About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 1:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I'm trying to figure out what "choose to live" means. I know some people choose to die (suicide), but there are drives within us - like hunger, for instance prompting us to seek nourishment - that have nothing to do with choice, but prompt us toward continuing our lives.

The capacity to make choices is automatic, just like integrating concepts is. The quality of the choices and concepts, however, is what is chosen. There are times when you decide between reason or some feeling as being the most important manner to understand some aspect of reality. As this is a value choice of method, this choice is a moral one.

A child's moral choice then is the same as an adult's - to think or not to think (rationally), but on a vastly reduced scale. Under the proper guidance, a child who chooses whim early on can be corrected. The reasons such a choice may be made at an early age are many, but that is a discussion for psychology.

Michael


Post 81

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

David Kelley has a terrific lecture entitled "Choosing Life" available from TOC. It is one of David's best lectures.

Jim


Post 82

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 8:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael,

-----------
I'm trying to figure out what "choose to live" means.
-----------
As the saying goes: Once you've "chosen" to live, the morality of rational self-interest follows (but only "once" you chosen to live). Another way of saying this is that: While choosing life automatically entails Objectivist ethics -- Objectivist ethics is silent on the initial choice of life, over death.


-----------
... there are drives within us - like hunger, for instance prompting us to seek nourishment - that have nothing to do with choice, but prompt us toward continuing our lives.
-----------
And I'd argue that those drives, if acted upon, entail a choice of life, over death (which automatically entails Objectivist ethics for all living, breathing beings)


-----------
The capacity to make choices is automatic, just like integrating concepts is.
-----------
Michael, gotcha' there -- though, on a mere technicality. Integration of concepts is volitional, not automatic. Otherwise, democrats would instantly realize that the main difference between democrats and republicans is that there is no "i" in d.e.m.o.c.r.a.t. ...

-------------
Somehow liberals have been unable to acquire from life what conservatives seem to be endowed with at birth: namely, a healthy skepticism of the powers of government agencies to do good. -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1969)
-------------


Michael, you said:
-------------
There are times when you decide between reason or some feeling as being the most important manner to understand some aspect of reality. As this is a value choice of method, this choice is a moral one.

A child's moral choice then is the same as an adult's - to think or not to think (rationally), but on a vastly reduced scale.
-------------
This appears to be an agreement with me then (the choice to live is not pre-moral). Please respond if this is inaccurate.

Ed



Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 83

Friday, July 1, 2005 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
James,

Thanks. My sound is blown on my computer, but just as soon as it is fixed, I will listen to it. I want and need to become more familiar with Kelley's works anyway.

Ed,

Well, hell. Let's get down then. (I HATE the "I said/you said" method, so I will address the points of this discussion as in a normal post, not chop chop chop mental laziness mode - oops, I forgot, you like to do reps  //;-).

I would state that the "choice" to live in a healthy living organism is pre-programmed at birth. It is inherent.

I presume, when you mention "choice," you include the possibility of actually making one from among alternatives. Is that correct? If so, then I cannot imagine a baby committing suicide by choice. I cannot imagine a healthy baby ignoring hunger or pain and not crying because he "chose" death over life. (I am not talking about sick kids, only healthy ones.)

As a human organism matures, that automatic "choice to live" (which I prefer to call "automatic drive to live" or something like that) can become corrupted by faulty use of the emerging faculties of volition and concept formation - which I believe develop somewhat like the testicles descending in a male child, except much earlier and more gradually. Stating that a baby has a choice between life and death to me is like stating that a male baby can get an erection to have sex and ejaculate. Too much too early. The inherent undeveloped capacity is there, but growth is needed.

But am I understanding you correctly in that you are postulating that a baby can choose to die by thwarting his innate survival mechanisms other than reason (like breathing)? He can hold his breath until he suffocates because there is a cold cruel world out there and he doesn't want to live anymore? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

I will admit that there comes a moment when volition in the primary human survival faculty (the mind - principally reason) starts to kick in - and that is when the choice to direct the integration of concepts (including integrating higher ones) is made over letting some basic concept integration occur by chance and whim.

Despite Ayn Rand constantly saying that integrating concepts is volitional, which it predominantly is, even she was aware of the automatic nature of the faculty. From For The New Intellectual, p. 16:
But a human being cannot live his life moment by moment; a human consciousness preserves a certain continuity and demands a certain degree of integration, whether a man seeks it or not.
Also from For The New Intellectual, p. 19:
Since no man can fully escape the conceptual level of consciousness...
She is basically acknowledging that the conceptual capacity is inherent to man and that some level of activity will be done whether a man likes it or not. That to me spells "automatic" as opposed to "chosen."

(On your politician example, puhleeze! We are discussing animals with a conceptual faculty.)

So maybe I should have stressed that the capacity to integrate concepts was inherent (i.e. automatic), not merely integrating them - despite that being true for some aleatory ones. Part of the nature of living organisms is that an inherent capacity will always come with some degree of automatic activity. Otherwise it will not be able to develop.

As I said, the choice to think conceptually (differentiating by using the senses and integrating logically - stressing that both are needed) or by whim or feeling (which basically means "differentiating" in any old way without sensory evidence, then engaging in some half-assed integrating) is a moral choice. The morality (sometimes I HATE that word!) for a child is developed, not intrinsic, to the extent his volitional capacity grows and descends... er... develops.

So as regards your question, to the extent that "to live" is a choice and not an automatic drive, yes it is not pre-moral (whatever the hell that is). But the capacity to choose is developed through maturation, it is not intrinsic at birth.

Automatic processes of living organisms have no "morality," which needs reason, although they do have basic good (survival enhancing) and bad (death causing). I cannot imagine a moral or immoral heartbeat or bowel movement.

That is why I cannot imagine a baby morally or immorally crying for his bottle. He does that because he's hungry, that's all. And that is automatic.

Michael

Post 84

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Y'all have to remember - we are overlays, with preconceptualness of life forms, on top of which is developed the conceptual faculty... therefore, the initial issue of 'choosing life' is a non-issue, as all life forms without conceptual actualizing have an inherantness to live, regardless... even the initial stages of a newborn - for tho that newborn possesses the capacity to conceptualize, it still has to consciously utilize it to make that 'live or not live' choice, which means needing to understand the issue, something which in the beginning it cannot [for lack of sufficient referent points] and thus does not...

Post 85

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 4:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, well typed.

It seems that we are not far off from each other on this. Though it has been my experience that objectivists primarily adopt the pre-moral thing (and I think this happened to be so because of professional, skeptical challenges to o-ist ethics). You and I seem to have a more fresh (call it naive) perspective on the matter.

What I'm trying to say is that I think we, and by "we" I mean you and I (and the transient TRick-ster) -- are in the minority here. I do not like the idea of a minority of 3 (they historically fail to thrive here). Call me superstitious, but would anyone like to join this motley crew of 3 (to make it 4) -- who regard the unprecedented potentiality of unique, rational individuals to inherently hold a kind of fundamental value (fundamentally TO THEM)? Let me sweeten the deal:

Main Assumption: Everyone wants to be happy (the contradiction to this proposition is absurd) ...

-if survivalism is deficient (contra Kelley) as an explanatory theory for the rational validation/justification of ethics -- ie. it fails to answer some criticisms

-but a more Aristotelian view, ie. thrivalism (survival + happiness) were not deficient in this manner -- as Eric Mack has argued
-----------------
Then, wouldn't it be correct to adopt the more Aristotelian view of this matter (as it better validates o-ist ethics)?

With the above, I'm merely speaking for my personal view. The implication is that there is a default mode of choosing happiness over non-happiness which locks rational agents into initially choosing life. Feedback is welcome.

Ed

Post 86

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed-ucator,-
Now, how about a response to that profound insight embedded in my post 72 above, huh?!
C'mon, man -- stay with the program
"We have restricted our subject matter to that which is human?" That's it? You want street cred for ruling out chipmonks from this debate do you?
Main Assumption: Everyone wants to be happy (the contradiction to this proposition is absurd)
No it isn't. I'd go statist if reason led me to. I'd cut my own head off if reason told me to.
The implication is that there is a default mode of choosing happiness over non-happiness which locks rational agents into initially choosing life
I can't see that.
But I think we all have the life vs death choice and rather than it comming down to whim it must come down to reason. Reason can pull itself up by its own bootstraps. If it's reason vs whim you've got to wonder why there are only the few of us.

I think Joel and MikeE are on the side of reason in this too.


 
 




Post 87

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick, you are a wiley character.

Now, I KNOW that I learn from you -- your intelligence is formidable -- but gosh-darnit, do you ever make otherwise simple debate rivalrous! You know Rick, Sarah was not too far off with that Cheshire remark -- it takes teflon-coated skin to continually engage you. Now, I predict you responding to this -- in a playfully sinister way -- that it is your "style" to be so coy and that there can be no argument over matters of taste (though you'd type this in latin -- without a translation).

Here we round again ...

---------------
"We have restricted our subject matter to that which is human?" That's it? You want street cred for ruling out chipmonks from this debate do you?
---------------
It is not words [or plants or animals], but people, that mean. See Bissell's personal communication with Rasmussen for further support of this
identifiable aspect of reality.



---------------
No it isn't. I'd go statist if reason led me to. I'd cut my own head off if reason told me to.
---------------
Are you a Kantian (you're definitely talking like one)?


---------------
Reason can pull itself up by its own bootstraps.
---------------
See above. This line of thought smacks of value-free reasoning. We don't reason in a vacuum. Search inside yourself, young paddawan. Master Aristotle and Master Rand did not die in vain -- though your words give that notion. Use the life force. Suggestion: start with Eric Mack.

Ed


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 88

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed to Rick: "Are you a Kantian (you're definitely talking like one)?"

num++ to Ed: He is. (at least on this subject)

From this post:
Quoting me:
So... What kind of reply would you expect to be "true to the question" and what is your own answer to the meaning of life?
His reply:

I'd accept a kind of reply which posits that sustaining and generating one's own activity is natural for man. My own answer is Kantian imperative.


Post 89

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed to num++: Thanks.

Ed to Rick: How far does this rabbit hole go down, Rick?

Ed to Ed: What the hell? Rick seemed like such a nice guy. I mean, sure, he could get on folks nerves -- but the man "seemed" to have a pretty respectable sense of life; under all that Rick-roarin' rigamarole. To think that he could be from the dark side ... wow. To think that he could be an intellectual enemy of mine ... [shudder]. Gosh, I sure hope Rick comes clean about all of this. I thought he was turning out to be a great friendly-acquaintance -- hell, maybe even a real friend. What, what's that? Oh! Geez, I'm rambling on to myself! Better go ...

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 90

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Ed,-

Ed to Ed: What the hell? Rick seemed like such a nice guy. I mean, sure, he could get on folks nerves -- but the man "seemed" to have a pretty respectable sense of life; under all that Rick-roarin' rigamarole. To think that he could be from the dark side ... wow. To think that he could be an intellectual enemy of mine ... [shudder]. Gosh, I sure hope Rick comes clean about all of this.
 
Alright, it's true! Why should I deny it any longer? I had an affair with Immanual Kant. But Ed, it was years ago- back in my first year at uni. I was just experimenting, it's not how I really am. And lots of other guys and girls in the class were doing the same. Everybody knew. It was just a few pages from a couple of treatises at most. Honestly, I was going to tell you myself when the time was right but then Mr C opened his big mouth. You weren't supposed to find out this way.

Kant and I aren't seeing each other anymore, Perigo's radio show came between us. But in the brief time back then I learned a few tricks and techniques that are still with me and I think they make me a better person.

I tried to prepare for this moment earlier by saying that the question is what matters, not me. Even if I'm wildly corrupted and lost, the question will remain. We'll always have that.




Post 91

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[camera slowly zooms on Ed's face, audience on the edge of their seats waiting for a reply, music swells]

Like sands through the hourglass...

Post 92

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 8:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Actually I do not type as fast as I would like and I do not use all 10 fingers (I use about 7 - the MSK Sui Generis method). I did a stupid thing and did not learn properly - then I tried and unlearning was a too big a hasstle. Still I have about 35,000 pages of translations under my belt (literally) and all 10 fingers are still attached, so I must be doing something right - in a half-assed way.

I have never read anything by Eric Mack, but if he considers thriving as the best form of surviving, I know I will like him. If you add thriving with growth, you will get a rather varied idea of what happiness means at different stages of development.

Happiness without thriving, merely surviving, is possible, but with thriving it is most intense, which is why it should be sought - and this is an optimal basis for chosen value-orientation, i.e. ethics.

I see the drive for living being governed at all stages of human development by the following 4 factors:

1. The given biological potential of the individual at birth, even before.
2. Environment
3. Development over time
4. Choice

The given biological potential matures to a peak and declines. The environment just is. Development over time can revert weak potentials or accidents can happen to cause further limitations. Choice starts out as a mere potential, matures to a peak, then seems to deepen or acquire more solidity in wise people and decline in others (who become creatures of habit).

The given biological potential will determine survival and thriving to the extent that it is healthy or deficient according to the individual's particular species.

A hostile or nurturing environment obviously will impact strongly on survival and thriving.

A healthy development or weak one, including accidents, will make all the difference in the world to survival and thriving.

Choice seems to be the capacity that makes a different impact, where an individual can maintain happiness under unfavorable circumstances and during the decadence of old age. The ability to choose between alternatives is probably present to some extent in a very young baby (for example, saying goo instead of gaah - in a discourse much more eloquent than our distinguished politicians), but actively choosing pleasure instead of merely alleviating discomfort like hunger develops over time.

Michael

Post 93

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 10:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

I, too, confess to having an affair with Kant (short-lived as it was). So it seems that we have both have -- at a point in time -- been unfaithful infidels. This, however, does not let you off the hook (you appear to still have feelings for the guy -- which I find unconscionable). Rick, what I mean by the following is to be taken in the most heterosexual way feasible:

--------------
Honestly, I was going to tell you myself when the time was right but then Mr C opened his big mouth. You weren't supposed to find out this way.
--------------
But Rick, what about my feelings?! My feelings are hurt. You've misled me. You made me feel so comfortable -- only to throw me to the lions with a Kantian impartiality. I trusted you. You entered as a knight, on a valiant white horse. And now, now I fear that I was only an object set up only for your self-absorbed conquest. A rape of nature. A rape of man. What, pray-tell, can I come away from this with -- except desolation and despair? Oh, feeble despair -- such is my circumstantial fate [whimpering].


---------------
Kant and I aren't seeing each other anymore ...
---------------
I don't care, damnit! The damage has been done. You've broken my trust. How am I to trust you after this selective omission on your part, hmm? You ... you ... you used me [sobbing].


---------------
I tried to prepare for this moment earlier by saying that the question is what matters, not me. Even if I'm wildly corrupted and lost, the question will remain. We'll always have that.
---------------
We have nothing! You've violated my sanctity. How am I to recover from this? How am I to trust you again? My world has been turned upside down [looking down in discouragement] ...

Ed


Post 94

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 10:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

Such is a day in my life ...

;-)

Good one, Sarah!
Ed


Post 95

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 10:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I enjoyed your response, with the following exception (perhaps another technicality?(:

----------------
Happiness without thriving, merely surviving, is possible ...
----------------
Here is where I would marshal Aristotle to argue that thriving is a necessary component -- if not a sufficient one -- for happiness.

Ed

Post 96

Saturday, July 2, 2005 - 10:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Definition, please - thriving. I was specifically thinking about dilapidated old age or being an infirm - something of that nature where the organism is not longer thriving, is in decline or is damaged. Even under those circumstances, I find happiness to be possible - through choice of course.

(If you and Sarah ever want to film something someday... hmmmmmm...)

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/02, 10:53pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 97

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, I think Mack and the Aristotellites (sounds like a good 50s band) favor the word flourishing. I used "thrive" so that I could make my quip distinction from "survive." I actually think our apparent differences are mere artifacts from technicalities ...

Keeping the theme I had originally initiated -- the highest form of growth for nonhumans is physical, the highest form of growth for humans is pycho-spiritual -- there seems to be no problem.

Bodies can get older, but minds can stay young. Humans that are still discovering, have minds that are still learning and, therefore, spirits that are still growing -- no matter WHAT their chronological age.

Take Yoda for example -- an 800 year old ugly midget with a limp; but he uses his mind more than ever (ie. he is more alive than ever). The life of a rational being is centered around, and dependent upon, mind-use.

I think we're very closely in agreement on this, already -- how 'bout you?


-------------------
If you and Sarah ever want to film something someday... hmmmmmm...
-------------------
Actually, to burst your balloon, I'd like to film a science documentary with Sarah -- starting with the driest material, and livening it up with witty, original, and profound dialogue. Carl Sagan eat your heart out. Ah, but this is not what you had in mind, is it, Michael?

No, perhaps you had in mind an Objectivist soap opera (as if we need that NOW). One where hurtful schisms form, thoughtful couples adore each other in public, and renegades running rampant writing reactionary rhetoric reifying Rand and relegating really rational reasoners toward writing rebuttals, reprisals, and rejoinders (a SO[LO]ap opera indeed).

Ed

Post 98

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

LOLOLOLOLOL...

I think we basically agree, but I'm laughing too hard to answer you...

Michael


Post 99

Sunday, July 3, 2005 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick,

" No it isn't. I'd go statist if reason led me to. I'd cut my own head off if reason told me to."

I think we should have some sort of fail safe in place before this happens. Could we call them "principles"? Such as; "Don't make life and death decisions while drunk."

"I think Joel and MikeE are on the side of reason in this too."

Thanks! A welcome compliment.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.