Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism in regards to diet

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

While reading Ayn Rand's novels (the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, so far), I've noticed that all firsthander characters are described in a certain kind of way. They're all slender, with tight skin and very angular features, while many of the collectivists are described as plump, with loose skin and such. As I've seen a fair share of overweight Objectivists, I am curious whether the philosophy ever refers to a persons diet. I would assume not, but in that case, how do you believe that the Objectivist principles are applied to it? Surely Rand had a reason for describing all her characters in such a particular manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely Rand had a reason for describing all her characters in such a particular manner.
Aesthetically, Rand liked slim, angular men (her husband was one of them), so it makes sense that she would create her characters to match. Another author might just as well have made heroes who were more muscular or physically powerful, like a superhero; I think it is optional, and for me Atlas Shrugged would have worked just as well like that.

As for overweight Objectivists, the main point to raise is: what are their personal standards of health and why? With modern medicine, it is not necessary to keep a very rigorous eye on one's health, since the fixes for many health ailments are cheaply available. Some Objectivists might rather spend the hours they would exercise, instead reading, "exercising" their mind.

Another person might judge the exercise to be a small price to pay for both immediate benefits, like increased awareness and brain functionality and more energy throughout the day, and the expectation of future benefits, such as not having to deal with health ailments in the first place, and the likelihood of a longer and more physically easy life.

Personally, I like to exercise, and coupled with the benefits, it is an easy choice to make, to lead a physically active life. But if I have more important things to do, like work, or a family holiday, that takes precedent over exercising. Diet, however, I keep an eye on always, since it is so easy to maintain.

You will need to know what an Objectivist is after physically and why he has made that choice, and possibly what kind of physical condition his body is already in, before you can make any sort of moral evaluation on his health choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another person might judge the exercise to be a small price to pay for both immediate benefits, like increased awareness and brain functionality and more energy throughout the day, and the expectation of future benefits, such as not having to deal with health ailments in the first place, and the likelihood of a longer and more physically easy life.

I don't think it is, as you say, "optional." Either it is right to be physically fit or not. For all the reasons you pointed to, plus the fact that it takes less than 20 minutes a day to get in good shape, I assert that the man deciding to exercise is making the right choice.

I doubt anyone actually values 20 minutes of time per day more than their life. The majority of physically unfit people are that way because they have implicitly said "I am going to evade the knowledge that if I don't work out at all I will get fat and develop health ailments, because I don't feel like putting forth effort" and "I am going to evade the fact that if I get the buttery tub of popcorn and don't exercise it off I am going to get fat and develop health ailments, because I like the way it tastes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being slim is a sign not only of physical health, but also of mental health.

Excessive eating numbs the senses and sedate the mind.

From my own experience during highschool years, I remember over-eating caused a feeling of numbness. If I was nervous about something, eating until full-state+ would temporarily remove that feeling.

And I think it works the same way for anyone else.

I also think that the best way to diet is not to use self-restrainment. The need to use self-restrain indicates a problem deeper than the excessive weight. It indicates some unfulfilled mental need, or some psychological problem. The right way to go about diet is to understand what is the source of the state of restlessness/nervousness and to solve it.

There could be other reasons for overweight, like hormonal reasons, but in my opinion (and from watching people's eating habits) I think the main reason is psychological.

I don't know what Ayn Rand's stand on diet was. Mine is that, if you're overweight, a diet is a necessary solution (to maintain your mental health and life quality). But I think the right approach to diet is through the psychological path, not the path of self-restrainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Ayn Rand's stand on diet was. Mine is that, if you're overweight, a diet is a necessary solution (to maintain your mental health and life quality). But I think the right approach to diet is through the psychological path, not the path of self-restrainment.

Diet is "the kind and amount of food prescribed for a person or animal for a special reason." You seem to suggest that applying rationality to what you are shoveling into your body is a mistake. In deciding on lunch, for example, should I just drive down the road until I find an appealing looking restaurant (appealing for a reason that I do not know) and order the first thing on the menu that sounds like it would taste interesting? This is the policy of many people.

If we instead eat a balanced diet of Bread, Fruit, Vegetables, Meat, and Dairy, not exceeding our daily reccomended amounts of Sodium and Saturated Fat, are we being excessively "self-restrained" and indicating our "psychological problems"? A "psychological problem" to apply reason to all of our choices?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to suggest that applying rationality to what you are shoveling into your body is a mistake.
Trooper, You misread Ifat's post. She's saying that many (most?) people who over-eat do so because of an element of irrationality. In other words, she is saying that if people applied rationality to this area they would eat less than they do. So, in that sense, she's agreeing with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trooper, You misread Ifat's post. She's saying that many (most?) people who over-eat do so because of an element of irrationality. In other words, she is saying that if people applied rationality to this area they would eat less than they do. So, in that sense, she's agreeing with you.

Clearly I should have responded less argumentatively, but I read it as saying that monitoring your food intake is an example of "self-restraint" (which is apparently something bad). Instead of "self-restraint" we should instead work on eliminating any "restlessness/nervousness" from our psychology. My disagreement is that "self-restraint" (monitoring your food intake) is neccessary regardless of any psychological conditions. It seems to me the proper policy is first to learn what you should be putting in your body. If you feel a desire for something that shouldn't be going in your body you can then decide not to eat it and introspectively determine where your desire for the unhealthy food came from. Even a person with no underlying psychological conditions or bad food habits requires both the knowledge of Nutrition and the focus to evaluate his food choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it? You can be slim and very unhealthy or slim and insane (or both).

Sure. You can also be fat and happy (for hormonal reasons). But for people who over-eat to the point of being full+ as a regular thing some psychological problem is involved.

I read it as saying that monitoring your food intake is an example of "self-restraint" (which is apparently something bad).

No, it's not what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something additional:

If the only way you can keep your physical shape is by constant self-restrainment, and self-discipline, you are not in a healthy psychological state. Restraining yourself daily from stuffing your face is not heroic.

Such a state shows some obsession about food, as if one's normal state is to want something bad, and it is the role of one's consciousness to keep one away from one's bad nature. This is not the right way to live. The right, good way is to naturally want what's good for you, and your consciousness acts as a second and final judge, not as a cop against your bad subconsciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as if one's normal state is to want something bad, and it is the role of one's consciousness to keep one away from one's bad nature.

I agree with this view. If acting correctly causes an individual displeasure, then I would suggest that there exists some contradiction in his implicitly accepted values. Without sorting out what it is, then the motivation towards the vice will usually win.

Not a new idea, of course,

"Virtue consists, not in avoiding wrong-doing, but in having no wish thereto."-Democritus

One thing about Rands descriptions that bothered me a little, was that the degree of angularity described is most often seen on smokers and anorexics. For some it might make sense, like Francisco and Dagny, maybe, but I have great difficulty imagining Rearden spending most of his life "clawing his way out of a mine" without developing some significant muscle mass. Or Roark working in construction throughout his youth and not getting a little thick around the shoulders. Doesn't seem right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The right, good way is to naturally want what's good for you, and your consciousness acts as a second and final judge, not as a cop against your bad subconsciousness.

Your conciousness will always be neccessary to determine what you should eat. You will not be able to pick out the proper foods to eat based on your feelings, unless somehow you have made previous value judgements about every single food in existence. You might as well say that if an engineer has to engage in an active process of thought in order to design a bridge that he has a psychological problem. It's not that your subconciousness is bad, just that it doesn't know the best course of action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but on average people who are physically fit are also mentally healthy, and if I remember correctly, the evidence points towards the physical fitness being the cause.

I was addressing slimness which can be a product (just to mention a few) of physical fitness/good diet, or a default state for somebody due to their high metabolism, or a result of an eating disorder. Which one of those you won't know just by looking at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. You can also be fat and happy (for hormonal reasons). But for people who over-eat to the point of being full+ as a regular thing some psychological problem is involved.

If the only way you can keep your physical shape is by constant self-restrainment, and self-discipline, you are not in a healthy psychological state.

Some people's sensor for feeling full is set in such a way that if they allowed themselves to reach it they would be overweight. Thus self restrainment/monitoring of portion sizes is absolutely necessary for them to stay slim. Acting correctly, in this case, means not allowing yourself to reach the pleasurable feeling of satisfaction. Maybe in time this can shift in a way in which that won't be the case but, at least initially, it takes extra effort and will power.

It maybe be difficult to distinquish between those and those two go to full+.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If acting correctly causes an individual displeasure, then I would suggest that there exists some contradiction in his implicitly accepted values. Without sorting out what it is, then the motivation towards the vice will usually win.

I am not sure that this is as simplistic. It is true that one's normal state is not to want something bad but there is also no default good position. It is not always easier to do the right thing, often (but not necessarily so in every case), doing the right thing will require more effort (mental or physical). Taking an action will always require more effort/energy than doing nothing. Doing the right thing may cause momentary physical displeasure one should push through and the existance of this displeasure is not necessarily an indication of a vice (as Ifat is suggesting in case of diet).

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who actually *is* fat, I'd like to add a couple of comments:

1.) Exercise qua exercise has no value to me. The only time I feel good after exercising is when I've actually done something *fun*, (like play volleyball, which is extremely problematic because it requires expensive equipment and a bunch of people, or dance around in the basement, which I do regularly). I feel good the first few days I do some sort of "regular" non-fun exercise as an emotional response to doing something I "really ought" to be doing--by standards I don't share. By day 3, I'm just tired, as always happens when I try to "show willing" to put up with other people's standards. It also doesn't make me feel clear-headed or more alert, just tired.

2.) Living longer so that I can do a bunch more boring crap than I'm already enduring has no value to me. The ONLY time that has value to me is the time I spend doing something I enjoy. The prospect of living 30 years longer if I spend it comatose hooked up to a ventilator doesn't have any value to me, hence the reason why I'm not saving up for that eventuality. Living 10 years longer if I have to spend it jogging and fussing over my diet does not appeal, either. Why should it?

3.) 20 minutes a day? It is to laugh. You're not counting travel time, the extra time/effort that is spent in getting ready to go exercise, time spent recuperating FROM exercising, the necessity of washing more clothing, showering again, changing clothes again, etc. When I've been exercising, even if I only did work out for 20 minutes, the entire thing cost me AT LEAST an hour and a half of lost time every single day. When I was commuting, that left me 1 1/2 hour per day to do something that wasn't working, sleeping, or driving . . . and that's if I was lucky enough to avoid just falling asleep from being tired.

If you were to ask me, in a vacuum, "Wouldn't you like to be thin?", I'd say sure . . . but like any value you don't get it that way. It's a trade-off, just like anything else, and you *have* to forgo doing other things. Those other things are simply more valuable to me than being thin. I'd also "like" a vacation home in Hawaii, but I don't see anybody lecturing me about how I'm some sort of immoral person because I haven't got one of *those*. The fact that large numbers of people don't share my value hierarchy doesn't mean that mine is necessarily incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely Rand had a reason for describing all her characters in such a particular manner.

Many of her good characters are also described as being short and stocky, and Catherine Halsey and Ellsworth Toohey are both extremely thin. The estimation comes from the *way* the features are described, not the particular features being described. Moral estimates cannot be attached directly to physical features, although you can attach one to chosen features once you know someone's particular reasons for choosing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.) Living longer so that I can do a bunch more boring crap than I'm already enduring has no value to me. The ONLY time that has value to me is the time I spend doing something I enjoy. The prospect of living 30 years longer if I spend it comatose hooked up to a ventilator doesn't have any value to me, hence the reason why I'm not saving up for that eventuality. Living 10 years longer if I have to spend it jogging and fussing over my diet does not appeal, either. Why should it?

I just wish to correct this one point. When people talk about some action taxing 'X' amount of years off your life, they usually don't mean you're going to cut 'X' years off the end of your life. They mean that you're going to cut off 'x' years of healthy life. That is, if you live 60 years of good health and ten to twenty talking to plant pots, wearing incontinence pants, said action will take off 'x' years from them 60 years portion, not the ten to twenty portion.

This doesn't absolutely hold true with carcinogenics or near-terminal illnesses which will, obviously, leave you with a high chance of death (although that said, surviving cancer, unless the treatment has no hitches, you can easily be left weakened for the rest of your life). The point is that living unhealthily makes you 70 at 50, rather than just giving you 50 years of fun.

That said, if it is a matter of values, then fine. It's probably because I'm a student and have all the time in the world, but I can easily fit in time to exercise. And I agree with other posters about eating healithily - I enjoy eating healthily. It isn't a matter of sacrifice to me. I enjoy the taste of a healthy meal. Simply put, after spending a week away in Cornwall, eating fresh fish meals, vegetarian pasties and all sorts of good stuff, coming back home to microwavable curries leaves me feeling a bit sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your experiences with exercise may be atypical, Jenni. I have never met anyone who, over a period of time, feels more tired than they did before they started exercising.

As for being bored by it, I can relate. I have no interest in team sports, for example. I used to hate running, but that has changed. And I really like cycling. But if I truly hated all forms of exercise, I think I could develop at least a tolerance for something, and maybe a desire for it (what happened with running), with knowing the positive long-term effects (of good years, like Tenure pointed out), and after experiencing the other benefits. And those benefits actually include being less tired, having to sleep less hours, and being more awake when I'm up. I think most people experience something like that. (A proper diet has similar effects.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your experiences with exercise may be atypical, Jenni. I have never met anyone who, over a period of time, feels more tired than they did before they started exercising.

As for being bored by it, I can relate.

I agree completely. I wanted to add that I have the same disinterest in repetitive excercise and have found great ways to trick myself into getting it. Lately I've been into swing dancing, rock climbing, and hiking. Even if those are not your interests, I know that there are coed kickball and dodgeball leagues, and would be surprised if volleyball and other informal sports could not be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people's sensor for feeling full is set in such a way that if they allowed themselves to reach it they would be overweight. Thus self restrainment/monitoring of portion sizes is absolutely necessary for them to stay slim. Acting correctly, in this case, means not allowing yourself to reach the pleasurable feeling of satisfaction. Maybe in time this can shift in a way in which that won't be the case but, at least initially, it takes extra effort and will power.

It maybe be difficult to distinquish between those and those two go to full+.

Case in point my own daughter. The internal sensor that triggers the brain to stop putting food in one's mouth because it's too full to chew does not work in my daughter, quite possibly one of the many signals between the brain and nerves that is interrupted - hence her inability to bear weight, delayed speech and other neurological disabilities.

It is much easier for her now that she is used to it, but when she was little we literally had to watch how much she put in her mouth. Occasionally she still has to think consciously about it to prevent from overstuffing herself. But most of the time now she knows she has to watch how much she needs to bite and to wait a while between bites.

No psych issues there for sure. She's happier and more positive than most kids we know - and she's the one who can't walk!

The brain is complex, for sure. But frankly, this is one part of her disability that isn't on the short list of stuff we'd expect.

I suspect that there are many people who have that or similar defects and that it contributes to weight gain. For folks like them, it can either be an obsession, or in my daughter's case, she just has to be careful.

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...