I assume that in a situation where one’s survival was at stake, like lost in the wilderness, those values necessary for your survival, like hunting food or building shelter, would most occupy your consciousness. But, in a modern civilization where achieving these basic needs are more efficient and considerably safe, we have the mental time to consider other values. These take the shape of careers, skills, expressions, and hobbies. I just wonder, where does the interest for these things come from? Why did Hank Rearden pursue metallurgy? Why does Howard Roark like architecture? Why is Dagny Taggart into trains? What makes them select these as modes of engaging reality?
I think there are probably deep psychological reasons why we like what we do, and the current primitive state of psychology doesn’t let us understand why. I think being good at something has something to do with it.
Edit: philosophy will tell you the way to go about your desired career (rationally, honestly, etc) but won’t tell you what it should be.
What makes them select these as modes of engaging reality?
Is this going to become another mega-thread on determinism?
What makes them select these as modes of engaging reality?
The question you put will mislead you from the answers. No one makes them do anything. They choose to do what they do. The causes are internal, not external.
Bob Kolker
What makes them select these as modes of engaging reality?
Hopefully, without creating a mega-thread on determinism…
*The mode involve aspects of subjects they liked
*The mode is hard/challenging for the particular individual’s degree of intelligence: Ayn Rand’s heroes have grand-scale intelligence, therefore, they take on grand scale projects.
* (probably millions of other very personal reasons for why various peoples selections)
But let’s not forget several of the heroes in Atlantis were not grand scale industrialists, some were “ivory tower” philosophers, scientists, teachers, and mothers. Probably most interesting one hero is a part-time pirate.
There is a media interview with Ayn Rand (you can probably find in the new “Ayn Rand Answers” Book), where she states that any work one chooses is proper, as long as it is productive and is challenging for individual’s degree of intelligence.
Other than that, the sky (and beyond) is the limit.
I think it’s a bad idea to ask such a question about fictional characters in a novel, since they do not exist in reality and you can only conjecture as to their “nature”. Such a question only invites baseless fabrication of reality. Instead, I will answer the question about a real person.
I yam what I yam in part because of certain choices at a young age, that I decided to take French in junior high school. My father also decided that he wanted to know more about science, and I chose to share that interest. As it turns out, these are two things that by my nature I am good at, which means that in pursuing my career, I have been able to achieve my goals which results in happiness. I specifically chose this career over conceivable alternatives, for that reason. I’m sure that the reasons for Roark, Taggart, Rearden, Galt are analogous.
You absolutely MUST listen to Dr. Peikoff’s answer to your question here . It is from his podcast, episode 88, 11/16/09. The first question he answers is directly on point and the second answer bears on your question also.
His is the best answer I’ve ever heard to this question. Essentially you have to figure out what you like and he gives a good process for figuring that out. How old are you? I’m sure you have some interests. Some things you enjoy. Some things that make you happy. Pursue those, rationally.
Thank you for the replies, they have been helpful. Marc K., I did listen to that podcast and found that pretty much answered my question. Peikoff says it could just be arbitrary, which is kind of an odd thing to consider. I guess this is true since our entering into existence (a.k.a. being born) is itself arbitrary to each individual.
I’m 22. I’ve decided to pursue sociology but as an Objectivist. I don’t know how it will turn out, but I do have a passion for that ‘big picture’ perspective characteristic of sociology at least, haha.
Peikoff says it could just be arbitrary, […]
Be careful, I don’t think he quite said that.
He said after you have figured out what you like and limited your possible job choices to three and from there, if it was hard for you to choose, then you could choose arbitrarily. But a lot of work goes into the whole process before you get to that point.
The book he mentions: “What Color is Your Parachute” is supposed to be a good one to help you limit your possibilities and decide.
The biggest piece of advice I have is: make sure when pursuing a career that it is something you really enjoy.
I was referring to Peikoff’s hypothesis that our general interest comes from some initial focus from early childhood, like his example of a child’s first impressions being about something structural leading to an eventual career in architecture.
I wonder then, if this is true, if we can categorize people into what constituted their defining, first impressions? Interesting sociological study?