Dreams of an Objectivist

[psychoanaleesis]

I have this question and I tried searching Rand's lexicon for it but it is not quite connected (just merely mentions). Where do dreams or dreaming fall under Objectivism? What is its definition and does it hold some degree of importance as did other philosophies or systems placed on it?

I gather that dreams are tied somehow to the subconscious and the details that falls below our conscious grasp to tackle clearly. However, how come our dreams often not connected to what has happened to us (at least not in the sense that we are aware of)? Dreams are often perplexingly irrational when a person wakes up as he can only grasp a vague sense of what occurred.

I read Freud's work "The Interpretation of Dreams" and the meanings appear to be inadequate for universal use although the technique of analysis I have found quite useful in sorting out and making sense of what the dreamer dreamt of (even in my cases) or am I just rationalizing or mislabeling it all when it proves to me and the dreamer of what their dreams could mean in their waking states?

So I raise the question: How does an Objectivist approach dreams when it appears to be outside the realm of rational thought or does an Objectivist experience a "different" way of dreaming altogether that he says to others, "I do not know what you're talking about?"

If dreams are conglomerate of concepts then it must still refer to something concrete and therefore could potentially lead to valuable information relevant to our lives that we failed to notice before.

[Brant Gaede]

Dreams happen. Have fun figuring them out. Aside from one being rational about dreams, dreams have nothing to do with Objectivism.

--Brant

[psychoanaleesis]

Dreams happen. Have fun figuring them out. Aside from one being rational about dreams, dreams have nothing to do with Objectivism.

--Brant

Why is that? It's a phenomenon of the human psyche after all. Don't tell me that this is in the realm of "subjectivism"? Also, I think what you meant by "dreams" are aspirations which an individual could take full control of and thus be rational about.

[dan2100]

Dreams happen. Have fun figuring them out. Aside from one being rational about dreams, dreams have nothing to do with Objectivism.

--Brant

Why is that? It's a phenomenon of the human psyche after all. Don't tell me that this is in the realm of "subjectivism"? Also, I think what you meant by "dreams" are aspirations which an individual could take full control of and thus be rational about.

I don't think that's what Brant meant. I think he was admitting they are and that, from an Objectivist perspective, one should be rational about them, but Objectivism, as a philosophy, says little about them. I'm actually not sure about that last point...

Also, Objectivism as such doesn't say, "This phenomenon X is in the realm of subjectivism, so we must completely ignore it." Instead, I take it, the problem is what the relevance of given phenomena are. For instance, the Objectivist view of not using emotions as tools of cognition -- which is perhaps an oversimplification -- is not a denial of emotions existing. Nor does it mean Objectivism, as a philosophy, must remain silent on just what emotions are, what their role is in life, and why they do seem to interfere with cognition at times.

[Rich Engle]

Most people and especially creative types always maintain a lifelong curiosity about dreams. Sure, you read the Freud stuff and lots of other things (I like Jung's work better, but still).

In the end, I think it is pretty simple. It's the time when you are not connected, consciously, to the here and now, to what you might call maybe source energy. They often show what you have been working on (one way or the other), just in a different light. Sometimes they are pregnant with meaning, even logical, helpful, inspirational. Other times, a mishmash of processing. Sometimes, upon awakening, they leave you in a very strong emotional state that you did not expect. It's how it works. I think that if you dream journal, that can be of use on some level. But I never seem to do that on a consistent basis. Wish I would do that more--I get good writing ideas sometimes but don't run over and scribble them down before the things dissolve.

Do they contain useful information? Yeah, sure. Sometimes.

rde

[Christopher]

The human mind is not a rational thing, although it has a rational faculty within it. The key is to understand that most events that occur within the human mind are not products of rational thought, although such events can be observed and understood through rational thinking. Emotions aren't rational, dreams aren't rational, memories aren't rational, moods aren't rational... but all can be understood using the rational faculty.

Psychology offers a rational approach to understanding dreams. I say rational because it uses a combination of science and logical deduction to understand what dreams are. Objectivism is not Psychology; therefore Objectivism cannot describe dreams per se. I think Objectivism would say "look at the science, look to the field of Psychology."

[Dragonfly]

The human mind is not a rational thing, although it has a rational faculty within it. The key is to understand that most events that occur within the human mind are not products of rational thought, although such events can be observed and understood through rational thinking. Emotions aren't rational, dreams aren't rational, memories aren't rational, moods aren't rational... but all can be understood using the rational faculty.

Psychology offers a rational approach to understanding dreams. I say rational because it uses a combination of science and logical deduction to understand what dreams are. Objectivism is not Psychology; therefore Objectivism cannot describe dreams per se. I think Objectivism would say "look at the science, look to the field of Psychology."

You hit the nail on the head.

[psychoanaleesis]

The human mind is not a rational thing, although it has a rational faculty within it. The key is to understand that most events that occur within the human mind are not products of rational thought, although such events can be observed and understood through rational thinking. Emotions aren't rational, dreams aren't rational, memories aren't rational, moods aren't rational... but all can be understood using the rational faculty.

Psychology offers a rational approach to understanding dreams. I say rational because it uses a combination of science and logical deduction to understand what dreams are. Objectivism is not Psychology; therefore Objectivism cannot describe dreams per se. I think Objectivism would say "look at the science, look to the field of Psychology."

Excellent explanation Christopher.

[Selene]

Yes...mega dittos.

One question that still interests me about "emotions."

Emotions aren't rational

Assuming it is rational to preserve individual life, all aspects being equal...

If I became angry [an emotion] and acted to preserve a life, would that rational premise be evoking a "rational" "emotion"?

I am not being linguistically licentious here, it is a concept that I have thought about going back to NBI.

Adam

[psychoanaleesis]

Yes...mega dittos.

One question that still interests me about "emotions."

Emotions aren't rational

Assuming it is rational to preserve individual life, all aspects being equal...

If I became angry [an emotion] and acted to preserve a life, would that rational premise be evoking a "rational" "emotion"?

I am not being linguistically licentious here, it is a concept that I have thought about going back to NBI.

Adam

I think by itself, an emotion is not rational but rather a product of reasoning that is delivered at neural speed.

Let's take anger for example (in slow motion), it is through the perception of physiological changes, environmental catalysts and stimuli (psychological or environmental) and proper identification thereof could you say that you are "angry" e.g. the feeling of something constricting, gritting teeth, difference in respiration, change in facial expression and the cause(s) of these changes, etc. could "anger" and the actions taken after that can emotions be called "rational". When all these are taken into account then it could be labeled "rightful/just anger" as opposed to "anger" in itself which could be labeled as "causeless anger".

Any holes in this?

Edited March 17, 2010 by David Lee

[Christopher]

I think of two things: emotional learning and interpretation of emotional cause

Fear can come from seeing a spider that is completely harmless. Fear can come from seeing a spider that is deadly. Trying not to bring in a discussion of semantics, we could say the first emotional response is irrational, the second is rational. Perhaps then emotions are like a dog; they are what they are taught. But a dog taught to act rationally in response to its environment is not considered rational. I think that emotions aren't rational per se because they have no mechanism for calculating their own rationality - only the rational faculty has that ability. But emotions themselves can be understood rationally as a preservation mechanism that evolved through evolution.

David also brings up the interpretive process of emotions. Research shows time and again that people don't know the cause of their emotions, they can only infer the cause from the situation at hand. So a person sees a spider, feels fear, observes that he/she is looking at a spider, and therefore infers that the spider is the cause of the fear. This is the process for consciously understanding the source of our emotions. Observe the emotion, observe the situation, iterate if necessary, conclude. So emotions are quite divorced from rational awareness.

Chris

After years of studying Psychology

[Selene]

I think of two things: emotional learning and interpretation of emotional cause

Fear can come from seeing a spider that is completely harmless. Fear can come from seeing a spider that is deadly. Trying not to bring in a discussion of semantics, we could say the first emotional response is irrational, the second is rational. Perhaps then emotions are like a dog; they are what they are taught. But a dog taught to act rationally in response to its environment is not considered rational. I think that emotions aren't rational per se because they have no mechanism for calculating their own rationality - only the rational faculty has that ability. But emotions themselves can be understood rationally as a preservation mechanism that evolved through evolution.

David also brings up the interpretive process of emotions. Research shows time and again that people don't know the cause of their emotions, they can only infer the cause from the situation at hand. So a person sees a spider, feels fear, observes that he/she is looking at a spider, and therefore infers that the spider is the cause of the fear. This is the process for consciously understanding the source of our emotions. Observe the emotion, observe the situation, iterate if necessary, conclude. So emotions are quite divorced from rational awareness.

Chris

After years of studying Psychology

Chris:

Then they found you were obsessed with studying psychology and gave you a DSM number and now you can be a victim too!

Good discussion.

Gets back to that sticky instinct issue for "O"bjectivists, or has the religion been purified yet?

Adam