Do I just need a little "push"?

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

I’m here just as much to think out loud as I am to hear from you all, so bear with me.

I'm starting to get this sense that there is something fundamental to Objectivism that is, despite all the intellectual work I've done, frustratingly out of reach for me. It's somewhere in the vicinity of the Benevolent Universe Premise, I think. For starters, I would not say that I am or have ever been much of an optimist. I have my moments, but it doesn't take much to discourage me. Now, the thing I'm hoping to zero in on is somewhere in the overlap between the concept of the BUP and the concept of free will. It shouldn't surprise anyone that in addition to being a pessimist, I have a ton of sympathy with determinism.

This thing I'm referring to could be called "push" or "umph" or "gusto". It's like the basic unit of something like "grit" or "sticktoitiveness". I'm interested primarily in two aspects of this "push":

1) its nature/its relationship to reason

2) its implications

Its existence is not really that controversial in my opinion. Common vernacular is littered with it. It's the currency of purposive action. For example, "get over yourself" or "hump day" or "Just Do It". One aspect of Objectivism that really attracted me in the beginning was the fact that Ayn Rand treated this concept or set of concepts as philosophical and worth discussing at length, as against the very traditional (think conservative, middle-aged, hard-knocks) custom of saying things like "tough luck, kid".

This traditional approach can be hard to understand for children. I know this because I used to resent it and because I see the effects of it all over the place. While it's meant to convey the primacy of existence and the power of free will, it comes off as authoritarian and duty-laden. For me, it clashed with my need for answers to life's questions. For example, I still struggle (as a 28-year-old) with my mom's "because I said so" approach to parenting. I've never gone to her for advice on important decisions. As far as I could tell, she didn't know jack. This coupled with being raised Catholic and a Boy Scout was a recipe for a rebel-without-a-cause. Anyways, I learned to believe that motivation ought to be inspiring as well as convincing (the 'convincing' part took a backseat during high school and college, when I was a Jesus Freak). Unfortunately, "sorry, that's just the way it is" continued to be true in a lot of cases, whether or not I was inspired to accept it. Spoiler alert: I wasn't.

A pivot towards Ancient Greece: Socrates said, "No one knowingly does evil." Ayn Rand appears to disagree, per her doctrine of free will and of evil, and Leonard Piekoff has explicitly opposed Socrates by name on this point. What is less unequivocal to me is this quote from Rand which seems to align her with Socrates: "I'm not brave enough to be a coward; I see the consequences too clearly." So what is the relationship between free will and reason? LP has said, if memory serves, that Rand considered volition to be a 'corollary' (that is almost certainly not the word he used, but it's the closest I can get) of man's reason. On the other hand, Objectivism is explicit about the volitional focusing of the mind being a prerequisite for the use of reason. On this second assertion, it would appear that simply knowing what morality consists of and what values are achieved by living morally does not guarantee that someone will act morally. I could read every word Ayn Rand has ever written and even want to be like one of her heroes yet still lead an irrational life. It's actually been asked - during a LP question period, I believe - whether Howard Roark or John Galt could choose to do evil. The answer was something along the lines of "They just wouldn't," which was not exactly a satisfying answer. It's a good question, I think. In what world would Howard Roark ever do wrong knowingly? What exactly does it mean to "be able" to do something?

In addition, LP says in his course on thinking that bad contexts must be "banished" from consciousness in order to allow good contexts to take root. And I have seen posts on this website stating that one might become more rational simply by changing his habits (I have also seen posts stating that laziness and stupidity are one and the same, but that seems a little reductive). This all seems to suggest that there is an "umph" factor - something cognitive but non-intellectual, something metaphysical or even physical, something to close the gap between mind and matter - that is necessary for being a successful Objectivist/human being. Of course, emotion plays a role. The closer one's subconscious is to being objective, the easier it will be, not just to think rationally, but to act rationally as well. However, the belief - one which I have often held - that the rational man is in a state of perpetual zen and of being "one" with the universe does not seem to be supported by Objectivism, if her heroes are any indication.

A little about my own situation: I have always struggled with my emotions and have turned out somehow juggling a mixed bag of unconscious repression, impulsive honesty, horrible sensitivity, and suicidal thoughts. I oscillate between refusing to fight my emotions and refusing to feel my emotions. There's something about acting contrary to my emotions that feels false or dishonest, yet there is something terrifying and nauseating about giving in to them. Unfortunately, these habits have manifested as indulging my depression and pushing away any feelings of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm causes me to feel out of control of myself and leads inevitably to shame or embarrassment. Meanwhile, pessimism feels like a good hedge against disappointment.

Of course, Objectivism discourages both repression and emotionalism, but I struggle to see a third way. I've noticed that this issue is actually referenced a lot in Atlas Shrugged. Rand loves to depict her heroes at the precipice of exhaustion, where their emotions become stronger than their wills. I haven't quite figured out how to frame these scenes in terms of her philosophy. Personally, I can barely imagine what it would be like to push a negative thought to the back of my mind (sometimes for a span of years, I think in Dagny's case) in order to get my work done. I've done it before, but it was excruciating and I hardly do it anymore. These days, I find myself in an awful rut as a result. I'm trying to become a real adult, but there are a few regrets/disappointments that zip to the front of my mind as soon as I sit down to try and make some progress. And the thought of pushing past them makes my stomach turn. In fact, I think some of them have morphed into ugly sources of motivation. For example, I obsess over my ex-girlfriend, who I admired immensely and who is doing very well in her career, however, thinking about her is like a knife in the heart. Still, I find myself thinking about her most often when considering my own goals in life. She does represent (albeit symbolically) a number of my most important goals/values, but her memory is doing just as much lifting me up as it is beating me down.

All in all, I've turned out seriously unmotivated. In some areas, this isn't the case. I've dedicated a hell of a lot of time to various projects over the past few years, all of which I'm very proud of, but none of them have ultimately lead to any substantial progress in the more material or demonstrable aspects of my life. I'm currently unemployed and living with my parents. My point is that it feels to me like all of philosophy is worthless without the "push" I've referred to. I've learned so much, but I worry that my subconscious is still a mess. Then again, the theme of 'laziness' seems to permeate my struggles (giving up too easily on goals, taking a breakup lying down, ADHD, smoking pot, avoiding eye contact). I know something big has to give if I'm to have any hope for the future. Right now, I worry that my life will turn out feeling like one chore after the next, or all work and no play. I worry that if tragedy strikes - perhaps financial or physical or mental - instead of finding a new lease on life, I'll just shrivel up. I've reached my wits end, but I wonder if maybe there's something I haven't tried - such as, well, trying.

[EC]

Purpose is what you are looking for. I know my purpose which is theoretical physics. It causes the drive to survive and be happy. And also to completely ignore all the idiots of the world pushing evil nonsense and the false at me nonstop.

Edited August 17, 2023 by EC

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

3 minutes ago, EC said:

It causes the drive to survive

I can see how it would satisfy the drive to survive, but cause? How so?

[Doug Morris]

4 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

whether Howard Roark or John Galt could choose to do evil. The answer was something along the lines of "They just wouldn't," which was not exactly a satisfying answer.

I am physically able to deliberately and voluntarily stick my hand into the flame of an active gas burner.  But I just wouldn't.

 

[Easy Truth]

3 hours ago, EC said:

It causes the drive to survive and be happy

It does???

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I am physically able to deliberately and voluntarily stick my hand into the flame of an active gas burner.  But I just wouldn't.

 

Okay, that's a good point.

So then, if immorality and ignorance are not synonymous, what essentially is immorality? Cowardice? Dishonesty? Bitterness? Why do we neglect to focus? Is it possible that evasion is just not possible until rationality is recognized as being virtuous (to whatever degree)? On those grounds, evasion would not be simply the result of ignorance but would have a volitional element as well. So like Equality's "curse" in Anthem, it's something unchosen. OR does choice precede even this, and rationality must be discovered as a result of blind willpower and then afterwards still volitionally adhered to?

[Easy Truth]

7 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

Meanwhile, pessimism feels like a good hedge against disappointment.

I read what you wrote and enjoyed it.

The umph, is you. What you are going through does not get addressed through ruminating (purely mentally) about your situation.
It's like an ice wall in your path that you need to melt.
The other side of the wall is what is beautiful, wonderful, pleasurable, and fantastic.
But the wall will not let you reach out and touch the magnificent, or be moved by it.
The umph is being moved by the beauty. But it requires that you allow it to move you. That is a great risk.

But the wonderful "what" can be taken away, and destroyed and you are left with the deep pain of loss, disappointment, humiliation, etc. Here one has to express emotions to melt the wall. The repressed painful emotions are the wall. Consistent writing helps, but art is the great melting tool for that ice wall in your way. Striving for what is beautiful is what creates the umph. But as you say, knowing it is not enough.

What you are doing, writing about the problem is effective if you keep at it. Discussing it is usually helpful as long as you are not told to shut up.
But knowing, feeling the dream beyond the wall is what melts the wall. The ice is protecting you against the evils of enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is sometimes, good and sometimes not good. There are instances of enthusiasm that you regret. So you can't simply count on enthusiasm. It's the passion for " the what" that counts.

But the inspiration, the initiation is you. You are the spark, the start, the initiator. The cause. You are cause.

Being reminded that I am "cause" immediately is the necessary jolt.

[necrovore]

9 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

I oscillate between refusing to fight my emotions and refusing to feel my emotions. There's something about acting contrary to my emotions that feels false or dishonest, yet there is something terrifying and nauseating about giving in to them.

False alternative. The first thing you have to do is identify the reasons behind your emotions and check them against reality by means of reason.

The reason for an emotion is a generalization over your past experiences and your value-judgment of them, applied to your present situation. This subconscious generalization may be correct or incorrect. (It can sometimes even be surprising because the generalization may draw from experiences you have not thought about recently.)

If you figure out that the reason for an emotion is false -- and I mean really figure it out, not just try to talk yourself into it -- then the emotion will go away. If it does not, then there may be other reasons for it that need to be investigated.

If the reason for an emotion is true, then you have to deal with reality: change your situation, move to a different situation, or pick an activity where the situation doesn't matter as much.

You can train your emotions over time by getting more experiences and judging them accurately. (Reason is the only way to know if you are judging your experiences accurately.)

(Sometimes too you may have to recognize times when your emotion is incorrect because your experience, though real, was atypical, and is not really indicative of what's likely to happen next time.)

9 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

My point is that it feels to me like all of philosophy is worthless without the "push" I've referred to.

Trying to pressure yourself is pointless because it doesn't create any of the conditions necessary for success. But sitting around relaxed and doing nothing doesn't create them either.

The conditions seem to be, first, an opportunity, and second, the skills needed to exploit it. So build up a lot of skills and then look for opportunities. Put yourself in places where opportunities are likely to be found.

Both of these are hard problems. Philosophy is probably too general to solve them by itself; you need the "special sciences."

Edited August 18, 2023 by necrovore

[KyaryPamyu]

Every Objectivist interested in the BUP should read and study Ecclesiastes. After listing all the reasons why the world is a horrible place, the author tells the reader:

"Go, eat thy bread with pleasure,
     and drink thy wine with cheer;
And white be (all) thy garments,
     and oil for the head unfailing.
Be happy with a woman' thou lovest,
     through all the days of thy vanity;
For this is thy portion in life,
     in thy toiling under the sun.
Whatever thy hand may find
    to do with thy strength-do it!
For work there is none, nor planning,
    nor knowledge, nor wisdom in Sheol."

(translated by Paul Haupt)

[Boydstun]

HRSD,

Sympathy with your situation. 

I have not been in your situation. Firsthand, I know only bits of it.

When I was almost 45, during a long interval in which I was single, I flipped, over a dear friend of mine. That was a bit surprising to me for that age, but there it was: flipped, fever, emotionally consumed by her. We had been great friends, especially in mutual sharing of our creative labors, which were outside of commercial employment and which were the core passions and self-purposes of our lives. I declared, and she rejected squarely, in some grief of the need for that. Three days later I got a boost in recovering from that giant ensuing pain in an odd way I did not understand: There was a physical emergency of an enormous downpour of rain through which I was driving on the highway, rush hour, slowly advancing home, necessarily under stress and non-stop effort for hours. I think on that occasion I succeed in fording the water that accumulated in the underpass of Lakeshore Drive, rather than stalling out in the pool; but in either case, I noticed that weirdly I was a step better. Your romance situation was different than this overture one, but I want you to know I have some sense of your pain over that, and I sympathize.

Keep stepping, soldier.

We are able to step following our thinking while still under serious loads of loss, even death of most precious loved one (I say from personal experience). In your present situation, I think it is most urgent to find a job. This is a good time for it. Be ruthless as to what job you will take on. Most anything. Willing to relocate. After earning a degree in physics, I became unemployed, then eventually worked for seven years as an unskilled laborer. It was right and kept me right. Outside work, the mind can still learn in its real interests and create there. I found that with further investigation on how I could make better money, and with some additional education to that end, I reached better employment and a routine in which it was feasible to spend more time in life pursuing the non-commercial passionate projects. 

Somewhere in Dagny's story, she's in a situation of "act first, feel later." I've found that goes in real life. Act and motivation seem to be a hand-over-hand sort of thing.    

[Doug Morris]

19 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

So then, if immorality and ignorance are not synonymous, what essentially is immorality? Cowardice? Dishonesty? Bitterness? Why do we neglect to focus?

Immorality is irrationality, the failure to use one's mind.  Using one's mind includes acting on one's conclusions.  A neglect to focus can be motivated by cowardice, dishonesty, bitterness, laziness, whim-indulgence ...

I didn't put a period because I was not trying to make an exhaustive list.

 

[Boydstun]

On 8/17/2023 at 1:08 PM, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

. . . Objectivism is explicit about the volitional focusing of the mind being a prerequisite for the use of reason. On this second assertion, it would appear that simply knowing what morality consists of and what values are achieved by living morally does not guarantee that someone will act morally. I could read every word Ayn Rand has ever written and even want to be like one of her heroes yet still lead an irrational life. It's actually been asked - during a LP question period, I believe - whether Howard Roark or John Galt could choose to do evil. The answer was something along the lines of "They just wouldn't," which was not exactly a satisfying answer. It's a good question, I think. In what world would Howard Roark ever do wrong knowingly? . . .

HRSD,

I responded above to your request for inputs on your personal situation. This post's curly-que I quote from your rumination in the root post is an interesting theoretical question, and I'd like to respond to it rather in separation from your personal situation. There are different senses of being able to do things, as noticed by Aristotle. I am able apparently to learn any mathematics I set my mind to. In that sense, we could say I am able to learn all of mathematics discovered to this point. But in a sense embedded in real life, I'd run out of lifetime (and I'd be forfeiting other treasures even higher for me), so I'm not able to learn all of the mathematics that has been discovered. Again, there are philosophy books in French and in German on one of my shelves. I know how to read those languages, having had courses in them, but the ability is not readily available and requires getting out my dictionaries and grammar books and taking a lot of refresher time and look-up time to attain the reading. In a way, I have the ability to read those books, and in a different way, I do not.

One thing that Rand shared with William James was the idea that one's direct and important control of life is one's choosing to think. Another thing they had in common was the idea that having learned a skill, we come to automatize it with repeated execution. It becomes second nature, borrowing again from Aristotle. (This James is Principles of Psychology [1890].)

Against the view of Socrates, strictly speaking, Rand thought people can directly choose evil, but mostly that Socrates would be right in claiming that if one fully knows the evil, one would not choose it, indeed one virtually could not choose it. My "mostly" means most people. Each has formed a repertoire of second-nature character; it is automatized for most people to tell the truth in usual circumstance, for example, or not even think about damaging other persons or their property. That surely goes to for Rand's constructed fictional paragons of good persons. Some people can form second natures of evasion, subjectivity, shunting of critical rationality, and self-bolstering rationalizations. For such a person, choosing what is objectively evil is a readily available ability, even though they have an inkling it is actually wrong.

Developmentally, Rand thought of the seeds of later moral concepts of right and wrong as planted in early experience of pleasures and pains (OE, and from there, in OE, she continues with more developed mind with complex emotions and thought), and she thought one forms normative assessments of things alongside acquiring concepts of things, starting in childhood (probably in "Art and Cognition"—I should not take time to look it up just now). (Though she did not write about it, she long supposed that every thought has motive, which had occurred to me also maybe sixty years ago (LP mentions that notion of hers in the book Understanding Objectivism. I asked him when he first heard that from her, and he estimated maybe 1955. I forget just now, and should not take time just now to look up, why the date was of some particular import to me.])

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

20 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Being reminded that I am "cause" immediately is the necessary jolt.

This is well put. And I see your point regarding the wall. I think a general disdain for values (my own, in particular) has been with me since high school, if not earlier. Now I find myself either totally apathetic or just flooded with desire for this or that thing which ultimately feels out of reach. And "allowing" myself to feel is a tough concept for me. It sounds like either relaxing my body (which does only so much), letting myself spiral or letting my mind wander.

19 hours ago, necrovore said:

I mean really figure it out

This is the hard part right here. My mind has always felt like a house a mirrors. Any conclusion about the sources of my feelings has seemed to me like speculation. I can usually identify the causes of an emotion but not the reason for its intensity or endurance.

9 hours ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Every Objectivist interested in the BUP should read and study Ecclesiastes.

I'll check out the full chapter. At a very low point in my recent life, I read this book looking for guidance, but it does nothing in the first half except pummel one's sense of hope. The line, "all is vanity" really struck me though. Life can feel like peeling back the layers of an onion just to get the middle and find still just a bit of onion.

8 hours ago, Boydstun said:

It was right and kept me right.

How do you mean?

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

A neglect to focus can be motivated by cowardice, dishonesty, bitterness, laziness, whim-indulgence ...

Okay, these sound like what Rand identified as the secondary vices (or the opposites of the secondary virtues, the primary being rationality). Still, that seems to put reason again at the front. Although, perhaps rationality is a composite of knowledge and focus. This issue really ultimately rests on the idea of free will, which still baffles me somewhat.

55 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Against the view of Socrates, strictly speaking, Rand thought people can directly choose evil, but mostly that Socrates would be right in claiming that if one fully knows the evil, one would not choose it, indeed one virtually could not choose it.

This seems, as above, to rest on Rand's view of causality, which I struggle with. On the determinist model, which is often my default, "able" is an epistemic term, so the only metaphysical statements about action are in fact "will" or "won't". Knowledge and values are just so many billiard balls. Still, AR's distinction between the mind and the brain provides room for a kind of causation - I hesitate to say this - that isn't strictly physical. After a lifetime of musings on centuries of science, I've actually been pleasantly humbled by The Hard Problem of Consciousness. If I understand it correctly, it is the problem of identifying how in the hell qualia arise from matter. I think of it in terms of giving a rigorous definition to the word experience or why some physical states create sensations and others don't. From the determinists POV, it's truly a baffling question, verging on mystical. Still, the existence of qualia is potentially harder to deny than free will and also harder to define.

[EC]

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Immorality is irrationality, the failure to use one's mind.  Using one's mind includes acting on one's conclusions.  A neglect to focus can be motivated by cowardice, dishonesty, bitterness, laziness, whim-indulgence ...

I didn't put a period because I was not trying to make an exhaustive list.

 

Very well put. Exactly what is wrong with the vast majority of the people in the world. The worst part is that they try and flip it all around on the good moral people because most constantly lie to themselves and others nearly constantly for the sake of evasion. Most people can't even recognize the good. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by EC

[whYNOT]

13 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

 I think a general disdain for values (my own, in particular) has been with me since high school, if not earlier. Now I find myself either totally apathetic or just flooded with desire for this or that thing which ultimately feels out of reach.

You've rung many bells for me, Detective, that's one of them. The cause of earlier "general disdain for values.." and the apathy, cynicism and ennui which follows, I am not sure of.  Did much come too easily, while simultaneously earning/finding my future values seem too daunting? What I know surely is that I had to un-learn most things and start again, this time with fresh "meaning", importance, purpose. Due largely to Rand's philosophy.  Apart from all else, I found "reality" and the task to comprehend and evaluate it is - exciting, challenging. The replies here have been top drawer, the recognition I think of your unflinching self-honesty (a value to be proud of)

Edited August 19, 2023 by whYNOT

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Did much come too easily, while simultaneously earning/finding my future values seem too daunting?

I'm beginning to think this is exactly it. I don't think my parents spoiled me, but they did make it easy to do the bare minimum as long as I behaved myself. To compound things, I never studied in school - never had to. Achievement was nowhere on my radar.

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

What I know surely is that I had to un-learn most things and start again, this time with fresh "meaning", importance, purpose. Due largely to Rand's philosophy.

My emotional connection to Objectivism is its idealism. Rand tells me to expect many of the things which I had once given up on.

13 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The replies here have been top drawer, the recognition I think of your unflinching self-honesty (a value to be proud of)

With the right people, honesty begets honesty. I'm just greedy for answers.

[Easy Truth]

On 8/18/2023 at 3:41 PM, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

Now I find myself either totally apathetic or just flooded with desire for this or that thing which ultimately feels out of reach. And "allowing" myself to feel is a tough concept for me. It sounds like either relaxing my body (which does only so much), letting myself spiral or letting my mind wander.

The emotions are multilayered and complex. Mainstream, Objectivism has not attacked the problem from a psychological angle but rather from a logical one, and that has limited effectiveness. The problem is that one can't rely on "relaxation" or "mind not wandering" to relieve the emotional puzzle. You have to be tense about some things and confused about some to allow new ideas in. Something, some feelings, some thoughts have to be jarred loose. I used to be in the space you described. The ultimate understanding was that I could be happy, whatever "happy" meant to me. But there is a payoff, a motive for being stuck or ruminating. There is value to that. The issue is do you know what's so good about it? Because if there was nothing good about it, you would not be doing it.

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

On 8/29/2023 at 12:05 PM, Easy Truth said:

The ultimate understanding was that I could be happy, whatever "happy" meant to me.

That's something that I often long for - something to get me through the errors/mistakes. Depression/pessimism is like an autoimmune disorder; it attacks specifically your best chances at defense. The best I seem to be able to do right now is to to refrain from catastrophizing.

On 8/29/2023 at 12:05 PM, Easy Truth said:

The issue is do you know what's so good about it? Because if there was nothing good about it, you would not be doing it.

Are you referring to being stuck/ruminating? I've reminded myself a few times (or defended myself to others in my imagination) that Objectivism is, for me, in large part a response to depression/hopelessness. I've had plenty of reservations about the philosophy and whether I ought to be spending as much time on it as I am, but it's much harder to second-guess myself when I consider that treating my depression ought to be my first priority if I want to stay above ground. And in that regard Objectivism is uniquely qualified, especially as against Existentialism, which approach is, as compared to Objectivism or eudaemonism generally, basically a guide for learning how to love pessimism.

[Easy Truth]

2 hours ago, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

that treating my depression ought to be my first priority

Of course. It can take time. Or maybe you are at the final stages of your struggle.  It's like one is digging a tunnel out of a mountain, you don't know when you will hit the air. The next strike of the ax or thousands more. But you have to dig as you are doing.

The wonderful thing about Objectivism is that it reflects a world that makes sense. It's not fraudulent. It's about honest discourse about reality. Ultimately that is what is needed for healing psychologically. Keep in mind, that is the philosophy itself. Not the practitioners. In my experience, there are rational and irrational Objectivists. The philosophy is like the American Constitution. It gives direction but some will practice it allowing contradictions in their "practice".

Then the question is "How are you dealing with it?". Some of it is about being inspired by art. And then there is expression. How are you expressing your emotions? What you say here seems coherent on this forum. You are visible to me and the struggle is a familiar one. But what about artistic expression? Debilitating emotions have to be expressed to move out, they clutter up one's psyche. And there is a tremendous risk as many will not appreciate or understand one's artistic expression. But it's honest, some will respect it, and it's a breakthrough.

 

[whYNOT]

On 9/2/2023 at 6:28 AM, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

That's something that I often long for - something to get me through the errors/mistakes. Depression/pessimism is like an autoimmune disorder; it attacks specifically your best chances at defense. The best I seem to be able to do right now is to to refrain from catastrophizing.

 

There are several things that come to mind, a mundane one is, you will have found, that apathy drains one's energy. Thereby, dedicated physical activity - "application and implementation" - which follows and must follow effortful thought will be lesser or halted, (so disturbing one's mind-body equilibrium ); one's essential "self-efficaciousness" will be blunted too. A way past that is to DO something physical, preferably routine, repetitive and not of major significance or even payment, at first. Even the minor activities can open new avenues and possibilities or a full time career. Errors of thinking or action- such as they might be seen - are fitting to the pursuit of discovery.

Ultimately you are the judge, "no one is watching" and judging your every move and outcome - not 'God', which I observe even from ex-religionists (nor AR, to be fatuous) - not that you suggest any of this. 

"I set out to do this simple task, it is done and well done".

For me the fictional Howard Roark exemplified this pride in his achievements. I'd caution that his works are described of such a high caliber that the attempt in any field to emulate them immediately could end in disappointing non-success. I think it is true to Rand and art, that it is Roark's virtues which the reader takes away for personal application to other purposes. In short, it's mistaken to over-literally compare Roark's doings and triumphs with one's own, although eventually they well might be comparable, but to elicit for one's own use his good objective qualities that ~determined~ his output.

Pessimism ( I know about it) seems to me the final declaration: What's the use? So much to do and so little energy and time and motivation.

The first and last lesson of objectivity: existence exists, independent of your consciousness - but is accessible to any mind - AND - once identified, that "mind" is capable of modifying (etc.) and adding value - to existence ... with actions.

 

Edited September 3, 2023 by whYNOT

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

On 9/2/2023 at 3:38 AM, Easy Truth said:

It's like one is digging a tunnel out of a mountain, you don't know when you will hit the air.

That's exactly what it feels like. The fact of Objectivism's intellectual rigor (its anti-bromide construction, if you like) has made it much easier for me to stick with it and to ultimately gain a real sense of hope. Something claiming to being pro-self, pro-pleasure, pro-mind, pro-honesty, and pro-rigor all at the same time is unheard of, but pro-reality too? Sounds almost too good to be true. But at the end of the day, philosophy must be all of these things 

I'm working through the Romantic manifesto a second time, so I've been looking lately to get that stimulus from art. I fund a book of O Henry stories that I've really, really enjoyed. I'm working through Piekoff Eight Great Plays lectures as well. Was glad he included Antigone as I responded profoundly to it when I read it. When I have more time, I'll take a look at Ninety Three. Tangentially, I recently (tried to) watch Les Mis (hated it), and I was floored by I Dreamed a Dream. I don't know if AR got the chance to see the play and hear that song, but imagine she would have been as torn as I was between the lyrics and the music of that song.

I've also been thinking about how the movement might represent itself aesthetically in the future, so I've been working on some things here and there. That's helped me to think more about how to connect the philosophy with my emotions.

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Ultimately you are the judge, "no one is watching" and judging your every move and outcome - not 'God', which I observe even from ex-religionists (nor AR, to be fatuous) - not that you suggest any of this. 

I've been thinking about how difficult it is for anyone to act as though "no one is watching." That would, I think, be the most stubborn holdover from religion in a society approaching rationality. Independent judgment is given more lip service now than at any time in history, but it's proven to be very empty talk. I'm guilty of it as well. Knowing that you've done your best is apparently difficult. 

[whYNOT]

On 9/4/2023 at 2:33 AM, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

I've been thinking about how difficult it is for anyone to act as though "no one is watching." That would, I think, be the most stubborn holdover from religion in a society approaching rationality. Independent judgment is given more lip service now than at any time in history, but it's proven to be very empty talk. I'm guilty of it as well. Knowing that you've done your best is apparently difficult. 

Not suggesting anything new to you, you know your Rand, but that "stubborn holdover from religion in a society" has been, in an increasingly secular world, a replacement of religion - for Society. Not "a God" watching you any longer, but yet a semi-mystical ''Society''. If one can make sense of many people's subjectivism, the 'metaphysical' unit is the societal hive existence, in which individual humans play a role--since even they can't dismiss the self-evident, biological autonomy of a single individual. For the rest, no recognition of the objective metaphysics of man's nature, no to the individual's autonomy in (volitional) cognition and evaluation, no to his essential, self-interested ethics to guide his acts, no to self-made character virtues to gain his values, no to one's value-derived emotions. Humankind is reduced to deterministic, meaty matter with animal instincts - society and the State are transcendental.

What remains, a collective 'blob'; all "watching" and checking all others (in the secularist 'congregation') for their sacrificial righteousness, and an immediate atonement - I'm thinking those abject apologies on social media - demanded for their sins against society.

(At least imo the religious primitive philosophies allowed some free will, because of the individual 'Soul' being judged by God, and resulting ideas of some self-responsiblity to somewhat alleviate their collectivism).

The deepest fear of most everyone is the existential ¬aloneness¬ of his/her being, from which most other philosophies are drawn, I think. One is, essentially (and happily), solitary in one's private thoughts and emotions. Because probably they may have vague notions of its importance, I agree they do "pay lip service" to independence and personal judgment/opinions, but as a sort of styled, superficial simulation of the genuine thing, to impress and appear ¬cool¬ to other eyes. 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by whYNOT

[HowardRoarkSpaceDetective]

On 9/5/2023 at 8:52 PM, whYNOT said:

Humankind is reduced to deterministic, meaty matter with animal instincts - society and the State are transcendental.

This is a shocking truth. Said outright, it's absurd, but I know I myself have held it as a premise many times. Somehow, the sum of all knowledge and experience gets aggregated and sorted by... who? The president? Congress? Mom and Dad?

On 9/5/2023 at 8:52 PM, whYNOT said:

(At least imo the religious primitive philosophies allowed some free will, because of the individual 'Soul' being judged by God, and resulting ideas of some self-responsiblity to somewhat alleviate their collectivism).

I think this is the root of all that Objectivism shares with the right. But yeah, it also contributes to their mixed altruism. I think that's probably the reason for its allure/staying power. Conservatives strike what many see as a good balance between taking responsibility for our own lives and recognizing that some things are out of our control. But even then, orthodox Marxism can be construed the same way since the focus is on collective ownership rather than equality per se.