Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

(Peter Keating, another 'perfect' altruist - IMO - except that unlike Toohey he didn't know what he was pracitising, consciously, and therefore became the victim.)

I've done my best to explain why this is not so. OK, you don't get it or you don't agree, let's just stop here, I see no point putting in more effort into this.

Second-handishness is incompatible with egoism. Second-handishness is a result of accepting the morality of altruism.

Being a second hander can be the result of other things as well, not just of altruism. One can give in to the desire to belong and be accepted by others to the point of letting go of personal identity. Altruism would have nothing to do with it - the kid may have never heard in him life the notion that he should live for others and may not even believe in it. "The player" is an example of a conformists, a second-hander who is not an altruist.

Other's value system will never fully match your own. It may match in terms of cardinal values (not that we live in that kind of society tday) but never in respect to personal/optional values. Keating gave up many deep personal desires - one of his major mistakes was to become an architect rather than an artist, another was giving up Kathy, finally he gave up on what was left of his self esteem. He gave up all of those for the second-hander’s delusion of prestige. He was an altruist.

The problem you are having is that you take out of the equation a person's actual value-judgments, what Keating considers in Keating's best interest, what he feels most motivated to do, what he wants the most and what he prefers (for whatever perverted reason).

It is a simple fact that KEATING preferred to marry Dominique - he chose so because he was more motivated to do that, he saw and felt it was a higher value - an irrational value but a value to him nonetheless. He did not give up what he wanted more, he went for it - that is not egoism but it is not altruism either - it is a second hander pursuing irrational values.

So long as you don't overlook a person's actual value judgments and grant that to HIM those ARE his values, you will never get anywhere. You can say day and night that someone should rationally value X over Y, but if they value Y over X and pursue Y they are not sacrificing a value - not by their ill standard anyway which is their standard nonetheless. One cannot say that Mr. X is sacrificing a value if they don't consider it a sacrifice. Sacrifice involves recognition of giving up a value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem you are having is that you take out of the equation a person's actual value-judgments, what Keating considers in Keating's best interest

Keating's standard of morality was NOT egoism and because of THAT he was mistaken about what was in his best interest which made him gave up the things which cost him his happiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keating's standard of morality was NOT egoism and because of THAT he was mistaken about what was in his best interest which made him gave up the things which cost him his happiness.

You are saying this as if I disagree. I actually said myself that he is not an egoist (such a thing is not possible when his value system is taken second-hand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are saying this as if I disagree. I actually said myself that he is not an egoist (such a thing is not possible when his value system is taken second-hand).

There are only two alternatives. You are either placing self first or something else first. The other thing above self can be other people (most common) but it can also be nature, for example. Placing anything above self is altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a simple fact that KEATING preferred to marry Dominique

But he did not prefer it. Neither did he prefer being an architect over being an artist. He just placed society standard above his own. He did not allow himself what he really wanted, what he really desired.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he did not preferred it. Neither he preferred being an architect over being an artist. He just placed society standard above his own. He did not allow himself what he really wanted, what he really desired.

you ask him "what do you prefer? what is more important to you?" He will say social stature. "Values are that which one acts to gain/keep" - this is true for irrational values as well (even though they are not values in the full sense of the word) - but he does not act to keep Kathy, he acts to gain Dominique. You cannot overlook his choices and actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you ask him "what do you prefer? what is more important to you?" He will say social stature. "Values are that which one acts to gain/keep" - this is true for irrational values as well (even though they are not values in the full sense of the word) - but he does not act to keep Kathy, he acts to gain Dominique. You cannot overlook his choices and actions.

Actually, strictly speaking, this is wrong. A value has to really further or sustain your life to be a real value. It can't be just any goal you seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, strictly speaking, this is wrong. A value has to really further or sustain your life to be a real value. It can't be just any goal you seek.

Oh boy, I just had a days long discussion with someone from the HBL on this. So funny - and I kept bringing up the point you just brought up now.

Irrational values are not values in the full sense of the concept: they are not like rational values, or like water for a plant - things which actually support and sustain the organism's life and well being. However, since humans are special and our values need to be chosen - people can have irrational values - they employ the mechanism of valuing we are all born with (having value judgement and emotions, acting to gain and keep them by the emotional motivation) - so what they have are irrational values even though it is not a value in the full sense of the word.

think about it like an immune system gone bad - one that attacks the body and ignores intruders; is it not an immune system? It does not have the essential characteristic of an immune system (defense from intruders), yet it has all the non-essential characteristics - which makes it a defective immune system yet an immune system none the less. Same applies for irrational values - they are values, but irrational ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, I just had a days long discussion with someone from the HBL on this. So funny - and I kept bringing up the point you just brought up now.

Irrational values are not values in the full sense of the concept: they are not like rational values, or like water for a plant - things which actually support and sustain the organism's life and well being. However, since humans are special and our values need to be chosen - people can have irrational values - they employ the mechanism of valuing we are all born with (having value judgement and emotions, acting to gain and keep them by the emotional motivation) - so what they have are irrational values even though it is not a value in the full sense of the word.

think about it like an immune system gone bad - one that attacks the body and ignores intruders; is it not an immune system? It does not have the essential characteristic of an immune system (defense from intruders), yet it has all the non-essential characteristics - which makes it a defective immune system yet an immune system none the less. Same applies for irrational values - they are values, but irrational ones.

Interesting. What you say makes sense, but it would still be true that a guy like Peter Keating is denying his spirit if he isn't pursuing something that he truly values objectively. If he is doing things because others expect it of him, yet he doesn't value what he is doing, then he is denying himself.

Thanks for this thread, Ifat. It's thought provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only two alternatives. You are either placing self first or something else first. The other thing above self can be other people (most common) but it can also be nature, for example. Placing anything above self is altruism.

I like your brevity, Sophia, and in a nutshell you've said everything I wanted to say.

I had a thought that is also to the point :

The altruist seeks the sanction of others just to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. What you say makes sense, but it would still be true that a guy like Peter Keating is denying his spirit if he isn't pursuing something that he truly values objectively. If he is doing things because others expect it of him, yet he doesn't value what he is doing, then he is denying himself.

Thanks for this thread, Ifat. It's thought provoking.

You're welcome, I'm enjoying it too, and thanks.

Yes, of course Keating is draining his spirit dry... I agree. In fact he never allows it to develop from the moment he sought to live to what others expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your brevity, Sophia, and in a nutshell you've said everything I wanted to say.

I had a thought that is also to the point :

The altruist seeks the sanction of others just to exist.

Yeah, give me a break. You didn't answer my main objection: Keating's actions and judgement is such that he values social prestige more. If you ask him what he prefers he will say: "Dominique" if you check what he feels more strongly about it will be Dominique (though the type of feeling is different) and if you look at his actions you see that he is pursuing social stature above all else. Ayn Rand defines values as "that which one acts to gain and/or keep". If you take this definition there is no avoiding the fact that Keating values social stature more than anything else in his life.

You're just sticking to your position without trying to resolve this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keating's actions and judgement is such that he values social prestige more.

Keating is being told (by this mother and society) that he should value social prestige more than his own desires in life. He accepts that altruistic morality and makes his choices accordingly. He is as tragic of a character as Cheryl is, in that respect. They both follow, in their own ways, what that morality demands. They both make choices according to what is considered by the society standard as "the good". They pursue those goals because they accept that they should.

But he does not actually value any of those things we already mentioned because none of those choices bring him fullfillment and happiness (altruistic morality does not deliver on it's promisses - as we know it can't). He realizes that he did not make the right choices for himself but he pushes those thoughts away (he admists it, at least once to Roark in a very rare moment of self honesty) and continues on that path eventhough, at every step, he betrays himself.

That was the whole point of this character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, of course Keating is draining his spirit dry...

If he did what he valued why would this drain his spirit? Why would he not find joy in the struggle toward his goals and no joy when he succeeded?

---------------------------------

Toohey as the power luster is also an altruist. Anyone who makes themselves a dependent, who places their main concern within other men - is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he does not actually value any of those things we already mentioned because none of those choices bring him fullfillment and happiness

How do you measure if someone values something? you look at their value judgement: their emotions, and their action. You cannot dismiss out of the way what a person TELLS you they value and what they pursue - regardless of where they get their standard that they automatize.

It doesn't make him happy - so what? Can you say, then, that "The banner" is not a value to Gail Wynand? That is ridiculous - he spends his whole life building it, keeping it, and eventually betraying his best friend to keep it. If you just take out of the window a person's convictions, emotions and actions you have nothing left to decide what are a man's values.

Values are not that which bring one true happiness - not for human beings - choice comes first. A standard of value one adopts comes first - even if they adopt an irrational standard, what they will value depends on that, even if their standard is screwed up and goes against their happiness.

If you are telling me that The banner was not a value to Gail you are just blind as to what values are and I don't think there is anything else I can say. It is just too obvious that he values the banner... can't add a better example than this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to my last post:

Actions are crucial in identifying what someone's values are.

Keating goes to college for 4 years, works night and day to get good grades - why? If it is not a value to him, why does he do that?

He monitors Shliking's (whatever his name is) grades to surpass them and pays special attention to outdo him. Why does he invest any effort in it if it is not a value for him to outdo shlinking?

He spends days trying to design buildings to win competitions - why would he do all of this if it is not a value to him to win them?

"What do you want most, Peter?" "To win that competition. What does this tell you about Keating's values? "Nope, sorry peter, you don't value winning competitions". "But I DO, I work day and night to get there, to be number one - I want it!! I devoted my whole life for it!" "Nope, sorry partner, you don't value it.

OK, you don't think it's an actual value - I can understand that. But give it some name, some acknowledgement - call it an irrational value, but you cannot outright ignore that the person spends his whole life pursuing something.

In any case, even this is beside the point to the topic of conformity (and second handness) vs. altruism. Second handness is when a person adopts a set of values from society and automatizes it - internalize it, so that he begins to want certain things to gain social stature according to what is socially acceptable. Altruism is when a person internalizes the principle that they should live for others - give up values, make someone else happy, not themselves. Those are radically different in terms of a person's mental life and psychology. A second hander (which is not an altruist) never thinks something like: "This is wrong to keep this all to myself, I should share". An altruist does. A second hander (which is not an altruist) does not see as necessary to give to others (Peter Keating would lie and cheat people off their property ans Gail Wynand was even worse - he wanted to rule men, definitely not to sacrifice anything to them). An altruist feels guilty for having things he takes pleasure in. A second hander (which is not an altruist) does not.

An altruist chooses to pursue what would make other people pleased, not what would make him pleased because he sees it as the right thing to do. A second hander (which is not an altruist) WANTS to pursue those things which would bring him social stature, in his mind he is not doing it for others but for himself - to satisfy a personal psychological need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keating goes to college for 4 years, works night and day to get good grades - why? If it is not a value to him, why does he do that?

I have already answered that question.

Search for Cliffsnotes on Keating for a better understanding of this character. I would read them all because it looks to me that you have missed major points about a few of Rand's characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have already provided a source of information about the connection between altruism and second handishness. This is one of those integrations that does not happen at the first glance. For the New Intellectual is a good source. If you wish to understand it - please read it. I have no interest in repetition.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keating goes to college for 4 years, works night and day to get good grades - why? If it is not a value to him, why does he do that?

He monitors Shliking's (whatever his name is) grades to surpass them and pays special attention to outdo him. Why does he invest any effort in it if it is not a value for him to outdo shlinking?

He spends days trying to design buildings to win competitions - why would he do all of this if it is not a value to him to win them?

Some people go to medical school and often finish with top marks not because that is what they have passion for and truly want to do but because that is what is going to make their parents proud - that is what the society deems as great success. Their self esteem is strongly dependent on other's evaluation of them and so they choose and pursue goals, often with great determination, that would allow them to achieve high level of acceptance. They choose goals not based on what they love but based on what other people consider success. Other's evaluation is more important than their own self.

They do this because they have no strength to accept perhaps a more modest life for themselves doing something they would truly love but with less social prestige.

These people are not selfish or independent but selfless and dependent - even though appearing very successful. This is altruism. Dependency is always at the expense of self. There is no other way.

Then to protect the self that still exist they have to engage in self deception.

--------------

Again, there are only two alternatives. Independence or dependence. There is no such thing as a second hander-individualist.

Edited by ~Sophia~
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This breakdown turns around the word 'value', I think.

Mother Teresa valued (one supposes) helping the needy.

ie, she saw importance in suffering - and the suffering.

Just to 'value' something or someone does not automatically make it a Value.

It depends on the moral worth of the subject, and the object - the valuer and the valued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people are not selfish or independent but selfless and dependent - even though appearing very successful. This is altruism. Dependency is always at the expense of self. There is no other way.

Never mind. You have not replied to a single thing I said, but just repeated your position. There's nothing more I can add here then which is relevant which I have not already said.

I'm still open to a discussion on other stuff besides second-handness/ altruism if anyone is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This breakdown turns around the word 'value', I think.

Mother Teresa valued (one supposes) helping the needy.

ie, she saw importance in suffering - and the suffering.

But even in Mother Teresa's case second handedness does come in.

Her whole life revolved around pleasing her personal Jewish cannibal zombie-god.

So we have material world altruism blended to spiritual world second-handedness.

Most definitely a religious person does their "good works" to please someone other than themselves and to earn a value for themselves.

The fact that neither the entity they are hoping to appease (God) nor the value they hope to gain (Heaven) exists is irrelevent.

It comes back to intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never mind. You have not replied to a single thing I said...

What you said shows lack of connection between many concepts. As a response, I provided you with sources that would help you and others to bridge them all into a whole but I won't do the work for you. I am not interested in addressing all of the misunderstandings.

--------

What kind of morality, what standard of judgment one would have to be guided by in order to come to the point of lacking self?

--------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Ifat's position. To define only proper values as actual values is circular. It is also begging the question of ethics to answer "what should man do" with "do the right thing". What is the right thing?

“The issue ‘to think or not to think’ takes actual form, existentially and psychologically, as the issue: ‘To value or to conform.’”

So the right way to value is to think, and the right way to think is to be objective. And yet, is a non-objective thought a non-thought? If you are tempted to answer that "yes", then reconcile that with the Objectivist view of significance of ideas both personally and in history where true and false ideas are both equally causative. Invalid concepts and false generalizations both exist and have existential consequences, and improper values are an example.

The right way to think about this is that there are thoughts or ideas as the genus, and objective and non-objective thoughts as the most fundamental distinction between the kinds of thoughts. Living is about action, and the distinction between right actions and wrong actions is based on the objectivity of the thought process behind them. So there are values as all of the objects of action, and objective and non-objective values as a further distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...