RoR: Forum

No argument here on this - but, to put it into context: throughout most of history, the influence of Christianity, in its 'consider the lilies of the fields', and the idea of being sheep in need of a shepherd, has had profound impact on the issue of dependency - which is the lack of the desire of independence... so there is a 'turning over' as it were which needs take place before the general acceptance of integrated independency can be achieved.....

Post 1

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:08pm

In yet another great article, Joe wrote:

Imagine a person who does think for himself, refuses to let other people get in the way of his grasp of reality, and is in every other way an independent thinker. Now what happens if he's completely financially dependent on another person, for instance his mother? Does the fact that he thinks for himself and makes his own value judgments mean anything when he's forced to get his mother's approval for anything and everything? Is he dealing directly with reality when he has to ask an intermediary for permission? Does the virtue of independence, practiced merely as independent thinking, benefit his life?

I have known several young whipper-snapper Objectivists still dependent upon their parents who felt they had the "right" to mouth off at the folks and to bite the hands that fed them. Those observations taught me the central nature of the virtue of productiveness -- that a budding Objectivist needs to focus all his efforts on that virtue and to make rationality its servant. Once he breaks into full financial independence of his parents, and only then, does he have a credible claim to the "right" to speak his mind to them in such a cocky way. The funny thing is, once a young person does learn to earn his own keep, he develops a new level of respect for his parents and starts to understand why they acted the way they did. He thus loses the urge to pop off at them. At this point, he has a legitimate claim to pride, the third of the Objectivist triad of major virtues.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 3/26, 6:10pm)

Post 2

Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:44pm

Mr. Rowlands,

Great article, plenty of food for thought.

I have one point to make, if I've got it right: Being independent means thinking and acting for yourself and also allowing other people to think and act for themselves. Being neither a slave to others or a master of others. If you constantly desire other people to think and act as you would, even if they are peaceful, you are not thinking independently.

I like the paragraph that contained this:

"The victim's mind is invalidated through the use of force."
"It prevents him from acting on his own best judgment, invalidating his ability to live his life."

I put them together in that order to emphasize that thought to myself. The work of art that is YOUR LIFE is partially destroyed when other people presume to force you to live by their rules rather than your own judgement.

Post 3

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 12:32am

Joe,

As usual, wonderful article. Too many times in daily living we are exhorted either to think or to act - rarely to do both at the same time. ("Think, choose us and let us act" - or "obey this and act.")

I would like to complement your observations with a practical professional application of independent (think-act) mentality that I had to undergo in order to understand it. That is the "employee" versus the "proprietor" mentality.

An employee typically does not worry too much about the long range affairs of the company he works for. His problem is to get to work on time and leave when his shift is up. He has guaranteed holidays and vacation time. Pay to him is a day of the week or month. He can get an advance when he is short.

A proprietor must worry about the long range health of his company, including competition, consumption trends, suppliers, new technologies and a whole slew of concerns that are not automatically included. There is no job manual or job training for this. He works his own hours, but if his company is to grow, he needs to put in long hours, including taking work home, and working on weekends and holidays. Vacations are unheard of for a fast growing company or when it is doing poorly. Pay to him only comes with the completion of a project or sale. There is no such thing as an advance.

An employee can limit his thinking and actions and still get by. His boss makes a good deal of his decisions for him. A proprietor must both think and act - and soundly. If not, he goes out of business. He doesn't eat.

I moved from the employee mentality to the proprietor one by choice. In Brazil at the time I made this decision, being an employee came with too many wage controls for comfort, so I broke off into freelance and opening my own business. It was an extremely uncomfortable mental migration, principally because of the security of the employee type versus the uncertainty of the proprietor type. (That will sure get you out of bed in the morning, though.) But after the successful crossover, it is now almost impossible for me to go back.

Michael

Post 4

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 11:08am

Joe, I love this article. My life is so much better since I started to ask myself one question when confronting a problem: "Jim, have you tried getting off your ass and doing something about it?"

Post 5

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 1:31am

Thanks for the comments everyone.

Luther, great post. I think your emphasis on productiveness is right on.

Mike, in my article I was thinking of independence more as being able to directly deal with reality, and not simply by permission. You're right that it also has to do with not trying to live vicariously through others. It's easy to see how an altruistic morality requires other people in such a fundamental way that it is a morality of dependence, even if you're the one helping them.

Let me also add to your last statement that your life is partially destroyed (given up) when you decide to live a minute of it for other people.

Michael and James, thanks for the examples.

Post 6

Monday, June 3, 2013 - 6:48am