Self-esteem

[Superman123]

Hello All,

Please can you help me with a *fast track* on a concept.

Are the following ideas in line with objectivism:

If I make a mistake that it should not affect my self-esteem. Rather I should consider it a lack of knowledge/experience.

This is a dicussion I had with some of my objectivist friends but we did not really have enought time to discuss it in detail. I thought your insights would be valuable.

Regards,

Andre

[whYNOT]

Hi Andre,

There are two errors, by type and by crticality - of ignorance and of evasion.

Very simply, the first will not impact on a rational person's self-esteem - since he knows mistakes from 'not knowing better' are often inevitable.

Most importantly, he will correct that mistake and learn from it.

Owning this capability is of high value, sub-consciously translating to a sense of confidence and effectiveness (self-efficacy) in dealing with existence.

IOW, he doesn't fear making mistakes of knowledge, (and I'm over-stating a little), may even take delight in them - as his knowledge increases, and his self-esteem rises to the challenge.

So when you say "a mistake should not affect my self-esteem" - in this case, yes.

But possessing the knowledge, and knowingly going ahead to commit the error , would have a strong negative impact. This, an 'error of evasion', is Objectively immoral. One might call it a 'sin' against reality and reason - a betrayal of both. That's first.

Second, it would not take many instances repeating this mistake for one's self-esteem ("the reputation we have with ourselves") to diminish or degrade.

[softwareNerd]

If I make a mistake that it should not affect my self-esteem. Rather I should consider it a lack of knowledge/experience.

Intellectually, yes. I think the tougher part is the emotional side of it: i.e. not the explicit intellectual judgement, but the automatized emotional "judgement" that we make. People don't like to fail. When we do, it is not unnatural to feel a sense of failure. Yet, we all probably know people who handle failures in different ways -- emotionally. Some seem to be almost undaunted, try-and-try-again types, others may shrink away after one failure, still others don't even try, for fear of failure. These different approaches probably develop over many early experiences, but one can still aim for an ability to embrace certain types of failure, and to treat them as learning experiences which remind one of one's strengths rather than of any weakness.

[Superman123]

So acting according to what you know and gaining experience and affirmation will build self-esteem,

Acting in areas that are unknown, using the best of your current knowledge and experience will increase your self-esteem even if you make mistakes since this will increase your learning.

Acting against what you know will break down your self-esteem.

Will learning from a book build self-esteem or do you need to take *action* according to your knowledge to build self esteem?

[whYNOT]

Intellectually, yes. I think the tougher part is the emotional side of it: i.e. not the explicit intellectual judgement, but the automatized emotional "judgement" that we make. People don't like to fail. When we do, it is not unnatural to feel a sense of failure. Yet, we all probably know people who handle failures in different ways -- emotionally. Some seem to be almost undaunted, try-and-try-again types, others may shrink away after one failure, still others don't even try, for fear of failure. These different approaches probably develop over many early experiences, but one can still aim for an ability to embrace certain types of failure, and to treat them as learning experiences which remind one of one's strengths rather than of any weakness.

Yes, the emotional reponse is the telling one - as far as self-esteem is concerned.

(The "barometer", as AR called it.)

One can't 'will' self-esteem into existence intellectually, or consciously, but it arises from them, eventually and indirectly.

It's more a general response to one's view of his or her 'rightness' to life, reinforced by corresponding action, and not necessarily a reflection of past success or failure, I believe.

I don't think you mean this, sNerd, but one could deduce that self-esteem is a 'personality type' thing, possessed in quantity by the confident and assertive person, and denied to the quiet, introverted one. There is an element of that - and without being mutually exclusive - but my experience has shown often that those with that 'bounce-back' confidence often prove to have delicate self-esteem (a pseudo one, perhaps).

We merit our self-worth, through our reasoning, values and integrity, and, in action - self-affirmation with ourselves and to others.

[Superman123]

Yes, the emotional reponse is the telling one - as far as self-esteem is concerned.

(The "barometer", as AR called it.)

One can't 'will' self-esteem into existence intellectually, or consciously, but it arises from them, eventually and indirectly.

It's more a general response to one's view of his or her 'rightness' to life, reinforced by corresponding action, and not necessarily a reflection of past success or failure, I believe.

Tony, This is where I really struggle with this.

I cannot see that emotions can be a 'barometer'. My past experience have been that emosions lie to you. I always find it better to rely on what I *know* is correct and reflect reality.

e.g. I when I *feel* worthless I say *NO* I have inherent worth as being a human been. I force myself to acknowledge what the reality actualy is.

I suppose I will have to look into the articles relating AR and emotions.

But I cannot think that my emotions have anything to do with my self-esteem. They are merely chemical messages from my brain.

[softwareNerd]

I don't think you mean this, sNerd, but one could deduce that self-esteem is a 'personality type' thing, possessed in quantity by the confident and assertive person, and denied to the quiet, introverted one.

Yes, I didn't mean particularly visible attempts that someone might make from fear of appearing fearful. I think both introverted and extroverted people can have self-esteem with regard to the situation the OP raised: i.e. dealing with failure. In fact, I don't think trying again is itself a sole indicator of the implicity conclusion the person is drawing from failure, and saving in his subconscious.

e.g. I when I *feel* worthless I say *NO* I have inherent worth as being a human been. I force myself to acknowledge what the reality actualy is.

As whYNOT said, one cannot will it. One can will away emotions to some extent, but the process seems to dull emotions as such. Repression seems to stifle positive emotions too.

But I cannot think that my emotions have anything to do with my self-esteem. They are merely chemical messages from my brain.

By this token, one could say that thoughts are just some type of electrical transmissions. The physical manifestation of thoughts and emotions does not make them less. The real reason emotions have less cognitive reliability is that they are automated, and often programmed from a whole different context from the one that subsequently evokes them. In contrast, explicit thoughts can be more easily evaluated consciously.

if a series of failures leads one to doubt one's competence in a very fundamental way, conscious thinking can definitely bootstrap one. However, one also need counter-experiences, which give one emotions to counter the other ones.

[whYNOT]

Tony, This is where I really struggle with this.

I cannot see that emotions can be a 'barometer'. My past experience have been that emosions lie to you. I always find it better to rely on what I *know* is correct and reflect reality.

e.g. I when I *feel* worthless I say *NO* I have inherent worth as being a human been. I force myself to acknowledge what the reality actualy is.

I suppose I will have to look into the articles relating AR and emotions.

But I cannot think that my emotions have anything to do with my self-esteem. They are merely chemical messages from my brain.

You may be pleased to know that Rand agreed - emotions are not tools of cognition, she said.

After that, she totally disagreed with you: she acknowledged the potency of emotion. I just checked 'Emotions' out on the AR Lexicon, and recommend you read some very absorbing stuff there, so I don't need to try to do it justice.

Not included there, is that philosophically (as much as psychologically) there is a vast importance to emotions.

Objectivism rejects the traditional philosophers' stumbling-block: the 'soul/body' dichotomy - more often called the 'mind/body dichotomy'; which should also - if I'm correct - mean rejection of a 'mind/emotion' dichotomy as well.

Integration of emotions with and beneath rationality is Rand's answer to that. Not to mention her regular references to "Joy".!!

Ultimately, this emotion is the whole point of her philosophy.

"Chemical messages", huh?!

(You are right in that emotions are not directly relevant to self-esteem.

However, (in short) the process from consciousness to sub-conscious self-judgement, -ie, self-esteem - is not that different from emotional formation, I think.)

[Superman123]

@whynot; @softwarenerd,

I understand what you are saying. Interesting

[LovesLife]

Self-esteem is, fundamentally, self-confidence in your ability to live and be successful given the facts of reality.

To have self-esteem, you must also know that you are capable of being good, and that you have a moral right to be happy.

People make mistakes, even with perfect knowledge (in part because we can't predict the future). That is a fact of reality; making an honest mistake is an everyday fact of life. However, self-esteem is an emotional reward, so there may be cases where you need to remind yourself of the facts and of your approach and intentions. A mistake that costs the lives of others would be an example.

[Superman123]

I have been reading some of Ayn Rand’s Romantic Manifesto. I understand this so much better. Like how she refers to your “sense of life” and how your emotions respond to art. I suppose my initial reaction against emotion was ‘cause I thought of how new age philosophy suggest to indulge in it so much. Ayn Rand does seem to say if you can integrate objectivist philosophy your emotions should become more in alignment with you thoughts. I do think practically what really matters are that you think over appropriate material.

[Tenderlysharp]

Emotions are not tools of cognition they are a reaction to cognition. It is important to investigate your emotions in order to learn how to bring your emotions into harmony with your cognition. The more you practice this the less at odds with your emotions you will become.

A feeling of dissatisfaction could be misinterpreted as a lack of self esteem when actually your cognitive abilities are restless for more knowledge to tackle greater challenges. Maybe goals need to be reorganized and prioritized.

[Superman123]

Emotions are not tools of cognition they are a reaction to cognition.

I am in complete 100% agreement with this!!! Hope that I do not give the mistaken impression that I would ever be some mystic hedonist.

PS Tenderlysharp I love your posts.