> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> These are both actionable; their utility, I believe, is unquestionable.

Who are they useful for? Future humans? If every generation just lives to make the far future better, instead of enjoying life, I think it's all rather pointless.

That's why I question the utility of what you've given. If you claim something is useful, it has to be useful for someone to do something worth doing.

Rand wouldn't disagree with going to space, but she would ask, "For whom?" and "to what end?"

> Maximizing your personal pleasure is a path that, I believe, leads to a profound emptiness.

It's maximizing happiness, not pleasure.

> Living for a higher purpose than yourself is, ironically, a central tenet of Objectivism: Rand placed the Truth above all else.

That is absolutely a false characterization of Rand.

> Or do you think that Objectivism requires that it's adherents exist purely as agents in self-interested economic market?

It's a philosophy, not a religion. It doesn't require anything, and it doesn't have adherents. To answer your question, no, it doesn't consider that everything worth doing be framed in terms of economics.

> Rand was an idealist to the extreme, and, I believe, would have recoiled at your narrow view of what she taught.

Rand was not an idealist. She explicitly rejected idealism. Rather, she defined exactly what it means to neither make the mistake of being either idealistic, nor rejecting all abstraction.

I can assure you that Rand would not recoil at my (at least) approximately accurate portrayal of her views. I should say that some of the finer details of my point about the pursuit of pleasure/pain and joy/suffering are, I think, my ideas, not hers, but I think they are completely commensurate with what she wrote.

> 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.

Thank you for apologizing. However, you do not understand Rand's views well enough to legitimately dismiss someone just because they agree with Rand.

1. I'm still not seeing backup for your claim that I was asking anyone to sacrifice themselves for the good of others.

2. You should read Objectivist Epistemology, where she connects her ethical system to her metaphysics. It's fairly execrable as philosophy goes, but it does underscore my point that she's fundamentally driven by her idealism, particularly about the nature of truth. (BTW that's why it's called Objectivism and not Selfishism).

Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong. Emotions are not vestigial. Reason is one tool in the box among others. And when self-interest, rather than self-restraint, becomes widely accepted as the criteria for merit, we end up with a system like we have today, where a docile public unable to even articulate a criticism of abuse of power, since there is no such thing as "abuse of power" in a framework that rewards only self-interest.

Adieu.

I've tried to engage productively with you, even to the point of chiding you for being rude without retaliating myself, but now you're just being an asshole.

I've been studying philosophy as a hobby/passion for many years. I've read the work you're referring to, and a whole hell of a lot more. You have a very, very naive understanding of Objectivism.

> Anyway, you really do sound like a young Randroid (again). In a few years you'll see that, well, she was wrong.

Likewise, you really do sound like a young <X>, and in a few years, you'll realize how wrong you are about everything.

That is, literally, the sum of your argument. That is really pitiful.

And for all you know, I could be a 55 year old philosophy professor (though I'm not).

I only skimmed this exchange, and I have no dog in this fight, but you should be aware -- you seem to be the only one using obscenities, and you started this exchange with "Sorry, but this is a load of disgusting hogwash".

None of these comments are very friendly-feeling to me (on either side... you're both obviously feeling defensive), but if you start the exchange with that kind of comment, you're the first to deploy obscenities, you're more actively insulting, etc., you can't really claim the higher ground at the end.

I hope this is useful... it's hard to discuss these kinds of things, but if you can manage it (without getting tangled up in attack/counterattack) it can be rewarding.

It's been a personal goal of mine to get to the point where I never say something online that I wouldn't say in person, and so far I've made a lot of progress, but it looks like the next step is to never use obscenities.

So, you're right, thank you, and that is helpful.

I strongly disagree that I was more actively insulting. I think a detailed reading of the conversation speaks for itself on this.