Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on the Role of Personal Values in Achieving Happiness, and will be moderated by Andrew Schwartz. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Here's the "story" that Andrew sent to the mailing list for this discussion. Please refer to it while reading the discussion: =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Here is a fiction story: Objectivist X loves music and wants to make it his profession. He spends hours at the piano learning jazz harmony and composes short works for his synthesizer with midi. Objectivist X allows himself to get sidetracked from his interests for a short while, and during this time he listens to a very powerful symphony. He realizes that the great scope and integration of large-scale classical works makes them great achievements, and in the interest of pursuing the greatest values possible, Objectivist X decides he will be a composer of large-scale classical works. For six months he obsessively practices classical piano and listens to a wide variety of classical music. Then, suddenly, he realizes that he is abominably unhappy and later learns that he has become a represser and an abject second-hander who has lost all his values. Wasn't Objectivist X acting rationally? With this as our context, we will discuss the distinction between philosophical and personal values; the role of emotional motivation in the pursuit of values; desire as an emotion-based action tendancy and interest as a sustained desire; how personal values are acquired, especially in a rational context; and the specific (and crucial) role of philosophy in achieving happiness. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ IRC log started Fri Jun 7 22:00 If you haven't read the story about Objectivist X, you might want to ask someone about it. It's been sent out to the mailing list. We'll assume most people have read it, Gilles. Okay. Let's begin by defining our terms. I assume everybody understands that a value is something one acts to gain and/or keep, and that the standard of rational value must be man's life. Now, what is the distinction between philosophical and personal v values? A personal value is a specific instance of a philosophical value. A philosophical value is a guideline for what one should personally value For example, the philosophical value of productiveness might take the form of a personal value for medicine. Remember the questions implicit in the concept "value." Anyone? For example, productive work is a philosophical value. Which *type* of productive work a man pursues, ie. firefighter, airplane manufacturer, entertainer, etc., is a personal value within the principle that productive work is a philosophical value. Gilles: Of value to whom and for what? Gilles: That's the question implicit in value. Jim: Exactly. JIm: What are the answers for each type of value? A personal value is a value to some specific person. Gilles: For each type? The answer is always about the individual pursuing the value. A philosophical value is a value to man qua man A philosophical value addresses man's nature Right. For philosophical values, it's to any man by his nature, for any man's life. For personal values, it's for a particular man, for a particular man's life. And we've seen that personal values are concrete expressions of philosophical values. gilles: Gary Hull and Jerry Kirkpatrick use the term "optioanl value". Ousey: Values are always values for individuals, not for the abstraction of man. Philosophic values are values that apply to each individual because they are men, but the answer to who it is a value to is still the individual, not the collective. Productive work is a value to both the person who performs the work and to those who deal with him. Okay. We've seen from Mike's and Subetai's examples that philosophical principles can be applied in many ways. So, we want to know how to choose personal values object5ively. Think of Objectivist X. He thought he was Draeco: So a philisophical value is a value to all men. Personal values ARE abstract philosophical values implemented by particular individuals. michelis: Yes. being objective, but after a period of time, he lost all his fuel and couldn't continue. What's this "fuel"? What aspect of human psychology did he ignore? When you talk about "philosophical" values, you have to recognize that these are values according to a view of values and standard of values *in the context of some philosophy*. So, when we should be careful to specify that we're working within the context of Objectivism and not within "philosophy" in general. Christianity, for example, would have very different "philosophical values". Right. A personal value is a specific instance of a philosophical value. Mike: Yes. We're assuming a context of rationality. Even on the level of personal values, to be an Objectivist, "value" must refer only to those things which are, in fact, beneficial...not just that which is desired or pursued. Betsy: Can a personal value be destructive of one man be destructive to another? If so then how is it a specific case of a proper abstract philisophical value? So what is this "fuel" that X lost? What aspect of human psychology did he ignore? I disagree. A value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep -- regardless of whether that person is operating according to Christianity or Objectivism (the rationality of the values will vary accordingly tho) Can there be such a thing as a productive philosophical value which is non-productive on the personal level? Obj X forgot that values are always "of value to whom (him) for what (his _own_ purposes). Let's stick to Gilles' questions, please. Objectivist x was trying to achieve a value he did not realy desire. He Thought he "should" desire it and put the cart before the horse. Betsy: Yes, gilles asked for that question earlier (just before you joined): Of value to whom and for what? Michelis: Architecture was destructive to Keating and Roark's reason for living. BlueGreen: You've hit it. So what aspect of psychology? Gilles: He lost sight of the fact that he has a certain preference within the scope of that which is valuable. Gilles: Motivation? Gilles: in other words, he was being rationalistic, not objective. You could say that Mr. X was treating classical composition as an *intrinsic* value (intrincisism error) Blue: Then it really wasn't HIS value. AAron said it. Objectivist X admired values which he couldn't achieve himself. It reminds me on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Yes, you're all right - I want to discuss the psychological aspects. on=of philtwo: For every achievable end, there are things one must have to acheive that end. Once that end is chosen, those intermediate sub-ends are also chosen, implicitly if not explicitly. Just acting to gain and/or keep something isn't the whole story - because there's an entire epistemological process that has to happen before anyone _does_ anything. It's your *ideas* that determine your *actions*. So, The "fuel" Ob.X lost was emotional motivation. philtwo: right. Intrincisists don't have the objective perspective of values. Betsy: Then the proper philisophical value was destructive to keating because Keating held no values? That is no, values derived from the philisophical values? He had no real intrinsic (meaning personal) motivation he bound to "run out of fuel". Gilles: Psychologically, one should pursue that which one is interested in. there are always choices, even within a philosophy. +was We need to move on. Michelis: Keating wanted to be a painter and being an architect destroyed that. I don't think it was that he could NOT achieve them but that he fundementally did not have the desire to acieve them What is the main function of emotions in human life? michelis: Keating acted self-destructively because he pursued values **as chosen by others for him**. He didn't use a code of values objectively. He repressed HIS values in favour of a non value (to him) Gilles: Emotions are man's means of being aware of his value hierarchy...however, these are not guides to action. Gilles: 2 main functions -- as a reward for and an incntive for taking life-furthering actions and as a warning system of threats to values. He had the desire he could not achieve that desire because he had virtually no orginal thought process. Betsy: That's exactly right. Emotions are sign posts on the road of life Emotions are the psychological reward for actions that are for one's life. Or the punishment for irrational actions. Gilles: in humans emotions are a check on the health of a person's thinking habits. Gilles: Emotions allow man to experience his values -- they sum up what a person actually values. If I'm happy about something, that tells me that my values are being achieved. (It doesn't tell me, however, whether my values are actually appropriate.) Emotions are what motivate He tried to be a classical composer just by listening to music and playing the piano. He never rationally prepared himself for that life, or took time to evaluate his real ability. Yes, Lee, I'm Jay Taub Gilles: Correction: A happy emotion tells me that I current believe my values are being achieved, not that they are in fact being achieved. Jim_N: I disagree. achieving inappropriate "values" does not result in happiness. I think of emotions as a future feed-back loop. A psycho-sematic projection of "what will it have been like to have done this action and acheived this end." Keep going, please. He'll be back right away, I expect. joe_: Okay, I meant joy, which can be experienced momentarily. Yes to all the above, Lee. JET: who are you talking about wrt playing the piano? Painful emotions aren't always a punishment -- sometimes they're a warning system that keep you out of trouble. What if yu've already done what you're happy about, Tom? +o TomM: But emotions result from thinking about the present and past as well, not just the future. Betsy: i wouldn't call them a punishment at all. If one looses a value, through no fault of one's one, one will still feel a "negative" emotion. TomM: I think that's Betsy's point. A punishment that can be taken as a warning of more serious things to follow. An unhappy emotion is unpleasant. Subetai: If you've already done, then you're revelling in you ability to achieve TomM: but only down to a certain point... Emotions are there because man has volition. Being a vloitional creature, he needs some means of grasping what it will be like to acheived some end. For thinking about the past, or present, the same principle applies. Emotions tell you what you already think about things you encounter in everyday life. I don't believe that emotions are ever punishment or reward. They are just a means to determine if your goals/values are rational By the way, I did an essay on the importance of personal values (at the request of Arthur Mode) and I will send it to anyone who e-mails me requesting it. Ousey: That was directed to Tom's "future feed-back loop" idea. Joe:Objectivist X "obsessivelypracticed classical piano". Oh BlueGreen: That sounds very subjectivistic...can you elaborate? Blue: Actually, emotions are how we experience whether our values (good OR bad) are being achieved. TomM: What it will be like AND what it has been like. Emotions are responses to what is, not just to what ought to be. If I loose something now, I'll feel hurt. Jim: that hurt is a fprojection of what will it have been like to not ever have that value again in the future (like say if a friend dies). There are two basic emotions: profit and loss For the essay on personal values e-mail me: betsy@speicher.com BlueGreen: Does this mean the proper philisophical values can be found by introspectiom, and your 'emotions' tell you if your personal values are in harmony with the phil. values? Are we achieving our values and if our values are based on reason. We may achieve irrational values and have feelings of sadness Ousey: I can go for that, *if* you specify that the calculation must be done explicitly to really decide if it is, in fact, a value/disvalue. TomM: I was thinking of adding *perceived* profit or loss in relation to a value system TomM: In the future and in the present. If a friend dies, I don't have that friend now, not just in the future. There are things I know I'll loose in the future that I have now, and so I'm not sad about not having them in the future. Michelis: Emotions tell you whether your values are being achieved or are threatened -- not whether your values are any good or CAN be achieved. Ousey: Emotions are, in a sense, the psychological equivalent of a sensation. It is not a guide to action no more than a sensation (or a percept) is a guide to action. General question: I apologize, as I probably missed it, but what is the distinction between philosophical and personal values? Betsy: Right, that's what thinking is for If emotions were so good that they could analyze rationality/irrationality of values, we wouldn't need minds Ousey: Jinx :) Jim: What you experience is the lack...for all future time (inclusive of the present). Betsy: I agree. positive emotions can be attained if you have irrational values but are only mistaken about the values. you must be intellectually honest. <> Ousey wonders if he can really be jinxed We must distinguish between a value as 'that which one acts to gain or keep' - i.e., an object in the world - and a value as omething internal to oneself: one's own values. MarkES: Productivity is a philosophical value. Practicing architecture or medicine is a personal value. Rational: not a meaningful distinction. Ousey: That means "coincidence" in IRC slang BTW in case you didn't know.. Phil: It also means it in plain ordinary English ;] [Gilles is still trying to reconnect. He should be back soon] Tym - so what is within and what is without is not a significant distinction? TomM: Some things are temporarily harmed, such as a friend injured and in the hospital. I may feel bad for his injury in the present knowing that he'll get better soon. I don't think it is therefore appropriate to consider emotions as only future projections. Ousey: Hmm, I didn't know that :) Rational: personal values are always connected to objects in the world. JimN: Emotions are very specific automatic HERE AND NOW reactions. Emotions are how we experience life *now*. To say that "project the future" doesn't make sense to me Re Gilles. Betsy: I agree fully. That's my point. Tom is arguing that they are reactions to future projections. Damn that. I'm really sorry. Tym - *rational* values are connected to objects in the world. Irrational values are connectedly distortedly, in extreme cases hardly at all. But that is beside the point. Persoanl values must be based on what you yourself think *you* can achieve. One may consider philosophy to be a value, but decide *not* to become a philosopher. Never mind, Gilles. Go ahead. :) Welcome back Gilles. Please get us back on course. Okay. Can we continue? Okay. phil: I'm tying in emotions with the idea of motivation...the future projection is necessary for a volitional consciousness, or he would never do anything. Phil - the future is a part of the now. Future considerations are a part of every present. Rational: I agree. So because man has a volitional consciousness, he needs motivations. The psychological form in which you experience a motivation is a desire. It's not a necessary part of emotional response. As Betsy said, it's purely automatic here and now responses for whatever subconscious evaluations are occuring Now I want to discuss the nature and source of desires. What is a desire? Wouldn't emotions be more of a response to my current psychological context at the time, which might be of the past, future, or present? TomM - In other words, the word "value" has two distinct meanings: object aimed at, and inner principle or valuation. Like, I might be thinking of a past incidence, etc. A desire is an emotion of longing to have something. The emotion of recognizing an unachieved value. Gilles: It is an emotion which motivates us to gain and/or keep a particular thing. MarkeES: YEs, I think so. When thinking about the future, you can respond emotionally to it. But not every emotion is a response to the future. On can be sad about the past, and about the current moment also. A desire is a "value" to you Emotions are subconscious evaluations based on subconsciously integrated value-premises. Rational: no, I wouldn't put it that way. "Value" always refers to something worth pursuing/possessing...not the psychological state per se. Gilles - A desire is psychosomatic attraction of a living organism to an entity or situation. Betsy and Rational have it right. A desire is an emotion-fueld action-tendancy. Where do they come from? Tom - there is "a value" in the sense of a life preserver, building by Roark, what have you...and there is also "our values" - our internal value-systems. What is the source of desires? Desires are emotions, so the source is an evaluation. Rational: I still say this "internal" boogaloo doesn't make sense. Gilles: personal values. Gilles: From one's premises, implicit or explicit, about some goal being beneficial to you. Gilles: Is it tautological simply to say that a desire is something you want? Gilles - I don't know if that question can be answered philosophically. It may be a question for natural science. Desires are so intrisically a part of the life-process. A subconscious evaluation of something as good, worth having. Gilles: Desires come from lots of places -- both physical (empty stomach) to intellectual (admiration for a noble person). Rational: The internal value system, like a code of values, can be considered a value itself, but remember, a code of values is a set of principles of what to pursue. Tym - then answer the question: is it important to distinguish between objective and subjective? I would say that Jim and Subetai are a bit wrong. Desires don't come directly from premises. TomM - it can, but it's needlessly circular. If they did, why wouldn't people with the same premises have the same desires? Gilles: I said "from an evaluation", not "from a premise". Gilles - not mechanically, they don't. Premises enter very deeply into it, but premises are not the *sole* motor. Subetai: Sorry. Gilles: where do they come from, then? Gilles: They don't have the same premises about the subject of desire if they have different desires. That's okay. :) Gilles - as with any living organism, every specific function is a function of the whole. Gilles: Nobody has EXACTLY the same premisies. That's where each personal PERSONAL hierarchy of values comes into play. Gilles: Also, I said implicit premises, not always explicit. personal=person's Rational: "internal" is not subjective, if that's what yr getting at. Tym - I didn't say it was. I'm getting at exactly what I said. Okay, here's the point. Desires are emotion-fueled action tendancies. Emotions spring from evaluations, and desires *spring from those emotions." So, what? Your particular desires depend on the particular objects of your emotions. Can anyone think of examples to illustrate that? If the premises are philosophical one's, then people can still have different desires because the conditions of their individual lives are different Personal values are simply a projection of one's assessement of one's own skills. Tym - namely, one must distinguish between values as objects pursued and values as psychosomatic existents. Tom: I disagree. So a desire is not really an emotion, but a consequence of an emotion? We want to know the source of personal values. Why does one person want to be a doctor and another a physicist? Gilles: Some people like listening to music more than playing it and other people are just the opposite. When one person hears great music he may think, "I want to play that" and another thinks "I want to hear that again." Rational: nooo. The "psychosomatic existents" are just emotions, as Gilles mentioned. Subetai: Yes! That's it. Gilles: You own "story' illustrated the point I made. The artist in question didn't have the skills to write classical music, and didn't want to take the time to fully learn that skill. Tym - so values are emotions? Tom: He had the skills. People have different talents Gilles: I can't justify that. I've always considered a desire to be an emotion. You're saying that a desire is that product of an emotion which makes one want to act ("action-tendency")? Rational: what I'm saying is this internal external distinction is meaningless. You just have values and sesires. Anyone have any comments on that definition of a "desire"? desires Poeple have different INTERESTS. People have different (but all rational) personal values. Gilles: Values are tied to time required to pursue something and what one gets out of the accfomplishement of the succesful pursduit. How about this: A desire is an emotion brought into conscious awareness? -f No, that's not it -d Tym - I'm trying to understand *why* you say this. Gilles: might be more meaningful to speak of emotions/desires and the motivations they give rise to. Gilles: It depends on your method of analysis. There are several routes to the same point. Your prefered method of evaluationa and your premices This is the point: The nature of the emotion you experience with regard to any given object will depend on your premises; but by the nature of desires, *the particular desires you experience will depend on the particular objects of your emotions.* Think o In other words, one implements personal values rationally, and the converse. All emotions contain an impulse to action. That is their function. Think of EXAMPLES. Betsy: often the interests springs from different talents. Betsy: right Betsy: So -- all emotions implicitly imply desires? Betsy - not necessarily. If I admire a sunset, I have no specific impulse to action necessarily. Time might nearly have seemed to stop. In the case of the artist in question, his time was waisted because he would rather do something else...something he enjoyed (which is fine, so long as the goal is objectively good for him qua living being). Betsy: I agree. Gilles: He had limited skills, but not the skills to be a classical composer or pianist. Betsy: suer, but emotions *are not guides to actions*. Rational: IN that case, you desire to sustain the pleasant feeling, eh? Rational: I'll bet you want to see more beautiful sunsets and will go out of your way to DO it again. philtwo - I'm not sure it's necessary to postulate a desire for continuance. Emotions always have an implicit impule to action tied to them. The desire to continue feeling it or to avoid it. impulse Say you read a book by Ayn Rand. You enjoy it, and as a consequence, you want to read another one. Playing classivcal music involves more than simply having the mechanical skills...one must *understand* the music to play it well. Betsy: I like sunrises better :] Or, extending Betsy's example, when you see a beautiful woman, what do you do? You follow her with your eyes, turn your head, etc. When you see another beautiful woman, you watch her, too. If you meet a woman you especially like, you talk to her and possibly ask her on a date. betsy - That may well be. Doesn't prove that an action-impulse is part of the concrete, actual emotion I am experiuencing at *that* time. I think Subetai - the word 'implicit' makes all the difference. The issue now is to articulate that impliciticity. Gilles: so it's that if an object generatesa positive emotion, that object becomes a value? OK> So the point is, what you desire depends on the objects of your emotions. <> michelis wonders if he wants mikeH staring at his wife MikeH - That's one reaction, a strong one. On the other hand, sometimes one just looks, enjoys, and passes on. Betsy is correct that an emotional reaction is an impulse to do something about it...but one should not act on that impulse before checking to see if it *ought* to be acted on. Paul: Yes, if you pursue it. Paulf: objects don't generate emotions MikeH: When you see a beautiful woman what do you WANT to do? ;-) Rational: desires aren't always explicit either. You may feel a desire for something you can't instantly identify, until you take the trouble to make it explicit. Make wild, passionate love to her? DesireI don't follow...objects of your emotions? Betsy: Ummm.. next question, please. ;) Sorry...I don't follow...objects of your emotions If the perception of an object generates an emotion, one may infer that the person experiencing the emotion implictly valued that object Subetai - indeed. My point is that the desire/emotion distinction is useful. Okay. We'll move on now. Keeping in mind the source of desires and emotions, how can one acquire personal values that are sustttained by rational and intense desires? Gilles: Identify one's values through introspection. Find out which are rational. Choose a course of action that achieves those values. (Since motivation - desire - is necessary for a volitional consciousness.) Gilles - I would recommend a procedure akin to Peikoff's 'spiral' method in UO. Namely, > Develope a plan and DO it! Subetai: How do you acquire them in the first place? BlueGreen: The object of an emotion is that aspect of existence, once evaluated, gives rise to that emotion. Gilles: I would start with the values I already have that are meaningful to me. I am constantly asking myself "What do you want?" "What do you enjoy most." "What is most important to you right now>" "Why?" Gilles: One must develope a rational method of deciding *what* to pursue. Gilles: Values come from the premises you hold, and premises are acquired in many ways. The thing is to make sure they're all rational. Gilles (cont.) - cycling one's attention continuously from one's emotions/desires to the objects they pertain to to one's premises to one's emotions...cycling ovewr and over Gilles: the emotions/desires follow from those premises. Betsy: let's say you have not a lot of values. Say you were a very irrational person and now you want to changte. HOw do you acquire values? Subetai: Just the premises? Subetai - one must strive for integration and harmony. Subetai: What should you do, given your rational premises, to acquire personal values? Gilles: Again, that persons needs to entirely re-think his code of values 9provbided he even had one in the first place). -9 +( re Lisa First, you have to *identify* the values you have. That's through introspection, asking yourself the kinds of questions Betsy mentioned. Next, you determine *why* they are values to you. Gilles: Even irrational people have SOME rational values. They just have to dig deeper to find them/ Gilles: man must identify his nature to identify the philosophical value My question is, given the right rphilosophical values, how do you get intense personal values? Once he has the philosophical values, he can re-evaluate his own personal values Gilles: I don't know I'd do anything specific to acquire personal values. Just try lots of things. Find out *what* exists, so I can make an informed choice about what to do. Gilles - are we not postulating a somewhat artificial separation? Gilles - why assume that one *has* achieved rational philosophical values and not achieved intense personal values? Ousey: And broader, he must identify the fundamental natue of life qua living being to get it right. Gilles: By deciding what you want the most and putting everything you have and are into getting it. Gilles - or do you mean that our personal values must be restructured, once one has achieved full philosophical value-rationality. TomM: That is implicit in man's nature as the supreme form of living being You can't understand or live completely rationally unless you *have* and live some of those significant personal values IMO. The alternative is rationalism Gilles: If you have a hard time identifying what you do value, ask what you dis-value, i.e. what things cause you discomfort? What would you like to see changed? That will imply a positive value: finding a solution to the problems. Personal values are an application of one's code of values. The particulars within the appropriate value system. Ousey: Just making it explicit ;) One pursues what one values. If your ultimate value is life on earth ...your personal goals and desires will fufill lead to that end Okay, I'll answer: ONe has to *evaluate*. Evaluate everything. That's how you'll get intense emotions and consequently intense desires. Jim - but wouldn't it be best to approach it positively - and ask *why* one is having a problem experiencing positives? phil: yes, the alternative is not to have any values at all....one shouldn't overlook the particular possibilities within a principle. I thought I mentioned that back there somewhere Gilles - again - what if one already *has* intense desires? Gilles: The evaluation must be in PERSONAL and concrete terms. Gilles: Next logical question: Evaluated accordidng to what principle? I don't think one can program oneself to make something a personal value. Now, your personal values depend a lot on your contexxt. Rational: Not necessarily. Things can only be identified as problems if their is an implicit value at stake. So, if you have a hard time finding the values by positives, look at the negatives and figure out what positives are implied. Rational: Great. Keep evaluating, keep pursuing your values. Betsy: Oh yes! Subetai: You can't?? Not at all? TomM: According to what's good for life. Gilles: Personal values only exist in one's own personal hierarchy. Rational: There is a great method of business improvement that starts by asking for the "Undesireable effects" of current business operations. It leads to incredible solutions, positive results. Jim - It's a separate, but highly important, question: *why* is one blocked from expericing the positive? Gilles - Exactly. Peikoff's 'spiral' is applicable to many, many things. You can determine what is for-life philosophically. The specific form it takes for you depends on the extent of your knowledge, your integrations, experiences, etc. In other words, your context. Okay. So what Objectivist X did wrong was, he acted like a Platonist. Subetai just said something I totally agree with. The artist in question basically didn't take his own ambitions into account in deciding to become a classical musician. He didn't have the skills at first, and once he aquired rthem, he had to ahve taken away a lot of time he could ahve spent on something Jim - yes. But normally businessmen do not have a problem perceiving the positive. It appears rather clearly on the balance sheet and profit and loss. And other places too. :) Betsy: This thought just occured to me ... would the structure+content of one's personal hierarchy of values lead directly to "sense of life"? i.e. taken as a whole ...he could ahve spent his limited time on something he enjoyed doing. Philtwo - No. It is much more complex than that. Very little in man leads 'directly' in a meachn mechanical sense to anything else. Very interesting. Thank You. See you next week. Phil: a sense of life is the emotional foundation that your hierarchy of values is built on. 5-year olds have a sense of life but a rather primitive hierarchy of vkalues. What did Obj> X do wrong? He abandoned rational, personal values to pursue a purely aesthetic (philosophical) value - in effect, a second-hand value. That's how he lost his emotional fuel. Rational: You'd be surprised. Read the book "The Goal" and you'll see how businesses forget what they're really after, and have goals that actually harm their profitability. Sometimes sub-goals work against the ultimate goal, without people realizing it. You don't automatically pursue things you've chosen as values. You have to choose to put the effort of pursuit into it. Just because you decide that you're going to live a rational life doesn't mean that you will, automatically, or for any other more specific value, either. Phil: No, sense of life follows one's implicit metaphysics. It depends on your view of reality - whether it allows your values to be achieved or not. Betsy: Ok ... more causative than being an effect .. phil: yes, i think i agree....personal values are those things that fit within one's sense of life hierarchy. Jim - some businessmen forget. My experience has been that other things lead to failure. So a major point for anyone with any Rationalism in him is: You have to *use your emotional fuel*. Gilles: Yes, he tried to place a value in his perssonal hierarchy in a position in which it wouldn't fit. Gilles: Yep. Getting in the car is fine, but you won't get anywhere unless you actually drive it. :) Gilles - bravo! And constantly compare your emotions and your conscious convictions. For those who missed my offer: I have an essay on "personal Values" which I wrote a long time ago. I'll e-mail it to anyone who e-mails asking for it to: betsy@speicher.com Gilles: That comes down to spendding your limited amount of time pursuing those things which you *know* you will like to do (so long as these values are rationally justified). Gilles: With an emphasis on the YOUR. Gilles: have you read any of the stuff Ed Locke has on motivation? Rational: Actually, the issue isn't forgetting. The issue is often having the wrong standards for how to achieve their goals. By looking at the undesireable effects of their current solutions, it is possible to detect that problem. But ignoring the negatives and continuing to act on the wrong premises that seem positive is destructive. I missed the pianist example, but it sounds like he had an unintegrated, decontextualized idea. Rational: I thought it was arather good one. Within a rational context, it's very important to pursue work you *enjoy.* You need to get the right premises, you have to evaluate all the time, acquire personal values, and *use* your emotional fuel to pursue your values passionately. That means always increasing your knowledge and productivity and the range of your values, always working to achieve more and more happiness. Tym - I'm judging from what I have heard. Gilles: Sure...it's the only way to live. Tym: No. What is it? Rational: Most businesses, for example, work on cost-accounting principles. It turns out, that a focus on cost cutting is very destructive to profitablity, especially when the methods of determining actual costs is wrong (as it is in cost-accounting.) This is where you could connect the inhumanness of altruism -- destruction/denial of your values -- with irrationality and lack of motivation ... The point is that symphonic music probably *was* a value to Objectivist X, just not so high up in his personal hierarchy of values as he tried to place it. What's important in the introspection is not just determining whether something is of .. value to you, but also fitting it into your hierarchy of values at an appropriate spot. Jim - And I would argue that such businessmen insufficiently connect the basic motor of business with their specific procedures. They are missing the forest for the trees. Not just up/down in the scale ... but he didn't know if belonged there *at all*. He didn't actually want to do it Gilles: he's gotten a couple of academic articles dealing with motivation published recently. Phil: He didn't want to devote 90% of his time to it. He may have enjoyed it if he did it once a month. Philtwo - and that's why it sounds like the musician had a fixed idea. There's only a tiny fraction of all available actions that any one person can take. Those we choose should be done with intensity, eh? Subetai: I meant the composition. I don't think it's possible to do composition "part time". It's a passion, if they're any good at it (as with most careers).. Well, that's it for the moderated part. Thanks everybody. Thanks, Gilles. :) Also, I think classical music may have been too difficult for him to write. there is no sense pursuing a long-term value if one gets no pleasuer out of it in the short-run day to day living of that life. Good job Gilles :) Rational: Of course. But my point, to tie it back to this discussion, is that one of the most effective methods for detecting those mistakes is to look at the undesirable effects they are experiencing, and finding the fundamental causes of those effects. Examining negative effects is a powerful way of exposing an error in need of a solution. I second Tym ho #aynrand Moderated discussion is over. Please continue of you still have things to say. Gilles: good example... of = if Thanks Tym. My Dad was a very productive and a very happy guy. He advised me to choose work I LOVED doing. He said that if I loved it I would get good at it and succeed in it. He was right! Thank you, Gilles. Outstanding questions. Gilles: Great chat. Thanks Gilles Thanks for the topic Gilles. Jim - I agree. But it is all grounded in a clear perception of the positive. An important aspect of personal values is to remember that you are limited...you can't be all things at once. So, chose that which you want to become that is appropriate to your skill level. and constantly inprove those skills. One can use negatives to argue if you are disproving something or if you have a finite number of options. michelis - so long as one is not alienated from the positive: the ground of the negative. If you want to jump career tracks, keep in mind the amount of time it will take you to be fully productive in that new career...and ask "Is it worth it?" Rational: Ultimately, a clear understanding of the actual goals is needed. True. Otherwise, you can't tell if something is an undesirable effect. I agree. Living is a positive endeavor. Choosing a career is hard. Sometimes the career you want doesn't exist. I've had to choose 3 so far. Jim - we are in full agreement. :) Subetai: That depends a lot on the economic conditions at hand. I've had to readically change my goals as well. -e Tom: Yep. It also depends on evolving technology. Some careers didn't exist a few years ago. Subetai: In a fully capitalistic country, one can *make* careers that don't currently exist...otherwise, one may be stuck with lesser choses. choices, rather. right Like how computer careers were created. Even in today's mixed economy, people are making careers that didn't used to exist. Think of WEB page designers. :) TomM: For me, the only question has been: Do I want this enough to work hard to get it? Tom: Did you have questions about Objectivist X? I was fortunate to find programming at age 15. Discovered I totally loved it, got totally committed to it. I can relate to that general approach, it's hard to see how people can do things for years that they can't stand or are indifferent to .. Betsy: That's a good question to ask yourself to start with. Without the motivation, nothing will happen. But after you've got the answer to that, you need to ask lots of questions about how to market the value you intend to create. Phil: Some people have the opposite problem. Everthing's interesting. How do you narrow it down. Subetai: That's a problem?! anyone have any stories about their career choices/changes? Gilles: You bet. You can be such a generalist that you lose focus on being very good at any one thing. Subetai: Is there some way to make "generalist" a job? <> Tym thinks philosophy is the ultimate generalist field. Subetai: My Dad said that if you look hard enough you can always find somebody to pay you to do what you like to do. He said, "If you like to sleep, you can test mattresses." Gilles: Yes, knowledge is an integrated whole, and the more varied your knowledge is, the wider your perspective on a subject. Betsy: There's truth in that. :) Well, if you're creating some value, there will be people to buy it. Gilles: A great generalist, though, usually has to be able to deal with concretes very well. Consider how many concrete areas of knowledge Rand had to have to write the story of Atlas Shrugged. Subetai: I had THAT problem. I finally found a mix of career and outside interests that satified the peculiar and unique set of interests and talents I had. Jim: then there's history and geography :)