Ifat Glassman

And why do you want to stay alive? / What makes life valuable to a human being? Second point: If "man's life" is the only tool and justification you have for choosing anything, then how do you choose from all the various values that keep you alive? How is one suppose to choose from the numerous values like friends, hobbies, vacations, clothes, art, entertainment, career, furniture, etc' etc' - all of which "keep him alive"? There is no way in which you can use the Objectivist ethics to suggest to you to choose a green car rather than a red one. Another thing is that your formulation as I understand it basically says the following: To be happy, you must stay alive, therefore, pursue values that keep you alive. But if that is all you pursue - values that keep you alive - in what way are you pursuing your happiness? You say "while you pursue your happiness" but from your formulation it remains unclear how one goes about pursuing it - it is only clear that one takes actions to stay alive. Why is it important not to miss out on opportunities? I am asking to emphasize a certain point - that there is something far more important in the role of emotions than missing out or not missing out opportunities. Let's say one had some other way of detecting good opportunities - would it then be alright if emotions were repressed? If not, why not? Emotions also tell you if you prefer a red or a green car, the type of vacation that best suits your life at a certain time in your life, the kind of hobby or career you would most enjoy - all these things have nothing to do with emotions reflecting or not reflecting life as the standard of value. Ethics tell you productivity is a virtue. It does not tell you which career is right for you. This is where your emotion come in. Think about it - there is no way to decide which career to have by reducing each career to being "for" or "against" man's life. They are all "for" it so long as they allow a man to be productive. One can and should set the automatic value system correctly, and then it is a tool in the service of one's survival and happiness, to be enjoyed and trusted. even so, validation is necessary (maybe excluding cases like what type of cereal to have for breakfast - in which case it is ridiculous to even do a one-layer peeling (as Peikoff says it). In that case I'd say you should simply go by whatever you feel like eating). So I agree that validation is necessary. However, What would you say is the role of emotions in pursuing values then, if they have one? Because all I see is that you say that they cannot be trusted as an automatic guide. You didn't actually state a positive role that emotions play in pursuing values. Just another quick question here: if you try to justify every action by this standard - how do you explain the Objectivist position that suicide is a good course of action when happiness is no longer possible? surely suicide is the ultimate action against life as a standard of value. I could agree with this formulation, if it wasn't for the many open questions I have about the way you see the above in actual practice. I think one important distinction should be made: and that is between the philosopher identifying ethics as a science, and the actual daily application of ethics in one's life - which is completely different. The scientist/philosopher looks at things generally, things which are true for humanity as a race - he does not look at every specific person and the requirements of happiness for every specific person. Trying to approach the daily application of ethics in the same way a philosopher/scientist would would make ethics an apersonal, logic-only based thing which cannot possibly make a person happy because it leaves emotions, or personal preferences no room.

In that course Peikoff talks about how most Objectivists tend to intellectualize things, disregard the significance of emotion and personal desires and try to go "purely by logic". I suggest you pay more attention to that part of the lecture. Peikoff talks against it, emphasizing the tremendous significance of emotions. He says you only need to do "one onion-layer peeling" when deciding on optional values. You certainly do not need to reduce buying a dog or deciding on a type of vacation to have to "life as the standard of value". That is a crazy level of over-intellectualizing. Second thing, is that the whole point of living is to experience enjoyment (Ayn Rand phrased it as happiness as the purpose of morality). If I were a plant, I'd only care about basing my actions on "life as the standard of value", putting aside the nature of human psychology, my need for happiness, and the fact that enjoyment is the only reason I have to live. But I'm a human and I want my life to be worthwhile - to be enjoyable. The purpose of my life is to be happy and this is something every man must never forget. THIS is the correct starting point to approach morality. The starting point of "what is right and what is wrong to do in life" is exactly the approach of morality as duty which I was trying to put down in this essay. It is the job of the philosopher developing ethics as a science to discover that life is the standard of value implicit in all values, but it is certainly not something every person needs to go through when choosing every day values. In my opinion, it takes a high level of repression to be able to approach life this way, and would leave a person completely paralyzed in face of the simplest choices like what to have for breakfast. I have an interesting question to ask you: WHY is it important to chose your actions and values by life as the standard? I'm very curious to see your answer to this. And what exactly are "more rational values"? Does it mean I shouldn't value shopping clothes as much and should focus on my career more? Does it prescribe what hobbies are more or less "rational"? How about the amount of time I spend on each thing - does morality tell me what amount of time is more "rational"? Do I need to use life as the standard to decide if I want to buy a dress or jeans? Emotions certainly are part of the justification for doing something. If you want something, and if by thinking it through you still conclude this is worthwhile - that it maximizes your enjoyment long-term, then the fact that you want it and can enjoy it is the ultimate justification to pursue it. another point: If one's implicit value system is set correctly, then emotions need very little validation. Yet they do require validation. You don't buy the most expensive car you see just because you feel like it. You consider all the other factors involved, the effect of such a choice on your life, your emotional reaction to all of those things, and if it all checks out, you follow the emotion. Emotions provide you information to values which fall outside the category of "correct" or "incorrect" in the philosophical sense - they are the link between the external world and your unique personality. One cannot rely solely on morality to educate him what he should want or choose. Morality can educate you that productivity is a virtue, it is not enough to tell you what kind of productive work to choose, how much time to put into it, what methods you feel most comfortable using for this particular work, etc'. Surely many things in life come down to "feeling like it" after one has thought through all that is involved and checked how he feels about it; such as what shoes will you get, what movie to see, what hobby to have and even what partner one wants etc'. It is ridiculous to assume that everything can be reduced to life as the standard of value, like explaining why you prefer a partner with a particular kind of sense of humor. Many values come down to "this is who I am, this is what I enjoy". I second that. She talks about morality as duty from a philosophical viewpoint with some connection to psychology, and she defines all the concepts involved. There's also another article in the Romantic Manifesto discussing the same subject from a different context, don't remember the name though.

Thanks, I appreciate it. One point: "The purpose of morality is to find a rational way to achieve happiness", it is actually that "the purpose of morality is happiness and rationality is the way to achieve it". Rationality is not a goal of morality, like survival or happiness is, it's a virtue required to achieve survival and happiness. I still have a problem with one thing I replied to Thomas. He said: "A man's life centered morality will lead to having desires that are actually for your life, while those desires that are not for your life will eventually fade away" I replied that I agree (with some reservation). After thinking of it further I want to take further caution. An adult already has a very developed psychology, big part of which is neither right nor wrong, but simply is. For example, some people like dogs, some people like amusement parks, some are bored by it. some are interested in psychology or art or mechanical engineering, some have a lot of emphasis on a sense of humor, some are more serious, and the list goes on and on infinitely. All these values one can chose to pursue, come from one's developed psychology - not from an ethical system he uses. Ethics can teach a man certain traits of character that are important, but it does not and should not "reprogram" his other values. (small note: I'm not sure if this is what Thomas meant, I am just presenting what I consider as worth emphasizing here). As for approaching such values as I mentioned above (Peikoff calls them "optional values", as against, I assume, rationality or independence which are necessary values - one does not have a choice about needing them if he wants to survive). I've wrote down the method he describes in his audio course "Judging, feeling and not being moralistic" (awesome course, by the way, well worth the investment, and not too expensive too): This is part of his description of the significance of emotions and desires to pursuit of optional values.

It's not that one's happiness is very important - it's the MOST important thing, its the only reason to be alive. I can see how you got the idea that I promote hedonism (simply going after whatever desire you happen to have), but I do not. I assume the goal of seeking to maximize one's enjoyment in the whole of one's life by thinking and learning (I mention this at the end). Such a goal only ideally allows desires that are compatible with this goal (this is the ideal I present as desirable). Morality is wider than allowing one to pursue unique, personal values, but this is its most important use. The reason for this is that those personal values are the most crucial to a person's happiness, and happiness is the proper purpose of morality. One's happiness depends primarily on things like one's self-esteem, choice of career, romantic life, social life - all these things are very personal values. If you tell someone "productivity is a virtue" - how the hell can it serve their happiness apart from productive work which appeals uniquely to them - to their unique persona? Answer is that it can't. Trying to apply "the virtue of productivity" in an impersonal manner will lead to one working one's ass off in some random job just for the sake of creating material goods. That cannot possibly serve one's happiness. That's why I was saying that applying morality to one's life has to start with one's personal values. Similarly one cannot achieve a fulfilling romantic relationship by seeking the "good partner" - a rational, hard working, picture of an ideal "Francisco"/ "Dagny" kind of partner. As for self esteem - it is personal in the sense that self-esteem can only be obtained once a person becomes convinced, consciously and subconsciously that a certain standard of judging personality is good. A person cannot gain self esteem by living according to a standard they did not understand and "personalize" (make part of their subconscious ideas). A person cannot gain self esteem by living up to a standard external to them, as, for example, judging oneself by one's level of productivity per day without having a subconscious positive evaluation of that trait - without understanding first hand why it is a virtue. In that case all the person is capable of is condemning or approving - but he is incapable of an emotional reaction such as admiration or self-esteem. It has to be personal to "work" for one's happiness. In case of mixed values and contradictory ideas: the process of applying morality to one's life still has to go through one's present ideas and values. For example: If you were religious, reading Objectivism for the first time, it takes time to understand exactly how Objectivism gives value to your life. During that process, so long as you cannot see how going to church is a waste of time/ not good for your life - you should still go (as it seems you did). To stop going simply because Ayn Rand said that religion is bad is moral obedience. that is what my essay aimed at attacking. Well, I agree, but yet it sounds like an impersonal thing. As if "correct desires" simply come to a person from some morality. As if, after reading Atlas Shrugged, a person's taste in romantic partner changes to want the "right" kind of person, i.e. a John Galt or a Dagny. (But there is no such thing as an intellectual "ideal partner". An ideal partner can only be someone with a unique sense of life and traits. The best Objectivism can do for a person is make clearer what kind of personality is good for living and which is bad, thus somewhat change one's evaluation of others, while still keeping it 100% personal). You know, you have no idea what I was talking about then, and you still don't know it now. It's wise to first make sure you understand someone's position before you go on to crack condescending jokes about them for it - especially if they tell you explicitly that you did not understand their position, like I have in the past.

Cute idea.

The first approach teaches the child to approach values from a positive background: "I am good. And if I put in effort, I can earn good things". The second approach sets a negative background: "if I fail to do X I am not good as a person". For example; my parents educated me that doing well in school is important for my "status" as good or bad (more specifically successful as a person or a failure as a person) (By the way, I don't blame them, on the face of it this seems like a good method). However, this made me approach education as something I must do well in - not as something I choose to do well in to get good things. The thought of failing a test or not studying enough to do well "enough" was something I could not tolerate. The reason for this was not the failure of my future plans but an automated response I've had since childhood that it is simply "important" to do well in school. I believe that if I were educated with the second approach I would not feel a necessity to do well apart from a selfish goal. Now that I think about it - Many people I know have tests anxiety. I think it is because subconsciously they see the test as a test of their worth. Heck, if my self-esteem had to stand for a test in that way I'd be anxious about tests too (which I am actually not. It took a different form in my case).

I noticed something else you said though: I don't agree that they are marginally different. I think there is a tremendous difference. A parent can give or not give a prize and not withhold his/her affection. Then they are sending the message" I love you, and if you want to earn a prize you can do it by reading/cleaning room". From this the child learns that the parent is always there for him, and that the task the parent encourages the child to do is part of the parent looking after him. But withholding affection because the child didn't do a certain task sends a completely different message, more like: "YOU are bad, you are unworthy because of not doing X".

Say what you disagree with so we can discuss it. I agree with you. (In fact in the original draft I wrote it down explicitly but this was packed enough as it is with disconnected point I had to erase some stuff). But I think some things cannot be appealing to a child right away. For example, learning how to read; it is fun to know how to read, maybe even to succeed in identifying letters correctly, but there is a limit to the fun that can be gotten at the beginning: a child cannot possibly understand why education is important for his/her life. The only thing they understand is that if they put the effort in to learn the letters they get a cookie. Once they grow up some more they can see the tremendous significance of education, but not at the beginning. So some external rewards are necessary, I think. However, you are the parent here, you tell me.

The process I described is the virtue of pride. This is the connection between the virtue of pride and the value of self-esteem (virtue is the action required to achieve a value). More background: (Both quotes by Ayn Rand, taken from the Ayn Rand Lexicon)

Be honest about what one considers as one's flaws and then work to improve/ solve them.

I would gladly discuss your ideas with you, but frankly, I have no idea what you are saying. I don't even know what to ask. I understand fragments here and there but can't put them together. Maybe you can explain your main point in different words/ try to simplify? For example: "building the bridge to facilitate the greatest traffic [morality]" - in what way is traffic a metaphor for morality?

Thanks for the compliment. However, all it takes to write "this kind" of post is to find a subject that interests you and investigate it: gather information about it over time, draw conclusions and write it down in logical order. I think the key is to genuinely find the topic interesting. A person can want to write something good to impress, for example - in which case they would never be able to write anything really good. But if the person finds the topic interesting enough to ask questions about it in his own mind for his own curiosity then he will discover new knowledge and be able to write about it well. This is the only sense in which personality plays a role in the quality of writing that I can think of. If you follow the first requirement of having the right kind of motivation, Ayn Rand has a book on how to write non-fiction ("The art of non-fiction"). She says that this is a skill anybody can learn - it's just a matter of practice. After reading the book and getting some experience in writing in my blog, I sure know I have a long way to go to improve my writing style.

This guy sounds like a first class loser. It could still provide information, but requires a translation through the psychology of the reporter. Example: "That guy was a self-centered bastard who thought he was better than everyone". Likely facts of reality: this guy has self-esteem, confidence and honesty about his evaluation of others. It is more likely the reporter would resent someone with genuine self-esteem than some Roark-wanna-be who tries to put everyone down to gain self-esteem. Anyway, two more things to say: 1. I think the best source to learn about Ayn Rand (other than her books) the person is Leonard Peikoff. For example "My thirty years with Ayn Rand" (he has a free online audio recording of this somewhere on the ARI website), or interviews with people who knew Ayn Rand, like this. 2. As for narcissism: How would you define it or identify it in someone? I think you first need to know enough narcissist people to develop a solid concept of it. Personally, I would be very careful approaching this. Because I find a lot of value in self-admiration, especially for creating art involving projection of a character. You don't want to mix all self-centered behavior and make it into a single category because that will destroy the concept of the good kinds of being self-centered. There is one kind of bad self-centerdness that I noticed, and that is holding as the standard of good one's own self. Such a person cannot love anyone else (including him/her-self ironically) because he cannot develop admiration for other people unless they resemble himself. Of course, no person is a replication of another, and so he is incapable of truly admiring/ loving another human being. This kind can go on and on about how wonderful he/she is, and usually have no genuine interest in what you say (well, unless it relates to them in some way). One example (if you read Harry Potter) is Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter. That is really an exaggerated description of this certain kind of self-centerdness and is good to capture the essence. I don't think Ayn Rand is anything like that. The fact that clearly shows it is that she was most capable of admiring other people - for things that did not resemble herself (yes in essence were reducible to the things she admired). She also had genuine self-esteem which is only possible when someone holds a standard of good/ bad which is not concrete-bound to their self. i.e. "Rationality is good/admirable" - I value myself and others as good to the extent I am rational. The other kind would think: "My way of thinking is good, anyone who thinks like me is good" - there is no way to have self esteem because there is no standard by which to judge oneself.

Bellow is a short essay I wrote about this topic. You can also read it on my blog. Open for discussion. _____________________________________________________________________________ Values without a valuer What is "important" in life? A commonly accepted answer is: Getting your name down in history books, bringing progress to humanity, helping people, changing things on a major scale. Then, there is a sub-version of what is "important": the idea of what is "successful". "Successful" means being famous, having a triple degree in something, rich, popular, good looking. Even though this concept of "important" refers to an individual, and what an individual should do - What it fails to consider is the actual individual. It prescribes what is "important" to an individual while making irrelevant the actual opinion of an individual person. Ethics taken as duty are experienced as an end in themselves: A person is honest for the sake of being good, he does well in school for the sake of being good, he goes on a diet for the sake of being "successful" etc'. Philosophically he views morality as duty: as a set of rights and wrongs dictated to him from something outside himself (like society or god). Psychologically this view of morality puts a wedge between his self esteem and desires; because he needs to choose if he wants to be good and obedient, or pursue his own desires and goals and give up being good (which means to give up self-esteem). Philosophically, a proper moral code depends on man's choice to live and achieve his needs. It's opposite, a moral code prescribed as duty, makes personal goals and thinking irrelevant, and is therefore improper as a guide to life (which is what ethics in essence IS). Psychologically, the distinction between morality from choice or from duty is not between following good morality or bad morality - rather the method by which a man accepts his moral code and why he accepts it. Does he choose his moral code to better his life, or does he accept it unquestionably, as something above himself to live up to? If a man sees morality as "the good" (i.e. "this is what I should do to be good!") and not as "the good for me" ("I should do X if I want good things for myself") then he accepts morality as a matter of duty, regardless of how good the moral code is philosophically. The person with the first approach ("be good!") has no explanation of why these things are important. It seems to him like there is no explanation - those things simply ARE important, even though he never reached this conclusion himself nor recall ever choosing those things. His concept of "important" is divorced from his desires and ideas. For many it can be difficult to grasp that a proper moral code actually depends on their choice; Many of us are educated to accept what is "good" or "bad" as irrelevant to our choice and beyond our reasoning. Kids are taught what is "important", such as; it is important to get good grades, important to keep a safe, traditional path vs. pursuing a "hopeless" dream, important to have friends, not to upset anyone, to "get along". It is important to do "great things", to have money, important to share, important to be modest, nice, etc'. All this is demanded from a child as measurement of how good he is, without providing an explanation what makes these things good for the child. Without giving him incentive or reason to choose this course of behavior himself. [Additional note at the end regarding this point] This sort of "education" sets the psychological state of mind for having values without a valuer. To pursue "important" things that one does not enjoy and that are not part of individual self-fulfillment, rather they stand above one's self, as a test of his worth. What kind of psychology leads a man in one direction or the other? I find that the answer lies in the trait of selfishness. A selfish person is primarily motivated to achieve his own enjoyment. And unless some enjoyment logically follows in exchange for the effort of acting - he does not move an inch. When there is something he values - he does not give it up. A non-selfish person gives up his pleasure and his values easily if he is taught that the good is to do so. He does not act to achieve pleasure - rather he acts in a "moral" way for the sake of not disappointing himself - for the fear of being bad or the attempt to be good, without any further purpose - without attempting to gain something of personal importance to him, something he enjoys. For example: Suppose someone enjoys romantic relationships. And some day he learns that according to an accepted ethical principle, this kind of behavior is bad. If he is selfish he will say: "To hell with this principle, it's taking away my enjoyment. Unless I understand in what way this principle is good for my life, I say to hell with it". The person who sees morality as duty, however, will think: "Well, to be good I must give up my pleasure from dating. Being good is more important than my pleasure". In what way, then, can morality be selfishly chosen? As we grow up we learn that a certain course of action is required to achieve the things we aim at getting. We look for some guidance for the kind of person we want to be in order to deal with the difficulties in our lives and enjoy it, we look for some ideal or role model for guidance of the kind of person we want to be. Most people do not realize that this is their first step to choose a moral code - and not what they were taught to believe is "the good". The correct method to choose a moral code is highly personal: It is acting as the kind of person you are inspired to be, for the sake of achieving things you enjoy. And the process of integrating a chosen moral code to one's life goes through one's ability to understand it. Most of us get educated with one bad idea or another. It is therefore important to make sure what we consider as important actually serves our enjoyment and well being. If there is one advice I could offer someone who wants to get rid of morality from duty it would be - focus on your pleasure, use the fullest capacity of your reasoning mind to maximize your enjoyment through the whole of your life. Learn to notice what you enjoy and what you drag yourself through in order to be "good". One cannot chose a career or personality that are good for him and yet make him self-alienated and bored. The purpose of morality compatible with human life is to provide us the principles to guide our lives: to teach us the kind of person we need to be in order to enjoy our lives and sustain them. Don't give up your life for any purpose less than that. ____________________________________________ [Note: to some degree, a child always acts without fully understanding the benefit of some behavior to his life. It is the role of his parents to teach him to act in a certain way. But the right way to motivate him to do it, while he learns the importance of that behavior for himself, is to give (or take) values, and not by presenting the rule as a gauge of his worth. For example: You can motivate a child to learn to read by promising a prize. But a bad way to motivate him would be to present the activity as an end in itself: in the form of "if you learn how to read you are good and I will love you, and if you do not you are bad and I will not hug you", which teaches him that "good" and "bad" are impersonal concepts.]

Different people can look at your art differently. The kind that judges it in terms of being out-dated or not are probably not the type that really understand art anyway. It's the same type that shops clothes for what is fashionable, not what they like aesthetically. You shouldn't put so much weight on other people's opinion. I was talking about other people in general, for example, the person who tells you your art is out-dated. Can this sort of input help you to improve as an artist? no, it can only stand in your way. You should really get advice only about technical matters and only from people whose opinion you value. That's what I meant.

Art is essential to survival in a deeper way than just giving pleasure. Art enables you to experience the ideal kind of world and person you would like to have/be, giving a boost of motivation to improve your life. For example, think how Atlas Shrugged affects your motivation to live, work and become your version of the ideal man. It is far more than some general pleasure - it is direct motivation to acquire your kind of world. It's like fuel for living. Hedonism means 'do whatever feels good'. According to Objectivism if something gives you pleasure yet it is damaging to your life (in the short or long term) then it is bad. So you can see right away that Hedonism is not compatible with Objectivism. It is only when something is enjoyable, and yet does not clash with your well-being that it is good to have according to the Objectivism ethics (as I understand it). For example - playing games is enjoyable, and it is also important to your survival (allows you to relax after a long day of work and to regenerate energy for the next day). However, if you play all day and night it is harmful to your life and ceases to be a value according to Objectivism (but not according to Hedonism). Ayn Rand talks about it in the Objectivism Ethics: "In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of “life or death,” but as an issue of “happiness or suffering.” Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death." (I think you will find this essay good to clarify the above point). No. Psychologically, we are motivated to be happy. Existentially, this means that we are surviving well. When Ayn Rand talks about life as the ultimate value she means it in the existential level, not the psychological level, as something you chose or should chose. Psychologically, you live to be happy - that is the right purpose which is compatible with human psychology. Existentially, you have the mechanism of happiness/suffering in order to survive. By choosing to pursue happiness you ensure, existentially, to take actions for your survival. when happiness is not possible to a man there is no psychological fuel to live. This does not change the fact that our psychology is "designed" to secure our survival. Existentialy, psychology is in the service of physical survival. Psychologically, life is in the service of achieving happiness.

As a fellow artist, I can offer the following advice for motivation: Create art with the purpose of improving - sketch a lot, read books that can help, draw whatever comes to your mind to improve your imagination and self expression. And if you create something that looks professional enough to you - you can show it to others. The logic of that is that the learning process is a "sensitive" time for external input. It can distract and damage motivation, and therefore there is a need for a firm separation between practice and display. The process of learning is good either alone or with a drawing teacher, but not when you are aware in every step of the way that this will be displayed. As for psychological visibility for an artist; I find it very satisfying to be understood (when my art is) and getting compliments is very fun too. I think a person's art is the key to his/her soul (much like seeing what art someone likes is revealing, only more so). When someone really understands your art, he also understands who you are (or at least some aspects of it), and because of it he can share your kind of world and enjoyment of it. This is a very high level of psychological visibility - the kind not normally achieved between strangers. So there are great reasons to share your art. However, if you show your art as a way to bypass insecurity, then it's counter-productive. Your first priority needs to be your progress. If you don't yet understand why you need to share, but you feel that it damages your motivation, better limit it.

See? That's why I not longer participate in discussions here - because I can't tell people like you that you're an idiot. But really, reading your opening paragraph, it's the only logical conclusion.

(Also available on my blog) Positive emotions are the reward for living. Emotions motivate us to act to gain or keep values. Emotions are a mechanism whose purpose is to safeguard our life. Emotions are crucial cognitive aids. First and foremost: Emotions, positive emotions - are the reward for living. They are the reward for every action, every effort we put in to achieve something. Falling in love, enjoying some activity, person or object, Feeling relaxed, joyous, entertained and the rest of the pleasant emotions are the reward for living - they are what make life worth maintaining. Psychologically - there is no escape from the fact that enjoyment is the fuel life requires. The only purpose of life compatible with the human nature is happiness. To quote Ayn Rand: "It is by experiencing happiness that one lives one’s life, in any hour, year or the whole of it." Emotions are motivators for action. Pleasure motivates us to gain values and unpleasant emotions motivates us to protect values from danger. Without emotions we would not even care if a danger was staring us in the face. Without holding in mind the enjoyment promised by having money, or the fear of being homeless - there would be no motivation to work. Emotions are mechanisms aimed at helping our survival (helping to achieve and keep values). "In psychological terms, the issue of man’s survival does not confront his consciousness as an issue of “life or death,” but as an issue of “happiness or suffering.” Happiness is the successful state of life, suffering is the warning signal of failure, of death." (Ayn Rand, The virtue of selfishness) Emotional pain (such as sorrow, fear, anger) by its nature, indicates a danger to a value. Like fear of losing our wallet or anger at having a piece of property taken away from us. Because emotional pain is experienced as unpleasant it motivates us to avoid that feeling, which in action is achieved by protecting our values and trying to regain what is lost or threatened. Emotional pleasure is a result of achieving a value. Like enjoying a stack of money, a comedy act or Relaxing at the safety of your home. Since these emotions are experienced as pleasurable, we are motivated to achieve them by achieving values: Earning money, going to see a comedy act or building a home. Happiness results from achieving values, and therefore indicates a successful state of being - a success in living. Overall emotions as a mechanism safeguard our values. Values are things which our life require - and therefore emotions safeguard our lives. [One important note to add here is that values still need to be chosen by every person. Wanting a house or money is not automatic. But once a person chooses to live, these other values are what is required to sustain that choice. If a person thinks correctly he will end up holding these things as values]. Emotions are cognitive aids in several ways: They provide a quick summary of your subconscious evaluation of something based on vast amount of knowledge. Emotions are experienced as an emotion, but what the feeling is based on is some intellectual calculation. For example: when you feel fear at reading a piece of news that may affect your stock value negatively, Like a person for holding certain fundamental ideas you agree with, or enjoy a new cellphone. In all these cases there is a lot of knowledge that you are not directly aware of when you experience the emotion which is involved in generating the emotion. In the first example I gave: you subconsciously understand how the piece of news will affect your stock value, how much money you put into that stock, other assets in your life that may be in danger if you loose a certain amount of money, or the threat to your dream vacation you were planing to pay for with the money. The threat to these values is what triggers the fear - even though you are only directly aware of the newspaper article (at least at the first moment of grasping the issue). Unlike reason - which is a more precise tool, but is very slow in comparison - emotions are lightning quick calculations of how something relates to you, based on all of your knowledge. Because of that they provide very important input for you to consider and can help make a thinking process faster and based on more of your knowledge. Certain class of emotions are devoted to the value of knowledge, and they help our thinking by providing feedback about our process of conscious thinking. This class includes: Confusion, clarity, unclarity, certainty, doubt, surprise, suspicion, boredom, curiosity. To see the significance of these emotions to your thinking, try to imagine how the process of learning a new subject would go if you didn't have the emotions of confusion or unclarity. You would not know when to ask questions because nothing would indicate to you the need to ask, because you would never feel that something is unclear or confusing. Furthermore, the motivation to avoid an intellectual state of confusion will be gone. Confusion is an unpleasant emotion which motivates us to straighten out the facts so that we are clear on a subject. Emotions help keep concepts concretized (This idea is taken from Leonard Peikoff's audio course "Understanding Objectivism" ). A concept like "life" or "rights" when accompanied by the right emotions helps keep in mind what these words mean in reality: "life" is not merely a definition of biological function, but it means your life, the existence of people you love, the difference between the fun you had with a pet when it was alive vs. lack of it after it is gone. "Life" then means something real. Similarly "justice" means the difference between wasting one's life in jail because of injustice and not merely a dictionary definition. One can stay indifferent about a dry intellectual definition of the word justice, but one cannot stay indifferent about spending time in jail while being innocent. A great example of that would be something I heard in sociology class long time ago: After extensive research, two sociology researchers found that a clear connection exists between feelings of distress and suicide. For a normal person, the idea of suicide is concretized by an understanding of the negative emotions involved. Nobody thinks that a man takes his life without feeling some emotional distress. But for the researchers, it was a purely statistical intellectual matter - which is why they saw the need to conduct a research for what every idiot in the street could tell them right away. ____________________________________________ If you have questions or comments to me please leave them on my blog (link at the top). For reasons I won't put forth, I won't be participating in a discussion here (although you're all welcome to of course). In my opinion this essay, though condense, provides good explanation of some basic ideas of the Objectivist ethics. I struggled a lot trying to understand it, and so I'm happy to provide assistance to others in a similar position (which I believe this essay provides to some extent). * One last note: I decided to put it in "Metaphysics" section and not in the ethics section because it involves a discussion of the nature of emotions (metaphysics) more than principles for living (ethics), though there is a little of that here as well. * Blah blah is done. The end.

(also available here: www.ifat-glassman.blogspot.com ) Jealousy and Envy (quick dictionary definition): painful desire of another's advantages. This feeling comes in 2 forms: Jealousy is about losing a value to someone else (the context for jealousy is always social). It is a painful feeling regarding a value one has and is afraid of losing - or something a person has difficulty having, but see another enjoying. Example: Seeing the object of your romantic interest showing affection to someone else. Envy is about something one does not have, does not believe he can have,and yet see another person having and enjoying. Example: A chronically fat woman envying a good looking woman for being thinner. (You know the saying, "don't hate me 'cause I'm beautiful"). Jealousy, like other emotions, serves human survival. It is a negative emotion alerting a person in a painful way that his values are slipping away or that he is missing something crucial to him. To illustrate: a child who feels unloved when his parents take away attention from him onto a new little brother, becomes jealous and upset. This shows in his behavior and alerts his parents that he needs more attention. Jealousy here serves to show that some value is in danger (in this case, it's the parent's affection). While this is the normal function of jealousy (to protect life), it can arise as a result of some psychological problem or wrong standard of judging oneself. By itself, jealousy is not related to self esteem. In other words the mere emotion of jealousy is not an indication of lack of self esteem. It depends what the subject of the jealousy is. In some cases jealousy (or envy) is directed at another person's being, when the desired value in danger is one's own worth. Examples: Being jealous of someone because you consider them a better person morally, professionally, aesthetically, more popular, etc'. To illustrate: suppose the person you're romantically interested in dates someone else - there are two types of jealousy possible here: One is being jealous for the woman - wanting the woman and being jealous that someone else has her. The other option is being jealous of the personality of the man who has her and seeing it as reproach for your personality not being good enough. The last type is much more severe and threatening. The second type of jealousy in this example revolves around a self-doubt - a crack in one's self esteem. In this case, a psychological problem (like a wrong premise) is involved and the actual threat indicated by jealousy is one's self-esteem. How does this come to be? What makes some people satisfied with what they have, while others are jealous of someone's success? It all starts with how a person learns to judge himself. Each person has some idea of his own worth in his eyes. Each person has a standard, or a set of ideas with which he judges himself. Jealousy of the type associated to other people's success always involves an irrational standard for judging one's worth, and this can largely be based on how he was educated as a child - how his achievements and failures were treated by people the child looks up to for approval. Consider the parents who make clear to their child, that to be loved and appreciated, he needs to get the best grades in the class, regardless of his actual ability. This places all the weight of his self worth on the actual concrete - the good grade - and not on his performance. If he did his best, and got an average grade - he is not worthy of a prize, but worthy of contempt or indifference. This kind of education makes self-esteem impossible. And worse, it places one's self esteem on a value that does not naturally arise from one's desires and interests. This child is taught that repression, self-beating and hard, joyless work are his main tools to become a worthy person. The feeling is of having something bigger than oneself, something from above, like a severe judge, that the person has to live up to to be worthy. "One day I will be happy, when I am thin". "One day, I'll be happy, when I am rich". And guess what? When they finally do get thin or rich, they are not happy. Because it has no personal value to them, it is a value gained only to "please the judge". To give more examples of irrational standards: A standard for success is that one ought to succeed right away, purely from natural talent. Consider what it does to someone passionate about painting: He does not do as well as Michelangelo in his first attempt and then concludes he's no good and drops the whole thing. Or another example: Someone taking the action of productivity, divorced from his own desires and abilities, as part of his standard for judging people's worth (and his own worth). He immediately finds himself facing his own demand to start producing stuff in order to gain self-esteem. He becomes a slave to his own bad idea. A slave, because he makes himself work overtime without pay. "One day, when I am productive, I'll be happy". A rational standard of judging oneself is based on evaluation of one's performance in relation to one's actual abilities. The last part is crucial. It sets the basis for rational self-esteem, which means, evaluation of one's worth rationally, by what is possible in reality, and not by a dream-goal which is unachievable to the individual. [A side note: It is also important to choose the goals according to one's personal interests based on how a person feels about various things. A value should never be "something from above"]. From this it follows that a person should learn what are his abilities in those fields he wants to pursue (like sports, programming, painting, etc'). He does this by trying the best he can and observing the results and speed of progression in improving his skills in that field. Once he has some idea what he can expect from himself, he judges himself by how well he did compared to his ability. This way, so long as the person does his best, he gains self esteem, even if others can do better than him. In contrast, a person who judges himself only based on achievement of something or failing to achieve it, will always be on the lookout to see what others achieved. If they achieve better, he feels like they "steal" his self-esteem and feels hostility. This is because he places all the emphasis on the concrete. Admitting that he does not have what it takes to achieve that concrete is like death to his self-esteem. He must be all-powerful without limitations. So if someone else achieved it, but he did not, it shows that the concrete can be achieved, and therefore automatically it is a reminder of his personal failure, and a cause of jealousy. In fact, there may be no failure involved. It could be that this person did the best he could. On the other side of the rope, telling a child that no matter what he does he is accepted and appreciated is bad too, since it encourages no effort from the child. The correct combination is judging one's success in achieving things but in relation to his abilities and limitations. This creates an environment of self-acceptance and ambition combined (and I believe this is a rare combination nowadays). This is a good place to remind that by itself, jealousy is not related to self esteem. The mere emotion of jealousy is not an indication of lack of self esteem. It is only an irrational standard of judging one's worth that leads to the jealous type whose self-worth is threatened by other people's success. If one wishes to eliminate the jealousy - one needs to replace his incorrect standard. _____________________________________________ Note: Feel free to discuss it, but this time I'm not going to discuss it here (reply to questions). Just giving this note ahead of time so you won't waste your time with questions directed at me personally. But please feel free to discuss it, and I hope you will find it beneficiary.

I have one last point to make here (that I find important enough to make): You seem to be suggesting some emotion/reason dichotomy: Either she thinks or she feels. It is not true. Anger does not mean a person goes nuts and attacks the nearest individual with a fist in the face. As a human, anger has a basis in a person's ideas, and resolving anger can also be done by thinking and acting according to that. There is no reason why someone will feel angry at some injustice being done and at the same time NOT use that anger to fight the injustice. There is no breach of rationality in using the anger. And I think this video by Ayn Rand shows it. Anger is an important emotion, that helps a person fight injustice and thus protect his values. Sometimes, granted, anger can be a result of incorrect judgement, in which case it will interfere with one's thinking. But this is not the norm - this is an exceptional error for a rational man, who devotes his life to thinking and discovering the truth. Unless you have reason to believe you made an incorrect judgement - there is no reason to "control" anger (meaning, to suppress it), and there is no reason to walk around with a constant self-doubt that if you get angry you will lose your rationality too. Emotions are not demons, they're useful servants.

I trust that if it was just Ayn Rand and this woman alone, Ayn Rand would not bother. But for the sake of other rational members of the audience who have a hard time understanding this woman, Ayn Rand goes through the trouble of bringing up the issue of her improper behavior and motivation. I don't see how this is relevant. Because something *was* said. If someone tells you in public "you're a liar and an idiot and your life's work is useless" and you say to them "I must respectfully disagree with you" (or to put the humor aside, just say " I think you are wrong") You are objectively, giving your opponent more credit than he deserves.

Thank you

I think Kiera Knightly is breath-takingly beautiful, gentle and graceful, but I don't think she'd make a good Dagny. She has a vein element to her that you can see in her face as some sort of superficial smugness... Know what I mean? I can't imagine her looking up to a man if there was a mirror behind him.