AXIOMS OF VALUE
Contents:
Purpose presupposes the affirmation of existence as its root, i.e. as the precondition and ultimate purpose. Let us see how this is so.
If existence is rejected, then “purpose”, i.e. one’s pursuit of potential, would have to rest not on existence, but on non-existence, i.e. nothing. This is no play of words; anything that exists, and thus any potential, exists, i.e. is a part of existence. Furthermore, if existence is evaded, then “purpose” would be based on the arbitrary, i.e. that which has no basis in one’s grasp of existence, and thus, that which disregards the facts of existence, thereby rejecting existence by implication. Thus, the affirmation of existence is tied to the acceptance of one’s grasp of it, and this is the precondition of purpose.
The potential to perish cannot be a basis of purpose, since to you as a conscious being, the end result, death, has no meaning; where death is, you are not, and thus, you will never gain and/or keep it. By rejecting existence, you reject your potential to live, thereby embracing your potential to perish. By evading existence, you embrace the arbitrary, i.e. that which disregards the facts of existence, thereby rejecting existence by implication; of course, by rejecting existence, you reject your potential to live. Thus, the affirmation of existence is tied to the acceptance of one’s potential to live in it, and this is necessarily the orientation of any purpose and hence, it is the ultimate purpose, the end in itself to which every other purpose is the means.
Thus, the affirmation of one’s grasp of existence is the precondition for purpose, and the affirmation of one’s potential to live is the ultimate purpose, i.e. the potential every purpose must be oriented to; these two points together form the affirmation of existence. Therefore, any purpose that rejects/disregards such affirmation rejects/disregards its own precondition and ultimate purpose, which is the affirmation of existence. Thus, it is invalid to ask: why affirm existence? It is invalid, because by asking “why”, you either seek the cause or the purpose; in affirming existence, its cause is your own choice, and it is the ultimate purpose, i.e. it is an end in itself. Thus, we see that the choice to affirm existence is axiomatic, i.e. it cannot be broken down into further purposes. It also cannot be broken down into causes apart from your choice, because (1) to explain a choice in volitional terms is to explain its purpose, but here, we have reached a purpose that is an end in itself, and (2) to explain a choice in non-volitional terms is to deny choice outright.
Now, note that the denial of free will (i.e. the ability to act in a fundamentally self-driven way on some level) is the denial of existence as such. How so? Firstly, by denying free will, we deny knowledge, since to know something is to affirm that it corresponds to reality; however, by denying free will, we make any action, even the action of such affirmation, subject to nothing but the happenstance of certain causes acting in a certain way, without factoring in any considerations of correspondence to reality. Any argument that tries to deny this fails by cutting off its own root; an argument presupposes knowledge, and knowledge presupposes the ability to affirm correspondence to reality consistently, i.e. as a self-driven orientation that is not swayed by happenstance. Secondly, by denying knowledge, we also deny the affirmation that what is, is, thereby being open to the non-existent being existent and the existent being non-existence. Since the non-existent has no basis in existence, we are left with nothing, since, for all we know, all that is, is also not. Thus, we deny existence as such. This is false, and that I can affirm for sure, as a being who is aware of the existence of both myself and the world around me; such awareness is too self-evident to ignore without reducing oneself to babbling.
The claim that correspondence to reality happens consistently due to non-volitional processes is false. How? It states, in essence, "my mental processes are non-volitional, and I know this because my non-volitional mental processes automatically correspond to reality". While the first claim is not obviously false, the second is; I know, by experience, that my mental processes do not automatically correspond to reality. To claim that they do, my experience notwithstanding, is to claim that my "mistake" (which contradicts the truth) and the truth were both true. If this leads you to reject the law of non-contradiction, you reject reality as such, thereby rejecting your very grasp of existence and, once again, reducing yourself to babbling.
We can take this further. Let us say that, to strengthen the above claim, the truth may switch back and forth such that you are never wrong. Now, the law of identity, which implies the law of causality, implies that a thing acts only according to its identity, i.e. its action (and thus any change in it) can exist neither apart from nor in contradiction to the identities of things that exist. Now, take an example from basic geometry. In the course of your deductions, you misidentify the angle of a triangle, and as a result, the sum of the angles is less than 180 degrees, upon which you correct your answer. If you were right before, then the same triangle, without changing its shape, had its angle changed. This is impossible, since an angle cannot exist apart from the shape.
Thus, the choice to affirm reality or to reject/evade it: this is an axiomatic choice that is grounded entirely in our volition. Thus, it is the first and most fundamental moral choice. Now, note that this choice, in essence, is the choice to stay in focus (i.e. be aware of entities in reality, which is the basic form of affirming reality beyond the non-volitional sense-perceptual level) or the stay out of focus (i.e. let entities and the facts tied to them float in undefined terms and/or unidentified thoughts and feelings). This is our choice and nothing but our choice; the world around us may be encouraging or discouraging, may make it harder or easier to choose one way or another, but we choose and have to choose on our own.
Affirming existence means affirming one’s grasp of it and one’s potential to live in it. Thus, since the affirmation of existence is the only root of purpose and thereby of value (the object of purpose), life, i.e. a self-sustaining state of existence sustained by self-generated action, is the standard of value. The form of life is relevant, since we strive not merely to sustain some part or aspect of our being but the whole of our being, i.e. ourself. Properly, the form of life is based on the fundamental characteristic of the beings in question, since the fundamental characteristic is what forms the core of their nature.
Thus, since volition is the fundamental characteristic of man, man’s form of life is a volitionally-driven existence, i.e. an existence where one finds life both possible and potentially possible in a broader context. Logically, since (1) existence is vast and unknown in large parts, (2) life is conditional, and (3) there is much in existence that is not favourable to life (or downright unfavourable), we see that the volitional sustenance of life needs the expansion of our ability to live and pursue potential; stagnation in the long-term is, at best, indifference to life if not an invitation to death.
Note that, to a volitional being, death as such has no objective weight; death never coincides with one’s existence, and one has no reason to fear it in and of itself. The reason death is feared, properly, is because life is desired. Hence, since the expansion of our ability to live and pursue potential is key to life as a volitional being, even more so long-range, the focus should be on pursuing life, i.e. gaining value and the potential for further value, rather than avoiding death. As for risks, that shall be discussed in the next section.