Focusing On The Positive

[LeoPTY]

Hello all,

In the course of studying Objectivism I have learned of man’s morals which enable him to live. Knowledge of these morals is burdensome to me. While I try to focus on the things that make my life wonderful, I am overwhelmed by a feeling of powerlessness when I realize that certain people are working (with increasing degrees of success) to enslave us under the yoke of collectivism. Does anyone else find being an Objectivist wearying at times, especially when faced with loved ones who champion immoral causes? How do the people on this forum put this aside and happily pursue their values, rather than living with constant angst?

[DavidOdden]

Knowledge of these morals is burdensome to me.

If you mean that you don't think you can live up to these standards, then we should talk. If you mean you don't think other people can live up to these standards, they this is not a burden on you. Of course you may feel pity for these people, but don't let that be a burden on you.

How do the people on this forum put this aside and happily pursue their values, rather than living with constant angst?

I live my own life, and don't try to live other people's lives.

[01503]

Does anyone else find being an Objectivist wearying at times, especially when faced with loved ones who champion immoral causes? How do the people on this forum put this aside and happily pursue their values, rather than living with constant angst?

I find that many who are new to Objectivism tend to find it very burdensome at first, because of the massive amounts of conflict they see in society. It can be very burdensome (this may be a reason that many Objectivists leave Objectivism). Because of this, they tend to shy away from non-Objectivists. And although my two best friends are either apathetic to the declining world around them, or a socialist/environmentalist, there is a lot of good in them (of course, I don't ever let the socialist think she's right ). Most people are not all bad or all good.

I think this dispair is just a stage you go through in first seeing the truth, like the awe Dagny must have felt the first time she went to Galt's Gulch. It wears away eventually, and you see that the world is beautiful in this light. Fortunately for me, this stage was very brief.

[Alfa]

If you mean that you don't think you can live up to these standards, then we should talk.

I'm very curious as to what you would say if that was the case. I don't know about LeoPTY but I know many who are new to Objectivism think like that.

I personally have some issues with not living up to my own ideals, and I simply cannot accept anything less...

[tps_fan]

I'm very curious as to what you would say if that was the case. I don't know about LeoPTY but I know many who are new to Objectivism think like that.

I personally have some issues with not living up to my own ideals, and I simply cannot accept anything less...

About the simplest way that I can put it is: As you turn away from the burdens of other people, you turn more attention to your own work.

Now that's that, right?! Not quite...

(I'm going to focus on a range or subset of transformation types e.g. some people who were never religious would have slightly different circumstances...)

A number of considerations come into play. For one thing, even if someone claims to leave behind a failed philosophy, there can easily be a lot of "baggage" to deal with. It takes several years to start to learn and implement Objectivism (as would likely be the case with any other substantial philosophy.) It also takes time to move away from framing Objectivism in terms of the old philosophy and moving to a stage of treating Objectivism on its own terms. This is crucial!!! For example, I suspect that many new Objectivists still would at least implicitly consider the idea of perfection as other ideologies such as the religious ones do. They are still hampered by some old premises. In turn, they might think that Objectivism is impractical when the case is that they are misinterpreting the philosophy in ways that are similar to how the critics of Objectivism have. By the way, I tend to think that people really don't believe in a new idea until they have worked their way through it over an extended period of time in terms of their own respective life. That is, there's a huge difference in personalizing the application of a new idea...

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the point:

Let's say that I get the idea to emulate a virtuoso guitarist. I might initially have some apparently good reasons for this. I might want to sound better. I might want to have an easier time navigating the fretboard. I might want to play more interesting material. I might want to prepare for a professional career. Sounds encouraging, right? The thing is that I can not simply wake up the next day and implement _anything_ to make the requisite objectives fall into place that day. I have to take steps. I don't mean that I have to just follow a sequence. I also have to break down the stages of development into even smaller sections as tasks. Also, I have to spiral intellectually and mechanically. That is, for one thing, I have to sometimes backtrack and do "old work" i.e. review recently completed tasks. There's yet more....

Let me interject by saying that Objectivist intellectuals are themselves addressing these issues by way of their own division of labor. What Ayn Rand did was to literally lay down the basic framework or foundation of Objectivism. It takes and will continue to take the efforts of other people such as Jean Moroney and Tara Smith to address more specific issues presuming that their students are already familiar with the basics of the philosophy. (I am speaking of the times when these people are teaching Objectivists; they also teach for more philosophically general audiences.)

Another impinging aspect is that such a person in this situation is likely to have to leave behind social metaphysics i.e. that person will not only have to learn new ideas, but he will have to depend primarily on his own mind and his own efforts to work through this new paradigm. Fortunately, as I just alluded to, there are more intellectuals aside from A.R. who this person can consult with. (Here's an endorsement for ARI's conferences.) To jump a bit, Objectivists do need to utilize some of the same methods as their philosophical competitors have used. We need to pool our resources at times, consult with each other, and build elements of a community. Still, the point is that, this student needs to train himself to be more intellectually self-reliant. That is, he has to condition himself to trust himself, consider himself to have the final say over his own beliefs (after supporting his claims), and he has to be steadfast in the knowledge he's since gained. Another example, I explicitly became atheist over 2 decades ago. Does that have a direct impact on anyone else? Nope. At the same time, do I need to "reinvent the wheel" every day, month, or decade by constantly challenging my metaphysical beliefs? Nope. I have satisfied my own claims to my own satisfaction, and so long as I don't encounter truly contradictory information I have every motive to retain those beliefs.

There's so much more, but I would remind you that the Objectivist cliches are true. Along those lines: To work for the future is to live in it today.... You are your own "God" i.e. you master your own destiny.... You make your best efforts and leave it at that. (Re-read what John Galt says in _A.S._ if for no other reason than to get more motivated!)

It's difficult to operate differently from most people with the intention of bringing about a different type of world and not get dissuaded or discouraged by opponents _at times_. Even this doesn't mean resorting to baseless fantasy. After all, the American Founding Fathers did it; that is, they persevered! There are many of the same travails in forging a 2nd renaissance, but there are some inherent advantages as well. You can look back at history and see that the world that you want is good, it's achievable, and "it's yours".

Edited August 18, 2008 by tps_fan

[Devils_Advocate]

Hello all,

In the course of studying Objectivism I have learned of man’s morals which enable him to live. Knowledge of these morals is burdensome to me. While I try to focus on the things that make my life wonderful, I am overwhelmed by a feeling of powerlessness when I realize that certain people are working (with increasing degrees of success) to enslave us under the yoke of collectivism. Does anyone else find being an Objectivist wearying at times, especially when faced with loved ones who champion immoral causes? How do the people on this forum put this aside and happily pursue their values, rather than living with constant angst?

I know what you mane. It's like you have been looking at the world through a clouded glass, and suddenly, Ayn Rand pulls it off and shows you a humanity nearing extinction. It's horrifying, and you feel like your in the movie "The Matrix" and you've just been shown what's going on in the real world.

But after a little while (a few months), the horror wears off. The key is to find something to get your mind off it - for me, it's aesthetics. The right paintings, music, books, etc., always makes me feel better Plus, I'm a writer, so my own work keeps me happy.

[adrock3215]

How do the people on this forum put this aside and happily pursue their values, rather than living with constant angst?

Find an amazing wife and read Victor Hugo. Also be sure to watch and analyze great movies, and keep yourself in shape (physically and mentally). Attending an art museum, art gallery, ballet, play, musical, or sporting event every now and then helps as well.

Edited August 18, 2008 by adrock3215

[DavidOdden]

I'm very curious as to what you would say if that was the case.

The main question is what those standards are -- are they reasonable, rational, or contrary to reality. The second question is, what's the nature of the failure. For example, one standard might be "I will tirelessly fight any injustice, no matter what". That sounds nice, but it's actually not a reasonable standard to be living up to. For one, the "no matter what" means that if your life is fine and some stranger's life sucks because of an unjustice done to him, you have to put something of your own life at risk to fight the injustice. Or, suppose you standard was "I will never accept any work out of myself which isn't the very best". Well, there are some really great carpenters out there and you may not be capable of "the very best", judged against all others. So that standard would imply that you can't acept any carpentry that you do. Thus I would look to see if the standards that you're applying are reasonable.

Supposing that your standard is realistic, then there has to be some reason why you can't meet that standard -- presumably, you are embracing a contradiction, so I would wonder why you didn't start the homework until just before class because you were out puttering in the garden -- that seems to me to be a sign that you do not really want to be in school. Why then did you think you wanted to be in school. People are not generally very good at introspection, because it is very difficult, in that you have to discover a lot of hidden premises.

[JMartins]

I recommend chapter 17, "What Can One Do?", in Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?". Knowing that reality is our ally also helps -- the only things that separate us from the world that we seek are social constructs that can be dismantled in time.

Edited August 18, 2008 by JMartins

[Mammon]

The main question is what those standards are -- are they reasonable, rational, or contrary to reality. The second question is, what's the nature of the failure. For example, one standard might be "I will tirelessly fight any injustice, no matter what". That sounds nice, but it's actually not a reasonable standard to be living up to. For one, the "no matter what" means that if your life is fine and some stranger's life sucks because of an unjustice done to him, you have to put something of your own life at risk to fight the injustice. Or, suppose you standard was "I will never accept any work out of myself which isn't the very best". Well, there are some really great carpenters out there and you may not be capable of "the very best", judged against all others. So that standard would imply that you can't acept any carpentry that you do. Thus I would look to see if the standards that you're applying are reasonable.

I'm finding unrealistic standards like you described are the hallmark of people calling themselves Objectivists.

[softwareNerd]

Knowledge of these morals is burdensome to me. While I try to focus on the things that make my life wonderful, I am overwhelmed by a feeling of powerlessness when I realize that certain people are working (with increasing degrees of success) to enslave us under the yoke of collectivism.

Sometimes, you wonder if ignorance would be bliss, right ... then you could go about achieving your values, without concerning yourself with things you cannot change! I think that -- perhaps after an initial bout of shaking your head at various things -- you simply have to decide on what you can and cannot do about it. One person may conclude he isn't going to do anything because it's a waste of his time, another might support a few causes but mostly via indirect contributions to others who do advocacy, a third might want to do some direct advocacy in some area, yet another might want to make a career of it, joining a think-tank, etc. One has to figure out what makes sense, in the context of your life and goals.

How do the people on this forum put this aside and happily pursue their values, rather than living with constant angst?

I don't think there's any particular trick to it: one simply pursues one's values. So, if one wanted to be a teacher, doctor, businessman, lawyer, scientist in an Objectivist world, one could be a teacher, doctor, businessman, lawyer, scientist in this one. If one lives in the West (and today even in some developing countries) one can pursue these goals quite well.

Mostly, we live our lives in a little microcosm: choose a fulfilling career, a good soul-mate, a couple of good buddies, a decent work environment, and you've pretty much got it made.

[Lazariun]

Choose your friends, live your life and seek your own happiness. If part of your happiness is in trying to bring a little more rationality to the world, then go for it. Just don't lose yourself or something you care more about in doing it.

To put it simply, in the words of Voltaire: Tend your garden.

[DavidOdden]

I'm finding unrealistic standards like you described are the hallmark of people calling themselves Objectivists.

What examples are you talking about?

[LeoPTY]

Thanks for the replies all.

If you mean that you don't think you can live up to these standards, then we should talk.

It is not that I don't think I can live up to these standards. I thought that it was quite distressing that a code of ethics created to enable man to live his life to the fullest seems to have made me more aware of life's obstacles and threats, rather than my values. I certainly do not want to live other peoples lives, but it seems they want to tell me how to live mine. While I don't usually fret about things that are beyond my control, the idea of being press-ganged into a life of servitude does concern me. I am aware that I probably cannot do anything about it, and that makes it all the worse. Being not fully acquainted with Objectivism (nor fully integrated), it simply may be conflicting ideas. However, I think my main issue is fighting battles that are too large and messy, rather than focusing on my immediate environment as softwareNerd suggested.

I would definitely like to know more about the unrealistic standards that Mammon and DavidOdden have encountered among some Objectivists. Good advice from everyone!

[softwareNerd]

What examples are you talking about?

I assume he means "I will tirelessly fight any injustice, no matter what", and any other examples he extrapolated from that.

[Alfa]

The main question is what those standards are -- are they reasonable, rational, or contrary to reality. The second question is, what's the nature of the failure. For example, one standard might be "I will tirelessly fight any injustice, no matter what". That sounds nice, but it's actually not a reasonable standard to be living up to. For one, the "no matter what" means that if your life is fine and some stranger's life sucks because of an unjustice done to him, you have to put something of your own life at risk to fight the injustice. Or, suppose you standard was "I will never accept any work out of myself which isn't the very best". Well, there are some really great carpenters out there and you may not be capable of "the very best", judged against all others. So that standard would imply that you can't acept any carpentry that you do. Thus I would look to see if the standards that you're applying are reasonable.

I think the nature of failure would be bad thinking, and I have always found that hard to accept because whatever the circumstances there are no excuses. Then the consequences can also become a reminder of this. That's where i'm personally at; I don't really like exactly where i'm right now, but I do like where i'm going(i'm on the right track). However, since I don't like failure, and I don't think I can afford any screw-ups, I demand exellence. I don't know how I could accept anything less, although I realize it takes many small steps to get there.

If I was a carpenter I would aim for the very best(according to my own standars of carpenting), and I don't know how I could accept not being capable of it. I mean, is that not like accepting the mediocre; the almost, the not quite(as I think Miss Rand put it)?

In a similar fashion though, it's difficult to accept not being 7 feet tall and looking like a greek god. I mean, that would be an ideal man in my opinion. Nothing to do about it though, it's just the way it is.

What i'm trying to say is that i'm sure my thinking is a bit off here, but I havent got my head around it yet...

Supposing that your standard is realistic, then there has to be some reason why you can't meet that standard -- presumably, you are embracing a contradiction, so I would wonder why you didn't start the homework until just before class because you were out puttering in the garden -- that seems to me to be a sign that you do not really want to be in school. Why then did you think you wanted to be in school. People are not generally very good at introspection, because it is very difficult, in that you have to discover a lot of hidden premises.

Do you think unrealistic standards can have that same effect? I find that with many things I like I need to take "time outs", because i'm getting tired and frustrated. This in turn makes me question my motives; "do I really want that?". But once I get back to whatever it is, then I just love it.

[DavidOdden]

If I was a carpenter I would aim for the very best(according to my own standars of carpenting), and I don't know how I could accept not being capable of it.

First, I was suggesting something broader, so not just "if you are by profession a carpenter" but in whatever you do. You don't want to say "Since I'm not professionally a carpenter, I don't have to try to do good work", would you? Second, my proposal about unrealistic standards was not about aiming, but arriving, so that an A for effort doesn't count for anything. Third, even as a professional carpenter, I can't see imposing a demand that you be the world's greatest carpenter or not a carpenter at all. A lot of the problem of unrealistic expectations, IMO, come down to not understanding what you are by nature able to do and what the somewhat more distant goal of the craft should be. I know what a good miter joint looks like, and what mine look like, and I don't feel like I'm evil scum because of my miter joints. I accept my miter joints for what they are, for those purposes that I make them. They are improving, of course, because I know what the goal is that I haven't learned to reach.

[musenji]

I would definitely like to know more about the unrealistic standards that Mammon and DavidOdden have encountered among some Objectivists. Good advice from everyone!

I had several, in college.

"I should not trust any Christians because they're all spiritual looters out to destroy the good for being the good." [edit] I didn't necessarily believe this explicitly but I certainly acted as though it were true.

"I should be able to get all of my college work done all by myself no matter what, because I shouldn't have to depend on others." [edit] (the relevant alternative here is joining a study group in which I could have discussed my physics or calculus work with others, which would have helped me tremendously)

"I should never feel a need to talk openly with others about my experiences, good and bad, because 1. I shouldn't have to--it means I'm not independent; and 2. Talking about bad experiences means basing relationships on negatives, and I should only base relationships on positives."

(An added note, I was at a Christian college, so I had additionally: "I should never talk to anyone here about my bad experiences because in their minds it will justify their faith. They'll feel that wonderful warm oozy compassion for me, and think 'how unfortunate that he's an atheist, if only he would see the light.'")

Is it any wonder I burned myself out in college and left because of stress?

Edited August 19, 2008 by musenji