Self-Esteem


Dglgmut

Recommended Posts

Brant, We each find, and ought to be free to find, the best level of socialization we require, and that varies from time to time in anyone's life.

I'm wryly amused sometimes by differing perceptions based - in part - like mine are, upon one's own society.

In a semi-sane nation, it is easier to hold nobler sentiments; in a semi-insane one, over-'socialized' by government force, angry entitlement of the populace, imposed guilt and collectivized demands, one could yearn to be "a cat slinking through the jungle". (Maybe has to be.)

I have a front seat to what can happen when that brittle and fragile balance most European nations exist by, begins to topple.Ultimately, my argument is we can afford to be 'weak' when we are strong to begin with, but hardly ever the reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm going to repeat myself, because as per usual you've not registered what was said.

"I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent."

It is futile to try to exist in a way in which bad things don't happen.

What makes you think mine was directed disagreement at you personally? I'm puzzled.

There are underlying premises to the concept "civilisation", and misperceptions of it as 'a metaphysical given' which I think are germane here. I believe I made a connection between

"bad experiences"- as I put it "the highs and lows of reality" - and expectations of people to be

cocooned from that private pain and hardship by the State..somehow. At their cost in the end.

"As per usual", freely admitted, it's the *principles* I like to search for - like it or not as you wish..

lol... Sorry, Tony, that wasn't directed at you :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to repeat myself, because as per usual you've not registered what was said.

"I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent."

It is futile to try to exist in a way in which bad things don't happen.

A pilot flying an airplane believing this will crash and burn.

--Brant

not that he would have the job

Still not getting it. We don't need to prevent EVERY bad thing from happening, and we can't. We ought to focus on what is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant, We each find, and ought to be free to find, the best level of socialization we require, and that varies from time to time in anyone's life.

I'm wryly amused sometimes by differing perceptions based - in part - like mine are, upon one's own society.

In a semi-sane nation, it is easier to hold nobler sentiments; in a semi-insane one, over-'socialized' by government force, angry entitlement of the populace, imposed guilt and collectivized demands, one could yearn to be "a cat slinking through the jungle". (Maybe has to be.)

I have a front seat to what can happen when that brittle and fragile balance most European nations exist by, begins to topple.Ultimately, my argument is we can afford to be 'weak' when we are strong to begin with, but hardly ever the reverse.

Good comment. This is getting off-topic, but you might find this article thought-provoking:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/the-reality-of-group-selection-and-not.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to repeat myself, because as per usual you've not registered what was said.

"I think you are misinterpreting "our attempt to prevent 'bad' experiences", because of the wording. I believe he means all bad experiences, not just some. Which makes sense, because overall we do have to accept that bad things happen--and this allows us to focus on which bad experiences to try to prevent."

It is futile to try to exist in a way in which bad things don't happen.

A pilot flying an airplane believing this will crash and burn.

--Brant

not that he would have the job

Still not getting it. We don't need to prevent EVERY bad thing from happening, and we can't. We ought to focus on what is important.

I didn't say there are no plane crashes.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hello all. I'm new to this forum and I thought I'd take a look around. I made it all of one post before tossing my hat into the ring. I haven't read the entire thread yet, so I apologize if I'm covering well-trod ground.

Dglgmut's post caught my attention and I found I had some immediate questions. His conclusion is that self-value is impossible and I don't believe that to be the case.

He states that "Value is subjective, though not dependent on consciousness." I would argue both points, starting with the latter: Something being subjective is, to my understanding, by definition dependent on consciousness. His example is water being of value to a plant. This is a bad example because it can be demonstrated that water is objectively necessary to the life of a plant. Life is the goal of the plant, and water is essential to that goal. Therefore, water is objectively valuable to the plant. Plants cannot have subjective values because they lack consciousness.

Values can be subjective, but aren't necessarily so. If we view value as the utility of a thing towards the achievement of a goal, that utility can be objectively quantified. If my goal is to pound a nail into a board a hammer is objectively better suited for the task than a rock.

This is true I think for less tangible values as well - such as Reason. Reason is the best method for gaining knowledge - objectively so. It is better suited to the task of gaining knowledge then any other method.

Given this, I would say that it IS possible to see oneself as an object of value. My mind and body have an objective capacity which I can use to reach my goals. The better aligned my capabilities are, the higher my self-esteem is. For example, if my goal was to be a professional athlete and I had worked especially hard to be in good physical shape to enhance my athleticism, my self-esteem would be increased. For a doctor it might be knowledge of the human body. For a fisherman it might be skill with a net.

My definition then of self-esteem would be: A man's genuine capacity to achieve his goals.

Thoughts and comments welcome.

--

Don Atreides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Don,

I'm sure there are errors in my original post on this thread and it should rightfully raise questions.

I still stand by my proposition that all value is subjective--dependent on a subject. We need air, fish do not. Does air have objective value? Consciousness has nothing to do with it; the fact is that the means to one particular end will not serve as the means to every other possible end.

Our bodies have value to us, of course. This has nothing to do with psychological self-esteem, though. If you were in a car accident and became paralyzed, your self-esteem would be an important variable in your emotional recovery.

The subconscious estimation of our potential is roughly what self-esteem is, and it manifests itself in our behavior and reactions to different circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dglgmut, thanks for your response.

I would agree that all value requires a goal to make them relevant - an "of value to what?" However, that's not the same as saying that a value is subjective. I think you're conflating something being "subjective" to something being "relative". Plants need water to live - that's not an opinion, it's an objective fact. Insomuch as the goal of the plant is to live (it can have no other goal) water is an objective requirement and therefore, it has objective value to the plant.

People also need water to live. That is an objective fact. Water has objective value to people - regardless of whether they recognize that need themselves. Indeed, a religious ascetic might decide that water is of no value and stop drinking. They will die because the body needs water whether they value it or not.

Accepting all of this, I go back to my definition of self-esteem with an important adjustment. Originally I said that self-esteem was a measure of "A man's genuine capacity to achieve his goals." That is wrong. Self-esteem is really only a man's perceived capacity to achieve his goals. That doesn't make it less important, just fallible. In fact, I would make this analogy: Perception of self-worth is a hypothesis that we test through efforts and validate through achievements. I think that's why many people don't attempt great things - they're afraid of invalidating their self-worth by testing the hypothesis that they are of the value they perceive themselves to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think values for people are both objective and subjective the latter depending on what values and what people, but values for other living organisms are completely objective in that they have no choice but to seek out same to the extent they have said need. And humans can and do create values on a massive, complicated scale and similarly consume them.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, maybe an even stronger case can be made for valuing as subjective.

--Brant

Not if perceived completely from the individual's standpoint - circular as it sounds.

Interesting. I agree that it seems as though we all have personal tastes and habits which appear subjective. But I don't think they remain so, necessarily. It underlines the importance of introspection: identify - expose. Find the root causes, and implement values consciously into action, and many things become 'objective'; many other things are seen as inessential and could be discarded. (Once I understood why I had always been attracted to brunettes, rather than blondes, my subconscious subjectivity about physical appearance became moot and fell away.) It is self-fulfilling, sort of.

"Objectivist ethics holds man's life as the standard of value - and his own life

as the ethical purpose of every individual man."

"Purpose", and "hierarchy of value" explains it fully: We each share the upper values,

(the cardinals of Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem) all the way down through other

common needs for sustaining life, to individually chosen ones. Down to minor, infinitesimal differences ( I enjoy tea in the morning, rather than coffee or juice- etc.) which to the focused individual are as objective as the more significant ones, though at times interchangeable. Those tiny values put into action slot in beneath one's total purpose and hierarchy.

(Vive la difference. Vive l'equivalence!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I don't know what the hell to call a value that is a value in general--to anything and everything. I was calling it "objective", and stating that all real values that actually exist are subjective.

I think by your own admission, there are no values that are values in general. As I think someone mentioned before, things can only be of value TO something - "of value to what?". Nothing is intrinsically valuable to everything. That leaves values that are subjective and objective, but even those are still of value something in the case of objective values and of someone in the case of subjective values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I don't know what the hell to call a value that is a value in general--to anything and everything. I was calling it "objective", and stating that all real values that actually exist are subjective.

I think by your own admission, there are no values that are values in general. As I think someone mentioned before, things can only be of value TO something - "of value to what?". Nothing is intrinsically valuable to everything. That leaves values that are subjective and objective, but even those are still of value something in the case of objective values and of someone in the case of subjective values.

I would have stated it thus: things are of value to someone for some end or purpose. So to specify the value you have to say what is is, for whom and for what purpose. Ditto for matters of importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have stated it thus: things are of value to someone for some end or purpose. So to specify the value you have to say what is is, for whom and for what purpose. Ditto for matters of importance.

I would have "liked" this comment however it appears I've hit my "like" quota for the day - topping out at 0 likes. Apparently I'm unable to appreciate anything - no wonder I'm so curmudgeonly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have stated it thus: things are of value to someone for some end or purpose. So to specify the value you have to say what is is, for whom and for what purpose. Ditto for matters of importance.

I would have "liked" this comment however it appears I've hit my "like" quota for the day - topping out at 0 likes. Apparently I'm unable to appreciate anything - no wonder I'm so curmudgeonly!

Never mind likes on OL--it's disfunctional and nobody really uses it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Is this an accurate definition of self-esteem? One's value of self-awareness.

Self-awareness is the beginning of everything, I'd say, which is where I guess you're heading; if not exactly the definition of self esteem, it is certainly its precursor and precondition. Also, stating the obvious, 'other-awareness' would be severely limited without self-awareness.

(I really should go back to NB's Honoring the Self more often, since every visit gives a fresh insight - and nobody has ever put it with as much familiarity and clarity as he does.)

Related to this topic, in the chapter The Art of Being, he starts: "The art of being is the art of knowing ourselves, of accepting and living in harmony with ourselves, and of living out in action, the highest possibilities of our nature. It includes three basic concepts : self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-assertion."

Philosophically, I think awareness of self is a continuous, inductive experience which confirms in oneself the efficacy of free will.

Psychologically, it seems that this 'experience' gives rise to (one of NB's definitions of self-esteem) "the reputation we have with ourselves".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't a lack of self-esteem a fear of self-awareness?

That's for drugs, especially alcohol.

Lack of self-esteem is a combo thought/feeling of lack of efficacy, of rightness for this life.

Self-esteem is the contrary.

I think a lot of so-called self-esteem issues cover up other things more particular, such as sadness or depression. In his classical therapeutic period, Nathaniel Branden never worked on self-esteem as such.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't a lack of self-esteem a fear of self-awareness?

Wrong way round. More like the fear conflicts with and compromises self-esteem.

"Self-awareness begins with learning to be more conscious of our feelings and emotions, since [...] this is the area where we learn to shut down from our earliest years. During this process we inevitably experience a series of varied emotions. The art of awareness consists of observing without interfering, but initially this can be a very frightening experience. [...]

We may experience the panic of being out of control. But panic is only another emotion.

As we become more and more conscious of the flow of our feelings, we become more and more conscious of the impulses behind our actions.

[...]

In terms of of expanding self-awareness, there is a difference between 'experiencing' an emotion and merely 'naming' it..."

[HtS -NB]

Plenty more follows on that, so you need to buy the book - it is the benchmark to start from. It is all surmising, otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now