Latest online commentary

Ted,

So, you would say that you actually felt, not just imagined, joy (even if not so intense) in anticipation or remembrance of some occasion?

I'd say yes.

Have you ever seen and not just imagined red in anticipation of eating an apple?

Aheh. If I were to answer that question as accurately as possible, I'd have to go into some detail about some experimentation I did some years ago involving self-hypnosis and an eventual conscious choice to live in the real world... but for the sake of discussion, let's assume I'm not /quite/ as weird as I really am. :)

Now can you identify the difference between pleasure and joy?

I can /identify/ it; I'm just having some trouble /describing/ it. <le sigh>

No, I have not read Spider Robinson.

A pity; he's written up some ideas that are well worth considering (as well as, I'm sure, some other ideas that you would feel aren't). One of his more famous quotes is "Shared pain is lessened; shared joy, increased—thus do we refute entropy."

Have you watched The Flower of My Secret?

I'm completely unfamiliar with that work.

Ed,

Thanks for taking the time to answer. A really funny situation is occurring here -- you're sure I'm confused and you pity me and those who think like me; and I, them and you (the same thing, juxtaposed).

Given that we both seem to at least /try/ to be rational, but have come to different conclusions on certain matters, this is an almost inevitable state of affairs.

Luckily, we are both folks who prefer talking it out. You must've thought I or others here don't however, as you were scared you'd get banned.

It's been my experience in other forums that telling the truth as best as one understands it is no defense from disagreeing with the moderators' philosophy. (One forum even broke its own stated procedures in banning me.)

You said:

... and that the list I'm presenting here suffices to inspire you to be able to think of your own brushes with happiness.

But happiness -- as Aristotle, Rand, and I understand it -- isn't something you merely "brush up" against. It's not fleeting, like an elusive "drug-high" that you have to chase after. Instead, it is robust. It is something you can plan your life around (or "for").

I didn't want to assume that Ted had necessarily experienced happiness/joy in the same way that I had; I used 'brushes with' to try to encompass whatever joy-related experiences he might have had.

You could say, because of my vast experience, that I am an animal expert.

But... are you a furry? <ahem>

Post 21

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:10pm

Daniel,

Please read the discussion thread which follows my happiness article:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1846.shtml

It would probably clear a lot of our disagreements up (even if they don't dissolve).

Ed

Post 22

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:12pm

"I know animals, and I know what it's like to be one."

Well then I suppose I didn't understand you when the subject came up before. I have no surveillance photos that contradict you.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 1/29, 4:14pm)

Post 23

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:15pm

And I'm no furry, either (I just love animals, and they love me back, in a platonic way).

Post 24

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:22pm

Ted,

I have no surveillance photos that contradict you.

What's that supposed to mean?

Speak plain English man, not this wacky communicative "signalling" (which would suffice for rote-taught animals). You are a man, Ted. A man. That's really very special. Live up to it and act like one. Talk to me with the honest intent of a plain, but enlightening, communication of ideas.

Please.

Ed

Post 25

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:34pm

Have you read any of Spider Robinson's novels, such as the Callahan's Crosstime Saloon series?
...............

Indeed - very much enjoy the Callahan series, and many other of Spider's writings - but the punnings are terribly terrific, a delight to read, especially in the earlier books...

Post 26

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 4:38pm

Ed,

After giving this thread a bit more thought, I think I've identified our point of disagreement.

The form of happiness you're describing involves the long-term fulfilment of values, which is an idea I'm at least willing to entertain. But then, you also write something along the lines that the only values that can lead to happiness are Objectivist ones, and there's where I seem to be taking issue with you. I'm a non-Objectivist (though I share many of the same values), and have experienced happiness - long before I'd ever heard of Rand. Other people have their own philosophies, and go about achieving their values and finding happiness therefrom... which, as I interpreted your article, you seemed to be ruling out. Since your article was ruling out the existence of something I know exists, that led to my conclusion of your irrationality.

Put another way, it's possible that you think of Objectivism as /the/ rational philosophy, while I think of it as /a/ rational philosophy, but not the only possible one. The former assumption would thus lead to your article's definition of happiness, while the latter would lead to my disagreement with it.

Post 27

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 7:05pm

Daniel -

I'm a non-Objectivist (though I share many of the same values), and have experienced happiness - long before I'd ever heard of Rand.

How would you describe yourself when you aren't experiencing happiness? What is the standard emotional state you experience?

Post 28

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 8:09pm

How would you describe yourself when you aren't experiencing happiness? What is the standard emotional state you experience?

I've just been doing a bit of Wikipedia-browsing on emotional topics... are you planning on making the differentiation here that many psychologists do, between long-term mood and short-term emotions?

Post 29

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 9:04pm

Ted,

I have no surveillance photos that contradict you.
What's that supposed to mean?

Speak plain English man, not this wacky communicative "signalling" (which would suffice for rote-taught animals). You are a man, Ted. A man. That's really very special. Live up to it and act like one. Talk to me with the honest intent of a plain, but enlightening, communication of ideas.

Please.

Ed

Okay, so you know what it is like to be a bat, and you claim animals love you platonically, but you are confused by my willingness to accept you at your word, since I have no evidence to the contrary?

Post 30

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 11:41pm

Thank you, Ted.

That's much better than before. It's not free of innuendo, insinuation, and insult via insolent irreverence -- but I really can't expect you to improve overnight.

Just getting a little less of these 3 things from you (i.e., getting you to speak even just a little more plainly) is already refreshing.

Ed

Post 31

Friday, January 29, 2010 - 11:52pm

Daniel,

I'm a non-Objectivist (though I share many of the same values), and have experienced happiness - long before I'd ever heard of Rand.

No one is saying that happiness only became possible after "Atlas Shrugged" (or after Rand) -- as if Rand was some mystical conduit to something formerly unobtainable. You don't have to be an Objectivist to be happy, but you have to obtain objective values (to be happy).

This is how both Rand and Aristotle could (and did) identify scenarios which would make happiness impossible.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/29, 11:53pm)

Post 32

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 6:04am

I've just been doing a bit of Wikipedia-browsing on emotional topics... are you planning on making the differentiation here that many psychologists do, between long-term mood and short-term emotions?

No. It's an effort to understand your general view of life, is all.

Post 33

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 7:01am

Ed, I think you would agree that all Objective values are rational values; what would you say to the idea that not all rational values are Objective values - that is, that Objectivism is a smaller subset of rationalism... and that, then, the values used to achieve happiness only have to be rational ones, not necessarily Objective ones? If we can agree on this, then I think my earlier objection will go away.

No. It's an effort to understand your general view of life, is all.

Fair enough. In that case, I think the best answer I can give is generally cheerful, optimistic, often amused, and hopeful - there are a few aspects of my life that aren't as good as I'd like, but I'm doing what I can to improve them; I sometimes make errors of judgement, but again, I do what I can to make things better. In short, I'm confident that the future will probably be better than the past, and I'm doing what I can to make that so.

Post 34

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 9:26am

Daniel,

*******
what would you say to the idea ... that Objectivism is a smaller subset of rationalism
*******

I'd refer to Rand about rationalism not being bigger -- but in a sense smaller (by capturing less of reality) -- than Objectivism.:

*******
[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.
*******
From:
aynrandlexicon.com

*******
... and that, then, the values used to achieve happiness only have to be rational ones, not necessarily Objective ones?
*******

Daniel, you're using a capitalized word that is new to me, "Objective." There is a similar word, Objectivism, which stands for a proper noun (and is, therefore, capitalized). But you'd have to used "rationalism" (to which Rand alludes above) in order to go from Objectivism to Objective.

You'd have to deal in floating abstractions. I don't do that, though (and you shouldn't either).

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/30, 9:44am)

Post 35

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 9:41am

Daniel,

So that we're on the same page, here's more on objective values:

************
The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man.
************

The key phrase being "the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man." That's what Rand called the objective theory of values -- to be distinguished from the intrinsic and the subjective theories which were already popular at the time. It means that there are things men need -- things men naturally need -- which allows us to at least roughly outline universal moral prescriptions.

Ed

Post 36

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 9:46am

I get the impression I may have hurt your feelings, Ed. (Or maybe making vague complaints of "innuendo" (who, exactly, was it who brought up the fact that you don't have sex with your dogs? ) is "what it is like to be a bat"?) If you have something relevant to say to this topic, please do so. It was Daniel who expected me to speak for you, and I who said I couldn't, and you who have made a running issue of . . . nothing. It's almost like you are jealous of my Socratic interaction here with Daniel, almost like you see me as competition. If you just want to pick a fight, why not create a Ted versus Ed thread and go play with yourself there?

Post 37

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 9:50am

Daniel, you are familiar with the Objectivist distinction between sensations, perceptions and concepts. Can you explain the difference between pleasure and joy using that framework?

Post 38

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 12:46pm

Ed,

I think we're referring to two different things - I didn't mean Rationalism as a particular philosophy, just, well, being rational, using one's mind rationally.

As for my use of Objective, it was meant as a short-form for the adjective Objectivist, in parallel to all the other adjectives constructed to end with 'ive'.

Daniel, you are familiar with the Objectivist distinction between sensations, perceptions and concepts. Can you explain the difference between pleasure and joy using that framework?

Er...

...

... no?

Post 39

Saturday, January 30, 2010 - 2:42pm