Think about everything?

[ctrl y]

The central Objectivist works are full of odes to thought and exhortations to think, or "focus." It is, indeed, the central Objectivist virtue: "Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind." Further, this is to be one's sole source of guidance: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action."

But is that (choosing all actions and values by one's own thought) actually a good idea?

Rand says some things that might be taken to indicate that she herself did not actually think that it was necessary for everyone to establish all of his values first hand. Eddie Willers seems to be a Christian: it is established fairly early in Atlas Shrugged that he goes to church and holds the Bible in high regard. Perhaps this is Rand's way of saying that not everyone needs to establish all of their values by means of thought.

This is, of course, mere speculation. Rand might even deny it. But it makes sense, either way. Going against popular culture would involve difficult, abstract work that a person who lacks greatness is, by definition, unable to do. There are, after all, at least some values to be found in popular culture. This would explain the picture we have from popular culture of the stereotypical Objectivist. What better to explain this than that most people crash and burn when they attempt to define their own values? Unless you're brilliant, it seems advisable to consider restricting the topics about which you think accordingly, and trust someone else to fill in the gaps.

Another reason why a person who thinks for himself in all areas might crash and burn would be the opposition of other people. Those who think for themselves quickly become annoying to the conventional, who seek their downfall as a result. This last point should need no argument for an Objectivist audience, and it is a reason to consider restricting the areas to which one applies one's mind.

(Note: I would appreciate being spared the baseless psychologizing that, for no apparent reason, goes on in every single thread I start. Thank you.)

[Lasse K. Lien]

Another reason why a person who thinks for himself in all areas might crash and burn would be the opposition of other people. Those who think for themselves quickly become annoying to the conventional, who seek their downfall as a result. This last point should need no argument for an Objectivist audience, and it is a reason to consider restricting the areas to which one applies one's mind.

- Why would such a person be considered annoying by anyone "conventional"?

Certainly thats possible if you constantly berate people for being irrational, or consistently feel the urge to include philosophy in any conversation.

"Yeah man, I'd love a beer. Speaking of beer, you are aware that the current rate of beer representing the totalitarian tendencies of society also represented by .... Oh you do know? I mentioned it several times earlier tonight? You sure you have to go? All right man. I'll see you. Not? Ok then. Take care".

And frankly I used to do this alot when I was younger, but try not to push reason on people as frequently any more.

If someone asks what you think you should certainly explain, but being an Objectivists imposes no duty upon you to educate the masses of reality.

And if you do that to frequently, you will find that most people who may be great people but not very intellectual will find you annoying, and rightly so.

[LoganCale]

Eddie Willers seems to be a Christian: it is established fairly early in Atlas Shrugged that he goes to church and holds the Bible in high regard.

I'm not sure what makes you think this—the only mention of the Bible in Atlas Shrugged that I'm aware of is the following:

Taggart Transcontinental, thought Eddie Willers, From Ocean to Ocean—the proud slogan of his childhood, so much more shining and holy than any commandment of the Bible.

That indicates to me that he has little regard for the Bible.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

That indicates to me that he has little regard for the Bible.

Plus, it's only mentioned that he attended church with Dagny when they were very young.

[ctrl y]

I'm not sure what makes you think this—the only mention of the Bible in Atlas Shrugged that I'm aware of is the following:

That indicates to me that he has little regard for the Bible.

OTOH, perhaps he was comparing the TT slogan to the Bible because he considers the Bible holy. If the TT slogan is more holy than the Bible, and the Bible is holy, then the TT slogan is really holy. It makes more sense to me literarily to compare the TT slogan to something that Eddie already considers holy, than to compare it to something he does not consider holy.

And yes, it is only mentioned that he attended church when he was young, but nowhere does it say that he stopped. (It is, so far as I recall, never mentioned that Dagny attended church.)

It's enough to base a speculation on.

Edited July 12, 2010 by ctrl y

[itsjames]

Eddie Willers seems to be a Christian: it is established fairly early in Atlas Shrugged that he goes to church and holds the Bible in high regard. Perhaps this is Rand's way of saying that not everyone needs to establish all of their values by means of thought.

In one of the quotes in the beginning of the Fountainhead, Ayn Rand says that men are born as essentially moral beings, seeking a noble vision of man's potential and greatness. Most men become corrupt later in life (sometimes still very young) when they learn to evade. Eddie Willers was not an evader. He chose his values by his mind to the extent that was possible to him. So he was still morally pure. If he had OPAR and all of Ayn Rand's works to study from, he would not have been a Christian (not that he actually was supposed to be one in the book, I don't even remember that honestly).

In short, since you've said that you've read OPAR, there's no excuse. You need to establish all of your values by means of thought. You're not living in the same pre-Ayn Rand days that Eddie Willers lived in. Ayn Rand was probably one of the greatest benefactors of humanity in that she provided us with an essentially fully integrated philosophy of life. Before reading OPAR, choosing certain values by means other than thought wouldn't necessarily mean you were evading, but if you've read OPAR honestly, you no longer have that excuse. It took a brilliant mind to create the philosophy of Objectivism, but once you've been exposed to it you have a very high moral responsibility to strive to understand it and to live up to it.

Another reason why a person who thinks for himself in all areas might crash and burn would be the opposition of other people. Those who think for themselves quickly become annoying to the conventional

What's more important, being annoying to "conventional people" or living your life to it's fullest on your own terms and by your own mind because you know you're right?

Edited July 13, 2010 by itsjames

[LoganCale]

OTOH, perhaps he was comparing the TT slogan to the Bible because he considers the Bible holy. If the TT slogan is more holy than the Bible, and the Bible is holy, then the TT slogan is really holy. It makes more sense to me literarily to compare the TT slogan to something that Eddie already considers holy, than to compare it to something he does not consider holy.

The phrasing of the sentence suggests mockery, not respect. The sentence is contrasting what he considers holy with what most people consider holy, not two things that he considers holy.

And yes, it is only mentioned that he attended church when he was young, but nowhere does it say that he stopped. (It is, so far as I recall, never mentioned that Dagny attended church.)

I see no mention of Eddie attending church. The only specific mention of a character attending church is regarding Dagny being sent to church while growing up:

Nat Taggart’s statue was copied from an artist’s sketch of him, the only record ever made of his appearance. He had lived far into old age, but one could never think of him except as he was on that sketch—as a young man. In her childhood, his statue had been Dagny’s first concept of the exalted. When she was sent to church or to school, and heard people using that word, she thought that she knew what they meant: she thought of the statue.

[Zip]

A lot of people are a mixed bag of half-ideas and semi-conscious decision making based on societal norms but that doesn't mean that they are incapable of thinking for themselves and defining their own values, it just means that they have chosen, implicitly or explicitly, not to.

Also, thinking for ones self and being an individual does not mean that you throw that individuality at people like a weapon at every encounter. It seem to me that it is your vision of what constitutes an individual and individualism that is causing you problems.

Being an individual in this world means that you choose not only your values but those you choose to share those values with. I don't feel the need to rage against the Jehova's witness that comes to my door. I politely tell him that I'm not interested and ask him to go on his way.

If a non-Objecticvist friend should happen to ask my opinion on downloading music or immigration or any thing like that I tell them but I don't bludgeon them with my ideals and values at every turn.

There's a difference between being an individual with established values and ideals and being an opinionated boor.

[softwareNerd]

But is that (choosing all actions and values by one's own thought) actually a good idea?

What are the alternative if one does not think? Are you suggesting going with whatever the majority thinks, or are you suggesting choosing from available ideas? If it is the latter, then that involves independent thought and decision-making. Objectivism does not suggest that people must independently come up with all the principles of science that have ever been discovered. Rather, Objectivism says that you should look for evidence of the rightness and wrongness of ideas, to whatever extent you are capable. Most average people -- to the extent that they are young at heart and still looking for ideas -- are quite capable of doing this for most things relevant to their lives.

Unless you're brilliant, it seems advisable to consider restricting the topics about which you think accordingly, and trust someone else to fill in the gaps.

We have to consult experts about all sorts of things: from brain-surgeons and investment advisers to plumbers and car-mechanics. There are many areas where experts will say opposite things. When one comes up against such things, and when they're important to you, you need some method to decide whom to trust.

There are, after all, at least some values to be found in popular culture.

A long line of men before us have brought the species from cave to a moon-landing. In the realm of Philosophy, a long line of thinkers has brought us from fear of unknown nature to a notion of a knowable universe and concepts like individual rights. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Our culture is rich. That does not mean pop-culture reflects the best that human culture has to offer, even though it can have lesser value.

The Eddie thing is a distraction, but he did not go to church as an adult: not in any way that would be important to his character, thinking and actions. Rand would never leave an important aspect of an important secondary character to speculation.

[Eiuol]

This is, of course, mere speculation. Rand might even deny it. But it makes sense, either way. Going against popular culture would involve difficult, abstract work that a person who lacks greatness is, by definition, unable to do. There are, after all, at least some values to be found in popular culture. This would explain the picture we have from popular culture of the stereotypical Objectivist. What better to explain this than that most people crash and burn when they attempt to define their own values? Unless you're brilliant, it seems advisable to consider restricting the topics about which you think accordingly, and trust someone else to fill in the gaps.

Greatness; at what?

Brilliant; at what?

[knast]

This is not really a reply to ctrl_y, but a comment to those few who have a hard time seeing through his reasoning.

Ctrl_y asks: "s that (choosing all actions and values by one's own thought) actually a good idea?"

This is means: Is it good to _always_ go by reason, even when it comes to _all_ your values and actions?

Well. What is the alternative? Only thinking _sometimes_? When one _feels_ like it? You see, in the end, the only alternative is emotionalism. And since this is a matter of principle, is there no room for compromise. It is either reason or emotionalism: faith, feeling, intuition, whim, etc.

Now, ctrl_y, as usual, grasps at straws to make a point. But, as expected, he fails. He claims that maybe thinking all the time is no good nor necessary because Eddie Willers liked the Bible. But even if Eddie Willers actually liked the Bible, that would not prove that it is good to not think _all the time_. If he does not like the Bible, then ctrl_y:s use of him as an example is meaningless and one wonders why he even brings it up in the first place. In fact, ctrl_y knows that it is irrelevant to his point. He even admits as much: "Rand might even deny it. But it makes sense, either way". So all of this is irrelevant.

Then he makes the point that non-thinking can perhaps be OK because there are, still, some values in popular culture and some knowledge in the conventional wisdom that we can rely on. But this is a non-sequitur. There is no excuse to stop thinking, not even "once in a while", merely because you can find something of value in the popular culture or some real knowledge in the conventional wisdom. How do you know what is of value in popular culture? How do you know what is knowledge in the conventional wisdom? To properly evaluate that, you still need to do some thinking.

He finally makes the strange argument that maybe thinking all the time is no good because if you think all the time then you might end up with opinions that goes against the mainstream. And to go against mainstream can be hard. It can be tough. It demands that you can stand your ground. That you have integrity. And even if the majority does not oppose you, thinking is nevertheless hard. Some, he claim, may not be able to take it. They may "crash and burn". I don't see any real evidence for that.

(The only people I know who have "crashed and burned" are people who never did a lot of thinking in the first place. Some even claimed to understand Objectivism, but once you scratched the surface it turns out they do not know even the basics and they never made any real attempt to grasp it. No wonder, they had a hard time dealing with other people. They cannot stand their ground, if they do not know why it is right for them to stand their ground. Integrity presuppose real convictions. Real convictions presuppose knowing your ideas and values are true and right. It presuppose thinking.)

So, granted, it is hard to think and it can be hard to go against the mainstream. That is true, but so what? The alternative is no easier and no better. If the majority wants to jump off a cliff, is it then "hard" to think all the time, and choose one's values and actions by one's own thinking, rather than go with the flow and jump off the cliff along with the others? You have to think to know this is not a good idea. So what if that makes you impopular. Popularity is not important. Neither is taking the "easy way out" by being mainstream.

The real question is not: Is it good to think all the time, even when it comes to choosing your values and actions. No, the REAL question is: Why is this issue important to ctrl_y? Let me "speculate" about ctrl_y:s motive: Because he wants an excuse to be irrational. At least from time to time. If so, then it is unspeakably low that he uses Eddie Willers, of all the good characters in Atlas Shrugged, to rationalize this evil desire of his.

Edited July 13, 2010 by knast

[whYNOT]

"Choosing all actions and values by one's own thought."

There is thinking, and then there's thinking...

Logical, and deductive, thought.

Formative, conceptual thought.

Inward-directed thought. (Thinking about your thinking; reviewing, and paying iintense attention to your emotional responses; and so on).

All three broad categories are subsumed by one word, Rationality, and all three should be seamlessly integrated and concurrent, I think.

All those levels, and hierarchies, of thought...ain't it exciting?

[ctrl y]

Greatness; at what?

Brilliant; at what?

Thinking.

[Eiuol]

Thinking.

Anyone can become great at thinking if they practice. If you assume your thinking isn't good enough and can never be good enough, well, yes, you probably would want to just let someone else do the thinking for you.

[dream_weaver]

The central Objectivist works are full of odes to thought and exhortations to think, or "focus." It is, indeed, the central Objectivist virtue: "Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind." Further, this is to be one's sole source of guidance: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action."

But is that (choosing all actions and values by one's own thought) actually a good idea?

Considering that actions and values are generated by thought, it would seem unavoidable. The only question is: Are those thoughts true/false, rational/irrational, consistent/contradictory.

Rand says some things that might be taken to indicate that she herself did not actually think that it was necessary for everyone to establish all of his values first hand. Eddie Willers seems to be a Christian: it is established fairly early in Atlas Shrugged that he goes to church and holds the Bible in high regard. Perhaps this is Rand's way of saying that not everyone needs to establish all of their values by means of thought.

Taggart Transcontinental, thought Eddie Willers, From Ocean to Ocean—the proud slogan of his childhood, so much more shining and holy than any commandment of the Bible. From Ocean to Ocean, forever—thought Eddie Willers, . . . her only mention of the word 'Bible' in the entire novel, and an almost condenscending reference to it at that. Almost a footnote, at best. What is more shining and holy? The proud slogan. This is what you infer Eddie Willers christianity from?

This is, of course, mere speculation. Rand might even deny it. But it makes sense, either way. Going against popular culture would involve difficult, abstract work that a person who lacks greatness is, by definition, unable to do. There are, after all, at least some values to be found in popular culture. This would explain the picture we have from popular culture of the stereotypical Objectivist. What better to explain this than that most people crash and burn when they attempt to define their own values? Unless you're brilliant, it seems advisable to consider restricting the topics about which you think accordingly, and trust someone else to fill in the gaps.

Considering that Miss. Rand is deceased, denial was either posited prior to 3/6/1982, or will not be forthcoming. How can something inconclusive make sense, and to top that off, in multiple ways? And what is with the pejorative modifier for the Objectivist?

Another reason why a person who thinks for himself in all areas might crash and burn would be the opposition of other people. Those who think for themselves quickly become annoying to the conventional, who seek their downfall as a result. This last point should need no argument for an Objectivist audience, and it is a reason to consider restricting the areas to which one applies one's mind.

Another attempt to use reason to undermine reason?

[dream_weaver]

(Note: I would appreciate being spared the baseless psychologizing that, for no apparent reason, goes on in every single thread I start. Thank you.)

You might want to investigate to see if there is any 'causality' involved.

I see no mention of Eddie attending church. The only specific mention of a character attending church is regarding Dagny being sent to church while growing up:

One can infer that Eddie had attended church at least once when he was 10 years old.

from pg. 14 Eddie Willers speaking: "The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best within us?"

[LoganCale]

One can infer that Eddie had attended church at least once when he was 10 years old.

from pg. 14 Eddie Willers speaking: "The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best within us?"

You're right, I missed that. (I had searched the book for "church" on Amazon, but did not search for related terms such as "minister".) It does not change anything, though.

[RationalBiker]

Unless you're brilliant, it seems advisable to consider restricting the topics about which you think accordingly, and trust someone else to fill in the gaps.

Is it you who determined it "seems advisable" or did someone else advise you that it may be a good methodology? Do you have any scientific evidence that supports why this method "seems advisable"?

How would you propose someone make a distinction between which values he chooses for himself and which ones he allows others to choose for him? Mere popularity? First exposure? Coin flipping? Dart throwing? This choice itself may be too difficult for the people of which you speak.

[RationalBiker]

Incidentally, I think there is a name for people who let others choose their values for them; victim.

[emanon]

Incidentally, I think there is a name for people who let others choose their values for them; victim.

Agreed.

[Mindy]

"But is that (choosing all actions and values by one's own thought) actually a good idea?"

That line is from the original post. While there are lots of good arguments about how undesirable the alternatives to thinking for yourself are, I think the essential point was missed. That point is that you can't consult a gorilla or wolf for advice. They don't think, and can't reason about the future. The only thing that guides choices, other than emotion, is thought.

If you decide to follow your emotions, where did they come from? Well, you can take another step backward, and follow only your appetites. That will put you in competition with a world of people who are thinking things through, so you'll be at a serious disadvantage...

If you imagine you can just "go along to get along," you are, in fact, following thinking, just not your own. If you are content to follow anybody who will lead, you deserve what you'll get. If you decide to join some group that has explicit rules, which group? It is either random luck, which puts you back to following anybody who will lead, or it is someone you see has his stuff together. But wait, you had to think to decide who had his stuff together...so you are thinking for yourself!

It is evolutionary truth that man can't survive as an animal. He isn't built for it. And the thing man has that puts him above the animals is--thought.

So, you either think for yourself, or (think) of who you want to follow, or take random action when thirst or hunger demand you locomote. You have to think, because you aren't fit for anything else.

-- Mindy