 |
Comments |
|
 | Saturday, April 4, 2009 at 23:26:09 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
In mixed economies, it seems that "asset bubbles" often emerge in areas that are "deregulated." For example, the current crisis sank AIG, which got involved so heavily in CDS. In the 1980s, it was the recently "deregulated" S&Ls that fared the worst after the smaller real estate bubble of that time. Naturally, what usually follows is a call for more regulation. Looking back into history, even the Federal Reserve itself came into being ostensibly to prevent a collapse like the Panic of 1907 that was blamed on lack of a central bank to regulate the money supply. The way I see it, a mixed economy is a bit like a balloon that is being squeezed on one end by a heavy hand (i.e. regulations). The "unregulated" portions wind up expanding to a point beyond which they otherwise would if not for the regulation elsewhere. Is this a fair way to look at it? I realize analogies don't prove anything in themselves, but it seems appropriate and illustrative here.
On this same topic, do you think it is possible in a fully capitalist economy for one company such as AIG to get so interwoven into the rest of the market, and then make decisions so risky or reckless that it threatens not only the company but the whole industry that it has intertwined itself with? I pose this question not because I favor additional regulation (e.g. this "systemic risk regulator" or the expansion of regulations to hedge funds that had nothing to do with the current matter), but because it is probably a question we'll see a lot of. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 6:34:49 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Anthony
Thanks for recommending Audible. I just finished reading Fountainhead and have started on Atlas Shrugged. I'm not sure if it's Atlas Shrugged or if it's Scott Brick, but I find AS much harder to get through so far. Christopher Hurt seemed much better as narrator, to the point where I'm considering just sucking it up and buying his version of AS and deleting the one I have. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 6:46:29 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Anthony
"do you think it is possible in a fully capitalist economy for one company such as AIG to get so interwoven into the rest of the market, and then make decisions so risky or reckless that it threatens not only the company but the whole industry that it has intertwined itself with"
I think this is quite possible, with the caveat that "the whole industry" has voluntarily chosen to intertwine itself in this way (and that "the whole industry" isn't really the *whole* industry - the collapse of AIG won't destroy every company in "the industry", even if it will destroy most of them). Independence is a virtue. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 7:42:00 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Brendan
E-mail: obdura(at)gmail.com
I've been thinking about an ethical quandary for months now, and I've yet to solve it. Objectivism holds that all of morality is conditional, i.e. based on a fundamental choice: to live or not to live. Because life makes all subsequent values possible, you cannot logically have a moral code based on something that is superior to life (the individual's life, to be specific), be it God, society, etc. But then, why live? If the choice to live precedes morality, then what is the *rational* basis on which man chooses to live, and refuses to commit suicide?
Every time I tried to answer this question, it came down to something along these lines: "Man pursues life in order to find happiness, contentment, joy." But I realized something last night: what is happiness, but the rational integration of all of one's values? Or, as Rand put it: "Happiness is the successful state of life...that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values" (Galt's Speech). And what is a value but that which one pursues in order to sustain one's life? (Correct me if I am wrong in that summation.) Then, the statement that "Man pursues life in order to find happiness" is a tautology. It can easily be translated into: "Man pursues life in order to sustain his life," or, "Man pursues happiness in order to obtain happiness." Both statements are true, but they lack the answer to a more fundamental question: "*Why* does man do this?" I know that Rand considered man's life to be an "end in itself," but does this extend beyond politics, i.e. the fact that no man needs to justify his existence to another, i.e. that no man may lay claim on another?
I'd previously read David Kelley's "Choosing Life," and found it to be somewhat satisfactory, but somewhat not, in answering this question. He claims that man continues to pursue life because of all which that life contains. But that does not fully explain, why does Howard Roark love to build skyscrapers? *Why* does he pursue his life, and *why* is it skyscrapers that intrigue him? Why does he love architecture and the practice of it as an art and a science? Why doesn't he, for instance, have a great love for croquet or horseback riding or writing or painting? Objectivism denounces any kind of determinism with regards to human nature, so we are to believe that Roark *chose* this passion. But, again, why did he choose it? If that work is what sustains his life, spiritually and physically, then it *is* his life, in a sense, which is why he protects it so vigorously. Is it "an end in itself," much like his life? Is there any justification for it other than the immediately obvious: whim? I have found no answer, and am disturbed, because this seems to lead back to Hume's belief that reason is only a slave to the passions, something with which I have never agreed.
Also: I believe I heard Rand once say (perhaps in the Phil Donahue interview available on YouTube; her first television appearance after her husband's death) that suicide is immoral. But how can it be wrong if the choice to live precedes any moral evaluation? |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 7:51:02 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: James
E-mail: ja_wadsworth(at)yahoo.com
The man who killed three Pittsburgh police officers yesterday said he was afraid the Obama Adminstration was going to take away his gun rights (clearly this man is delusional and has now conception of rights). One Friday a Vietnamese immigrant killed 14 people who where learning English and American citizenship at a civic center in Binghamton, NY. It seems over the last few months mass murders like these have become more frequent.
How much do the Noodlefooders think this is correlated with the weakened economy?
I see this as a further indication that American society is in decline, and that our best days may be behind us.
Even with the recent surge in interest in Ayn Rand, has America passed the point of no return? If we look at the larger trend in this country, aside from the renewed popularity of Ayn, the US is rapidly becoming more statist, more violent, less prosperous. I see the Objectivist movement as an ant trying to push back an elephant. When will it be time to really Shrug?
(All of this could just be anxiety on my part. I did just read the Sunday newspaper) |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 8:32:34 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
James,
I think there is a real danger that the 2010s will be much like the 1930s, in which a rapid growth of statism takes hold and maintains a tight grip on certain aspects of the economy for perhaps decades. We are still dealing with Social Security (and its counterproductive tax structure), and many of the regulations were just recently lifted (and will soon return in some form or another).
I also think that it is virtually impossible to prevent nationalization of health care. Congress is changing the rules to limit debate on this subject, and the Republican party is in disarray. The only credible political opposition right now is from the moderate wing of the Democratic party, which is skeptical of some aspects (e.g. the carbon policies) but not generally of efforts to "reform" health care.
That said, China and Europe face their own issues. China overbuilt their economy on American and European excess and has its own restructuring to get through. India's economy may surpass China (driven in large part by their natural language advantage and their relative openness to accepting skilled labor). However, India can only go so far if they continue to restrict trade and domestic entrepreneurship. Europe has an even bigger looming issue with all their expensive social programs and a declining population. They are trying to let immigration work themselves out of the mess, but it is leading to major social upheaval and violence there. Note that violence in Strasbourg forced a change in Michelle Obama's plans yesterday, and of course who can forget the rioting outside Paris a few years ago. That also happens increasingly in Germany, and is starting to spread to other countries.
IOW, I think there is a clear and present danger of statism in the US, but I don't know how that will translate into our standing relative to the rest of the world. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 8:33:10 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: James
E-mail: ja_wadsworth(at)yahoo.com
Brendan,
I think you may be looking at the question too mechanistically, i.e. the choice of life must precede the pursuit of other values. The fact that life is the ultimate value is not at all obvious; it is only realized after a long process of logical integration. Nevertheless, people do pursue life sustaining values without recognizing life as the standard. It is Objectivism that explicitly recognizes life as the standard of value, and insists that it be pursued consciously and consistently.
I'm not sure how you are confused with the issue of why Roark like some values over others, e.g. he likes architecture rather than painting or something. It is true that man's values are not determined, but that doesn't mean that he lives in a vacuum. People have different experiences in life from which people draw conclusions about what they like and don't like. As for why they choose one over the other, you have to ask the individual. I'm sure if Roark were a real person he could explain why he loves architecture and not painting, just as you could explain why you like the things you like, and don't like what you don't.
Does this help at all? |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 8:33:54 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
James,
I think there is a real danger that the 2010s will be much like the 1930s, in which a rapid growth of statism takes hold and maintains a tight grip on certain aspects of the economy for perhaps decades. We are still dealing with Social Security (and its counterproductive tax structure), and many of the regulations were just recently lifted (and will soon return in some form or another).
I also think that it is virtually impossible to prevent nationalization of health care. Congress is changing the rules to limit debate on this subject, and the Republican party is in disarray. The only credible political opposition right now is from the moderate wing of the Democratic party, which is skeptical of some aspects (e.g. the carbon policies) but not generally of efforts to "reform" health care.
That said, China and Europe face their own issues. China overbuilt their economy on American and European excess and has its own restructuring to get through. India's economy may surpass China (driven in large part by their natural language advantage and their relative openness to accepting skilled labor). However, India can only go so far if they continue to restrict trade and domestic entrepreneurship. Europe has an even bigger looming issue with all their expensive social programs and a declining population. They are trying to let immigration work themselves out of the mess, but it is leading to major social upheaval and violence there. Note that violence in Strasbourg forced a change in Michelle Obama's plans yesterday, and of course who can forget the rioting outside Paris a few years ago. That also happens increasingly in Germany, and is starting to spread to other countries.
IOW, I think there is a clear and present danger of statism in the US, but I don't know how that will translate into our standing relative to the rest of the world. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 8:35:19 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Anthony
"Objectivism denounces any kind of determinism with regards to human nature, so we are to believe that Roark *chose* this passion."
What does it mean to denounce "any kind of determinism with regards to human nature", and when did Rand say that?
Rand said that man's "volition is limited to his cognitive processes". Is passion a cognitive process, or is it an emotion?
See http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html, especially the last quote. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 8:50:23 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: James
E-mail: ja_wadsworth(at)yahoo.com
KPO'M,
I am certainly in agreement that the rest of the world is fundamentally in the same or worse condition than the U.S. The US is probably better off than most of the countries you listed, however, this is only relatively speaking. What I was trying to get at in my original post was to question whether American society is going to be an hospitible environment in which to pursue values for the forseeable future. If it is the case that America is headed in the wrong direction on a very slippery slope, and there is plenty of evidence to think this is the case, I wonder when it will be time to say enough is enough, i.e. "go Galt."
Is there any chance that the 2010s will be worse than the 1930s? Our level of statism already far surpasses that of the 1930s, and is looking to expand. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 9:14:59 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Brendan
E-mail: obdura(at)gmail.com
Anthony writes: "What does it mean to denounce 'any kind of determinism with regards to human nature', and when did Rand say that? Rand said that man's 'volition is limited to his cognitive processes.' Is passion a cognitive process, or is it an emotion?"
To which I respond with a quote from "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand": "[E]motions differ from thought and action: they are an automatic function. But a man does choose his emotions -- ultimately. He does it by virtue of his ability to think, and if necessary to rethink an issue, rejecting an invalid idea at the root of some feeling and replacing it by a new conclusion. Man controls the products of thought; he does it directly or indirectly; either way, however, he does it. The conclusion is that man -- each man as an individual -- is the master of his own destiny.... Determinism in any variant is invalid" (203).
---
James writes: "I think you may be looking at the question too mechanistically, i.e. the choice of life must precede the pursuit of other values. The fact that life is the ultimate value is not at all obvious; it is only realized after a long process of logical integration. Nevertheless, people do pursue life sustaining values without recognizing life as the standard. It is Objectivism that explicitly recognizes life as the standard of value, and insists that it be pursued consciously and consistently."
I understand that "the fact that life is the ultimate value is not at all obvious"; but I think that is beside the point. My question stands: Why does man live? If life makes all subsequent values possible, and there is no value higher than life (creating a sort of "ethical vacuum" when it comes to the choice between life and death, i.e. making said choice exempt from moral evaluation), why does man choose life?
Come to think of it, this, too, is a tautology: "Life" and "man" are two sides of the same coin; you cannot have man without man being alive, and you cannot have a human life divorced from the very fact of being human. Thus, we are led to the possibility that it is "ethically axiomatic" that man choose life, because no other possibility exists to him: if he "chooses" death, he ceases to be man. But Objectivism also rejects the idea of duty and intrinsicism; if man is compelled to live, then all subsequent choices are not really choices, but duties that logically follow from the "duty" to live. This certainly sounds absurd, but Kelley, in "Choosing Life," quotes Peikoff as saying something rather similar: "A man who would throw away his life without cause, who would reject the universe on principle and embrace a zero for its own sakeâ€"such a man, according to Objectivism, would belong on the lowest rung of hell. His action would indicate so profound a hatredâ€"of himself, of values, of realityâ€"that he would have to be condemned by any human being as a monster."
I thank you for trying to help, James, but I fear I'm in deeper than I was to begin with... |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 10:14:12 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: madmax
"In mixed economies, it seems that "asset bubbles" often emerge in areas that are "deregulated.""
This is a good point. Von Mises showed how interventions in the economy will always create problems and that the government will therefor predictably respond with more interventions. But it does make sense that if the Fed inflates the currency then that easy money will flow were it will get the highest return which will probably be an area of the economy with less controls. This of course will result in the anti-capitalists (with the Leftists being the loudest) blaming the free market and calling for even more regulation. Its all a horrible downward spiral. I guess you can say that once you enact that first regulation then you invite all this on yourself. Its just a matter of time.
"On this same topic, do you think it is possible in a fully capitalist economy for one company such as AIG to get so interwoven into the rest of the market, and then make decisions so risky or reckless that it threatens not only the company but the whole industry that it has intertwined itself with?"
This has been discussed recently on HBL and the consensus answer was no. Of course whenever you are talking about laissez-faire you are getting into the area of science fiction as we are light years away from that point. Binswanger's answer with regard to the finance industry was that if such a company did act recklessly like AIG then it would create arbitrage opportunities that speculators would capitalize on and thus prevent "systemic" damage. Basically there is no "systemic risk" in 100% free economy. But the ultimate argument is the moral argument. Capitalism is good because its the only system based on individual rights. That's the argument that needs to be made in all its variants no matter how many economic positivists scream for "proof" and "empirical testing." |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 10:21:02 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: madmax
"Even with the recent surge in interest in Ayn Rand, has America passed the point of no return?"
Its impossible to answer this question. Forecasting on a historical scale is no easy task. There is still freedom left in America. There is still time. How much? Is it decades, generations, centuries, or is merely years? I don't know. But rich societies don't collapse over night. They collapse over long periods of time. Look how long it took Rome to fall. And even then, it didn't fall in the East. I think its unwise for Objectivists to get so caught up in the "fall of America." Yes, its necessary to plan for the worst and catastrophe planning is more important now more than ever. But America has gone through worse stretches and not collapsed. This could be something similar. Plus, Ayn Rand's ideas are starting to spread. Just this past year we have seen Rand more popular than she has been at any time since the publishing of Atlas Shrugged. Call it the "X" factor if you want. But the ancient world never had an Ayn Rand. Her very existence makes forecasting doom and gloom as inevitable a bad bet. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 10:27:04 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Brandon K.
E-mail: killenb(at)gmail.com
James
Before even discussing her ethical system, she asks and answers the meta-ethical question, "Why does man need a code of values? Does man need values at all - and why?" Her answer is, "in order to live". Now you have a problem with this. You ask, since man's fundamental choice is to live or not, why does he choose to live rather than to die?
I think simply, in order to value suicide... doesn't he have to be alive to value it? The man who chooses to die, values his death only because his life makes that value possible.
It's important to remember that merely because the fundamental choice to live or not is a precondition of morality, does not necessarily entail that once that choice is made one will continue to be moral. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 11:04:55 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Brendan
E-mail: obdura(at)gmail.com
Brandon,
(I believe it is me you wished to address, not James.)
You write: "I think simply, in order to value suicide... doesn't [man] have to be alive to value it? The man who chooses to die, values his death only because his life makes that value possible."
An excellent point. And this leads back to my suggestion that it is "ethically axiomatic" that man lives, i.e. pursues his life. (Regardless of whether he pursues the proper values that can sustain that life, whatever choices he makes *are* made based on the belief that *this* is a necessary course of action. Even the suicidal man acts in such a way.) Certainly, man has a choice to end his life -- that is undeniable. But he cannot avoid the fact that to exist is to live, i.e. to live is to be man, i.e. to live is to pursue values. This is similar to the fact that existence exists. Obviously, the axiom of existence is tautological, i.e. "Why does existence exist? Because it exists." This does not negate its validity as an axiom; all axioms are tautological, because they are the self-evident, the undeniable, the *basic*. Likewise, man's status as living, and the requirement that he pursue values in order to sustain that life, is as fundamental as you can get with regards to any human choice. It may be tautological that man pursues life in order to maintain happiness, but it is also *true*. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 11:28:34 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Brian S
"value suicide"
"values his death"
I believe this is a misuse of the term 'value'. A value is that which you seek to gain or keep. Death is the not the gaining of something, but the loss of something - the loss of life. Suicide is not the keeping of something, but the destruction of something - the destruction of life.
Thus the question is not about a man *valuing* death and suicide, but *disvaluing* life and existence.
BIG difference. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 12:06:15 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Bill Perry
E-mail: wperryster(at)gmail(dot)com
I am trying to find a good source of economic news. Everything that I've tried has some sort of bias. The Wall Street Journal, Kiplinger's and Forbes have a right wing bias. You would expect them to have that in their editorials, but it also permeates their reporting. Business Week, Fortune, Money, and Conde Nast Portfolio have a left wing bias. It also permeates the reporting. The Economist has no meaningful understanding of the United States, so its reporting of events in this country is suspect. I've subscribed to all of the above listed magazines for at least a year within the last three years. I've never tried Investor's Business Daily. I'd actually prefer a weekly magazine, but monthly or daily would be OK. I'd also accept a business page of a major newspaper that is available online if it were unbiased. The new source can be web or print based. I also tried reading the articles linked on Peter Schiff's site, but they are all selected to convince you that the sky is falling, and to invest with him. (The sky may BE falling, but I'd like to see some articles about anything positive that occurs in the economy.)
This is an effort to find an unbiased business news source. Reading any of the above magazines or newspapers to write letters to the editor, or online comments is an appropriate advocacy strategy. I am just frustrated and want to find a reliable source of information.
Any suggestions?
Bill |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 12:17:46 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Michael Caution
E-mail: mcaution(at)gmail.com
Brandon K.,
"I think simply, in order to value suicide... doesn't [man] have to be alive to value it? The man who chooses to die, values his death only because his life makes that value possible."
Just a quick technical point. I don't think it's proper to say that one values suicide/death. Rather it would be more exact to say the non-value of life. Since values are that which we seek to gain/keep in order to flourish, i.e., live properly. Suicide/death is merely the choice to cease the action of living. It is not a means to an end but rather the end itself, quite literally. However, having said that I agree with your purpose in the statement, if I read it correctly, in that man as a matter of fact must be alive first if he is to choose death. (I see Brian S made this point already)
To add to this, I've also thought that the active choice a man would make whether to live or let himself die would have to be one in which he has reached a certain age. Obviously such a question would never occur to a baby, an infant, a toddler, a young child ... Such a question would only occur within the context of an individual having reached a certain level of awareness of himself and his relation to reality including other individuals as well. This would seem to imply already a vast amount of knowledge on the part of the individual questioning whether to proceed with his life. So it would seem that the individual would have at least some rudimentary value system (most likely implicit) he follows to sustain his life. So having engaged in the act of living up to this point this person would have many reason in order to continue living.
I of course see that this line of argumentation falls into the same line Brendan first brought up. Talking about David Kelley he mentioned that, "[h]e claims that man continues to pursue life because of all which that life contains." Which appears to be what I just stated previously. But this doesn't answer the original question as to why an individual chooses life. This lead Brendan to posit the "ethically axiomatic" nature of life. (I've never heard this type of characterization before so I can't speak to it right now, I'll have to think about it more.) My tentative answer to such a quandary would be to liken it to the question of, "what is the meaning of life?" This for Objectivism is an invalid question in that it posits something above life to justify it. And since we know that only existence exists there can be nothing above reality to answer for the meaning of life. Rand of course went on to explain that if it is to have any meaning it could be said that life is the purpose of life, it being and end in itself and that the achievement of one's happiness is one's ultimate goal. So to the question of, "why does man choose life?" my first response would be, is this a valid question? I'm throwing that out there because I'm not sure myself. My thoughts are a bit floating right now. It seems there is some sort of error in the method of approaching the question, be it a stolen-concept, context-dropping or a package-deal. It mat have something to do with Kelley's "life-pursuit analysis" from above. But like I said it's a bit hazy right now. If anyone can make sense of that and can refine it that would be helpful. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 12:30:39 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: madmax
"I am trying to find a good source of economic news. Everything that I've tried has some sort of bias."
"Unbiased" is a meaningless term. What you should want is economic reporting deliberately biased towards capitalism and individual rights; ie an *objective* source of economic news. This means finding economic reporting that does not have Leftists/Keynsian or Conservative/Monetarist premises. This is not easy. I think the best type of economic reporting would have a grounding in Austrian economics. But even there you will have to be careful. Austrians sometimes can be "doom and gloom" types and too quickly forecast imminent economic collapse. I fear Peter Schiff is moving in that direction.
Here is a link to a site that gives economic commentary from the Austrian perspective. It does have some conservative biases but I think its economics is very sound.
http://www.brookesnews.com/ |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 13:07:20 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: rrlv_frsh
Proposition: rationality requires that one have a reason for every choice one makes, including the choice to live.
Rebuttal: who says? When the choice to live is at issue, why is it claimed that rationality requires any such thing as an antecedent reason for choosing to live? Where does that view of rationality come from?
In an effort to concretize exactly what the choice not to live would mean in reality, it occurred to me to try to construct a hypothetical, fictitious dialog between a life-seeker (LS) and a death-chooser (DC). I had to rule out a violent criminal who only wants to take down as many others as he can before he is gunned down himself. I also had to rule out a serious terrorist. I would most likely want to just turn and run if I ever got close to one of those. Who, then, might be worth having a brief conversation with, while nevertheless being a "genuine" death-chooser? Here is what I came up with.
LS: You should use reason.
DC: Why? What for?
LS: To live.
DC: But I choose death, so your whole code of values is inapplicable to me.
LS: If you're really serious about choosing death, what will you have for dinner tonight?
DC: I dunno. Probably nothing.
LS: How about tomorrow and the next day and the day after that?
DC: I dunno. Probably nothing.
LS: What will you do when your body reaches a state of pain and suffering that practically cries out desperately for nourishment?
DC: I dunno. Bear it, I suppose.
LS: Well, people do go on hunger strikes and can even die from them. Are you on a hunger strike?
DC: Not particularly.
LS: You look like you are still in fairly good shape physically, which implies that you must have been a life-seeker throughout most of your life up to now. What prompted your decision to choose death now, after so many years of life-seeking?
DC: Nothing in particular. Just got tired of living, I guess.
LS: Does pain bother you?
DC: A little. It's hard not to be bothered by it.
LS: Would you rather avoid pain and suffering than have to bear it?
DC: Yeah, I suppose so.
LS: Are you willing to work to avoid pain and suffering?
DC: No. I choose death.
LS: Why don't you commit suicide?
DC: I suppose I might if the pain becomes unbearable. But for now, it's too much trouble.
LS: Would you like anyone to help you to die or to do anything else?
DC: No, not really.
LS: Well, I guess you are basically a walking corpse.
DC: Yeah, I guess so.
LS: And won't be able to keep walking much longer.
DC: Yeah, I guess so.
LS: It's really incredible to me that anyone could be so indifferent to life. There must be some underlying motivation involved. Want to tell me about it?
DC: Not especially. There's nothing much in particular anyway.
LS: That's hard to believe. But I won't pry if you don't want me to.
DC: Ok.
LS: Well, I'll leave you in peace if you do the same for everyone else. Enjoy your grave, if you can.
DC: Whatever. But wait -- aren't you going to try to rescue me? Doesn't altruism demand it?
LS: Do you want to be rescued?
DC: I, well, I....
LS: Besides, I'm not an altruist. If you are proposing a trade of some kind, you'll need to become a value-seeker first.
DC: Oh. So why don't you just kill me?
LS: Why on earth would I want to do that? What value could I possibly hope to gain or protect by doing that, assuming you haven't initiated physical force against anyone? You do not appear to be one of those criminals who choose to go down in a gun battle with the police, nor one of those terrorists seeking to take down as many life-seekers as possible before his own life ends. Besides, you've already said you don't want me to help you in your choice to die, and you still have the capacity to be rational (and maybe even productive) at any time. Rationality and productiveness by you would be of far greater potential value to me and to others than anything else you could offer now, and you've already provided some moderately interesting conversation -- although you do tax my patience at times. So I'll leave you in peace now. Enjoy your grave, if you can.
DC: Whatever.
--------------------
To summarize what I see as the main points, Objectivism looks at existence and identifies two major classes of entities and several important sub-classes:
(a) Non-living entities -- such as rocks, mountains, rivers, rain drops, clouds, snow flakes, icebergs, the sun and moon, stars, other planets (though some may harbor living entities, as Earth does), man-made objects and structures of all kinds, and so on.
(b) Living entities, including plants, animals and man; also including microscopic living organisms. Among humans, there are life-seekers and (very temporarily at best) death-choosers.
(I think of this as a "brown box" approach: standing above a brown box, open at the top, that represents reality, and looking down into it. This is contrasted with a "black box" approach, in which we know only what we can see on the outside without any visibility into the inside. I must also note that in reality one cannot stand above reality and look down, like a god of some kind -- or a young child playing with a doll house. But man can at least imagine doing so.)
Objectivism observes:
(1) All living entities act to sustain their lives, even man (in his automatic bodily functions, if not necessarily in actions open to his conscious choice). (Man, while still alive, has the capacity to choose not to seek life in those areas of his life that are open to his conscious choice.)
(2) The concept "value" is applicable to all living entities, and inapplicable to non-living entities. "Value" denotes that which a goal-directed entity acts to gain and/or keep.
(3) The standard of value for all living entities is life -- i.e., the life of the respective type of entity -- since living entities act to sustain their lives and need to do so in order to remain alive. For all living entities except man, the standard is implicit and automatic. It is implicit and automatic even in man in regard to bodily functions that are not open to man's direct conscious choice.
(4) Man needs an explicit concept of value, a standard of value, and a resulting code of values to guide all his life-seeking choices and actions throughout the span of his lifetime. Death-choosers have no such need, nor do non-human living entities. (The concept "value" applied to non-human living entities is for man's benefit, to guide man in the proper course of action toward other living species that are of value to man or not, and to aid man's understanding of the concept "value" in general.)
(5) Thus, the standard of value applies to life-seekers and does not depend on any particular person's choice to live or not. It is an objective standard, objectively identifying a life-seeker's relation to reality; but the standard does not apply to human death-choosers insofar as they actually choose death.
(6) Death-choosers have no need for values, and no code of values can be derived from the choice to die, since no particular course of action is needed to reach a state of death. Mere inaction will suffice.
(7) Thus, the alternative of life or death does not imply two separate codes of values that are of equivalent objective standing. No code of values, indeed, no *concept* of value, proceeds from the choice not to live.
(8) The life-seekers' code of values is nevertheless applicable by them to a death-chooser, insofar as life-seekers need to evaluate the value (or potential threat) to them that a death-chooser might represent. On the other hand, a death-chooser has no need to evaluate life-seekers as being "for" him or "against" him, since whatever they might do to him does not matter to him as long as they don't try to force him to remain alive (such as by forced feeding). By definition, a death-chooser is one who wants to die, and dying is the most fundamental, far reaching, consequential, irreversible development that can happen to any living entity (just as coming into, or going out of, existence is the most fundamental development that can happen to any entity, living or not).
|
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 15:50:48 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/
I'm back after recovering from major surgery and some time abroad. I just posted a new blog entry,
http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/2009/04/collaboration-getting-ay ... - "Collaboration: Getting Ayn Rand 180-Degrees Wrong"
on my blog, "Born to Identify." Unfortunately, having taken a quarter off I now have a very heavy teaching schedule, so I will not have much time for blogging or activism. But still, some things just need to be said.... |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 16:46:29 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Madmax,
Thanks for the information about the HBL discussions. Are transcripts available?
In any case, since a 100% free economy is essentially "science fiction" in the current environment, one question is whether supporters of capitalism should pick our battles and concentrate on specific issues, such as nationalization of health care. This is not to say that we should compromise our principles, or deny that the ultimate goal is a free economy, but rather than take a "shotgun" approach to intellectual activism instead take a more targeted approach, recognizing that it means that more regulation of certain areas is inevitable. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 16:55:43 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: Bill Perry
E-mail: wperryster(at)gmail(dot)com
madmax comments that my search for unbiased economic news is flawed because "'unbiased' is a meaningless term." He then argues that is should read Austrian based economic news because it is objective. He provides a link to a site. I will look at that site to see if it is helpful. However, I dispute his argument that unbiased is meaningless. When I was a reporter for a brief time in the early 1970s my editor stressed a policy that we reported news in the news stories in an unbiased manner. We labelled commentary as such, and took our positions on political matters in editorials. My dictionary defines unbiased in part (after saying "not biased or prejudiced") as "fair, impartial." It gives synonyms as "fair, equitable, tolerant, neutral."
It is possible to report facts about economics in a neutral manner, and to comment on them and editorialize about them in the proper places. I'm looking for someone who does that. Perhaps there is no such outlet. Then I think I should pick one of the left leaning sources, and one of the right leaning ones to try to discern what the truth is. I can apply my own knowledge of Austrian economics to what I find. But I'd still appreciate any other ideas besides the link that madmax gave me. I read the first three articles on the Brookes site that he provided and they were commentary--not news.
Bill |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 17:03:45 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Michael Labeit
E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com
KPO'M,
I think this is an effective approach complementing broader arguments supporting capitalism. If one are a doctor, than perhaps one is more equiped to argue against the nationalization of healthcare. If one is a banker or economist, than one may be more apt to argue against the Fed. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 17:24:55 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: madmax
Bill,
The news outlets are for the most part dominated by leftists. What you are looking for - objective reporting - doesn't exist. The best you can do is read mainstream news and then do your best to read between the lines. If you're interested in raw economic data there are many places for that. But there is no escaping the anti-capitalist bias of today's media. Not unless you start your own news agency... |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 18:33:36 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Aquinas Heard
E-mail: aquinas23(at)aol.com
Bill,
I have also looked for an economic news source that is objective. I still have not found one. I read the magazines/papers that you mentioned along with several others. The better ones are: Forbes, Wall St. Journal, Barron's and Investor's Business Daily, though outside of their editorials they fall very short.
The best web source I have found so far is Realclearmarkets.com. It contains articles by the previously mentioned papers and many more. I think a discerning reader can figure out what is really going on economically if you are willing to read many of the articles they have listed.
Hope that helps,
Aquinas |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 20:44:47 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Sajid
In response to Brendan (#4):
A man can't really "choose life". He already is "man qua man". Ayn Rand identified happiness as the mental state natural to man. The goal of Ayn Rand's life was to capture the mind and emotional state of an "ideal man", i.e. a man most suited to live on Earth.
You ask:
"But, again, why did he choose it? If that work is what sustains his life, spiritually and physically, then it *is* his life, in a sense, which is why he protects it so vigorously. Is it "an end in itself," much like his life? Is there any justification for it other than the immediately obvious: whim? I have found no answer, and am disturbed, because this seems to lead back to Hume's belief that reason is only a slave to the passions, something with which I have never agreed."
But if you remember, Ayn Rand described Howard Roark as a man "so free or compulsion he was almost a compulsion in himself." Some things can't really be chosen so to speak. Howard Roark did not deduce architecture was the field for him by deducing it from fundamental abstract principles. That's just what he was attracted to because that's who he was. Ayn Rand created Howard Roark as a hero not for what he chose to do but rather for who he was. She did not believe in a mind body dichotomy, i.e. one has to "choose" to live a happy life else one will be doomed to being miserable. In fact it is the other way around. If you are the sort of man Roark was or Galt was then you would also choose a career that involves creative, productive self-generated action. Because Roark was a heroic man he naturally chose to pick a career path that was natural for him and refused to compromise since he didn't want to compromise with himself. It made no sense to him.
Just because a man is emotional doesn't mean he is a slave to the passions. All real men have deep emotions as we are animals first and rational second. However real men understand their emotions and use their mind to channel their emotions to create things like a skycraper or a space shuttle. If you are super intelligent with no drive you won't do anything. If you are super passionate with no intellect you still won't do anything. For different reasons obviously.
Lastly, you asked a great question. I am not really able to provide a very rigorous answer or point to a passage of Ayn Rand that explains this question in detail. I also don't know whether the fundamental choice is "to live or not to live" or whether it is "to think or not to think". As BrianS pointed out, one can't really "choose" not to live but one can reject or devalue one's own life. However, if one chooses to think, that will separate human life from a mindless animal existence. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 20:48:22 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
The IBD editorials are actually a good counterpoint to much of left-oriented rags, and far more effective than the WSJ. They aren't entirely faultless (they want the SEC to intervene and restore the "uptick rule," for instance, and some of their opinion pieces have a Christian orient), but their editorials often contain newsworthy information that doesn't get reported elsewhere. They hammer the current administration on foreign policy and supposedly have derailed the nominations of some of the more leftist appointments. The actual news section is a bit skimpier than other business publications, since IBD's target audience is stock pickers who like the charts. That said, they had the most accurate presidential poll in 2004 and 2008, and they aren't a second-rate news organization by any stretch.
The FT is actually a good source of international news, if you can resist getting angry at the editorial and op-ed writers. The Lex writers often have insightful analysis, and Gillian Tett's columns are usually informative. However, if you don't like the Economist you will likely have similar views toward the FT since they have the same publisher and a similar UK middle-of-the-road orientation.
I second the Realclearmarkets.com suggestion. Their sister site, Realclearpolitics, was a good source of information on the political races last year. They are a top-notch aggregator site. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 22:53:58 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: BrianS
Sajid said: "As BrianS pointed out, one can't really "choose" not to live but one can reject or devalue one's own life."
That is *not* at all what I said. One most certainly *can* choose "not to live". I simply pointed out that alternative does not involve the *gaining* of something, but rather the loss of something - specifically life. But the fact that the alternative one faces is gain or loss, rather than one form of gain over some other form of gain, does *not* make the choice any less 'real' as you put it. |
|
| Sunday, April 5, 2009 at 23:44:55 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: Sajid
"As BrianS pointed out, one can't really "choose" not to live but one can reject or devalue one's own life. However, if one chooses to think, that will separate human life from a mindless animal existence."
Wow that was certainly a horrific attribution there and an unclear statement on my part. I think I meant to say that one can't really choose death since death is a negative value, however it doesn't fit in well with the rest of what I was saying. Maybe next time I'll re-read before posting. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 7:58:08 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
Look who Warren Buffett is being compared to:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/75735/
April 6, 2009
LOOK WHO ELSE IS PROFITING FROM TARP FUNDS:
Warren Buffett promoted the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), and lambasted the greed on Wall Street, yet he is one of the main benefactors of the TARP largesse according to a Sacramento Bee story.
Buffett endorsed Barack Obama for President last year, and Obama tapped Buffett to be a member of the candidate’s economic team. Obama requently referred to Buffett’s endorsement during the campaign as proof that he had the capability to deal with the troubled US economy.
Maybe he’s trying out for the role of Orren Boyle. Plus this:
The Obama administration has been blaming Republicans for the economic mess (and there is some culpability there too), yet the Democrats keep showing up with millions of dollars in their pockets. Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd received special treatment from Countrywide on his mortgage, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel received about $300,000 for very little work at Freddie Mac, former Clinton OMB Director Franklin Raines reaped about $90 million from [Fannie Mae] by inflating profits â€" and the list goes on.
But what is really troubling is the chicanery that Warren Buffett and other Democrats employ to blame eveything on Wall Street when it is Washington that is largely to blame.
I think Say, can we get a list of Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac bonus recipients? I means, since Congress’s need for the AIG names was so urgent.
Posted at by Glenn Reynolds at 10:09 am
|
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 15:11:58 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: Roderick Fitts
E-mail: rodfitts(at)gmail.com
Brendan:
You asked, essentially: "Why does man live?"
I agree with your understanding of values, and of reason's (and our emotions's) role in generating values, and so I think I can answer your question.
To be blunt, the question "why live," outside of any given circumstance, cannot be answered rationally or logically; this is because we're approaching one of the *limits* of what our reason is capable of doing.
Let's say that you're in a horrible circumstance, like a prisoner-of-war camp, where your hope is dwindling and someone is trying to convince you to not kill yourself. Here, he could point out positive facts which could change your evaluation, such as the fact that rescuers are on their way, or that the war itself seems to be ending; or he could point out logical fallacies in your thinking, or other psychological issues, like overemphasizing the negative aspects of your life. He could use his reason, apply it to facts in your life, and potentially change your mind. The significance of this is that to be rationally convinced of this kind of issue, one must use the facts of reality and about one's life.
Objectivism views reason, by its nature, as a faculty of knowing things about the world and of guiding one's actions within it--this can be seen throughout its epistemology and ethics. Reason only has this significance for two reasons ultimately: the nature of reality and our choice/desire to live (and continue living). In other words, a necessary condition for following reason's authority is the choice to live.
Here's basically my thinking on this scenario:
If one were legitimately to ask: why should I live? Why should I "pick" existence over non-existence?--he would mean that: what facts about existence/reality could convince me to prefer it over non-existing? And to that, there would be no answer, because there's literally nothing about "non-existence" which makes it "inferior" (or "superior") to existence; such concepts wouldn't apply to a decision like this. (It isn't like a choice between, say, video-games, in which one could differentiate between length of the games in question, how many people can play them, visual quality, etc., and choose one's preference based on such criteria.) This is partly due to the nature of the question: existence or non-existence is the *fundamental* alternative that we face; there's no alternative *beyond* that alternative from which one could decide whether to remain in reality or not (such alternatives *do* exist for the video-game scenario I brought up). So the choice to live generally cannot be a product of rational-logical argument.
And, on the "flip-side," neither can the choice to live be considered "arbitrary" as a result of not strictly being rational. Here, I think it can be argued that we've also reached the limit of what can be considered "arbitrary." "Arbitrary" means:[in this case: a decision made] "in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; [the decision's] basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument."
[Dr. Leonard Peikoff, "The Philosophy of Objectivism" lecture series (1976), Lecture 6; quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism A to Z, s.v. 'Arbitrary'.]
One of the characteristics of the "arbitrary" is that it logically depends on reason and rational arguments/choices/decisions. A condition of a choice being rational is that it is based on facts one can observe and/or demonstrate via argument--the derivative concept "arbitrary" is reached when we realize that we can choose things/states of affairs/etc. in the *absence of such things which would make rationality appropriate." The arbitrary is something claimed or believed in the absence of any evidence, where evidence and rational evaluation of such evidence would be warranted.
I think philosopher Tara Smith made a valid point when she wrote: "The fundamental choice to live precedes the possibility of being culpably arbitrary by virtue of preceding the possibility of being rational. Since we have no higher value or standards by which to rationally evaluate the choice to live, we have no basis on which to criticize the choice as insufficiently rational." [Viable Values: Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, Rowan & Littlefield, page 108; also see the entire section entitled: Is the Choice of Life Justified?--pages 106-108]
I hope that answers your question. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 16:56:36 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: BrianS
Sajid said: "I meant to say that one can't really choose death since death is a negative value"
This statement still makes no sense to me. The fact that one's choice is between the keeping of a thing or the destruction of a thing does not somehow make these alternatives any less real or any less of a choice a man must make. On what basis do you claim death is not "really" a choice? On what basis do you minimize or dismiss these alternatives and the fact one MUST choose between them?
I would also have to raise the same questions in regard to the assertion: "A man can't really "choose life". He already is "man qua man"."
On what basis does one say 'life' is not "really" a choice? The fact that a man is a man does not somehow nullify the alternatives of life and death. On the contrary, the fact that a man is a man (as opposed to a rock) is precisely what creates this choice in the first place. If he were a rock and not a man, no choice would ever come up. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 17:10:28 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Sajid
""A man can't really "choose life". He already is "man qua man".""
I meant to say a man is already born. You never chose to be born. You can just choose whether it is worth it to you to go on living. When you look at people they don't go around making fundamental choices like "should i live or should i not" based on abstract philosophical premises. The choice to go on living is ultimately a personal one based on your emotions and will to live. The will to live is a part of being human. You don't have to make a separate conscious choice to go on living. A recognition of this fact--that ones fundamental drive is to pursue happiness and his own life--is, to me at least, the basis of philosophy. The purpose of philosophy is to provide a tool to fulfill that drive. Since our "will to live" is a given we cannot choose it any less than we can choose for a table to be a table or for a chair to be a chair. That's what it means to be "man qua man".
I hope that is a little bit clearer. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 19:30:37 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: BrianS
"You can just choose whether it is worth it to you to go on living."
In other words, a man can choose to live or to die. It is a "real" choice.
"The will to live is a part of being human."
"Since our "will to live" is a given we cannot choose it..."
Really? The "will to live" is automatic and immutable? No one can will 'not to live'??
If that is your premise, it is in *serious* need of checking. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 19:43:38 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: Roderick Fitts
E-mail: rodfitts(at)gmail.com
Sajid:
"You don't have to make a separate conscious choice to go on living."
Typically, no, you don't. We're often so engaged with our lives, that it would be absurd to even entertain the thought of ending one's life. But this doesn't always hold, and the obvious examples of these limiting cases are depressed people and suicidal people. For them, life is (or seems) so negative that they must discover (and deliberately keep in mind) a reason to keep living.
So I agree with you that "[y]ou can just choose whether it is worth it to you to go on living."
But that seems to contradict your other statement: "Since our "will to live" is a given we cannot choose it any less than we can choose for a table to be a table or for a chair to be a chair."
Leaving aside people who lose their will to live through neurological problems, chemical imbalances, etc., it is possible to lose one's will to live through one's free choices, as a response to the environment one lives in. People can volitionally decide that live isn't worth living anymore. I think in a neurological-biological sense, we sort of automatically pursue some values and promote our lives at the beginning (though babies obviously aren't the best at determining what's of value to them), but later on the will to live is ultimately a result of our volition (mediated through our values and state-of-being). |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 19:55:05 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: Sajid
The fact that a man can "will not to live" does not contradict the fact that the "will to live" is an automatic given and not something that is chosen. A man can choose to end his life. He cannot choose to change who he is. I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Are you saying that a man chooses his nature and that men are not automatically born with the will to live? What observation justifies that?
""You can just choose whether it is worth it to you to go on living."
In other words, a man can choose to live or to die. It is a "real" choice."
I am trying to find better words here. A man CAN choose whether to go on living or not just as he can choose whether to eat, sleep, study etc. However, the original question by Brendan was "My question stands: Why does man live? " I am saying the "will to live" is an integral part of man's nature. Recognizing this aspect of our nature helps us to "choose" to go on living. That "choice" is just based on identifying who we really are. Even if we didn't make that choice consciously it wouldn't change the fact that "man qua man" in his natural, happy state chooses life sustaining values.
"Really? The "will to live" is automatic and immutable? No one can will 'not to live'??"
The "will to live" is automatic and of course NOT immutable. I never said it was. We can always kill ourselves. Also since you seem so sure that this premise needs checking please be so kind as to take the time to point out why humans are not born with the will or drive to live. As I have said numerous times, no animal, human or not, chooses to live. Humans, AFTER identifying life as the fundamental value do consciously choose to go on living. That is a little different. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 20:50:22 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: BrianS
"please be so kind as to take the time to point out why humans are not born with the will or drive to live."
Excuse me? You assert that some "automatic" undefined "will to live" exists. You provide *no* proof for your assertion (ie you assert it arbitrarily). And then you demand that *I* prove it *doesn't* exist?
Those are all fundamental *violations* of logic.
"What observation justifies that?"
That is *precisely* what *you* must answer here. What exactly is a "automatic" "will to live"? What observations justify your assertion that this "automatic" will actually exists and is part of man's "nature"? (Note - claiming "in his natural, happy state [man] chooses life sustaining values" is not proof or justification for your claim. It is simply a *restatement* of your assertion - ie a circular argument.) And how exactly does man overcome this supposedly "automatic" "will to live"?
Put simply, so far there literally nothing for me to say about your arbitrarily asserted "automatic" "will to live" - except to point out that is precisely what it is: nothing. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 21:07:26 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Sajid
"Put simply, so far there literally nothing for me to say about your arbitrarily asserted "automatic" "will to live" - except to point out that is precisely what it is: nothing."
A in born will to live is that part of an organism's nature that causes it to pursue its own existence. That's what an amoeba does, its what a gazelle does, its what a crocodile does and its what a human being does. To me this is self-evident. If its not to you the discussion ends here.
There is nothing arbitrary about my assertion. If you will dismiss by identification of a "will to live" as "nothing", then I would love to hear your explanation of why human beings or any living thing lives. Are you claiming it is something separate and apart from their nature? And if you are, please justify your argument. Please don't point out holes in my posts for the sake of pointing them out. I'm not a philosopher and don't hold me up to their standards. If you think the content of my posts is worth arguing with then say something respectfully. At least try and understand what I am trying to say within the context of the question I am replying to. If you are not interested in doing that I really don't want to argue with you. Other people can decide on the logical correctness of my posts on their own. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 22:23:48 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Brendan
E-mail: obdura(at)gmail.com
Thanks for all the responses, everyone.
BrianS writes: "I believe this is a misuse of the term 'value'. A value is that which you seek to gain or keep. Death is the not the gaining of something, but the loss of something - the loss of life."
You are true in the technical sense of the term. But keep in mind the reason someone would seek to destroy his own life (aside from religious zealotry): primarily, it is the belief (whether founded in reality or not) that values are no longer possible. If value is impossible to obtain in this life, then life is, likewise, impossible to pursue. One is then merely a husk, a shell of a man, whose body and mind can still feel pain but never joy. (Consider David Foster Wallace's claim that a man committing suicide is just a man "being tidy" -- he is already "gone.") Considering all of this, the use of the term devalue(in terms of a "typical" suicide) may be just as improper as the use of the term value; indeed, it may be even more illogical, considering that you cannot devalue something that is no longer there (i.e. the possibility of happiness), but you *can* value something which *is* there (i.e. the possibility of "escape" via suicide.)
---
Michael Caution writes: "To add to this, I've also thought that the active choice a man would make whether to live or let himself die would have to be one in which he has reached a certain age. Obviously such a question would never occur to a baby, an infant, a toddler, a young child ... Such a question would only occur within the context of an individual having reached a certain level of awareness of himself and his relation to reality including other individuals as well. This would seem to imply already a vast amount of knowledge on the part of the individual questioning whether to proceed with his life. So it would seem that the individual would have at least some rudimentary value system (most likely implicit) he follows to sustain his life. So having engaged in the act of living up to this point this person would have many reason in order to continue living."
You are correct in saying that an infant will not have thoughts of suicide, nor will a toddler; but there are an increasing number of cases in which young children (i.e. elementary school aged) have thoughts of committing acts of self-injury, suicide, etc. These children do not, as you point out, have "a vast amount of knowledge," nor do they have "some rudimentary value system," or at least theirs is not as advanced as an adult's could/would be. What, then, would you say to a child wishing to kill himself? "Someday, you'll want to live, because you'll have enough knowledge with which to value your life"? Probably not. No, the argument you'd use would not be philosophical, but, rather, psychological: "You're sick, i.e. your brain's natural functions are being disrupted in such a way that your ability to create a system of values has been corrupted." (And that would certainly be a true statement; that I do not dispute.)
So it is not enough to claim that simply the having of knowledge gives one reason to live. If human beings as young as six can conceive of and/or actually experience enough pain that they believe they need to end their lives, the same way that humans as old as and older than sixty can do so, then I think it is probably less to do with an epistemological issue specifically, and more with a physiological/psychological one. This is not to say that physiological/psychological problems cannot affect human cognition (anyone who has heard of schizophrenia knows that they can); rather, it is to say that the root cause of suicide, as a practical matter, rather than as an abstract philosophical quandary, is pathological in nature.
Also: keep in mind that someone born in Somalia may grow old and manage to integrate a great deal of raw knowledge about the world; but this is hardly a guarantee that his life is worth living, and he might tell you so (if he were not so thoroughly indoctrinated into the collectivist anarchy/Islamofascism that plagues that region).
Michael also said: "My tentative answer to such a quandary would be to liken it to the question of, 'what is the meaning of life?' This for Objectivism is an invalid question in that it posits something above life to justify it."
I puzzled over this as well, but Kelley brings it up in his essay (the merits of which I am still considering...). The paradox he proposes is this: either life is a value because we choose it (implying subjectivism), or we choose life because it is a value (implying intrinsicism). Kelley claims this is a false dichotomy, that life certainly *is* a value *because* we choose it (based on the very nature of what a "value" is) -- but that the reason we value it (i.e. pursue it) is because its content is so self-evidently wonderful to us. Therefore, asking what the "meaning" of life is (on Kelley's view) should not be considered an "invalid" question by Objectivism, but, rather, should be reinterpreted. His thought is this: the "meaning" of life = the "purpose" of life = the very *content* of that life itself = Rand's old saw, "man is an end in himself." I find this more or less satisfying, but my approval of it shifts as I reexamine it...
"And since we know that only existence exists there can be nothing above reality to answer for the meaning of life."
I believe you are mixing metaphysics and ethics here. Life is not an existential primary like reality is; life is the *ethical* primary. To discuss the meaning of life is not necessarily searching for something superior to reality, but something "superior" to life (which is not synonymous with reality). Of course, this is moot considering the previous paragraph I wrote.
---
rrlv_frsh writes: "Proposition: rationality requires that one have a reason for every choice one makes, including the choice to live.
Rebuttal: who says? When the choice to live is at issue, why is it claimed that rationality requires any such thing as an antecedent reason for choosing to live? Where does that view of rationality come from?"
Counter-rebuttal: reality "says." If rationality is the practice of acting in according with the requirements of reality, then to say that an action is "arational," i.e. "transcending" rationality, is to say that said action similarly "transcends" reality -- which is impossible. To ask for a reason for something does not necessarily require an antecedent; cannot a reason be both the cause and the effect, a la "man is an end in himself"? (I realize I'm contradicting myself by restating this after originally questioning its validity, but I'm beginning to doubt myself, so...)
---
Sajid writes: "A man can't really 'choose life'. He already is 'man qua man'. Ayn Rand identified happiness as the mental state natural to man. The goal of Ayn Rand's life was to capture the mind and emotional state of an 'ideal man', i.e. a man most suited to live on Earth."
I believe you are misrepresenting Ms. Rand's views (albeit inadvertently, I believe). The entire Objectivist ethical code is based on choice, i.e. the choice to live. Check out the Ayn Rand Lexicon and look up "duty."
Sajid also writes: "All real men have deep emotions as we are animals first and rational second."
I'm not quite sure of the validity of this statement; in the very least, it contradicts the Objectivist views of emotion and rationality.
---
Roderick:
You make an excellent case here, but I still find myself somewhat skeptical. Let me see if I can "dissect" your points...
You write: "a necessary condition for following reason's authority is the choice to live." But then you seem to contradict yourself by writing in the next paragraph: "If one were legitimately to ask: why should I live? Why should I 'pick' existence over non-existence?--he would mean that: what facts about existence/reality could convince me to prefer it over non-existing? And to that, there would be no answer, because there's literally nothing about 'non-existence' which makes it 'inferior' (or 'superior') to existence; such concepts wouldn't apply to a decision like this."
The frustrating thing is, I cannot find fault with either statement! The first is obviously true, because there *are* people who *do* commit suicide -- we hear about them every day -- and so they have, in a sense, "chosen" death/non-existence, i.e. chosen to *not* live. But on the other hand, it is impossible to "choose" a non-existent state of being; there is no such "entity" as a *lack* of an entity. Such a phrase as "nothing" or "non-existence" is only a relative term, as I understand it, meaning that it is only used to describe the fact that (for example) Barack Obama *lacks* the knowledge of what they speak in Austria. A zero cannot exist in real life; there can be no tangible entity which acts as a negation of another entity, because, by definition, it is *not tangible*, it is *non-existent*, it is *unreal*.
You (and Ms. [Dr.?] Smith) then rightly explain that the choice to live is neither rational nor arbitrary. But, as I noted above in response to "rrlv_frsh," an "arational" choice is impossible, because it is, by definition, a choice that transcends the requirements of reality. (Or am I misunderstanding epistemology here?)
Could you perhaps elaborate on this for me? How do we reconcile these pairs of seemingly irreconcilable facts? |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 22:51:22 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brendan,
You say, "But on the other hand, it is impossible to "choose" a non-existent state of being; there is no such "entity" as a *lack* of an entity." But consider: In "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand says that there is only one fundamental alternative, existence or nonexistence, and that it pertains only to living organisms. Having the alternative outcomes of life or death is inherent in being a living organism; it's the reason they have to act to preserve their own survival; and since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, that alternative is the reason we have values at all, and need to have them. But human beings can choose what end to pursue, and that includes choosing nonexistence. Of course, once you've ceased to exist, you won't make any more choices, or take any more actions, or gain any more values; but while you do exist, you can make that choice. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 23:11:29 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: BrianS
"There is nothing arbitrary about my assertion"
Then you do not grasp the meaning of the term. When you *refuse* to prove your claim, you have provided a textbook example of 'arbitrary'.
"I'm not a philosopher and don't hold me up to their standards."
I am holding you to the basic standards of logic. I am sorry you apparently believe logic only applies to philosophers. It does not - and I will not exempt you from its standards.
The burden of proof here lies with YOU - and you ALONE. You *must* prove your claim (and note - insisting something is obvious or "self-evident" to you most certainly is not proof of ANYTHING). So long as you do not prove your assertion, then you do not speak of reality. You speak only of your fantasies. You speak of nothing in existence.
Put simply, as I said, in such a case you are saying nothing at all. It is as if you had never spoken - or as if you had spoken gibberish. That is why, until such proof is provided, there is nothing for anyone *else* to speak of. You provide not cognitive content whatsoever.
Now, if you are actually interested in doing more than arbitrarily asserting your claim - if you are interested in presenting a *logical* argument for your claim - I suggest starting with your definition. As it stands, it is simply a repetition of itself (ie circular). It would likely be helpful if you identify the dictionary definition of 'will' you are accepting and applying in this instance. That would be an appropriate first premise to check here.
Of course, if you still seek a standard OTHER than logic, you are indeed correct - the discussion does end here - because this site is dedicated to the principles of reason, not any form of emotionalism. |
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 at 23:29:14 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: BrianS
"but you *can* value something which *is* there (i.e. the possibility of "escape" via suicide.)"
I repeat, a value is that which you seek to gain or keep. The "escape" from life is not something one seeks to gain or keep. It is the destruction of a thing, not the gaining of a thing. Trying to obfuscate that by using the term 'suicide' instead of 'death' doesn't change that fact.
Death is the absence of a thing - specifically life. The act of terminating life is an act of destruction, not valuation. |
|
| Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 8:21:00 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian: I'm sorry to say that your appeal to "a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep" strikes me as a purely verbal argument, which does more to obscure the facts than to clarify them.
The point seems to be that one cannot value the destruction of a thing, or more broadly, the getting rid of a thing.
But suppose you are found to have cancer. You will presumably seek treatment for it: surgical removal, or radiation therapy, to destroy the initial tumor, plus chemotherapy to track down and kill escaped malignant cells elsewhere in your body. But the cancer is a thing, and the treatments are the destruction of a thing. You are not gaining or keeping something you want; you are removing or destroying something you don't want.
And this applies more broadly than to cancer. A very primitive living organism, such as an amoeba, acts to gain food and oxygen; but its metabolism breaks them down into other substances, and it needs to get rid of those substances, to avoid poisoning its own metabolism, or simply clogging it with inert material. So it has excretory functions. So do you: you dispose of water and nitrogenous wastes by urination, and of carbon dioxide by exhalation. Your body is acting to lose these substances, not to gain them. You have entire organs whose whole function is to reject the unwanted and unneeded.
So an insistence on the literal meaning of the verbal definition of "value" fails to reflect the facts. If you want to keep Rand's definition, it's necessary to interpret "gaining" as including the "gaining" of the absence of something undesirable.
And for a conscious being, life can be undesirable. Pain is undesirable, and intense, unescapable pain can pervade all of life. Escape from a disvalue can be a value; for example, opiates can have value for someone in pain. But death also offers escape from pain, or from helplessness, or from slow decay, or other things that we have reason to dread. A person could wish to "gain" that escape . . . and I think if we wish to keep the word "gain" we need to accept that usage of the word. |
|
| Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 15:36:38 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Sajid
To #42:
For the purpose of this thread I think my posts are fine the way they are. Sorry but I do not trust your standards for their evaluation. I guess we will just not have to discuss this issue.
-----------
To Brendan:
"Sajid writes: "A man can't really 'choose life'. He already is 'man qua man'. Ayn Rand identified happiness as the mental state natural to man. The goal of Ayn Rand's life was to capture the mind and emotional state of an 'ideal man', i.e. a man most suited to live on Earth."
I believe you are misrepresenting Ms. Rand's views (albeit inadvertently, I believe). The entire Objectivist ethical code is based on choice, i.e. the choice to live. Check out the Ayn Rand Lexicon and look up "duty."
Thanks for your response. I think one has to separate Objectivism as philosophy from Objectivism as ideology. The choice to live, even within Objectivism, is based on an identification of what it means to be human. The "choice to live" is not axiomatic in Objectivism. It is the nature of humans to pursue happiness and life-sustaining values. Once this fact is identified and conceptualized it can be used to create a philosophy (Objectivism) that is useful for sustaining life on Earth. Earlier I did mention that the "choice to live" does not exist. I guess I should retract that unequivocally. What I meant to say was the "choice to live" is not axiomatic. I didn't know how to say it sorry.
So to answer your question "Why live?" I would say it is our nature to live. Even before human beings evolved to use their minds to think abstractly, they used it to observe their surroundings, grasp and integrate data, have children and socially organize. As of today, even though we are still trying to comprehend why humans and all other animals do exactly what they do, we (or at least Objectivists) have identified that a man's happiness lies in pursuing life-sustaining values. This is an identification, not a deduction from any other principle. That is our nature. There is no higher answer to the question "why live?" outside of what it means to be a human being.
Of course, there are times when humans come to the conclusion that life is not worth living.
Two points:
1. Most humans do not.
2. Even if somebody does come to that conclusion we usually assume something is "wrong" (either with him, society or both). Maybe if one is mentally handicapped his emotions maybe saying he is unworthy of living as he can grasp at happiness, knowing its out there but lack the mental capacity to attain it. Similarly, someone at a young age, if inculcated with the wrong philosophy or raised in a psychologically abusive environment can either come to an incorrect conclusion that they ought to kill themselves or deduce correctly that no matter how hard they tried this wasn't the life they were designed for and they would never be able to be happy.
As to:
"Sajid also writes: "All real men have deep emotions as we are animals first and rational second."
I'm not quite sure of the validity of this statement; in the very least, it contradicts the Objectivist views of emotion and rationality."
I didn't mean anything by this except that man uses his mind to live. Man does not exist to use his mind. It is just support for my general response to your question that the choice to go on living is based on the correct identification of the nature of man. |
|
| Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 19:53:51 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: rrlv_frsh
Brendan writes [#40]:
---------->
Counter-rebuttal: reality "says." If rationality is the practice of acting in according with the requirements of reality, then to say that an action is "arational," i.e. "transcending" rationality, is to say that said action similarly "transcends" reality -- which is impossible. To ask for a reason for something does not necessarily require an antecedent; cannot a reason be both the cause and the effect, a la "man is an end in himself"? (I realize I'm contradicting myself by restating this after originally questioning its validity, but I'm beginning to doubt myself, so...)
[...]
You [Roderick] (and Ms. [Dr.?] Smith) then rightly explain that the choice to live is neither rational nor arbitrary. But, as I noted above in response to "rrlv_frsh," an "arational" choice is impossible, because it is, by definition, a choice that transcends the requirements of reality. (Or am I misunderstanding epistemology here?)
----------<
These formulation appear to identify rationality as adherence to reality. Actually, however, "adherence to reality" is closer to the meaning of objectivity. Rationality, in contrast, is more precisely identified as adherence to reason as one's basic means of congnition. Reason is the *means* to objectivity.
The formulations may be attempting to take reality as the starting point for a code of values, and then trying (without success so far) to show how that starting point leads to the choice to live. "Leads to" here means "logically implies" or "logically mandates."
But what if someone chooses to be illogical? The formulations do not actually take reality as the starting point. Rather, they take *adherence* to reality as the starting point -- the unquestioned, unchallengeable "given." But adherence to reality is open to man's choice. If the choice to live is not a valid starting point for a code of values, then why would the choice to adhere to reality (cognitively) be more valid?
If we accept the idea of having a starting point somewhere, then Objectivism merely asks: isn't life more fundamental than reason? And wouldn't life thus be more valid as one's starting point (for a code of values) than reason? And in reality, isn't man's rational faculty merely his distinctive form of consciousness, with consciousness, in turn, as the basic means of survival for any conscious organism? Doesn't this make survival (life) more fundamental than consciousness? Consciousness isn't even essential for all forms of life; there are forms of life (plants) that aren't conscious at all, in any sense similar to the forms of consciousness found in animals. For man, there can be no such thing as a justification for wanting to remain alive (other than its own self-justification and reward, as an end in itself). If the claim is that man should choose to stay alive so that he can be rational, then why wouldn't being rational require a justification? And furthermore, doesn't being rational actually *have* a justification, namely, to remain alive?
|
|
| Tuesday, April 7, 2009 at 23:42:41 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: BrianS
"Sorry but I do not trust your standards for their evaluation."
Since the standard I explicitly applied was simple logic (rejection of the arbitrary - ie rejection of ideas presented without proof; the arbitrary as nothing; the burden of proof; etc), I am therefore saddened to learn you do not "trust" logic as a standard for the evaluation of ideas. Of course, your dismissal of logic as your cognitive standard indeed makes it impossible to have any rational discussion with you. |
|
| Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 3:33:14 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Sajid
To #36 (Roderick):
"But that seems to contradict your other statement: "Since our "will to live" is a given we cannot choose it any less than we can choose for a table to be a table or for a chair to be a chair.""
Sorry I missed that you had replied to me. I went over this in my response to Brendan (#45). Basically my answer to this problem was that our choice to live is based on the identification that it is our nature to continue our existence and pursue our life. Once we identify this, we specifically "choose" to live so that we can formulate principles around that choice and plan long range. The choice to live is not axiomatic but based on the identification of our nature. |
|
| Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 3:52:01 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: Sajid
To #47:
I do not trust your standards because I am sorry to say I do not trust your intentions. You have spent a good 4-5 posts now trying to discredit my posts and saying my assertions are equivalent to asserting "nothing". Do you also yell at the air around you for not asserting anything? If my posts have no meaning for you feel free not to reply. I don't like it when people start giving me lectures on logic and reason instead of spending some time trying to understand what I am getting at. If you were really interested in actually debating perhaps you would have spent some time advancing a position of your own or highlighted something of interest in my posts and asked me to elaborate. Let me remind you that the three Objectivist virtues are reason, purpose and self-esteem, not reason, reason and reason. Would you care to explain what your purpose was in engaging me in a discussion in the first place?
I will be the first to admit that plenty of people on this thread are more skilled at discourse than myself. This has never stopped me from commenting on this blog before and usually engaging in discussions that have been fruitful to me. I will also admit that my defense of the statement that a "choice to live" does not exist would probably be laughed out of undergraduate philosophy. Generally I try to be clear for obvious reasons and out of respect for everyone else on here. Sometimes I am not and don't have the time to. This does not mean I do not trust logic and do not try to adhere to it. |
|
| Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 9:00:36 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: BrianS
"I do not trust your standards because I am sorry to say I do not trust your intentions."
You reject logic as your standard of cognition because of the standard of logic because of your feelings about me? Wow.
Nice *explicit* logical fallacy there btw (ad hom).
"You have spent a good 4-5 posts now trying to discredit my posts and saying my assertions are equivalent to asserting "nothing"."
You explicitly refuse to provide proof of your assertion. That is the very definition of "arbitrary". And the arbitrary IS nothing.
These are not controversial premises. They are basics of logic. I am sorry you do not understand them.
"Do you also yell at the air around you for not asserting anything?"
Since you asserted something while the air does not, your analogy is fallacious. It is precisely *because* you make an assertion - yet fail to prove it - that you are taken to task for that assertion. Without proof, your assertion is neither true nor false. It has no cognitive content whatsoever.
It is nothing.
Again, this is not some controversial position. This is BASIC logic. I am sorry you are apparently unfamiliar with these basics - basics which apply to all rational discussion, not just to those of 'academics'.
"If my posts have no meaning for you feel free not to reply."
As the saying goes, for evil to succeed, all it needs is for the good to do nothing. That is exactly what evil counts on - the good to do nothing. And that is what you *explicitly* ask for here - for the rational to do nothing in the face of irrationality. You demand that the illogic of your premise NOT be discussed.
I am sorry but I refuse to leave your arbitrary assertions unchallenged.
THAT is my "purpose" in challenging your assertion. To help prevent the acceptance and spread of the arbitrary - ie the illogical - the irrational.
"Generally I try to be clear for obvious reasons and out of respect for everyone else on here. Sometimes I am not and don't have the time to. This does not mean I do not trust logic and do not try to adhere to it."
Your problem is not that you are 'unclear'. And given the number of posts you have written evading your burden of proof, it is obvious you have the time. Your problem is a simple one: you refuse to prove your assertion. You put it forth arbitrarily (ie irrationally). And you seek that others accept it in the same manner.
Sorry. Not going to happen. |
|
| Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 14:24:50 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: BrianS
William - I missed your post to me (#44). Now that I have noticed it, I must disagree with it completely.
You say: "The point seems to be that one cannot value the destruction of a thing, or more broadly, the getting rid of a thing.
But suppose you are found to have cancer. You will presumably seek treatment for it: surgical removal, or radiation therapy, to destroy the initial tumor, plus chemotherapy to track down and kill escaped malignant cells elsewhere in your body. But the cancer is a thing, and the treatments are the destruction of a thing. You are not gaining or keeping something you want; you are removing or destroying something you don't want."
You most certainly ARE gaining something you want: your good health. And THAT is the point. Good health is the value. The cancer is what has destroyed that value. The treatment against the cancer is the *means* by which you achieve your good health once more - ie the means of GAINING the value you seek.
By claiming one does not gain or keep something when fighting cancer, you completely ignore the actual value sought and instead focus solely on the destroyer.
That is completely *backwards*.
The same applies to your opiate example.
"...opiates can have value for someone in pain..."
Again, your normal good health is the value here - that which you seek to gain or keep. The destruction of the cancer or the pain etc is the *means* by which you gain it.
Do not *confuse* means with ends. Do not confuse values with the methods by which you seek to achieve the values. They are NOT the same.
"...But death also offers escape from pain..."
Death is indeed the destruction of the pain. But it is NOT the gaining or keeping of ANYTHING. Quite the opposite. It is the destruction of EVERY thing. There is absolutely NO gain whatsoever. NO thing at all is kept.
That is what distinguishes death from opiates and therefore makes your comparison between the two *invalid*.
"...an insistence on the literal meaning of the verbal definition of "value" fails to reflect the facts."
I am sorry you seek some *other* definition of the term "value" than that identified by Miss Rand. Since you reject her definition but still use the term "value", it is necessary at this point for you to identify this non-literal, non-verbal "definition" that you are asserting in place of Miss Rand's definition. |
|
| Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 23:34:27 mst
Comment ID: #52
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
Do you remember the passage in Atlas Shrugged where John Galt tells Dagny Taggart that rather than see her tortured to force his cooperation, he will commit suicide?
Clearly that suicide would not be a purposeless action; Galt was not a man to do anything without a purpose. But the statement "I did this purposeful, but I attained no values by doing it" is self-contradictory. So what was he gaining? The only thing I can see is escape from, or avoidance of, an experience of unendurable suffering . . . escape into death. Death was something he proposed to act to gain ("keep" is not an issue; once dead, he would stay dead).
In this context, "gain" is a valid expression, because human beings are capable of experiencing, not just value and the absence of value, but active disvalue. The economy of human existence has bads as well as goods. A sufficient level of suffering can be worse than death.
Now, if you want to say that Rand deliberately wrote Galt as prepared to perform an irrational action because of his love for Taggart; or that she had not thought out Galt's motivation in that scene; or that she had not thought about the possibility of suicide being a rational choice when she came up with that formulation . . . any of those would be consistent with your view of the definition of "value." But I believe that Rand meant her terminology more abstractly. To "gain" is to experience a change of state in a direction more compatible with proper functioning. If I'm cured of cancer, I gain good health (while losing some body tissue); if I urinate, I gain relief of physiological discomfort (while losing bodily fluids); and if, faced with agony or profound disability, I choose suicide, I gain avoidance of an unbearable state of being.
When we are functioning properly, we seek enrichment of our proper functioning; when we are functioning improperly, we seek its restoration. But if we are incapable of proper functioning, and even of moving closer to it, the "gain" may be escape from the negative of improper functioning. That, I suggest, is what Galt was proposing to seek. |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 9:36:56 mst
Comment ID: #53
Name: BrianS
"So what was he gaining? The only thing I can see is escape from, or avoidance of, an experience of unendurable suffering . . . escape into death."
You are doing it again. As with the cancer and opiate examples, you seem keenly intent on ignoring the value one seeks to gain and instead focusing solely on that which DESTROYS value. As I noted before that is completely BACKWARDS.
In the cancer situation, I *gave* you the answer (the concrete) and identified the principle (the abstraction) which validated that answer. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have grasped the abstraction, because you are still treating the *means* of achieving the value as the *ends* - ie as the value itself. As such, I will not give you the answer directly this time. Instead, I will give ask you a couple questions so that you may hopefully identify, on your own, the value you say you cannot see. Perhaps in doing so, you will come to grasp the principle which gives you that answer.
So, tell me: WHY will Galt commit suicide? Why not cooperate with the second handers? Why not become the dictator that they want? Is anything ACHIEVED by his death rather than that (or some other) action? Is anything GAINED or KEPT by his purposefully choosing suicide over some other action? (I'll give you a hint: there are at least TWO things gained/kept)
As it stands, you say you see NO achievement in a Galt suicide. You see ONLY loss. And that is what leads you to treat loss AS gain - an obvious contradiction. (btw - STILL waiting for your non-literal, non-verbal alternative to Miss Rand's definition of "value"). |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 10:38:47 mst
Comment ID: #54
Name: BrianS
Oh - as to your definition of the term "gain" in relation to the concept "value", you are doing precisely what the altruists do with their definition of "selfish". You are creating a package deal.
In the context of "value" you say "To "gain" is to experience a change of state in a direction more compatible with proper functioning." But the concept "value" does NOT include some moral or biological etc appraisal of what is 'proper' or 'improper' for man. That is for a specific ethical (or scientific, etc) system to identify. The concept "value", like the concept "selfish" is properly NEUTAL when it comes to judgment. It is properly applicable to any and all ethical (etc) systems. That is why Miss Rand did NOT define "value" as 'a change or maintenance of a state compatible with proper functioning' - as you apparently do.
The concept "value" identifies an actor and an action. It makes NO evaluation of either. |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 12:10:48 mst
Comment ID: #55
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
So on one hand you're trying to use the term "value" in a fashion that does not identify it with any specific value; but on the other hand, you object to using it to refer to death. That looks to me like giving it a specific content: something can only be a value if it's compatible with survival.
If I perform an action that will result in my death, knowing that it will do so, and intending it to do so, then death is the intended result of my action. That's just as true as if the intended result of my action is survival, or profit, or rational knowledge, or replying to your latest post. The result that is attained by an action is the value that that action attains. What's the point of the terminological distinction in this case? We're talking about intentional action that brings about a desired result. What do you propose to call such a result, if not a value? |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 14:28:46 mst
Comment ID: #56
Name: BrianS
"If I perform an action that will result in my death, knowing that it will do so, and intending it to do so, then death is the intended result of my action."
Sigh. You failed to answer my questions about Galt and you continue to focus on the MEANS rather than the end. In the Galt example, his death is NOT the end he seeks. It is a MEANS *to* an END - an end you explicitly state you cannot see.
Well, lets see if applying your above premise to a different example will open your eyes.
'If I perform an action that will result in the destruction of bacteria on my teeth, knowing that it will do so, and intending it to do so, then the destruction of bacteria is the intended result of my actions.'
Brushing your teeth is the MEANS of attaining a value - HEALTHY TEETH. It is NOT - as you are making it - an end in itself. It is NOT the value you seek. It is the METHOD by which you attain that value.
Your problem is that you KEEP treating the means AS the end. That is COMPLETELY WRONG.
Consider rationality, productiveness, and pride.
These are NOT values.
Reason is the value - the END. It is that which one seeks to gain and keep.
Rationality is the MEANS of gaining this value. It is the action one is required to take to gain and keep reason.
Purpose is the value - the END. It is that which one seeks to gain and keep.
Productiveness is the MEANS of gaining this value. It is the action one is required to take to gain and keep purpose.
Self-esteem is the value - the END. It is that which one seeks to gain and keep.
Pride is the MEANS of gaining this value. It is the action one is required to take to gain and keep self-esteem.
Value is the END - what one seeks to gain or keep.
Virtue is the MEANS of gaining this value. It is the action one is required to take to gain or keep that which one seeks.
To continue with this example, you keep insisting that the virtue IS the value. That the virtue is the ends. That the action required to attain the value IS the value.
That is FALSE. That is action for the sake of the action. That is virtue as an end in itself.
And THAT is KANT!
As AR clearly states - "'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it."
You keep treating virtue and value as if they are the same. They are NOT.
If all that is not concrete enough for you, consider a trade then. When you engage in a trade, the act of exchange is NOT the value. Giving up a thing is NOT the value. What you GET is the value. THAT is your goal, to which the action of trade - of giving up something - is merely the MEANS.
However, you keep insisting the thing that you LOSE is the value - or that the action OF losing is the value. That is the OPPOSITE of the truth.
To gain something REQUIRES you to act. That is the reason TO act. Unfortunately, you keep saying you do not see any gain. You see ONLY the action - the action of LOSING - of LOSS. As such, you keep insisting that loss IS gain. Right there such a BLATANT contradiction *should* lead you to *seriously* check your premises. Like the idea that 'black is white', the notion that 'loss is gain' is simply irrational.
Now, if you *still* do not grasp my point. If you *still* ONLY see purposeful LOSS, then I will ask you once *again* to please answer the questions I asked about the Galt example you provided. |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 18:34:19 mst
Comment ID: #57
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
No, of course I don't see only purposeful loss. In Galt's case, his death would be a means to the end of avoiding (a) Taggart's being tortured and (b) the emotional and spiritual damage he would suffer from witness that torture. In the case of someone dying of cancer, voluntary suicide could be a means to the end of not being in pain.
But when Rand defines value as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep," she does not specify "as an end in itself" or "for its own sake." One can act to gain and/or keep something as a means to gaining and/or keeping something else. A value can be a means to having another value.
If this were not so, the category of "value" would be all but empty. For Rand specifies that life is the only thing that is an end in itself. Oxygen has value as a means of sustaining life; food has value as a means of sustaining life; medical care has value as a means of sustaining life; money has value as a means of sustaining life; legal rights have value as a means of sustaining life; philosophy has value as a means of sustaining life; rationality has value as a means of sustaining life, and so on. All of those things are means to a more basic end. If you are going to say that the means of attaining a value cannot itself properly be called a value, then you have to say that none of those things, from oxygen and food to rationality, is a value. And that is consistent neither with ordinary English usage nor with Rand's terminology and philosophy.
If your substantive point is that a rational being would commit suicide, not because they thought death would be a good experience (as might someone courting martyrdom for religious reasons) nor because they found life as such inherently repulsive, but only because their own life had become unbearable, and death was a means of escaping from or preventing unbearable anguish . . . then I agree with you. But I don't think it aids clarity of thought either to say that something that is sought as a means to an end is not a value, or to say that deliberately inducing a condition in onself does not count as "acting to gain and/or keep" that condition.
Under normal circumstances, death is not a value. Under extraordinary circumstances, it can become a value, not for its own sake, but instrumentally. |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 21:51:29 mst
Comment ID: #58
Name: BrianS
"No, of course I don't see only purposeful loss."
That isn't what you said. You explicitly stated: "So what was he gaining? The only thing I can see is escape from, or avoidance of, an experience of unendurable suffering..." In other words, you explicitly claimed ALL you could see is Galt's loss of suffering through Galt's loss of his life. Put simply, all you could see is his suffering and his attempt to "escape" it (as you keep trying to put it) which is nothing more than the attempt to LOSE that suffering - to LOSE that DIS-value - to LOSE that NON-value.
You explicitly admitted you could NOT see ANYTHING actually GAINED.
That is why I asked you to identify WHY Galt simply didn't offer to cooperate instead of killing himself. That would certainly have prevented "(a) Taggart's being tortured and (b) the emotional and spiritual damage he would suffer from witness that torture."
Unfortunately, you chose not to answer that question. So I guess I will have to spell it out for you - again.
By committing suicide rather than cooperating, Galt would not simply avoid LOSS - he would GAIN two things he wants:
1 - Dagny's health and safety
2 - The continued success of his plan
So Galt GAINS two things he wants in trade for the LOSS of something. Those two things are his values. The LOSS of his life is NOT a value (as you *explicitly* state below). The LOSS of his life is merely the MEANS by which he GAINS the two things he wants (as the loss of something in a trade is merely the means by which a man gains what he wants).
In other words, what MAKES the two things values is they are what he seeks to GAIN and KEEP. They are the things he wants. The reason his death is NOT a value is because his life is NOT something he seeks to gain or keep any longer. It is something he *explicitly* seeks to LOSE - to destroy.
Of course, that is the OPPOSITE of your 'suicide because of pain' example. In *that* example, the man seeks ONLY to LOSE his suffering - to LOSE an extreme non-value. He does not seek to GAIN or KEEP *anything*. He does NOT want his life because he does NOT want his pain. He seeks to LOSE his pain by LOSING his life. He seeks to destroy one non-value by destroying another non-value.
Contrary to your belief, the destruction of a non-value is NOT the same as the achievement of a value. (Miss Rand makes that point VERY clear.)
"Under extraordinary circumstances, it can become a value, not for its own sake, but instrumentally."
See - you AGREE with me. You have just admitted death is NOT a value. It is the LOSS of a thing. And you ALSO agree with me that it CAN be the MEANS to achieving some OTHER end - ie the GAINING of something ELSE. We call that "something else" a VALUE.
Where we DISAGREE is that you *somehow* come to the conclusion that the LOSS of pain through the LOSS of life is somehow the GAINING of something.
It isn't.
Losing something is NOT gaining something.
Avoiding something is NOT seeking something
'Not wanting' something is NOT 'wanting' something.
Non-A is NOT A.
Claiming loss is gain is a blatant contradiction.
Claiming not seeking something is seeking something is a blatant contradiction
Claiming not wanting something is wanting something is a blatant contradiction.
Claiming non-A is A is a blatant contradiction.
Once such blatant contradictions are identified, there really isn't much to say beyond their identification.
(Oh, and as to your assertion "If you are going to say that the means of attaining a value cannot itself properly be called a value, then you have to say that...rationality, is [not] a value." I already said it is NOT a value. As Miss Rand identifies, it is a virtue. Virtue and value are NOT the same - which is precisely why AR provided a definition for each. Of course, you seem intent on trying to make them the same (ie MORE package dealing). NOW you are defining "value" as 'that which one seeks to gain and keep - AND - the action by which one gains or keeps it.' In other words, you seek to ERASE the distinction between "value" and "virtue" - between object and action. Not good.) |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 22:57:31 mst
Comment ID: #59
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian:
You write that "By committing suicide rather than cooperating, Galt would not simply avoid LOSS - he would GAIN two things he wants:
1 - Dagny's health and safety
2 - The continued success of his plan."
I have two things to say about that.
First, Galt says to Taggart, "I do not care to live on their terms, I do not care to obey them and I do not care to see you enduring a drawn-out murder. There will be no values for me to seek after that - and I do not care to exist without values." He does not say any thing about gaining anything positive from his suicide; he explains it in terms of avoiding an undesirable state of being, existence without values. That looks to me to be inconsistent with your claims. Rand was an extremely clear writer; if she had meant what you assert I am sure she would have had Galt say it.
Second, I don't see how either of the things you describe can be counted as a value FOR GALT within Rand's stated view of ethics. Both of them are things that would happen after Galt's death; as such, they could not contribute to Galt's survival - and in Rand's metaethics, values are things whose attainment contributes to the continued existence of the being that attains them. (This is a point, actually, where I disagree with Objectivism as I understand it; I believe that concern for one's legacy is a rational motive and, indeed, a self-interested one, but I don't think the self-interest that it serves can be accounted for in terms of individual survival.) |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 23:14:54 mst
Comment ID: #60
Name: BrianS
Oh, and you engage in another attempt at obfuscation when you use the term "condition" when saying it is wrong to claim "deliberately inducing a condition in onself does not count as "acting to gain and/or keep" that condition."
By using the term "condition" you evade the fact that you are trying to lump opposites together. You are trying to lump the existence of things with the absence of things. You are trying to lump something with nothing. Nothing cannot be gained or kept. Nothing is non-existence. One can LOSE something. But one cannot GAIN nothing.
So when one attempts to "induce a condition" of non-pain in oneself, one is trying to LOSE pain. One is not trying to gain non-pain. Non-pain doesn't exist. It is a non-existent. It is the ABSENCE of a thing - the absence of pain. As such, one can ONLY speak of LOSING pain. One CANNOT speak of gaining or keeping non-pain.
Or, when one attempts to "induce a condition" of non-cancer in oneself, one is trying to LOSE cancer. One is not trying to gain non-cancer. There is no such thing as non-cancer. It is a non-existent. It is the ABSENCE of a thing - the absence of cancer. As such, one can ONLY speak of LOSING cancer. One CANNOT speak of gaining or keeping non-cancer
The non-thing does not exist. To treat it as an existent is to treat nothing as something. That is a fundamental contradiction. It is the reification of nothingness.
What one CAN gain or keep is one's health. One's health IS something. It is a some thing which CAN exist. As such, it is something one CAN seek to gain and keep - precisely *because* it can exist. Non-cancer, non-pain, etc - these things cannot be gained or kept precisely *because* they do not and cannot exist.
One can only gain and keep things. One cannot gain and keep nothing - for there is literally NO thing TO gain OR to keep. To claim otherwise is to attempt to destroy the distinction between existence and nothingness. |
|
| Friday, April 10, 2009 at 23:53:52 mst
Comment ID: #61
Name: BrianS
""I do not care to live on their terms, I do not care to obey them and I do not care to see you enduring a drawn-out murder. There will be no values for me to seek after that - and I do not care to exist without values." He does not say any thing about gaining anything positive from his suicide; he explains it in terms of avoiding an undesirable state of being, existence without values."
You STILL don't ask the right questions nor even grasp the context of his statement. If you will note, Galt says at the first suggestion that the tugs will do anything to Dagny, he will kill himself. He doesn't say he will wait until she is dead to do that. WHY?
That question is something you continue to FAIL to ask.
The reason he will kill himself BEFORE they can do anything to her is so he can KEEP HER ALIVE (and if she is alive, then he will want his plan to succeed). He seeks to KEEP these values, rather than LOSE them. And the MEANS by which he states he will do this is by LOSING his life.
I am sorry that these facts were not spelled out and connected for you in painstakingly explicit detail by Miss Rand in her novel. But she did give you the explicit evidence to reach that conclusion and that conclusion alone. And she did so VERY clearly.
"I don't see how either of the things you describe can be counted as a value FOR GALT within Rand's stated view of ethics."
"I don't think the self-interest that it serves can be accounted for in terms of individual survival."
You should check your premises. Oism doesn't claim "individual survival" is the standard of its ethics. It is life as "man qua man" - which is not a synonymous idea. If "individual survival" *were* Oism's ethical standard, as you suggest, then Oism would not consider suicide to be moral under ANY condition, because it is an act completely opposed to "individual survival". As such, Miss Rand would not have had Galt even SUGGEST he was going to kill himself - for ANY reason. |
|
| Sunday, April 12, 2009 at 11:52:32 mst
Comment ID: #62
Name: BrianS
In case you need an actual quote from the novel to grasp the facts I present:
Just a few sentences before your out-of-context quote, Galt says to Dagny:
"You must act as one of them. You must act as my worst enemy. If you do, I'll have a chance to come out of it alive. They need me too much, they'll go to any extreme before they bring themselves to kill me. Whatever they extort from people, they can extort it only through their victim's valuesâ€"and they have no value of mine to hold over my head, nothing to threaten me with. But if they get the slightest suspicion of what we are to each other, they will have you on a torture rackâ€"I mean, physical tortureâ€"before my eyes, in less than a week. I am not going to wait for that. At the first mention of a threat to you, I will kill myself and stop them right there."
The last two sentences are very clear. Galt will not wait for Dagny to be killed. He will PREVENT ("stop") her from being killed - by killing himself. He will SAVE her - KEEP her alive - by LOSING his own life.
She is the value he seeks to keep, by means of a very specific action (suicide).
So, while you are correct that Miss Rand is an "extremely clear writer", your example demonstrates that such clarity does not guarantee comprehension by the reader. For, as should now be quite evident, Miss Rand VERY clearly wrote that Galt would give up his life for the purpose of keeping Dagny alive - to KEEP that very precious value. Thus, far from my claims being "inconsistent" with what Miss Rand wrote, I have identified *precisely* what she wrote. In other words, she DID have "Galt say it". I am sorry you missed it - and am sorry that oversight has led you to erroneous conclusions regarding the concept "value".
Hopefully this information will lead you to correct those errors. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
