Objectivism and its Application

[DrawingCircles]

Hello, I don't know if this is the right section to be posting in, but I have quite a few questions on Objectivism's application in daily life (if these are Objectivist principles).

A little bit about my background:

I'm currently a student and I was first introduced to Ayn Rand when I was thinking about writing for the scholarship essay on Atlas Shrugged. I haven't done it yet, but after reading Atlas Shrugged I feel that it is among the best if not the best book I've ever read. I couldn't stop reading her books and I've just finished The Fountainhead (and you'll see that most of my questions are based on that) and now I'm starting to read We the Living. What drew me to these books were the characteristics and the philosophy that all the heroic characters exhibited. I liked many of the ideas, particularly the "place nothing over the verdict of your own mind", the use of reason as the only tool of knowledge, and the idea of you being as good as you think you are. It might be a bit juvenile but I want to become like the characters in the book, or at least acquire some of the characteristics that make them so great in my eyes. The problem with that is that sometimes I find the application to be a bit difficult or it results in a little inner turmoil and so that's where these questions come from.

Main Question 1-2

1.) What I've concluded from Roark is that he doesn't care what others think about him or his work. He doesn't care if other people agree with him or not. And so I've tried to apply this thinking to my own life but it doesn't seem too practical. For example, what happens with employment. Don't you have to care what your bosses think about you and your work? What kind of relationship do you have with your employer if he's the boss and the one in control of your salary?

And do you have any tips for not caring about what other people think. I've had an inferiority complex and I've been pretty self conscious all my life so I'm trying to think of ways to develop a "tough shell" so to speak. I'd like to be like Roark, where the pain only goes so far and then he's impervious to it. Any suggestions?

2.) This might be linked to the first question, but how is it possible to not compare and contrast in everyday life? Roark said he was too conceited to make comparisons or consider himself in relation to anyone else. This is what I've found to be the hardest to do. What does it mean to not see myself in relation to anyone? Do you have any suggestions on how to stop?

Then what about competition? When you compete in sports or grades, aren't you comparing yourself or your skills against someone else? Or if you're working for someone, aren't you making comparisons to your rival? And if self esteem shouldn't come from comparisons, what is that feeling that you get when you've beat someone in a tennis match?

Side Questions 3-7

3.) Is it possible for you to define what a friend is. And with respect to that, what would your family mean to you?

4.) Is it wrong to be well liked or popular? Or is it just wrong to seek it? From what I've read, in order to reach that state, you have to make compromises, but from what I've felt I don't feel like compromises have been made. And I know it's wrong to seek other people's approvals, but does that mean it's not good to feel accepted or wanted?

5.) I know Roark says the meaning of life is your work but have you guys found something else besides your work? I think that the meaning of life through work applies to Roark because work is his choice of happiness. What is your choice of happiness?

6.) What does it mean to not be conscious of anyone? Throughout the story Rand stresses the idea that Roark doesn't seem conscious of anyone and I think that consequently makes the person on the receiving end to feel nonexistent. He knows that there's someone there, but how can he not be conscious of that person if he turns and talks to that person?

7.) Finally, wouldn't you feel sort of...lonely? Especially Roark. With all this not caring and not being conscious of other people doesn't that make for a very lonely existence?

Before you post:

I'm well aware that all of these questions have underlying themes and could probably be answered with a broad and general statement but if you could, please take the time to acknowledge and address each of the scenarios or situations because these are the very scenarios that have been bothering me.

In addition, I know that each question has a succession of questions within it. They aren't used to prove a point; they're a series of questions because I really don't understand the answer to them. And if you could, please continuously check back on this thread. I'd like to have a discussion and sometimes I might need a clarification. Other than that, I eagerly await your replies.

Henry

[DavidOdden]

1.) What I've concluded from Roark is that he doesn't care what others think about him or his work. He doesn't care if other people agree with him or not. And so I've tried to apply this thinking to my own life but it doesn't seem too practical. For example, what happens with employment. Don't you have to care what your bosses think about you and your work? What kind of relationship do you have with your employer if he's the boss and the one in control of your salary?

What you should primarily care about in your work is how well you produce. Are you actions correct, given your purpose at the job? Suppose you carve wooden shoes for a living, are you making the best possible wooden shoes? If not, you should be concerned, for your own sake, that you are being a bit of a slacker when it comes to producing.

Now suppose you are a fine artisan, but you are employed to turn out low-quality tourist-goods type wooden shoes. You would prefer to spend a full day on a pair (which would be quite lovely) but your boss wants you to turn out 1 pair an hour, which you cannot do while maintaining the artistic standards that you have set for yourself. That means your decision to take this job was probably not a very rational one. Perhaps you can persuade the boss to introduce a line of more expensive artisanal shoes; if not, you simply have to recognize that you have an unrealistic plan of life. You have embraced a contradiction, by insisting that you must maintain a certain artistic standard which you actually cannot maintain, while turning out shoes at the rate that your boss requires of you.

In other words, the boss, or others, have certain reasonable expectations of you, especially in a context where there is an exchange (labor for cash). Because you want something from these other people, and you know that you must earn it, your concern is not with how other people feel about you, but whether you are performing as you should be performing. If you cannot perform in the way that they demand, then you should seek some other way of surviving where you can actually engage in a value-for-value trade. Thus it's all about you and your moral integrity, and not about them.

[Zip]

1) If you have chosen to do the work then you should be doing it to the best of your ability and that should be all you need to do to impress your boss.

2) I don't do this myself, I like competition. However I would imagine that a person like that would be in competition with himself, always pushing himself to do better than he did before. His placing among others would not matter, his ability to be better than he was before would.

3) A friend is someone who shares at least some of your value judgments, your family may or may not. there is no biological imperative that they do.

4) It's not wrong and you will be liked by those that share your value judgments. Seeking to be liked would be to place the desires others have for you (for what they want you to be like) ahead of your own jugdments and that is the way of Peter Keating.

5) You're back to value judgments. I would say that you could choose something other than your work to make you happy, but that choice should never be delegated to or through someone else.

6) It's an indication of his first handedness. He might turn to talk to someone but he would not do it because that person expects him to. He is not unconscious of them in the sense that they don't exist that would be ignoring reality, he is unconscious of the demands they would place upon him for the sake of nicety or societal requirements.

7) If you are yourself you will find others that will like you for that, you won't be lonely. I would caution you not to try to make yourself into Roark. Discover who you are, what you like and you will soon enough find the other people who like you for you. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to be a better person within your own value judgments but don't try to remake yourself as a fictional character.

[DrawingCircles]

Wow, 80 something views but only 2 responses? Nobody else has any opinions on these issues?

Thank you DavidOdden and Zip for responding so quickly.

I have one more question.

8) What does it mean to be physically attracted to someone? Is it a reflection of what you see in yourself? And how does lust vs love fit into this?

@DavidOdden

Thanks for your response. From what I understand of your post, since I want something from my employer (money), I should fulfill my end of the bargain to the best of my ability (my work performance) and I shouldn't care what they feel about me, but rather what they feel about my work performance. I see what you mean. Thanks for clarifying that relationship for me.

You said that I would have to recognize that I have an unrealistic plan of life, does that mean that I would have to compromise or conform to the situation? In fixing the contradiction, I would either have to give up on making those nice shoes or find another job correct?

I'm interested in what your answer to the other questions would be.

@Zip

Thanks for your response. You said you liked competition, but how do you feel when you lose? Especially if it's something you felt that you're good at?

And do you make any exceptions for your friends? Where do you draw the line between you and them? What happens when they say something hurtful?

Do you know where I could get more information on "first handedness"? I've only heard of "second handedness" through Roark. Thank you for your advice. I knew I was conflicted about trying to live up to Roark but it's good to know that I don't have to be exactly like him. Your post about discovering who I am as opposed to simply following who Roark is rings well with me. Thanks! And if you can, can you answer question 8 as well?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

@Zip

Thanks for your response. You said you liked competition, but how do you feel when you lose? Especially if it's something you felt that you're good at?

And do you make any exceptions for your friends? Where do you draw the line between you and them? What happens when they say something hurtful?

Do you know where I could get more information on "first handedness"? I've only heard of "second handedness" through Roark. Thank you for your advice. I knew I was conflicted about trying to live up to Roark but it's good to know that I don't have to be exactly like him. Your post about discovering who I am as opposed to simply following who Roark is rings well with me. Thanks! And if you can, can you answer question 8 as well?

I can't speak for him but when I lose, I improve and try again. I don't consider it a ding against my abilities to find that someone was better than me. (Now if I lose due to considerations other than actual merit, I am royally pissed off!)

Firsthandedness is actually illustrated by the character of Roark himself, by the huge contrast between himself and the other characters. You might try the section on Independence, in the chapter on The Good, in OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff. You'll find, if you haven't already, that we tend to abbreviate book titles for convenience but it sometimes throws people who are new.)

Incidentally, Ayn Rand hadn't completely developed her system of virtues when she wrote The Fountainhead (at least, according to some articles I have read). At that time, she considered independence (as shown by Roark) to be the most important virtue; later she realized it was rationality. If you have not done so I strongly suggest you read Atlas Shrugged to get a more complete picture of the Objectivist system. (It'll actually answer your question 8, and well before halfway into the novel.)

[Zip]

@Zip

Thanks for your response. You said you liked competition, but how do you feel when you lose? Especially if it's something you felt that you're good at?

It is entirely possible that I am good at it I just am not as good as someone else. Their being good doesn't make me "feel" less good unless I'm not doing my best... then I get angry at myself for not giving my all. The question shouldn't be am I better than him it should be am I better than I was before? I agree with Steve though, if I loose due to some subjective evaluation of others then I get pissed off.

And do you make any exceptions for your friends? Where do you draw the line between you and them? What happens when they say something hurtful?

Exceptions in what way? On Objectivism? Yes. I wouldn't call any of them Objectivists, nor would they claim to be. I give them some leeway because overall the value judgments I made in selecting them as my friends have (and continue to) hold up. That is not to say that I accept without challenge anything that they say I do try to challenge them but I'm not a boor about it.

If they say something hurtful what is the question you think I should ask first?

Do you know where I could get more information on "first handedness"? I've only heard of "second handedness" through Roark. Thank you for your advice. I knew I was conflicted about trying to live up to Roark but it's good to know that I don't have to be exactly like him. Your post about discovering who I am as opposed to simply following who Roark is rings well with me. Thanks! And if you can, can you answer question 8 as well?

Steve already answered the first handed question.

8) What does it mean to be physically attracted to someone? Is it a reflection of what you see in yourself? And how does lust vs love fit into this?

I think it ought to be to some extent, but marrying/meeting a carbon copy is impossible, and that's a good thing.

Nothing wrong with lust in my opinion. I look at it like an insatiable desire. BUT!!!! What matters is what that lust is built on. Is it value judgments, respect, and an honest assessment of the other person or is it sluttiness or second-handed assessment of others that make you want them? Lust can be a component of love, but if it is done for, in and of itself it is an empty range of the moment thing.

[DavidOdden]

You said that I would have to recognize that I have an unrealistic plan of life, does that mean that I would have to compromise or conform to the situation?

It means you have to look at your goals, and at reality, and see what exactly the problem is. For example, suppose I declare that my goal is to be the first man to row to the moon. Abstractly, it may be loads of fun to accomplish that, but it is unrealistic. So setting that goal was not rational. Applying that to the work context, before you start thinking about compromising or conforming, you first have to establish rational goals in life, meaning, to the best of your knowledge, is it actually possible to pursue that goal and also to survive? A goal in life is not an emotional primary, just as "being happy" cannot itself be your purpose in life.

Your career has to provide you with intellectual satisfaction, and it also has to provide you the material means of continued existence. The maximally satisfying path may not provide the material means, especially when that career depends on trade with others (as opposed to being a subsistence farmer). You cannot deny the demands for existence, so you may have to take a temporary job as a janitor or quarryman while you are attempting to develop the perfect shoe or miracle metal. That does not mean that you have abandoned or compromised your long-term goal -- it is a long-term goal, and in the short term, you do something that feeds and houses you while working towards that long term goal.

What you do in the interim need not be totally unrelated to your long term goal. If my goal were to create the perfect wooden shoe, I would accept a job making tourist-grade shoes because it feeds me, and it's in the right direction w.r.t. my ultimate goal. The question that you have to answer is, what are those highest principles that you are trying to uphold?

Moving from shoes to something else, I have identified fundamental intellectual principles regarding my work, which I will not compromise. For the sake of the job and the paycheck, I will create products which are not utterly perfect, because I recognise that the amount of time required to create that product is really huge, and there would be serious survival consequences if I were to only create absolutely perfect product. For example (since what I create is knowledge), I can accept creating a product where I have not reached the level of "certainty", or where the context being covered is restricted in a way that I could overcome. There are certain fundamental principles, however, which I cannot possibly deny (the product must be true; the product must be heavily grounded in perceptible fact; etc.).

My approach is to analyse such questions in terms of principles, to relate those principles to particular values, which exist in a hierarchical relation to each other, and which I evaluate in terms of whether they are rational given my ultimate goal (existence) and the facts of reality. Sometimes, I discover that I have misordered two values, but once I understand that, it's simple to correct the mistake.

Now, on to your second question:

Roark said he was too conceited to make comparisons or consider himself in relation to anyone else. This is what I've found to be the hardest to do. What does it mean to not see myself in relation to anyone? Do you have any suggestions on how to stop?

Then what about competition? When you compete in sports or grades, aren't you comparing yourself or your skills against someone else? Or if you're working for someone, aren't you making comparisons to your rival? And if self esteem shouldn't come from comparisons, what is that feeling that you get when you've beat someone in a tennis match?

Grades, to take one example, are in fact a result of so many different things many of which have no relationship to your actual and rational goals that I would not automatically draw any conclusions about my own virtues, based on a grade that I got. Primarily, grades are about your ability to do certain things that you are told to do, for example, to conform to a requirement about paper topic. I might find the assigned topic to be so intellectually corrupt that I cannot comply with the requirement so instead I write somewhat off-topic; my grade suffers. The requirement may be to use theory X but theory X is loathesome, so I can't competently use theory X; my grade suffers. The evalutor(s) may simply be irrational, so my grade will suffer. It's not my fault that I'm being evaluated by a jerk. The ability to obtain an A is not a rational skill that you need to cultivate. The ability to reason, evaluate and learn is, and you should care about grades only to the extent that they reflect your performance at rational tasks.

I don't know, practically speaking, how to encourage you to think of self-evaluation in terms of yourself rather than others. If your co-worker has abandoned the goal of a happy home life in pursuit of selling more units, then it doesn't make any sense for you to compare your sales figures and his, because you have different goals.

[Tyco]

Main Question 1-2

1.) What I've concluded from Roark is that he doesn't care what others think about him or his work. He doesn't care if other people agree with him or not. And so I've tried to apply this thinking to my own life but it doesn't seem too practical. For example, what happens with employment. Don't you have to care what your bosses think about you and your work? What kind of relationship do you have with your employer if he's the boss and the one in control of your salary?

And do you have any tips for not caring about what other people think. I've had an inferiority complex and I've been pretty self conscious all my life so I'm trying to think of ways to develop a "tough shell" so to speak. I'd like to be like Roark, where the pain only goes so far and then he's impervious to it. Any suggestions?

It was not that Roark didn't care what anybody thought... it's that he didn't care what they thought if they knew they were wrong. He had firm convictions and the ability to reason any situation through, and then the will to act accordingly, so he didn't experience any lingering, unpleasant self-doubt even though it seemed at times the whole world was against him. If you feel sure you are not acting on any contradictory premises, then self-consciousness and feelings of inferiority basically just evaporate. Especially when you can identify contradictions in the positions that others are taking.

On the job: if you remember, Roark always fulfilled the terms of his employment, he just wasn't willing to sacrifice his artistic integrity for the sake of furthering his career (taking on more responsibilities). He did not operate with any contradictions - and eventually his artistic side had been insulted so much he just went back to brick-laying. You need to fulfill the terms of your employment, plain and simple, but make it clear to your boss what you're not willing to do (and it's up to them whether they continue to employ you or not... but if you lose your job because they cannot respect your values, then the loss will be balanced by a positive sense of 'good riddance.') So it's an immediate contradiction to fail at your job, but bear in mind that it's a long-term contradiction to let a job outlive its usefulness to you (eg. if you want to do bigger and better things but it wont happen at that company).

2.) This might be linked to the first question, but how is it possible to not compare and contrast in everyday life? Roark said he was too conceited to make comparisons or consider himself in relation to anyone else. This is what I've found to be the hardest to do. What does it mean to not see myself in relation to anyone? Do you have any suggestions on how to stop?

Then what about competition? When you compete in sports or grades, aren't you comparing yourself or your skills against someone else? Or if you're working for someone, aren't you making comparisons to your rival? And if self esteem shouldn't come from comparisons, what is that feeling that you get when you've beat someone in a tennis match?

Your self-esteem comes from your achievements. Deciding what an achievement is may involve comparison to others. The point is, you cannot generate self-esteem by comparisons alone - like collectivists who try to generate self-esteem based on the achievements of other individuals of the same group. That's taking credit without earning it (even if you're only trying to convince yourself).

Side Questions 3-7

3.) Is it possible for you to define what a friend is. And with respect to that, what would your family mean to you?

Friends are people who you have common values with. It may be you make each other laugh, or you've helped each other out, or you agree about political issues and enjoy talking to each other. The more values you share, the better the friendship.

Family are a special case because you don't choose them, but are usually indebted to them for raising you. It's not an unlimited debt but for family you should give them more consideration or more 'benefit of the doubt' than you would normally afford people.

For many people, their family are nevertheless their closest friends, because having lived with them for so long you've exchanged so much value.

4.) Is it wrong to be well liked or popular? Or is it just wrong to seek it? From what I've read, in order to reach that state, you have to make compromises, but from what I've felt I don't feel like compromises have been made. And I know it's wrong to seek other people's approvals, but does that mean it's not good to feel accepted or wanted?

Well for people to 'want' your company is the highest compliment they can pay you, so naturally it makes you feel good. There's lots of things you can do that make you popular and well-liked that do not involve any compromise - like telling good stories or good jokes or giving good advice. Then there's things like charity or achievement which may generate fame/reputation - but that popularity is only good so long as your proud of the achievement/charity (ie. not doing something you object to, or helping someone you despise, just because it will gain you admiration from others).

5.) I know Roark says the meaning of life is your work but have you guys found something else besides your work? I think that the meaning of life through work applies to Roark because work is his choice of happiness. What is your choice of happiness?

I think you can change work to 'creative activity' which basically means 'using your mind.' So it could involve bringing up children, or developing skills (like playing musical instruments), or gaining knowledge, or other things that someone is not going to 'pay' you for. Having said that, you career, ie. your employment, is a lifelong project, whereas even children eventually fly the nest leaving you with a lot of unoccupied time. So understandably a lot of objectivists think career should be the central focus.

6.) What does it mean to not be conscious of anyone? Throughout the story Rand stresses the idea that Roark doesn't seem conscious of anyone and I think that consequently makes the person on the receiving end to feel nonexistent. He knows that there's someone there, but how can he not be conscious of that person if he turns and talks to that person?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but Roark made people feel like they weren't there because he didn't cater to their need. He was only interested in what people could offer/exchange with them, he didn't view their shortcomings as a claim on his time. Characters like Keating were riddled with self-doubt and Roark was not going to sanction their contradictory ways... which made them think he was inconsiderate and unconscious of them, but in fact sanctioning peoples shortcomings only makes things worse for them in the long run. Reason was his paradigm, not emotion.

7.) Finally, wouldn't you feel sort of...lonely? Especially Roark. With all this not caring and not being conscious of other people doesn't that make for a very lonely existence?

You've got to remember 2 things

a) Roark is like one of the 'cardinal vowels' - he is an extreme that you would probably never encounter in real life. He is a genius with a fully integrated sense of morality and you are unlikely to find anyone that perfect. Other people cannot BE Roark.

Roark's solitude is not being portrayed as ideal, rather his solitude is the burden that a corrupt society has forced upon him. It's because the world is so twisted, that a great being like Roark could not establish himself in society. That's what Rand is showing.

So yes, it is lonely (esp. for Roark as he's such an extreme), but loneliness is not being promoted here.

As to the love/lust question -

Physical attraction is when you find someone appealing to your senses, the way they look, the way the sound, the way the move or whatever, and is probably reinforced by your 'sense of life' (ie. your subconscoius integration of emotions and rational values) which could mean any number of things like they remind you of a relative or they look like they're 'unconquered' by life's trials.

Love operates on actual value judgements. Physical attraction is just the first step - you then need to find out what you ADMIRE about this person's life/being. To love someone is to admire them more than any others.

Lust doesn't involve rational value judgements. It implies you don't admire the person at all, except physically, which in the end is quite a sad thing if this is who you choose to sleep with ('give your highest value to')

[Alfa]

Lust doesn't involve rational value judgements. It implies you don't admire the person at all, except physically, which in the end is quite a sad thing if this is who you choose to sleep with ('give your highest value to')

How do you define lust?

I like the meriam-webster dictionary definition:

"intense or unbridled sexual desire".

Are there more acurate definitions that implies it's a strictly physical desire?

When I think of lust I think of an intense desire, and I think that's an apropriate response to someone you love.

[DrawingCircles]

Thanks for the quick replies everyone. I'm really grateful for all the advice and opinions regarding my questions. Everything is becoming clearer!

@Steve D'Ippolito'

Thanks for your response Steve. Why don't you consider it a problem to find someone better than you? Does that mean that better people are just there to gauge where your weaknesses are? It doesn't do anything to your self esteem? Incidentally, is your self esteem boosted by all the people that you're good against?

Yeah I didn't know what OPAR meant, but thanks for clarifying that. Yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged and I'm planning to reread it again. You're speaking of the part where Francisco and Rearden talk about what it means to be a playboy correct? I believe they were saying that love is an expression of the highest values that you admire. But I don't remember them talking about lust. I'm confused about this love/lust relationship because I'm trying to figure out why I lust after people and yet not love them.

@Zip

Thanks again for your response Zip. I see, so you compare your performance now with your previous performance to look for improvement. So are you saying that doing your best would be enough to not care whether you win or lose or whether they're better than you? And would that mean, like the question I posed to Steve, better people only serve as a test to see where your weaknesses are?

Exceptions in how you treat them or think about them. What is a value judgment? Something that you've judged valuable? I didn't understand what you meant by "If they say something hurtful what is the question you think I should ask first?"

Thanks for clarifying the importance of knowing what lust is built upon. What is a second-handed assessment of others? I think I've been after sluttiness all my life. Do you know how to stop lust when it's not a component of love but rather a whimsical and superficial desire?

@DavidOdden

Thanks for your response once again DavidOdden. So to be rational is to be realistic and I have to set rational goals that are reflective of reality. So an example is that I don't want to work and still expect to be a millionaire would be the mindset that I have now. In order for me to make the goal of becoming a millionaire a reality, I would have to set goals that are realistic and tangible along the way to becoming a millionaire. These goals have to be rational and reflective of reality. And you were saying that it's okay to take little detours such as working at McDonalds in order to be practical while still staying in accordance with my long term goal. I think I understand, thanks!

Why can't being happy be my purpose in life? In John Galt's speech about Reason, Purpose, and Self Esteem, I thought the part about Purpose was the "choice of happiness." Wouldn't that make being happy through my choice of happiness my primary goal in life?

Why would there be serious survival consequences in creating an absolutely perfect product? If I'm correct in assuming you are a teacher, does that mean you are talking about creating a perfect student? So you suggest having a concrete vision of the order in which your values stand and check to see if they are practical and realistic?

It's reassuring to know that getting an A is not a "rational skill that I need to cultivate." You said grades should just reflect your performance at rational tasks. Rational tasks are rational because they are reflective of what reality has required of me? And would you say then that it doesn't make sense for me to compare myself with others at all because we all have different goals?

@Tyco

Thanks for your response Tyco. Did you mean to say that he didn't care what they thought if he knew they were wrong? And Wow, this was the answer I was looking for - that he had firm convictions so it didn't matter what other people said. Thanks! I have a question though, how do you feel sure that you aren't acting on any contradictory premises? If everything you believe rings true with you? Because don't you have to include others in seeing whether your premises are contradictory? And thanks for your advice on employment. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I find that my boss doesn't respect my values. And I didn't know that part about the long-term contradiction.

I see. The part about where your self esteem comes from was very insightful. Is it bad to have achievement be your only/main source of self esteem? I think that's kind of the whole tenet of objectivism but what happens when you you're unable to achieve something? Like for example your handicapped and you can't walk, although you would very much like to. Would you just find different goals to achieve?

What do you mean by Roark not catering to their need? You mean their need of attention or his approval? And about lust, I think I've been doing just that -admiring someone only physically. Do you know of any ways to stop? I know there's a whole section on Atlas Shrugged about how the mind and body shouldn't ever have contradictory feelings but how do you resolve the conflict?

I have a question for you Tyco, how do you view other people? Especially strangers whom you've never met? For example, do you view them as potential friends, strangers, brothers? You've resolved a lot of the inner turmoil I've felt because I thought I was contradicting myself. Thanks once again.

@Alfa

Thanks for your response Alfa. I agree that when you think of lust as an intense desire, it seems like an appropriate response to someone you love. But what does it mean to love someone then? And how come you can lust after someone you don't love?

[Zip]

@Zip

I see, so you compare your performance now with your previous performance to look for improvement. So are you saying that doing your best would be enough to not care whether you win or lose or whether they're better than you? And would that mean, like the question I posed to Steve, better people only serve as a test to see where your weaknesses are?

I wouldn't disregard someone who was better than me I'd be more likely to see what I could learn from him/her so I could improve. There is a difference between capability and weakness.

Exceptions in how you treat them or think about them. What is a value judgment? Something that you've judged valuable?

Yes. When you choose a friend you are making judgments about whether you and this person are compatible in major beliefs, attitudes and the like, but you don't have to be carbon coppies (as I said before).

For example, a friend of mine happens to practice Shambhala meditation and he holds some definite ideas on spirituality and the existence of god. But that belief is overshadowed by his immensely practical and rational approach to life, and what I'll call his Penn and Teller Bullshit approach to the kind of hippy half-baked nonsense spirituality that a lot of followers of eastern religions get sucked into.

We both know that we are not going to convert the other and although religion isn't a taboo subject we can agree to disagree because we share so many other values.

I didn't understand what you meant by "If they say something hurtful what is the question you think I should ask first?"

Assuming that you have made a wise decision in choosing your friends what could make them say something "hurtful"? Perhaps that they are actually telling the truth?

Thanks for clarifying the importance of knowing what lust is built upon. What is a second-handed assessment of others?

If you want the hot/popular chick just because she is seen as the hot/popular chick by others then you aren't the one making an assessment of her, you have let others do it for you. Ever heard the expression "She ain't pretty, she just looks that way..." That is the kind of contradiction you get when you rely on second hand assessments.

Do you know how to stop lust when it's not a component of love but rather a whimsical and superficial desire?

Yes. You have to do the hardest thing of all... Think.

[DavidOdden]

Why can't being happy be my purpose in life?

That conflates cause and effect. For a rational man, happiness is the result of achieving his goals (thus the emotional state of happiness cannot be the goal).

Why would there be serious survival consequences in creating an absolutely perfect product?

My central purpose (and core of my job description) is to create (published) grammatical descriptions of undescribed languages, which takes a long time. The perfect product could easily take a decade; but I am expected to produce published works on an annual basis. Following the principle "only publish perfection" would bring an end to my publication for a decade, and my performance reviews (thus salary, possibly even employment) would suffer.

And would you say then that it doesn't make sense for me to compare myself with others at all because we all have different goals?

Well, I would say that it makes sense only when you do know that your goals are comparable.

[Tyco]

@Tyco

Thanks for your response Tyco. Did you mean to say that he didn't care what they thought if he knew they were wrong?

Yes! I'm glad you realized the mistake. I cringed when I noticed it after I'd made the post.

And Wow, this was the answer I was looking for - that he had firm convictions so it didn't matter what other people said. Thanks! I have a question though, how do you feel sure that you aren't acting on any contradictory premises? If everything you believe rings true with you? Because don't you have to include others in seeing whether your premises are contradictory? And thanks for your advice on employment. I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time I find that my boss doesn't respect my values. And I didn't know that part about the long-term contradiction.

Well remember 'feelings' aka 'emotions' are always in response to a situation, you do not use them to prompt action. Quite simply, you just make sure your premises make logical sense. It doesn't matter if 10 people are pressuring you into doing something illogical/irrational, if you KNOW, if you've CONCLUDED that it doesn't make sense. You've only got your own reason to guide you - but you should listen to other peoples reasoning and evaluate it, and ask yourself if you are letting any subtle bias affect your decisions. If you're unsure, you need to think about it longer/harder, or perhaps refrain from making any commitment.

I see. The part about where your self esteem comes from was very insightful. Is it bad to have achievement be your only/main source of self esteem? I think that's kind of the whole tenet of objectivism but what happens when you you're unable to achieve something? Like for example your handicapped and you can't walk, although you would very much like to. Would you just find different goals to achieve?

Well achievements come in many forms - even just understanding the world better is an achievement. And sure, you need to consider the context - the end goal might prove impossible, but most likely in pursuing it you took many actions of self-improvement that you can be proud of. Like say you pursue a wonderful woman, so you go to the gym more, you work on your sense of humour, you improve your prospects, you learn how to hold better conversatoins... but in the end she turns you down. That would hurt, but all those things you did along the way, you can draw self-esteem from.

What do you mean by Roark not catering to their need? You mean their need of attention or his approval?

Yeah, i didn;t word that part very clearly. Basically they want his attention and approval, yes. It's not just enough that he's helping them (which he does quite a lot actually) - they want him to acknowledge that it's his duty to help them and they deserve to be helped. But he doesn't do that.

And about lust, I think I've been doing just that -admiring someone only physically. Do you know of any ways to stop? I know there's a whole section on Atlas Shrugged about how the mind and body shouldn't ever have contradictory feelings but how do you resolve the conflict?

Well, firstly make sure you really are admiring them only physically, and not for other (good) reasons like the way they conduct themselves, their good nature, the joy they bring to the people around them, their sense of humour, their friendliness...

Now, if they fail to possess any/many other truly admirable qualities, then you've just got to think rationally: how would a long term relationship work out? Wouldn't you just be setting yourself up for an uncomfortable situation later on, when you realize you don't really respect the person you've given part of your life to? Isn't that counter-productive AND emotionally damaging? Ayn Rand said the person you love is the embodiment of all your values - so the playboy who lives a frivolous existence will look for superficial women who reflect his lack of values. Once you establish what your values actually ARE, then you can consciously start looking for them in potential partners.

I have a question for you Tyco, how do you view other people? Especially strangers whom you've never met? For example, do you view them as potential friends, strangers, brothers? You've resolved a lot of the inner turmoil I've felt because I thought I was contradicting myself. Thanks once again.

Remember humans are the greatest things/beings on this Earth. Look around you at all the wonders of civilization and remember they were made by people. It's sad when you see them act misguidedly, but I tend to think about their achievements and the potential we all have for co-operating for mutual benefit. I tend to think of people as doing well in spite of themselves - ie. their creative faculty and their desire to live is thriving despite the corrupt altruistic ideologies they (vaguely) subscribe to. But I do not owe them anything.

[DrawingCircles]

Thanks Zip, DavidOdden, and Tyco. You guys have been extremely helpful. I have a new question now if you guys don't mind,

9.) What is pity? Feeling sorry for someone? What does that mean? What is self pity? Why is it considered bad? Is it only considered bad when people treat it like its some type of noble trait?

[Charles Lester]

Main Question 1-2

1.) What I've concluded from Roark is that he doesn't care what others think about him or his work. He doesn't care if other people agree with him or not. And so I've tried to apply this thinking to my own life but it doesn't seem too practical. For example, what happens with employment. Don't you have to care what your bosses think about you and your work? What kind of relationship do you have with your employer if he's the boss and the one in control of your salary?

Your employer is not in control of your salary: You are! You determine what you do, and how much you get paid for it. If what you want is more than anyone is willing to pay, then, it is up to you to 1).change professions, 2).Get better at what it is you are doing, 3).reevaluate your expectations.

As far as caring what your "bosses think of your work;" I suggest that if at all, such a thing should be secondary. Your primary concern should be to do the best that you can at whatever it is you are doing at any moment in time. From my experience of 36 years at it, all the rest takes care of itself.

There is an outside chance that the person you work for is not rational. Some people as these exist. Some are owners of their own businesses, managers, supervisors, etc. These types I am speaking about sometimes enjoy pushing people around, making people squirm, strong arming people into sexual encounters, etc. Put this way, do you really care what such a person thinks?

If the "boss" is rational, all that will matter to him is how much money he makes because you have the job. If you are good to great at it, you have nothing to fear. But again, this is a secondary; your first priority should be your own self image.

And do you have any tips for not caring about what other people think. I've had an inferiority complex and I've been pretty self conscious all my life so I'm trying to think of ways to develop a "tough shell" so to speak. I'd like to be like Roark, where the pain only goes so far and then he's impervious to it. Any suggestions?

The answer to this component is really an extension of the first. Self-image, self-confidence, self-esteem, self-anything cannot be faked, manufactured, counterfeited, or stolen. The first word is "self." You might be able to fool the world, but the one person who will certainly know the truth is YOU! Howard didn't give a shit about what others thought about him, because he admired himself. He was smart and in possession of great knowledge. He was good at his work. He had great work ethic. He was courageous. He was honest with himself and others. He was not a mooch. He was a creator. He was (insert other positive attributes here, etc.) He knew all of this better than anyone else, and, because of these facts, he felt confidence in his own judgement.

If you want to get over your inferiority complex, don't be inferior. Not to say that in all ways, and under all circumstances, there won't be anyone better than you; but, really such is irrelevant. What IS important, is that you are the best that you can be, and that you do the best that you can at whatever it is you are doing, at all times. If you don't "slack off" on yourself, you will like yourself for it! Pretty good deal huh? I have never found one better!

2.) This might be linked to the first question, but how is it possible to not compare and contrast in everyday life? Roark said he was too conceited to make comparisons or consider himself in relation to anyone else. This is what I've found to be the hardest to do. What does it mean to not see myself in relation to anyone? Do you have any suggestions on how to stop?

This is a function of him growing up surrounded by "second-handers" and/or leeches, moochers, slackers, etc., and had long since given up, and stopped looking for someone such as himself to compare himself with. He means a comparison holistically or of the "entire man," as opposed to a comparison of any facet.

It is indeed linked to the first question. To achieve such a state of being, almost implies or requires someone to have since their birth been consistent in their practice of reason, and consequent desire to do their best at all times. Someone who "sees the light," and decides later in life to do so, will probably "compare" himself to others, but that's no big deal. If he compares his best effort to his previous best effort, he will wind up at the same point within a matter of time. All that is required is consistency.

Then what about competition? When you compete in sports or grades, aren't you comparing yourself or your skills against someone else? Or if you're working for someone, aren't you making comparisons to your rival? And if self esteem shouldn't come from comparisons, what is that feeling that you get when you've beat someone in a tennis match?

When you compete in sports, you shouldn't be comparing yourself against your opponent, you should be trying to win. See the difference? This difference, is really the answer. Yes, if you win, you should feel success (assuming that you didn't cheat), however, if you gave it your all, and your opponent was better, you still have much to be proud of. You are either on your way at getting better, or, you have arrived at the best that you can be at whatever game it is you are playing.

Side Questions 3-7

3.) Is it possible for you to define what a friend is. And with respect to that, what would your family mean to you?

Yes. For me, a friend is someone whom I admire and respect; and, a person that I can work with towards something we both consider important and worthy of our efforts... In a nutshell. In regards to my family, this places my family--for the most part--outside the "friend" zone. I sometimes am cordial to them, but most often try to avoid them. My mother is the exception, and the only reason I am ever around any of the others. I share nothing in common with my family, and have great disdain for most--if not all--of them; except my mother.

Mommy is different. Although we are very different, my mother always admired and loved me, even though she isn't strong enough to be more like me. I love her dearly, and would do anything in the world possible to make her smile. But, she cleaned the doo-doo off of me when I wore diapers; consistently, and at great cost to herself. I owe her this--in my view.

4.) Is it wrong to be well liked or popular? Or is it just wrong to seek it? From what I've read, in order to reach that state, you have to make compromises, but from what I've felt I don't feel like compromises have been made. And I know it's wrong to seek other people's approvals, but does that mean it's not good to feel accepted or wanted?

No, it's not "wrong" to be popular as long as you aren't sacrificing your principles in order to be so. However, your principles should be rational and well-defined, and hopefully the "circle" of people you are around will agree with them. If they don't, then, it will probably be difficult to be popular among that circle.

As to compromise, I say it depends. For example, if you are married to a woman that you adore, but, she hates it when you take a piss, and neglect to lift the seat. You think that you are pretty good at pissing such that no urine gets on the seat, although, you concede that a drop or two of toilet water might. You really don't care about it though; you simply wipe it up, and flush. One day your wife catches you taking a leak, and demands that you put an end to your filthy ways, and become more civilized. She is adamant, and a little angry. You "compromise."

Hell no, such "compromise" is not wrong; it's advisable. If you value your wife enough, and you don't have an insane value on proving to yourself how good you are a pissing past the toilet seat, then it is only rational to do as your wife wishes. As I said earlier, your principles--and now values--should be rational.

5.) I know Roark says the meaning of life is your work but have you guys found something else besides your work? I think that the meaning of life through work applies to Roark because work is his choice of happiness. What is your choice of happiness?

You are wrong about this one. One could "choose" to be happy by unloading a truckload of babies with a pitch fork. Would you consider such to be a valid meaning to a life? What Rand means is being productive, and aquiring the values necessary to sustain and enhance one's life.

Everything alive has to do something in order to stay alive. This is the primary for living things. If a life form does not do what is required to live, then, its life has no meaning, and consequently, the life will end with all certainty. Such is unavoidable, and any other imaginary construct is just that: imaginary.

To think differently, is to abdicate the responsibility of sustaining your life, and if you wish to survive as such, the only choice available is to become a beggar or crook of some sort.

Is there meaning to my life, outside of what my life requires? No. Are there things I like to do other than work? Yes. And, in order to do them, I have to work; thus, the meaning of my life!

6.) What does it mean to not be conscious of anyone? Throughout the story Rand stresses the idea that Roark doesn't seem conscious of anyone and I think that consequently makes the person on the receiving end to feel nonexistent. He knows that there's someone there, but how can he not be conscious of that person if he turns and talks to that person?

He was thinking. People bored Roark, and their "chatter" could not occupy his mind. He occupied himself by thoughts he generated on his own, and found much more pleasure in that, than "chatting" with other people, or pretending that he was interested in what they were saying, or hearing their "thoughts" on any given subject.

If he was in a restaurant and was thinking, but though that his salad needed a bit of salt, of course he would look around and see someone closer to the shaker than himself, and say, "would you please pass the salt?" After such an event, he would go back to his thinking, and the person who handed him the salt would drift back into oblivion.

7.) Finally, wouldn't you feel sort of...lonely? Especially Roark. With all this not caring and not being conscious of other people doesn't that make for a very lonely existence?

No. Being surrounded with retarded people is miserable, lonely is pleasurable by comparison. If you were like Roark, then you would be competent, confident, self-assured, courageous, passionate, creative, admirable, etc. In order for Roark to be non-lonely would require many more people like him than exist in today's world. Otherwise, he would have to be surrounded by people that are insecure, incompetent, envious, deceitful, bland, stagnant, etc. Such people would be repugnant to someone like Roark. He would not feel lonely, but relieved that they are not in his presence... I can assure you.

If you put into practice what I said to you in #1, one day you might feel the same.

[Orion]

What I've concluded from Roark is that he doesn't care what others think about him or his work. He doesn't care if other people agree with him or not. And so I've tried to apply this thinking to my own life but it doesn't seem too practical. For example, what happens with employment. Don't you have to care what your bosses think about you and your work? What kind of relationship do you have with your employer if he's the boss and the one in control of your salary?

A couple thoughts...first, the most obvious point, consider the source. The Fountainhead is a romantic novel, a work of fiction; it is not a journalistic piece. The characters Ayn Rand creates are larger-than-life, on purpose, and not meant to be a mirror image of what you see in the world around you today. Romantic art projects life as it could be and ought to be, keep in mind. It exists to show you what is possible, not what is actual. However, there's still much to learn about how to live, according to such novels.

Observe the choice of profession that Rand chose for Roark. He's not a drycleaner who pushes buttons. He's not a cab driver whose entire job consists of moving strangers from one place to another. He's an individualist, in a profession which -back then- celebrated the work and achievements of an individual mind. It's hard to realize now, with the sameness in architecture thanks to government zoning codes, but there was once a time when individuals made a living designing structures according to their own visions.

You asked what relationship you could have with your "boss and the one in control of your salary"? Answer: a professional one. In the example you gave, another person controls your salary. Keywords: boss and salary. Roark worked for himself, he was an entrepreneur, but when his designs weren't selling he took other jobs. He cared what bosses told him to do when he was working in a quarry or doing mindless architectural corrections on someone else's designs. Hold the full context, at all times.

I think you misunderstand the essence of Roark. His defining characteristic is not that "he doesn't care what other people think" - it's that, to him, people are not the important consideration. His work is the vital thing in his life. His work, in correspondence to reality. For example, when Ellsworth Toohey confronts Roark and demands that Roark tell him what he thinks of him, after learning that Ellsworth was stopping him all along. Toohey presses, "go on, Mr. Roark, tell me what you think of me!"...to which Roark replies, "but I don't think of you".