4 ms·

> I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. What exactly is that? > so why don't you

by javert 13y ago

> I'm talking about gaining something, in this case a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. What exactly is that? > so why don't you share yours? Just as the body has a pleasure/pain mechanism, so the mind has a joy/suffering mechanism. The biological purpose of this mechanism is to give you joy when you experience physical pleasure, and pain when you experience physical pain; but moreover, to regulate the anticipation of physical pleasure/success and physical pain/failure. That anticipation is mediated by your rationally (or not) chosen values. There is more that can be said about this... for example, self-esteem comes from building a character that allows for the rational assumption that you can expect continued success as an organism, and the rewards thereof. So, my purpose is to experience joy and happiness in my life by choosing and pursuing rational values, given the constraints I mentioned above. Obviously, the amount of philosophy you can do in an online comment is pretty limited. What I've said is just a summary. After all, I started in ethics, whereas a full philosophical exposition would start with metaphysics or epistemology. Since your post was mainly about other people, let me say: other people are valuable to me, because they can be friends, lovers, trading partners, etc. So, there are good arguments to be made for helping others. I think arguing it from "duty" is not doing it in a rational way and will lead to bad conclusions. By the way, I want to make it clear that when I called what you said "disgusting hogwash," that wasn't a reflection on you at all. I just wanted to call out what I saw as a bad argument that I think could influence people to go in a very bad personal direction.

javajosh 13y ago
>> a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. > What exactly is that? This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully, or perhaps at all, as answering that question was it's subject. I suggest you read it again, and perhaps this time more slowly and with an open mind. > your post was mainly about other people This also implies that you did not read my original comment well or at all. As for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. But thanks for the clarification. > very bad personal direction. ...and yet, you seem to have judged my view as bad without comprehending it. How can you do that if you don't know what it is? Perhaps you are goading me? Well, I'll write this one comment, in the hopes that you really will re-read what I wrote and understand it.
- javert 13y ago
  > This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that point. I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. > for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective. Pointing out that that is what it is, is a substantive criticism.
  - javajosh 13y ago
    > I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable. > I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness. > when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

by javert 13y ago

javajosh 13y ago

>> a goal that is actionable, useful, and very difficult to achieve. > What exactly is that? This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully, or perhaps at all, as answering that question was it's subject. I suggest you read it again, and perhaps this time more slowly and with an open mind. > your post was mainly about other people This also implies that you did not read my original comment well or at all. As for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. But thanks for the clarification. > very bad personal direction. ...and yet, you seem to have judged my view as bad without comprehending it. How can you do that if you don't know what it is? Perhaps you are goading me? Well, I'll write this one comment, in the hopes that you really will re-read what I wrote and understand it.

javert 13y ago
> This question implies that you did not read my original comment carefully No, I did. And I re-read it before my second response. I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. I was hoping you would clarify your thoughts on that point. I was disappointed by your last comment, because I think it was made in poor faith. Your accusations that I didn't read your comment carefully or may be goading you are in poor faith. Furthermore, I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. > for the "disgusting hogwash" comment, it is a barb but one that was not too hard to ignore, as your criticism was not substantive. I think it's a pretty appropriate response when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective. Pointing out that that is what it is, is a substantive criticism.
- javajosh 13y ago
  > I don't think what you listed, "contributing to the long-term well-being of humanity," is either actionable or useful. Shortly after, I mentioned two examples of such: working toward the colonization of other worlds at the large scale, and having children in the small. These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable. > I took the time to carefully respond to your question on the purpose of life, and you completely ignored it. It is my turn to apologize. Perhaps I was too quick to dismiss you as a "Randroid" in my mind, since that was essentially the view you espoused. Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness. > when somebody calls for people to sacrifice their own lives and happiness for the good of the collective I defy you to show where I said that or implied it. Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else. Egoism was merely an expression of the acknowledgement of that Truth. I am not an adherent to Objectivism, but I don't believe that even the most fervent Objectivist could blanch at my proposal to work to achieve the stars. Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market? Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.