RoR: Forum

Post 0

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:26am

Link

Edit

One of my problems with Rand when I had only read her fiction - but hadn't known yet about her nonfiction - was that I thought she was completely discounting the existence of the subconscious. Since my own study and introspection led me to believe the subconscious existed, I was uncomfortable with the emphasis on the conscious mind as of sole importance. However, when I read her nonfiction I realized that she did believe in the subconscious, and went further to explain exactly how the subconscious is formed. Even more importantly, she provided guidance on how to make changes in one's conscious thinking that would eventually mold the subconscious into an aspect consistent with the conscious intentions and principles one holds.

Joe, I definitely think that one abandoning any focus on the subconscious can lead to a problem of arrested development (because one's subconscious is then out of control, subject to contradictions and integrated errors in thinking). But I have trouble linking your basic thesis - that Rand's work seems to focus on the ego the exclusion of the whole psyche - with the fact that people criticize her work's appeal to adolescents. There doesn't seem like a well-developed progression linking the one with the other. Perhaps more elaboration would be useful for the first and final paragraphs?

Jason

Post 1

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:54am

Link

Edit

I have thought that her appeal to teenagers (I discovered Rand at 15), is related to their desire for autonomy and individualism. I think it is a testament to the power of her ideas that they give such hope to young people that their lives are indeed their own.

John

Post 2

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 11:39am

Link

Edit

What should we call then too much egoism, as in short-sighted egoism?
I mean a shape of egoism that is not aimed on long term benefits, but only on short-term earnings. This leading to the destruction of his environment.

Post 3

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 12:37pm

Link

Edit

Personally, I think the question why Rand appeals so much to adolescents can be answered by giving some thought to the concept of identity. I am going to sum up a theory I am working on for a paper for my ethics classes at school. This is about psychology, and unfortunately I have to admit that I havn't read much of Nathaniel Branden by now. :-/ But well ...
Let's beginn at the beginning:

Every man has a set of ideas, values, premises etc. in his mind which form his "Weltanschauung" or world-view. This Weltanschauung has an explicit (consciously held) and implicit (subconsciously held) party. The Weltanschauung also is structured in a certain way, the person might put stress on some aspects while others are not so important to him. So his Weltanschauung has some centers and a periphery. The whole way his Weltanschauung is structures is what I understand under the concept of "identity" which also has an explicit/conscious and an implicit/subconscious part.

It is also know to the fellow Objectivists here, that the Weltanschauung of a persons determines its self-esteem. So if a person holds an irrational Weltanschauung, an irrational set of ideas (and it is completely unimportant whether these are explicit or implicit), this will lead to low self-esteem which again will lead to self-doubts concerning the person's psychological identity. But identity is a psychological need for every person (it would be fairly interesting to research into the connections between the "A is A" and this need for psychological identity, btw) and so the persons needs to find a way how to stabilize his identity. Therefore doubts about his identity lead to a change in the Weltanschauung, and thus to a redefinition of the person's identity. (This has interesting consequences because it can lead to progressive irrationalization.) After that the whole circle is set in motion again.

Now adolescence is a time when psychological identity is especially weak and so the urge to stabilize their identity is very strong in youths. So what happens now if such a persons reads a novel by Ayn Rand? --> He identifies himself with the protagonists of the novel. And because they all represent rational values, strength, indivduality and so on, their identity is stabilized (unfortnately only artificially and therefore temporarily, because this stability is not due to a rational Weltanschauung or high self-esteem) and these youths feel better and maybe even enthusiastically about the novel. I had the same experience and my fascination helped me a great lot to go on and working myself through Rand's non-fiction. I think it helped to go on trying to rationalize my explicit and implicit Weltanschauung and thus become a better person.

Post 4

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 2:40pm

Link

Edit

Thanks for the comments.
Jason, for a more elaborated version, see THE OBJECTIVIST HERO CYCLE at http://jungianobjectivism.tripod.com/id9.html.

The reason why I excerpted this from the main article is because I am bothered about my own conclusions in the piece, and my discomfort is born of the lack of resolution about the ego. In my research, I could not find where Rand defined ego (I don't believe a definition is found in the lexicon, either). She criticized Freud's ideas, but seems to accept the idea of the existence of the psyche having a structure including a subconscious and ego.

SYLLABICATION:e�go PRONUNCIATION: g, g NOUN:Inflected forms: pl. e�gos
1. The self, especially as distinct from the world and other selves. 2. In psychoanalysis, the division of the psyche that is conscious, most immediately controls thought and behavior, and is most in touch with external reality. 3a. An exaggerated sense of self-importance; conceit. b. Appropriate pride in oneself; self-esteem.

I think the best way I can reconcile Rand and Jung is that they both aim at an integration of the mind, and both regard the healthy psyche as not being dichotomized; Jung shared in what Chris Sciabarra has worked out to be Rand's dialectic trancence of dualities. I think my confusion is based in how they define ego, is it only the part of the mind that is aware, or is the whole self? The above etymology seems to say both...it says the ego IS the self, but is the self the whole of the psyche, or just the part that is aware? It's been bugging me for some time, and Tibor Machan's recent post about the ego urged me on for resolution.

Sascha, thanks for your comments, I'll have to look into that. Could be a clue there.

Post 5

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 8:51pm

Link

Edit

Joe,

Good article. I enjoyed it.

I will mention the following, but you are probably already aware that Joseph Campbell, especially his hero-myth ideas in Hero With a Thousand Faces, has explicitly influenced Hollywood, the most famous case being Starwars. (If you happened to have mentioned this in another place, sorry. I haven't read anything else of yours yet.) Once you tune into the hero's cycle of "outset - long journey and entry into forbidden realm against adversity - attainment - return," you see it all over the place in movies. Obviously, this is overly simplified.

I don't know if the following idea will help you with your reconciliation of Jung and Rand's concept of ego. (Collective Unconscious is already a doozy to overcome.) Over the years I have used a sort of personal "working" concept of ego for explaining things to Brazilians that is more developmental than what I have encountered, albeit my research into this has not been that deep. For some reason, most general things I have read seem to assume that the concept of ego for a baby is the same as for an adult, that is, the difference of condition, needs and capacities is usually ignored. I have found the idea below helpful:

1. Infant ego (short term - "I want it now!").
2. Developing ego (this covers a wide spectrum, but basically concerns personal interests and development, and concern with impressions of others).
3. Mature ego (what we all strive for, concern with realizing our inherent potential, healthy rationality, emotional balance, etc.).

This is just on the healthy ego side. I have found an arrested "infant ego" explanation for "whim worshipers" to be especially effective when tyring to get across what healthy selfishness is.

Not very deep, merely practical, but there it is. Just a thought...

Michael

Post 6

Thursday, March 3, 2005 - 9:39pm

Link

Edit

Thanks, Michael.
Certainly I am familiar with HERO WITH A THOUSAND FACES.:) Before I ever read Jung (or cared), it was Campbell's book, with the allure of Luke Skywalker on the cover, that kickstarted my interest in the mythological figures in Rand's fiction.

Interesting theory, also. If I am understand you correctly, are you suggesting that ego is not a static state, but a spectrum of awareness? I'm not sure it answers my quandry...but I need to wrap my head around it a bit...self awareness certainly can expand...With all the talk of false dichotomies, it never occured to me that the dilemma may be based on one. Hmmm...maybe, to get quantum for a moment, if light can be particle or wave, ego can be the self aware of the self, but limited to observation of a limited area of the psyche at one time (in order for the ego to be aware of the totalality of the psyche at one time would require a cubist omniscience.) Or, if the ego is a microcosm of the total psyche, like a hologram...

Got me thinking when I should be sleeping. Should make for some interesting dreams.

Post 7

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 5:35am

Link

Edit

I'm going to "steal" this from Randy's post from another thread:

"A man's self is his mind -- the faculty that perceives reality, forms judgments, chooses values" (from Ayn Rand, "Selfishness Without a Self," Philosophy: Who Needs
It, 50).

Question: Does this definition in itself include or exclude subconscious factors?
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 3/04, 5:36am)

Post 8

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 8:03am

Link

Edit

Question: Does this definition in itself include or exclude subconscious factors?

What factors? In Objectivism, the subconscious is merely that which is not presently in conscious awareness, but that can be brought forth when you shift your attention to it.

Regarding adolescents liking Ayn Rand: I think it's psychologizing to claim that they like the novel because it appeals to their immaturity. Clearly it's true for some adolescents, just as it is for some adults, but one should generally assume that Ayn Rand appeals to them for the simple reason that she's right on crucial issues, while most everyone around them is wrong.

Post 9

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 9:38am

Link

Edit

Shayne: "Ayn Rand appeals to them for the simple reason that she's right on crucial issues"

I would take that one step further to include the emotional factor. Ayn Rand's works, particularly her fiction, cover the full emotional spectrum, from utter outrage and hatred to exalted love and reverence, including everything in between (even boredom).

Younger people are just starting to experience a lot of these emotions in a different manner than what they are used to, leaving what I call the infant ego and going into the developing ego (using my layman terminology). The world is more complex and greater awareness is being grown into, just like hair on your chin or female breasts or whatnot.

Their rational capacity is also developing. It is hard to make sense out of much in our culture. But it is a breeze for an unpolluted young mind to make sense out of Rand.

Her works give them the possibility of flexing their new emotional muscles in a direction they can understand and agree with.

I believe that is an important factor in the appeal of her works to adolescents.

Michael

Post 10

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 6:09pm

Link

Edit

Shayne wrote: "What factors? In Objectivism, the subconscious is merely that which is not presently in conscious awareness, but that can be brought forth when you shift your attention to it."

Shayne, you might appreciate this about Alfred Adler, the third in the Freud/Jung/Adler trio:

"Why did Adler feel it was important to see the human being as an undivided whole?"

"Responsibility. Otherwise, you could say, "One part of me wanted to do this, another part did not," or "The devil made me do it," or "This little voice in me said . . . "�basically, "I�m not in control; I�m not responsible." This is all grounds for mischief. Adler was saying, "It�s you!"

"Adler disagreed with Freud on a number of issues, particularly regarding the division of the personality into ego, id and superego. Freud hypothesized a division of the personality into these so-called segments or dynamic parts, but Adler said that there is no division, that the personality is a complete unity. Adler believed that you could not accurately look at the personality as subdivided, that you had to look at it only as a whole, as an organized whole without contradictions. Freud made a distinction between conscious and unconscious. But Adler didn�t feel that there was such a distinction. He felt that there was a kind of fluidity there, because what seems to be unconscious can be raised to consciousness very rapidly under certain circumstances. Freud indicated that there was a conflict or war between the parts of the personality, between the id and the ego and the superego. But Adler said that that is an erroneous assumption. He felt that there is no internal war or conflict, and that the individual moves only in one direction, even if it appears contradictory. In other words, you can have a person who seems to be in deep internal conflict, but that internal conflict is an illusion because the conflict has been developed largely to simply prevent action. But the main thing was that Adler believed that the personality was organized around a single "fictional final goal." This fictional final goal is unique to each person and pretty much guides and dictates most of the individual�s actions. So you might say it defines the ego and sense of self. Adler said that everything within the personality, whether it�s thinking, feeling, memory, fantasy, dreams, posture, gestures, handwriting�every expression of the personality�is essentially subordinate to this goal. This is pretty much Adler�s way of getting a sense of the person."
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 3/04, 6:11pm)

Post 11

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 7:35pm

Link

Edit

Just for clarification, I don't think that it is bad that Rand appeals to adolescents; quite the oppostite. I think Rand appeals to them because of the emphasis of ego in her work, at a time when they are forming their own self identities. In THE OBJECTIVIST HERO CYCLE, I argue that Rand's celebration of heroism is directly related to ego development, and that is why stories of heroes resonate especially in youth. The hero is the embodiment of the ego. I think the critics of Rand protest this because they protest the ego (those critics who preach selflessness). The point of the excerpted article is to point out the problems of defining ego. Rand did not originate the term, I am trying to determine if it was Freud who coined it (id, ego, superego), and where he got the idea. I find it interesting that Rand used the term EGO so strongly while rejecting Freud, where did she get her definition? (If anyone knows, I would be very grateful to learn where Rand gained her concept of ego. Is there an Aristotle connection in all this?). Because the concept of ego is not even agreed upon by Freud, Jung, and Adler, I think Rand should have provided the base of her use of the concept.

Post 12

Friday, March 4, 2005 - 11:22pm

Link

Edit

Joe,

I am not sure this will be of any help, but here it is.

http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_twilight_of_the_idols/the_twilight_of_the_Idols.htm

The work is Twilight of the Idols
by Nietzche

It was written in 1888

My fancy got tickled by your interest so I did a little origin of ego searching on google.

There is a bit about "ego" in this work. As an added treat, Item 33 in the section
Skirmishes of an Untimely Man
is called
The natural value of egoism

He also said in No 1 of
Maxims and Arrows
Idleness is the beginning of all psychology. What? Should psychology be a vice?

(Not really pertinent - I just sort of like it.)

I might be wrong, but I think Rand derived her concept of ego more from this kind of source than from Freud & Co. Everybody knows that she read Nietzche when she was younger.

There is probably more out there.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/04, 11:31pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 3/05, 12:29am)

Post 13

Saturday, March 5, 2005 - 6:44am

Link

Edit

Thanks, Michael! That is very interesting; actually, both Rand and Jung were influenced by Nietzsche...One question, do you know if the original text said ego, or Ich? (not that it matters that much.) My research shows that the word ego showed up in the 1700's, even though it's a Latin word.
One source claims that Aristotle anticipated psychology:

"He foreshadowed many of the concepts that would become popular only two thousand years later. Libido, for example: �In all animals... it is the most natural function to beget another being similar to itself... in order that they attain as far as possible, the immortal and divine.... This is the final cause of every creatures natural life.�

And the struggle of the id and ego: �There are two powers in the soul which appear to be moving forces -- desire and reason. But desire prompts actions in violation of reason... desire... may be wrong.�

What I am beginning to conclude from all this is that Rand used the term ego in it's strict, original definition, meaning "I", and that Freud and Jung subdivided the ego, likening it to the structure of an atom, with it's protons, and electrons and nucleus,while Adler kept it whole. I think Jung was on to something with his analysis of schizophrenia; and of course, there's the question of "alter egos."

I'm off to the bookstore for some more research.

Post 14

Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 7:56pm

Link

Edit

Michael, I was just rereading RUSSIAN RADICAL and Sciabarra seems to back you up about Nietzsche and ego, as well as expanding on it:
"Kant was certainly not the first philosopher to doubt the possibility of a rational morality of self-interest. Even before Hume questioned the likelihood of deriving an "ought from is," the history of philosophy was replete with attacks on ethical egoism. Peikoff...argues that even in the pagan, humanistic culture of ancient Greece, the Sophists had identified egoism with subjectivity and brutality. But in Western thought, strong egoistic themes were to be found in the works of Aristotle, Spinoza, and Nietzsche. Rand was most probably influenced by certain Aristotelian and Nietzschean themes in the creation of her own concept of egoism." Sciabarra elaborates that "there is much evidence to suggest that his tribute to human greatness, to a 'blessed selfishness...that springeth from the powerful soul'...was rooted in his exposure to the works of classical antiquity...emerg[ing] from an Aristotelian base."

This clears up at least one question for me, so thank you (and Chris!) for the info. So I can now narrow down my questions to the idea of ego as self versus the Freudian/Jungian notion of ego as part of self. Rand was working with the pre-Freudian notion of self, which puts her at odds with the psychologists, except for Adler, who seems proto-objectivist with his idea about the self being indivisible, lest the idea of subconscious be used to excuse one from responsibility, forshadowing Thomas Szasz...

Now, of course, there is the issue of Nietzsche's idea of selfishness coming from the powerful soul...but not tonite, dear. I have a headache.

Post 15

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 1:42am

Link

Edit

Glad to be of help, Joe.

My "expertise" on the roots of ego stop around here, though. Actually, I like ad hoc research, so this was pleasure - which came from translating a wide range of subjects that I never formally studied.

BTW - Why did you post your article under "WAR?"

Some kind of ego thing?...

Michael

Post 16

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 5:17am

Link

Edit

Hehe, Michael. It is SOME kind of ego thing, what kind, I don't know...

Actually, I put it under the category's full title: WAR FOR MEN'S MINDS. Given the history of psychology and psychoanalysis, and the many schisms within the field, the attempt to define man's mind is nothing less than a war. Especially when it comes to psychology.

It's been a war for me, personally. After reading Rand's comments on psychology years ago, then delving into the various theories and history psychoanalysis, as well as the ideas of Thomas Szasz, I am beginning to think that Rand's apprehension of the field was very justified. And as far as the work of Jung is concerned, my conclusion is that his work is best viewed metaphorically. His Kantian influence disturbs me, and by his own admission, his work is not science but religion. He shared with Kant the desire to rescue religion from science. The only way I can reconcile Jung with Rand is Rand's defense of religion as a primitive form of philosophy, and if one take his ideas of abstractions, and not "things in themselves."

Besides, to further study Jung would require a more systematic study of Kant; and I'm not going there. But it's been a great study for me, and I feel I have a better understanding of Objectivism as a result; instead of just accepting Rand's work, I went to the horse's mouth and learned it firsthand. And I have actually moved back to accepting Rand's basic premises of Objectivism. I am beginning to look more to the field of cognitive science, and am curious, due to Sascha's recommendation elsewhere about THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND, of the theory of language and its relation to mind.

So, yeah, it's been a war of minds: Rand's war to uphold man's mind, and Freud's war to subdivide it.

Post 17

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 9:07am

Link

Edit

Joe - A curiosity. I certainly find your research into the founders of psychology commendable. There is a lot of fascinating stuff out there.

I feel a conspicuous lack of the classical Objectivist psychologist. You know who I am talking about.

If you have not already (which I would find hard to believe), may I recommend the excellent work of Nathaniel Branden? The work of his that I have read places him far above the category of pop psychologist.

Just a thought...

Michael

Post 18

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 2:21pm

Link

Edit

I have read Branden, Michael, and invite you to take a closer look at the Ego article, where I contrast Jung's definition of ego with Branden's (Jung believes the ego to be the tip of the consciousness iceberg, a part of the larger self, which is influenced by a collective unconscious passed onto us through heredity; Branden (and Rand) believe the ego to be THE self, tabula rasa and programmed by the individual.)
Both Freud and Jung believe in the mind as divisible, yet Alfred Adler, the Caruso (other guy) of the 3 tenors of psychoanalysis, believed the ego to be undivided, for fear of the loss of self-responsibility (forshadowing Thomas Szasz's myth of mental illness theory and pretty close to Rand and Branden.)

Indeed, Branden's work plays a large part in my research, since it was his explorations into hypnosis and the ideas of Arthur Koestler, Koestler references Jung favorably) that acted as a gateway drug from Rand to Jung. And I thought it odd that Branden and Rand confronted the ideas of Freud, but not Jung. Branden does quote Jung a few times favorably, but his comments are vague enough to avoid endorsing Jung outright (there is no disclaimer, as there was in HONORING THE SELF regarding his positive reference to Ghandi.) I have a suspicion that there is more to the Branden/Jung connection that meets the eye; however, I have no proof about that, so it remains a suspicion.

Post 19

Tuesday, March 8, 2005 - 6:10pm

Link

Edit

Yea gods!!! Caught with my pants down.

No excuse, Joe. I won't even try. I stand corrected.

Actually your breakdown of the divisibility of ego concept between different psychologists and Rand is interesting. Good luck with where you take this. I would appreciate hearing about what you do with it.

Since I have long had a callous where my shame should be, I will offer another suggestion without blinking an eye. You wrote:

"I have a suspicion that there is more to the Branden/Jung connection that meets the eye; however, I have no proof about that, so it remains a suspicion."

Why don't you ask him?

Michael