THE STANDARD OF VALUE
Contents:
This is an important epistemological discussion on the potential conceptual and logical mistakes that must be avoided in any proof, with the proof of life as the standard of value taken as the case study.
What is, is, and what is not, is not. Thus, existence exists, and that which is, is what it is. Existence is the truth of all truths, and thus, the truth underlying existence must underlie all truths, namely that which is, is what it is, i.e. the law of identity, which can also be stated as “A is A”. From this law, we derive the law of non-contradiction (i.e. “A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same respect”) and the law of causality (i.e. what an entity does is an extension of what it is).
If A is A, then A cannot be its negation at the same time and in the same respect, for then, it would not be A. Thus, we get the first corollary of the law of identity, namely the law of non-contradiction. Now, note that an action is always an action of an entity. Thus, an action can never exist apart from the entity, and since nothing exists apart from its identity, an action can also never exist apart from the entity's identity. Lastly, by the law of non-contradiction, an action can also never exist in contradiction to the entity's identity. Thus, we have the law of action, namely that what an entity does is an extension of what it is, i.e. the law of causality.
Now, the senses give us what is of and from existence, and by their nature, they can give us nothing else. But the senses grasp only that something is, not what it is; what it is, is up to our mind to grasp. Evidently, to put our mind to the task of grasping the truth, we cannot but start with the law of identity, and we can never deviate from it lest we deviate from the pursuit of truth. Thus, we have the law underlying the pursuit of truth, namely that reason — the faculty of identifying and integrating the material given by our senses — is our only means of pursuing the truth, and logic — the art of non-contradictory identification — is the only means of pursuing the use of reason.
Now, consider the nature of a human being at its most essential. The fact that his mind is tied to his body means that the actions of his mind are tied to those of his body, and by observation, we see that this tie is often direct. The fact that he is self-aware means his consciousness is a key factor in the actions of his mind, and thus, the actions of his body, because after all, what an entity does is an extension of what it is, and a human being’s consciousness is fundamentally self-aware. Therefore, his consciousness, and thus much of his actions (mental and physical), are fundamentally self-driven and self-determined, i.e. in the chain of cause and effect that lead to his actions, he himself is an essential cause. In other words, a human being has free will, which is not the ability to do as whim demands, but the ability to do one thing instead of another consciously.
Thus, the context is as follows:
NOTE: Logically, reason and free will are inseparable, since the ability to pursue the truth presupposes the ability to focus consistently and thus consciously on the truth as opposed to the false or the arbitrary. In other words, there can be no reason without free will, and since the basis of free will is the ability to direct one’s focus, the fullest exercise of free will is the exercise of reason.
First, some definitions…
That which exists. This could be an entity (i.e. that which exists as it is independent of consciousness), or an aspect of an entity (i.e. a part of the entity that is inseparable from its identity; this can be grasped by a consciousness' selective focus on the entity).
A context of a thing is a set of things that are related to it logically (e.g. based on similaries and differences), causally (e.g. based on actions, reactions and interactions), or both. Since any part of reality has identity and changes according to its identity, and since multiplicity and interactivity are inherent in reality, every part of reality is related to one or more things both logically and causally. Furthermore, by causality, any entity acts according to its own identity and the identity of its context. For example, water boils at different temperatures based on different pressure conditions; these conditions are the context of water's boiling point. As another example, a creature tends to behave one way toward benevolent creatures (e.g. in a friendly or at least non-hostile way) and another way toward malevolent creatures (e.g. in a threatened or hostile way); here, the nature of the creatures it is interacting with is the context of its behaviour.
By causality, each change is derived from the identity of the entities that change or cause the change. Thus, an entity with a certain identity in a certain context is tied to a range of changes, both present (i.e. existent) and absent (i.e. non-existent). A potential is an absent change tied to a certain entity in a certain context.
NOTE: To say something will happen or can happen is to identify the relationship between a certain kind of change and a certain kind of entity within a certain kind of context. Hence, we see that potential can only be identified with respect to history, i.e. what can happen can only be identified with respect to what has happened.
To summarise the above (credits to ChatGPT)…
A “thing” is anything that exists, either as an independent entity or a part of one, and its context consists of related things that influence its identity and behavior; potential refers to the presently absent changes tied to an entity’s identity within some context, and it can be grasped through knowledge of the past actions of the entity within this context.
Back to the main discussion…
With the established context in mind, let us look upon ourselves. Do we act only as acted upon? No, we also act in a way that orients us toward a consciously identified potential, perhaps adapting to how we are acted upon but always orienting ourselves toward something in particular. Furthermore, we also push ourselves to act toward the consciously identified potential without needing to be acted upon at every step. In other words, we are not only reactive but also consciously proactive.
What if there were no consciously identified potential to act toward? Then, we can have no conscious orientation, since there is nothing to consciously orient ourselves toward. Even if we push ourselves to act, it would be toward nothing in particular, which means it would be toward nothing; this also means our focus would be toward nothing. In other words, we would exist without the exerise of focus, and hence, without the exercise of consciousness, and hence, without the exercise of anything that can sustain our existence as conscious beings. If we have not already become a vegetable or a corpse, we would soon become one, unless, of course, we turn toward some potential and act.
Hence, we see that to act toward a consciously identified potential is essential to our existence as conscious beings. Here, we can generalise: to act toward a potential is essential to life as such, conscious or not. Why? Consider: if a life-form orients itself toward nothing in particular, i.e. toward nothing, then it also does not orient itself toward its own existence (which is something in particular); at this point, if it is not already dead, it soon would be. Hence, we see that conscious existence is an extension and expansion of life, such that a key requirement for staying in existence is not just the orientation toward potential but toward consciously identified potential.
Now, can there not be orientation toward potential that is not tied to sustaining one’s existence? Indeed, within some context, anything that acts always acts toward some potential; e.g. water under gravity always seeks its level, fluids always move from high pressure regions to low pressure regions, celestial bodies always act and interact according to the forces of gravity, etc. But when an entity’s orientation is not tied to sustaining its existence, its actions are not based on what its existence demands. Such an entity cannot be alive, since a living thing that does not act based on what its life demands is but a non-living thing. Evidently, if such an entity is conscious, then it does not strive be conscious and thus stays in consciousness only by chance or support.
Now, what if such an entity strove to be conscious only in order to achieve some end? Then, barring accidents, it would be alive and conscious until it achieved its end. To such an entity, its own existence is a means to some other end. Evidently, this end cannot be based on the demands of its existence, which means it also cannot be based on its conscious grasp of existence. Why? Because to have a conscious grasp of existence is to grasp that existence is all there is, that its experience of existence is all there is for itself, and that any end beyond its own existence has no basis in its experience of existence and thereby has no basis in its grasp of existence.
Hence, the end pursued by such an entity cannot be based on any regard for truth, which means it is arbitrary. This also means it is unchosen, since it is detached from the entity’s conscious grasp of existence and hence detached from the entity’s self-driven focus, i.e. detached from the entity’s reason and choice. Hence, the entity either is an automaton or has abandoned reason and reality, in which case its pursuit is for nothing (i.e. nothing of real effect to itself).
To conclude, only if an entity strives to sustain its own existence can it be alive, and an entity that is alive and conscious has only one potential that is aligned with reason and reality: its own conscious existence. Thus, we see that life, whatever its form, is an end in itself, i.e. it is its own justification. The question, “What is the meaning of life?” is as senseless as it is vague; life is its own meaning. Similarly, the assertion that, “Life is meaningless,” is meaningless; life is the source of meaning as it is the only possible affirmation of reality and all its potential, and there can be no meaning apart from or “beyond” life. Having said this, we must raise a valuable question: what does it mean to strive to sustain one’s conscious existence? What does this pursuit consist of, and what does it demand? These questions shall now be explored.
First, some definitions…
A self-generated action of an entity is its action whose first cause (excluding the causes that formed the entity) is internal, i.e. the entity's own characteristics and components. As an example, once formed, a living being seeks nutrition out of its own internal needs and motives, as opposed to a acting as a reaction to external factors. Similarly, once formed, a self-propelling machine moves according to its own mechanism and fuel (until it runs out), as opposed to being pushed or pulled by an external force. As a counterexample, a volcano's eruption is not self-generated, since it is the effect of factors external to the body of the volcano, e.g. the build-up of magma from the lower levels of earth, with the rising pressure within the volcano being a reaction to this build-up. Similarly, the action of water under gravity to seek its level is not self-generated, because its level-seeking is first and foremost a reaction to the force of gravity. Note that almost all entities have both internal and external causes driving their actions; the purpose of the concept of "self-generated action" is to identify the source of a certain action, so as to know more about the nature of the entity and the context it is in.
A goal of an entity is a potential toward which it orients itself consistently (i.e. across time and with respect to a range of external factors) by self-generated action. Consistency is essential, since an inconsistent orientation is essentially a lack of orientation. The self-generated nature of the action is also essential, since an action that is first and foremost a reaction is not driven by the entity and thus reveals the orientation not of the entity but of a whole context in which the entity exists.
The purpose of the concept of "goal" is to distinguish between a cause in a broader sense from a cause that is derived from an entity that acts on its own toward a potential it grasps or orients itself toward in some way. Where does the need for such a distinction come from? I posit that it first comes from the distinction between "coincidental" and "intentional" actions or occurrences. To clarify, consider these observations: (1) Our conscious actions are always with respect to a potential that we already identify in some form and already orient ourselves toward before we pursue it. (2) We also see such actions in other conscious beings. Furthermore, (3) we observe that the pursuit of such potential is ongoing and interrelated with other such pursuits, i.e. we pursue some things for the sake of other things and ultimately for the sake of a goal that is its own goal (i.e. an end in itself). Lastly, (4) we observe that certain characteristics that separate conscious actions from natural causes, i.e. the characteristics of being self-generated, potential-oriented, interrelated and continuous until failure, are present in the characteristic actions of all living beings, not just conscious beings. These observations point to the existence of a fundamentally distinct kind of causation, i.e. final causation or goal-orientation.
A necessary condition for a fact X is an actual or potential fact whose absence contradicts X, i.e. X can only be true if its necessary conditions are present.
Life is self-generated, self-sustaining action. No action can exist out of context, i.e. apart from its necessary conditions, hence life also exists with respect to necessary conditions. In other words, life is possible within a set of constraints. Furthermore, within these constraints, life is the self-generated action of a living entity that necessarily results in sustaining its own existence.
Back to the main discussion…
There are three kinds of goals: (1) an intermediate goal, which is a goal that is a means to another goal, (2) a self-sustaining goal, which is a goal that is an end in itself, i.e. a means to its own further achievement, and (3) a deadend goal, which is a goal that is neither a means to another goal nor an end in itself. If a goal is an end in itself, then logically, it is a means to itself, i.e. its achievement is a necessary condition (though not necessarily a sufficient condition) for its own further achievement.
A goal — like any action, state or potential — is a goal of an entity. If the entity pursues a goal only for the sake of achieving it once and not as a means to pursue further goals, then its actions are not tied to the demands of its existence. If so, it is not alive. If it is alive, however, it cannot be inconsistent in sustaining its own life, nor can it be consistent in its orientation toward a potential apart from its life, since if either of these were true, the sustenance of the entity’s life would not be its orientation but a chance result of chance actions. If so, then the entity would not in fact be alive. Hence, anything the living being does is (and by its nature must be) tied to the demands of its existence (barring accidents or chance inconsistencies), which means any other goal it has must be a means to its life, directly or indirectly. Hence, a goal of a living being is always either a means to another goal or an end in itself. Hence, the goals of any living being are hierarchical in nature.
Let X be a non-living entity with some goal G that is an end in itself (i.e. self-sustaining). Then, given the other necessary conditions, achieving G is a sufficient condition for further achieving G. Hence, given the other necessary conditions, achieving G sustains the existence of X so that it further achieves G. In other words, since X produces self-generated action to pursue G and since the pursuit of G sustains itself — given the other necessary conditions — we have that X is an entity capable of and oriented toward self-generated, self-sustaining action. In other words, X is alive. Hence, we have that every entity with a self-sustaining goal is a living entity and vice versa.
We see that life is an end in itself, but is life the only end in itself? Consider the nature of a goal that is an end in itself. If any entity has such a goal, then necessarily, the pursuit of the goal sustains the entity’s own existence, given the other necessary conditions. In other words, such a goal is necessarily a self-sustaining goal, i.e. a goal that — given the other necessary conditions — sustains the existence of the entity pursuing it. But this is exactly what life is: self-generated, self-sustaining action. In other words, an end in itself is indistinguishable from life, i.e. it has to be life in some form. Hence, life is indeed the only end in itself.
First, some definitions…
Value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. It is, in essence, the achievable object of a goal (achievability is key, since objectively, one cannot act to gain and/or keep anything if the facts of reality make it impossible as such).