Self-Esteem and Benevolence

[Dglgmut]

I know I already made a thread where I brought up some of my doubts about how self-esteem worked and what it actually was, but this thread is meant to expound on the connection between self-esteem and benevolence.

The difference between benevolence and altruism lies in the intention behind the act. While benevolent acts are altruistic, altruistic acts are not necessarily benevolent. Benevolence is altruistic behavior for the sake of one's own happiness. These definitions obviously contradict Rand's, who essentially defined altruism as a philosophy of irrational selflessness (and impossible to practice consistently).

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true? While Rand had no problem with benevolence, she didn't seem to consider it a virtue of its own, nor did she speak of it having a fundamental role in achieving happiness (as far as I know--please correct me if I'm wrong). Benevolence was illustrated by Rand as a consequence of self-esteem, but I'd now argue that it is in fact the purpose of self-esteem, bridging the gap between self-esteem and happiness.

Self-esteem comes down to the question "What am I good for?"

Productivity is the process of creating perceived value. The role of self-esteem in this process is that of a catalyst or agitator. In order to pursue productive activity, one must first see the potential in oneself to add value to reality.

Whether or not we can see in ourselves the potential to effect positive changes in the world around us, according to our own standards, depends on our self-perception. The only information we have for evaluating our efficacy before deciding to act, and how, is obtained through remembered experiences and general subconscious preconceptions. I assume that the subconscious beliefs manifest themselves roughly the same as natural intuition; like a form of learned intuition--and thus, the less time we have to consider a decision, the more that decision will be influenced on subconscious preconceptions. The learning process, though, in forming such beliefs is consciously experienced. Whether evaluating ourselves in the moment, or based on our memories of the past, we can either focus on our potential or our limitations. A focus on our potential will inspire productive action, while a focus on our limitations will inspire inaction or destructive action--and over time a tendency to look at oneself in one way opposed to the other will shape one's subconscious self-image accordingly.

While experience and memories will necessarily come from reality, that is not to say that there is not another variable other than real events which determines one's self-esteem. We can choose to focus on ourselves in either way, once we understand we have a choice. Of course the more proof we have of our capabilities will always help, but is not necessary for recognizing our potential, as creativity is not purely dependent on memory.

If "the doing" (as Roark put it, in TF) is what makes us happy, as long as what we are doing meets our criteria for productivity, and productive activity must be judged according to our standard of value, then holding one's own life as one's standard of value will create a circular purpose of life--living to act, and acting to live.

We do act to live, but that is not the only reason we act. Once the fear of death is out of our mind--that we have achieved, by ourselves or with help, a relatively unthreatened state of existence--we must act based on another standard of value. This is why making other people happy seems like good advice in achieving one's own happiness--if you are making other people happy, surely you are being productive. And while this is fallacious, it definitely does give people a feeling of being productive, which would entail happiness and reinforce self-esteem. However, one's standard of value must be decided selfishly; meaning that just because something makes other people happy does not imply satisfaction of one's own subjective values.

What else could have more value than one's own life, though? What gives one's life value? It is not just that which allows one to keep on living, but also that which one determines as objectively valuable. "The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" (TVS) So here Rand makes it clear that there is no such thing as objective value. Does that mean, though, that in each individual's subjective evaluations, one does not consider what seems objectively valuable?

Back to the question "What good am I?" What value does (or could) my existence have? According to Rand, none outside of my own selfish experiences. And while this is pretty much the case, should one not even attempt to establish a concept of "goodness" which does not revolve around one's own existence? Sure, it'd be subjective; but such a standard is only meant to achieve one's own happiness, though it would likely result in making other people happy for various indirect reasons.

This argument rests heavily on the idea that we cannot avoid judging ourselves, consciously or subconsciously, with attempted objectivity (trying to imagine existence with ourselves excluded--then adding ourselves to the equation and using the difference to valuate ourselves). Nothing can have objective value, but our minds are certainly capable of creating an idea of objective value (or coming preloaded with such ideas).

We live to be happy, and happiness comes from doing things we consider value-productive (benevolence), and our concept of value comes from attempted objectivity, and self-esteem comes from the idea that we are capable of creating value, and therefor starts the process in motion while also becoming solidified by successful productive efforts.

Benevolence is impossible if one is incapable of fulfilling even one's own needs, but one's own needs are a means to an end, not the end itself.

Corrections, criticisms, etc. please.

[anthony]

There's plenty to unbundle there, but first we should clarify the distinction

between self-esteem and rational egoism. I think you interchange them, which is

confusing.

Same with benevolence and altruism. Can an avowed altruist indeed be benevolent?

An altruist - in the fullest meaning of the concept, lives by and through others,

as well as for - has assumed the duty to be selfless, so has renounced the choice

to be benevolent, as I see it.

[Dglgmut]

Can you give me an example of me conflating self-esteem with rational egoism?

An act can be considered altruistic if it appears to benefit another person, without benefiting, or even disadvantaging oneself. However, if happiness can be derived from such an act, and it is done for this purpose, it is also benevolent. This does not mean that the intended direct beneficiary of a benevolent act will necessarily interpret the act as beneficial, but by the actors standards it must be (eg. a parent doing what is best for his/her child, whether or not the child reacts positively).

[Brant Gaede]

I know I already made a thread where I brought up some of my doubts about how self-esteem worked and what it actually was, but this thread is meant to expound on the connection between self-esteem and benevolence.

The difference between benevolence and altruism lies in the intention behind the act. While benevolent acts are altruistic, altruistic acts are not necessarily benevolent. Benevolence is altruistic behavior for the sake of one's own happiness. These definitions obviously contradict Rand's, who essentially defined altruism as a philosophy of irrational selflessness (and impossible to practice consistently).

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true? While Rand had no problem with benevolence, she didn't seem to consider it a virtue of its own, nor did she speak of it having a fundamental role in achieving happiness (as far as I know--please correct me if I'm wrong). Benevolence was illustrated by Rand as a consequence of self-esteem, but I'd now argue that it is in fact the purpose of self-esteem, bridging the gap between self-esteem and happiness.

Self-esteem comes down to the question "What am I good for?"

Productivity is the process of creating perceived value. The role of self-esteem in this process is that of a catalyst or agitator. In order to pursue productive activity, one must first see the potential in oneself to add value to reality.

Whether or not we can see in ourselves the potential to effect positive changes in the world around us, according to our own standards, depends on our self-perception. The only information we have for evaluating our efficacy before deciding to act, and how, is obtained through remembered experiences and general subconscious preconceptions. I assume that the subconscious beliefs manifest themselves roughly the same as natural intuition; like a form of learned intuition--and thus, the less time we have to consider a decision, the more that decision will be influenced on subconscious preconceptions. The learning process, though, in forming such beliefs is consciously experienced. Whether evaluating ourselves in the moment, or based on our memories of the past, we can either focus on our potential or our limitations. A focus on our potential will inspire productive action, while a focus on our limitations will inspire inaction or destructive action--and over time a tendency to look at oneself in one way opposed to the other will shape one's subconscious self-image accordingly.

While experience and memories will necessarily come from reality, that is not to say that there is not another variable other than real events which determines one's self-esteem. We can choose to focus on ourselves in either way, once we understand we have a choice. Of course the more proof we have of our capabilities will always help, but is not necessary for recognizing our potential, as creativity is not purely dependent on memory.

If "the doing" (as Roark put it, in TF) is what makes us happy, as long as what we are doing meets our criteria for productivity, and productive activity must be judged according to our standard of value, then holding one's own life as one's standard of value will create a circular purpose of life--living to act, and acting to live.

We do act to live, but that is not the only reason we act. Once the fear of death is out of our mind--that we have achieved, by ourselves or with help, a relatively unthreatened state of existence--we must act based on another standard of value. This is why making other people happy seems like good advice in achieving one's own happiness--if you are making other people happy, surely you are being productive. And while this is fallacious, it definitely does give people a feeling of being productive, which would entail happiness and reinforce self-esteem. However, one's standard of value must be decided selfishly; meaning that just because something makes other people happy does not imply satisfaction of one's own subjective values.

What else could have more value than one's own life, though? What gives one's life value? It is not just that which allows one to keep on living, but also that which one determines as objectively valuable. "The concept “value” is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" (TVS) So here Rand makes it clear that there is no such thing as objective value. Does that mean, though, that in each individual's subjective evaluations, one does not consider what seems objectively valuable?

Back to the question "What good am I?" What value does (or could) my existence have? According to Rand, none outside of my own selfish experiences. And while this is pretty much the case, should one not even attempt to establish a concept of "goodness" which does not revolve around one's own existence? Sure, it'd be subjective; but such a standard is only meant to achieve one's own happiness, though it would likely result in making other people happy for various indirect reasons.

This argument rests heavily on the idea that we cannot avoid judging ourselves, consciously or subconsciously, with attempted objectivity (trying to imagine existence with ourselves excluded--then adding ourselves to the equation and using the difference to valuate ourselves). Nothing can have objective value, but our minds are certainly capable of creating an idea of objective value (or coming preloaded with such ideas).

We live to be happy, and happiness comes from doing things we consider value-productive (benevolence), and our concept of value comes from attempted objectivity, and self-esteem comes from the idea that we are capable of creating value, and therefor starts the process in motion while also becoming solidified by successful productive efforts.

Benevolence is impossible if one is incapable of fulfilling even one's own needs, but one's own needs are a means to an end, not the end itself.

Corrections, criticisms, etc. please.

Rand this and Rand that. Needed are actual quotations and precise references or leave her out.

--Brant

[Xray]

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true?

What are you referring to here by "accept as generally true"?

Do you mean Rand's opinion about the maxim ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

Or do you mean the maxim itself ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

[BaalChatzaf]

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true?

What are you referring to here by "accept as generally true"?

Do you mean Rand's opinion about the maxim ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

Or do you mean the maxim itself ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

One is glad to be of service --- Bicentennial Man.

It is better to be useful than to be useless. The first step of being useful to others is being useful to one's own self

This is my position. I am an egotist who does a lot of volunteer work. Why do I do it? Because I do it very well.

[Dglgmut]

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true?

What are you referring to here by "accept as generally true"?

Do you mean Rand's opinion about the maxim ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

Or do you mean the maxim itself ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

The maxim. I think many people accept it as true, which is why it's had such successful dissemination.

[Xray]

Ayn was disgusted by maxims like "Happiness comes from making others happy." But how can most people accept this as generally true?

What are you referring to here by "accept as generally true"?

Do you mean Rand's opinion about the maxim ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

Or do you mean the maxim itself ("Happiness comes from making others happy")?

The maxim. I think many people accept it as true, which is why it's had such successful dissemination.

If one inserts just one small term, imo there may be no need to discuss this controversially at all.

How about "Happiness can come from making others happy"?

This would imply that making others happy does not automatically make oneself happy every time, but it does not exclude the possibility of one's own happiness, in certain cases, being the result of making others happy.

[Dglgmut]

Rand this and Rand that. Needed are actual quotations and precise references or leave her out.

--Brant

Her reaction to "Happiness comes from making other people happy." at 1:52

...who essentially defined altruism as a philosophy of irrational selflessness (and impossible to practice consistently).

Too much here to choose: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

While Rand had no problem with benevolence, she didn't seem to consider it a virtue of its own, nor did she speak of it having a fundamental role in achieving happiness (as far as I know--please correct me if I'm wrong).

And here is everything that came up for benevolence: http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresults/index.html?cx=013104633629966810561%3Ag5jt9ka8qre&cof=FORID%3A11&q=benevolence

She barely mentions benevolence.

[Dglgmut]

If one inserts just one small term, imo there may be no need to discuss this controversially at all.

How about "Happiness can come from making others happy"?

This would imply that making others happy does not automatically make oneself happy every time, but it does not exclude the possibility of one's own happiness, in certain cases, being the result of making others happy.

Why are you focusing so much on that one line? I brought it up simply as a reference point. Rand rejected the saying as immoral, but I wanted to look into what truth there was behind it and why people accept it as a moral guide.

[anthony]

Can you give me an example of me conflating self-esteem with rational egoism?

An act can be considered altruistic if it appears to benefit another person, without benefiting, or even disadvantaging oneself. However, if happiness can be derived from such an act, and it is done for this purpose, it is also benevolent. This does not mean that the intended direct beneficiary of a benevolent act will necessarily interpret the act as beneficial, but by the actors standards it must be (eg. a parent doing what is best for his/her child, whether or not the child reacts positively).

The conflation seems between 'psychological' self-esteem', as evinced by Branden - and 'conscious' self-esteem, as one of the cardinal values within Objectivist ethics, rational egoism. If you consider NB as the leader in expertise in his subject, he defines self-esteem as "The reputation you have with yourself" - and shows that it is at least partially subconscious.

Also, apropos benevolence and altruism, your thoughts above make sense to me only in comparison between them and rational egoism, not with self-esteem (of either type).

A few quotes I dug up in the Lex:

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values..."[VoS]

"It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty,

but as an act of good will and generosity...when it is offered in response to

the receiver's virtues..."[AR]

"The fact that a man has no claim on others...does not preclude or prohibit good

will among men..."[AR]

Benevolence (or good will) was not a virtue -per se- to Rand, apparently. That WOULD signify altruism, in her mind. She appreciated it, but just didn't make a fuss about it. But that it is (my view) a 'natural' accompaniment to rational egoism - one an altruist, by definition, is largely incapable of - is an important distinction she was well aware of, and makes clear elsewhere.

(I go further, in thinking a definite correlation between egoism and good-will.)

[Brant Gaede]

Rand considered altruism consciously giving up a greater for a lesser value--or no value, I suppose. That would be generousity gone wild and irrational, but generosity as such isn't altruistic.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values..."[VoS]

I'm choosing this quote so that I can contrast Rand's view with my own. She obviously did not see any causal connection between benevolence and happiness. According to me, the proper method for determining whether one should help another person is to consider what value will be produced by the act. This often cannot be done adequately in real time, so it depends on meditative type preparation (introspection).

I agree that man's highest moral purpose is his happiness, but it is not a purely rational pursuit. Happiness comes from productivity (creativity), and that productivity is inspired by benevolence: giving of oneself on one's own terms.

Productivity and work are not synonymous. A slave works, but is unhappy, because he is not doing what he considers (value) productive based on his standards of value.

I believe self-esteem is primarily subconscious. We make decisions all the time without really considering that we are even making a decision; but the choices we make are always affected by our subconscious understanding of what we are capable of (producing).

If we believe we cannot add value (based on our own standards) to the world, we will find ways to kill time. So again, it has nothing to do with doing what other people want us to do, but rather what we believe has value and whether or not we are capable of producing it.

[Dglgmut]

Rand considered altruism consciously giving up a greater for a lesser value--or no value, I suppose. That would be generosity gone wild and irrational, but generosity as such isn't altruistic.

--Brant

But if it makes you happy, what's the problem? She didn't believe it could make you happy, though. I argue that it can--and in those instances it can be more specifically called benevolence.

Roark gave up a lot of values to feel happiness. He loved to build--the act of building was a value of its own because it made him happy.

[anthony]

"The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one's own rational self-interest and one's own hierarchy of values..."[VoS]

I'm choosing this quote so that I can contrast Rand's view with my own. She obviously did not see any causal connection between benevolence and happiness. According to me, the proper method for determining whether one should help another person is to consider what value will be produced by the act. This often cannot be done adequately in real time, so it depends on meditative type preparation (introspection).

I agree that man's highest moral purpose is his happiness, but it is not a purely rational pursuit. Happiness comes from productivity (creativity), and that productivity is inspired by benevolence: giving of oneself on one's own terms.

Productivity and work are not synonymous.

I don't know if you are that far adrift from her, actually. Her "hierarchy of values" relates to your

"what value will be produced..." She considers the beneficiary of an act, while you, the general outcome.

Both dependent on selfish values.

'Values' come in many forms and degrees. Let's say I value the good treatment of animals and wish to spend my Sundays working for no pay at a pet shelter? Say one highly values a friend (but has little value for one's own brother?)

When you come down to the individual level (as Frediano alluded to today on the Color thread) you come down to vast arrays of differences.

What is real, what is rational. It's impossible to be benevolent to the entire (unknown) world - though one might sympathize with others' misfortunes - and certainly impossible to fix it. Indiscriminately

pursuing the happiness of other people one doesnt know or personally care about, is bound to become unsustainable - so, sacrificial of one's own happiness, and irrational.

Alternatively, a "hierarchy of values" ripples outwards like a pebble in a pond and often overlaps with others people's 'ripples' (to my fanciful view).

I take your point that it's self-interested to be benevolent - and that creative work can be motivated

by benevolence. I have a minor quibble here on the balance leaning to pragmatism, however. I still think

there is a very direct connection: As you are end in yourself, so is another person.

[Xray]

If one inserts just one small term, imo there may be no need to discuss this controversially at all.

How about "Happiness can come from making others happy"?

This would imply that making others happy does not automatically make oneself happy every time, but it does not exclude the possibility of one's own happiness, in certain cases, being the result of making others happy.

Why are you focusing so much on that one line? I brought it up simply as a reference point. Rand rejected the saying as immoral, but I wanted to look into what truth there was behind it and why people accept it as a moral guide.

I used "that line" for demonstration purposes: to illustrate that statements like "Happiness comes from making others happy" in their absoluteness are a distortion of reality.

[Dglgmut]

I used "that line" for demonstration purposes: to illustrate that statements like "Happiness comes from making others happy" in their absoluteness are a distortion of reality.

Anyone familiar with Rand's work knows this. Or has heard a very elaborate argument at the least.

[Xray]

I used "that line" for demonstration purposes: to illustrate that statements like "Happiness comes from making others happy" in their absoluteness are a distortion of reality.

Anyone familiar with Rand's work knows this. Or has heard a very elaborate argument at the least.

But the opposite statement: "Happiness does not come come from making others happy" in its absoluteness would be a distortion of reality too.

[Dglgmut]

I used "that line" for demonstration purposes: to illustrate that statements like "Happiness comes from making others happy" in their absoluteness are a distortion of reality.

Anyone familiar with Rand's work knows this. Or has heard a very elaborate argument at the least.

But the opposite statement: "Happiness does not come come from making others happy" in its absoluteness would be a distortion of reality too.

Would it? Maybe you are right, but it is not self-evident. And also it depends on what is meant by "happiness". Rand's definition (guiltless, non-contradictory joy) may not be achieved without properly prioritizing one's values. With this definition in mind, the statement could be accurate as "Making oneself happy can also make others happy".

I believe that is universally true, however, in particular cases, making other people happy could also be productive activity of its own if one considers the happiness of certain other people as a value to him/herself. I don't know if there is any reason why it cannot be selfish to make other people happy for the sake of it, provided the means of achieving this end do not conflict with one's more important values.

[Dglgmut]

I'm now questioning my supposition that benevolence is the essence of productivity.

I'm thinking now that perhaps benevolence is like overflow; it is what value we can provide for others when we are comfortable with our ability to provide for ourselves (affirming our sense that we can take care of ourselves).

Productivity then is primarily our ability to produce what we can directly consume or trade for values we cannot produce ourselves.

"What am I good for?" would then not be about any concept of objective "goodness", but rather primarily about one's ability to create trade-ready (inter-subjective) values. This includes things like developing a likeable personality.

[Dglgmut]

Question: Living consciously is motivated by a respect for reality.

Why respect reality? What is it about reality that we prefer over fantasy?

See, the only answer I can come up with is that without reality we have no (real) self-awareness.

So is respect for the truth, facts, and reality motivated by a desire to know ourselves? Or for an opportunity to (really) prove ourselves?

[Brant Gaede]

I respect reality so I won't get run over crossing the street.

--Brant

your reason may differ

[Dglgmut]

So if you could live in a virtual reality and have a completely enjoyable life, while knowing the whole time it was not real, but that you would definitely not die for, say, 100 years... you would be happy with the unreal?

[BaalChatzaf]

So if you could live in a virtual reality and have a completely enjoyable life, while knowing the whole time it was not real, but that you would definitely not die for, say, 100 years... you would be happy with the unreal?

That is the metaphysical equivalent of f**king party dolls. Yuccchhhhh!

[Dglgmut]

But what exactly is it that we like better about reality?