Creative work ahead of family?

[JASKN]

But I disagree with Rand that work should be primary. It's her OPINION, not some fact that she has established, fer Pete's sake. Not everyone values things the exact way Rand did. I think there's lots of room for differing individuals having differing value systems.

Way to conflate two different concepts: human life principles and human taste and style. You may as well say that everything is an opinion. Oh wait, you more or less do!

[bluecherry]

"As for what you go on to say, that one is getting more happiness from thing one than thing two is not proof in itself that therefore putting thing one above thing to must be moral."

I would agree -- the morality depends upon what "thing one" and "thing two" are. But I disagree with Rand that work should be primary. It's her OPINION, not some fact that she has established, fer Pete's sake. Not everyone values things the exact way Rand did. I think there's lots of room for differing individuals having differing value systems.

Actually, the moral principles are determined without regard to what one feels since just wanting or not wanting something to be a certain way does not make it so. Just because somebody really enjoys eating 10 gallons of ice cream a day would not say anything about whether it is moral or not. As for saying this is just her opinion, this is not a subject where it is open to opinion anymore than how many apples there are left if one starts with four and then eats one. Ethics certainly has room for various ways it plays out differently for different people, but because there are certain things about human nature that apply to all people, some things will be morally off limits for everybody still. This career and family conclusion is based upon things that apply equally to all people (sans perhaps children and those with disabilities that go beyond a certain extent.) Consequently, while the particular career and family people have is open to huge variation, that career needs to be primary over family isn't open to individual variation.

I have been mostly absent for a few months, so I apologize if you have been asked this lots before, but exactly what are your sources thus far on the content of Objectivism? If you are already familiar with certain things I can save time by pointing back to some things you are familiar with already, if you are unfamiliar with certain other things then I can more efficiently determine where I would need to start explaining some things that are relevant to what it is about people that means putting family over career is always unwise.

You don't actually do this, as it is false based on simple logic alone. If you didn't put yourself and your own happiness first, you would literally have nothing with which to love anyone or anything else. Without addressing this argument, everything else you say cannot be substantiated.

I'm pretty sure Avila means "first" as in "above career" in this case. You may contend of course that putting family above career would be putting others above yourself, but you would need to go into more depth about that idea if that is what you mean here.

[Eiuol]

"I don't like treating people as "things", and viewing one's spouse and children as important because they add to the quality of my career is getting rather close to that.

I don't think I saw this earlier and I think I was misunderstood. Part of my point in what you were responding to was that interpersonal relationships in general often do have impact on a person's career in a positive way, even if not directly. The reason for that is how relationships really are for improving your life. I understand, though, that it sounds like treating people as things or totally impersonally, no differently than having a doctor for when you get sick. I've been meaning for a long time to make a thread discussing egoistic relationships, relating to how in close relationships, the other person becomes a "part" of you, even if you are putting yourself as a primary (including your career), so you should treat them as well as yourself. The explanation and idea is neither simple nor short, so I'll probably write that thread up next week.

What I meant by "filling a hole" is having other people fill up whatever self-esteem you are lacking, or to fill up whatever seems empty in your life, without considering fixing your own issues/problems first. I don't mean filling a hole simply in the sense of making a bad situation good.

[whYNOT]

It becomes fruitless when the basic requirement of a debate: sincerity -

that each party, at the very least, *entertains* the notion, or principle,

of the other party. The Objectivists here have patiently (and impressively)

made the case for rational morality, while Avila continues to smuggle in and argue from

his own morality. Despite his (I assume)reading and understanding of VoS.

To give it one more chance for an honest discussion, I repeat my question:

Does your worship of God take precedence over your family?

[Avila]

"I don't think I saw this earlier and I think I was misunderstood. Part of my point in what you were responding to was that interpersonal relationships in general often do have impact on a person's career in a positive way, even if not directly. The reason for that is how relationships really are for improving your life."

We agree that relationships can have a positive affect on a person's career. What I was reacting to was this statement of yours (my emphasis in bold):

"Other people should be a benefit for those goals, and integrated in such a way that the reason those people are even valuable in the first place is to the extent they improve your life. Plenty of artists and writers (Rand included) received tremendous value from spouses, children, or friendships because those relationships improve the quality of a career by leaps and bounds."

We are in agreement that relationships improve the quality of one's life. However, I don't see relationships as primarily being about benefiting one's career.

"What I meant by "filling a hole" is having other people fill up whatever self-esteem you are lacking, or to fill up whatever seems empty in your life, without considering fixing your own issues/problems first."

Again, we're in basic agreement here. However, I think that there may be instances in which healthy relationships "heal" emotional wounds, and there may be some such wounds that simply can't be fixed on one's own.

[Avila]

" The Objectivists here have patiently (and impressively)

made the case for rational morality."

I've seen very little "case-making" going on in this thread. About the only person who has been able to have a rational discussion with me, where we are both honestly trying to understand the other's position (even if we ultimately disagree), is Eiuol. You might be impressing yourself, but I suspect that's easy to do.

"To give it one more chance for an honest discussion, I repeat my question:

Does your worship of God take precedence over your family?"

If you asked the question before, I didn't see it. I saw some post that mentioned a bishop, but dismissed it as irrelevant to the topic at hand. And your question here is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Avila

[Avila]

"Actually, the moral principles are determined without regard to what one feels since just wanting or not wanting something to be a certain way does not make it so."

We agree.

"As for saying this is just her opinion, this is not a subject where it is open to opinion anymore than how many apples there are left if one starts with four and then eats one. Ethics certainly has room for various ways it plays out differently for different people, but because there are certain things about human nature that apply to all people, some things will be morally off limits for everybody still."

And that's really where the difficulty is -- you are assuming that this particular ethical position (putting career above family, as Rand states in the Playboy interview) is based upon some universal aspect of human nature. I disagree with that premise.

"Consequently, while the particular career and family people have is open to huge variation, that career needs to be primary over family isn't open to individual variation."

I see no rational basis for that conclusion.

"I have been mostly absent for a few months, so I apologize if you have been asked this lots before, but exactly what are your sources thus far on the content of Objectivism?"

To save me typing time, just go to my profile.

"I'm pretty sure Avila means "first" as in "above career" in this case."

Yes -- thank you!

[JASKN]

"I'm pretty sure Avila means "first" as in "above career" in this case."

Yes -- thank you!

Essentialized, they mean the same thing.

[JASKN]

"Actually, the moral principles are determined without regard to what one feels since just wanting or not wanting something to be a certain way does not make it so."

We agree.

"As for saying this is just her opinion, this is not a subject where it is open to opinion anymore than how many apples there are left if one starts with four and then eats one. Ethics certainly has room for various ways it plays out differently for different people, but because there are certain things about human nature that apply to all people, some things will be morally off limits for everybody still."

And that's really where the difficulty is -- you are assuming that this particular ethical position (putting career above family, as Rand states in the Playboy interview) is based upon some universal aspect of human nature. I disagree with that premise.

Maybe you could provide some superior, counter-principle then?

[bluecherry]

In your latest reply to Eiuol, Avila, you quoted a line from Eiuol about artists getting career benefits from relationships with others. I don't think this was meant to say that this is the only way they can benefit a person, just that this is one way they can.

"And that's really where the difficulty is -- you are assuming that this particular ethical position (putting career above family, as Rand states in the Playboy interview) is based upon some universal aspect of human nature. I disagree with that premise."

This is why I was interested in what information you have received yet about Objectivism. You say that this is based on an assumption, but there is actually a good deal that has been written about in non-fiction on how this conclusion was come to. It was not simply pulled out of thin air. Of what it says you read on your profile, VOS is the one which addresses ethics specifically. I have only read a little of that specific book myself and know that it has small sections each aimed at addressing a different ethical issue, so I am not sure if that book contains anything about what it is about people - all people - that necessitates having career pursuit placed on top. It is a kind of lengthy subject, so if I am going to try to get into this, I think I'll need to take a little more time to determine where is best to start and continue posting a bit later.

[Eiuol]

We are in agreement that relationships improve the quality of one's life. However, I don't see relationships as primarily being about benefiting one's career.

It would be more precise of me to say that if a person will be beneficial to your life as a whole, it will have some impact upon your career. I was trying to convey an incidental benefit to career, even if perhaps the main value of that relationship is regarding some kind of emotional support. Given that I do say career is an extremely fundamental aspect of leading a good life, any value would properly be improving or helping along the pursuit of that fundamental value. Relationships should primarily benefit yourself, your life. If you hold a value in that way, you can't help but have it impact your career. I don't think Rand sought out her husband *so* that he'd help her writing, but he sure did have a notable impact on her writing simply because of the degree he improved her life. Career, though, is a goal in life, where you as an individual are trying to go, expressed as productivity. Without that as a personal guide to where you are going in life, you'd end up wandering aimlessly. If family is placed as more fundamental than career, you are literally making other people your guide - which is second-handed, and in that sense, immoral.

I probably should explain more about productivity and career. These are things all people require, based upon the identity of being a person in the broad sense. People have five fingers on a hand, two legs, two arms, etc, but those are not characteristics which are essential to being a person. I'm not going to get into the induction about it, but "possessing the faculty reason" is the essential characteristic (without that, you literally are not a person, so different principles would apply). In addition to that, using reason is required to maintain your existence over the long-term. An active process of interacting with the world is part of that, which is what is meant by productivity. I imagine up to here you are an agreement. But as I was explaining before, career is required to have a long-term pursuit and goal in life. This applies to all people, no matter who you are, because it is part of using reason to maintain your life. That's why it isn't open to individual variation. It is possible in some ways for family to be career as was explained, but family on its own will not and cannot provide your long-term goals for you. That isn't to say that family can never provide some amount of goal-pursuit, just that a career is something that enables you to think about your life in a long-term context.

I expect you to say "some people have their family as what guides their long-term goals", but then that immediately goes into discussing selflessness versus selfishness, and if all choices a person makes are self-interested, which isn't what I want to get into right now.

Again, we're in basic agreement here. However, I think that there may be instances in which healthy relationships "heal" emotional wounds, and there may be some such wounds that simply can't be fixed on one's own.

Can you give an example of a wound that can't be fixed on one's own? I'm not quite sure what you might be referring to.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Eiuol

[whYNOT]

" The Objectivists here have patiently (and impressively)

made the case for rational morality."

I've seen very little "case-making" going on in this thread. About the only person who has been able to have a rational discussion with me, where we are both honestly trying to understand the other's position (even if we ultimately disagree), is Eiuol. You might be impressing yourself, but I suspect that's easy to do.

"To give it one more chance for an honest discussion, I repeat my question:

Does your worship of God take precedence over your family?"

If you asked the question before, I didn't see it. I saw some post that mentioned a bishop, but dismissed it as irrelevant to the topic at hand. And your question here is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Then I must be more specific for you to see the relevance:

A bishop answers it's immoral to put anything above faith in God.

An Objectivist answers it is immoral to put anything above oneself.

We are discussing egoism and hierarchy of values, and all posters have tried explaining the 'why's',

openly and honestly. Now it's your turn, in good faith, to reciprocate.

Nothing to be coy about, but if your highest value, that transcends all, is God, why hide it?.

Does your worship of God take precedence over family?

Whatever your reply, now you could perhaps comprehend Rand's reply of "immoral", to subjugating HER

highest value. That is the relevance.

(I'll add that if I ever went onto a Christian site (for some reason) I'd show a lot less contempt for other people's

convictions than you show here for atheists and O'ists.)

[Avila]

"It would be more precise of me to say that if a person will be beneficial to your life as a whole, it will have some impact upon your career. I was trying to convey an incidental benefit to career, even if perhaps the main value of that relationship is regarding some kind of emotional support. Given that I do say career is an extremely fundamental aspect of leading a good life, any value would properly be improving or helping along the pursuit of that fundamental value. Relationships should primarily benefit yourself, your life. If you hold a value in that way, you can't help but have it impact your career."

I agree entirely. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

"Career, though, is a goal in life, where you as an individual are trying to go, expressed as productivity. Without that as a personal guide to where you are going in life, you'd end up wandering aimlessly."

Yup, we agree here too. One of the aspects of Objectivism that I have always admired is its insistence on the importance of productivity.

"If family is placed as more fundamental than career, you are literally making other people your guide - which is second-handed, and in that sense, immoral."

I don't think "guide" is quite the right way to put it.... I think it is in keeping with rational selfishness to put one's family above one's career. Again, I give myself as an example: I love my creative work. It's certainly part of who I am, and I'm fortunate in that I can do what I love to do for a career. However, if push comes to shove, my family comes first. If one of my kids developed some kind of health problem, say, that required me to change careers in order to make more money or have a certain kind of insurance, I'd do it in a heartbeat, no matter how boring or unfulfilling it would be. I would die for my family -- I won't die for my career as a painter. To be honest, I don't know of any of my friends with families (the vast majority of my friends, given my age group) who wouldn't do the same. We may be hard-wired that way -- certainly, in nature, adult animals will put themselves at risk to protect their offspring.

"I probably should explain more about productivity and career. These are things all people require, based upon the identity of being a person in the broad sense."

I would say that a sense of purpose is something that all people require, based on the identity of being a person.

"I'm not going to get into the induction about it, but "possessing the faculty reason" is the essential characteristic (without that, you literally are not a person, so different principles would apply)."

Does this mean that the mentally retarded are "less human"? I suspect that that is a subject for another thread....never mind, now that I think about it I believe that I did read such a thread. As I recall, one person stated that they weren't, but that they should be accorded the same sort of regard as animals, so it would be mean to poke them with a stick, for example. Another poster said that this interpretation was wrong, and his explanation was sound.

"But as I was explaining before, career is required to have a long-term pursuit and goal in life."

A career can simply be a means to enable the pursuit of long-term goals. I want (who doesn't?) to live a long, healthy, and happy life. I derive much joy from my family. I also derive much satisfaction from my work (I am fortunate in that I can do what I want and what I am good at), but it is also the means by which I maintain my superior source of joy, my family.

"That's why it isn't open to individual variation."

Sorry, Eioul -- I just don't agree. I don't see this "truth" reflected in the lives of people around me. We'll just have to disagree here, but I appreciate your patience in explaining your position.

"It is possible in some ways for family to be career as was explained, but family on its own will not and cannot provide your long-term goals for you."

We agree that family can, in some ways, be a "career" -- I know of several stay-at-home moms with large families, and that is certainly their creative work. However, family does, in fact, provide long-term goals! Just one example of just the financial aspect -- if one of my daughters wishes to become an Olympic - level equestrian competitor, she will need to start long, long before she is capable of earning enough money to pay her own way. I will have to structure my short-term and long-term financial goals starting NOW in order to give her the ability to meet her long-term goals. It's what parents do. And, long-term, I would like to spend my retirement years enjoying time with my friends and family. That's a family-based, long-term goal, and though it is furthered by financial planning (career), it is furthered more by human interaction (love and friendship).

"Can you give an example of a wound that can't be fixed on one's own? I'm not quite sure what you might be referring to."

Two examples come to mind. One, the painter Carl Larsson (I mentioned him earlier). He had a horrendous childhood -- his father was a brutal drunk, beating his mother, who finally left them destitute. He grew up in the slums. He ended up in a school for the poor, where his talent was recognized -- but he was shy, nervous, and was crippled socially. He struggled with his work as an illustrator, but it was meeting and marrying his wife that marked the major turning point in his life: they had 8 children, and the emotional wounds and their effects -- the shyness, the sense of being inferior -- was healed by his relationship with his wife and children.

The other example that came to mind was an article I read recently about an orphanage in Russia. Because of a shortage of staff, the children were fed and kept clean, but the workers did not have much time to spend with them. They encountered serious problems as the children grew older -- they could not engage in the outside world, and exhibited hostile, unsocial behaviors. They enlisted the help of local grandmothers who would go in and pick up, caress, and talk to the children -- in short, to love them. Without that external help, the emotional deprivation they suffered could not be healed.

Edited January 1, 2012 by Avila

[Avila]

"I'll add that if I ever went onto a Christian site (for some reason) I'd show a lot less contempt for other people's

convictions than you show here for atheists and O'ists.)"

I was an atheist for almost 30 years. I don't have any inherent contempt for them.