Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

- The Objectivist Ethics in VOS

You [Joel Català] asked, "...from where did Mr. Fromm "deduce" that life is only --exclusively-- for itself?"

Fromm was a self-actualization psychologist like Abraham Maslow. It would have been antithetical of him to posit a reason for actualization outside of one's own life. In this he is in agreenment with Rand above.

Num++, replying your post #28,

Fromm’s assertion is a metaphysical statement: "the only purpose of life is life".  If he builds a metaphysical statement prescinding from metaphysics, well, then it’s obviously irrelevant, a tautology (your “non-contradictory singularity”): "life is for living."

I think that metaphysics must be faced in basis of reason and logic (remaining aware that it can be politically manipulated), and trying to build more than tautologies.

Anyway, I will discuss some of Mr. Fromm’s points:

1) Man's self-awareness of his mortality introduces existential angst.

The central aspect of point 1) is not mortality, but self-awareness. To put it differently: animals do not suffer existential crises because of their lack of self-awareness. That issue must be addressed properly.

2) In trying to be rid of the angst, Man propounds "meanings of life" outside himself. 

Related to this point, one may say that Mr Fromm, who did not resort to ““meanings of  life” outside himself”, is a proof that there is possible the case of humans without existential angst, or humans with existential angst who don't need to find meanings of life “outside himself.”

3) This "Other-significance" inevitably results in authoritarianism/dehumanization.

  

Point 3), specially by using the word “inevitability” is simply not true. We all know Theist individuals who are not dehumanized or authoritarians.

Moreover, the reverse is also possible: there have been Atheist individuals who did behave in authoritarian/dehumanized ways (e.g., Stalin, Mao, Hitler).

Point 4), which says “you believe in God because you are weak”, is a poor argument. Atheism can also be interpreted as a weakness: a way to embrace moral relativism in order to justify self-indulgence.

In reference to point 5), he is again wrong: not sacrificing individuality is compatible with some “outer” (I would say different than egotistic) purposes in life.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 7/05, 7:17am)

 "Fromm is making the point that when societies run on an 'Other-significance' ethic, the result will be authoritarianism/dehumanization."

"Fromm could probably agree with you here that individuality [is not equal to] egotism. At this point, I'll see more disagreement with objectivists (this 'equation' is material enough for another thread or two)."

"It would be interesting if any fully developed philosophical system has evolved a non-egotistic individualist ethic."