the fundamental misconception of the philosophical objective

The most generalized definition I have ever encountered of philosophy is as follows: the intellectual endeavor of man to determine a meaning and purpose for life [and, by extension, develop a lifestyle in accordance with the meaning that has been determined].

I think that, in accordance with the life-affirming ideal of objectivism, this is a fundamentally backwards stance. Existence is held as a natural right under the American constitution. Yet, it is a right that people feel the need to question, to justify, to define. It is my contention that the highest virtue of man is the simple fact and nature of our existence. It is not the effect towards which man must assign cause; rather, it is the cause which man must honor with cause. Existence; in its innate characteristic of life, love, beauty, is its own reason for being. It is complete of itself, its own ends.

I feel like we are betraying the fact of our being by questioning it. Rather, we should accept existence as our own highest virtue, and honor it by fulfilling the highest capacity we have for self-actualization, and the achieving of the noblest goals and highest virtues of our own private lives.

Thus, paradoxically, my philosophy is that the over-pursuit of philosophy is the betrayal of self; one should accept as a philosophical precept that the act of philosophical pursuit is the betrayal of its inherent value, and instead direct intellectual endeavors to the realization, and not the questioning, of being.

Thoughts?

Post 1

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 3:50pm

Are you looking for criticism? :)

1. I don't think questioning something is ever a bad thing in any sort of insulting kind of way. Questioning something too much can only be bad in that it wastes your or others time.

2. A person must answer the question "What should I value?" in order to logically come to conclusions on what actions they should perform. Most people are born with an emotional desire to live. But I don't think most people have thought through some of the infinite number of things they could value and determined and set their own lives as their primary value. Ask a person "What is the meaning of life?" or more directly "What do you value the most that drives your actions in life?" and I bet you will get some on the spot poorly thought through answers. Such a person has not yet thought to themselves "What should I value"-- or at least has yet to come to their own conclusion.

3. All value systems have some root value(s). One of the primary defining features of a philosophy is what its root value(s) are. Many philosophies put others or non-existants as a higher value than your highest value. So... philosophies primarily answer the question "What should I value?", no matter whether you find it abhorrent to ask the question.

4. Something existing does not imply that it should exist. A phrase with "should" in it requires a primary goal to be accomplished in order to deduce whether the phrase is true. Sorry, but all attempts to deduce that "ones own life" or "god" or anything else "should" be one's primary goal are circular.

"If you want to live then..."

Cheers,
Dean

Post 2

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 6:10pm

Kevin:

It is my contention that the highest virtue of man is the simple fact and nature of our existence. It is not the effect towards which man must assign cause; rather, it is the cause which man must honor with cause.

I think that you have enunciated a very, very important idea. It is, perhaps, the state that one finally comes to after a lifetime of pursuing that understanding.

This is very Zen-like.

Thank you, deeply.

Existence; in its innate characteristic of life, love, beauty, is its own reason for being. It is complete of itself, its own ends.

Beautiful. Where have you been hiding?

Sam

p.s. I would prefer that "which man must honor with cause" just be "which man must honor. "

Post 3

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 - 6:38pm

(I've never heard of the Constitution guaranteeing a right to exist. The Declaration of Independence mentions a right to life, but the Constitution, so far as I know, doesn't come even that close.)

A virtue is a deliberately-acquired character trait. Existence isn't a character trait and so can't qualify as a virtue. Rand would agree that life is the hightest value, but that's a different claim.

I don't see why thinking about this (or any other subject) betrays it. You might reach conclusions that betray your highest value, but simply contemplating it and reaching conclusions about that value isn't enough. You can over-intellectualize about any topic. Once again, simlpy intellectualizing isn't sufficient. How much you ought to do depends on a lot of circumstances. If philosophy is your occupation or an interest of yours, the right amount will be more than if it's neither.

I'd agree (and I think Rand would) that we all ought to be able to take time simply to enjoy being alive and not to question it. This is what we do when we enjoy some pleasure as an end in itself. Peikoff once said that when you're out under the stars with someone you love that probably isn't the time to start talking astronomy.

Post 4

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 9:29pm