Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Deriving Joy From Recognition From Those Whom One Respects?

Rate this topic


Elysium

Recommended Posts

Here is a question that has been bothering me for a while. This was only brought up a few times in Atlas Shrugged, but it's a possible contradiction that I'd like you guys to consider.

In short, Rand seems to place some importance on earning the recognition and acknowledgement of men whom one respects. I remember this most prominently when Rearden thinks back on what had gotten him so excited to work in the first place. However, this notion assumes that self-satisfaction can be derived from others' approval of you. Does this, therefore, mean that Rand has actually compromised to an extent her philosophy? In getting satisfaction from another's opinion or image of you as successful, does that undercut her argument?

Thanks in advance.

Edited by Elysium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Elysium,

In short, this does not undercut Rand's philosophy; rather, it reinforces it. A producer does not need the approval of another, but can still enjoy the respect of someone worthy, as an exchange of value. A looter needs approval, and wants something for nothing. In fact, it is only the producer that can understand and enjoy this recognition.

I'm sure others here can add a lot more and explain better.

Edited by xavier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, then, is the exchange of value that is taking place? Example:

Person 1: Rearden.

Person 2: Francisco.

Francisco is able to get copper on the market. Rearden looks up to him and buys it from him. In the process, he pays his silent recognition to Francisco. Francisco does not know that Rearden has purchased his copper.

In this situation, the only trade that I can see is a monetary/goods trade. In addition, Rearden is giving Francisco recognition. What does he get in return for that, or what has he already gotten to trigger him to give Francisco that recognition? The thought that Francisco has worked hard to provide copper to be purchased, and that in itself is what Francisco is offering as his "recognition" exchange?

... I may have just answered my own question. Thanks. XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd really put it like that, although trusting people enough to do business with them is a form of recognition of their virtues.

One of the funny things about admiring people is that you demonstrate your own virtue by your admiration; think about Cherryl's relationship with James Taggart. What did she have to offer him? And what was the result when it turned out he had nothing to offer in return?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, then, is the exchange of value that is taking place?

I'd say it reduces to visibility, which is an objective need. Observe that it is not a self-esteem issue. We do not need others for self-esteem.

However, this notion assumes that self-satisfaction can be derived from others' approval of you. Does this, therefore, mean that Rand has actually compromised to an extent her philosophy? In getting satisfaction from another's opinion or image of you as successful, does that undercut her argument?

What part of her philosophy is it you mean may have been compromised, and what argument is it that may have been undercut? Ayn Rand never says that we can't derive spiritual value from others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember this most prominently when Rearden thinks back on what had gotten him so excited to work in the first place.
I'm curious about this reference. Could you (or someone else who remembers more details from the book) elaborate on this.

... self-satisfaction ... from others' approval of you.
I'll put a counter-question to you, to see if that can help you "chew" this. Let's say you are presenting something you created (a poem, a business-plan, a design) to two people, one who's opinion you respect and another who never seems to think for himself. Let's assume that neither of these have any power to stop you from going ahead with whatever you're doing (i.e. their approval has no broader practical consequence). In that situation, who's approval will mean more to you? Why? Do you see how, in your choice of who's approval you prefer, you are "circling back" to your own evaluation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for replying.

I don't think I'd really put it like that, although trusting people enough to do business with them is a form of recognition of their virtues.
I don't think that it's a matter of "trust." While this is another topic, I don't think that anyone should "trust" anyone else, as that's essentially saying "hey, I won't give you the reasons for why I'm doing this/why this will work/why you should listen to me, but just know that I have them." It assumes that one can dismiss the details without letting the listener judge for himself, that the listener can take faith in the speaker's judgment.

One of the funny things about admiring people is that you demonstrate your own virtue by your admiration; think about Cherryl's relationship with James Taggart. What did she have to offer him? And what was the result when it turned out he had nothing to offer in return?

She had to offer her respect and her rational recognition that he was great. However, when she found out that she was projecting respect into a black hole, the contradiction was destroyed, and she... well, I won't spoil it.

But I'm still not seeing the trade that is taking place when one person respects another. Is it that the person who is respected first projects something worthy of respect (some achievement, let's say), then the one who does the respecting derives satisfaction from that, and in return, projects respect back to that person worthy of it? Example:

- Francisco wins the spelling bee and is super cool.

- In seeing Francisco win that spelling bee, Rearden is happy.

- In exchange for this happiness, Rearden respects Francisco because of it.

Something like that?

What part of her philosophy is it you mean may have been compromised, and what argument is it that may have been undercut? Ayn Rand never says that we can't derive spiritual value from others.
As I've come to understand it, Rand says that one does not need the approval of others to be satisfied with oneself. So does this mean, therefore, that while it's not needed, it's nice to get approval from those whom one respects? Why should their opinions of me matter at all if I know that what I am doing is correct?

I'm curious about this reference. Could you (or someone else who remembers more details from the book) elaborate on this.

I don't have the time to search through all of Atlas right now (though I'll definitely find you the page number/chapter within 2 days), but it went something like:

"Rearden thought back to when he was growing up and the feeling of excitement he got from knowing that he was earning recognition from men whom he admired."

I'll put a counter-question to you, to see if that can help you "chew" this. Let's say you are presenting something you created (a poem, a business-plan, a design) to two people, one who's opinion you respect and another who never seems to think for himself. Let's assume that neither of these have any power to stop you from going ahead with whatever you're doing (i.e. their approval has no broader practical consequence). In that situation, who's approval will mean more to you? Why? Do you see how, in your choice of who's approval you prefer, you are "circling back" to your own evaluation?

Well, clearly the one whom I respect would be the one I would want approval from, but this assumes that I would approach either for approval in the first place. As I've come to understand it, one does not go around asking others of what they think about one's plan/design/poem. Roark certainly didn't.

However, I will follow your thought experiment. I would seek the approval of the person whom I respect, assuming that that respect is applicable when evaluating what I'm presenting to him. For example, if I am presenting a love poem to a nuclear physicist whom I greatly respect, I would not value his opinion very much (let's say that all he knows is nuclear physics). If I approach two people, one who just reads whatever poems literary magazines tell him to, and another who actually writes poems and critiques them, I would seek the approval of the poem writer, but not because I will derive a sense of self-satisfaction from his approval. The satisfaction should come from his critique of my poem because he is an expert on the subject. The satisfaction is in being able to improve my poem or know that it is done correctly; his approval of my work isn't what's important.

This may just be my own interpretation of this topic, so please correct me if you'd like.

Edited by Elysium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've come to understand it, Rand says that one does not need the approval of others to be satisfied with oneself. So does this mean, therefore, that while it's not needed, it's nice to get approval from those whom one respects? Why should their opinions of me matter at all if I know that what I am doing is correct?

I'd like to have a quote on what exactly it is she says that you are refering to. The phrase being "satisfied with oneself" doesn't sound like Rand, and I'm not even sure I understand what it means. Does it mean having self-esteem? For that we don't need others approval (like I've said). Or does it mean something else? If it means "having every need fulfilled", then of course we do need others (and Ayn Rand would not deny that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That I can answer right now.

"Gail, I think the only cardinal evil on earth is that of placing your prime concern within other men. I've always demanded a certain quality in the people I Liked. I've always recognized it at once - and it's the only quality I respect in men. I chose my friends by that. Now I know what it is. A self-sufficient ego. Nothing else matters." - Roark, pp. 607, Fountainhead.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say "self-satisfaction;" independent ego. I apologize for not having specified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about this reference. Could you (or someone else who remembers more details from the book) elaborate on this.
I found that quote.
Rearden grasped the nature of the emotion he had forgotten. It was the emotion he had felt when, at the age of fourteen, he had looked at his first pay check—when, at the age of twenty-four, he had been made superintendent of the ore mines—when, as the owner of the mines, he had placed, in his own name, his first order for new equipment from the best concern of the time, Twentieth Century Motors— an emotion of solemn, joyous excitement, the sense of winning his place in a world he respected and earning the recognition of men he admired.

The word "prime" is crucial in that quote.

If I may ask, how so? So if the word "prime" is crucial, then we can assume that she is saying something like "I place the majority of my concern in myself, but a small amount of concern for other people?" The only way for that to work for Rand, as far as I can tell, is if those people who one has a small amount of concern for are of value to oneself. However, in saying that they are of value to oneself, don't we assume that that is still concern with oneself (one's own values) only? If that were the case, then should she exclude the word "prime" if she does not want to misconstrue herself to be partially selfless?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may ask, how so? So if the word "prime" is crucial, then we can assume that she is saying something like "I place the majority of my concern in myself, but a small amount of concern for other people?"
Ayn Rand chose her words very carefully. "Prime" is not like "most" or "majority", it is more like "first" or "highest". I would reword your sentence as follows: "I place concern for myself ahead of concern for other people." Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quote. With what you supplied, it was easy enough to locate the exact reference on my Objectivism Research CD. So, I updated the reference info in your post.

If I may ask, how so? So if the word "prime" is crucial, then we can assume that she is saying something like "I place the majority of my concern in myself, but a small amount of concern for other people?"
Look at the second quote, the one about Rearden. It says
...earning the recognition of menhe admired. (emphasis added)
Admiration is only meaningful (in this sense) if it comes from people you respect. That is: from people whom you judge to be competent to make that type of judgement. If you trace the judgements back they're coming back to you. So, the word prime is not used in the sense of "higher proportion", but in the sense of "primary (as in originating) source".

Of course, all that addresses is why it is not bad to like such admiration; it doesn't address why it is good.

Admiration is a way of saying "you and I share a value", like friends would. The admired and the admirer both get pleasure from the admiration, from the shared value. In this case, the immediate value is the admired person and his actions; but, more deeply, its an affirmation of a shared value. Like friendship and love, the shared value, chosen by you the individual is the primary, the friendship comes from that. In that sense it is secondary; but, this does not make it irrational.

What would be irrational is to want admiration regardless of what you do or who the admirer is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand chose her words very carefully. "Prime" is not like "most" or "majority", it is more like "first" or "highest". I would reword your sentence as follows: "I place concern for myself ahead of concern for other people."

Even that, I think isn't as precise as it could be--at least not according to my interpretation. I interpreted "prime" to be more along the lines of "fundamental" or "root." That might just be nit-picking though, 'cause there isn't that much difference.

Edited by dondigitalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Since one's own evaluations are primary, even in the joy that one experiences from recognition of those whom one respects, therefore -- for a rational person -- the recognition one gets from others is a variation of self-esteem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Rand seems to place some importance on earning the recognition and acknowledgement of men whom one respects.

Actually, you are innacurate in concluding this. Your error is in who places the importance on what. Rand places importance on recognzing the accomplishments of others, not on earning others' recognition of one's accomplishments.

None of Ayn Rand's heroes ever does anything for the sake of earning the recogition and acknowledgement of other men (even ones they respect).

That they earn the respect of other men for behaving in accordance with their ideals and their talents is a consequence of, but not the purpose of their behaviour.

Rand held this view in every aspect of her philosophy. She even holds to it when she describes and defines love. She states that you love a person because you admire their values and accomplishments. Love, she concludes, is therefore a selfish emotion, in that you obtain for yourself that which you admire and value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of Ayn Rand's heroes ever does anything for the sake of earning the recognition and acknowledgment of other men (even ones they respect). (emphasis added)
This is true, as long as this is understood to mean that other people are not primary. However, some people wrongly interpret it to mean that other people's recognition and acknowledgment is not simply secondary but of zero importance. To draw such a conclusion would be contrary to Ayn Rand's intent. (If you disagree about her intent, I can try digging out some quotes that will make her intent clearer.)

It is not just who is giving you recognition, but for what it is given. For instance, take this example: a poet writes a two-verse poem. He loves the second verse, but is unhappy with the first. Let's say he finds the first to be too bromide-like; let's say he thinks he has used a good idea in the first verse, but has expressed it in a way that is all too trite and not what he is looking for. Now, take two readers of this poem. One reads this and appreciates the second verse, for exactly the reason the poet thinks it is good. The other reads the poem and says the first verse is good, and for reasons that the poet thinks are its weaknesses. Assuming that the poet understands his work and is confident about it, which of those two evaluations brings a smile to his face? This illustrates the way in which evaluations of others -- for a rational man -- are secondary to his own evaluations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SoftwareNerd,

I agree with you that it would be counter to Rand's intent to say that others' appreciation afer the fact is of zero importance. I only emphasize that it is however of zero consequence in determining whether or not to do a thing.

I think Ayn Rand would say that whether or not you choose to undertake an activity should be not at all influenced by what other people might think of it. This quote sums up that comment:

"I decided to be a writer not in order to save the world, nor to serve my fellow man, but for the simple, personal, selfish, egotistical happiness of creating the kind of men and events I could like, respect and admire."

Similarly, in chapter one of The Fountainhead, when Keating asks Roark his opinion about taking the job with Francon or taking a scholarship, Roarke responds with something along the lines of "You've already made a mistake by asking my opinion". (sorry for my imprecision here, my copy of the book is on loan). Roarke is saying that you should not do a thing to impress others, but for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...