Self-Doubt

[Dglgmut]

So, I've looked very hard at what may be called subjectivism or duality. Subjectivism isn't natural for a self-reliant lifeform; not when it's means for survival are found in reality, and its motive for survival is a basic understanding of reality and of itself.

However, as life became easier for humans, survival became less dependant on objectivity, and more dependant on social relations. Specialization made work more repetative and less mentally stimulating.

Subjectivity is the conceptual separation of self from reality. Although it has been imperitive to see oneself as part of reality in order to survive, that is no longer the case. One can day dream all day long and live a comfortable existence.

Now, there is more reality to deal with than ever. Technology is overwhelming... for a child to attempt to understand how an iPad works is obviously out of the question, let alone a lightbulb or an engine.

The separation of self from reality starts with self-doubt, I believe. Once the mind/intellect proves inadiquate to itself, reality is placed out of reach of our capacity for reason. When our greatest efforts result in a contradiction, we start to doubt the attainability of truth.

When one doesn't trust ones own judgment, what kind of responsibility can one accept for ones choices? This is something very common, I think.

The amazing thing to me is: Why isn't the doubt also doubted?

Doubt comes from discovery... Like our first taste of self-doubt came from the first contradiction of our intellect, our first taste of doubt of self-doubt must come from contradiction of our anti-intellect.

We go from, "I can know anything," to, "I can know nothing," and then finally to, "I cannot know everything, but I cannot know nothing either."

The most disgusting form of self-doubt is self-neglect... when people don't try to do anything because they can't find an objective reason to. The reason to do anything is what is commonly called subjective: an experience dependant on a particular perspective. Of course, there really is no such thing as subjectivity, there is only privacy of objectivity. An experience is just as real as the object of the experience, however, to all but the subject, that experience has no form aside from electrical impulses shooting across their brain. But as it was other people to prove one wrong for the first time, it is other people one looks to for future answers, skipping the unreliable process of thinking.

The answer to self-doubt, I suspect: to ask oneself, "How do I know?" This question is not rhetorical, but should be answered as thoroughly as possible.

Obviously this is not aimed towards any Objectivist; self-esteem being one of the fundamentals... just a look at one of the main issues society likely faces.

[studiodekadent]

I think you've raised some very intriguing issues.

I agree that self-doubt is fundamentally based on doubting one's own capacity to deal with reality cognitively. I also think that it is this kind of self-doubt that can lead people to horrible ideas and belief systems... (i.e. scared of one's own fallibility, so starts believing in the 'infallible' bible to be relieved of the responsibility to think for oneself). Objectivism pretty much agrees here, at least assuming my own understanding of Objectivism is valid.

But I think that "failing to understand an iPad" isn't the kind of thing that would trigger this self-doubt. Most people don't understand the technical details of the vast majority of modern technology, but they make do. Interestingly, the specialization you mention is why this happens; we can all specialize in certain kinds of knowledge since we don't need to know everything in order to survive. This is the "division of knowledge" (the epistemic equivalent to the division of labor).

I think that the self-doubt would only really arise when dealing with broad issues relating to the human condition (philosophical issues, you could say). Most people are able to deal with imperfect technical knowledge, but questions of morality will needle at them endlessly.

[Dglgmut]

The reason I brought up unattainable information from the perspective of children is that it gives them reason to believe that there are people out there that are just way too smart for the child to even comprehend. The more and more advanced we get, the more of a pressumption children will have that "everything is under control without me".

I just figured it's one of the reasons people would trust others over their own rationality.

This is the attitude in schools today... Learning is not about discovery or understanding, but about memorizing and regurgitating. This can prove useful if you can apply it in a very limited task, but it stifles creativity and progress, when at first it would seem that it saves time to skip all that "impractical fundamental stuff".

People are encouraged not to evaluate their beliefs, and pushed to simply do what is demanded of them for a cause that will hopefully be evident to them once it's effected.

Self-doubt is at the root of it all, I believe... The leaders and the followers of this attitude. Self-doubt is what makes someone capable of acknowledging only the desires someone else has told them are theirs.

[Xray]

Although it has been imperitive to see oneself as part of reality in order to survive, that is no longer the case. One can day dream all day long and live a comfortable existence.

You can only do this if others are in position to take care of you, which would make you dependent on them. Does not look as a desirable situation to me. Does it to you?

The most disgusting form of self-doubt is self-neglect... when people don't try to do anything because they can't find an objective reason to.

Calvin,

I would not pass a harsh moral judgement (as manifested in the chosen term "disgusting") on an emotional state I'd associate more with depression, of which self-neglect, self-doubt and feeling too paralyzed to act are often symptoms. "Self-doubt" is often connected to issues of self-worth.

[Dglgmut]

No. One can be dependant, today, without knowing a thing about those who he depends on. Specialization has lead to that... One does not even need to produce in order to be valueable to society. - This is the problem. "Produce" as I am using the word, refers to ANYTHING one finds of value... But how can people seek value if they doubt their own values???

Moral judgment???? I don't require something to be immoral for me to be disgusted by it.... I find rotten food disgusting...

Do I blame the food for rotting? No. I blame the one who left the food out.

Self-doubt is incredibly complex, I believe... and my original post supports that. I really don't know what you're arguing against, if you read my posts...

[Xray]

No. One can be dependant, today, without knowing a thing about those who he depends on.

My comment was directed at this part of your post:

One can day dream all day long and live a comfortable existence.

Without being dependent on others who take care of you around the clock, you simply cannot "daydream all day long".

But how can people seek value if they doubt their own values???

They may have ended up not being happy with their chosen values, which then drives them to seek further.

The amazing thing to me is: Why isn't the doubt also doubted?

If you have valid reason to doubt that X is the case, then there is no reason to 'doubt' your doubt regarding this issue.

[Dglgmut]

Without being dependent on others who take care of you around the clock, you simply cannot "daydream all day long".

What I mean is: people don't need to think about how to be productive. They can hold a job that has absolutely zero value to anyone, because it was created as a way of spreading money around...

They may have ended up not being happy with their chosen values, which then drives them to seek further.

I meant "value judgments." My mistake.

If you have valid reason to doubt that X is the case, then there is no reason to 'doubt' your doubt regarding this issue.

How can you have valid reason if the X is your own capacity for reason?

[Dglgmut]

Change of topic, as it is relevant to the purpose of this thread: Identifying the breach in sanity that leads to what we're observing in society.

The answer is clear to me now: Fear.

It's not our fear that has destroyed people's minds, but how they deal with fear.

When we first acknowledge death and its inevitability, we are faced with a question about life. "What's the point?"

There doesn't seem to be any rationality behind the choice to live...

John Galt recruited people to the valley by using the same logic that kills the motivation to live: "Why should I work for something I cannot keep?"

The answer, as I've stated before, is because you want to. We must accept our desires as axiomatic. "How do I know what I want?" - By wanting it.

People are afraid to acknowledge what they want, because in doing so, they acknowledge what they fear. They are afraid of admitting their fear, because as Rand illustrated, they attempt to deny reality in the hopes of changing it.

As fear and desire are at the root of all of our emotions, they are also at the root of our vulnerability. By wanting to be strong, we are wanting to hide the fact that we want it.

This is why people want results without putting forth effort. They want to have everything come to them, not only without putting in effort, but without even wanting any of it.

So it's not self-doubt, actually... It's asking of oneself the impossible: To live while being indifferent to life. The answer is to accept ones fears, because fear is not beaten without sacrificing desire.

This was a pretty sloppy post, again, but you get the jist.

[Brant Gaede]

You are mixing up fiction, generalized psychologizing, undemonstrated suppositions and a kitchen sink.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Yeah, maybe... Perhaps it makes more sense if the "want"s were replaced by "want of oneself"s.

I definitely think people hide their ambition... or bury it.

[Brant Gaede]

Yeah, maybe... Perhaps it makes more sense if the "want"s were replaced by "want of oneself"s.

I definitely think people hide their ambition... or bury it.

Whatever.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Deleted.

[anthony]

Change of topic, as it is relevant to the purpose of this thread: Identifying the breach in sanity that leads to what we're observing in society. The answer is clear to me now: Fear. It's not our fear that has destroyed people's minds, but how they deal with fear. When we first acknowledge death and its inevitability, we are faced with a question about life. "What's the point?" There doesn't seem to be any rationality behind the choice to live... John Galt recruited people to the valley by using the same logic that kills the motivation to live: "Why should I work for something I cannot keep?" The answer, as I've stated before, is because you want to. We must accept our desires as axiomatic. "How do I know what I want?" - By wanting it. People are afraid to acknowledge what they want, because in doing so, they acknowledge what they fear. They are afraid of admitting their fear, because as Rand illustrated, they attempt to deny reality in the hopes of changing it. As fear and desire are at the root of all of our emotions, they are also at the root of our vulnerability. By wanting to be strong, we are wanting to hide the fact that we want it. This is why people want results without putting forth effort. They want to have everything come to them, not only without putting in effort, but without even wanting any of it. So it's not self-doubt, actually... It's asking of oneself the impossible: To live while being indifferent to life. The answer is to accept ones fears, because fear is not beaten without sacrificing desire. This was a pretty sloppy post, again, but you get the jist.

The answer is clear to me now: Fear. It's not our fear that has destroyed people's minds, but how they deal with fear. When we first acknowledge death and its inevitability, we are faced with a question about life. "What's the point?" There doesn't seem to be any rationality behind the choice to live... The answer, as I've stated before, is because you want to. We must accept our desires as axiomatic. "How do I know what I want?" - By wanting it. As fear and desire are at the root of all of our emotions, they are also at the root of our vulnerability. By wanting to be strong, we are wanting to hide the fact that we want it. This is why people want results without putting forth effort. They want to have everything come to them, not only without putting in effort, but without even wanting any of it. So it's not self-doubt, actually... It's asking of oneself the impossible: To live while being indifferent to life. .

Fear is a terrific tool - during the short period of high alert to danger. After that, if not acted upon, OR, unresolved, it becomes anxiety and timidity, and perhaps hate. We need it for instant response to that which threatens us, but it requires instant action, failing which (as is mostly the case) it has to be dealt with and dissipated by introspection.

I also think fear of failure, of making mistakes - of embarassing oneself - plays a destructive role. You could look back on life one day and realize that it wasn't the bold, fearless things that you regret doing and saying, but instead your timidity in not taking some carefully calculated risks, and not speaking up against wrongs. The beauty of errors, is that one quickly corrects them. Also, I think if you are not making any, you're not really trying.

Which is the ultimate disrespect for one's life, isn't it?

"...why people want results without putting forth effort" - is an interesting observation.

A girlfriend once shared with me that she preferred passing her exams brilliantly, without studying hard, or at all. It had the effect of lending her status in others' eyes, when she succeeded - and of giving herself a good excuse for doing less well.

Behind it was the anti-egoist premise (I think) - shared by large numbers of people - from the post-modernist principle of Not Being Serious: "How to win without looking as if you're trying".

Mock myself when I succeed, mock myself in failure. If they become indistinguishable, I do not have to pass judgment on myself

- and neither can anyone else.

[Xray]

If you have valid reason to doubt that X is the case, then there is no reason to 'doubt' your doubt regarding this issue.

How can you have valid reason if the X is your own capacity for reason?

A person having "valid reason to doubt his/her own capacity for reason" - this can happen in cases of mental deterioration slowly setting in, where the individual experiences periods of impaired judgement, but also (still) has phases of clearer thinking, which include awareness of the decline of his/her mental capacities.

When we first acknowledge death and its inevitability, we are faced with a question about life. "What's the point?"

There doesn't seem to be any rationality behind the choice to live...

Where exactly do you see the irrationality in "the choice to live"?

As fear and desire are at the root of all of our emotions, they are also at the root of our vulnerability.

Both fear and desire are essential for human survival, which explains the powerful role they play in our lives.

But humans are usually more satisfied if they have achieved something by their own effort. I witness this every day in my work with children.

On the other hand, there exist enough situations where putting in effort into something would be irrational. For example, I appreciate the effortlessness by which I can get clean fresh water from the faucet, and don't feel the least desire to walk for miles instead to get it from a well, as our ancestors had to do.

[Dglgmut]

Yes, Tony. But where does the fear come from?

Self-doubt seems like a solid base for unreasonable behavior. But it assumes some sort of duality... the concept of one doubting oneself, I mean.

I really do think the discovery and acceptance of our inevitable deaths reveals something to us about ourselves. When we ask, "What's the point?" we know that there is none, and the duality starts between our reasonable self and our source of action. What I mean is, if we asked "What's the point?" of everything we wanted--everything we valued, we couldn't function.

This idea that poeple reject reason... I don't buy it. I think it's reason that leads them to self-denial.

It is a contradiction that exists within people--their desires, and their desire to be right (reasonable). When they cannot find a reason for their desires, when they cannot prove that their desires are right, what do they do?

The reality people evade is not physical reality--not initially, but the reality of their own emotions. They deny the existence of their emotions because they are not bound in reason, and then they recreate reality in order to make sense of their actions, evading contradictory evidence.

I don't believe that the problem is a lack of reason, but putting reason before one's own existence. Nobody can earn or deserve life, and so it would seem unreasonable that we are here. Is that usage of reason unreasonable? To ask "Why?" until there is nothing left to question?

Back to people: What should people want? Why is it reasonable to want to live? It is natural, but why is it reasonable to obey our nature?

I was wrong about people ignoring their desires because in admitting them they admit their fears. They ignore their desires because they fear they would be unreasonable by following them.

So, I believe it is best to acknowledge our desires, and right now, I think it's impossible to be any more reasonable than that. But, I am talking about real, honest desires... Accusations, like Brant's, that I support a "sociopath's amorality" are just wrong. What I am arguing for is simply to be true to oneself, without questioning one's desires with the contradictory yearning to be reasonable above all else, when the rationality we want to have supporting us conflicts with its own inception.

[Dglgmut]

Both fear and desire are essential for human survival, which explains the powerful role they play in our lives.

I don't deny the importance of fear and desire. I use them to simplify every human emotion. Call them "value" and "anti-value" if you want; that may better illustrate the meaning I see in those words. Everything we identify comes with a level of desire or fear, of value or anti-value. Every emotion comes out of that. Anger, coming from fear, and the anticipation of what one fears, while happiness comes from the anticipation of what one desires. The opposite of desire is always fear, and the opposite of fear is always desire... That's as simple as you can lay out human emotions, I think. Circumstances, intertwining different sources of fear and desire will produce different emotions, but there still isn't any explanation for the conscious decision to desire or fear anything in particular.

I don't think it is irrational to want to live, but I don't see any reason for it, as I don't see any reason for existence to exist. I feel like certain things may be beyond questioning. To claim that anyone is unreasonable for doing what makes them happy, though... That argument must be moot. The only thing to argue is whether or not the person really is happy.

What I've taken from Objectivism, that I find most practical, is the exposition of the irony of choosing to live while denying oneself. If you're gunna live, figure out how to get what you want. But then again... it seems impossible to truly be reasonable... even by letting oneself die, one is obeying the desire to put reason before effort.

I also think fear of failure, of making mistakes - of embarassing oneself - plays a destructive role.

Just to iterate a point about this: The fear to try follows the fear to want. We can't try if we don't want something, and it's the wanting in particular that makes us vulnerable. There is such a thing as a fear of success, and it comes from the same place. "What if this doesn't make me happy either?" --(not acknowledging their own value / guessing at what will make them happy, instead of going after something because they think they deserve it)

And Rand's focus on earning and deserving is important because I believe it is likely guilt that eats away at people too commonly. I really do think people are somewhat aware of how much they are betraying themselves, either by sacrificing too much or cheating.

And people can even reverse this logical process: People appraise themselves more favourably when they experience good luck, rather than bad, feeling like the universe, or God, has deemed them worthy.

[anthony]

Yes, Tony. But where does the fear come from? Self-doubt seems like a solid base for unreasonable behavior. But it assumes some sort of duality... the concept of one doubting oneself, I mean. I really do think the discovery and acceptance of our inevitable deaths reveals something to us about ourselves. When we ask, "What's the point?" we know that there is none, and the duality starts between our reasonable self and our source of action. What I mean is, if we asked "What's the point?" of everything we wanted--everything we valued, we couldn't function. This idea that poeple reject reason... I don't buy it. I think it's reason that leads them to self-denial. It is a contradiction that exists within people--their desires, and their desire to be right (reasonable). When they cannot find a reason for their desires, when they cannot prove that their desires are right, what do they do? The reality people evade is not physical reality--not initially, but the reality of their own emotions. They deny the existence of their emotions because they are not bound in reason, and then they recreate reality in order to make sense of their actions, evading contradictory evidence. I don't believe that the problem is a lack of reason, but putting reason before one's own existence. Nobody can earn or deserve life, and so it would seem unreasonable that we are here. Is that usage of reason unreasonable? To ask "Why?" until there is nothing left to question? Back to people: What should people want? Why is it reasonable to want to live? It is natural, but why is it reasonable to obey our nature? I was wrong about people ignoring their desires because in admitting them they admit their fears. They ignore their desires because they fear they would be unreasonable by following them. So, I believe it is best to acknowledge our desires, and right now, I think it's impossible to be any more reasonable than that. But, I am talking about real, honest desires... Accusations, like Brant's, that I support a "sociopath's amorality" are just wrong. What I am arguing for is simply to be true to oneself, without questioning one's desires with the contradictory yearning to be reasonable above all else, when the rationality we want to have supporting us conflicts with its own inception.

"Real, honest desires" - fear, and where it comes from (fear of death?) - and EVERYTHING you've mentioned, especially your excellent last paragraph, is included in rationality.

By which, rationality can never "conflict with its own inception".

I'm always hammering on about this - that rationality is not "of our lives a thing apart", it is the whole damn ball of wax: it is NOT only 'logical thinking'. it is not something we switch on and off: it is everything that can be made conscious - KNOWN - including our sub-conscious. It is hopes and fears and instincts and dreams and doubts and desires and thoughts - AND values and virtues and volition which promote, (or limit, generate, or direct, accordingly), those hopes and fears and instincts and dreams and...subsuming all things known or yet to be discovered about our internal state, or external existence.

Don't get me wrong, it's not only you, Calvin, this is a too common error made by many: that rationality is simple cognition.

It is not. It is the entire human condition; whatever you, Calvin - who exists in reality - identifies, seeks and finds, in reality - is rational and moral.

(Sorry about that, but I needed that off my chest.) ;)

[Dglgmut]

Can you explain your second paragraph, possibly expanding upon it? Can a desire be rational or irrational, by what you're saying? Or only if it conflicts with other desires?

Is irrationally simply acting without putting enough thought into the concequences, then? Or any?

Also, can you see anything wrong in my 2nd and 3rd paragraph of my last post?

Would you agree that the rational focus of a mind would be something like the question, "How do I get what I want?" rather than, "What should I want?"

[Xray]

I don't think it is irrational to want to live, but I don't see any reason for it, as I don't see any reason for existence to exist.

Would you prefer your non-existence over your existence?

[anthony]

Can you explain your second paragraph, possibly expanding upon it? Can a desire be rational or irrational, by what you're saying? Or only if it conflicts with other desires?

Is irrationally simply acting without putting enough thought into the concequences, then? Or any?

Also, can you see anything wrong in my 2nd and 3rd paragraph of my last post?

Would you agree that the rational focus of a mind would be something like the question, "How do I get what I want?" rather than, "What should I want?"

The questions for me are, what are my emotions telling me? Rand stopped short of deriving the necessity for action from an emotion, as far as I can tell. I suppose she considered it self-evident.

Undoubtedly she's right: that they cannot be guides for cognition and action. But without contradiction, I believe a specific emotion should prompt awareness that action (or change of action) must be taken.

Otherwise, what would be the purpose of these "barometers", this early-warning system of "the pleasure-pain mechanism"?

You have brought up a particularly powerful trio: self-doubt, fear, and desire.

As long as any of them are unacknowledged, they remain irrational emotions, but to isolate, consider - 'objectify' - them, is bring them within the sphere of rationality, I think.

Desire - for what, and why? Is one's desire to, say, go partying tonight, equivalent or comparative to desiring a better home, or to produce a superbly original work? Can it be essential to forego one desire, for another? Desire can be made hierarchical, consciously.

Self-doubt raises its own critical set of questions, all leading to - how may one achieve more certainty in one's life?

Fear - again, of what, and why? - motivates one toward analyzing or avoiding certain situations (up to a point) - but also to increasing one's self-confidence and fortitude, when they have to be confronted.

In other words, through introspection, reasoning and action, it's possible to construct three or more values, prompted by those three 'pleasure-pain mechanisms'. Values - created, and nurtured by, the virtues of rationality, productiveness and pride.

(Not precisely what you asked, I know; but your queries push me to explore a little...)

Tony

[Dglgmut]

Desire can be made hierarchical, consciously.

And that is what seems, to me, to be the peak of rationality. The choice to be self-aware, even when there's a clear drop-off in our available information when we get to why we like anything at all.

Actually, that works all around, as I figure people don't bother acknowledging reality to the best of their ability because they know they're never going to get a satisfying answer and so they simply go through the motions. They don't know why, and so they don't even permit themselves to know what.

[Dglgmut]

What should we want? - It's like asking, "What should exist?"

There is no such thing as what we should want, only what we do want.

What we want never changes, only how we pursue what we want, and how we identify it.

And that's it. Rationality is: how we identify and pursue our desire.

Logical?

[Dglgmut]

I figure the things we want most are achievements, which are basically proofs of our ability. Or almost proofs of our existence.

[Xray]

[replyingt to Tony]:

Can a desire be rational or irrational, by what you're saying? Or only if it conflicts with other desires?

There exist both rational and irrational desires.

For example, it is a rational desire to want to be healthy instead of ill.

As for conflicts of desires - all combinations are possible: there can exist conflicts between rational desires, between irrational desires, and between rational and irrational desires.

s irrationally simply acting without putting enough thought into the concequences, then? Or any?

Very often, this is indeed the case.

Desire can be made hierarchical, consciously

I think this is actually happening in every choice we make: we always decide in favor of that which we is of higher value to us at the moment of choice.

So while e. g. an individual who is not rolling in money may very well know that buying that too exensive TV set is unwise, but still buys it, the drive to possess it wins over this person's other values at the moment of the purchase.

The choice may be be regretted later ("How could I have been so unreasonable?").

[Dglgmut]

We want most what we think we deserve. I would love to fly, but I don't feel cheated that I can't fly; I feel cheated that I can't do the things I should be able to do.

It's impossible to literally hate oneself, as the hate must be right, and if the hate comes from the self, then the self is right, and undeserving of hate. It's a contradiction, so the hate is aimed at an image of self... the way racists hate something they've created in their mind.

It's impossible for one to believe oneself to be wrong. You cannot believe what you think is wrong. You can only believe the truth is beyond your grasp, and so you are always either right or undecided.

When people categorize too much of reality as "unknowable" they are simply committing themselves to never deciding.

I realize now the main difference between the ethics of Objectivism and most other philosophies: Objectivism holds that man deserves to live (on his own means, of course).

People don't hate the John Galts of the world because they love their lives, but because they love themselves. They don't hate them because they love life, but because they think they deserve to live.

We cannot earn our birth, and so the question arises whether we are worthy of life what-so-ever... I believe Ayn Rand's message that earning a living is enough to earn one's life. Nature provides the challenges and rewards for us, whether they seem fair or not. So everyone deserves the right to make their own living.

Parasites love their lives, but they've been convinced they don't deserve them. This, I believe, comes from dependency. When we can see how we earn our living, we gain the sense that we deserve to live. When we don't quite know how we are able to survive, we are forced to either take life for granted, or take it as undeserved.

They can't believe that life can be deserved... And so they give themselves what they think they deserve, and they try to force others to accept the same... because in their minds, it's right. They believe in a zero sum reality, where nothing can be good, because it always brings an equal amount of bad.

It's just a misunderstanding.

What we deserve is the chance to earn our lives.