Highest Value

[AllMenAreIslands]

...

This is where that notion that 'everything you do is selfish' comes from, and why it is of no value to discuss, in the sense that you are a volitional being and you choose to move your muscles and speak words, all your actions are the result of something you desire to do. But this is a concrete bound context dropping. Though you choose to initiate movements, the actions are not necessarily in your self interest, let alone your long term rational self interest.

So even though she feels compelled to save the stranger, merely because she is acting on a desire does not mean she is acting in rational self interest, but in she sense that she is in control of her actions, she is acting under a 'self-ish' desire. But to use 'self-ish' in that sense is really rather pointless, because other people can not directly make your muscles move.

Altruism, in Objectivism, is not merely 'helping others' there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it can be good and conducive to your own fulfilling life if you identify shared values you and the person you are helping hold and help them achieve that value. When you help others at your own expense, that's different. When your helping others results in your own immolation, that usually always bad. However, we are not omniscient, so we don't always know when our help will result in our own demise, most of the time people do such things they operate on the assumption that they themselves will survive, sometimes there assessment is irrationally derived, but the motivation is not self destruction to save another. If she is a fire-fighter, for instance, rushing into a fire to save a stranger is not an unreasonable thing, her skill set will make it much more likely for her to survive and save the person.

Firefighters, politice, and Soldiers are not acting 'altruistically' any more than you are when you choose to go to school instead of play video games, instead they are acting in accordance with their highest values, fighting to maintain and promulgate the things they desire and the world they desire to see come about. They are acting in their own long term rational self interest, ensuring the world they desire for themselves and for their loved ones.

Selfish-ness in objectivism is rational-self interest, which is long term, logical, non-pejorative, and based on proper values. It is not merely satisfying whatever whim you as a self happen to have. You should always critically examine your values against that standard of a fulfilling life to you.

It's dangerous to confuse the 'altruism' of sacrificing short term comfort and conveinences for long term goals with the sacrificing of your own well being for the well being of - not people that you care about - but in fact people that you dislike. Words are what we use to represent ideas, and without words to identify clearly what we mean, the ideas are muddled. The former form of 'sacrifice' is really a proper 'prioritization' of values, while the latter is a reversal in the prioritization of values! Often the struggle and effort is the same between the two, it is that struggle which we usually come to associate as indicative of 'sacrifice' but just as it is wrong to call both getting your next heroin fix and not helping a parasitic 'friend' in 'need' selfish, it's wrong to call the struggle to cut one's own throat the same as the struggle to ensure the people who love and care about have the basic necessities of life.

...

I really liked your answer here, Matus, and especially the bit I bolded.

I do agree with you about the use of the word "sacrifice" to denote what are either "costs" or "investments." I think there is a sinister motive behind the effort to smuggle the idea of making sacrifices into every discussion involving making choices. I think the purpose of the proliferation of the word "sacrifice" in those instances is to have people think of "sacrifice" as something good or noble or worthwhile, which has its payoff when the rulers decide it's time for war and "the ultimate sacrifice."

Of course, whenever there is a choice of two or more options that are both/all worthy of his time/money, the individual will find the selection process more difficult without a hierarchy of values to refer to in evaluating which of the options will add the most to his life, short and/or long term.

Why do people want to hang onto the idea of "making sacrifices?" Ironically, it may be easier to identify which is the "correct" choice to make by the standard of sacrifice, because it is the one you DO NOT want to select. Knowing which of the options is truly in your best interests feels like it is more work largely because it is, for most people.

***

Thomas, I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Thomas, I'm sorry to hear of your loss.

Thanks for that. I don't usually harp on the loss, but I thought it was appropriate in this thread.

He and I had a great time together and I mostly remember that. We once went on a vacation that took twelves hours to drive to in the same car. We were kind of tired of each other to some degree, so once we got to our destination we took different paths, just to have some separation. Well, we wound up in the same place enjoying the same view after about an hour

And then there were those times when we didn't have to say anything, it was just understood that we were enjoying the same thing the same way. It took years to reach that level of friendship, and a lot of openness about our values to each other.

I'm just hoping it is not a once in a life-time friendship, but I've never had a friend like that before and may never have a friend like that ever again.

It definitely made life worth living.

I'd love to have a sexual romantic relationship with a woman that was closer to me than that, but I haven't discovered her hiding place yet

[AllMenAreIslands]

Thomas, I wonder -- do you find yourself evaluating new people against the standard of that great friendship, perhaps wondering if this or that person could turn out to be the New Best Friend? Perhaps it will be harder to find that person simply because you have the memory of how marvelous the previous friendship became, and a part of you at least cannot help but draw comparisons, or look for "signs" that the new person will offer the same level of intimacy as your other friend did.

I'd love to say "Of course you will find someone else," but there's no "of course" about it. The standard seems to be set very high, plus from what you've just told us, it wasn't an overnight kind of thing but rather something that evolved and developed over years. There must be a bit of reticence on your part, perhaps it is subconscious, which makes you more wary of having another friendship like that one, from the fear of losing the person after all the effort.

Was this friend also an Objectivist?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yes, my best friend was an Objectivist. Back before the Internet, there were cards placed into Miss Rand's books and there was some sort of clearing house for those who sent in those cards. Don't remember who was doing that, but at times they would forward information to those curious about Objectivists in their region. David had just moved to the Dallas area shortly after running his own Objectivist college club in Florida, and looked me up. We became friends immediately.

Do I let my loss prevent me from making new friends? I try not to, but he did leave a very high water mark regarding friendships. I haven't found many local friends who have become as interested in the arts as I am; they are good friends and most are Objectivists, but it is not the value all encompassing relationship I had with him. The only type of relationship that would be even better would be to have a lover who is as in tuned and in sync with my values. Of course, sex would be an added dimension of a romantic relationship. I've tried with both new friends and new girlfriends to get them to become such passionate rational valuers, but haven't succeeded so far -- but it is not from lack of trying.

Some might say that I "force" my values onto them and expect them to comply, but I don't do that. I basically offer the values as values and hopefully get a similar value response -- and they do likewise. And yes it might take years to develop such a relationship, but that is an effort one must go through with one's friends and lovers. In other words, I like to build relationships. But a lot of people seem to be afraid of having great values because of the potential loss, I suppose, or they just don't get it; I don't really know, but I have also had friends who just gave up on Objectivism and rational values, primarily because those put them in conflict with significant others. It's sad, but it happens.

[AllMenAreIslands]

Thanks for your answers, Thomas.

I do hope you find someone who will be your new best friend; perhaps that person is already here, or will show up at this site next week, or at an Objectivist gathering.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Certainly one of my motivations for continuing to post to oo.net and putting up my website and running a local OPAR discussion group is to meet my kind of people -- i.e. to make friends. Sometimes that requires making converts, and I have been doing that.

After a life changing tragedy it is very easy to just roll over in bed and give up on life, but I have made a concerted effort not to do that. It's not easy, but so long as one is alive one ought to continue to strive for values, and I think presenting a rational case for my intellectual positions is the best way to do that. I've also written poems and short stories and sent out copies of my novel in progress to meet my kind of people; that is, to present my values and see who else is interested in them. But that type of deep friendship or deep romance is not an easy value to achieve, and that is why one ought to value one friends and lovers once one meets them, because they are few and therefore more valuable.