[ENonemaker]

We all know that the best life is a (rationally) self-centered one: do what you gotta do to make you and only you happy - get that career you wanted, that house, that book, that trip around the world, that adorable puppy, and screw all those other losers who say you should think more about the opinions of other people or that your money would be better spent buying a rosary to give to a mother in Africa. It's about you and your wants. But we also all know that, as incredibly awesome as your personal success is, it can also quite dreary unless you have someone to share it with (in the same way that having a significant other would mean nothing if you had achieved nothing from your own life - if your "love" with that person was unearned).

So, my query is, what exactly is it that makes worthwhile social interaction so essential to happiness?

You have someone to understand you, yes; you have someone to share your life with, yes - but if life is about success and individual achievement, can't you accomplish that all without someone's understanding or sharing it, and enjoy it fully? If that's what brings happiness (and it does), why is it not complete happiness if it's all alone? What is it in being with rational people that makes life seem meaningful (or so I would imagine)?


(Note - I'm not in any way saying that Objectivists "theoretically" shouldn't need others' company; I'm honestly wondering exactly why it is that we do so much.)

Enlighten me!

This post has been edited by ENonemaker: 24 December 2006 - 12:08 AM

[Victor Pross]

ENonemaker,

Although its main focus is Romantic Love, Nathanial Branden’s Psychology of Romantic Love does answer this question in detail, the question of why we need to interact with others and is crucial to a happy life--if based on certain standards. If you want a full statement, beyond that of a post, check this book out.

-Victor

This post has been edited by Victor Pross: 24 December 2006 - 12:48 AM

[John Dailey]

~ Have you ever heard Barbara Striesand's famous establish-her-as-a-diva song wherein she answers that question? (only incidentally, to be sure: to be 'lucky'.)

~ Otherwise, I'd say, a lack of growing U-P; a, for some, chronic search for replacements of parents (care-taker/providers) or siblings (confiders/helpers/antagonists[!]).

~ Then, there's firefighters in the middle of a crisis, but, that's probably not what you meant.

LLAP
J:D

[Victor Pross]

I believe it was Sartre who said “hell is other people.”

[Judith]

I second Victor's recommendation of Nathaniel's book. No one else has said it better, before or since. Anything else we said would be either inadequate or a rephrasing of what he already said.

Last summer at TOC's summer seminar, he said he was working on a second edition of the book. I'm looking forward to it.

Judith

[Chris Grieb]

Victor; Hell is Satare and the rest of the extinislists.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Judith, on Dec 24 2006, 08:08 AM, said:

I second Victor's recommendation of Nathaniel's book. No one else has said it better, before or since.

Me Too! One of many great works from a brilliant mind with an Objectivist perspective.

Quote

Anything else we said would be either inadequate or a rephrasing of what he already said.

I don't agree. I think there is much more to be said about the nature of psychological/social dynamics on a fundamental level and how this affects the nature and need for our relationships with others. The Objectivist perspective does not capture it all because it is missing a very large chunk of the causal puzzle.

Paul

[Rich Engle]

I consider this to be a pretty simple question.

Humans are social creatures. Maybe look at evolutionary psychology, anthropology, human history for your answers, the validation you might need.

But the facts are simple, and they remain: we have an innate need to interact with others. "No man is an island," indeed.

Can we exist as standalones? Absolutely, without doubt. But, every case I have ever seen or read about has had pathology associated with it.

We simply thrive better when in the company of others. It doesn't even have to be perfect company.

Most of us have, inside of us, a drive that makes us seek contact. It is, I think, part of our survival mechanism.

We prefer the variation, and at the same time, the commonality that can only come from being with others. The self-development, the growth within one, this is greatly aided by being with others; others who, by human nature, are one way or another out for the same thing.

It's comfortable. I like being with people. I learn things and it makes me feel warm, being in good company, fellowship.

rde

[Mikee]

E,

Without the accumulated knowledge of countless generations we would still be living in caves. Without the knowledge and skills of thousands of different specialties and subspecialties we would be building our houses out of logs with our own hands and hunting and gathering for food. We really need other people to live the lives we are accustomed to and to thrive on earth. And not just for the warm fuzzy feelings. An appreciation of this real need makes it easier to like people, considering that in the long chains of transactions we are all involved in every day in our complex societies someone we may personally disdain may be be the producer responsible for something we depend on.

[Stephen Boydstun]

Elizabeth,

There is a fine essay on your question titled “Why Man Needs Approval,” which you may find of interest. Its author is Marsha Familaro Enright. It was published in Objectivity (V1N2) in 1991. The reason for the surprising title of this study is given by Enright at the beginning of her essay:

In Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ken Danagger asks Dagny Taggart
"And if you met those great men in heaven, . . . what would you want to say to them?"
"Just . . . just 'hello', I guess."
"That’s not all," said Danagger. "There’s something you’d want to hear from them . . . you’d want them to look at you and say, 'Well done'."
She dropped her head and nodded silently. . . .

In this passage, Dagny shows an intense desire to be recognized and appreciated by heroes. She was not the sort of character who desired false praise or approval of others in place of self-approval. She did desire a deserved approval, a recognition of her and her achievements. Why? (66)


Elizabeth, if you or anyone here would like a copy of this essay, simply contact me by e-mail through this service. I will get it to you right away without charge.


ABSTRACT

“Why Man Needs Approval” by Marsha Familaro Enright
Objectivity Volume 1, Number 2, Pages 66–93

It is argued that the desire for positive responses from others is engrained in both our animal nature and our rational nature. This is the story of the profoundly social and emotional nature of intelligent human being. From interactive smiling in the crib, to sharing visual attention, to acquisition of language and registration of the feelings and intentions of others, to full-grown independent mind, this is how we are woven. This is the tapestry of our symbolic consciousness, our individuality, and our sociability, the tapestry of our wings for creation, romantic love, and happiness.

This post has been edited by Stephen Boydstun: 25 December 2006 - 08:32 AM

[Jeff Kremer]

Just another type of value. The way I see it, poor people are unhappy even when they have friends because they lack money just the same way as a rich person is sad when they have money but no friends. Each serves a purpose with humans. Friends give you someone to lean on when you've had a really hard day, money gives you something to put in your stomach. The physical needs are more essential, but in their own right the psychological needs are up there. I bet Branden's book has a lot better explanation of why we need the value. I just know that friends and money are both different types.

[Kori]

Jeff,

That reminds me of a question my english teacher asked us, she said, "What are some things that you can't live without?"

Most people (of course) said, "Food, water, shelter, clothing." Then some said, "My cell phone, my computer, my iPod, my friends, my family, etc."

I thought about this and realized that in order for me to survive (I believe), I need things like music and other forms of entertainment, as well as my friends. I thought, "Sure, I could technically survive with food, water, shelter, but I don't think I could be psychologically healthy without music and friends and all the other things I enjoy. I don't know if I could call basic survival truly living." I tried to explain my point to her, but she kind of shrugged it off. I think she should have maybe made her question more specific. *shrugs* I think I went a bit off topic...

Rich said, "The self-development, the growth within one, this is greatly aided by being with others; others who, by human nature, are one way or another out for the same thing."

I emphatically agree.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Mikee,

I very much agree with your post about our voracious need for the knowledge of others. One person can only learn so much and experience so much. The company of other fairly rational men provides us vastly more nutrition for our minds.

This epistemological treasure chest provided by others in our rather rational Post-Enlightenment societies was a cornerstone of my arguments that we have many reasons to maintain a benevolent attitude toward others and also that toleration for ideas that recognizes the value of the ideas we learn from others.

Of course, we also like the recognition of other good men, too. Not to mention the love of a great woman.

[Victor Pross]

Charles R. Anderson, on Dec 24 2006, 09:40 PM, said:

Mikee,

I very much agree with your post about our voracious need for the knowledge of others. One person can only learn so much and experience so much. The company of other fairly rational men provides us vastly more nutrition for our minds.

This epistemological treasure chest provided by others in our rather rational Post-Enlightenment societies was a cornerstone of my arguments that we have many reasons to maintain a benevolent attitude toward others and also that toleration for ideas that recognizes the value of the ideas we learn from others.

Of course, we also like the recognition of other good men, too. Not to mention the love of a great woman.

Hi Charles!

Nice to hear from you.

Listen, it sounds as if you are speaking of “division lf knowledge” benefit to be derived from our interacting with others? Are you familiar who the Aristotelian aphorism that “a friend is another self” which would suggest a value of a different sort, one that Branden elaborated on? After all, I want to be with Angie for more reasons than that I might learn from her. ;]

-Victor

[ENonemaker]

Very interesting, satisfying responses. I'm loving this forum, and I'm picking up Branden's book probably tomorrow.

To sort of contribute my own answer (even to my own question), the idea of specifically a romantic partner, and, even more specifically, sex, reminds me of Roark's quote, that went something like, "We live in our minds, and life is the process of bringing this existence into physical reality." And isn't that what a lover is, or should be? Your values incarnate - everything you ever loved and cherished and adored in this world made into something you can touch and love and interact with.

I suppose that, in some forms, people can satisfy that desire - to love something precious and also tangible - even more than valued actions can, even if those actions are your chosen and "definite" passion, such as art or music or business. I think the reason behind this is that while you yourself give meaning to your "career" actions, your lover gives meaning to themselves; while a sheet of music or a building's girders remain just a piece of paper or a hunk of steel without your blessing, a lover (ideally!) always retains their own individual passion, and can become no less - because they think - and the same way you do. They are the physical embodiment of your values.

And friends are just another form of this.

~Elizabeth

[Victor Pross]

Elizabeth,

"We live in our minds, and life is the process of bringing this existence into physical reality." This one of my favorite quotes from the book and you make me feel like reading it again. I think this single and seemingly deceptively simple sentence speaks a lot to what Branden wrote later on. You will hear him elaborate much on the Aristotelian “a friend is another self” and extrapolate on this quote—but in much greater detail. Once you start reading the Branden book, I would be interested in hearing your impression of it.

-Victor-

This post has been edited by Victor Pross: 26 December 2006 - 03:40 PM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elizabeth,

Although the following is downplayed in Objectivism, human beings belong to an animal species. Needing other people in a biological (and psychological) sense is a matter of the law of identity operating.

I know it is not much of an answer, but we need other people in specific ways because that's the way it is. In Objectivism, you will hear it stated as "the given."

Of course it is possible to survive on a desert island or become a hermit and physically survive, but it is not possible to fall in love like that (thus fulfill a psychological/spiritual capacity we are all born with that develops to maturity).

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Aristotle and...N. Branden, summed up the predominant psychological need perfectly in referring to a need...of searching, mostly...to see/find 'another you' (A), and, 'a reflection of one's own values' (NB).

~ And, for those in the species-minority who have the 'need' to be hermits, survivalists, 'mountain-men', etc...more power to them.

LLAP
J:D