and it most certainly isnt intrinsicly valuable

nothing can ever be

There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of “Life” that makes the concept of “Value” possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.

¶
Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival.

well why should one value any of that?

You havent sold me on any value being objective.

Because its the bodies literal purpose to sustain itself

why should i value a purpose?

It is to be consistent with reality

As to not contradict

why can't there be a mixture of both? It seems disingenuous to claim we should live life for all of the pleasures but then claim we should go through hell without acknowledging how much it hurts. Having it set as either-or just sounds like a world not worth living in

Survival is not value, or teleology. It is simply natural selection, as Punks said.

i dont see any contradictions in hedonism BUT, why should i valueconsistency and noncontradiction?

i do, buuuut i dont have to for any objective reason

To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.

why couldnt it have interest and goals? I dont think you sufficiently established that. Playing with legos is also not related to any of those needs one could have, you can still find pleasure in doing so

Because it has no way to gain or keep

It also has no risk

Punks, you do know that Make is literally quoting Ayn Rand as scripture, right?

i figured to some degree

Pleasure is fueled by mans metaphysical need to sustain his life

as for risk, even that robot could seek out risks of one form or anothter. Maybe it can play dark souls?

well if pleasure is fueld by whatever you say is valuable, then arent you a hedonist?

No

I already told you why

and nothing of it made the slightest bit of sense

How?

*explain in more simple terms @Existence is identity please.*

It doesnt define any of these lol

Just scroll up

Thats like calling me a Nietzscheian for being an egoist

you keep attacking hedonism, no the ball is in your park now. HOW could value EVER be related to anything objective?

It is objective in the context of life

While life is objective in the context of existence

life is objective in so far as that it exists

as does pleasure, btw

so. . . we value life as an objective. . . ?

Yes and values are the tools to sustain it

why would i WANT to sustain it?

that requires me to first value it

and you cant give an objective reason for that