Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can People Really Change?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Having encountered a lot of skepticism from a lot of people lately, I wonder if people think it is possible for others to change? One can never escape the mistakes of one's past; indeed, I think honestly admitting to them is the first ingredient to any forward motion in self-improvement. Isn't there always a "switch" of focus that the individual can choose to throw, assuming they decide to turn their brain on and think in the first place? If it is always possible for a person to think, isn't it possible for them to gain a new view of themself as well as a new perspective on life? If mistakes serve us any good in life, it's that they can make us resolve never to commit them again. Any individual who faces their faults and who tries to change has to know that others always reserve the right to judge them based on their past. I, for example, can speak to the truth behind the the tale of the boy who cried wolf myself. I don't like what my past mistakes have cost me in credibility, but even with that dislike stated, I have to accept the reality of the past proof they're making those judgments on. Others have a right to doubt me, just as I have the power to state that those doubts no longer apply to me. I can acknowledge such skepticism, but I cannot let it drag me down. So why does everyone find transformation so difficult ot believe?

Where do objectivists fall on this question? I am a relative novice in profound, philosophical discsussions and this is one topic I've been trying to mesh out on my own lately. I would appreciate some insights from some more seasoned and articulate members...and there are a lot of you out there. Can a rational philosophy change someone? Would not the argument that it could not be equivalent to saying one's thought process must be inborn? Doesn't the individual have to discover their own philosophy based on the experiences of their life and the acceptance of reality? (and I say that realizing that the denial or evasion of reality can lead to one accepting a bad philosophy). I'm speaking only of the acceptance of a rational philosophy (as that as the only kind that can offer improvement in life). Can't an individual's acceptance of reason make an individual resolve to live by it?

Edited by 4reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, people can change. HOwever, that transformation is not necessarily something that comes overnight.

Most of our psychology and subconscious consists of actions that are automated. We incorporated them into our psyche based upon whatever ideas we may have had at the time, and may extend back even into childhood. Accepting a rational philosophy doesn't get rid of those overnight. In fact depending on how deeply rooted they are it might take years to actually get to the point where one consistently lives by the principles of a rational philosophy. I started calling myself an objectivist almost 15 years ago, and it is really only in the last 5 or so years that I've come to feel proud that I am consistently understanding and integrating the philosophy throughout my life. Between here and there were a lot of mistakes caused by misunderstanding, and failure to address automated responses that were "left over" from previous thinking. And with it a lot frustration, realizing I'd yet again made a mistake and wondering why I wasn't "getting" Objectivism like I should. The key to the journey is continual commitment to that focus and rationality.

I wouldn't take the skepticism to heart too much, at least based on what anyone can tell from what's publically available. You've admitted to some mistakes in the past and should realize you might continue to make some for a while, but if you're honestly committed to ideas and principles, you'll improve over time.

Congratulations, and welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, people can change. HOwever, that transformation is not necessarily something that comes overnight.

Most of our psychology and subconscious consists of actions that are automated. We incorporated them into our psyche based upon whatever ideas we may have had at the time, and may extend back even into childhood. Accepting a rational philosophy doesn't get rid of those overnight. In fact depending on how deeply rooted they are it might take years to actually get to the point where one consistently lives by the principles of a rational philosophy.

I understand the automization aspect fully, but I can't help but feel like the conscious and explicit acknowledgment of those tendencies can give one control over them. I feel in control of those things that controlled me in the past. I think that part has changed.

now, maybe it does take some time to let that aspect of transformation really sink in to the degree that it can help prevent you from making other, different mistakes in one's life. That too

i realize. A conscious acknowledgment of that past tendency can help you from committing that particular mistake again, but it may not prevent you from doing other dumb things, like being alittle too trusting and putting yourself in dangerous situations (or letting too much of one's personal matters infiltrate one's posts...). Whatever aspect of one's self that mistakes stem from, they do seem to help us grow becuase it makes you ponder that need for integration all the time. Consciously keeping that in mind is what helps us to throw that switch in our life to simply focus. Focus,then, ultimately gives us control.

That's not far fetched from Rand's perspective on the matter, is it? Her words in the Introduction to Obj. Epistemolgy rang as a clarion in my head when I recently reread them. I have full confidence in what I have helped myself finally become, and even though it would be nice if others could admit that such a change is possible, I cannot focus on what they think. The reality of one's past will always affect peoples' judgment of them, but so should the reality of their present. But it is the individual's judgment of himselfthat is the most important. I just find it interesting to note how skeptical people are about the human ability to let reason into their life, which can then enable them to set and take a new course in life.

Where does the skepticism, in a broader sense-- not in regard to myself (for I know where thar comes from)-- come from? Does the broader public really hold that much doubt about the power of volition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course people can change. But there are no switches and no sudden turnings on of the brain, which means as Kendall said that it takes time and serious effort. A person should be less concerned over whether they receive a positive evaluation from others, and more concerned over whether they deserve such a positive evaluation. A pattern of good behavior can in time counter a prior record of bad behavior in other people's minds.

Instant redemption is a hallmark of the descent into insanity known as "being saved" by the Christers. Those people aside, it's extremely unlikely that any person can suddenly say "Dang! My brain's been off for the past 10 years, lemme turn it back on. There -- all better". So one should not expect that a declaration of "all better now" translates into a re-evaluation of a person. Actions, over the long term, are what will persuade rational people.

A declared acceptance of reason plus $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee. You still have to understand what reason is. What does reason act on? Do you use pure reason in a vaccuum, or do you use reason on something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just find it interesting to note how skeptical people are about the human ability to let reason into their life, which can then enable them to set and take a new course in life.

Where does the skepticism, in a broader sense-- not in regard to myself (for I know where thar comes from)-- come from? Does the broader public really hold that much doubt about the power of volition?

I don't think it's (active) 'skepticism' but rather (passive) denial.

When you tell other people that they have a free will, that they are able to change their views and lives, then you are telling them that they are responsible for most of their actions in their past lives. The more excuses for their behavior they made (God, the situation, alcohol, childhood, parents, wealth, genetics etc.), the harder this is to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given volition, a person can change, especially after coming across a rational philosophy. But respect and self-respect must be earned. One cannot simply say something like, "I've read Atlas Shrugged and therefore I'm all better."

Besides, in Objectivism, forgiveness is a sin. If someone had a very bad character before coming across Objectivism, that someone must go through an effort to make up for that past bad behavior, especially if people were hurt by that bad character. It would be like a thief deciding to make a turn-around; he would have to return the items or pay the victims back in kind, plus interest and whatever hardship was brought about by the thievery. It's not as simple as "starting over again."

I'm all for making a fresh start -- i.e. following reason instead of following something else, and encourage people to do that -- but that fresh start cannot be simply ignoring past mistakes and wrongs and moving on happily with one's life.

I was once Catholic, but now I am an Objectivist, though that took quite a number of years -- maybe at least ten years of transition. So, I go through an extra effort to promote rationality and speak out against religion when I have the chance. I don't know that I harmed a particular individual by having been Catholic, so I don't know that I need to recompense a given individual; but I did promote altruism to some degree, so I make up for that by speaking out for Objectivism. Not as a guilt trip, but rather as a way of demonstrating that I am not going to make that mistake again nor will I revert to Catholicism or it's premises when I am having a moral difficulty or choice. In this context, I make sure I am acting selfishly, so that those previous premises are definitely rejected.

So, I agree with those who say declaring reason is easy; if one is going to make a turn-around, then one must demonstrate that over a long period of time -- and it must be obvious to those one is dealing with. That doesn't mean one has to make some sort of public confession, but it does mean that one must integrate Objectivism into one's life, and not just speak it's words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instant redemption is a hallmark of the descent into insanity known as "being saved" by the Christers. Those people aside, it's extremely unlikely that any person can suddenly say "Dang! My brain's been off for the past 10 years, lemme turn it back on. There -- all better". So one should not expect that a declaration of "all better now" translates into a re-evaluation of a person. Actions, over the long term, are what will persuade rational people.

This analogy made me smile; it made me think of all the deux-ex-machina (I hope I spelled that right) moments of the old Greek tragedies, where suddenly some great consciousness comes in and fixes everything all at once. I think the realization that "dang! my brain's been turned off" or "dang! I've been evading a lot of aspects of reality" can happen suddenly, but the process to fix such flaws is not something that one's own consciousness can even fix so quickly.

I was thinking about the process of concept formation today and couldn't help but wonder if self-improvement isn't really just the formation of the concept "me." I know that identity is an axiomatic concept, but as I understand it that concept speaks only to the fact that "I exist," and doesn't delve into the more abstracted concepts of consciousness that are involved in self-perception. Just like any concept formation, aside from those tied directly to sensory perception and the axioms themselves, self-improvement is a process that involves many steps; steps that begin in honestly accepting reality and perceiving it for what it is. From there, we begin to form definitions for all the things that we do, and then that helps us to start thinking about what values we may have and why (an abstract thought process, no?). Once we understand what our values are, we can begin putting them into a meaningful hierarchy. And finally, we can begin acting in pursuit of those values. We can live by what we say. When one begins to live as they say, integrity falls into place and then one's actions begin to speak for themselves. Actions of integrity are very real to perceive, and a rational person I suspect would be able to spot them easily.

But changing one's self is, as we all seem to agree, a process. Even Rand's heroes and heroines undergo this process (though I think Galt's process occured prior to where the events of the novel begin, but I think he would have had to have gone through such a process none the less). Some people are able to go through this process when they are young, some people when they are old. For some people the process is short, for some it is longer. BUt it remains a process in all instances. Every individual will be unique in regard to the length their process requires as his or her particular hierarchy of values, and admissions of flaws to overcome, may vary. It's a nice thought to think it could be fixed suddenly, but it really can't. Maybe that's where the general pessimism toward the notion of someone really changing comes from: it takes longer than most people (esp those that were skeptical to begin with) are willing to stick around to see. I think the resolution to begin the process can be thrown by a mental switch rather suddenly, but it takes continuous and consistent effort to maintain that forward motion; a motion that perhaps never ceases for a rationale person who is constantly striving to better themselves in some way. Am I wrong to think there is a great danger in thinking that living morally ever becomes automatized? It seems like you always have to keep cognition going in full gear, and constantly weigh new incoming data with previous conceptions, etc. in every situation, even in regard to self-perception. It is still a process, but it is a process where you constantly have to keep throwing that switch over and over again to make it meaningful to you, first and foremost, and to make it acknowledgeable by others as a bonus. One can believe in their ability to change, but they must CONSTANTLY act to pursue it. You can't just say, well I fixed that, let's move on. That is, as you say, just like the notion of forgiveness in religion and it's abhorable. Forgiving one's self is possible, but the cause and effect of the effect must be taken into account; the act of forgiveness, nor change, can stand on its own. It, like everything one has to learn, requires proof. More than anything it requires effort, and perhaps only the individual trying to change can understand the effort involved. That may be another reason why it's hard for others to see or to believe.

Edited by 4reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

self-improvement is a process that involves many steps; steps that begin in honestly accepting reality and perceiving it for what it is.

I think that's the main problem for the people who need to change the most. They are taught and accept an incorrect method of evaluation, usually faith instead of reason. So when reason is presented to them, they reject it because it goes against what they have been taught is right. They legitimately accept faith as the correct means of gaining knowledge and a rational argument has no validity in their minds. There's no argument that will convince them of the truth because their principles have been accepted on mystical grounds. The only way for them to change is by chance or until they get bombarded with the truth so often that it finally shocks them into changing their minds. Until that point, they will continue on their self-destructive path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are taught and accept an incorrect method of evaluation, usually faith instead of reason. So when reason is presented to them, they reject it because it goes against what they have been taught is right. They legitimately accept faith as the correct means of gaining knowledge and a rational argument has no validity in their minds.

Or they are taught that emotions are more virtuous and valid than knowledge, as I was taught in my upbringing. This then causes one to use emotions to evaluate knowledge, which virtually makes knowledge impossible to gain (one's mind gets filled with nothing but floating abstractions and baseless concepts). One's emotions start to change their perceptions, and blinds them to reality because it is putting their consciousness in front of existence. That's a huge fallascious tendency to overcome, but I believe it can be done. Change has to be approached with a rational purpose first and foremost, not with an emotional one. Positive emotions will result from such a change, but I don't think they can be the driving purpose. Thinking emotionally, ironically, is the worst path to happiness... a statement that contradicts what I was always taught to believe, but completely correlates with what I now know. It leads to the opposite of where you want to be. By putting existence and reality first, however, you can get to that desired place so long as you understand that there are rational evaluations that must be made at every step along the way. Happiness, afterall, is derived from pursuit of values; it cannot stand on its own merits, especially if one does not know what their values are. If one's values are defined by emotional thinking, then all the decisions they make along the path of their life are going to be emotional, and that's disastrous. It leads to pessimism, depression, unhappy relationships, people who are unhappy in their career... we see it all around us.

Maybe it's defining one's values that is the most difficult step; a step an emotional-thinker is not going to be able to take. But it is always possible to recognize the errors of one's ways. As long as one is willing and able to say that the foundations of their beliefs, actions and evaluations are erroneous (be they faith or feelings) the ability to escape from that path remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's the main problem for the people who need to change the most. They are taught and accept an incorrect method of evaluation, usually faith instead of reason.

I think it involves more than that, and even more than thoughts versus feelings. For some of us, we had a philosophy before we came across Objectivism. I was Catholic, and they do emphasize reasoning -- especially after Thomas Aquinas-- but it is all mixed in with Augustine. It's kind of a weird amalgamation of those two philosophers with Jesus and the Bible thrown in for good measure. In this sense, if one is familiar with Dr. Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis, Catholicism is a mis-integration. But the attempt to integrate is obvious -- they have answers to all of the questions; they don't just say, "Have faith, my son, and all will become clear to you," like the Fundamentalists.

So, in my case, it was more an issue of learning how not to be rationalistic -- i.e. of not just starting with a given premise and being logical from that point on. I mean, Miss Rand's identification of reason as man's faculty of awareness of existence (based upon the evidence of the senses) kind of threw me for a loop. I had a vivid imagination when I was a child (and still do), and since my mind was working during those times ("logically") I naturally thought that was thinking. But for it to be real thinking and to be actual productive imagining, it must all be based on the facts of existence and not just the content of one's consciousness.

In other words, Objectivism was not my introduction to philosophy, as it is for people who "grew up wild" with no explicit guidance. I had to not only undo that previous guidance, but also learn the appropriate methodology in order to become an Objectivist. And that takes of lot of work and dedication, and it doesn't happen overnight.

But what got me were not the facts that she introduced, but the arguments from the facts and the logical nature of her mind. I had always wanted to be rational, but I didn't know what that meant until I came across Objectivism. The distinction between rationalism and reason was the distinction I needed to make my conversion, and to make it stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...