Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is the desire to be admired second-handed?

Rate this topic


Poornima

Recommended Posts

As I understand it love is a selfish act; you chose whom you love, and vice versa. As humans we are social beings who seek companionship in order to share values with one another, and psychologically we want to be with other humans for mutual benefit. But we only want to be with people who recognize the good in us. This makes sense because we should be revered for our virtues not our vices.

One tenet of love is admiration. You admire the one you love because of their virtues. My question is "is the desire to be admired second-handed"? Its not that we pursue goals and act virtuously in order to be valued and loved, but because we are the primary beneficiary of our values and virtues. So on the one hand it seems selfish that you should want to be revered for being good, its a reward. But on the other you are seeking this approval from others, and if you do not receive it then you are unhappy because they have treated you unjustly by not recognizing the good in you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But on the other you are seeking this approval from others, and if you do not receive it then you are unhappy because they have treated you unjustly by not recognizing the good in you.
Consider this, though: all "others" are not equal; there are some others whose opinion means more to you than others. What makes some more important than others, to a rational person? This earlier thread may have some of what you're looking for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what you want to be admired for and who you want to be admired by. I liked what Rand had to say about lonliness.

Loneliness [experience by a thinking child or adult] ... is the experience of those who have something to offer. The emotion that drives conformists to "belong," is not loneliness, but fear - the fear of intellectual independence and responsibility. The thinking child [or adult] seeks equals; the conformist seeks protectors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Comprachicos". New Left: Anti-Industrial Revolution, p213. OR Ayn Rand Lexicon under: Loneliness.

A copy of the Lexicon is always a handy thing to have for anyone who studies Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it becomes second-handed when one does something, writes a poem for example, sheerly because he wants it to be admired by someone else, rather than because it is a good, creative act that brings him joy. Keating designed (if you can even call it that) buildings merely to impress others. Roark designed them selfishly, and the admiration he received was a byproduct of that, and only came from those capable of appreciating his talent. The first and greatest reason for any action should be it being in one's rational self-interest, and receiving admiration can be a natural, happy component of that resulting inspiration--just not the impetus of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd make the following distinction: is admiration your standard of value or is it a value? Do you live to be admired or does the admiration of others make your life better? The first is second handed, and will lead to your destruction. The second is healthy, and is natural for any rational being.

Only admiration of those who's judgment you respect is of any value to you - as an affirmation of your own values. Being admired by others who are irrational and evil can be quite disturbing.

Edited by mrocktor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only admiration of those who's judgment you respect is of any value to you - as an affirmation of your own values. Being admired by others who are irrational and evil can be quite disturbing.
I think the sub-plot around Richard Halley (in Atlas Shrugged) is meant to illustrate this.

I think it's safe to say that man is a social animal; that it is in his nature to be so, and that there is no shame in it. However, more essentially, man is a rational animal. So, as long as one is rational about one's choice of social circle, the more great friends the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sub-plot around Richard Halley (in Atlas Shrugged) is meant to illustrate this.

I agree. And Peter Keating is an example of one who needs admiration and aproval to validate his life. That's the essence of the second-hander (see Wynand, too, although it wasn't admiration in his case).

Second-handedness means having goals that are achieved through other people. Roark explains that Keating didn't want to be great, he wanted to be thought great (that's why he would take Roark's work and put his name on it). To Keating it made no difference how good or bad his buildings were, so long as people thought them good. Roark also say at some point that in order to be able to do something, you must love the doing.

Read also Francisco's conversation with Rearden before the latter's trial. Rearden admits he made his metal for other giants of industry, like Ellis Wyatt, and for people who cannot equal his achievements but who would recognize the value of his, like Eddie Willers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everybody were to act optimally, as men, then all of your meritorious acts would be recognised as such, and your bad deeds would be recognised as such. The first question is, what form would such recognition take? The second question is, do all men act optimally? I think these issues connect in the following way. Some people engage in praise inflation -- effusively rewarding the lack of egregious incompetence, the reward being triggered by some semi-arbitrary sign (for example "being done on time", which excludes "doing it well" or "creating better than required"). Or, by way of contrast, some people (we know who we are...) recognise excellence by saying "That's a good analysis", "I like those results", etc.

Because good action can cause a wide range of responses by other people, and bad actions can cause a wide range of responses by other people which can partially overlap the former, it's easy to get confused. In fact, I find it hard to evaluate my own work because I can't divorce my own knowledge of it (i.e. what I'm "really" doing, what other people will necessarily know -- relevant, since my job is creating knowledge) from a cold, objective evaluation of what others know and want.

Sometimes you do good stuff, and sometimes you're having a bad day. You should want to know which it is. Of course, you should also wish it to be true that you're doing objectively good stuff. Because you know you could be in error (maybe you messed something up in the titration stage), you can't take your own warm and fuzzy self-feeling to be the proper arbitrer of your work. What you need is objective judges. It is natural to assume that others are also objective judges, so if others do not indicate to you that you are doing good work, it is hard to evade the inference that you are doing bad work. Thus, I see the desire to be admired to be a natural consequence of the proper desire to do good work, and the proper assumption that others will act rationally and will distinguish good versus bad work.

However, if you disagree, I don't care in the least ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd make the following distinction: is admiration your standard of value or is it a value? Do you live to be admired or does the admiration of others make your life better? The first is second handed, and will lead to your destruction. The second is healthy, and is natural for any rational being.

Bravo! That was just great - straight to the point!

I would also like to add to this thread my impression from AS- that admiration is a central motive in Rearden and Dagny's relationship. It is especially obvious from his side: Their sexual relationship, for him, was about getting a confession of her admiration for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question is "is the desire to be admired second-handed"?

Maybe it is better to say: recognition of that which is good. You want to have, that which is good (about you), recognized by others. That means only those capable of that recognition, will in fact be able to see those good things. Depending on what you do (or accomplish) will determine who, and how many, will be able to recognize those things. If you are at the other side of the bell curve (the side where intellects exceed the average) your accomplishments will most likely not be recognized by the average person (people - the mean average). You could rightly say a scientist that does something incredible will most certainly not be as popular as a sports athlete. It is easier to understand what a football player does than a genetic researcher. People can guzzle beer in front of the boob tube, and have what they call, a good ol' time. You can't get drunk with yahooing buddies, and read some genetic research. It requires a some proactive focus.

To go with the Objectivist examples: "Peter Keating" wanted popularity, or unqualified attention, not real admiration.

Back to your original question. Recognition proceeds potential admiration. It takes X amount of good things to be recognized before an individual will admire another. That amount will depend on that person's (the potential admirer's) own level (abilities).

So wanting admiration is not really a good desire. Wanting recognition for the good is. Admiration will only happen if the situation is correct.

Analogy - redundant to previous posts.

Who appreciates a finely engineered automobile more?

Person A who knows nothing about the vehicle except that, when they are seen in it, they get attention.

person B who knows the specs and much, or all (at least in concept), of the engineering involved.

Replace the vehicle with you.

Would the professed admiration, of person A, be as valuable as person B?

Edited by Uberzilla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it becomes second-handed when one does something, writes a poem for example, sheerly because he wants it to be admired by someone else, rather than because it is a good, creative act that brings him joy. Keating designed (if you can even call it that) buildings merely to impress others. Roark designed them selfishly, and the admiration he received was a byproduct of that, and only came from those capable of appreciating his talent. The first and greatest reason for any action should be it being in one's rational self-interest, and receiving admiration can be a natural, happy component of that resulting inspiration--just not the impetus of it.

I agree. Ultimately, the disnction is this: if acts are done to admired it is second-handing, but if one does good and wants to be admired for doing good then it isn't.

I'd make the following distinction: is admiration your standard of value or is it a value? Do you live to be admired or does the admiration of others make your life better? The first is second handed, and will lead to your destruction. The second is healthy, and is natural for any rational being.

Indeed. That is a good addition to what I said.

Only admiration of those who's judgment you respect is of any value to you - as an affirmation of your own values. Being admired by others who are irrational and evil can be quite disturbing.

Indeed. The first is rational, the second irrational. I learned this leason and a few others from Roark Christmas last year.

I think it's safe to say that man is a social animal; that it is in his nature to be so, and that there is no shame in it. However, more essentially, man is a rational animal. So, as long as one is rational about one's choice of social circle, the more great friends the better.

Indeed he is. After all Ayn Rand said, "No man is an island." Wanting the company of people that earn being valued is rational. Not wanting it is irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who appreciates a finely engineered automobile more?

Person A who knows nothing about the vehicle except that, when they are seen in it, they get attention.

person B who knows the specs and much, or all (at least in concept), of the engineering involved.

Replace the vehicle with you.

Would the professed admiration, of person A, be as valuable as person B?

I would value the admiration of person B exclusively. The admiration (if that's what it truly is, which I doubt) would be of no value to me.

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...