|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
Roles and Rational Egoism DAY 12 Roles and Rational Egoism Today's Reading "How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?" in The Virtue of Selfishness Today's reading explores the virtue of Justice, the only one of the six Objectivist core virtues that requires others to apply. It offers standards by which to judge others as worthy or unworthy of relating to you in a given context. It thus serves as a guide to building the most effective relationships possible. After you clearly define your list of dreams, their integrated vision statement, and your preferred emotional states with their causes, you will need to exercise reason to guide your body toward actualizing your spiritual and emotional values to fruition. At this point, you need to learn about an organizing concept not officially part of the Objectivist corpus but nonetheless indispensable to your achievement of your worthwhile values: the role. What is a role? A role is any name you assign to the various parts you may play in life. When people ask you to describe yourself, you might say: "Well, I am an architect, a parent, a professional speaker, an active day trader, and a general lover of life." These all describe ways in which you identify what you are in the form of the "hats" that you wear. They have a sense of longevity about them that stretches beyond individual goals and subsumes them. As such, they warrant a detailed exploration. As an Objectivist, you will need to get totally clear about the roles you need to play in life to achieve the forms of happiness you identified as your preferred emotions. In addition, some roles will prove mandatory if you want to live a fully flourishing life. The most important role, the one that points true north on your moral compass, is: 1. Island. The story of living alone on a deserted island that Ayn Rand posited as part of her ethical theory concretized her notion of the fully autonomous individual. If you did find yourself in such a situation, you would have to integrate spirit, emotions, mind, body and natural resources by your own efforts to gain and to keep the values you needed to survive. You would have to acquire the raw materials available to build your shelter, to feed your stomach, to clothe your body, and to defend yourself from predatory wildlife. In addition, at the emotional and spiritual levels, you would need to form a strong bond of your own Self to yourself. In other words, to satisfy your emotional need for bonding, you would essentially need skills of self-esteem to achieve the sense of inner peace that all people crave. Strong mastery of the rational virtue of independence would allow you to endure such a survivalist situation emotionally intact. By contrast, for a person with a dependent mindset, such a situation would mean certain death. As a result of these distinctions, it makes perfect sense to describe the fully autonomous individual metaphorically as an Island unto himself. The Island represents the baseline Objectivist. Howard Roark of The Fountainhead exemplified the ideal hero for Ayn Rand -- a man who did not "need" others. Like Roark, you must learn not to "need" others to survive as an Island. As opposed to the traditional bromide, "No man is an island," Objectivism argues ultimately that, "Each man is an island." Admirers of Stephen Covey will notice a striking similarity between this role and what he calls the role of "Sharpen the Saw®." Like that role, the Island focuses on you taking proper care of yourself at all four levels -- spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically. Unlike Covey's philosophy, however, Objectivism holds the Self as the ultimate value, whereas Covey argues that principles of natural law outside of Self stand as the ultimate value. That Objectivism arises from a fully naturalistic world view makes this contrast especially interesting. However, Covey needed to take this approach so as not to make his secular "Eight Habits" philosophy conflict with his faith in the Mormon religion. Objectivism faces no such handicaps. Why would a person want to learn how to live as an Island? Such an act of self-mastery gives total freedom to pursue other roles in the most flourishing manner possible. Two roles, however, still remain mandatory even in solitude. In a sense, they serve as necessary complements to the role of Island. These two roles are the Producer and the Investor. 2. Producer. While it might sound odd to think of the role of Producer as one conducted in solitude, a return to the story of solitude on a deserted island will make this distinction clear. In that context, a career as Survivalist will thrust itself onto the castaway whether he likes it or not. Productiveness, a virtue which Part Four of this book will explain in detail, marks the central feature of a worthwhile career. As a Survivalist, you would have to produce the values you need by your own efforts or face certain death. Likewise, in a social context of total freedom, you would still need to engage in a productive career or face starvation. The form of productiveness you would take would depend largely on the personal vision and values you identified earlier in this book. You could, as a Producer, tailor that role to a career as Architect or Engineer or Artist or Writer or Day Laborer or any of a host of legitimate occupations. The main function of this role remains the same: to empower you to live independently and productively by your own efforts in a free society without depending solely on others for your basic needs. 3. Investor. Even if you found yourself alone on an island, you would still need to plan how you would produce and consume your available resources, both natural and personal, over the course of your lifetime. In that sense, you would act as an Investor. Of course, in a free society, your capacity to leverage this role increases manifold due to the trader principle. Suffice it to say that the ultimate responsibility for managing your resources wisely falls ultimately on your shoulders and not those of anyone else. Subsequent roles discussed here rely on these first three roles. Several of these roles will be common to all but the most hermitic. The remaining ones will arise from your own unique context. 4. Sibling. You likely grew up in a family with other siblings. This creates a role thrust upon you of Sibling. (You can replace this term with Only Child or Orphan or some other term as appropriate.) You have blood relationships with a number of people in your immediate and extended family whether you like it or not. If you do like it, what emotional payoffs do you get from this role? If you dislike it, what emotional payoffs would you get from terminating some or all of these relationships? The subject of involuntary family relations from the perspective of the rational egoist could fill a book unto itself. Suffice it to say that you will need to get totally clear about where in your values hierarchy the emotions you get from filling this role fall. 5. Friend. Unlike the role of Sibling, the role of Friend remains purely a matter of choice but one which nearly everyone makes. Even Howard Roark, who had no friends in college, eventually built close bonds of friendship with several characters in The Fountainhead over the course of his career as an architect. Likewise, the strikers in Atlas Shrugged built very close friendships in Galt's Gulch. Like the role of Sibling, the role of Friend demands an entire book to offer it a proper treatment for the rational egoist. Aristotle discussed friendship extensively in his book The Nichomachean Ethics. In its review of this classic text, SparkNotes writes: There are three kinds of friendship: friendship based on utility, friendship based on pleasure, and friendship based on goodness of character. The first two kinds of friendship are based on superficial qualities, so these sorts of friendship are not generally long lasting. Friendship based on goodness of character is the best kind of friendship, because these friends love one another for who they are and not for what they stand to gain from one another. Of course, for the rational egoist, the "gain" he gets from his friendships of character is his admiration of "who they are." Ayn Rand noted that we all seek heroes and worthy role models in art and in life. Friendships of character fill this cognitive need in a flourishing manner. 6. Lover. Among all the emotional values a person can experience, that of romance can provoke the strongest passions. To experience romance requires filling the role of Lover. Nathaniel Branden penned an entire book called The Psychology of Romantic Love that articulated how the rational egoist can best pursue this most intense and deeply pleasurable value. For a much briefer treatment, read his essay "The Psychology of Pleasure" in The Virtue of Selfishness. The biological drive to mate and to reproduce feeds the drive to pursue the role of Lover. However, unlike farm animals that breed based solely on physical urges, rational egoists seek to integrate all four levels of this crucial area of human being. For the Objectivist, the ideal romantic relationship involves, not just physical bonding, but mental, emotional and spiritual bonding as well. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected sexual hedonism as immoral, i.e. as a violation of human nature. Hence, the man who pursues his sense of self-worth based on the number of barroom women he can seduce would qualify as evil in the Objectivist viewpoint. By contrast, the series of romances in Atlas Shrugged between Dagny and, in sequence, Francisco, Hank and John led to steadily higher and better manifestations of the best possible romance the world had to offer her. A variant of the Lover is the Spouse. Most people at some point in their lives meet lovers for whom they feel such powerful mutual bonds that they want to make publicly declared, lifetime, exclusive commitments. They marry. The current legal tradition of marriage mandates that the term Spouse has a formal legal meaning that involves official government sanction and accompanying edicts. The rational egoist should carefully consider whether he wants a third party with a gun, i.e. government, enforcing his commitments as a Lover. This subject remains a source of controversy among Objectivists. Dr. Michael Hurd argues that a free society should scrap the institution of marriage altogether while Dr. Leonard Peikoff maintains that it still has strong merits. You will need to make your own decisions regarding this crucial area of human flourishing. Visit http://www.unmarried.org for insights into alternatives to marriage that still signify commitments between lovers. 7. Parent. Those rational egoists who love children and find themselves prepared to rear them at all four levels -- spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically -- can justifiably accept the role of Parent. Precious little in the Objectivist corpus covers this important role. However, an excellent book called The Parenthood Decision by Beverly Engel offers a very objective assessment of the benefits and detriments of raising children. Filling the role of Parent can offer a source of great joy and also great pain. A person not 100% committed to spending the 20 years required to raise an infant into a fully functioning adult should not consider becoming a Parent. Ayn Rand fully supported reproductive freedom, including abortion rights, because she knew that not all Lovers necessarily want to become Parents. Ayn Rand noted in her interview with Playboy that a person can justifiably approach parenting as a productive career for the first few years of a child's life. However, she also condemned as immoral the use of this role as an excuse settling for the passive role of Housekeeper once the children have grown. You must keep these facts in mind when deciding whether to make a years-long career change knowing that eventually you will have to change careers yet again. 8. Other Roles. A myriad of other roles can also deliver values to you. An exercise at the end of this chapter will help you to identify these roles and their corresponding values. Applying Justice in the Building of Relationships Ayn Rand argued in today's reading that you, the rational egoist, must engage in moral judgment to live a rational, i.e. productive, life. This involves two steps: First, commitment to mastery of the first three roles described: Island, Producer and Investor. Second, commitment to the judgment of self and others by how firmly each has committed to mastery of those three roles. What type of person would not qualify as a good candidate with whom to build a relationship? In other words, what sort of roles might he fill in contrast to the roles you fill? Ayn Rand named two archetypical roles that oppose the Producer to whom one should avoid relating: 1. Moocher. The Moocher does not produce but rather consumes values which others produce with no gain to them. He does this through appeals to the corrupt ethic of altruism and its derivative, duty. He essentially lives as a parasite and not a trader. Note that the values on which a Moocher lives can include not just physical values like money, but also mental, emotional and spiritual values. Peter Keating showed all outward signs of living productively at the height of his architectural career, yet in reality he mooched at the deepest levels on Howard Roark. 2. Looter. The Looter degrades mooching from the level of guilt trip persuasions to the level of force and fraud. Whereas the Moocher at least gives the option to the Producer of not falling for the altruism scam, the Looter uses physical force or its derivative, fraud, to rob the Producer of the products of his efforts. Examples of looters range from the common street hoodlum to the embezzling accountant to the politician who advocates government health care. Note that both of these archetypes need the Producer to survive. They depend upon the Producer for life. By contrast, a Producer has no need for them whatsoever. Any Producer who, by default of innocently accepting the altruist ethic, sanctions this dependency acts as an enabler of their vices. This phenomenon exemplifies what some professionals in the mental health field call codependence and enabling. The unemployed alcoholic and his supportive, gainfully employed wife illustrate this phenomenon. In Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden supported his worthless brother for similar reasons. Mutual codependence represents a more vicious variant of this phenomenon. When two spiritually dependent people like Peter Keating and Catherine Halsey in The Fountainhead enter into a relationship, they can seek to live through or within each other and never reach the zenith of human being that mastery of the Island role offers. They rely on each other rather than their own best productive capacities for their sense of self-worth, thus mutually stunting each other's growth. The sad end to which both of these characters came shows what happens when people fail to achieve full independence and self-worth at the deepest levels of their being. Addiction treatment centers often have to deal with this phenomenon in their therapy programs. By contrast, the relationship between Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged stimulated rather than stunted the growth of both parties. They had both already achieved a baseline status of Island and thus did not rely on each other for that basic sense of self-worth. In the case of Hank, however, he did need that extra stimulus in order to experience, concretely, the best that the world of love had to offer. A productive career path leads to high self-esteem and a liberating sense of independence. Such independent producers can enter into productive interdependent relationships with other independent producers for mutual benefit and higher flourishing. While independent producers "need" neither each other nor dependent types to survive, dependent moochers or looters do need independent producers to survive. John Galt expressed this fact succinctly in his speech in Atlas Shrugged when he told the dependent looters and moochers, "We do not need you." Note that today's reading names some strategies by which one can quickly identify a given person in a given context as a Producer, a Moocher or a Looter. You need not make sweeping, public condemnations of immoral people to live a rational life. But you will need to use that moral judgment to select the people with whom to build productive, contextual, mutually beneficial relationships while shunning the rest. Some Closing Words about Relationships For the sake of clarity, you need to keep one universal quality of relationships in mind. Christianity and other religions come with mythologies of immortal souls bonding together forever in a heavenly paradise. Objectivism rejects such supernatural notions in favor of a fully natural world view. Thus, it sees every human being as ultimately mortal and thus temporary. As a result, you should etch this natural law firmly into your subconscious: All relationships are temporary. Even a successful and joyous marriage between two rational egoists must eventually end due to their own mortality. Accepting that A is A, that Man is Man, and that mortals are mortals can help you to accept more readily the loss of a loved one to death by natural causes. It can also help you to come to peaceful terms with your own mortality. Finally, accepting that part of human nature involves personal change and growth and shifts in values can help you to overcome the loss of any relationship. By regularly nourishing your top three roles -- Island, Producer and Investor -- you can keep yourself anchored firmly in objective reality. Such anchoring will assure that you never fall into the trap of becoming what Ayn Rand called the social metaphysician, a person who defines his reality by his relationships to others rather than to the natural world. Adhering to natural metaphysics rather than social metaphysics defends your deepest sense of self-worth and your emotional stability. In the face of loss, you can rest assured that for you, as for Howard Roark, "the pain only goes so deep." TODAY'S EXERCISE Studies have shown that humans perform optimally when dealing with five to nine "chunks" of information at any given time. Ayn Rand called this phenomenon of cognitive limits the crow epistemology in her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She used a study of crows and their innate limits to grasping quantities for creating that term. She also used it as a metaphor to describe the limits of "things" or entities, concrete or abstract, a human being can hold in conscious thought at any moment. In a similar fashion, authors Hyrum Smith and Stephen Covey advocate consolidating the list of roles you play in life to eight or less. Their famous Franklin Day Planner® that their Franklin Covey Company produces includes a Weekly Compass® in which you can list up to eight roles along with a weekly goal for each role. As stated earlier in this chapter, they consider "Sharpen the Saw®" a mandatory role. If you choose to order their planner via http://www.franklincovey.com you can keep in mind that "Sharpen the Saw®" equates to Island. Identify up to eight roles you currently fill along with the values, e.g. emotional payoffs, you gain from filling each role. Note that this exercise lists the first three roles as inescapable. For the second role, Producer, write a name for that role unique to your context.
Discuss this Article (13 messages) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
