Psychological Explanation

[ctrl y]

Rand took the libertarian position on free will. For an Objectivist, every action is caused by a free choice. Since Rand held that free will is the ability to set the causes that determine your actions, we could rephrase the latter as follows, if you prefer: some free choice sets the causes that determine every action.

Either way, given this belief in freedom, it is not obvious how the Objectivist understands what it is for some consideration to make a choice "difficult." We often say things like "it was hard for me to put down the candy bar and buy a head of lettuce instead," and I vaguely recall Rand saying similar things.* What does "hard" mean for an Objectivist in the quoted sentence?

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be that some emotion inclines us against making a choice to go ahead with some action. If you take that position, I would be interested to know what it means for an emotion to "incline us against" making some choice. I expect that similar subsequent clarification would be necessary for other potential responses to this as well.

* I do not cite this point because it would take time to do so, and I doubt that anyone will contest it.

Edited May 14, 2009 by ctrl y

[aequalsa]

Rand took the libertarian position on free will. For an Objectivist, every action is caused by a free choice. Since Rand held that free will is the ability to set the causes that determine your actions, we could rephrase the latter as follows, if you prefer: some free choice sets the causes that determine every action.

Either way, given this belief in freedom, it is not obvious how the Objectivist understands what it is for some consideration to make a choice "difficult." We often say things like "it was hard for me to put down the candy bar and buy a head of lettuce instead," and I vaguely recall Rand saying similar things.* What does "hard" mean for an Objectivist in the quoted sentence?

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be that some emotion inclines us against making a choice to go ahead with some action. If you take that position, I would be interested to know what it means for an emotion to "incline us against" making some choice. I expect that similar subsequent clarification would be necessary for other potential responses to this as well.

* I do not cite this point because it would take time to do so, and I doubt that anyone will contest it.

When someone refers to a choice as, "difficult," it seems to mean, as you state, that a feeling is in contention with their thought about what they ought to do. To flesh this out a little more, if a feeling, is an automated value judgment attached to prior experiences, then the pleasurable choice seems to feel more supported.

With your example, I may feel that I want a candy bar very strongly because I have eaten them a thousand times, and they always tasted good and brought me pleasure. The other side of that choice, health or thinness, is not immediately noticeable, so very little weight will apply to it emotionally. The effect only becomes noticeable after many such decisions in favor of health, so the emotional correlation is only loosely formed, if at all.

In this, as in many other decisions, choosing the correct choice is to do what you do notwant to do. That's "hard" because your conscious mind must continually remind your limbic system that it is not going to be good later and our limbic systems are barely different from a dogs. The control over emotion is what determines the likelihood of success and our cerebral cortex(the rational in rational animal)is what is responsible for our capacity for delayed gratification and ultimately long term thinking. Because it is not very automated though it requires effort while the lower parts of our brain require very little if any. So it would be easy to choose what you already want and difficult to choose what you do not want because you have to expend energy to do so.

[Zip]

Rand took the libertarian position on free will. For an Objectivist, every action is caused by a free choice. Since Rand held that free will is the ability to set the causes that determine your actions, we could rephrase the latter as follows, if you prefer: some free choice sets the causes that determine every action.

Either way, given this belief in freedom, it is not obvious how the Objectivist understands what it is for some consideration to make a choice "difficult." We often say things like "it was hard for me to put down the candy bar and buy a head of lettuce instead," and I vaguely recall Rand saying similar things.* What does "hard" mean for an Objectivist in the quoted sentence?

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be that some emotion inclines us against making a choice to go ahead with some action. If you take that position, I would be interested to know what it means for an emotion to "incline us against" making some choice. I expect that similar subsequent clarification would be necessary for other potential responses to this as well.

* I do not cite this point because it would take time to do so, and I doubt that anyone will contest it.

Why emotion? Why not reason?

I could pick up the chocolate bar thinking to myself that I enjoy chocolate bars but put it down because I know that the head of lettuce is better for me and I can use it in more dishes and what I'm buying is my groceries.

It's a choice, the thing that makes it a hard choice is that making the proper choice is not always easy.

Oh, there are times when choosing a chocolate bar over a head of lettuce might be the proper choice for example if I was tired and I still had a lot of work to do the sugar and energy from the chocolate bar might be exactly what I need.

[MichaelH]

The other factor that can make a choice "difficult" is that values are not always easy to compare.

It's true that an integrated Objectivist has their values ranked, but the value system is not a single line with finely-counted gradations. There are several scales along which one ranks values, and it can be a challenge to choose which values are more relevant to a given choice.

For example: say I have $100 at the end of the month. I can save it, rent a motel and get away for a weekend, or buy something fun for my computer.

The "single line" approach would be: I value saving at 8.5, above entertainment but below survival. Renting the motel is 6.50 and the computer toy is 6.45. Saving is my highest value, so I should save.

If we worked that way, all choices would be easy. However, I would be surprised to hear anyone actually thinks exactly that way.

I think the ranking goes more like this. If I save the money, I'll have it available in the future. If I rent the motel, I'll feel rested and refreshed on Monday and be better able to handle the next week. If I buy something for my computer, I'll enjoy it for at least a month. Which value ranks highest depends on the factors of reality right now: do I want to buy something large later? Am I especially fatigued by work recently? Is the computer toy something I've had my eye on for a while? Some or all of these may apply, and they're not easily correlated. (Is "really fatigued" more important than "big purchase later"?) This is another way choices can be "difficult".

Edited May 15, 2009 by MichaelH