Positive vs. Negative motivation

[Ifat Glassman]

Overall, there are two kinds of emotional motivations: pleasant (will be referred to as "positive") and painful (will be referred to as "negative"). Either a man acts to gain pleasure, or to avoid pain. These are essentially the two forms of emotional motivation man experiences.

For example: we can be motivated to build a house out of a sense of pleasure. We can run away from a snake because of fear. We can give money to a beggar to avoid guilt, or we can buy a gift to a friend because of pleasure. We can study for a test because we are afraid to fail it, or we can read a book because we enjoy training ourselves in rational thinking.

These examples illustrate an additional implicit understanding - that emotions are motivational force for action.

The positive and the negative categories of emotional motivation are not meant to play an equal role in man's life.

Negative motivation is meant to help us avoid damage - to deal with disaster and prevent it. To that extent, it is an excellent servant, and useful for our lives.

Positive motivation is meant to motivate us for the rest of our actions in life, in the pursuit of values. Values such as food, house, entertainment, friends etc'.

Take this opportunity to stop and think for a moment: Is the pursuit of such values in your life a result of positive motivation or negative one? Are you moved in your work by a sense of pleasure, or by a sense of duty? Do you do what you think is moral out of duty, or out of pleasure?

Motivation in pursuit of values should be from positive emotions, not from negative ones.

Assuming that the pursuit of values is the norm of every day life (what we do most of the time), and disasters are exceptional and rare, motivation from negative emotions should only be present in exceptional cases of correcting a mistake, or when you try to deal with some disaster - but not on the form of daily basis.

It is important to keep in mind that negative emotions do have a significant role, too. Suppose you did something wrong, like, say, acting unjustly to a friend. You would feel guilt, and this will motivate you to correct the injustice. Acting on negative motivation in this case is proper.

How do you decide what is proper? Reason is always the final arbiter. But listening to your emotions is an important first step to suggest an action.

So let's look at an example of improper negative motivation: forcing oneself to do well at school, because of viewing it as an instance of the virtue of productivity. Doing well at school in most cases is NOT a matter of productivity at all (because school is not fully rational), studying becomes a constant action despite boredom and pain. "If you want to be good - you must try to be a good student. To be a good student - you must learn to endure pain".

The result is going through years of putting an effort into school because of a desire to avoid a sense of guilt and failure.

But the process of acquiring knowledge required for your career is pursuit of a value - not an attempt to avoid disaster or correct a mistake. Is it right that instead of pleasure, all one would feel is the pain of duty and self-repression? No. Such a clash is a call to look for a mistake in one's thinking (as I learned the hard way), not a call to continue things as the day before.

This example demonstrates how rationalism leads to living one's life under negative motivation - out of a sense of duty to obey moral principles, not out of sense of acting selfishly to achieve one's pleasure. (The rationalist idea, in this case is to decide arbitrarily that success in school has to be, regardless of its actual nature, the virtue of productivity).

Now what would be the long-term consequence of motivation from negative emotions in pursuits of values? Over time, it destroys everything it touches.

In schools, kids are taught that they are good if they learn despite being bored. Over time the result is that they come to hate learning. Not just learning at school, but the act of putting mental effort into anything.

As an adult, you may start with a job you dislike, training yourself over time not to notice your boredom. After enough time, you lose motivation to do any kind of work at all, even one you could have enjoyed before. How did this happen? you trained yourself to make your emotions irrelevant to your actions. You trained your subconscious to associate "work" with suffering and self-compulsion.

If you view morality as a duty to hold yourself to - you will continually repress personal desires in order to be "in-line" with those principles. At the end of this road, you either lose sight of what "you" is, or you throw morality completely and attempt to live without principles at all.

The pursuit of moral values, or virtues, or becoming the hero you have in your mind - should be from positive emotions.

If it is not, that is the time to stop and think - make sure you really understand the principles you attempt to live by. Make sure you can see how those principles are good for you.

There is only so much time that negative motivation can carry a man.

This motivation is meant as a temporary assistant - not as fuel for every-day actions throughout life. This motivation is "crash and burn", its end result is always bad if used to pursue values.

After 4 years of stress and repression I had in the technological institute I studied in, I know.

To the extent that a society is irrational (like bad schooling system), some conflicts are bound to cross your way.

In a dictatorship, one's actions are motivated by fear as the only possible way to function.

But - Taking whatever existing conditions under account, try to pursue your values by the desire to gain pleasure. It is selfish. It is good. It is what makes life worth living.

(Also available here)

[softwareNerd]

Great article.

As a footnote, sometimes one is pursuing a long-term goal, but some stages in that pursuit are boring or unpleasant. Sometimes one can try to find alternate paths, but to the extent one cannot, one has to keep that longer-term goal in mind. I suspect that is a uniquely human capacity -- the ability to focus on the positive long-term goal. Still, it is often done with the use of will rather than emotion. This method -- the use of will to trump short-term emotion -- is the same psychological method followed by someone who is doing things because they are a duty.

One ought to use something more than will in such situations. One ought to use emotions. If one lifts one's focus from the moment and imagines the future to which this is leading, and it one finds that that future leaves one cold...that's a danger sign. OTOH, if visualizing that future moment brings positive emotions, one is probably on the right path. The current moment is always more concrete than the abstractly-imagined future. So, perhaps what people should do in such situations is to try and make the future concrete in some way. I've heard some people talk of "visualization", but I reckon one could make it even more concrete (depending on the particulars), by doing other things. (For instance, a runner training for a marathon might be inspired by reading or watching the biography of some successful, runner.)

Edited February 11, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Ifat Glassman]

Great article.

As a footnote, sometimes one is pursuing a long-term goal, but some stages in that pursuit are boring or unpleasant. Sometimes one can try to find alternate paths, but to the extent one cannot, one has to keep that longer-term goal in mind. I suspect that is a uniquely human capacity -- the ability to focus on the positive long-term goal. Still, it is often done with the use of will rather than emotion.

This raises an interesting question - the relation between will and emotions. I don't yet know how to answer it. I can see however, that in those cases of using will to go despite short-term negative emotions there is still motivation of avoiding a stronger negative emotion. For example, if some small boring tasks are unavoidable by principle to your work, then not doing then means throwing away your work. Doing them despite negative emotions means to avoid the strong negative emotion of losing your job.

I do see though that you have a point here about will being separate way to act than emotions (emotional motivation). I am not sure what is the relationship yet.

I'll respond to the rest later.

[softwareNerd]

I do see though that you have a point here about will being separate way to act than emotions (emotional motivation). I am not sure what is the relationship yet.

When I used the term "will", I was naming what you already described in your post above, saying "If you view morality as a duty to hold yourself to - you will continually repress personal desires in order to be "in-line" with those principles." This is the process I was referring to as "will". The difference is that while the process of will can be used for something negative like you describe, it can also be used for a positive reason. Edited February 12, 2009 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

I liked you post, Ifat. However,there is one thing I am having an issue with:

If you view morality as a duty to hold yourself to - you will continually repress personal desires in order to be "in-line" with those principles.

Rationalism is a serious problem - just like you identified. But here I think you are building an unnecessary conflict. Living "in line" with moral principles is always good for you - if you are applying them correctly. Productivity is always a virtue - it is the kind that has to be correctly identified within individual context. So again the source of the problem is rationalism, in your example, and not commitment to moral principles - which is proper.

[wilicyote]

Well done, Ifat. Very well done.

Whenever I find myself enduring a difficult struggle by employing my will, I conciously make an effor to substitute desire for will. The motive force is every bit as powerful, but the goal is "value gained" not "failure avoided". I love the word "desire" because it so appropriately names the proper method of motivation.

[MichaelH]

Great post!

I've been gradually losing the motivation to do anything. (I said to my spouse this morning, "I don't want to be awake.") This post highlighted part of the reason why - my life has become pain-avoidance instead of value-seeking. Thank you, Ifat!

[Ifat Glassman]

Whenever I find myself enduring a difficult struggle by employing my will, I conciously make an effort to substitute desire for will. The motive force is every bit as powerful, but the goal is "value gained" not "failure avoided". I love the word "desire" because it so appropriately names the proper method of motivation.

Actually, my point was that negative motivation is important at times. I was not going against negative motivation as such - just when it is employed in pursuit of values (rather than in protecting values - taking action to avoid destruction).

There are many cases when it is the right and only possible and proper emotional motivation. For example, you don't move out of the way of a speeding truck by the emotion of pleasure. You properly do it out of fear (trying to resolve/avoid fear).

You don't fill out your tax form out of delight - but out of a desire to avoid jail. In this case you employ your will power to motivate you to do it by focusing your mind on the long-term consequences rather on the short-term emotions. Using your will in this case is proper. Negative motivation is proper, because - the action amounts to avoiding a disaster (and not to pursuing a value).

I'll answer the rest of your posts later (either in the weekend or on Monday). No time now. And thanks for all your compliments, I appreciate it.

[Ifat Glassman]

Great article.

As a footnote, sometimes one is pursuing a long-term goal, but some stages in that pursuit are boring or unpleasant. Sometimes one can try to find alternate paths, but to the extent one cannot, one has to keep that longer-term goal in mind. I suspect that is a uniquely human capacity -- the ability to focus on the positive long-term goal. Still, it is often done with the use of will rather than emotion. This method -- the use of will to trump short-term emotion -- is the same psychological method followed by someone who is doing things because they are a duty.

Yes, I agree. Nice observation. One thing though - even though both motivation from duty and overcoming some temporary instance of bordom with a particular task at work use will to redirect one's focus, they still have a difference in the emotional state as they do it. The man who loves his job does not have to look so far ahead to get a positive boost. He just needs to visualize the moment after completing this small task. A man acting from duty, however, will have to look into some distant, abstract idea, somewhere far in the future (maybe beyond the grave?). And mostly be motivated by avoiding the fear of being unworthy. When he looks at the what he achieves, he gets a form of relief, of the form "I've escaped self-worthless-ness". When it comes to actual concrete tasks associated with this duty, he will not actually get pleasure (that's the meaning of duty), and it is not pleasure that will be motivating him.

One ought to use something more than will in such situations. One ought to use emotions. If one lifts one's focus from the moment and imagines the future to which this is leading, and it one finds that that future leaves one cold...that's a danger sign.

Yes, I agree. But more than that - I don't think one needs to constantly lift one's focus to some distant future as a normal way to pursue values. If one does - I consider that by itself a warning sign.

You gave an example of a runner. Suppose he trains every day, does not enjoy it one bit - all for the sake of that moment when he wins the world Olympics. Well, what would be the value of a medal? It is the enjoyment in the actual career that one ought to enjoy. If he does not enjoy running, getting up early and all that stuff, I don't think this is good for him to pursue it.

Suppose though, that you're a programmer (hard for you to imagine, I know). You love what you're doing, but as you begin coding some project in an unfamiliar environment, things don't make sense much. You then need to remind yourself of further context to bring back the positive motivation, or even, focus on the future of completing this task. This last is normal part of every work, I think. (In contrast to the runner from my above example).

By the way, your point about the use of will made me think of the relation of will and reasoning to emotional motivation. Thanks.

[Ifat Glassman]

I liked you post, Ifat. However,there is one thing I am having an issue with:

Rationalism is a serious problem - just like you identified. But here I think you are building an unnecessary conflict. Living "in line" with moral principles is always good for you - if you are applying them correctly. Productivity is always a virtue - it is the kind that has to be correctly identified within individual context. So again the source of the problem is rationalism, in your example, and not commitment to moral principles - which is proper.

Rationalism does not have to be all-pervasive. As I see it, someone can think perfectly well usually, but when coming to a new topic, just try to grab on to ideas and connect them (try to deduce them) from other ideas, instead of from observations. I think to some degree, this is what I do when I still do not see enough observation to fully understand something - I connect it to other ideas I have. And to that extent it is rationalistic thinking (until I actually collect enough observations to make an idea "concrete").

If someone holds ethics in a rationalistic form (or if they are thoroughly rationalistic), they can only follow moral principles out of duty - not out of full understanding how this serves their self interest.

If you look at how Ayn Rand phrases all the virtues: each one is essentially recognition of some fact of reality.

"Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value"

"Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness"

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it"

The virtues are always recognitions of something. The actions of honesty, independence etc' follow from the recognition of the relevant fact. It is never an action following from an idea, but action following one's first hand understanding of something. And I think only to the extent a person really understands moral principles that they can actually serve his happiness if he chooses to follow them. Otherwise, they can only be a form of religion. i.e. "I don't lie because god will reward me for it". (not because the person himself sees it as good)

Great post!

I've been gradually losing the motivation to do anything. (I said to my spouse this morning, "I don't want to be awake.") This post highlighted part of the reason why - my life has become pain-avoidance instead of value-seeking. Thank you, Ifat!

Wow, I'm sorry to hear that. I had the same thing with college, gradually eroding any pleasure in studying that I had at the beginning. I hope you manage to find what you enjoy doing, pursue that, and restore your positive feeling about life.

[softwareNerd]

The virtues are always recognitions of something. The actions of honesty, independence etc' follow from the recognition of the relevant fact.

Yes, in fact Rand states this at a more abstract level too. Here's the quote:

...there is no such thing as Objectivism or any other philosophy. Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of reality.

[~Sophia~]

Ifat, what I was responding to was the fact that you, with your statement: If you view morality as a duty to hold yourself to - you will continually repress personal desires in order to be "in-line" with those principles have placed man's well being in conflict with moral principles.

You are not talking here about people's misapplication of moral principles - of errors which can and do arise in the process of translating abstract concepts to concrete scenarios (errors for which rationalism maybe one reason). You are arguing against unbroken commitment to moral principles - at least as it is written. Such commitment would only be problematic if there is something wrong with moral principles - at least in some context.

My point is that there is no conflict unless moral principles are not reason and reality based. I hold myself obligated (which is in essence another description for chosen duty) to live in-sync with objective moral code because I understand it's value and thus recognize it's benefit in my life. I do not go into lenghtly evaluation of those principles in every situation - I do not need to. I am convinced of their validity. I have already worked that out for myself that they are, in fact, products of recognizing something about reality - just as you pointed out in your last post. Today I am working on consistency for which commitment is necessary.

Problems arise from improper understanding of principles and their misapplication (wrong premisses) and not from the moral code itself and thus person's commitment to it.

Edited February 18, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[Ifat Glassman]

Ifat, what I was responding to was the fact that you, with your statement: If you view morality as a duty to hold yourself to - you will continually repress personal desires in order to be "in-line" with those principles have placed man's well being in conflict with moral principles.

You are not talking here about people's misapplication of moral principles - of errors which can and do arise in the process of translating abstract concepts to concrete scenarios (errors for which rationalism maybe one reason). You are arguing against unbroken commitment to moral principles - at least as it is written. Such commitment would only be problematic if there is something wrong with moral principles - at least in some context.

My point is that there is no conflict unless moral principles are not reason and reality based. I hold myself obligated (which is in essence another description for chosen duty) to live in-sync with objective moral code because I understand it's value and thus recognize it's benefit in my life. I do not go into lenghtly evaluation of those principles in every situation - I do not need to. I am convinced of their validity. I have already worked that out for myself that they are, in fact, products of recognizing something about reality - just as you pointed out in your last post. Today I am working on consistency for which commitment is necessary.

Problems arise from improper understanding of principles and their misapplication (wrong premises) and not from the moral code itself and thus person's commitment to it.

I think you mean something else by "commitment" than I was talking about. What I was describing is not a case of someone who understands the principle and consistently applies it to his life and uses the principle to guide him in concrete cases. This sort of "commitment" to a principle is psychologically healthy. Because a person actually sees a good reason to use the principle in his life.

But if someone does not understand a principle (as would be the case if it is held in a rationalist manner) - then it is not possible to use a principle to one's advantage if one does not have an understanding of the principle. Furthermore, any "commitment" to the principle is a form of dogma, and as such requires repression of one's desires to follow it.

For example, suppose you did not understand why it is important to eat. Yet, someone forced you to eat the right amount of food (throughout the day). Every few hours this person would come and shove a cake down your throat. You would want to work? well too bad, it's time to eat. You want to take a walk in the park? Well, too bad, time to chug on that chicken sandwich. Even though eating is good for your physical well being, it would still mean repression (or restriction) of personal desires in favor of the principle.

Eating is a very simple example, but the more abstract a principle is, the more difficult it is to apply it to your life. Imagine the horror of someone who is "committed" to the principle of productivity, and uses it to choose a profession which is not personally interesting to him at all. Unlike eating, this will not do him any good at all. Only damage. Maybe you could say, that working would keep him alive, sure. But what's the point of living if you don't enjoy your central purpose in life?

This is not a simple accidental "misapplication" of a principle to a concrete case by someone who otherwise understands the principle. This is much bigger - in the case of rationalism a correct application is just as coincidental as an incorrect one. And following the moral code takes the form of obeying a god, not using a servant. Repression of personal desires is not an accidental consequence - it is bound to happen.

When someone actually understands a principle, they do not need to "hold themselves" up to it (not in the sense of repressing personal desires). They use the principle to analyze what is the best thing to do in a situation. The principle is a familiar friend, not a god from above.

The committement itself, in this case, is wrong. Committement to something you do not understand, and don't see as good for you - is self-defeating and therefore wrong.

And more than that - I don't see how it is possible to use an abstract idea to one's advantage when one has no understanding what the priciple really is. It's like a loaded gun that shoots in random directions.

To give you one example from my own life - in my last year in Israel I did not go salsa dancing, because every club or dancing school reachable to me was using stolen music.

I did not fully understand the principles involved in the situation. To me it seemed like I was accomplice to crime. But in fact, I was denying myself of pleasure for no good reason. It is not my fault that the culture in Israel does not respect individual rights. By not going I am not making any difference, only punishing myself for the moral problem of others.

Because some principles were not clear to me, they were just like a gun shooting randomly. In this case, the gun shot me in the leg.

'nyways, I'm out of examples. The end.

[softwareNerd]

I think the key question is: is it possible that someone holds his moral principles as duties to be followed, rather than as practical long-term principles to achieve his happiness? (stress is on "rather than", to focus on some degree of non-integration of those two). To the extent this is possible, such a person has to face and solve this "duality".

One's emotional mechanism can act as a "sanity check" to alert one to potential problems in one's moral principles.

If we assume a degree of rationalism, then we can assume that people will often start with correct broad principles but arrive at incorrect applications when it comes to narrower principles. (E.g., because productivity is a virtue, I should be doing XYZ). One's emotional mechanism can play a role by making one ask: "If I'm not happy doing XYZ, is it really something that will lead to my happiness?"

The role of the emotional mechanism could be viewed thus: to help one reach a state where the moral is no longer a duty.

[~Sophia~]

But if someone does not understand a principle (as would be the case if it is held in a rationalist manner) - then it is not possible to use a principle to one's advantage if one does not have an understanding of the principle.

That is exactly what I was pointing out. The problem is one's false premises (reasons for which can be numerous).

I agree that one's emotional mechanism can act as a sanity check to alert one to potential problem with one's premises.

Furthermore, any "commitment" to the principle is a form of dogma, and as such requires repression of one's desires to follow it.

A person maybe overcoming a habit of pragmatism, or emotionalism. Perhaps, in the past, they wanted their cake and eat it too or they were used to telling small white lies because it was easier (less effort involved in avoiding uncomfortable situations). Those are just few examples. Overcomming those may initially require one's conscious commitment.

Edited February 19, 2009 by ~Sophia~

[Ifat Glassman]

I think the key question is: is it possible that someone holds his moral principles as duties to be followed, rather than as practical long-term principles to achieve his happiness? (stress is on "rather than", to focus on some degree of non-integration of those two). To the extent this is possible, such a person has to face and solve this "duality".

It is possible. I saw a few people who, in the name of the virtue of productivity choose a career that brings them no enjoyment, make themselves occupied with work and studies or beat themselves on the head for playing too many video games (regardless of the reason for playing - just for the action itself, which is "not productive"). In these examples, the virtues are ends to "being good" - not to life or happiness.

I guess you have to see it for yourself to come to the conclusion whether such a thing is possible or not.

One's emotional mechanism can act as a "sanity check" to alert one to potential problems in one's moral principles.

Yes. This is the right way to go about things. (But even taking on this approach of using emotions as "sanity check" requires that one treats one's emotions as significant to begin with (and unfortunately, a rationalist tries to eliminate his feelings as the first step toward objectivity) ).

If we assume a degree of rationalism, then we can assume that people will often start with correct broad principles but arrive at incorrect applications when it comes to narrower principles. (E.g., because productivity is a virtue, I should be doing XYZ). One's emotional mechanism can play a role by making one ask: "If I'm not happy doing XYZ, is it really something that will lead to my happiness?"

I agree. In fact, this is how I started to realize something is wrong with my decision not to go dancing (because of paying a business that steals music). I noticed that it was a source of bad feelings, not even of feeling good about what I'm doing, but rather more like avoiding being bad. So this feeling got me questioning if I applied the principles I hold correctly or not, and whether or not I understood the principles well enough. Because I knew that the reward and purpose of those principles is my happiness and well being.

The role of the emotional mechanism could be viewed thus: to help one reach a state where the moral is no longer a duty.

In the way you describe above - yes. Though I would not say this is the sole role of emotions in relation to ethics. I would add an emphasis that ethics is actually a servant for achievement of happiness, pleasure, love and all the pleasant (or "positive") emotions. Not that emotions are servant of ethics.

Not that you said otherwise, but I see this as an important emphasis just in case.

[Ifat Glassman]

A person maybe overcoming a habit of pragmatism, or emotionalism. Perhaps, in the past, they wanted their cake and eat it too or they were used to telling small white lies because it was easier (less effort involved in avoiding uncomfortable situations). Those are just few examples. Overcomming those may initially require one's conscious commitment.

The question is - committement to what? Committement to focus, analyze the situation - great! A principle well understood hits you like a 5 tons brick in its clarity when you analyze a situation, and therefore it is easy to use it.

Committement to a principle you do not understand and yet accept as good? no way this can consistently be to one's advantage.

BTW, you quoted my sentence "Furthermore, any "commitment" to the principle is a form of dogma, and as such requires repression of one's desires to follow it." Out of context. I do not think that any committement to a principle is dogma (like I explained in the preceding post). Just a note, to avoid confusion.

[wilicyote]

I think one of the things that both of you are saying in different ways, is that there is a process of INTEGRATION involved with the discovery of any new knowledge. It is important to recognize that this is a process. Which means that one has to find out how it fits with other, previously held, knowledge. This also means that one must resolve any conflicts that arise during this integration process. For all of us studying Objectivism this is the process we are presently engaged in. But during the process one has to continue to follow the principles of objectivism in spite of the struggles presented by the task of integration. This is especially true when the conflicts are in areas that are unavoidable in daily life -- e.g. should I do my homework or not. What keeps you doing the "right" thing during the time that you have not yet fully integrated your new knowledge. Is it will power, faith in objectivism, desire, or do you stop everything until you get the details sorted out properly (in some cases this may take years)?

[~Sophia~]

Committement to a principle you do not understand and yet accept as good?

I have never advocated that.

[Ifat Glassman]

I think one of the things that both of you are saying in different ways, is that there is a process of INTEGRATION involved with the discovery of any new knowledge. It is important to recognize that this is a process. Which means that one has to find out how it fits with other, previously held, knowledge. This also means that one must resolve any conflicts that arise during this integration process. For all of us studying Objectivism this is the process we are presently engaged in. But during the process one has to continue to follow the principles of objectivism in spite of the struggles presented by the task of integration. This is especially true when the conflicts are in areas that are unavoidable in daily life -- e.g. should I do my homework or not. What keeps you doing the "right" thing during the time that you have not yet fully integrated your new knowledge. Is it will power, faith in objectivism, desire, or do you stop everything until you get the details sorted out properly (in some cases this may take years)?

That's a good question. I think the right thing to do is to judge every situation best you can do, to try to understand, using whatever principles you have, how something is or is not to your best interest, and then act on that. What is not good to do, in my opinion, is to follow principles out of faith. "Faith" here means, that because Ayn Rand is a powerful thinker, that someone tries to follow the principles she presents without understanding them. Suppose, for example, you're making a decision about taking a job with the government. You make a list of pluses and minuses, at the end the plus side is stronger. And yet you think, "but it seems like something Ayn Rand would not approve of". I don't think someone should use that as something to make a decision with. This is definitely a reason to think more of the topic and to analyze why one thinks Ayn Rand would disagree, but it does not justify, in my opinion, putting aside one's current understanding and judgement of what to do in that situation. I think taking the job and working out the missing details is the right way to go about it.

[wilicyote]

I agree. When I first read Rand about ten years ago I was blown away, but I had previously tested numerous philosophies and found them wanting, so I used the same approach to Objectivism. I put it on my feet and walked it down the street for several years to see for myself if it really delivered as advertised. It was not until I was convinced that Objectivism could deliver the goods that I made a wholesale restructuring of my entire life. I still find contradictions that I am holding over from my past life. In each case I take the time, however long it may require, to sort it out. I am tempted to call my certainty that I will be able to work it out "faith" in Objectivism, but in reality it is probably more like faith in reality and in my mind's capacity to correctly grasp it. In light of that "faith" is not a good word. I am still looking for the right one to describe this outlook though. Any suggestions?

Edited February 21, 2009 by wilicyote

[Ifat Glassman]

I agree. When I first read Rand about ten years ago I was blown away, but I had previously tested numerous philosophies and found them wanting, so I used the same approach to Objectivism. I put it on my feet and walked it down the street for several years to see for myself if it really delivered as advertised. It was not until I was convinced that Objectivism could deliver the goods that I made a wholesale restructuring of my entire life. I still find contradictions that I am holding over from my past life. In each case I take the time, however long it may require, to sort it out. I am tempted to call my certainty that I will be able to work it out "faith" in Objectivism, but in reality it is probably more like faith in reality and in my mind's capacity to correctly grasp it. In light of that "faith" is not a good word. I am still looking for the right one to describe this outlook though. Any suggestions?

I think that feeling of "faith" you're taking about can come from subconscious understanding you have that you are not yet aware of.

Like, say you hear the statement: "Reason is man's basic means of survival". Subconsciously, I think this can connect to several examples you have, like various actions you do to survive that require thinking (like driving, holding a job etc'). You don't yet see this principle in ALL the actions you do, that reason is the basic means of survival, but you see it enough examples to produce a feeling of "this sounds right, though I can't completely justify it yet".

So this produces the "feeling" that there is something here worth examining, something true.

[wilicyote]

"this sounds right, though I can't completely justify it yet".

Precisely!

For me, it is not too hard to find the motivation to work out the answer, even if it takes a long time. I get a great deal of pleasure from new discoveries. I think it is sad that so many people have had that pleasure driven out of them by our horrid educational systems, and insanely irrational society.

I am annoyed, some times, that my native tongue has such poor words to describe some of these critical concepts. We are forced to use the word "feeling" for many things which are clearly intellectual (although maybe on a deep or subconcious level), rather than emotional, simply because there is no better word for it.

In Chinese (Mandarin) there is a common phrase "ting bu dong", which means essentially "hear, not yet understand." I may have to do the same in this instance -- maybe "know, not yet comprehend" or something. This whole process, the learning - comprehending - integrating one, has not been explored adequately yet, in my opinion. It is not necessarily appearant until one begins to try to teach things like philosophy to others. The hiarchical nature of knowledge becomes a real obstacle then. It is like math, in that one concept is built on another, and another, and if you miss one week of class, you are totally lost.

[Grames]

In light of that "faith" is not a good word. I am still looking for the right one to describe this outlook though. Any suggestions?

Trust. Confident expectation of future performance based upon past performance.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

We had a similar discussion last weekend at our local Objectivist group. It was pointed out that "I believe in evolution" is oftentimes condemned by scientists as implying somehow an act of faith. Actually "believe" is a very generic word, for simply holding that some proposition is true, whatever your justification is for doing so. Saying that one "has faith in evolution" would, on the other hand, be absurd.