas as enshrining the virtue of hard work, but do not keep the link to pleasure and happiness in mind. By dropping that link, and by seeing work as an end in itself, drops the crucial justification for work. Work then is a duty: an end that we just do, because it is good… don’t ask any more questions!

This is why I think the recent moves by The Undercurrent/Strive: abandoning the focus on Politics, and linking Objectivist Ethics to individual happiness, is great.

 

 

[DonAthos]

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

In summary:

Let me respond to the last, first, because I think it sets up an important context for our conversation.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

I agree with you that pleasure is key, but it is key the way a dot of paint is key to a painting, or a word is key to Atlas. It’s a starting point, but the bulk of Ethics is explaining how it comes together across our lives.

I agree with this, 100%.

Whatever you take me to mean otherwise, please understand that I agree with this (metaphorical) methodology: specific experiences of pleasure are as the dots of paint to the, uh, painting of our lives. In a sense I have been building towards throughout this thread, pleasure is the paint.

If I may extend the analogy?

Certain kinds of cognitive/emotional/spiritual pleasures (including happiness most centrally) are like brush strokes.

Survival itself is the canvas.

And ethics is our guide to painting a masterpiece.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Post-script:  I think your focus on pleasure is important though, because some people read Fountainhead and Atlas as enshrining the virtue of hard work, but do not keep the link to pleasure and happiness in mind.

Exactly.

As I have said, I’ve seen disdain shown for pleasure among self-styled Objectivists. But embracing “life as the standard of value” ought lead to no particular suspicion or scorn of pleasure, let alone such animosity. Considering pleasure to be of value only when it serves survival is bad enough in my estimation, but the sense I have often gotten is that pleasure is somehow the enemy of survival (or at least that the desire for pleasure is the enemy of virtue).

To say the opposite, to stress the opposite, to affirm the deep value of pleasure – not as a means to any further end, but as the enjoyment of life, an end in itself – is no call for hedonism, and it is no blow against survival, for pleasure may be enjoyed in reason and in concert with overall well being.

To affirm the value of pleasure, rather, is to insist upon the celebration that life, life qua man, a life fully lived, can and ought to be.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

By dropping that link, and by seeing work as an end in itself, drops the crucial justification for work. Work then is a duty: an end that we just do, because it is good… don’t ask any more questions!

I have seen it expressed (and explicitly so) that we live to work (or work to work). I have seen it that we live to achieve values (where sometimes “happiness” is kept on, seemingly in name only, as a sort of fringe benefit; pleasure, too, which is even more remarkable). I have seen it, at least implicitly and time and time again, that we survive to survive to survive to survive… and then to die, perhaps unavoidably, but that is best not discussed or even thought about–!

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

This is why I think the recent moves by The Undercurrent/Strive: abandoning the focus on Politics, and linking Objectivist Ethics to individual happiness, is great.

Though I’m not familiar with The Undercurrent/Strive, I agree with you.

It’s sometimes amazing to me how Objectivism is so often (mis)understood in greater society (to the extent that it is known at all) as primarily being a political platform, and virtually nothing but. (“Selfishness” is sometimes known too, in distorted fashion, but typically held up as a flimsy rationalization for the Capitalist politics, which are themselves often misunderstood.)

Yet the point – the point – is individual happiness. Even politics is a means to that end.

But now, back to the beginning.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

I think you’re trying to focus on the point-in-time thing we should try to optimize.

I don’t quite agree. I think we ought to optimize our total life’s experience. That said, we do live in the moment, one moment at a time, and so we must be aware that our experiences “now” matter to that “total life experience.” (As do our experiences in the past, which is a subject which I expect I shall have more opportunity to reflect upon as I age.)

If we live always “for the future,” then we never stand to reap the benefits of our efforts. We must strive to both invest and savor.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” highlights two key linkages:

• first, that this pleasure is – in turn – based on our biology.. on the survival of life (today we might speak of this in terms of the role of pain/pleasure in evolution). “Good” (i.e. recommended action) is thus (mostly) tied to survival in its original cause

I can agree that pleasure evolved with respect to survival (or perhaps even more accurately, reproduction – which is to say, survival… to a point ). Though this is important information, I have grown wary of drawing ethical conclusions on this sort of basis.

Pleasure is. How pleasure came to be, and how pleasure operates mechanically, only matters (philosophically) insofar as such information helps us understand us how best to achieve it, how best to survive, how best to be happy.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

• second, she takes the focus away from point-in-time pleasure, to acknowledge that there are causal links between things. Seeing the pain in a dentist’s visit is not good enough, we have to understand the pleasures and pains from the visit as a causally linked set. That’s how we get to: “how to we get a better mix”. The decisions move from considering a single thing (imagine someone making an excuse not to visit the dentist, because he’s focusing on the pain alone). “Good” is the concept that embraces the evaluation of such mixes, and going far beyond these small bundles, to encompass one’s life. Good it is the integrated evaluation of pain and pleasure.

I agree with this. It has been my project to relate pleasure (and pain, in its turn) to this “integrated evaluation” which we call “good” or “evil,” in full context. To insist that they have a role – moreover a vital (or even a central) role – and to attempt to demonstrate it.

But this is not to say that “any activity which is pleasurable is good” or “any activity which is painful is evil,” a threadbare strawman version of my position which I’ve unfortunately had to disavow repeatedly. For after all remember that I introduced the “dentist example” myself in my OP, and concluded:

On 1/9/2017 at 4:48 AM, DonAthos said:

But as the child grows, and acquires perspective (and continues to gain experience, and continues to develop mentally), he may come to see the sense in putting down the ice cream from time to time and going to the dentist. He understands that his forbearance from eating ice cream comes at the cost of some “good” now (i.e. pleasure), but will help him to avoid even greater “evils” (pains) to come. So, too, the dentist, such that eventually the mild pain of a regular cleaning may be borne for the sake of avoiding worse pains later, or to continue to enjoy the pleasures that having healthy teeth affords. It may be, in time, that the child can pronounce going to the dentist as “good” and eating too much ice cream as “evil” (though “bad” is more likely, but amounts to the same) – just as an adult might – because he finally and thoroughly understands the actual relationship these activities have with pleasure and pain, long-term.

I have made reference to this idea repeatedly since, and never once have I said that “seeing the pain in a dentist’s visit is good enough.”

But rather what I have insisted upon is that the pain in a dentist’s visit matters to our evaluation, even as adults, even with “life as the standard of value,” and that the pain, in itself, is not ever good – not even if we evaluate a trip to the dentist, pain inclusive, as good in context, good overall for our lives.

And I hold that I have demonstrated these claims by positing twin dentists who provide the same service, though one with pain and the other without it; even should the painless dentist cost slightly more, it might be the reasonable thing to do to select that alternative, which I believe would show, again, that the pain “matters,” and that it is not “good in itself.”

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Only by starting from these two ideas can Rand end up saying Productive Work is one of the highest ideals. That’s quite a huge integration that includes hundreds of observations that aren’t mentioned in the essay. That’s her key achievement: not her focus on pleasure – which hedonists already took a shot at – but explaining how we go from there to a message that sounds like “work hard”.

I agree with you that this is a great achievement.

Relating this to my own position, I don’t think anything I’ve said can be fairly read as standing opposed to productive work, but if so, let me clarify that now: productive work is man’s means to achieve his own life, his happiness, and (yes) the pleasures he means to enjoy.

Yet it is also important to understand how productive work serves these ends (especially when “productive work” is thought of, reductively, as an actual job or career) so that we can understand how and why a man might, say, enjoy retirement in his old age.

1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

The hedonists had already praised pleasure, but nobody can take a short-range approach too seriously. Aristotle spoke of Eudemia, and his golden mean is one way of conceptualizing the various choices we have to make all the time. The Epicureans had spoken about enjoying life in a relaxed way. These were attempts integrate the idea that selfish pleasure is the core of Ethics with other observations about the world.

The Stoics took a different tack: they recognized that men are driven to do “big things” which cannot be explained by “live a relaxed life” or '“do only what you need to be comfortable”. They admired these men. At some level, they were admiring productivity, but could not quite explain why it was the good. They ended up with a somewhat “duty ethics”. The Bhagavad Gita got to the same point too: work (karma) is good because it is, because it is a universal law. They both assumed a feedback: where the universe rewards us for doing our duty. The only alternative to work seemed asceticism, and Eastern philosophies thought that was good too…but, we can’t all be ascetics. So, working hard was what the typical person had to do… just because. There was no tie to happiness, leave along to pleasure.

Rand stepped through the horns of this ancient dilemma.

I can’t speak reliably to most other philosophy, though I’ve studied a good deal of it in my past – yet there’s always more to be learned (and relearned). But as to the dilemma you describe, and Rand, I am unspeakably grateful for her efforts.

Yet if this ancient dilemma has been solved, I still find myself making mistakes, blundering occasionally against its horns, and seeing mistakes made around me, including persistent and recurring misunderstandings in the Objectivist community. To the extent possible to me, and in concord with my own life, pleasure and happiness (which I might call the Objectivist Trinity, if such irony can be borne), I hope to draw upon the lessons of these mistakes and offer such correction as I can, where warranted and beneficial.

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

On 1/9/2017 at 9:11 AM, StrictlyLogical said:

When you ask yourself, “But I like “Tiddly wink” music, is it morally good for me to listen to it, even though it does not in any way support survival?”, think again.

I wasn’t aware that survival is possible without music.  B)

 

That cuts right to the core of it, though.

Since wasting any portion of your finite lifespan is a very evil thing to do, if “survival” is the standard then music is out (along with video games, cheesecake, novels, ice cream, puzzles, sex, drugs and rock-‘n’-roll and anything else that doesn’t pay the bills); if survival is the standard then the pursuit of happiness -as an end in itself- is wrong.

Talk about Of Living Death.

 

On 1/9/2017 at 6:48 AM, DonAthos said:

Pain is no less “real” for that, and matters just as much as any other fact… despite any admirable sense of life which may eventually inspire a man to act as though some pain is “less important” than a corresponding pleasure.

Tis but a flesh wound! 

 

On 1/9/2017 at 12:40 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

 

 

On 1/10/2017 at 8:11 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

 

 

On 1/11/2017 at 12:48 AM, DonAthos said:

I only wish that member were still on the forum today.

Ditto. His “area under the graph” explanation was the most succinct and coherent I’ve ever seen before. Wherever he is right now, I hope he’s doing Okay.

 

But are there actual people who try to live without music?

 

Chumbawamba - Tubthumping

 

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

On 1/12/2017 at 11:05 PM, DonAthos said:

Neither pleasure nor pain can “deceive.” We may experience pleasure and mistakenly conclude that whatever experience that caused the pleasure is, on the whole, good. … But the experience of pleasure (or pain) does not deceive us – it is what it is.

There is an analogy to draw here, I suspect, with the validity of the senses.

Well, in one sense, such “feelings” are introspectively self-evident. They may or may not be appropriate responses but (like the senses) you can’t really help but know what they are. Even the most hardcore evader who was hell-bent on hiding the nature of his own feelings from himself would have to settle for evading their content (the thing to which he’s responding), instead.

In the other sense, physical pleasure and pain literally are sensations with inherent valence. 

No, an identification is not an analogy; it’s much better. 

 

On 1/15/2017 at 11:45 AM, Nerian said:

 

 

On 1/15/2017 at 11:45 AM, Nerian said:

“Screw it. It gives me joy. What more justification do I need?”

“The combination of the pain it gives me (if any) and life time it costs (if any) are less than the joy it gives me.” Maximizing the area, remember.

Beyond that, you don’t need to justify nothing to nobody.

 

On 1/15/2017 at 5:48 PM, Nerian said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amY6wjfU48k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmG57WlIpEc

 

For me, a very technical minded person, this realization has opened up a flourishing in my appreciation for art, music, everything. I no longer poo poo it all like I used to and I’ve already felt so much richer for it. Embracing my feelings, and now trying to learn to embrace my desires.

It was the same for me.

 

On 1/19/2017 at 3:03 PM, Nerian said:

… I want to go to the gym very soon, so that I may pursue the value of an aesthetic physique, so I may attract the women that I arbitrarily find sexually attractive due to my monkey brain wiring, so that I may satisfy my arbitrary monkey drives, and thereby experience pleasure, which is the only reason to live…

None of the values you listed earlier are innate (I’m a bit rusty but I plan to explain why fairly soon) and neither is this one. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

 

On 1/19/2017 at 3:03 PM, Nerian said:

Is there any way I can get a pass for responding in dribs and drabs? Pleeeeeeaaaase.  

Dear God, moderators, please! Did you see that run-on sentence?!?!! Just give him what he wants!!!

 

On 1/15/2017 at 11:29 PM, Eiuol said:

 

 

[Nerian]

On 10/5/2017 at 4:10 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Well, in one sense, such “feelings” are introspectively self-evident. They may or may not be appropriate responses but (like the senses) you can’t really help but know what they are. Even the most hardcore evader who was hell-bent on hiding the nature of his own feelings from himself would have to settle for evading their content (the thing to which he’s responding), instead.

In the other sense, physical pleasure and pain literally are sensations with inherent valence. 

No, an identification is not an analogy; it’s much better. 

 

 

“The combination of the pain it gives me (if any) and life time it costs (if any) are less than the joy it gives me.” Maximizing the area, remember.

Beyond that, you don’t need to justify nothing to nobody.

 

It was the same for me.

 

None of the values you listed earlier are innate (I’m a bit rusty but I plan to explain why fairly soon) and neither is this one. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

 

Dear God, moderators, please! Did you see that run-on sentence?!?!! Just give him what he wants!!!

 

 

Are they innate? I don’t know. I don’t know anything anymore. I don’t know what there is even to do in life. What’s the point of any of it. What’s innate, what’s learned? I don’t know. But there seems to be nothing worth the struggle. Happiness? A brief spurt of emotional pleasure in a long drag of suffering and effort. How is that worth it? I don’t know. It seems like nothing much is worth it. 

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

2 hours ago, Nerian said:

Happiness? A brief spurt of emotional pleasure in a long drag of suffering and effort. How is that worth it? I don’t know. It seems like nothing much is worth it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enum2qHUK70

Actually, though, this one is much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhx0IWXUMOA

 

[Nerian]

4 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enum2qHUK70

Actually, though, this one is much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhx0IWXUMOA

 

Thank you, kind stranger  

[Harrison_Danneskjold]

22 hours ago, Nerian said:

Are they innate? … Happiness? A brief spurt of emotional pleasure in a long drag of suffering and effort.

I’d just like to point out that if “happiness” was an innate value (at least in any more conceptual form than the raw sensation of pleasure, which is built into your nervous system) then your post would’ve been gibberish; nobody else would’ve been able to understand it (“what the Hell? Happiness means’worth it’”) and you wouldn’t have been able to think it, in the first place.

I did understand it, though. I’ve been there. And it’s worth the struggle to break through it.  Don’t give up.

On 1/22/2017 at 2:47 PM, softwareNerd said:

Post-script:  I think your focus on pleasure is important though, because some people read Fountainhead and Atlas as enshrining the virtue of hard work, but do not keep the link to pleasure and happiness in mind. By dropping that link, and by seeing work as an end in itself, drops the crucial justification for work. Work then is a duty: an end that we just do, because it is good… don’t ask any more questions!

[Nerian]

19 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I’d just like to point out that if “happiness” was an innate value (at least in any more conceptual form than the raw sensation of pleasure, which is built into your nervous system) then your post would’ve been gibberish; nobody else would’ve been able to understand it (“what the Hell? Happiness means’worth it’”) and you wouldn’t have been able to think it, in the first place.

I did understand it, though. I’ve been there. And it’s worth the struggle to break through it.  Don’t give up.

How is it worth going through all that mental suffering for a rare ephemeral scrap of mental enjoyment? 

[DonAthos]

5 hours ago, Nerian said:

How is it worth going through all that mental suffering for a rare ephemeral scrap of mental enjoyment? 

I want to tread lightly here, because personal advice is often not so great (especially in a forum like this, between two people who don’t really know one another) – and also because, it sounds like you might be going through something. Depression is serious business. Many people require professional help to break through the negative thought/emotion cycle that depression represents. I have no idea whether that applies to you, but if it does, don’t be afraid or too proud to seek it out.

To be honest, my experience is 1) happiness is not “rare” and 2) I don’t experience much “mental suffering.” Were it otherwise, I would look to make some changes in my life.

Instead, happiness is a (mostly) persistent state for me. Recently, I was involved in a small auto accident. It sucked. But even then, I didn’t really experience what I could describe as “mental suffering,” and it was not long after the accident that I was again enjoying my life in a characteristic fashion. Earlier this year, I went through some severe medical problems. It sucked. A lot. And I suffered a lot, too. But my “mental suffering” was mostly confined to finding some way out of my physical distress, and when I finally managed that, things quickly got back on track for me. There have been other challenges, of course; life is full of them, and some can be very tough to deal with. Some days, I’m not particularly happy; but when that happens, I rest assured that whatever mood or funk will soon pass, like the rain.

But I am fortunate to have been able to surround myself with things that, on a day to day basis, provide me with enjoyment, such that I can weather these storms. These include my work, my environment, my daily routines and hobbies, and (powerfully) my family. I’ve worked hard to make each of these contribute in a positive fashion to my life, as best as I know how, and I think that they give me support against most of the shocks of daily life.

Now, all that said, there has been a period in my life where it was mostly mental suffering, and not so much enjoyment… many, many years ago, I suffered a bout of severe depression. At the time I did not, but if I thought something like that were threatening me today, I would strongly consider going to a therapist for assistance; it was the worst part of my life, and nothing I intend to revisit.

In the event that you do not consider yourself to be so depressed that you need such assistance (or you are set against the idea, for whatever reason, though I would advise you to reconsider if so), and if you’re in the market for advice (keeping my caveats in mind), I would recommend that you investigate the possibility of making some changes for yourself. Try to adjust the ratio of enjoyment to suffering. This may require big changes and/or small alterations to what you already do and experience. (Probably you should not make big changes to your life without due consideration.)

Some concretes that you could look at immediately are: are you getting enough sleep? Are you getting daily exercise (even as little as a 10 minute walk)? Are you eating healthfully/well? Getting enough sunshine/vitamin D?

After that (or maybe before), I’d wonder if the mental suffering you’re experiencing is attributable to anything specific and correctable. If you have a thorn in your paw, best to pull it out.

Then, I would probably look at career/school. Does your vocation excite you? Is it something that you’re passionate about? Or if it’s not, is there something out there you’ve discovered that would excite you, and inspire your efforts daily? (And if you haven’t found something like that, can you take steps to continue to look?) What is the mountain that you yearn to climb? What steps can you take in the near future, or today, to put you on the path to climbing it?

Maybe you’re already on such a path, but you dislike the grind required to get you to where you want to be. In my experience, we must all of us spend some time in the quarry. If so, be on the look out for all of the small things you can do – the small rewards and treats you can provide yourself – to lighten the load. Once upon a time, I had a two hour commute; four hours daily, in Los Angeles traffic. That was… not pleasant. So I subscribed to an audiobook service, and managed to change my commute into something I could (at least somewhat) look forward to. There were times when it was the best part of my day.

I could go on in this fashion (and if you would like more suggestions, let me know), but the overall point is that… a good life has to be worked for, and achieved, step-by-step. It’s not enough to learn that A=A; you don’t just wake up the next day with a smile on your face (though the thrill of that initial discovery is pretty majestic). It takes a lot of work (and thought, and time) to create the kind of life that will provide you with a happiness that is more substantial and enduring than “a rare ephemeral scrap of mental enjoyment.” But in my experience, it is worth it.