[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

I think i'd just put it a little differently: Either one accepts a morality based on sacrifice, or not... and lives selfishly instead.

Noooo... living selfishly is much more demanding than just "not accepting altruism". Dominique did not accept altruism - but was she living selfishly? No - she was trying to run away from happiness and values and selfishness consists of putting one's happiness as one's goal (To add more to my point, I wrote "what is selfishness" just 2 days ago and I have plenty of examples there).

Suppose one day one experiences an emotion one considers to be a sign of someone lame of bad. It could be a feeling of helplessness, frustration, jealousy, fear and so on. One faces a choice here: To recognize the existence of the emotion, or to try to pretend as if the emotion never existed. No other people are involved in such a decision, yet only one path is selfish.

and

Here is another common choice we face in life: To think or not to think? In any given situation one has the choice to use one's mind to seek the truth or to use one's mind in a different way. For example, on a desert island one can choose to put effort into thinking how to improve one's life, comfort and chances of survival and rescue or one can choose to let self pity take over, hide behind a rock and wait for death.

Selfishness is not the automatic result of rejecting altruism.

I think the old idea of a "social metaphysics" captured a certain element of what ya'll are talking about. Social metaphysics can be combined with explicit altruism, or not.

Sounds right. I still need to read about "social metaphysics" to get the whole picture of the quotes you provided (thanks for taking the time to do that, btw!).

[Obsession with self-image]

This isn't about me, but a general question I've had lately.

Why do we have this current obsession in our culture with gaining muscle mass?

So, first off, I have a pretty normal body. I'm blessed with high metabolism and I'm normally pretty active, so I have very little fat. But I don't have huge amounts of muscle. I don't have gigantic biceps, six pack abs, etc. etc. And I don't care about having those things. Nonetheless, I am fairly strong and have decent muscle tone.

What I fail to understand is why anyone would *want* bulging muscles. Why would you want to look like that? Just personally, I find the bodybuilder look grotesque. I don't understand why six pack abs are considered sexy. Again, I think they look grotesque.

What's wrong with having some fat on your body? I don't mean being overweight, but I mean, what's wrong with having even 10% body fat?

Why would you want to weigh 200 pounds? I don't understand the obsession with ridiculous amounts of muscle mass...

Why would you want gigantic muscles? To what end?

Why are muscles even considered sexy in our culture in the first place? I don't find them sexy. Some muscle tone, yes. But when your muscles bulge, when you have six pack abs...WHY IS THAT SEXY?! I honestly don't understand. My girlfriend doesn't either.

I can understand wanting to be fit (fit is not the same as ripped) to avoid loss of bone strength later in life, and just so that you live longer. But do you really need six pack abs and big biceps to live longer? I don't think so...

Pardon me if there's little organization to my post. It's kind of a smattering of questions, but they are still legitimate. Maybe this is just a personal preference issue...but I just can't understand why anyone would want that look. Am I just an idiot? Am I failing to see something important here? Am I supposed to have bulging muscles? Is that what I'm supposed to want? Am I supposed to think that's sexy? (I'm very happy with my own body; I'm just asking in general here).

What would you prefer in art, a statue of a man who is just capable of lifting something off the ground, or someone who is capable of handling physical tasks with ease?

Take this statue for example:

How much of your enjoyment would be taken away if this guy had flat muscles? How about if he had so much muscle mass that his head would look like a little raisin?

There is, IMO, a certain level of muscles which appears attractive. In our modern age we normally don't require the amount of muscles that this discus thrower has (unless you do sports more intensively) but the look of a skinny pale nerd sitting at the computer is not exactly my idea of an attractive fellow, if you know what I mean.

Our mind requires some material evidence of spiritual perfection, since there is no way to "see" such things as strength of character, bravery, pride and so on. A physical body and the way that body moves and looks is the only way that those traits can be brought into view.

So solid muscles can stand in our mind for strength. This is the phenomenon you see in art and why it is important to make the discus thrower well built, even though it is possible to throw a discus well and still have a belly and less muscle mass.

So by investing in our body we allow others to enjoy us as if we were a piece of art.

I personally do work on my body for this reason - go to the gym, do sit ups, push ups and so on.

Another relevant thing is that physical activity is important for an active mind and for a good feeling, so it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view that people would see physical fitness as a sign of an individual fit to live.

I also wrote a blog post about it currently discussed here: Good looks as a rational value (link to the thread).

[What is selfishness]

What is selfishness

[Link for the essay on my blog]

First of all - why is it important to know what is selfishness and what is not? The reason is that selfishness is a fundamental principle required for life and happiness. One needs to understand it in order to be able to make the right choices in life and be guided by the right principles. How I judge what is "right" will be discussed next.

Secondly, selfishness is an ethical issue. If one misidentifies what selfishness is, one can experience unearned guilt or live a life which is not as good as one could have.

The common notion of selfishness is that of a person who lacks any concern for the values of others, someone who does not value other people, does not value fairness, justice, or does not see the need to return a value for a value. It is someone who always wants to get "favors" but at the same time cannot see why anyone would bother them asking for something in return. They can think of no good reason why they should not be served by others, for no benefit to them whatsoever. Someone who exploits others at the blink of an eye and can care for nothing but their own ends.

This view of 'selfishnes' is lamped together with any kind of behavior that puts one's own pleasure before the pleasure of others, creating a devastating "package deal".

The person who kills and steals and the person who produces and earns are considered as having the same moral quality, since they both do it to promote their own ends.

Is it any wonder, then, that people condemn selfishness - and is it any wonder that so many people feel guilty for any kind of happiness or enjoyment they pursue for themselves, not for others?

The fault here is in the basic understanding of what selfishness is, and in replacing "lack of value for human life" with "selfishness".

One of Ayn Rand's greatest achievements was her identification of the true meaning of "selfishness". It redeemed morality, it created the basis on which people could be happy. It identified a concept which allows men to experience a moral sense of life, to be the hero of their own movie and at the same time pursue their own life and happiness. It allowed men to stand proud beside their achievements instead of apologizing for them - it allowed men to have self-esteem and to regard themselves as worthy of pleasure.

So let us start with basic questions and get deeper into the concept of "selfishness" to get a clear understanding of what it IS.

A selfish man is one who acts for his own sake - one whose actions are directed to benefit oneself. I would quickly summarize it by: "I am doing this for me".

This, however, is not as simple as it sounds. What constitutes doing something "for yourself"? Is it gratification of emotions, regardless of their source? Is it pursuit of some ends, regardless of their nature? Is a man driven by chronic anxiety, trying to destroy other people's happiness a "selfish bastard"?

The answer is not as simple as it first appears to be. To understand what it means to "do something for yourself" we need to know what constitutes an objective benefit to someone.

If one is to be the beneficiary of one's own actions, one must first know what constitutes "benefit".

If one has no idea what is good for oneself, then one's actions cannot logically be selfish, since "I am doing this for me" is empty of meaning if one has no idea if that action is good for one or not.

Many regard selfishness as acting for the gratification of one's emotions. There is some truth to that, but only given the right context.

The only meaning life has, the only thing that makes like worthwhile, that rewards us for living - is pleasurable emotions, like love, happiness, pride and so on. The selfish man indeed then goes after these positive emotions and the gratification of other emotions. Putting anything else above the achievement of one's happiness is not selfish - because by the nature of our body and mind, the only benefit we have for anything in life is positive emotions.

This however, does not mean that "anything goes", that whatever emotions one happens to gratify are a selfish action. If a man feels chronic anxiety and jealousy and acts to gratify his need for destruction he is most definitely not selfish because he does not put his happiness as his highest goal. He rather lets whatever petty emotions and destructive premises he has take over his life, motivation and actions. He gives up on happiness entirely. He gives up self esteem. He gives up thinking and trying to decide what would be the best course of action. He replaces all of this with the ease of drifting on whatever emotions happen to come his way and the satisfaction and relief of jealousy and self-doubt.

Selfishness, is actually demanding. Because happiness is demanding.

Consider another example: someone who has adopted the idea of altruism as an ideal and feels a sense of satisfaction every time they sacrifice something for the sake of someone else. For example, they work for months saving up to buy something they want very much, and end up giving it to the son of their friends who happen to come over for a visit, because he really wants it. They feel pain for the loss of the item, but a feeling of satisfaction from "doing the right thing". Is that a selfish action, since they acted to gain satisfaction?

No, because to be selfish means to actually ACT on the principle of doing that which is the best for one's life. The emotion is nothing but an expression of a subconsciously accepted altruism. If one acts to satisfy it one surrenders fully to altruism, and most definitely does NOT act selfishly. Selfishness is not satisfaction of emotions regardless of their cause - selfishness is satisfying one's emotions which are validated to be "on the right track".

So now how does one measure what "the right track" is? Is it just a matter of arbitrary opinion of what one "should do"? No. Recall that in essence selfishness is acting to achieve pleasurable emotions - the best possible to you. Not everything will achieve a feeling of happiness, not everything achieves self esteem, which is a requirement of happiness.

It follows then that a selfish man follows, to the best of his knowledge, the principles which would lead to his happiness and that he does not surrender to any "temptation" that could endanger his happiness.

Let us look at a few examples.

Suppose one is blamed that one is bad for wanting to keep something one values all to oneself. One is told that one should share. One may, out of good faith in people, think that one may indeed be doing something wrong and one is facing a danger of losing friends or the appreciation of the people who bring up the accusation. Here one faces a decision: Will one bypass one's judgment and follow that of others - should one give up that value based on the judgment of others that it is the right thing to do, or should one act based on one's own conclusions? These two are not equal, not both are selfish.

If one decides to take others on their word, one gives up one's judgment and replaces it with others'. Not only that, but one actually gives up one's material goods. the dominant feeling one can expect from such a choice is a sense of loss of control. If it is not one's mind leading one's decisions - whose mind is it? Can one feel secure sitting in a car driven by someone else?

The second choice may be painful because it involves the loss of some people's approval - but one is making a selfish choice here, because acting based on one's own conclusions, not those of others, is a requirement of life and because one chooses to keep material values one has earned. In time one may discover what mistake those people made in demanding a sacrifice and cease to feel a sense of loss over their withdrawn approval.

One's own approval of oneself must always be a primary and come before others' approval if one is to be happy. Whenever one acts on this principle, one is acting selfishly because one is putting one's happiness and mental health above all else.

Or how about a case in which no other people are involved - just one man and his mind. One can be selfish or non-selfish even living completely alone. Suppose one day one experiences an emotion one considers to be a sign of someone lame of bad. It could be a feeling of helplessness, frustration, jealousy, fear and so on. One faces a choice here: To recognize the existence of the emotion, or to try to pretend as if the emotion never existed. No other people are involved in such a decision, yet only one path is selfish.

Why? Because only one path puts one's happiness above all else.

If one tries to pretend that one did not feel what one felt, one seals in the judgment of being bad, or not as good as one had expected. The judgment may be entirely unjustified or based on wrong premises, but if one never looks into it one can never rectify the situation.

Choosing to run away from the situation may alleviate one's immediate fear, but it is not a selfish choice since it does not put one's happiness above all else. In fact running away is a choice that seals in self-doubt.

This is the reason I call my blog "psychology of selfishness"; the central theme of the blog is how to live in a selfish way: in a way that puts your own happiness above all else.

Here is another common choice we face in life: To think or not to think? In any given situation one has the choice to use one's mind to seek the truth or to use one's mind in a different way. For example, on a desert island one can choose to put effort into thinking how to improve one's life, comfort and chances of survival and rescue or one can choose to let self pity take over, hide behind a rock and wait for death.

In modern society one can choose to discover the truth in every subject or to try to escape any recognition of failure. To close one's eyes and try to pretend that bad things are not happening. The selfish choice here, again, is one that puts one's happiness and one's life above all else - the choice to think. Because only by thinking and having knowledge, correct knowledge, can one act in an efficient way that actually promotes one's goals and life. Choosing not to think may provide a temporary escape but the price is a sense of loss of control, lack of self esteem and ultimately losing material property as well (or never gaining it).

The selfish is acting to achieve that which is good for you. We may make mistakes identifying it in specific situations, but so long as one holds the right principles and acts by them, one is selfish.

Take the case of Gail Wynand from Ayn Rand's book "The fountainhead". Gail was wrong on choosing the principle by which he lived. Gail thought he was acting in his self-interest by living the way he did, but despite his thought he lived an unselfish life and he was not happy.

Growing up, Gail was a poor boy who worked at "dirty", low-level jobs receiving orders from people which were morally and intellectually inferior to him. Gail grew up to discover that many honest people do not survive in the world. He was furious that evil wins, and decided to let that become the ruling idea in his life. He was so focused on the injustice that he let go of every personal desire to focus only on one: Never to receive another order from a low life. Never to have less power than the others. He became the owner of a tabloid whose content he despised but which brought him a lot of money and power. His life's creation was one which he despised and he worked to give others what they please, but never what Gail Wynand pleased.

Gail's mistake was not an error in an application of a principle, but error in the entire principle. The choice he made as a teenager was to base his life's goal not in his happiness, but in preventing evil from having financial superiority over him. It is an honest mistake, and one can easily understand how an honest man might feel so angry at the world - but when he made that anger into the ruling factor of his life he made his relation to other men the ruling idea and motivation of his life. He was no longer living for himself and indeed he spent his entire career writing things that pleased others.

This example shows that it is not enough to think that one is acting in one's best interest. To be selfish one must actually adopt and live by principles that place one's happiness above all else.

The conventional view of selfishness is wrong. Those people who have no grasp of the value of other people have a psychological problem. The "give me give me give me" mentality and "how rude, you expect something back?" is not the psychology of a selfish person but rather of an unhappy individual who receives no authentic enjoyment from the things he or she have. Those who are capable of understanding the values of others (that something can be precious to someone else) are those who experience such value themselves toward the things they love.

By equating this mentality with any desire to enjoy that which one has earned, one is sentencing oneself to a lifetime of guilt.

By saying that "everyone is selfish" because they act to gratify their emotions, one ends up ignoring the fact that happiness has specific requirements and demands.

"Selfishness" means to act by the principle by which your actions are directed to benefit you, to make you happy. It means that the principles by which you lead your life place nothing above your happiness.

Being selfish is both demanding, moral and good for you.

Recommended reading (on which my writing is based on, or describes): "The virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand (specifically the article "Isn't everyone selfish" from that book) and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

Related article: Selfishness in relationships from my blog.

__________________________________________________

Visit the blog to browse other content: If you like the content you can follow it to get updates on Facebook Google reader and so on. Also donations are appreciated if the blog is worth enough to you to support.

[Good looks as a rational value]

Wow, this has certainly evolved into a big discussion.

Regarding finding beauty appealing even when it does not communicate a moral character - It is normal to enjoy and find physical beauty attractive because (like in art) it is an expression of perfection and can serve as an expression of spiritual perfection since the spiritual only has expression through the material things. Art testifies to that - the heroes of romantic art are physically appealing, not just morally appealing precisely because of this need of integration.

However, if one is attracted to a person based on nothing more than their looks then they are projecting a certain character onto them. I'm sure many can testify that attraction to a beautiful body cannot outlast the discovery of a corrupt spirit (unless one finds a corrupt spirit a turn on, but I am not talking about that).

In any case... I'll be leaving the discussion for now.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

There is definitely a connection between conformity, second handness and altruism, but not such that all is all is all. Looking through the Ayn Rand lexicon I found this quote by Ayn Rand that fits the subject:

After centuries of being pounded with the doctrine that altruism is the ultimate ideal, men have accepted it in the only way it could be accepted. By seeking self-esteem through others. By living second-hand. And it has opened the way for every kind of horror. It has become the dreadful form of selfishness which a truly selfish man couldn’t have conceived. And now, to cure a world perishing from selflessness, we’re asked to destroy the self. Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You’ve wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he’s ever held a truly personal desire, he’d find the answer. He’d see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He’s not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander’s delusion—prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can’t say about a single thing: “This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me.”

So this shows how accepting altruism as an ideal leads to second handness. However, one can become a second hander (or a conformist, which is the same IMO) for other reasons, not altruism. Altruism can then provide a convenient rationalization for one's chronic need to conform. There is a tie but they are two different things.

One can accept the basic premise of altruism but reject the altruist ideal (accept that a sacrifice must be made among people but not accept that the ideal is to sacrifice oneself for others), in which case one becomes a thief or a psychopath, considering human beings as objects to sacrifice for oneself, considering lack of value for human beings a logical "selfishness".

One can become a Gail Wynand... Gail was a second hander but it had nothing to do with the premise or doctrine of altruism. He despised people and thought the right solution to being financially dependent on them (in trade) is to rule them. Gail was not seeking self-esteem in others, his second handness came from a different source entirely.

In reality there is no such thing as an altruist because being an altruist means living by the principle of altruism consistently - leading one's life by that principle (just as selfishness is leading one's life by the principle that one is the beneficiary of one's actions). [Grames, feel free to add confirmation based on "Objectivism through induction" if you think I represent Peikoff's explanation here correctly]. There are, however, many second handers, which is a psychological phenomenon.

Some, are driven to conform out of a desire to belong, out of insecurity from one source or another - it could have many psychological causes (unloving parents and whatnot) altruism being only one. Maybe a common one, but not the only cause.

So that is my input, I'm too tired now so I hope this is not too confused. There are currently not enough active neurons to decide if this is comprehensible enough... so good luck.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

Good question. Just off the top of my head: Altruism is a moral doctrine, second-handishness is a wider concept that shares the same fundamental - self-sacrifice and seeking self-esteem through others. Second-handishness can be both sides of the same coin, altruism is not - but both are fundamentally about self-sacrifice.

Can you explain in concrete terms (by giving examples) what would be the difference between an altruist and a second hander, in behavior, thoughts, psychology, ideas etc' - do you think there is any difference at all?

Note that accepting the basic dichotomy altruism offers (to exist one must sacrifice others for oneself or sacrifice oneself for others) is not the same as accepting altruism as a moral code. If I make the mistake of accepting this dichotomy, I still have a few options how to act, not all are altruism. Wouldn't you agree?

An altruist is someone who accepts altruism as a moral code. You seem to be saying otherwise, that an altruist can be an altruist even without regarding consciously or subconsciously the welfare of others above one's own. As I see it, your distinction collapses into: Either one is rational and selfish or one is an altruist. Is this correct?

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

They are both similar in that they adopt others as their standard of value.

Why do you think there are two different words if these are the same phenomena and the same concept? Why say "second hander" if "an altruist" is sufficient? What in your opinion, is the difference between altruism and second handness, if any?

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

You enjoy those who agree and praise you but you are dismissive and almost hostile to those who disagree.

Being hostile has nothing to do with disagreement, it has to do with what I judge to be the source of it. Now, if you don't mind, nobody gives a rat's ass about what we think of one another, and I don't give one about what you think of me. So let's just end it here.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

Yes, this I agree with but still...

I think for my next note taking project I will get Dr. Peikoff's "The Unity in Epistemology and Ethics" lectures, that covers this two-definitions issue I keep running into.

BINGO! thanks, I was looking for the pointer to where Peikoff is talking about that. Thanks.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

I took a note of it and I responded. You are not wrong - just incomplete in your understanding of altruism and second handishness.

No, you did not respond. I don't know what constitutes "response" in your book, but in mine it means to actually reply to those specific ideas, to integrate them to explain them against one's view.

This is an uncalled for - cheap shot.

Go call a moderator if you want to censor my thoughts, though I don't think this is against the forum rules. This is very "called for" because it is exactly what you are doing in every discussion with me. Ignore examples, keep repeating abstract ideas over and over and over again.

You continuously have this tendency of including disrespectful comments that add nothing to the discussion but make one regret getting involved in a conversation with you in a first place.

You were never engaged in a conversation with me anyway and I doubt this is why you started posting. This "tendency" of mine is called judgement, I judge the quality of posts, their motivation and degree of connection to reality.

I can disagree with someone and yet value what they say very much (and I have had such discussions, though, unfortunately, not with most). If I don't, I say what I think, to the degree it is possible.

That is why people leave the discussion and not because they are "bad debater".

I'm fine with that. Those who stay are those whom I enjoy talking to.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

I support Ifat's position. To define only proper values as actual values is circular.

Actually, I don't think it is circular and I do think that a proper definition of values includes their being life-promoting objectively. It is an essential component of values even though in humans it is not self-evident since we can choose what is bad for us on principle, want it and act to get it.

Plants and animals are motivated (or just automatically act in case of plants) to get stuff that are good for them - the value is not just that "which they act to gain and keep" but also life promoting, and indeed it is an essential of what a value is.

However, in humans because we need to choose and identify our values, our mechanism of valuing will not produce the same result as plants and animals - we can value things which are bad for us, not just by a mistake of applying principles but in the principle itself. One can even default on thinking and just go by emotions. In any case, the mechanism of valuing still stays functional and the result is irrational values that do not have that essential component of being life-promoting. Keating's irrational values are an example. I said more about it here:

[You can skip this part, I just left it to get the context of the immune system example that follows]Irrational values are not values in the full sense of the concept: they are not like rational values, or like water for a plant - things which actually support and sustain the organism's life and well being. However, since humans are special and our values need to be chosen - people can have irrational values - they employ the mechanism of valuing we are all born with (having value judgement and emotions, acting to gain and keep them by the emotional motivation) - so what they have are irrational values even though it is not a value in the full sense of the word. [/end part that can be skipped]

Think about it like an immune system gone bad - one that attacks the body and ignores intruders; is it not an immune system? It does not have the essential characteristic of an immune system (defense from intruders), yet it has all the non-essential characteristics - which makes it a defective immune system yet an immune system none the less. Same applies for irrational values - they are values, but irrational ones.

Regarding irrational values as a non-concept, as if they didn't exist is truly blind to reality, blind to people's emotions and actions which many times span across a lifetime.

However, like I said before, this discussion of what a value is is not even necessary to see that there are tremendous differences between altruism and conformity or second-handness. Here I wrote several psychological differences and differences in thinking (strangely enough, nobody took any note of this, as if pointing out to reality doesn't matter but abstractly connecting ideas does). I think it is worth repeating, so here it is:

Second handness is when a person adopts a set of values from society and automatizes it -

internalize it

, so that he begins to want certain things to gain social stature according to what is socially acceptable. Altruism is when a person internalizes the principle that they should live for others - give up values, make someone else happy, not themselves. Those are radically different in terms of a person's mental life and psychology. A second hander (which is not an altruist) never thinks something like: "This is wrong to keep this all to myself, I should share". An altruist does. A second hander (which is not an altruist) does not see as necessary to give to others (Peter Keating would lie and cheat people off their property ans Gail Wynand was even worse - he wanted to rule men, definitely not to sacrifice anything to them). An altruist feels guilty for having things he takes pleasure in. A second hander (which is not an altruist) does not.

An altruist chooses to pursue what would make other people pleased, not what would make him pleased because he sees it as the right thing to do. A second hander (which is not an altruist) WANTS to pursue those things which would bring him social stature, in his mind he is not doing it for others but for himself - to satisfy a personal psychological need.

Edit: I forgot to say why values as something life-promoting is not a circular definition. One does not define values as "good values" that would be circular... Values are life promoting things (in the context of knowledge of an individual or animal) which a living organism acts to gain and/or to keep. In the case of humans an essential part is also the emotions, the value judgement - the fact that values are something one wants in one way or another (through motivation from fear or from love).

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

These people are not selfish or independent but selfless and dependent - even though appearing very successful. This is altruism. Dependency is always at the expense of self. There is no other way.

Never mind. You have not replied to a single thing I said, but just repeated your position. There's nothing more I can add here then which is relevant which I have not already said.

I'm still open to a discussion on other stuff besides second-handness/ altruism if anyone is interested.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

To add to my last post:

Actions are crucial in identifying what someone's values are.

Keating goes to college for 4 years, works night and day to get good grades - why? If it is not a value to him, why does he do that?

He monitors Shliking's (whatever his name is) grades to surpass them and pays special attention to outdo him. Why does he invest any effort in it if it is not a value for him to outdo shlinking?

He spends days trying to design buildings to win competitions - why would he do all of this if it is not a value to him to win them?

"What do you want most, Peter?" "To win that competition. What does this tell you about Keating's values? "Nope, sorry peter, you don't value winning competitions". "But I DO, I work day and night to get there, to be number one - I want it!! I devoted my whole life for it!" "Nope, sorry partner, you don't value it.

OK, you don't think it's an actual value - I can understand that. But give it some name, some acknowledgement - call it an irrational value, but you cannot outright ignore that the person spends his whole life pursuing something.

In any case, even this is beside the point to the topic of conformity (and second handness) vs. altruism. Second handness is when a person adopts a set of values from society and automatizes it - internalize it, so that he begins to want certain things to gain social stature according to what is socially acceptable. Altruism is when a person internalizes the principle that they should live for others - give up values, make someone else happy, not themselves. Those are radically different in terms of a person's mental life and psychology. A second hander (which is not an altruist) never thinks something like: "This is wrong to keep this all to myself, I should share". An altruist does. A second hander (which is not an altruist) does not see as necessary to give to others (Peter Keating would lie and cheat people off their property ans Gail Wynand was even worse - he wanted to rule men, definitely not to sacrifice anything to them). An altruist feels guilty for having things he takes pleasure in. A second hander (which is not an altruist) does not.

An altruist chooses to pursue what would make other people pleased, not what would make him pleased because he sees it as the right thing to do. A second hander (which is not an altruist) WANTS to pursue those things which would bring him social stature, in his mind he is not doing it for others but for himself - to satisfy a personal psychological need.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

But he does not actually value any of those things we already mentioned because none of those choices bring him fullfillment and happiness

How do you measure if someone values something? you look at their value judgement: their emotions, and their action. You cannot dismiss out of the way what a person TELLS you they value and what they pursue - regardless of where they get their standard that they automatize.

It doesn't make him happy - so what? Can you say, then, that "The banner" is not a value to Gail Wynand? That is ridiculous - he spends his whole life building it, keeping it, and eventually betraying his best friend to keep it. If you just take out of the window a person's convictions, emotions and actions you have nothing left to decide what are a man's values.

Values are not that which bring one true happiness - not for human beings - choice comes first. A standard of value one adopts comes first - even if they adopt an irrational standard, what they will value depends on that, even if their standard is screwed up and goes against their happiness.

If you are telling me that The banner was not a value to Gail you are just blind as to what values are and I don't think there is anything else I can say. It is just too obvious that he values the banner... can't add a better example than this.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

I like your brevity, Sophia, and in a nutshell you've said everything I wanted to say.

I had a thought that is also to the point :

The altruist seeks the sanction of others just to exist.

Yeah, give me a break. You didn't answer my main objection: Keating's actions and judgement is such that he values social prestige more. If you ask him what he prefers he will say: "Dominique" if you check what he feels more strongly about it will be Dominique (though the type of feeling is different) and if you look at his actions you see that he is pursuing social stature above all else. Ayn Rand defines values as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep". If you take this definition there is no avoiding the fact that Keating values social stature more than anything else in his life.

You're just sticking to your position without trying to resolve this.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

Interesting. What you say makes sense, but it would still be true that a guy like Peter Keating is denying his spirit if he isn't pursuing something that he truly values objectively. If he is doing things because others expect it of him, yet he doesn't value what he is doing, then he is denying himself.

Thanks for this thread, Ifat. It's thought provoking.

You're welcome, I'm enjoying it too, and thanks.

Yes, of course Keating is draining his spirit dry... I agree. In fact he never allows it to develop from the moment he sought to live to what others expect.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

Actually, strictly speaking, this is wrong. A value has to really further or sustain your life to be a real value. It can't be just any goal you seek.

Oh boy, I just had a days long discussion with someone from the HBL on this. So funny - and I kept bringing up the point you just brought up now.

Irrational values are not values in the full sense of the concept: they are not like rational values, or like water for a plant - things which actually support and sustain the organism's life and well being. However, since humans are special and our values need to be chosen - people can have irrational values - they employ the mechanism of valuing we are all born with (having value judgement and emotions, acting to gain and keep them by the emotional motivation) - so what they have are irrational values even though it is not a value in the full sense of the word.

think about it like an immune system gone bad - one that attacks the body and ignores intruders; is it not an immune system? It does not have the essential characteristic of an immune system (defense from intruders), yet it has all the non-essential characteristics - which makes it a defective immune system yet an immune system none the less. Same applies for irrational values - they are values, but irrational ones.

[Good looks as a rational value]

Good post, I agree that looking good is a rational value for any individual.

I really don't buy that at all (or even suggesting pursued/pursuer applies to all romantic relationships), but I'll just look forward to when you write about that topic.

Why should it be more important for either side to look better?

Female and male sexuality are not identical - they each have their own distinct nature. I am not talking here about any particular individual's sexuality but something metaphysical all humans have in common.

However, personal development can have a lot to do with a person's sexual identity so I don't think that all people would fit the description.

Trust me when I tell you, if we start talking about this this thread will quickly be about nothing but this topic and it will take pages and pages until the eye can see - all off topic.

I rather not get into it here. You can look up Betsy Speicher's writing on this subject of romantic relationships and sexuality, I agree with her view and she describes it well. I did a quick Google search but didn't find anything so I'll leave the search to you. You can try searching at the forums.4aynrandfans.com

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

But he did not preferred it. Neither he preferred being an architect over being an artist. He just placed society standard above his own. He did not allow himself what he really wanted, what he really desired.

you ask him "what do you prefer? what is more important to you?" He will say social stature. "Values are that which one acts to gain/keep" - this is true for irrational values as well (even though they are not values in the full sense of the word) - but he does not act to keep Kathy, he acts to gain Dominique. You cannot overlook his choices and actions.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

Keating's standard of morality was NOT egoism and because of THAT he was mistaken about what was in his best interest which made him gave up the things which cost him his happiness.

You are saying this as if I disagree. I actually said myself that he is not an egoist (such a thing is not possible when his value system is taken second-hand).

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

(Peter Keating, another 'perfect' altruist - IMO - except that unlike Toohey he didn't know what he was pracitising, consciously, and therefore became the victim.)

I've done my best to explain why this is not so. OK, you don't get it or you don't agree, let's just stop here, I see no point putting in more effort into this.

Second-handishness is incompatible with egoism. Second-handishness is a result of accepting the morality of altruism.

Being a second hander can be the result of other things as well, not just of altruism. One can give in to the desire to belong and be accepted by others to the point of letting go of personal identity. Altruism would have nothing to do with it - the kid may have never heard in him life the notion that he should live for others and may not even believe in it. "The player" is an example of a conformists, a second-hander who is not an altruist.

Other's value system will never fully match your own. It may match in terms of cardinal values (not that we live in that kind of society tday) but never in respect to personal/optional values. Keating gave up many deep personal desires - one of his major mistakes was to become an architect rather than an artist, another was giving up Kathy, finally he gave up on what was left of his self esteem. He gave up all of those for the second-hander’s delusion of prestige. He was an altruist.

The problem you are having is that you take out of the equation a person's actual value-judgments, what Keating considers in Keating's best interest, what he feels most motivated to do, what he wants the most and what he prefers (for whatever perverted reason).

It is a simple fact that KEATING preferred to marry Dominique - he chose so because he was more motivated to do that, he saw and felt it was a higher value - an irrational value but a value to him nonetheless. He did not give up what he wanted more, he went for it - that is not egoism but it is not altruism either - it is a second hander pursuing irrational values.

So long as you don't overlook a person's actual value judgments and grant that to HIM those ARE his values, you will never get anywhere. You can say day and night that someone should rationally value X over Y, but if they value Y over X and pursue Y they are not sacrificing a value - not by their ill standard anyway which is their standard nonetheless. One cannot say that Mr. X is sacrificing a value if they don't consider it a sacrifice. Sacrifice involves recognition of giving up a value.

[Good looks as a rational value]

[Link to the original post on my blog]

Good looks as a rational value

Is it shallow to care how one looks in the eyes of others? Is it a sign of some psychological weakness?

The problem is in the question itself. The action, or intention itself - is neither good nor bad - it depends on the wider context of an individual's psychology.

Some use good looks as a way to achieve "social stature" which they use as a replacement for self esteem. If you've ever wondered about the frantic way some people try to sell their life as a success story of a top model on social sites like Facebook, the above, in my opinion, is the reason.

However there are those who take pleasure openly in being aesthetically valued and enjoyed by others.

For them being appreciated for their looks, dressing up in the morning to welcome a world worth showing one's beauty to - is a pursuit of a rational value.

The appearance of a human being can communicate beauty which can not be found in nature and not in the most sensational sunset: It is beauty of character.

A proud way of standing, a hidden smile ready to bloom for the right occasion are a sight to enjoy for every man with a positive feeling about people and life.

A physical beauty to match a beautiful character reflects spiritual perfection in physical form and integrates them (as I will explain later in more detail). This integration between the spiritual and the physical is a cognitive need that comes from the nature of our mind as holding knowledge abstractly.

In what way can we "see" nobility, or pride? Only in physical, material, tangible things like facial expressions, body language and - body structure and facial features.

Spirituality has no visibility except through the material.

You can see this need to express spiritual perfection through physical perfection in art, where heroes have perfect proportions in addition to the right body language and expression. [<a href="http://www.imaginistix.com/details.cfm?Id=341" target="_blank">See example</a>]

Not every element in one's physical appearance reflects on one's character. If one is tough and truthful, it will reflect in one's habitual way of holding one's facial muscles. If one is proud and confident, it will show in one's manner of standing and walking. Obesity, in many cases, is an expression of psychological stress. But something like a 90-60-90 figure vs. a 80-70-90 figure (less feminine looking) reflects no spiritual trait.

It still remains, however, that physical beauty, even of the kind that does not reflect traits of character, creates an integration of the spiritual and physical in the viewer's mind, as can be seen in art.

Appreciation, in general, from others one appreciates is a rational value, even a psychological need. If one considers oneself worthy of appreciation then getting that appreciation from others is a tremendous value and pleasure.

The human mind is a powerful thing, when others are logical; their opinions mirror our own understanding of reality.

Self-esteem is a deep psychological need and a value one cannot live without. When our own recognition of our worth and achievements is reflected to us by others, we experience heightened awareness of the reality of our own value, which is very pleasurable.

Allowing others to enjoy one's physical beauty compliments that need (for people of self-esteem).

Consider the wonderful things physical beauty allows us to celebrate:

The romantic atmosphere of a date in which both look phenomenal (especially the woman) is largely due to the declaration that beauty is a great way to celebrate and enhance finding each other valuable.

When a woman takes special care to dress up for a date she is implicitly communicating to her partner that she sees him as a value and because of that getting his appreciation and enjoyment from her looks is a value to her - something she is willing to put the time into.

Investing in one's look on every day basis is a way to celebrate a world in which one is worthy of being seen and enjoyed by others. It is a reflection of seeing the world as good - as a place inhabited by good people (perhaps not all, or even many - but it at least expresses the recognition that some exist).

Notice that when one views the world as bad and people as evil one looses the desire to look good (I am talking about a rational person here, not about those who want to look good to win a competition with their friends).

Ever wondered why some women like shopping so much? Here is why: A piece of clothing that compliments one's figure and matches a certain event or atmosphere allows one to experience how one would like to be seen, evaluated and experienced by someone else in a certain occasion.

Clothes are like a piece of a fantasy, half real, stored in one's closet for future use. Women take pleasure in storing such fantasies in their closet because that makes the fantasies half real - a promise for an enjoyable future.

For example, buying a dress that emphasizes a woman's feminine features holds the romantic fantasy of a magical evening out with someone she admires. An elegant looking suit is a way to celebrate one's image as a good worker, appreciated as such by others, and so on.

The same is true for men, but more so for women because in romantic relationships women are the ones being pursued (although, this is another topic which I will leave for another time).

And in conclusion, take Will Smith's words on the value of good looks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qkD4bw-bs4&h...S&fs=1&

__________________________________

If you enjoyed this essay and would like to keep my blog running and updating, please consider donating. To Receive updates of all posts, you can follow the blog on Facebook or Google (link on the sidebar on my blog).

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

Ifat,

Your concept of altruism is a too narrow one.

If selfishness is "concern with one's self", Altruism is "concern with others"; to put this simply.

('Alter' - 'Other', in Latin)

You are wrong, "concern with others" is not what altruism is. Altruism is a principle by which others are the proper beneficiary of one's actions - this means that an altruist actually uses this principle; giving money to others out of a sense of duty, trying to live for the sake of other people's happiness instead of one's own pleasure etc'. Peter Keating, for example, is not an altruist - he never lives by the principle that he should give to others, live for others etc' though he was a second hander (accepted his value system second-hand).

Keating designed buildings that would please others and gain him glory, he chose his profession because he was told by his mother that it is respectable and could earn him "the reputation he deserves". He lived to be valued in the eyes of others by their own standard - it is very different than an altruist - someone who actively tries to give stuff to others at his own expense. Peter wasn't giving anything to anyone else, he was in fact taking stuff away from people by deceit.

EDIT (addition): Even though Keating used a value system of other people, not his own, he did not act to give up anything of his. He gave up building his soul and building first-hand values. When he gave up marrying Kathy and married Dominique, for example, he was not sacrificing a higher value - for him Dominique was the higher value (though a second-hand value). A sacrifice here would be if he decided that despite the social prestige marriage to Dominique would bring him it is his duty to support the one who is more needy - Kathy and marry her instead even though he sees marrying Dominique as fitting his interest. In fact he acts in a way he subconsciously senses to be in his best interest (using an irrational second-hand value system).

In any case, I am not interested in discussing it anymore. I'm certain that I am right and I already gave an explanation I consider sufficient to explain my view.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

"Wasn't me!" Ha, that is funny. (Now, why is it that something so deceitful and dishonest can still appeal ? Never quite figured this.)

No appeal here... it's just funny because it shows a case of a completely utterly pathetic individual. I just can't even think of this seriously, it's just funny.

One thing, it seems to me that you are reducing your conformity hypothesis to a numbers game, in a way -- the more that practise a certain behavior, the more conformist they are - and the reverse.

Well yes, there has to be an element of this, but it can't be all. There is a Lowest Common Denominator aspect to social behavior whch has its time and place, but will be - and ought to be - easily transcended by a thinking person.

Well, I have no idea what you're saying here or where you're coming from, so I can't reply.

I'd suggest you don't chuck the 'altruism' connection out just yet, Ifat.

This exact example you gave of the "Player" is a case in point. Maybe it's something that you have to have lived through yourself to understand... but I know for certain that what one is aiming for as a 'player' definitely is all about how one looks to others.

The lifestyle of conspicuous consumption, scoring with deals, and women, all that social cool, has one primary goal, and it is impressing your buddies and other people.

Well, excuse me for saying it so bluntly, but "duh"! Of course it is to impress others. But being a second hander and an altruists are two different things. If I understand you correctly here you are using them as if they were the same thing.

Altruism is about mother Theresa kind of devotion to the sick and needy. Do these guys look like mother Theresa to you? Not to me.

Edit: the only tie I see to altruism is that this version of a "player" as a hero, a cool individual is born as a response to altruism. It accepts the dichotomy of life either being about living like a sucker or stealing and cheating and takes the "selfish" side, in this perverse version of selfishness created by altruism. But this "player" character is definitely unmistakably not an altruist.

[Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem]

...

ie, Conformity = Altruism (or, at least a sub-set of altruism.)

...

I thought about this question too, but I don't think they are the same at all. Conformity means trying to adjust to whatever is socially acceptable. For some people it is socially acceptable to be "a player" meaning, to lie and deceive to score with as many women as possible, to cheat others to get a lot of money etc'. This is definitely, not altruism, to put mildly, and yet the people who try to live to that standard and be a good "player" are conformists.

If you want to see what I mean see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ4axo9rmJY lol this video is so funny.