What we are

Metaphysics and Epistemology
41

Yes, these are, of course, pretty good reasons. And I also see it that way, that it is not without such observations that one could ever conclude Objectivism’s claims about man’s nature. Which raises the question: How can Objectivists ethics be independent of such a thorough biological study? Isn’t Philosophy supposed to give answers way more indepenent of natural sciences?

There is no need to learn biology. The fact is that if anybody wants to achieve any kind of goal, he first must survive. The achievement of any long-term goal requires one to learn and abide by the correct principles that would keep him alive long term. A philosopher does not need to look into the functions of the human body to identify the fact that human life is not automatic - a man needs to act in a certain way to stay alive.

In any case, I personally do not yet see the relevance of the above observation (life being, metaphysically, an end in itself) to the necessity of building ethics around the purpose of achieving life. By that I don’t mean that I think there is no connection, but that I think there is but I don’t understand it yet.

About your question and my answer (and its relevance to ethics):

What you asked is about the nature of human beings specifically - you asked what we are, and how metaphysically, our highest value is life. So that is what I answered, and to give a detailed answer you do venture into biology to some degree. However, it is not necessary to go through all the details to know that life is a phenomenon of a certain kind, and that since we are a living organism, the same principle that applies and can be observed about other creatures is true for us too.

Of course, this still leaves out the specific details of how humans (vs. other living things) achieve the end of life.

Let me explain by a simpler example: Suppose you see a few tables, you learn that their function is such that they provide a steady surface on which to place items, that they are composed of a top and some sort of base. Then when someone tells you about a table for sale, you already know what to expect of this object. Just like since man is a living thing, you know what to expect from it, even if all you studied are other animals. Man is an animal and therefore you know what to expect.

So you don’t need to learn ALL the specific details about human beings to know that they have metabolism, that they reproduce, or that the ultimate end to our “design” is continuation of life. This is a fact that was clear to savages as well - only they did not know all the details that we do (like the function of blood circulation, the existence of a brain etc’).

42

If a human being can observe additional facts in the course of his life through his own experience, facts like certain permanent and constantly recurring and unforgiving urges of his MIND that he cannot integrate into the concept of self-sustainance, then one can, at least for THIS man, observe another obvious metaphysical goal NOT rooted in and distinct from the other one.

Thank you for putting it into such tangible terms. It is fair to say that this other obvious metaphysical goal is not rooted in the (I would argue primary) goal of self-sustainance. My question would be, “where does this other goal come from?” We have clearly identified where the goal of self-sustainance comes from. This other goal appears to be a contradiction of the goal of self-sustainance. Contradictions cannot exists. Therefore I would postulate that this non self-sustaining goal comes from some flawed premise which, if not uncovered and corrected, will perist. The fact that it exists and is persistent does not mean that it is correct. Nor does it mean that it will necessarily continue to persist.

I will add here that from my own experience these are often difficult issues to resolve. I think one reason is that, by virtue of the manner in which the human brain develops and establishes synaptic connections into the patterns it does, we can become creatures of habit. In many cases this is good i.e. the patterns of behavior which constitute walking (I am presently trying to deliberately change the way I walk and can tell you that habit is a bitch to overcome). But at times it can really get in the way i.e. trying to learn to step toward somone who is throwing a punch at your head. I know that I am in a much better position when I am inside the minimum range of someone’s punch than when I retreat outside of it. Yet it is still very hard to get my body (let alone my phyche) to do it.

What I am getting at is that just because one has a recurring and unforgiving urge does not mean it is good or even that it is what you really want. Even after correcting a contradiction some habits may hang around for a while.

43

Thanks for your replies. And sorry for returning so late, I’ve had a busy time lately.

But I was pondering on a few things regarding the issue.

Grames, you are right, Chapter 6 on OPAR deals with exactly that topic.

If you say that that which is fundamental about a thing is so because it causes all the other aspects of its nature, then you must already HAVE a concept about the “thing”. Otherwise it would be impossible for you to form any such sentence. And if the thing you are talking about is man, or in other words, if the concept you already HAVE about the thing of which you are trying to identify its fundamental nature IS man, and if man is somehow by definition already identified by the process of living on reason, then it is merely a tautology to say that our fundamental nature is “a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action”.

However, my approach is totally different.

I feel tempted to ask myself this question:

What is the fundamental thing that I am striving for? Is there any such thing at all?

The “I” is already included in the first question. Which means that a concept of myself, an idea about the meaning of “I” is already present.

The question that follows from that is: What is the “I”? Is it at all possible to ask or to define, what “I” is?

My personal attempt at defining the “I” would be “my consciousness”. Including everything that is necessary for it to be. Because my attribute of possesing consciousness is the first thing initially apparent to me about myself. It is the fundamental awareness of “me” that I have. A living body might necessarily belong to it, since for there to be consciousness, there needs to be something to be conscious of, and to perceive that one might need some means of perceiving something (though I cannot establish the absolute necessity of that at this point) and so on…

But for the mere purpose of self-identification I would say that my consciousness would suffice.

After having answered this question that way, one must ask, what it acutally means to fundamentally strive for something.

I see you have your way of defining that.

And I would have put the answer to that question differently:

The thing that I am “fundamentally striving for” is that which must be fulfilled in order for me to say “I want no more there to be fulfilled, this is the best I can have”, after comparing that state of fulfilment with all other possible states of fulfilments that could have been. To me, this seems the only possible way of putting it into language without making any restrictions that I might later regret.

Maybe our two ways are somehow aquivalent, but if so, I don’t directly see how.

And I have been asking myself, whether there is anything wrong with the idea, that consciousness is part of the fundamental nature of something. That our consciousness has a goal, not merely our body.

That our nature is such, that we are about experiencing a specific thing in our consciousness. Something other than just the mere awareness of sucessful continuation of life processes.

44

If you say that that which is fundamental about a thing is so because it causes all the other aspects of its nature, then you must already HAVE a concept about the “thing”. Otherwise it would be impossible for you to form any such sentence. And if the thing you are talking about is man, or in other words, if the concept you already HAVE about the thing of which you are trying to identify its fundamental nature IS man, and if man is somehow by definition already identified by the process of living on reason, then it is merely a tautology to say that our fundamental nature is “a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action”.

You throw down that word ‘tautology’ as if it were a bad thing, and a refutation of my statement. But every true statement identifying the nature of a thing is necessarily and unavoidably tautological. When selecting which attribute of man is fundamental, this is not self-evident so it is non-obvious and a useful statement and still tautological.

What is the fundamental thing that I am striving for? Is there any such thing at all?

The “I” is already included in the first question. Which means that a concept of myself, an idea about the meaning of “I” is already present.

The question that follows from that is: What is the “I”? Is it at all possible to ask or to define, what “I” is?

My personal attempt at defining the “I” would be “my consciousness”. Including everything that is necessary for it to be. Because my attribute of possesing consciousness is the first thing initially apparent to me about myself. It is the fundamental awareness of “me” that I have. A living body might necessarily belong to it, since for there to be consciousness, there needs to be something to be conscious of, and to perceive that one might need some means of perceiving something (though I cannot establish the absolute necessity of that at this point) and so on…

But for the mere purpose of self-identification I would say that my consciousness would suffice.

…

You will not find meaning in the whole of your life by tearing yourself into its parts, consciousness and body. If for some arbitrary and a priori reason you settle on one and exclude the other, any answer you arrive at will necessarily be distorted and incomplete.

45

When selecting which attribute of man is fundamental, this is not self-evident so it is non-obvious and a useful statement and still tautological.

This is true when a definition of man has not yet been established before selecting which attribute of man is fundamental. Otherwise you are just reproducing textual information when providing an answer to the question.

You will not find meaning in the whole of your life by tearing yourself into its parts, consciousness and body. If for some arbitrary and a priori reason you settle on one and exclude the other, any answer you arrive at will necessarily be distorted and incomplete.

Why? First of all, I am not really tearing down myself into consciousness and body. I am limiting myself to consciousness ONLY. Then, at a second glance, it appears to me that the contents of information my consciousness holds is in many ways dependent on the body I perceive. So by identifying myself via my consciousness, I am IMPLICITLY making my body part of it. So the other is not excluded, the only thing is that it does not form the “entry point” or the “primary key” of the data set, to put it in terms of computer science :wink:

46

Why? First of all, I am not really tearing down myself into consciousness and body. I am limiting myself to consciousness ONLY.

This can only be done in theory (I would argue bad theory, because it is not based on reality). In reality your consciousness IS the activity of your brain processing the percepts of your senses. Your consciousness is, so to speak, the function of your brain – part of your body. You can’t have consciousness without brain. At least for man (and all forms of life I can think of at the moment) working brain (part of body) is consciousness. I understnd how the two different aspects of thought, introspection and extrospection might cause one to see them as separate entities, but they are not.

47

… just reproducing textual information …

Once you learn something, you just remember the information. Recall does not change its status, truthfulness or value. Neither does writing it down or communicating it to others. Why the hostility to the possibility of knowledge?

48

This can only be done in theory (I would argue bad theory, because it is not based on reality). In reality your consciousness IS the activity of your brain processing the percepts of your senses. Your consciousness is, so to speak, the function of your brain – part of your body. You can’t have consciousness without brain. At least for man (and all forms of life I can think of at the moment) working brain (part of body) is consciousness. I understnd how the two different aspects of thought, introspection and extrospection might cause one to see them as separate entities, but they are not.

Hmm…first of all, I disagree with the statement that consciousness IS the activity of my brain processing the percepts of my senses. That’s reductionism. There is no way of defining consciousness, it is an axiom. Nobody could ever explain, why a certain arrangement of axioms and their activities (i.e., our brain) would be consciousness. Consciousness cannot be deducted from that. It is more proper to say that our brain correlates with our consciousness.

And the sentence you were quoting from me was just the first sentence in the paragraph, the “ONLY” was just an initial “only”, and the following sentences continue my line of thought and fully accept the obvious implication of the body.

49

Hmm…first of all, I disagree with the statement that consciousness IS the activity of my brain processing the percepts of my senses. That’s reductionism. There is no way of defining consciousness, it is an axiom. Nobody could ever explain, why a certain arrangement of axioms and their activities (i.e., our brain) would be consciousness. Consciousness cannot be deducted from that. It is more proper to say that our brain correlates with our consciousness.

And the sentence you were quoting from me was just the first sentence in the paragraph, the “ONLY” was just an initial “only”, and the following sentences continue my line of thought and fully accept the obvious implication of the body.

Consciousness certainly can be defined. Everything that exists has identity, therefore one can say more about the attributes of consciousness, compare it with other forms of awareness, and define it as a type of action performed by some living entities. Consciousness is explainable, we just do not have the explanation yet. The axiomatic status of consciousness means that one cannot ever validly reach the conclusion that consciousness does not exist. Reductionism that denies consciousness exists is invalid. Explanations of how consciousness is possible are not reductionism.

The denial that consciousness has identity, or that if it did it would no longer be consciousness, is the essential position of Kant.

50

Once you learn something, you just remember the information. Recall does not change its status, truthfulness or value. Neither does writing it down or communicating it to others. Why the hostility to the possibility of knowledge?

You are right, but in this case, it would appear that the remembering occurs before the learning. One does not really gain anything new by first defning man, and then trying to define the fundamental nature of man. It is like saying:

A circle is the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

And then asking:

What is the fundamental nature of a circle? => Answer: The fundamental nature of a circle is that it consists of the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

It is not hostility to the possibility of knowledge, but doubtfulness of the point of trying to define already identified objects via the same aspect repeatedly.

Sorry, maybe we had a misunderstanding.

And also, already having definded man as a being that survives on reason, with all the established definitions of life, reason etc. inherent in that, would make the observations of self-sustainance (piercing bullet etc.) unneccessary, since that is information we already have in our definition of man. It means that we have already decided what the fundamental nature of man is, before even asking the question.

So, I think it would be more proper to begin with less information and focus on a less comprizing view of ourselves and begin there. If the term “man” is already given away, then one could define “X” as a certain physical object (with certain visible extremeties) that we can observe, together with a consciousness. Don’t forget: We are referring to “X” as those concrete objects of a certain visual appearance that we can OBSERVE, together with a consciousness, not to ANY such objects. This is important, because that way we are really just referencing concrete objects of which we don’t pretend to know very much more about. So we are talking about a limited number, that we simply identify through their visual appearance, and their consciousness, without having any clue, initially, of what else their existence entails.

And then we can ask: “What is the fundamental nature of THOSE objects?” An answer to THIS question would really produce NEW information compared to our consciously held information the question rests on. Provided, of course, the answer is not just a repition of the definition of X. And we would try to answer this question on the basis of ADDITIONAL observation of the X-objects.

Hmm…I hope it becomes clearer now what I mean?

51

A circle is the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

And then asking:

What is the fundamental nature of a circle? => Answer: The fundamental nature of a circle is that it consists of the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

Quick correction (hope I don’t get this wrong, that would be embarrassing):

First off, let’s assume that we are living in a 2D world, on a single plane.

The fundamental nature of a circle, in this 2D world, is that there exists a point in the world from which all the circle’s points are at an equal distance.

The definition of “circle”: The circle C(O,R) is that collection of points which are at distance R from the point O.

So both your statements are wrong, any geometry constructed upon them would run into all sorts of nasty contradictions pretty quickly. Also, even if you were right about the definition of a circle in Euclidean geometry(a man made, theoretical concept), whatever conclusion you may reach about it you shouldn’t just apply to all other concepts, as you do.

52

Consciousness certainly can be defined. Everything that exists has identity, therefore one can say more about the attributes of consciousness, compare it with other forms of awareness, and define it as a type of action performed by some living entities. Consciousness is explainable, we just do not have the explanation yet. The axiomatic status of consciousness means that one cannot ever validly reach the conclusion that consciousness does not exist. Reductionism that denies consciousness exists is invalid. Explanations of how consciousness is possible are not reductionism.

The denial that consciousness has identity, or that if it did it would no longer be consciousness, is the essential position of Kant.

The notion that everything that exists has identity simply means that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time. Why would this mean that everything must be definable? There would be an infinite regress of definitions. A definition identifies something via terms already defined. I would say that consciousness can only be referred to ostensively, not by means of definition.

Why would any type of action performed by some living entities suffice as a definition? If you attempted this with animals or human beings, you would just have a circular definition. Because notion of man or animal, implies consciousness. So any attempt at saying “Consciousness is this and that action performed by an animal or a human being” would use terms that implicate consciousness as a definition, which is invalid. You will find this out by listening to your definition and continue asking “OK, and what is man? What is animal?”. You produce some definitions for those, e.g. “Man is a living being that survives on reason.”. Next: “All right, and what is reason?” Here we go. You might try to avoid the use of “consciousness” in your next definition, by circumscribing it with some other terms. But ultimately even these terms need to be clarified and you’ll end up using “consciousness” in your definition. Which means, if we trace the whole story back, that:

“Consciousness is…involving consciousness”.

So nothing has been defined at all.

53

You are right, but in this case, it would appear that the remembering occurs before the learning. One does not really gain anything new by first defning man, and then trying to define the fundamental nature of man. It is like saying:

A circle is the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

And then asking:

What is the fundamental nature of a circle? => Answer: The fundamental nature of a circle is that it consists of the number of points that all have the same distance to a specific point.

It is not hostility to the possibility of knowledge, but doubtfulness of the point of trying to define already identified objects via the same aspect repeatedly.

Sorry, maybe we had a misunderstanding.

And also, already having definded man as a being that survives on reason, with all the established definitions of life, reason etc. inherent in that, would make the observations of self-sustainance (piercing bullet etc.) unneccessary, since that is information we already have in our definition of man. It means that we have already decided what the fundamental nature of man is, before even asking the question.

So, I think it would be more proper to begin with less information and focus on a less comprizing view of ourselves and begin there. If the term “man” is already given away, then one could define “X” as a certain physical object (with certain visible extremeties) that we can observe, together with a consciousness. Don’t forget: We are referring to “X” as those concrete objects of a certain visual appearance that we can OBSERVE, together with a consciousness, not to ANY such objects. This is important, because that way we are really just referencing concrete objects of which we don’t pretend to know very much more about. So we are talking about a limited number, that we simply identify through their visual appearance, and their consciousness, without having any clue, initially, of what else their existence entails.

And then we can ask: “What is the fundamental nature of THOSE objects?” An answer to THIS question would really produce NEW information compared to our consciously held information the question rests on. Provided, of course, the answer is not just a repition of the definition of X. And we would try to answer this question on the basis of ADDITIONAL observation of the X-objects.

Hmm…I hope it becomes clearer now what I mean?

Ok I see now what you mean.

I agree that a concept must come before its definition. Concepts can be poorly defined, or even undefined while being created because the ultimate meaning of a concept is the referents, the things that actually exist. Definitions are based upon observations of the referents, so the concept must come first in order to know which observations are of the referents and that observations of other things are irrelevant. Technically, concepts before they are defined are referred to as ‘implicit concepts’. There is a discussion of ‘implicit concepts’ in the appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Implicit concepts are created by noticing similarities. So when we create the concept of a circle, we first start with a number of particular shapes which are similar based on their attribute of circularity (even the word for circularity has to come after the concept circle was fully formed and defined.)

54

Quick correction (hope I don’t get this wrong, that would be embarrassing):

First off, let’s assume that we are living in a 2D world, on a single plane.

The fundamental nature of a circle, in this 2D world, is that there exists a point in the world from which all the circle’s points are at an equal distance.

The definition of “circle”: The circle C(O,R) is that collection of points which are at distance R from the point O.

So both your statements are wrong, any geometry constructed upon them would run into all sorts of nasty contradictions pretty quickly. Also, even if you were right about the definition of a circle in Euclidean geometry(a man made, theoretical concept), whatever conclusion you may reach about it you shouldn’t just apply to all other concepts, as you do.

So what is supposed to be the difference between your definition of a circle and mine? Other than that you put it into symbolic terms C(O,R), and I put them into verbal ones?

55

The notion that everything that exists has identity simply means that nothing can be A and non-A at the same time. Why would this mean that everything must be definable? There would be an infinite regress of definitions. A definition identifies something via terms already defined. I would say that consciousness can only be referred to ostensively, not by means of definition.

I will just respond to this part of the post for now, I must get away from my computer.

To have identity is to have form, particularity, boundaries, borders, limits, and finiteness. To be finite means to be definite. It is always possible to define the definite. There can be no infinite regress from the finite, or from the relations of finite things to each other. And because some definitions are ostensive, it is not the case that definitions are always in terms already defined and therefore circular.

56

Ok I see now what you mean.

I agree that a concept must come before its definition. Concepts can be poorly defined, or even undefined while being created because the ultimate meaning of a concept is the referents, the things that actually exist. Definitions are based upon observations of the referents, so the concept must come first in order to know which observations are of the referents and that observations of other things are irrelevant. Technically, concepts before they are defined are referred to as ‘implicit concepts’. There is a discussion of ‘implicit concepts’ in the appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Implicit concepts are created by noticing similarities. So when we create the concept of a circle, we first start with a number of particular shapes which are similar based on their attribute of circularity (even the word for circularity has to come after the concept circle was fully formed and defined.)

OK.

57

Now, back to one of my previous posts.

What am I doing wrong if I am looking for that which must be fulfilled in order for me to say “I want no more there to be fulfilled, this is the best I can have”, after comparing that state of fulfilment with all other possible states of fulfilments that could have been? To me, this seems the only possible way of putting something like “my ultimate natural striving” into language without making any restrictions that I might later regret.

Shouldn’t an investigation into what we are ultimately striving for be made via a comparative study of all the possible alternatives facing us, and on which of these possible alternatives produces the most positive emotional response upon imagining that path of continued existence longterm?

58

And another thing:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal at all, versus maybe several distinct goals? Distinct, but not fundamental, if fundamental means causing ALL the other aspects of the nature of a thing. After all, according to Objectivism, “goals” are result-orientated observations. So why not?

59

So what is supposed to be the difference between your definition of a circle and mine? Other than that you put it into symbolic terms C(O,R), and I put them into verbal ones?

Actually, the definition is wrong - that is, incomplete… what is omitted, and included in any definition I ever heard on this is the beginning phrase - “On a plane,…”

And another thing:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal at all, versus maybe several distinct goals? Distinct, but not fundamental, if fundamental means causing ALL the other aspects of the nature of a thing. After all, according to Objectivism, “goals” are result-orientated observations. So why not?

The fundamental goal is your own happiness, which can be achieved thru many directions or goals [or careers, if you will], and these may well show themselves according to the changing circumstances of your life in the context of your age, growth of knowledge, experiences, and the environment you are in…

60

Actually, the definition is wrong - that is, incomplete… what is omitted, and included in any definition I ever heard on this is the beginning phrase - “On a plane,…”

Well, all right, but I hope you got the point anyway.

The fundamental goal is your own happiness, which can be achieved thru many directions or goals [or careers, if you will], and these may well show themselves according to the changing circumstances of your life in the context of your age, growth of knowledge, experiences, and the environment you are in…

The thing is that, Objectivism is a philosophy that holds life as a fundamental goal and equates happiness to the successful achievement of life. Nothing else. This means that happiness is happiness, ONLY if it has something to do with the fact that the continuation of the biological process has been achieved. And this disqualifies many forms of enjoyment as happiness. It means:

To smoke Mary Jane and enjoy emotional “highs” is NOT happiness, not matter how strong and enjoyably intense the feeling. Even if that enjoyable feeling is more intense than anything else you know, it is not happiness. You are called to sacrifice that intense an emotion for the goal of life, since this, according to Objectivism, is your fundamental nature.

To enjoy a burger, without any conscious thoughts of its life preserving functionalities is NOT happiness. You should enjoy that burger only because of knowing the digestive consequences, the way that those nutrients will integrate into your biological organism, and NOT only because it tastes good. And since a burger most times isn’t healthy, there is little or no happiness to be accepted from it, no matter how good and delicious it tastes. Unless your diet plan allows for some necessary surplus of fat once in a while, but then you are only to call yourself happy, if you are eating your burger because of THAT.

For anything that feels good, you are supposed to find its meaning to life, i.e. the role it plays in preserving your biological organism. You are not supposed to just enjoy something, because it is “fun”, or because you like it like hell. Any operation that does not consciously consider the mission goal of life, which is, I repeat, simply the preservation of your biological organism, is to be aborted brutally, until you have verified its relationship to that preservation. Only then are you allowed to say “mission goal accepted”.

Such uncompromizingly clear a goal setting (life) requires a very high level of certainty regarding it’s rightousness, in the light of so many seemingly “great” experiences that this philosophy could potentially cause oneself to sacrifice. Willful indulgence in intense, spontaneous joy is therefore IMMORAL, because such a behaviour could potentially imply the waste of time or a missed opportunity to label such indulgences as “bad habit” for future reference and rejection. And there must be no doubt that this rejection is called for, as long as no relationship to life can be established. Even if there is doubt that it ever will. ESPECIALLY if there is doubt that it ever will. Even if it, in fact, never does. ESPECIALLY if it, in fact, never does.

So given these strong conflicts that such a philosophy can cause, situation after situation, one better be sure, and that is, VERY sure, of doing the right thing.

This is why it is so important to ask again:

How do we know there HAS to be a fundamental goal, that is, ONE goal to “rule them all” at all?