The different types of 'sense of life'

Questions about Objectivism
1

The whole idea of a ‘sense of life’ intrigues me. It’s one of these fundamental parts of a human which is meant to be formed as a result of all the choices one makes, yet it is something that I really don’t think I understand.

Ayn Rand had a positive sense of life; before I read any of her work (well actually, it was still a while after that, and I’m still working on it) I had a rather negative sense of life. These are the two definitions of a sense of life that I understand as existing: the positive and the negative. The positive sense of life sees life being full of opportunity (or the opportunity to create opportunity for oneself); the negative sense of life sees the world as being inherently destructive to his life, with everything set against me.

But see, there can’t be two possible senses of life, with people fitting someone in between, otherwise finding the perfect partner in life would be insanely easy. You’d just find someone who was really positive about life. At this point, I think it’s because I’m confusing ‘sense of life’ with ‘benevolent/malevolent universe premise’, and I think it’s a confusion that led to my last relationship, where I figured, “she has a good sense of life” when what I really saw was “she’s got a fairly positive attitude to life, and the ability to fulfil her values”.

Romantic compatibilities center mostly around sense of life, rather than particular identical accomplishments and particular identical values

If the sense of life, as Thomas M Miovas puts it, is fundamental to a relationship, then it has to be really unique. Otherwise, two Objectivists could easily fall in love with the same woman, and assuming both had the same positive outlook on life, and were both virtuous and rational, then there would be no way to say which one had the more suitable sense of life.

So, really, what is a sense of life, beyond just sensing one’s one ability to life? Is it some strange melding of one’s implicit and explicit values? Is it a matter of how two people try to cross a canyon (by this, I mean, one might take a plane, the other build a bridge, and something in either one could attract or repel the woman [though I can’t really see why, hence my asking])?

I just feel like a ‘sense of life’ is really limited, as far as I understand it. Love is confusing enough a field as it is, without trying to work out a person’s implicit values!

P.S. My copy of Tara Smith’s ‘Normative Ethics’ arrived in the post today, so perhaps you have a page reference I should read too? Or perhaps references to any part of her work?

2

So, really, what is a sense of life, beyond just sensing one’s one ability to life? Is it some strange melding of one’s implicit and explicit values? Is it a matter of how two people try to cross a canyon (by this, I mean, one might take a plane, the other build a bridge, and something in either one could attract or repel the woman [though I can’t really see why, hence my asking])?

I think it is also what living a good life means to a particular person and I mean not in the abstract but in the concrete - in the context of their life (which is tied to their unique hierachy of values which further is also tied among many other things to their self evaluation). That will differ between individuals sharing the same philosophy.

I think it is a mistake to both 1) ignore the importance of sharing the same philosophy and 2) thinking that it alone will be enough. Also, relaying just on someone’s sense of life is not a good idea either - not unless you know that it is based mostly on their explicit understanding of relvant issues instead of “it somehow feels good to me that way”. A person can ride on his sense of life for a while but eventually he must translate it into conceptual knowledge and conscious convictions in order to be CONSISTANT. Values which one cannot identify, but merely senses implicitly, are not in one’s control. One cannot tell what they depend on or require, what course of action is needed to gain and/or keep them. One can lose or betray them without knowing it (and people often do - they betray what or whom they love). A sense of life is not a substitute for explicit knowledge and that is why searching for a mate from among other Objectivists is something one should consider strongly.

3

Great response Sophia. Also, Rory, I think THomas’ phrasing really does refer to “romantic” compatibility, not overall relationship compatibility. That is, emotional response to each other are many times responses to each others sense of life rather than to the underlying relationship compatibility.

4

If the sense of life, as Thomas M Miovas puts it, is fundamental to a relationship, then it has to be really unique. Otherwise, two Objectivists could easily fall in love with the same woman, and assuming both had the same positive outlook on life, and were both virtuous and rational, then there would be no way to say which one had the more suitable sense of life.

I didn’t realize someone started a thread on something I wrote in another thread :angry:

A sense of life can be as varied as any other emotional reaction, so it is not just positive or negative. One can say it is one’s emotional reaction to being alive qua valuing person. You know that some people are just down and out all of the time, no matter what happens – and they never seem to be happy. On the other hand, there are those that seem to take everything in stride – I mean, a problem is a problem, but they deal with it as they can and find positive values in their lives regardless of the problems. But these are two extremes, and there is a wide variety of emotional reactions to life along this continuum. There are people who are always angry, and there are those who are always diminutive. There are those who love a challenge, and there are those who never want to be confronted by anything.

Just trying to fill in some observations about sense of life.

Particular value responses are important, and this can be discovered in the type of art one’s potential partner likes or loves, since art is very encompassing. For other things, it’s not as important and can be more along the lines of loving the Red Sox over the Dodgers. One of them may not even like sports (I don’t in particular), but may love how one’s potential partner responds to the the game – i.e. her excitement, though if she is not excited about at least a few things that one is excited about, it probably is not a match.

I agree that sense of life is not enough. Take excitement. If one is excited about a new scientific discovery and the other is excited about something the Pope said, there is probably going to be conflict. Having the same philosophy will help to guarantee there may not be intellectual conflicts, but having the same philosophy does not guarantee that the emotional reaction to life’s events will necessarily be the same. I have known a lot of people over the years who are quite enthusiastic about Objectivism in the beginning, but then have conflicts with it because it puts them in conflict with others and they would rather not be in such conflict, so they drop Objectivism. Sometimes a little conflict between sense of life will add a little spice to the couple, just enough of a shading that the other is not totally predictable emotionally.

But, just basing one’s love or not on the other’s emotions is not the right way to do it either, since her facts and your facts must be along the same lines for an emotional synergy is possible. In other words, the struggles have to be at least understandable to each other, or some of the heroism of facing the difficulty won’t even be recognized.

5

In other words, the struggles have to be at least understandable to each other, or some of the heroism of facing the difficulty won’t even be recognized.

That is a very good observation.

6

But see, there can’t be two possible senses of life, with people fitting someone in between, otherwise finding the perfect partner in life would be insanely easy. You’d just find someone who was really positive about life. At this point, I think it’s because I’m confusing ‘sense of life’ with 'benevolent/malevolent universe premise

I am the most computer/technology illiterate person on the planet, as well as a “newbie” to the site so I am just hoping I am quoting posts correctly since I do think it will be helpful (for me, anyways) to respond to direct statements. (How does everyone get those fabulous blue boxes around other quotes?)

With those apologies offered, l will say simply that I, too, initially struggled with the notion of viewing the world in absolutes, but in what I like to consider my philosophical rebirth of late, I have discovered the wisdom of this view. There are in fact only two senses of life, and if life is truly your ultimate guiding value (as well it should be), and your sense of life affects EVERYTHING, the key is to consciously admit it. Every decision you make is, ultimately for your life or acts against it; it either adds to your life or takes something away. What’s important to remember in any discussion about one’s sense of life is how long are you looking ahead? Are you thinking long or short range. This is important because it helps reveal the futility and irrationality of being “somewhere in between.” I don’t think anyone can be in the middle on this issue. Lots of people out there may appear to have a good sense of life, but what is they are just really good at pretending? And by pretending, they’re not honestly identifying their values. Without values, how can they have a positive sense of life. Seemingly happy people, with a seeming good sense of life commit actions against their life all the time. If you’re looking at that person solely in the short range context of the moment what you will fail to see is how those decisions— decisions that seem to have a positive impact and offer a positive perspective at first— will ultimately add nothing to anyone’s life because they weren’t honest with themselves in the first place.

To move past this (and here’s where I haven’t figured out how to post a second quote within a reply just yet…) it is, like Sophia said, essential to think about it conceptually. To think conceptually requires rationality, and to think rationally requires the acceptance of every decision either working to make your life better or working to make it worse. What I’ve noticed a lot of people struggling with —or maybe I am just more capable of spotting it as I went through this process myself— is understanding how long range thinking must guide current action. If I just think short-term, than it is all too easy to make lots of mistakes and be guided by all the wrong excuses. But if you think long-term, your values will contribute to a growing, benevolent sense of the universe everyday.

I’ve made a lot of decisions that have acted against my life, but by escaping the confines of short-range thinking, the benevolent universe theory literally invigorated me like an explosion. Finding the perfect partner isn’t easy, but I suspect that mostly has to do with most people’s inability to admit thhe ways in which they’re unhappy. It’s frustrating, I know, but I understand it well because I was once one of those people pretending I was happy when I wasn’t… for a long time. But accepting the notion that actions wither work for or against one’s life has helped me become who I am, and tantalizes my mind with the thought of the success I will continue to be. Understanding that implication has given me my sense of life because it has given me the sense of control I had sought for years. And having that sense of control has awakened me to the endless possibilities open to me in this benevolent universe in which we inhabit.

7

There are in fact only two senses of life…

I like what you wrote but I disagree with this part. Even if two people approach life in the very way you describe, believing that values are within their reach, always thinking long term, introspecting, doing their best to only make pro-life choices, they still may strive (and often will) for different things in life. For example, one may see having children as a necessary component of their existance and another may not. This alone changes one’s sense of life considerably. I think, it is not only how you approach life but also what you personally want out of life (what a good life means to you - which also includes things like what kind of lifestyle you would like to lead).

8

Tenure, One way to think about this would be to consider people one likes (not necessarily of the opposite sex): they could be family, friends, past friends, or even acquaintances. Using three or four such concrete examples might help think about the subject. Ask yourself questions about how they’re all different, and what you particularly like about each one. Report back here, to share what you discover. :smiley:

9

I like what you wrote but I disagree with this part. Even if two people approach life in the very way you describe, believing that values are within their reach, always thinking long term, introspecting, doing their best to only make pro-life choices, they still may strive (and often will) for different things in life.

But if you’re striving for those things doesn’t that mean you’re making decisions that add to your life? I understand that different people want different things in terms of goals, lifestyle, concretes, etc. , but the diversity of those desired values does not erase the fact that you are still pursuing them on the basis that they will contribute to it?

I understand you’re disagreement with my statement, though, and thanks for making it because it helped me understand how I miscommunicated what I was trying to say. I still contend that all decisions are ultimately for or against your life, but I can see how one’s sense of life is based on so much more than a simple acknowledgment that life should be your ultimate value. Sense of life, especially for a conceptually thinking adult, comes from the integration of all of one’s value, not just the primary one. Life as man’s only value wouldn’t make him much better than an animal; what makes man so great is that he has the volition to consciously form his own values that add further value to his life than simply staying alive.

10

but the diversity of those desired values does not erase the fact that you are still pursuing them on the basis that they will contribute to it?

Yes, it does not.

Sense of life, especially for a conceptually thinking adult, comes from the integration of all of one’s value, not just the primary one.

Yes. It is however not only a result of one’s conscious convictions but also (and I would say predominantly) a window to person’s subconscious judgments, values sensed implicitly. That is why although a window to one’s essence - if not translated into conceptual, explicit knowledge - it won’t be enough for this person to stay true to their values. They will be inconsistent.

That imo is what is happening to most Americans today who overall have a very positive sense of life.

11

It is however not only a result of one’s conscious convictions but also (and I would say predominantly) a window to person’s subconscious judgments, values sensed implicitly. That is why although a window to one’s essence - if not translated into conceptual, explicit knowledge - it won’t be enough for this person to stay true to their values. They will be inconsistent.

While a sense of life is mostly subconscious to most people, I think via introspection one can bring the subconscious to the conscious level. The Romantic Manifesto helped me to do that regarding hero worship and the relationship between art and sense of life.

Also, I think it is improper to evaluate someone strictly on their subconscious reactions to things. This is why I mentioned earlier that one must not only focus on their emotional reaction, but also the object of that emotional reaction, and the reasons why they had such a reaction. An emotional reaction per se tells you nothing about the person without the context as to why there was that reaction and what the root of the evaluation is.

For example, someone might experience anger at something, but them being angry does not tell you what the injustice was that led to the anger (anger meaning that an injustice was done). So it would be important to find out why they are so angry, and what the injustice was that gave rise to the anger. If one finds out that some former relationship ended badly because the former lover committed an injustice and perceiving something that reminds of of the injustice makes one angry, then one can decide if an injustice actually occurred by a rational standard. Without knowing the cause of the anger, one may miss out on an important clue about one’s potential lover.

Similarly for the other emotions. The reaction may be subconscious and seemingly immediate, but if you don’t know the why behind the reaction, I think one is attempting to short circuit justice. That is, let’s say she is pleased to hear that Bush won the election, but you find out it is because he is going to push a religious agenda, then there would be grounds for breaking off the relationship. On the other hand, if she thought that Bush would do well in fighting the War on Terror and is pleased he got re-elected, then that would be more acceptable. Of course, one might then want to delve further into her thinking to find out if he is still fighting the War on Terror correctly later in the relationship.

A sense of life is an emotional reaction to life in general, but having a positive outlook in and of itself is not sufficient for saying one has grounds for falling in love. One has to know what the particular values are to some degree to see if there is compatibility or not.

In other words, one has to know if one’s own emotional reaction to the potential lover is based on the facts about her other than her emotional reaction per se. Otherwise, I think it becomes the primacy of someone else’s consciousness. You need the facts to back up your own assessment of her viability as a romantic partner.

12

While a sense of life is mostly subconscious to most people, I think via introspection one can bring the subconscious to the conscious level.

Yes one can do that by identifying their values explicitly.

Also, I think it is improper to evaluate someone strictly on their subconscious reactions to things.

That is not what I was implying. I was thinking in terms of when you meet someone who seems to have a compatible sense of life (they have a positive emotional responses to things you value). I find that, although it is a base for initial attraction and wanting to find out more about the person, it alone is a very unreliable indicator, for the reasons I gave.

An emotional reaction per se tells you nothing about the person without the context as to why there was that reaction and what the root of the evaluation is.

And nobody here has argued otherwise.

13

I was thinking in terms of when you meet someone who seems to have a compatible sense of life (they have a positive emotional responses to things you value). I find that, although it is a base for initial attraction and wanting to find out more about the person, it alone is a very unreliable indicator, for the reasons I gave.

Well, it’s a very good indicator of their sense of life, but sense of life alone is not enough. If that is what you are saying , then I agree.

For example, you like Steve Hanks and Dale TerBush, two artists that are very good at what they do – concretizing an abstraction. But it makes a big difference if someone likes Steve Hanks because of his style (which is excellent) versus liking his country home scenes of his earlier works because these are indicative that we live in a modern era and they would rather have things the old fashion way. Likewise, one can admire Dale TerBush for his excellent portraits of nature, but wouldn’t love someone who thought that untouched nature was better than the man-made.

Two other artists that are good at what they do and know how to render light real are Thomas Kinkade and G. Harvey; their style is excellent, but people tend to like them because of their nostalgia and longing for the good ole days and the comfortableness of simpler times, when traditional values ruled unquestionably. Obviously, an Objectivist would have difficulties with these types of mentalities, since Objectivism is against traditional (normally read religious) views; and because Objectivists are fighting for the future instead of longing for the good ole days.

14

Ayn Rand had a positive sense of life; I had a rather negative sense of life. These are the two definitions of a sense of life that I understand as existing: the positive and the negative.

There are much, much, much more than two types of sense of life. Take d’Anconia and Galt - both had positive ones, and yet their senses of life were unique. It showed in their reactions, and those unique senses of life might cause you to like one character more than the other.

But see, there can’t be two possible senses of life, with people fitting someone in between, otherwise finding the perfect partner in life would be insanely easy. You’d just find someone who was really positive about life.

I kinda agree with that. IMO people with similar philosophies but antagonistic senses of life (even if they are both positive ones) aren’t going to be very compatible.

I agree that sense of life is not enough. Take excitement. If one is excited about a new scientific discovery and the other is excited about something the Pope said, there is probably going to be conflict.

But based on this information (they both are excited about something) alone, those senses of life aren’t similar.

I do agree that sense of life isn’t the only thing that should be considered in terms of relationships.

15

But based on this information (they both are excited about something[though different]) alone, those senses of life aren’t similar.

I do agree that sense of life isn’t the only thing that should be considered in terms of relationships.

I think I agree with you. The point I am trying to make is that an emotion is an evaluation of something, and not just, say, a pleasant personality. In other words, in dealing with other people’s emotions, just as one deals with one’s own, the object that gave rise to the emotion must be considered, as well as the psycho-epistemology behind it.

Basically what I’m saying is don’t fall in love with an emotion out of context; the why of the emotion is very important. Of course, the response and the why is all part of the sense of life. Given my examples previously – one gets excited about a new scientific discovery while the other gets excited about something the Pope says – then I agree that in the final analysis they do not share the same sense of life.

This reminds me of something that happened during the Elian Gonzalez fiasco. It was in the news a few years back, but if you need a reminder I wrote plenty about it and put it on my website. But I was having a very wonderful conversation with a single lady who was one of my customers and who was attractive. She was just bubbling over with excitement about the issues involved in this case. And we talked for about a half an hour about it and the issues, and she and I seemed to be having a rapport, when all of a sudden she says, “And just who do those people think they are? They just came out of the blue! They have no business being involved!” Given our prior emotional tie-in that we were having, I thought she was talking about those who wanted to send Elian back to Cuba, but then she said, “They are only relatives of the boy and he belongs with his father!”

Needless to say, I decided not to go out with her.

16

The idea of ‘sense of life’ appeals to me because of it manages to explain to me this delay in new reasoning/beliefs and the necessarily corresponding emotions. However, it seems random to me.

How did Ayn Rand come up with this? she herself claimed to not have a clue in psychology. How can one suddenly come to the conclusion that our emotions are the response to a sum of all our experiences/beliefs?

17

How did Ayn Rand come up with this? she herself claimed to not have a clue in psychology. How can one suddenly come to the conclusion that our emotions are the response to a sum of all our experiences/beliefs?

I think you might be misunderstanding something here. Miss Rand was not a clinical psychologist, but it is only in that sense that she didn’t know much about psychology. That is, she never wrote much about purely psychological issues, but only insofar as they related to philosophic issues – i.e. see “The Psychology of Psychologizing” where she talks about psychological problems from the perspective of a philosopher; but doesn’t really go into how to either diagnose or to cure a psychological problem.

However, she was a very good observer of human nature and also very good at introspection – the whole of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is based on introspection. So, what she was able to realize is that given her own values regarding human life qua human life, that is given her own perspective as someone who took man’s life as the standard, that this resulted in an overall emotional reaction; in essence to the totality of her values, for example man worshiping (which is an emotional reaction). She was then able to observe in others what their values were, including the basis, if any, of their value system, and was able to make a tie-in with her observations about herself.

What you think about the world overall – your implicit metaphysics – will result in an emotional reaction to that knowledge. I mean, one has to evaluate the world as a whole, to determine if one is going to continue to live in it, fight against it, or enjoy it as it is. For example, a sunrise is the beginning of a new day, and it makes a big difference if one evaluates that as good for yourself or bad for yourself – i.e. if one enjoys the beauty of a sunrise and greet the expectations of the day or if one accepts it begrudgingly as the beginning of another day of drudgery. It effects your whole outlook, and the entire way you come across to others.

Unless one is severely repressed and totally non-expressive on the emotional level, then one portrays one’s emotional reaction to being alive in the very mannerism of being alive and expressing it emotionally. In other words, it’s written all over your face; and in the way one carries oneself; and in the way one confronts challenges; and in the way one greets strangers; etc.

18

Tenure,

It’s definitely not true that there are two senses of life. A sense of life is a sum of an almost uncountable number of subconscious emotional evaluations. To say that a sense of life is a “positive” or a “negative” sense of life is to form an abstraction about a clump, so to speak. One might have a positive but mundane sense of life, like Nevil Shute, or one might have a malevolent but adventurous sense of life, like Byron. One might be passive or active, one might be optimistic or cynical… one might be any iteration or combination thereof.

It’s *complex*.

So you can break it down conceptually, and maybe, given enough thought, you can condense a particular sense of life into “positive” or “negative,” but there’s always more to say. Particularly when you’re talking about the nuances of romance, there’s also more to feel, too.

You asked: “So, really, what is a sense of life, beyond just sensing one’s one ability to life? Is it some strange melding of one’s implicit and explicit values?”

Nope - it’s *just* one’s implicit values, as expressed in one’s automatic emotional responses to life.

To bring it back to what seems to be the real topic, I don’t see a lot of use for trying to work out what someone else’s sense of life is if you’re evaluating them for a romantic relationship. If their sense of life is compatible with yours, provided you know them well enough, you’ll feel it. I don’t mean to endorse emotionalism regarding romance, because compatibility in sense of life is only a prerequisite, not an end-all-and-be-all. At a minimum, you should explicitly consider the potential partner’s conscious convictions and moral character, both of which can at times contradict one’s implicit sense of life. If you enjoy their company at an emotional level, you are attracted at a sexual level, and you have no rational objection to their character, I’d say you at least have a basis for pursuing a good relationship.

– Spiral Theorist –

19

Now *that* is a first post.

Well said, SpiralTheorist.

20

So, conceptually, what’s the difference between “sense of life”, “personality”, “outlook”, and “worldview”?

ST’s sense of life definition: “one’s implicit values, as expressed in one’s automatic emotional responses to life”

personality from Merriam Webster Online: “3 a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially : the totality of an individual’s behavioral and emotional characteristics”

outlook from Princeton Online: “mentality, outlook, mindset … (a habitual or characteristic mental attitude that determines how you will interpret and respond to situations)”

worldview from wiki: “A worldview describes a consistent (to a varying degree) and integral sense of existence and provides a framework for generating, sustaining, and applying knowledge.”