RoR: Forum

Post 0

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 11:04am

Link

Edit

Glenn,

I have one quibble with your article. You write:

Happiness is scarce because the achievement of values is difficult.

Now, happiness may, in fact, be scarce (given the state of our culture, etc.), but I don't agree with the implication that it will naturally be scarce because of inherent difficulties in achieving values. In fact, this almost seems to contradict the "benevolent universe" premise. Maybe if you elaborated on what you mean, I would understand it better, and find that I did not disagree.

I don't believe that achieving values is inherently difficult. It certainly can be difficult (or virtually impossible) under statism, or when irrational behavior or cultures can not be circumvented. But baring human constructs and the rare accident, values need not be hard to come by. Also, recent psychological research suggests that people can be quite happy while in the process of achieving values, even though the ultimate end-value might not yet be accomplished. Perhaps another way to put this is that a given end goal has a constellation of values associated with it, and a number of these values relate to the methods and acts used in accomplishing the ultimate end goal. Hence, we gain some values --- and can achieve certain levels of happiness --- in route.

Regards,
Kernon

Post 1

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 1:28pm

Link

Edit

There's always one. :) Usually the same one. :)

Perhaps not "difficult," but challenging, requiring effort/productivity. My point was: values aren't "pennies from heaven" - the common misconception around the Benevolent Universe Premise - you need to work for them.

But when you think of the values worth achieving: true love, phenomenal success in your chosen career - I think it is fair to say that they are not *easy* to come by. Perhaps there's a sliding scale, but as a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, even the most marginal value requires marginal action.

I certainly agree that happiness can be gained from the process of achieving values.

Thanks for your thoughts, as always, Kernon!

G.

Post 2

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 2:46pm

Link

Edit

Some people say, "It's not the kill; it's the thrill of the chase."

Post 3

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 3:43pm

Link

Edit

Glenn,

"Benevolent universe" and "objective reality" are two metaphors... "

I see this as a positive step in your philosophy , however it does raise an interesting question - if as you claim "objective reality" is actually a metaphor, is the proposition itself objective (aside from any ontological claims it appears prima facie to be making)?

What I am getting at is can a metaphorical statement be an objective statement. An objective statement is supposed to be one govered by principles of logic and reason. And surely metaphorical statements should not be constrained in anyway by this principle.

For example, "What Tremblay said left a bad taste in my mouth" or "his claims were half-baked" might say nothing about any actual taste so to speak of. The statement is metaphorical in that it borrows from the concrete and applies to the conceptual. We know ideas are not actually food, or more explicitly ideas don't have a taste (certainly not in any objective way). Yet the statements clearly make sense.

I presume much of the confusion comes from the fact that some people take as explicit and literal the claim that reality is objective (or absolute) as having specific ontological properties.

If as you say the statement is a metaphorical one then what does this say about the ontological claims the metaphor is supposed to be driving at?

I mean, how does the "concrete" part of the metaphor pan out?

Steve

Post 4

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 6:19pm

Link

Edit

Hi Steve,

I think I see where you're going with this. I'm glad you see my piece as a positive step, but please don't interpret it as a concession towards the ideas of skepticism and invalidity of axioms expressed in the 'Questioning Fundamentals' thread.

Although I refer to the *terms* as "metaphors" I very much hold that the *concepts* they relate to are consistent with the Objectivist ideas of existence and identity.

G.

Post 5

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 7:33pm

Link

Edit

I don't understand the first part of your reply Glenn, you seem defensive or something? I've said nothing about skepticism. Philosophy isn't polarised between skepticism and realism. There are a vast array of shades of grey in between (I suspect you know this already). And just because I might have some issues with objectivism's foundational claims it doesn't follow that I am an outright skeptic, anti-realist (or a postmodernist, jeez I hate the tossers - at least we have that in common hey :-). I've already said I'm a Moorean of sorts.

I do think your piece is an important one.

What you (seem to) have said in your article is that "objective reality" doesn't make any claim to any specific ontology, since you have clearly said that it in fact is a semantic notion - "a metaphor", (what else could a metaphor be if not a semantic notion?) and that this is the result of Rands intergration of fiction and philosophy. I don't think you have in anyway undermined your philosophy I just think you have interpreted it in a more OBJECTIVE sense. I think you are right! I agree with you.

I think this is important because what you are now saying is that there is some interpretation going on. That interpretation is the interpretation necessary to make sense of a metaphor. This in some senses opens the door for a more pragmatic approach to your philosophy and I think this can only be good. It means you can work round the sticky bits, it gives you room to refine your ideas.

But I still wonder if a metaphorical statement can be considered an "objective" statement. I'd guess it's a question of interpretation - there certainly seems to be an argument for use of metaphor in science. (or does there?). Perhaps a model (a scientific model) is in a way a metaphor, it after all is an abstraction and in someways that's what a metaphor is.

Don't worry Glenn, I'm not trying to catch you in any logic traps or anything, I am quite intrigued by objectivism (in a dark sort of way), and I'd like to see you guys with a stronger argument.

kind regards
steve

Post 6

Wednesday, November 13, 2002 - 7:46pm

Link

Edit

Hi Glenn!

Great article! I don't see your use of "metaphor" as invalidating an objective reality in any way. Only a dolt would conceive of such a thing.

Steve,

A metaphor is a literary device, a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in "Steve is drowning in his own cognitive nihilism").

In this metaphorical instance we are not certain that Steve actually exists for any good purpose (he may just be a troll) but we nevertheless can verify that in an objective reality we see him make his nightly rounds on the SOLO website smelling up our comment boxes with his vile flatulence and exhibiting his intellectual hubris wherever there is a slot open to him.

Post 7

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 6:21am

Link

Edit

Hi Glenn!

Loved your article! Thank you! You said it all much better than I could have. *grin*

And Kernon, happiness is scarce exactly because of
such facts of life as you wrote - "statism, or when irrational behavior or cultures can not be circumvented."

You also wrote "But baring human constructs and the rare accident, values need not be hard to come by."

However, because we live on a planet with billions of humans and human constructs, we must take them into consideration as they do make it difficult to swim against the tide. Difficult, but not impossible. :)

I think every one of us here have been touched by one of these 'constructs' or whatever and have been affected by them in our own quest for proper values, making it that much more difficult. Had proper values been that easy to attain, more would be doing it, it would be a 'natural' way of life, no? But for me, it has taken work to be happy though it's work I've been quite pleased to do.

Joy :)

Post 8

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 7:33am

Link

Edit

Joy,

Regarding:

Had proper values been that easy to attain, more would be doing it, it would be a 'natural' way of life, no?

No. I don't agree. Just because a certain state of affairs exists in today's world, does not mean that that is the way that it had to be.

First, to deny that all values are scarce and difficult to obtain does not imply that all values are easy to obtain. All I ever claimed was that there are a lot of different types of values, and some are relatively easy to obtain, some harder, and some extremely difficult (particularly in the current culture).

Second, even if something is 'natural' is does not follow that it is in some sense automatic and therefore that more people would be doing it.

Third, you are conflating two different things. One is values and the other is philosophy. With a proper philosophy, values are easier to obtain (some easy, some hard, etc.). But, given that humans are not born with the proper philosophy encoded into their brains --- given volition --- there is no guarantee that people will adopt the right system even if they are exposed to it. Do you conclude that Objectivism is unnatural since more people are not adopting it? (And I never claimed that understanding and internalizing Objectivism was easy!)

For all of these reasons, I don't agree that the lack of widespread value attainment in our current culture suggests that all values are metaphysically (by their nature) difficult to obtain. At present, many types of values may be difficult to gain and keep --- but this is not an historical necessity.

Post 9

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 12:58pm

Link

Edit

Hi Kernon!

It seems we are saying the same things with perhaps a different emphasis on some issues? Or maybe my flip comment about it being natural messed things up. LOL! Let me clarify!

(Oh stop groaning! :)

I don't conclude that Objectivism is unnatural, yet it is work, even hard at times, nor do I think we are born to it (i.e.., naturally occurring) .. as you said above as well.

Philosophy in general and Objectivism in particular is something Man created in order to deal effectively with reality. It is a tool devised by thinkers. It is work and it is also work swimming against the tide of the current culture. While it may not be a historical necessity, it is nonetheless, a fact of our current culture as far as my eye can see. :)

I'm personally not comfortable with expressions like 'it didn't have to be that way'. Simplistic as I am, the fact that things are that way today implies that it had to be that way AND for some reason. We have evidence that it did have to be that way because it is that way. See? Or am I missing some other philosophical definition here again? LOL! I have a feeling I am. I suspect that in the grander scheme, anything is possible to us and I do agree with that.

So basically the gist of it is that not ALL values are metaphysically difficult to obtain .. I agree. Obviously people have gotten along, quite happily in many cases without Objectivism though they probably followed some philosophy or mix to attain and keep their values with varying degrees of success.

SOME may be difficult to gain and keep in today's culture ... I agree.

A proper philosophy does make it easier to obtain and keep values. I agree.

Developing a proper philosophy has been the work of man for centuries, and I doubt it was easy. Applying Objectivism and living it isn't always
easy either, even with all the information that has been made available. Many reject it even after learning of it, others are misguided and think
they are living objectively in accordance with reality when in fact they aren't. So, Objectivism at least does not come naturally to people, people must work at it, think about it, etc. -- they must be conscious.

And here is where my flip comment came in ...

I said something about if it were natural, everyone would be doing it. By natural in this case, I meant, if it were so easy (and yes, we've
determined that different values have different levels of difficulty), so 'natural', more people would be happily pursuing and attaining their
values and we wouldn't have to be working so hard to get the word out. LOL!

I was specifically thinking of all the people who do evade reality to varying degrees, blaming their lack of success or happiness on 'fate' or God's will or whatever. If working towards our values and maintaining them was so easy (so natural, that we were more inclined to do it) more people would be happy when I think it's clear that many people are not all that happy. But it does take effort, and depending on which values we seek to attain and maintain, that level of difficulty moves across a spectrum from less difficult to most difficult. For some people I know, just being conscious is extremely difficult. LOL!

So, I still think it is hard for many reasons to attain and maintain values. *grin* But I may just be a slow learner! :)

Joy :)

Post 10

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 6:40pm

Link

Edit

Joy,

Regarding:

I'm personally not comfortable with expressions like 'it didn't have to be that way'. Simplistic as I am, the fact that things are that way today implies that it had to be that way AND for some reason.

So, you support determinism?

Post 11

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 7:03pm

Link

Edit

LOL! Okay, I'm going to take a long hot bath.

How did my statement get twisted to something like 'determinism'?

I'll try to be even more clear. Oh boy!

I'm of the opinion that the past can't be changed and that our history is what it is because events, circumstances, actions, beliefs, etc., paved the road for the history that we have. It happened.

It can't be undone as far as I know.

In the perfect future, things can surely be different. I'm assuming that's part of the reason some of us are here on SOLO/HQ. To build that perfect future.

We can learn from our past mistakes, we can work to correct them. But we can't change the past. We got to this point because X, Y, and Z happened. I have no control over those events. So, if that is the definition of determinism, call me one if you like.

To say that things COULD have been different seems a rather useless exercise as we are living the consequences of whatever past we have. Can we change the future? Of course!

I'm not sure what you are on about with all this.

Joy

Post 12

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 7:10pm

Link

Edit

I'm not sure how you think Joy implied determinism in the epistemic sense (which is the sense that most Objectivists seem to imply by default). She was expressing determinism in the metaphysical sense, which is not the same thing at all.

Post 13

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 7:46pm

Link

Edit

Joy,

When someone says "things could have been different" it is always, AFAIK, taken to mean that, at the time, people might have chosen differently, resulting in different outcomes. Now, eliminating the possibility that anyone was seriously suggesting that the past could be changed, the only other explanation for denying this type of statement is to embrace casual determinism.

Anyway, if you want to drop this line of discussion, that's fine with me. (I'm rather tied up with other things right now.)

Post 14

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 7:48pm

Link

Edit

Francois,

This could turn into a long discussion, but, for right now (due to limited time), I am just wondering what you might be implying. Are you saying that Objectivism embraces metaphysical determinism? Based on Branden's writing (for one), I have always understand Rand (et al.) to reject casual determinism.

Post 15

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 9:22pm

Link

Edit

"Are you saying that Objectivism embraces metaphysical determinism?"

For the most part, yes. Whenever MD is true for the entire universe is another question. But I would say it is approximately true.

"Based on Branden's writing (for one), I have always understand Rand (et al.) to reject casual determinism."

Well, since I'm not a Randist, I'm not sure why you're telling me that. As far as I can see, Rand was always talking about epistemic determinism (the idea that we have no free will). This is not the same thing as the idea that everything has a cause.

Post 16

Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 11:51pm

Link

Edit

I think there is a fine balance between determinism and accepting that certain choices you make bring with them certain results.

I would say that in many instances of past mistakes I COULD have chosen differently, had I been clearer about what was at stake etc. But by choosing one path I brought about a certain outcome. And at least from that past choice I have to accept what comes to me as a result.

Now if we learn from the outcome of our actions, be they good or bad, we (objectively inclined ppl) will probably make our future choices accordingly. So in a way, if we made a mistake, it "had to be so" for ourself, for our own learning curve. It was obviously a lesson I had to yet learn for myself.

I believe that life is a constant process of learning and of perfecting ones self. Certain things are not naturally given to us such as making the right choices automatically. So on that path to our own perfection we will have to learn certain lessons and in that sense "it had to be so".

For me this has nothing to do with some sort of spirit above or attaining Nirvana or any of that. But rather it's our own path, our own work to be done towards becoming ever better at dealing with life and reality.

Trinity

Post 17

Friday, November 15, 2002 - 12:10pm

Link

Edit

I don't see values as "difficult", though Glenn explained that he means that they require effort. I see values as wonderful and fun to work towards because they don't fall from heaven and give me unearned happiness; and often achieving them in this society is difficult, but it doesn't have to be like that.

If we say that values are hard and human nature makes it unnatural to work towards them, that to me supports a malevalet universe idea: that we are not meant to want to achieve values. We believe that values are great, that they add to everyone's lives. It is very hard for me NOT to work towards my values. People who don't work for values are that way because they haven't been taught correctly how to, or why to. But they would in a different society/upbringing. It is in our "nature" to support values as they bring us happiness.

There is a big difference in saying that the way things are, are so because there was no other possiblitly versus that things are as they are today because of past choices and their consequences. The first I do see as determinism, the second just causality leading to what we have today. And how you look at the past and how we got here determines what you might do for the future.

I think that if we look at people, they genuinely want to do good (with some exceptions). They may have been taught wrong, or not thought things through all the way, and so we have a very imperfect society. But we are not born with our minds and the world against us and therefore it's wrong to say that there was no other option but to end up in this society and no other. We could be better off, we could be worse off.

Francois, would you mind explaining epistemic determinism vs metaphysical determinism to me? Just not something I've come across yet... Thanks. Also, where did Rand ever say that we have no free will? Quote:"As far as I can see, Rand was always talking about epistemic determinism (the idea that we have no free will). " Thanks again!

-Elizabeth

Post 18

Friday, November 15, 2002 - 12:43pm

Link

Edit

Elizabeth, I don't remember Rand ever writing that individuals do not have free will, but she has flamed people who hold that premise on numerous occasions and proving that determinism is an irrational idea when applied to human beings.

Computers are deterministic: good input generally yields good output and bad input yields bad output. Human beings can, however, take good input and yield bad output if their premises are mistaken (or evil).

As for values: I tend to appreciate a value more if I had to work my fingers to the bone to get it. As an example: I bought a Sharp Zaurus SL-5500 PDA so that I could take work and music and other data with me (like shopping lists) and have it all in one convenient device. The device cost me $400 at Amazon.com. Since I had to save my money in order to afford my Zaurus, I value it highly as $400 is not a trivial sum to me. If, however, I could afford to drop $400 on a whim then I might not appreciate the value purchased as highly.

As another example: would you value your knowledge if it wasn't hard-won? I don't think so, but I'm abstracting from my own experience.

Post 19

Friday, November 15, 2002 - 12:46pm

Link

Edit

When I said "that to me supports a malevalet universe idea:" I of course meant malevolent. Where's the damned spell checker and any proofreading on my part??

-Elizabeth