Conformity as an enemy of self-esteem

[~Sophia~]

It is also begging the question of ethics to answer "what should man do" with "do the right thing". What is the right thing?

There is no circularity. The right thing is what is life promoting - an objective standard. Some of the values are more universal, others more personal but in every case a value is what is making your life rationally better.

In an essay "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in VOS it is explained that a chosen action is not necessarily selfish (a value) merely because it is chosen. What matters is the motivation behind the choice.

So there are values as all of the objects of action, and objective and non-objective values as a further distinction.

I would call the first one a goal of an action but in order to conclude that it is a value you have to judge it against a rational standard.

[~Sophia~]

In any case, even this is beside the point to the topic of conformity (and second handness) vs. altruism.

Your definition of altruism and what you think is its manifestation is too narrow.

“The Nature of the Second-Hander,”

For the New Intellectual, page 70

"After centuries of being pounded with the doctrine that altruism is the ultimate ideal, men have accepted it in the only way it could be accepted. By seeking self-esteem through others. "

[Grames]

Applying a rational standard is not usually as simple as distinguishing food from poison, for example. Values are a matter of degree. One might regret taking the higher paying job in a new city after all, but that does not mean money is not a value, one of many values. Nor does the fact the money is of some value make a bad decision not bad or less bad.

[Thales]

There is no circularity. The right thing is what is life promoting - an objective standard. Some of the values are more universal, others more personal but in every case a value is what is making your life rationally better.

Precisely!

[SapereAude]

Applying a rational standard is not usually as simple as distinguishing food from poison, for example. Values are a matter of degree. One might regret taking the higher paying job in a new city after all, but that does not mean money is not a value, one of many values. Nor does the fact the money is of some value make a bad decision not bad or less bad.

Good point.

[~Sophia~]

Applying a rational standard is not usually as simple as distinguishing food from poison, for example.

Yes, sometimes it is not easy and mistakes are made but as long as your standard of judgment is the correct one - you have a chance. Life requires continuous re-evaluation. If a mistake was made: you did what you thought was right at the time or you took a chance and it is not working out as expected - you take steps to correct it. Guided by the right standard, self honesty, and courage, you will be moving in your life toward happiness despite the mistakes.

But if you start from the position that your goal should not to be to satisfy the self or you have no courage to do what is right for you and you are dishonest with yourself - you got no chance.

Values are a matter of degree.

Not all values - integrity, for example. But yes often that is how it plays out - that is where value judgment comes in.

One might regret taking the higher paying job in a new city after all, but that does not mean money is not a value, one of many values. Nor does the fact the money is of some value make a bad decision not bad or less bad.

There are two separate concepts here: the value of money (which, as an object of trade, is an objective value) and the particular to you mode or rate of obtaining money. The fact that this particular choice in regard to money ended up being not the right one does not change the objective value of money and thus the fact that you should engage in some type of productive activity to prosper. It does not have to be in this city doing this job. It does not mean that you should pursue maximum monetary gain at the expense of your other values. Again, repeated personal re-evaluation is needed.

One can be honestly mistaken about what a value for them is. Going back to Keating - that was not the case with him. His desires were peaking through and he had Roark around him. In his case, he continuously betrayed himself.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[Ifat Glassman]

I support Ifat's position. To define only proper values as actual values is circular.

Actually, I don't think it is circular and I do think that a proper definition of values includes their being life-promoting objectively. It is an essential component of values even though in humans it is not self-evident since we can choose what is bad for us on principle, want it and act to get it.

Plants and animals are motivated (or just automatically act in case of plants) to get stuff that are good for them - the value is not just that "which they act to gain and keep" but also life promoting, and indeed it is an essential of what a value is.

However, in humans because we need to choose and identify our values, our mechanism of valuing will not produce the same result as plants and animals - we can value things which are bad for us, not just by a mistake of applying principles but in the principle itself. One can even default on thinking and just go by emotions. In any case, the mechanism of valuing still stays functional and the result is irrational values that do not have that essential component of being life-promoting. Keating's irrational values are an example. I said more about it here:

[You can skip this part, I just left it to get the context of the immune system example that follows]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. [/end part that can be skipped]

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.

Regarding irrational values as a non-concept, as if they didn't exist is truly blind to reality, blind to people's emotions and actions which many times span across a lifetime.

However, like I said before, this discussion of what a value is is not even necessary to see that there are tremendous differences between altruism and conformity or second-handness. Here I wrote several psychological differences and differences in thinking (strangely enough, nobody took any note of this, as if pointing out to reality doesn't matter but abstractly connecting ideas does). I think it is worth repeating, so here it is:

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.

Edit: I forgot to say why values as something life-promoting is not a circular definition. One does not define values as "good values" that would be circular... Values are life promoting things (in the context of knowledge of an individual or animal) which a living organism acts to gain and/or to keep. In the case of humans an essential part is also the emotions, the value judgement - the fact that values are something one wants in one way or another (through motivation from fear or from love).

Edited February 12, 2010 by ifatart

[~Sophia~]

(strangely enough, nobody took any note of this,

I took a note of it and I responded. You are not wrong - just incomplete in your understanding of altruism and second handishness.

I encourage anyone who is following our exchange here to go and read the sources I provided.

as if pointing out to reality doesn't matter but abstractly connecting ideas does)

This is an uncalled for - cheap shot. You continuously have this tendency of including disrespectful comments that add nothing to the discussion but make one regret getting involved in a conversation with you in a first place. That is why people leave the discussion and not because they are "bad debater".

[whYNOT]

The concept "Value" is being used too broadly; just as, the concept "Altruism" is being used too narrowly.

I think that 'value' - 'Value' can come in degrees. I also think that one does not have to be fully rational to seek a 'value'. But an "irrational value" is a contradiction in terms, I believe.

Also, there comes a lower point on the scale where 'want', 'need', 'desire', or 'choice', should be used instead. Using 'value' indiscriminately corrupts the concept.

To say >I like Weetbix for breakfast< demonstrates 'desire'.

To say >I feel that I should eat breakfast every day< demonstrates 'need'.

To say > I must eat to live < is simple 'value'.

To say > I choose to live a productive, independent life < is a high 'Value.'

So Keating 'valued' his parents opinion enough to 'value' becoming an architect? Or, rather, did he want to please others badly enough to study for a career he had no love for, and came to loathe?

With insufficient 'Self', he could have no idea of what he valued.

An altruistic, conformist, second-hander.

One can only value to the extent and consistency of one's rationality and egoism, IMO.

[Ifat Glassman]

I took a note of it and I responded. You are not wrong - just incomplete in your understanding of altruism and second handishness.

No, you did not respond. I don't know what constitutes "response" in your book, but in mine it means to actually reply to those specific ideas, to integrate them to explain them against one's view.

This is an uncalled for - cheap shot.

Go call a moderator if you want to censor my thoughts, though I don't think this is against the forum rules. This is very "called for" because it is exactly what you are doing in every discussion with me. Ignore examples, keep repeating abstract ideas over and over and over again.

You continuously have this tendency of including disrespectful comments that add nothing to the discussion but make one regret getting involved in a conversation with you in a first place.

You were never engaged in a conversation with me anyway and I doubt this is why you started posting. This "tendency" of mine is called judgement, I judge the quality of posts, their motivation and degree of connection to reality.

I can disagree with someone and yet value what they say very much (and I have had such discussions, though, unfortunately, not with most). If I don't, I say what I think, to the degree it is possible.

That is why people leave the discussion and not because they are "bad debater".

I'm fine with that. Those who stay are those whom I enjoy talking to.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ifatart

[Grames]

Actually, I don't think it is circular and I do think that a proper definition of values includes their being life-promoting objectively.

Yes, this I agree with but still...

I think for my next note taking project I will get Dr. Peikoff's "The Unity in Epistemology and Ethics" lectures, that covers this two-definitions issue I keep running into.

[Ifat Glassman]

Yes, this I agree with but still...

I think for my next note taking project I will get Dr. Peikoff's "The Unity in Epistemology and Ethics" lectures, that covers this two-definitions issue I keep running into.

BINGO! thanks, I was looking for the pointer to where Peikoff is talking about that. Thanks.

[~Sophia~]

I'm fine with that. Those who stay are those whom I enjoy talking to.

You enjoy those who agree and praise you but you are dismissive and almost hostile to those who disagree.

The fact that you can come up with a psychological explanation that fits your point of view it does not mean that that is the only possible scenario. You only see it as the only scenario due to your narrow definition of the concept - but that is exactly what is being disputed. As I mentioned, there was not much to refute in what you said. I already made my objections and explained why. My point is that you have to dig dipper into how one arrives at being a second hander.

The contradiction here is yours. You did agree that a second hander is not an egoist yet in light of the fact that that there are only two alternatives - you fail to resolve this issue. It is not my motivation to change your mind at this moment - going back and forth for few more pages would not have done so (especially that you have indicated at the very beginning that you are already convinced that you are right). You have to arrive at the right conclusion on your own and I pointed you to the sources that can help.

Edited February 12, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[~Sophia~]

This "tendency" of mine is called judgement,

misjudgment

[Ifat Glassman]

You enjoy those who agree and praise you but you are dismissive and almost hostile to those who disagree.

Being hostile has nothing to do with disagreement, it has to do with what I judge to be the source of it. Now, if you don't mind, nobody gives a rat's ass about what we think of one another, and I don't give one about what you think of me. So let's just end it here.

[Alfa]

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.

They are both similar in that they adopt others as their standard of value. Their whole value systems are based on other people, instead of themselves. Sacrificing yourself for others, or sacrificing others for yourself, are just different sides of the same coin. Both, however, end up in self-sacrifice. Gail Wynand is a perfect example of that; he had alot of power and influence but was ultimately dead inside. It works the other way around too. The mother-Theresa-altruists need others to suffer so they can recieve their "charity", and so that they can be "good".

[Ifat Glassman]

They are both similar in that they adopt others as their standard of value.

Why do you think there are two different words if these are the same phenomena and the same concept? Why say "second hander" if "an altruist" is sufficient? What in your opinion, is the difference between altruism and second handness, if any?

[Alfa]

Good question. Just off the top of my head: Altruism is a moral doctrine, second-handishness is a wider concept that shares the same fundamental - self-sacrifice and seeking self-esteem through others. Second-handishness can be both sides of the same coin, altruism is not - but both are fundamentally about self-sacrifice.

[Ifat Glassman]

Good question. Just off the top of my head: Altruism is a moral doctrine, second-handishness is a wider concept that shares the same fundamental - self-sacrifice and seeking self-esteem through others. Second-handishness can be both sides of the same coin, altruism is not - but both are fundamentally about self-sacrifice.

Can you explain in concrete terms (by giving examples) what would be the difference between an altruist and a second hander, in behavior, thoughts, psychology, ideas etc' - do you think there is any difference at all?

Note that accepting the basic dichotomy altruism offers (to exist one must sacrifice others for oneself or sacrifice oneself for others) is not the same as accepting altruism as a moral code. If I make the mistake of accepting this dichotomy, I still have a few options how to act, not all are altruism. Wouldn't you agree?

An altruist is someone who accepts altruism as a moral code. You seem to be saying otherwise, that an altruist can be an altruist even without regarding consciously or subconsciously the welfare of others above one's own. As I see it, your distinction collapses into: Either one is rational and selfish or one is an altruist. Is this correct?

Edited February 13, 2010 by ifatart

[Eiuol]

An altruist is someone who accepts altruism as a moral code. You seem to be saying otherwise, that an altruist can be an altruist even without regarding consciously or subconsciously the welfare of others above one's own. As I see it, your distinction collapses into: Either one is rational and selfish or one is an altruist. Is this correct?

This may be any reason for disagreement. One can be nihilistic and be neither egoistic nor altruistic. I would say a second-hander can be nihilistic or altruistic. If a person has no moral code, how could they possibly be altruistic?

[Ifat Glassman]

There is definitely a connection between conformity, second handness and altruism, but not such that all is all is all. Looking through the Ayn Rand lexicon I found this quote by Ayn Rand that fits the subject:

After centuries of being pounded with the doctrine that altruism is the ultimate ideal, men have accepted it in the only way it could be accepted. By seeking self-esteem through others. By living second-hand. And it has opened the way for every kind of horror. It has become the dreadful form of selfishness which a truly selfish man couldn’t have conceived. And now, to cure a world perishing from selflessness, we’re asked to destroy the self. Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You’ve wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he’s ever held a truly personal desire, he’d find the answer. He’d see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He’s not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander’s delusion—prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can’t say about a single thing: “This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me.”

So this shows how accepting altruism as an ideal leads to second handness. However, one can become a second hander (or a conformist, which is the same IMO) for other reasons, not altruism. Altruism can then provide a convenient rationalization for one's chronic need to conform. There is a tie but they are two different things.

One can accept the basic premise of altruism but reject the altruist ideal (accept that a sacrifice must be made among people but not accept that the ideal is to sacrifice oneself for others), in which case one becomes a thief or a psychopath, considering human beings as objects to sacrifice for oneself, considering lack of value for human beings a logical "selfishness".

One can become a Gail Wynand... Gail was a second hander but it had nothing to do with the premise or doctrine of altruism. He despised people and thought the right solution to being financially dependent on them (in trade) is to rule them. Gail was not seeking self-esteem in others, his second handness came from a different source entirely.

In reality there is no such thing as an altruist because being an altruist means living by the principle of altruism consistently - leading one's life by that principle (just as selfishness is leading one's life by the principle that one is the beneficiary of one's actions). [Grames, feel free to add confirmation based on "Objectivism through induction" if you think I represent Peikoff's explanation here correctly]. There are, however, many second handers, which is a psychological phenomenon.

Some, are driven to conform out of a desire to belong, out of insecurity from one source or another - it could have many psychological causes (unloving parents and whatnot) altruism being only one. Maybe a common one, but not the only cause.

So that is my input, I'm too tired now so I hope this is not too confused. There are currently not enough active neurons to decide if this is comprehensible enough... so good luck.

Edited February 13, 2010 by ifatart

[whYNOT]

I believe that one's psychological make-up can definitely pre-dispose one to altruism.

Instead of altruism being consciously upheld as an ideology, causing the shift to second-handedness, and from here to dutiful conformity, and then to low self esteem, and then to reduced sense of ego; - it probably happens more often in reverse.

IOW, one could try to justify altruism intellectually,(e.g. rationalising self-sacrifice) after 'grasping' it psychlogically.

In the end it is less important which come first, than that one is aware of the fact that

it's one big emotional-psychological-philosophical package involving the "Other".

As I keep repeating, Altruism is a huge, all embracing concept that goes far beyond 'doing something' for others.

And actually, the stronger one's sense of self (ego), the better one is equipped to be benevolent towards others, and even help them occasionally, without contradiction, or threat to ego.

[Alfa]

Can you explain in concrete terms (by giving examples) what would be the difference between an altruist and a second hander, in behavior, thoughts, psychology, ideas etc' - do you think there is any difference at all?

I need to do some more thinking on this, and the whole issue. I keep confusing myself at the moment... My comment below is to clarify the way i'm thinking.

Note that accepting the basic dichotomy altruism offers (to exist one must sacrifice others for oneself or sacrifice oneself for others) is not the same as accepting altruism as a moral code. If I make the mistake of accepting this dichotomy, I still have a few options how to act, not all are altruism. Wouldn't you agree?

An altruist is someone who accepts altruism as a moral code. You seem to be saying otherwise, that an altruist can be an altruist even without regarding consciously or subconsciously the welfare of others above one's own. As I see it, your distinction collapses into: Either one is rational and selfish or one is an altruist. Is this correct?

I think i'd just put it a little differently: Either one accepts a morality based on sacrifice, or not... and lives selfishly instead. I think that's the one fundamental thing in all of the concrete examples mentioned; be it the mother Theresa's, Keating's, Wynand's or Mao's of this world(same thing goes for nihilsm which Eiuol mentioned; destruction of values is very much the same thing as sacrificing them).

[Grames]

I think the old idea of a "social metaphysics" captured a certain element of what ya'll are talking about. Social metaphysics can be combined with explicit altruism, or not. "Social metaphysics" comes from the days of Rand's psychological investigations with Branden, so it is not in the Lexicon and Branden's article on the topic is not on the Objectivism CD.

Here is a brief definition of the term by the editor of the "Journals of Ayn Rand"

["Social metaphysics" refers to the neurosis resulting from automatized second-handedness, i.e., the type of psycho-epistemology that is focused primarily on the views of others, not on reality.]

From "Art and Moral Treason", writing about two unhappy men she knew of and worked with regarding aesthetic responses:

They knew-even though not in fully conscious terms-that they were achieving the opposite of their original, pre-conceptual goals and motives. Instead of leading a rational (i.e., reason-guided and reason-motivated) life, they were gradually becoming moody, subjectivist whim-worshipers, acting on the range of the moment, particularly in their personal relationships—by default of any firmly defined values. Instead of reaching independence from the irrationality of others, they were being forced—by the same default-either into actual social metaphysics or into an equivalent code of behavior, into blind dependence on and compliance with the value-systems of others, into a state of abject conformity.

The Objectivist—January 1966 "Altruism As Appeasement", writing here of becoming an altruist:

Some degree of social metaphysics is almost always involved in the <tobj_3> psychology of such a man, but it is hard to tell whether it led to or resulted from his surrender. In either case, his basic motivation is different and, in a certain sense, worse. Basically, a social metaphysician is motivated by the desire to escape the responsibility of independent thought and he surrenders the mind he is afraid to use, preferring to follow the judgments of others. But an intellectual appeaser surrenders morality, the realm of values, in order to be permitted to use his mind. The degree of self-abasement is greater; the implicit view of values—as irrelevant to the mind—is disastrous; the implicit view of the mind—as functioning by permission of the mindless—is unspeakable. (Nor does the appeaser often care to speak about it.)

"Social metaphysics" makes an appearance in ITOE in the conclusion:

The reductio ad absurdum of a long line of mini-Kantians, such as pragmatists and positivists, Linguistic Analysis holds that words are an arbitrary social product immune from any principles or standards, an irreducible primary not subject to inquiry about its origin or purpose—and that we can "dissolve" all philosophical problems by "clarifying" the use of these arbitrary, causeless, meaningless sounds which hold ultimate power over reality. (The implicit psychological confession is obvious: it is an attempt to formalize and elevate social metaphysics into a philosophical vocation.)

In "The Argument from Intimidation" social metaphysics appears as a motive:

A social metaphysician is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a social metaphysician that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan's moral sanction. It is only a social metaphysician who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: "But people won't like you!"

Strictly speaking, a social metaphysician does not conceive of his Argument in conscious terms: he finds it "instinctively" by introspection—since it represents his psycho-epistemological way of life. We have all met the exasperating type of person who does not listen to what one says, but to the emotional vibrations of one's voice, anxiously translating them into approval or disapproval, then answering accordingly. This is a kind of self-imposed Argument from Intimidation, to which a social metaphysician surrenders in most of his human encounters. And thus when he meets an adversary, when his premises are challenged, he resorts automatically to the weapon that terrifies him most: the withdrawal of a moral sanction.

Alright, that's enough quoting to get the idea. Second-handedness is fairly equivalent to social metaphysics, and used as a synonym in "Altruism as Appeasement". It can be related to altruism in the way the metaphysical and epistemological theories in general have ethical consequences but is not the same. Conformity is a psychological and psycho-epistemological issue first. If one's powers of abstraction and rationalism were strong then a formal indoctrination in altruism could lead to conformity in practice but I doubt this is the usual path.

[Ifat Glassman]

I think i'd just put it a little differently: Either one accepts a morality based on sacrifice, or not... and lives selfishly instead.

Noooo... living selfishly is much more demanding than just "not accepting altruism". Dominique did not accept altruism - but was she living selfishly? No - she was trying to run away from happiness and values and selfishness consists of putting one's happiness as one's goal (To add more to my point, I wrote "what is selfishness" just 2 days ago and I have plenty of examples there).

Suppose one day one experiences an emotion one considers to be a sign of someone lame of bad. It could be a feeling of helplessness, frustration, jealousy, fear and so on. One faces a choice here: To recognize the existence of the emotion, or to try to pretend as if the emotion never existed. No other people are involved in such a decision, yet only one path is selfish.

and

Here is another common choice we face in life: To think or not to think? In any given situation one has the choice to use one's mind to seek the truth or to use one's mind in a different way. For example, on a desert island one can choose to put effort into thinking how to improve one's life, comfort and chances of survival and rescue or one can choose to let self pity take over, hide behind a rock and wait for death.

Selfishness is not the automatic result of rejecting altruism.

I think the old idea of a "social metaphysics" captured a certain element of what ya'll are talking about. Social metaphysics can be combined with explicit altruism, or not.

Sounds right. I still need to read about "social metaphysics" to get the whole picture of the quotes you provided (thanks for taking the time to do that, btw!).