SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Post 0

Thursday, November 3 - 9:58pm

Link

Edit

I know this topic has been discussed before, but I couldn't find the (long elapsed thread), so I'm raising the issue anew. What I will do is cite some passages from Galt's speech in which Rand discusses the issue of life and happiness in order to see if it can shed some light on this issue. On Page 1014 of Atlas, Galt states:

"Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man - for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life."

What is Rand saying here? If existence on earth is your goal - in other words, if you want to preserve, fulfill and enjoy your life - then you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man - which means by the standard of that which enables you to achieve that goal.

She continues, "Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death. Such a being is a metaphysical monstrosity, struggling to oppose, negate and contradict the fact of his own existence, running blindly amuck on a trail of destruction, capable of nothing but pain."

In other words, there are certain objective requirements for achieving an enjoyable and fulfilling life, and it is that kind of life that must be held firmly as one's goal, if one is to avoid a painful and self-destructive result.

"Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of one's values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness - to value the failure of your values - is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an idea, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man - every man - is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose."

How do you get happiness? Through a successful state of life - in other words, by thriving. She also says that pain is an agent of death, which is another way of saying that that which is harmful to one's life is painful as well (because pain is how one experiences that which is harmful to one's life). To say, as Rand does, that happiness is man's highest moral purpose is equivalent to saying that a successful state of life is one's highest moral purpose.

"But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live."

What Rand is saying here is that just as you must live in accordance with your nature if you are to live successfully, so you must seek happiness in accordance with your nature if you are to succeed in being happy - that just as there are certain objective requirements for a successful state of life, so there are certain objective requirements for success in achieving happiness.

In short, according to Rand, there is no conflict between survival and flourishing - between furthering your life and maximizing your happiness. These are two sides of the same coin. Now, of course, if you reach a state in which a successful state of life is no longer possible, as for example, when you are dying painfully of cancer, then suicide is perfectly proper, because neither a successful state of life nor genuine happiness is possible any longer. By committing suicide in such cases, you are simply aborting a painful process of death, which is perfectly consistent with holding "the life proper to man" as your highest value.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/03, 10:02pm)

Post 1

Thursday, November 3 - 11:29pm

Link

Edit

Agreed, Bill.

I'd say you pretty well took care of that superficial 'dichotomy.'

LLAP
J:D

Post 2

Friday, November 4 - 11:28pm

Link

Edit

Actually, Ayn Rand took care of it herself, in "The Virtue of Selfishness:" "Standard," in "life as a standard," is a measurement, and happiness is your evolved measuring instrument that measures how well you are achieving that standard. The argument at the head of this thread makes the same point in a less "mathematical" way.

Post 3

Saturday, November 5 - 5:38pm

Link

Edit

I'd like to see a clear definition of "survival", as Objectivists use the term. If it doesn't mean "maximizing your lifespan", then what does it mean? Does it mean "maximizing your total happiness during your life"? (I don't see why the latter would be called "survival", and I think there could be problems in using "maximize your happiness" as a basis for an objective morality.)

If "survival" means neither of those things, then what does it mean?

Did Ayn Rand ever explicitly define "survival" in her writing?

Post 4

Saturday, November 5 - 6:17pm

Link

Edit

Adam Reed wrote, "Actually, Ayn Rand took care of it herself [eliminating any dichotomy between survival and flourishing], in "The Virtue of Selfishness:" "Standard," in "life as a standard," is a measurement, and happiness is your evolved measuring instrument that measures how well you are achieving that standard. The argument at the head of this thread makes the same point in a less "mathematical" way."

That's not how I understand it. To say that life (or man's life as man) is a standard of value is not to say that it is a measurement, but rather that it is a means of measurement - a means for determining how best to achieve your ultimate goal, which is your own happiness. The measurement itself is the application of the standard. For example, a yardstick as a standard of length is not the measurement of length itself but the means by which length is measured. Similarly, life as a standard of moral evaluation is not the evaluation itself but a means of moral evaluation. The life proper to man is a guide for determining how best to achieve your highest moral purpose, which is your own happiness. In order to live successfully and achieve happiness, you must live the life that is appropriate to your nature as a human being. If you are living well and are thriving, then happiness will be the result. If you are living poorly and self-destructively, then pain and unhappiness will be the result.

However, an experience of happiness at any given moment will not tell you that you are living well or appropriately, since even though your action may provide a momentary experience of happiness, the action could be self-defeating in the long run. Only a conceptual grasp of the principles of proper living can enable you to know that you are on the right track, and the standard for those principles is a healthy, thriving existence - a successful state of life.

- Bill

Post 5

Sunday, November 6 - 12:11am

Link

Edit

Daniel O'Connor wrote, "I'd like to see a clear definition of 'survival', as Objectivists use the term. If it doesn't mean 'maximizing your lifespan', then what does it mean? Does it mean 'maximizing your total happiness during your life'? (I don't see why the latter would be called 'survival', and I think there could be problems in using 'maximize your happiness' as a basis for an objective morality.)

"If 'survival' means neither of those things, then what does it mean?

"Did Ayn Rand ever explicitly define 'survival' in her writing?"

By "survival," Rand means a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action, which, according to the Glossary of Objectivist Definitions, is her definition of life. Such a process is attended by an experience of happiness, which indicates that the organism is in a vital, thriving state of health and wellbeing, just as a process of self-destructive action is attended by an experience of pain or suffering. It is a simple fact of biology that actions that are harmful to a sentient organism's life are experienced by the organism as painful; those that are beneficial to its life are experienced as pleasurable. In this respect, there is no contradiction between actions that are pro-survival and those that are pro-happiness. That does not mean that if you are afflicted with cancer, and are in the process of dying rather than surviving, you should prolong that moribund process. If survival is self-sustaining action, then an organism that is dying of an incurable disease is no longer sustaining itself; on the contrary, it is being destroyed by the disease. To hasten the outcome of a terminal illness is not a betrayal of life; it is a tribute to the value of life. When Rand advocates life as the standard, she is not advocating the maximization of the moral agent's lifespan as such, but the maximization of a healthy, thriving and vital lifespan.

As for the alleged "problems in using 'maximize your happiness' as a basis for an objective morality," there is none, because the moral agent's own life and happiness are the only rational basis for an objective morality. If a successful state of life and its attendant experience of happiness are the only things worth pursuing as an end, then an objective morality can only be concerned with identifying those principles that serve as a means to that end. Anything else will be a variant of deontology or duty ethics.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/06, 12:13am)

Post 6

Sunday, November 6 - 7:06pm

Link

Edit

Daniel, "survival" doesn't mean "maximizing your lifespan", it means maximizing the life in your lifespan.

Post 7

Monday, November 7 - 9:37am

Link

Edit

In the Crito Socrates says:

"...the highest value isn't life but living well..."

So I think there is a conflict and dichotomy here.

The issue seems to be one of physically existing vs. truly enjoying -- of merely surviving vs. wonderfully thriving, especially mentally and spiritually. While there isn't some huge antagonism between the two -- how could there be, since survival is a requisite of flourishing? -- I certainly think the goal of life is the maximum pleasure possible. This means both quantity and quality. It's basically a matter of obtaining the highest and best happiness possible, and recognizing that this is not a static state or steady invariable phenomenon.

Maybe the missing element in Ayn Rand's thought is greatness. It doesn't just matter how well you do in life, but on what level. There is a moral obligation to maximize your potential and live as richly as possible. Mere flat insipid "happiness" isn't good enough. You must widen your horizons and expand your possibilities, even as you attempt to satisfy all needs and wants at the old level. But you must forever attempt to raise the bar on your needs and wants.

Admittedly this standard may not give you much time to rest! ;-) It seems to be a menace to resting, relaxing, and enjoying. And even Epicurean contemplation. Still, it gives you the most bang for the buck, and lets you be as 'alive' as your temporary and permanent personal limitations allow. The "thriving" standard of value is superior to Rand's "existing" standard because it generates more life for your life, and more happiness for your happiness.

Post 8

Monday, November 7 - 3:47pm

Link

Edit

Andre,

If you want to make the dichotomy one of "merely existing" versus flourishing, then Rand is clearly on the flourishing side. And yes, the goal is maximum pleasure or happiness, for according to her, your own happiness is your highest moral purpose.

You write, "Maybe the missing element in Ayn Rand's thought is greatness. It doesn't just matter how well you do in life, but on what level. There is a moral obligation to maximize your potential and live as richly as possible. Mere flat insipid "happiness" isn't good enough. You must widen your horizons and expand your possibilities, even as you attempt to satisfy all needs and wants at the old level. But you must forever attempt to raise the bar on your needs and wants."

I don't know where you got the idea of "flat insipid happiness." If there ever was an oxymoron, that certainly is. Happiness, by definition, is not flat or insipid; if it is, then it's not happiness, at least not in the sense that Rand means it. Furthermore, the idea that, according to Objectivism, you have a "moral obligation" to widen your horizons and expand your possibilities is news to me. Why should one assume that this sort of thing is required in order to maximize your happiness?

You continue, "Admittedly this standard may not give you much time to rest! ;-) It seems to be a menace to resting, relaxing, and enjoying."

Exactly! Which is why it doesn't appear to be something that Objectivism would endorse.

You continue, "And even Epicurean contemplation. Still, it gives you the most bang for the buck, and lets you be as 'alive' as your temporary and permanent personal limitations allow."

Well, I don't know that it "gives you the most bang for your buck" - at least it wouldn't appear to in the way that you've described it.

You continue, "The "thriving" standard of value is superior to Rand's "existing" standard because it generates more life for your life, and more happiness for your happiness."

Where does Rand advocate an "existing" standard over a "thriving" standard? I thought it was just the opposite.

- Bill

Post 9

Monday, November 7 - 5:07pm

Link

Edit

Bill's "survival vs. flourishing" is an old issue for most. But I find it both fascinating and important. And I don't claim that I fully understand it -- either in Objectivist terms or objective absolute terms. Post 7 was merely a summary of my surmise. And I'm counting on William Dwyer and others to enlighten me!

Bill writes:

If you want to make the dichotomy one of "merely existing" versus flourishing, then Rand is clearly on the flourishing side. And yes, the goal is maximum pleasure or happiness...

I hope this is true. But I wonder if everybody else sees it this way. I get something of the opposite impression.

Bill continues:

I don't know where you got the idea of "flat insipid happiness." If there ever was an oxymoron, that certainly is. Happiness, by definition, is not flat or insipid; if it is, then it's not happiness, at least not in the sense that Rand means it.

I hope this is true as well. But I seem to gather a different impression from her and all philosophers. There's seems to be a deficiency of vision and ambition.

Furthermore, the idea that, according to Objectivism, you have a "moral obligation" to widen your horizons and expand your possibilities is news to me. Why should one assume that this sort of thing is required in order to maximize your happiness?

I never said Objectivism claimed this. I just said it was true. Logic suggests that a being of greater nature, intelligence, stature, possibilities, etc. has a greater potential for deeper and broader life and happiness.

You continue, "Admittedly this standard may not give you much time to rest! ;-) It seems to be a menace to resting, relaxing, and enjoying."

Exactly! Which is why it doesn't appear to be something that Objectivism would endorse.

I was being a bit jocular here (hence the smilie!). But I wouldn't suggest this standard if I didn't think it very possibly superior.

...I don't know that it "gives you the most bang for your buck" - at least it wouldn't appear to in the way that you've described it.

We may have to agree to disagree on this one.

You continue, "The "thriving" standard of value is superior to Rand's "existing" standard because it generates more life for your life, and more happiness for your happiness."

Where does Rand advocate an "existing" standard over a "thriving" standard? I thought it was just the opposite.

Let's hope!

Please understand -- in no way do I consider this to be a finished or clear issue for me. I'm looking and hoping for as much clarity and insight from "the OC" [Objectivist Community] as I can get.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 11/07, 9:49pm)

Post 10

Tuesday, November 8 - 9:53pm

Link

Edit

When Rand spoke of "man, qua man" she clearly didn't specify much, on that phrasing per se. Nevertheless, she clearly implied that she was speaking of more than 'mere' physical survival, not only in that phrasing, but...in all the delineated totality of Galt's speech.

I really don't see the rational source of any 'conflict'-prob/questions re 'surviving/flourishing'...for supposed O'ists to be concerned with, other than what superficial concretes constitute 'flourishing,' (beyond the specific, but non-concrete, virtues delineated in Galt's speech.)

LLAP
J:D

Post 11

Wednesday, November 9 - 10:53am

Link

Edit

I wrote, "I don't know where you got the idea of 'flat insipid happiness.' If there ever was an oxymoron, that certainly is. Happiness, by definition, is not flat or insipid; if it is, then it's not happiness, at least not in the sense that Rand means it."

Andre replied, "I hope this is true as well. But I seem to gather a different impression from her and all philosophers. There's seems to be a deficiency of vision and ambition."

Boy, you've lost me there, Andre. What do you mean by a "deficiency of vision and ambition"? Remember, we are dealing here with one's highest moral purpose, not (specifically) with the means to its achievement.

I wrote, "Furthermore, the idea that, according to Objectivism, you have a 'moral obligation' to widen your horizons and expand your possibilities is news to me. Why should one assume that this sort of thing is required in order to maximize your happiness?"

Andre replied, "I never said Objectivism claimed this. I just said it was true. Logic suggests that a being of greater nature, intelligence, stature, possibilities, etc. has a greater potential for deeper and broader life and happiness."

I don't know that you can draw that inference. This strikes me as a kind of rationalism - an attempt to deduce something that you can only know by induction or direct experience. How do you know that a being of greater intelligence has a greater potential for happiness? The fact that you are more intelligent than I does not mean that you have a greater capacity for happiness than I, does it? And even if it did, how could you ever prove something like that?

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/09, 12:49pm)

Post 12

Thursday, November 10 - 7:09pm

Link

Edit

I'm eager to be corrected if I'm wrong but...

I don't think "happiness" or the Greek "good life" is much like scoring "100" on a math test. It's more like once you've passed or excelled at the appropriate test of the day, now is the time to move on to the next grade or next mathematical level up. Moreover, on any given test, 100 isn't the highest score possible. It's more like 300 or 1000. There's always extra credit possible -- you just have to know where to look for it.

As for people of higher IQ, greater vivacious range, and even deeper spirituality -- I think those of greater life potential also have a greater potential for happiness. Such superior individuals have higher highs and lower lows. I think this is readily apparent in observing humans of various capacities, as well as comparing humans to animals, and animals to animals. (Incidentally, this is why, in my judgment, higher order earth mammals have very real "rights" which are at least distantly comparable to human rights. This is an important point which current Objectivist thought disputes or misses.)

In the end, if a space alien of IQ 500 shows up on earth he may not consider us humans to be truly "intelligent" or even necessarily alive(!). Not from his perspective. He'll also very possibly have complimentary emotions of joy and misery which we humans won't be able to comprehend or relate to. They'll simply be alien to our experience and beyond us.

And I still tend to contend that Objectivists, like those of all other current philosophies, have a rather flat, dull, static, insipid view of "happiness." In my view, there are many more possibilities here than people realize.

Post 13

Friday, November 11 - 12:15pm

Link

Edit

Andre wrote, "As for people of higher IQ, greater vivacious range, and even deeper spirituality -- I think those of greater life potential also have a greater potential for happiness. Such superior individuals have higher highs and lower lows. I think this is readily apparent in observing humans of various capacities, as well as comparing humans to animals, and animals to animals. (Incidentally, this is why, in my judgment, higher order earth mammals have very real "rights" which are at least distantly comparable to human rights. This is an important point which current Objectivist thought disputes or misses.)"

It's an interesting theory, but I don't know how you would go about proving it. One can certainly measure "utility" on an ordinal scale - greater or lesser - with respect to one's own values, but I don't see how an ordinal measurement can be applied to interpersonal utility, since there is no commensurable standard.

- Bill

Survival versus Flourishing