Obviously you value your online debating career - and the self esteem you evidently gain from the feeling of victory over others - very highly.
Try to use that same spirit in real business, and there’ll be no need for this thread.
To allow this discussion to end, I will allow that to be the final word. I will only say that I don’t agree with it, or that it (or anything that he has said about me) accurately represents me or my position.
Same here.
I have decided that this is my last thread on this great, great web site (objectivismonline.net), and I have learnt too much to be able to pay back, from many people, including those who did not exactly like me!
But let me just post this link to an old article (that I’ve just remembered and googled) as a gift for those who want to learn more about the subject of the essay I posted here. It’s an open letter to Michael Jordan called “The Soul of a Champion” by an Objectivist philosopher called Andrew Bernstein.
Link: http://www.andrewbernstein.net/heroes/6_jordan.htm
Some interesting parts:
Dear Michael,
Thank you for winning six NBA titles and earning hundreds of millions of dollars.
If you ask why I thank you when obviously you did it for yourself, not for me—I will respond: That’s exactly why I thank you. I can imagine the pride you take in your achievements—of being the greatest ever in your field—but I wonder if you realize fully all you have to be proud of.
Then something else, which contradicts some people’s theory that it is mainly about talent:
Most people, unfortunately, do not push themselves to excel—and the problem is not a lack of capacity. Over a period of twenty years as a teacher, I have observed many talented students who squander their gifts. It is not ability that is missing; it is will… Thomas Edison, who knew, defined genius as one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.
He DOES attack the culture but ONLY in its “explicit intellectual content”:
Our culture has, in its explicit intellectual content, become hostile to achievement…
But he still generally holds to Dan Edge’s Benevolent People Premise:
…But the American people have not sunk to this level of corruption.
The American people may not understand the principles involved, but at an emotional level they still yearn for, and worship, man at his highest and best…
That doesn’t sound to me like the pessimism I have often heard, which condemns people generally as just “irrational,” an attitude which can easily short-circuit your ambitiousness (when you literally hate the world and the “irrational” people in it).
And finally:
As Ayn Rand states in her great novel, Atlas Shrugged: “the sight of an achievement is the greatest gift a human being could offer to others.” You have offered such a gift, abundantly, to us.
Indeed. That’s what I believe Ayn Rand’s main goal was. In spite of her condemnation of the explicit philosophical culture, she still believed that a rational person had a high potential for achievement in such a great society. He could actually plan and expect to achieve.
Like Bernstein says, the people still yearn for, and worship, man at his highest and best; so obviously they will reward heroes (with wealth and honour), by celebrating them and paying them. That premise is sufficient to virtually guarantee success to anyone who puts in great effort in his pursuit for high achievement in any rational society.
Thank you.
Yes, use that same spirit in business and you’ll cease to be an Objectivist very quickly. Sooner or later, you’ll cease to be a business man aswell. Ever heard of Gail Wynand?
And to be clear: that “spirit” has nothing to do with my position.
This is basically a strawman argument: set up a single criteria for success (having a huge pile of cash), then complain that Objectivists aren’t fulfilling that criteria. Oh well. Personally, I wouldn’t *want* to be a billionaire: it’s WAY more work than I’d be willing to do for something as pointless as loads of money. Once you have enough to achieve the lifestyle you want, why pursue more? The point is to pursue the work you want, not necessarily some specific reward.
I think that everyone should pursue the career they enjoy without regard to whether said career will forseeably bring them *lots* of money. Some people *do* enjoy the type of work that has huge financial rewards. Good for them. It is erroneous to use the terms “rich” and “billionaire” interchangeably. There are only 800 or so billionaires . . . there are many, many people that are wealthy or well-off.
Squandering your talents means spending your time doing what someone else thinks you ought to do instead of what you actually want to do. I choose not to squander my talents desperately climbing the corporate ladder or engaged in other activities I detest.
Personally, I wouldn’t *want* to be a billionaire: it’s WAY more work than I’d be willing to do for something as pointless as loads of money. Once you have enough to achieve the lifestyle you want, why pursue more?
This is an important fact that many people don’t understand about Objectivism. Objectivism does not hold that cash is the highest value and that the pursuit of maximal cash is man’s goal in life. What’s important is rational integration of knowledge so that you understand your own nature and can correctly identify the actions that enhance your life; that you be productive. Whether that yields a big wad of bills is a lower-order consideration. It would be eminently irrational to sacrifice a career where you actively and productively use your mind focused on a particular question, in favor of an intellectually repugnant activity that yields a pot of gold.
Squandering your talents means spending your time doing what someone else thinks you ought to do instead of what you actually want to do. I choose not to squander my talents desperately climbing the corporate ladder or engaged in other activities I detest.
I dont know that I would necessarily classify climbing the corporate ladder as squandering ones talents. Sometimes you have to do what you might detest and do what others want you to do in order to get to the point where others do what you want them to do.
I dont know that I would necessarily classify climbing the corporate ladder as squandering ones talents. Sometimes you have to do what you might detest and do what others want you to do in order to get to the point where others do what you want them to do.
Fletch,
That’s a bit of a Gail Wynand perspective on corporate advancement. There are ways to view and accomplish corporate advancment without doing things you “detest”, if by detest you mean find ethically or morally unpalatable. If Jenni feels that corporate advancement requires her to do things she detests, then she shoudl not do them. If you feel that corporate advancement requires you to do things you detes, then you should not do them. But if you (or Jenni) are implying that there is no way to advance in a corporation without doing things one detests, then I would disagree with that emphatically. That takes a negative view of corporate organizations as such, which is incorrect way to think about it.
I dont know that I would necessarily classify climbing the corporate ladder as squandering ones talents. Sometimes you have to do what you might detest and do what others want you to do in order to get to the point where others do what you want them to do.
Besides Kendall’s objection, I would add: sometimes you do have to do things you’d rather not in order to earn your place in a company. This might be something that is worth it to you. For other people, like Jennifer, it may not be worth it. She might have other values that she would rather pursue.
She might have other ways, even, of expressing her productiveness than becoming wealthy or recognized or otherwise rewarded by others (note the second-handedness of that metric). Perhaps it is more worth it to her to run a simple shop in the country that makes the best damn pie in the land than to climb the corporate ladder at PieCo. She may not become wealthy or recognized or famous like she could at PieCo, but you know what? To some people, working completely on their own terms is far, far more important.
So the criticism of this thread is totally invalid - there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons (the above is just one of many) that can be named for why an individual might not want to be rich, or famous, or the recognized top of one’s field. For a lot of people, simply doing their quiet best is the most rewarding path in life. It’s a gross fit of rationalism to say that we all have to Dagny’s and Reardens.
desperately climbing the corporate ladder or engaged in other activities I detest
In defense of the Dragon Lady’s comments, keep in mind she said “desperately” and “detest”. That’s not simply “something someone would rather not do” which sounds far more casual and less significant; perhaps the difference between intentionally misleading clients versus having to go get coffee for the boss. She can correct me if I’m wrong but I think she is referring doing things the involve compromising one’s integrity in order to achieve a higher place in the company. If that is the case, what other values are worth pursuing in that effort that are greater than holding on to one’s integrity?
Hi guys,
She can correct me if I’m wrong but I think she is referring doing things the involve compromising one’s integrity in order to achieve a higher place in the company.
You might be right, but I didnt read it that way. I was responding to this statement of hers in particular:
Squandering your talents means spending your time doing what someone else thinks you ought to do instead of what you actually want to do. I choose not to squander my talents desperately climbing the corporate ladder or engaged in other activities I detest.
I was not trying to suggest that one should do whatever one has to to get ahead, but rather that one must sometimes be willing and able to take orders, so that one day you will be in the position to give them. I happen to detest climbing the corporate ladder myself. Not because I believe that I had to do something that Kendall referred to as “ethically or morally unpalatable,” but because I found the boot-licking and back-biting unbearable. Sucking up to an incompetent superior is just not something I am capable of doing no matter what benefits I might gain from such behavior. So I went out and found a boss I cold work with–me. I dont, however, believe that those who choose to climb the corporate ladder are necessarily “squandering their talents.”
It sounds to me like JMeganSnow needs to be self-employed. I know I did.
I dont, however, believe that those who choose to climb the corporate ladder are necessarily “squandering their talents.”
Okay, but look at how she defined “squandering your talents”. Her statement does not imply that everyone climbing the corporate ladder are “squandering their talents” because some people may be doing exactly what they want to be doing while their climbing that ladder. I think it’s possible that you are using a definition of “squandering your talents” other than how she said she was using the phrase.
I don’t see anything in her statement that condemns “climbing the corporate ladder” altogether.
Okay, but look at how she defined “squandering your talents”. Her statement does not imply that everyone climbing the corporate ladder are “squandering their talents” because some people may be doing exactly what they want to be doing while their climbing that ladder.
I dont want to belabor what is probably an inconsequential point, but if you look at how she defined 'squandering your talents," her statement does imply that everyone climbing the corporate ladder is, in fact, squandering their talents. There are two sentences here. In the first she defines what she means by the phrase:
Squandering your talents means spending your time doing what someone else thinks you ought to do instead of what you actually want to do.
In the second sentence she gives an example of what she means by it:
I choose not to squander my talents desperately climbing the corporate ladder or engaged in other activities I detest.
Here she is explicitly using climbing the corporate ladder as an example of the squandering of ones talents. Now, she may not have meant to paint all those who climb the corporate ladder in a negative light, but that is the way I read it. You, and others, seem to have read it differently. If nothing else, its a fascinating example of how two people can read the same thing and come to different conclusions! Luckily, JMeganSnow is still with us. Perhaps she will step in and clear up what she meant by the statement.
I did look at it (in fact I read it) and I don’t mind belaboring the point ( 
) because it’s clear to me that she is not condemning all those who pursue corporate ladder climbing. If you read her definition she only condemns those who are doing what others want and not what they want. This clearly leaves open a category of people who can be climbing the ladder because they ARE doing things that they want as opposed to those who are not. That’s unequivocal and makes it fall short of universal condemnation.
In fact, this is backed up further by these two statements in the same post;
I think that everyone should pursue the career they enjoy without regard to whether said career will forseeably bring them *lots* of money. Some people *do* enjoy the type of work that has huge financial rewards.
The second quote you list ONLY addresses what she chooses to do, not what she expects other people to choose to do, and she’s specific enough to use terms like “desperate” and “detest”, stronger terms than simply indicating someone who might rather be doing other things, but are not being forced to do things that compromise their integrity. I don’t understand how you can turn a statement about what she is choosing not do into a statement of universal condemnation.
I really didn’t think it would be necessary to defend the idea of NOT compromising one’s integrity on an Objectivist forum.
I really didn’t think it would be necessary to defend the idea of NOT compromising one’s integrity on an Objectivist forum.
What is that supposed to mean?
What is that supposed to mean?
What part of it are you not understanding; the sentence itself, or how it applies to the debate at hand?
If I’m interpreting her post correctly, taken as a whole, the only disagreement I can see would be to say;
It’s okay do whatever other people want you to do (the “desperately” part) even if you do not enjoy what you are doing and you are doing things you detest as long as you can get rich in the end. In other words, it’s okay to sacrifice your integrity to get rich.
I dont want to belabor what is probably an inconsequential point, but if you look at how she defined 'squandering your talents," her statement does imply that everyone climbing the corporate ladder is, in fact, squandering their talents.
I didn’t read it that way. She defined “squandering your talents” as spending your time doing something that you don’t want to do (but that others think you ought to). So if you simplify and sub in her sentence, it seems to me that when she said " I choose not squander my talents" doing activity X, she’s simply saying that she doesn’t want to waste her time doing activity X because it isn’t something that she wants to do.
No where in there does that imply a universal judgment of corporate climbing as a waste of time – simply that it is a waste of time for her.
I did look at it (in fact I read it) and I don’t mind belaboring the point (
Ditto. I also read her that way, and I don’t have any doubt as to her meaning.
Since there have been some responses since I left, I will gladly address some of them.
First, the charge that this essay was a straw man (JMegan).
A straw man is a misrepresentation of your opponent’s argument (before you attack it); I’m not sure I see how this was done in my essay. If you mean that I have misrepresented Objectivism and then attacked it, that can not be correct because my thesis is precisely that the essence of Objectivism has not been followed by most Objectivists.[Also, note that my essay is not just about “billionaires”, that was just in my title because I thought it captured the essence of my essay].
Now, Ayn Rand is the one who said “the sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being can offer to others.”
The SIGHT of an achievement is something objective, or else how could they know it’s there. When we see it, we can all agree that THAT is a sight of an achievement. I propose that someone who has merely become very “good” at debating Objectivism (for example) does not demonstrate the sight of an achievement (unless of course it reaches a degree that is indeed indisputably supreme, after facing difficult challenges to reaching such a level, especially when one previously had no such prior abilities; THAT would be inspiring).
Someone who has not achieved (and is not realistically working towards achieving) something great that OTHERS can SEE (sight of an achievement) can not claim to have understood at least that particular Randian injunction.
Not every “achievement” can therefore qualify in this vein, because not every “achievement” will inspire others. Objectively, that means that that kind of achievement does not really take that much effort or that much heroism – overcoming real challenging hurdles to the top.
Now, does this mean that this is a second-handed goal in someone’s life? Not at all.
Firstly, if it was second-handed, Ayn Rand would not likely call it “the greatest gift one can give to others”.
Secondly, it is not different essentially from what an artist does: his work is also meant “for others” and yet we do not call it second handed. An artist inspires others with his work. An achiever inspires others by providing himself as concrete evidence for their own belief in the practicality of achievement, the integration of mind and body, heroism.
It is my personal opinion that an achiever is even more inspiring than a work of art. I am personally more inspired by the achievements of Ayn Rand – a Russian immigrant who learnt English as a second language and managed to write bestsellers in that language besides developing her own integrated philosophy of reason - than I am by the achievements of John Galt. No matter how great this character is, it remains only a fictional character, and as admirable as he is, he did not really exist, he did not really face any hurdles in life that he overcame using the power of his mind. He is certainly inspiring as a work of art. But nothing is more inspiring than the sight of an achievement, a real achievement.
It is not second-handed to aim to achieve at the highest level in business (and yes this normally implies great wealth), in fiction writing (this normally implies bestseller, which normally implies wealth in a relatively free economy), in sport, law, law enforcement, or whatever field one chooses to excel in (each has its own way of recognising eminence, or the market itself will do it).
And besides that, the response of other people to your work through their money or their awards (as long as you respect them as a sufficiently rational society) is a good measure of the quality and validity of your own work: it is therefore also an inspiration to yourself (which is precisely why capitalism actually inspires individual innovation and socialism does not), and thus a source of your happiness.
I therefore still think that there should realistically be a good number of very high and visible achievers among serious Objectivists (in their different respective fields) especially after being in those fields for a sufficiently long time. A mediocre Objectivist (in their chosen field and in life, generally) sounds like an oxymoron to me, unless I have totally misunderstood Rand’s philosophy.
Ayn Rand is the one who said “the sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being can offer to others.”
That maybe so but claiming such does not mean that that is the reason for wanting to achieve. Creating inspiration is/should be a secondary for anyone, including artists (and it was secondary for Rand - since you brought her up).
But nothing is more inspiring than the sight of an achievement, a real achievement.
That is true.
It is not second-handed to aim to achieve at the highest level in business (and yes this normally implies great wealth), in fiction writing (this normally implies bestseller, which normally implies wealth in a relatively free economy), in sport, law, law enforcement, or whatever field one chooses to excel in (each has its own way of recognising eminence, or the market itself will do it).
What determines if it is second-handed or not are the reasons behind wanting something.
And besides that, the response of other people to your work through their money or their awards (as long as you respect them as a sufficiently rational society) is a good measure of the quality and validity of your own work:
Other’s response should not be a measure of the value of your work.
A mediocre Objectivist (in their chosen field and in life, generally) sounds like an oxymoron to me, unless I have totally misunderstood Rand’s philosophy.
If you mean mediocre qua his own potential than yes I would agree but Objectivism is a philosphy for everyone. If a person is living close to the height of his/her own potential - that is admirable - regardless of their level of ability, regardless of how he measures up in comparison to others.