The Purpose of Purpose with Yaron Brook

[@ThePlayerlane]

Great conversation...I'm pleased to listen keep up the good work.

[@GeorgWilde]

So according to objectivism, what i love has to be subservient to the necessity of my values being "life-enhancing". But what is "life-enhancing"? Sometimes it is said by objectivis that "life-enhancing" means contributing to survival, avoiding death which means being as healthy and secure and living as long as possible. But then objectivism says that you have live your life to the fullest of your potential and not comporomising, and even not accepting to live in a corrupt world, because that would be contrary to your values. So objectivist conception values is undefined (by being circular) and contradictory (by being conflict with itself). And this is exactly the trick. The "philosopher" implants a conflict into your psyche, by pursuating to believ ein contradictory ideas, and "supports" you in this "worthy psychological struggle", so you have a feeling of purpose. It's all bogus.

[@azatkhabibulin7514]

Do you see something in Objectivism that is against your self-interest? What exactly? You suggested several things. First, “live your life to the fullest of your potential.” What can I say? Imagine if you’re a programmer. You love writing programs. Why not carry this to the fullest potential? In what sense is this against your self-interest? The same applies to any other profession, e.g. being a doctor. (I hope you won’t say that the effort required to become a specialist reduces your chances of survival.) The second thing you suggested is “not accepting to live in a corrupt world.” What can I say here? Imagine living in Nazi Germany. One day the country murdered your friend and you realize that you did nothing to oppose this in the first place-nothing that were in your power. Would you accept an idea that not opposing a totalitarian dictatorship increases your chances of survival if you lost the desire to live without your friend? (Or a loved one.) If your own chances of survival decreased tenfold under the rule of a whimsical or mystical dictator? (I hope you won’t say that Objectivism orders you to take on the work you cannot carry. Observe that Kant does order this.) Is my argument “being circular”? Or “being in conflict with itself”? Does it lead to the conclusions you drew?

[@openmind2464]

Where did you get this from? "Sometimes it is said by objectivis that "life-enhancing" means contributing to survival, avoiding death which means being as healthy and secure and living as long as possible. But then objectivism says that you have live your life to the fullest of your potential and not comporomising, and even not accepting to live in a corrupt world, because that would be contrary to your values" try to understand first before you engage in polemics. You haven't reached that level yet.

[@GeorgWilde]

@@azatkhabibulin7514 This has nothing to do with it.Yaron is always speaking about pursuing "long term self interest". (I watched hundrets of hours of Peikoff's courses, but it is even less defined there.) But let's say i don't value logn term results. If am not already motivated to long term, then this cannot speak to me. I could for example be short term self-interested and i would have absolutely no reason to be otherwise (i could maybe blindly accept that i have to act and value long term results, but that would be manipulation and contradictory to my values. Let's say i am alrady long term oriented (which in fact i am), then objectivism is already affirming that, but the manipulation still is that i will now feel justified to morally condemn people who have short-term self interest. So, again a needless conflict. There is nothing objectively more valuable in maximally developing myself in futher future vs in shorter future. There are tradeoffs and there is no objective guide to make those tradeoffs. If you claim there is, it can only be accepted as a dogma. Btw, if you are a programmer or an engineer, it is true that you live from manipulating physical reality (as opposed to manipulating people). So you have a good reality-oriented feedback on what you are doing. The problem in todays economy is (i don't know wheter it is caused by statism and FED setting low ineterst rates, making people to behave much more short term oriented in markets) that if you are an engineer, understanding of things is not valued at all... Delivering fast resuts that barely meet the requirements is so important, that the less understanding and knowledge you attain/employ while doing the project the more your work is valued. Explaining how something works within an engineering team is basically considered a waste of time. Everybody is only in having the thing done as fast as possible with as little understanding as possible. I mean not even other engineers care how things work, they only care that it works and what things have to be shuffled around if it stops working. In other words: Todays jobs in productive ares like engineering are valued for being reality oriented as short term as possible. State completely crowded out demand for any thinking jobs (science, philosphy), so if you have a brain, you have to either suffer having short term oriented job, or going into the academia where you serve the political ends of the academic community... I don't claim that there is some inherent mind-body dichotomy, but surely job opportunities i have look very dichotomized. On one hand, reality oriented short term, on the other hand long term oriented but on abstract ideas created by academic community.

[@rvc121]

@@GeorgWilde i really don't understand your point. How is it not objective to say that what is good for you and will make you happier and more fulfilled long term is more valuable then short term fleading pleasure? You really can't say its better to eat healthy then eat whatevers you want and suffer from deaseases in uou 30's and 40's? If somone is choosing to live in his mother's house for years and play video games instead of finding a job or start studying for example, you really can't say which option is better for him? There is no contradiction in those examples and others the standard is his life and his choice to sustain them or not.

[@DivionCrimson]

Going back to the main comment: The conflict is not implemented. Objectivism aims to "survival qua man", which roughly translates to "a survival that is human-worthy". Individually, it is very clear what does that means: Sustain your life in a happy state. How to reach that? Via virtues and values. Sure, as libertarians we are living a world, where we are in constant conflict with our environment, but this not goes back to objectivism, it goes back to the dominance of statism.

[@openmind2464]

Coming from a guy who serves no purpose

[@davidwright757]

Education isn't a purpose?

[@swoorupjoshi2665]

Coming from a guy whose name is "Open Mind" without an Open Mind.