As I understand growth in a philosophy is a personal thing I can only guess how much he had applied to his life.
Pardon my bluntness, but why do you have to guess? If you’ve been dating this guy for some time, then I assume you know quite a lot about his life – his career, his hobbies, his family, his friends, his interests, his goals, his habits, etc. From such an intimate perspective I think you would be able to see plenty of evidence of what matters to him, how he approaches different aspects of his life, and so on. Based on that you ought to be able to do better than making a blind guess.
…ten years ago while he was in college he decided to become a computer guy because he could earn good money, but he hates his job.
That sounds like a very big issue. Going into ANY career for the money alone is a mistake. That could be the heart of the issue. It’s unfortunately pretty common for people to make mistakes about their career choice. The best thing to do once you realize you made such a mistake is to re-evaluate your career choice and find something better. It may take time to figure that out. It may take time to get trained in a new field. It may take years of scraping by before the new career becomes financially viable (or before you get back to the same level of income). But it would be worth it, instead of letting the problem get worse.
It can be really intimidating to write off 10 years of your life, set aside the gains you’ve made there, and essentially start over. It can create a huge amount of anxiety, which many people “handle” by procrastinating. Of course, that doesn’t fix the problem, and in fact serves to enhance the anxiety. Maybe (and again I stress my limited perspective) that is what is bothering him.
Thank you for saying that I have a nasty habit of blaming myself for everything. Its easier, though, to slap me and say stop it. … I agree with the philosophy but find fault in myself that prevents me from perusing it.
I’m not a psychologist, but as I read this, what jumps out is a self-esteem issue. It personally bothers me to see someone attack herself, as it looks like you’re doing here.
As a general suggestion, you may want to take a look at the websites of a couple of psychologists – Dr. Hurd and Dr. Kenner – who are also Objectivists and have experience dealing with self-esteem issues. I’ve been impressed by Dr. Kenner’s lectures and radio show, and I hear good things about Dr. Hurd from a patient of his.
The point of having a rational, true philosophy is that it enhances one’s life. Frankly, it’s a cop-out to say “I’m not good enough” in this context. Why? Because we are talking about, primarily, ethics and epistemology. It makes no sense to say “I’m not good enough to be rational” or “I don’t deserve to act morally.” Thinking clearly and acting according to what you know is right are both matters of choice. That is, they are available to any human being, but require the decision, the act of will, to engage. It’s not as if you spend years studying the rules of logic and then reach a point where you become rational. You can be rational immediately, by choosing to be so. (Studying logic enhances one’s skills, but does not create a capacity that was not already there to some degree.)
And the same with morality. It sounds like you have enough of an idea about Objectivist ethics that you should have an understanding of the major virtues, like honesty. If one knows what honesty is, and that it is proper, there is no excuse not to practice it. And the same with the other virtues.
Given a certain level of knowledge of morality, a person can accept it and act accordingly, or not. A person can choose to be good, or not. If one grasps what is moral, but chooses not to practice it, that person doesn’t get a third option. (The exception would be someone ignorant of morality, but that exception expires with age and only applies to someone willing to learn. Even then, it is not absolute: a child with no formal knowledge of philosophy is not exempt from morality. A certain leniency may be due, but no more.)
While on the subject of self-esteem, you said:
He has judged himself to be lazy and evasive, and is hard on himself coming home from work and vegging in front of the computer to unwind instead of working towards his goals.
That raises yet another possibility: that of unrealistic goals. Does he think he should be a John Galt of computers? That happens occasionally. After reading Ayn Rand’s novels, occasionally someone may feel guilty or worthless if they aren’t the very best in their field. But that’s a misinterpretation. Not everyone can be the very best. What matters is the attempt. What matters is the passion. Eddie Willers hadn’t the ability of Dagny, Rearden, or Galt, but was their equal in terms of how good a person he was. That is, it is the yardstick of morality that matters for judging people.
That may or may not be the issue here. I don’t know.
