Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness


Recommended Posts

Shaya, Objectivism and Kindness

I came across a lecture by Dr. Wayne Dyer flipping through channels on the TV. I recognized him and stopped to listen a little. Then I heard the following story about a retarded child named Shaya.

It is from a work by Dyer called The Power of Intention. (If you have the patience to see the 2h15m video, see here: The Power of Intention. It is free and actually quite interesting.)

Dyer is a self-help guru now turned mystic who talks about a "source" (which is another word for God and, in the case of this work, "intention"). He says our mission in life is to keep our connection with this source from deteriorating. Unlike other mystics, he preaches perfection on earth.

Just for the sake of overview, Dyer says the seven faces of intention are creativity, kindness, love, beauty, expansion, abundance and receptivity. He claims we can achieve perfection in all of these faces and that they are the best connections to the source. (For the record, I do not agree with many of Dyer's constructions, but I find his approach very interesting and serious.)

The face of intention that is dealt with in the story below is kindness.

According to Dyer, there are studies that prove that the serotonin level in the brain increases when we are kind (giver, receiver and observer) and our immune systems are strengthened, although he did not say what those studies are. Still, that is an intriguing thought and I will look into in the future.

Now here is the idea I want to chew on. The following story is sentimental to the point of sappiness, but it gets to me. I read it and still choke up with tears that want to come out. It is practically the opposite of everything I love in Objectivism, yet deep within me, something of value is touched on a fundamental level and I know this is the good. This certainty goes beyond feeling.

Why is that? I refuse to deny it because it does not align with the philosophy I love. The certainty is real. So I need to understand this.

Maybe kindness is so emotionally powerful because we are looking down at the mentally deficient, but I wonder if kindness to creators, producers and geniuses better than we are is not simply another form, albeit a more difficult one. I know we would do well to learn it. Looking up is harder than looking down, but the rewards are great. So maybe being kind to the great among us could be an Objectivist contribution to ancient wisdom. I do know that I greatly value kindness to both low and high and I intend to keep practicing it throughout my life.

I am aware that this is only one element, so kindness in the meaning I am looking at here should not be considered as altruism.

Here is the story. (I was able to obtain the text from here.)

In Brooklyn, New York, Chush is a school that caters to learning-disabled children. Some children remain in Chush for their entire school career, while others can be mainstreamed into conventional school. At a Chush fundraiser dinner, the father of a Chush child delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After praising the school and its dedicated staff, he cried out, "Where is the perfection in my son, Shaya? Everything God does is done with perfection. But my child cannot understand things as other children do. My child cannot remember facts and figures as other children do. Where is God's perfection?" The audience was shocked by the question, pained by the father's anguish, and stilled by the piercing query. "I believe," the father answered, "that when God brings a child like this into the world, the perfection that he seeks is in the way people react to this child."

He then told the following story about his son, Shaya.

One afternoon, Shaya and his father walked past a park where some boys Shaya knew were playing baseball. Shaya asked, "Do you think they'll let me play?" Shaya's father knew that his son was not at all athletic and that most boys would not want him on their team. But Shaya's father understood that if his son was chosen to play, it would give him a sense of belonging. Shaya's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked if Shaya could play. The boy looked around for guidance from his teammates. Getting none, he took matters into his own hands and said, "We're losing by six runs, and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team, and we'll try to put him up in the ninth inning."

Shaya's father was ecstatic as Shaya smiled broadly. Shaya was told to put on a glove and go out to play in center field. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shaya's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shaya's team scored again, and now had two outs and the bases loaded, with the potential winning run on base. Shaya was scheduled to be up. Would the team actually let Shaya bat at this juncture and give away their chance to win the game?

Surprisingly, Shaya was given the bat. Everyone knew that it was all but impossible because Shaya didn't even know how to hold the bat, let alone hit with it. However, as Shaya stepped up to the plate, the pitcher moved a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shaya could at least be able to make contact. The first pitch came in, and Shaya swung clumsily and missed. One of Shaya's teammates came up to Shaya, and together they held the bat and faced the pitcher waiting for the next pitch. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly toward Shaya. As the pitcher came in, Shaya and his teammate swung the bat, and together they hit a slow ground ball to the pitcher. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could easily have thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shaya would have been out and that would have ended the game. Instead, the pitcher took the ball and threw it on a high arc to right field far beyond the reach of the first baseman. Everyone started yelling, "Shaya, run to first. Run to first." Never in his life had Shaya run to first. He scampered down the baseline wide-eyed and startled. By the time he reached first base, the right fielder had the ball. He could have thrown the ball to the second baseman who would tag out Shaya, who was still running!!

But the right field understood what the pitcher's intentions were, so he threw the ball high and far over the third baseman's head. Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second!" Shaya ran toward second base as the runners ahead of him deliriously circled the bases toward home. As Shaya reached second base, the opposing shortstop turned him in the direction of third base, and shouted, "Run to third." As Shaya rounded third, the boys from both teams ran behind him screaming, "Shaya, run home." Shaya ran home, stepped on home plate, and all 18 boys lifted him on their shoulders and made him the hero, as he had just hit a 'grand slam' and won the game for his team.

"That day," said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, "those 18 boys reached their level of God's perfection"

Anybody have any thoughts?

I personally think this story is a powerful morality tale. If people want moral perfection, this story showed a moment of perfect kindness. I wonder if it would be possible to do this looking up...

Michael.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody have any thoughts?

Sure.

When I was 10 or 11, there was a end of year tennis ceremony for junior tennis players. The guest speaker was Maureen Connolly, one of the greatest tennis players of all time.

She told us that when we went out to compete we should not give in inch and crush our opponents to the best of our ability. She said that when your opponent won a point, they really won it! And they knew, deep down, that they earned it. Her view was that not playing your best was a lie to yourself, and to everyone involved.

Self-immobilization is infinitely easier to do than the work it takes to bring out your best.

Michael

Added edit: Do you think Rand would have written a novel with the climax being the "success" of that boy? Isn't that story, a call for people to fake reality--lie to cover up one's weaknesses?

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not impressed by it.

Anybody you can find on the street, so to speak, would say aww, that's nice.

I would say that, getting to the essentials, they faked reality for this boy Shaya, in order to make him feel bigger or better than he really is. Through their intentional mistakes on the field they allowed him to gain a victory.

This strikes me as evil.

What's the purpose? To boost his self-confidence? Wouldn't practicing a sport he likes be a better and more honest way to do that? Does the father think so poorly of his son that he doesn't encourage him to practice athletics?

My reaction probably comes off as cold-hearted but, if it were my son who had a learning disability, I don't think I would want to provide him with fake highs, or allow other people to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She told us that when we went out to compete we should not give in inch and crush our opponents to the best of our ability. She said that when your opponent won a point, they really won it! And they knew, deep down, that they earned it. Her view was that not playing your best was a lie to yourself, and to everyone involved.

That's interesting. I played baseball in a public league during grade school and for my (public) high school team. On multiple occasions I was on both sides of blowouts (we were getting crushed or were crushing) and in almost all cases the winning coach held back his team from achieving a maximum score once the blowout was apparent.

I think they did this because the general attitude among kids was that things were "too hard" and when you're down, it's hopeless, so you might as well give up. This was nearly the 100% prevalent attitude amongst people my age in those days. This was in Philadelphia in the 80's.

Compare this to a private baseball camp in NJ I went to one summer where their attitude was similar to the words of Maureen Connolly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not impressed by it.

Anybody you can find on the street, so to speak, would say aww, that's nice.

I would say that, getting to the essentials, they faked reality for this boy Shaya, in order to make him feel bigger or better than he really is. Through their intentional mistakes on the field they allowed him to gain a victory.

This strikes me as evil.

What's the purpose? To boost his self-confidence? Wouldn't practicing a sport he likes be a better and more honest way to do that? Does the father think so poorly of his son that he doesn't encourage him to practice athletics?

My reaction probably comes off as cold-hearted but, if it were my son who had a learning disability, I don't think I would want to provide him with fake highs, or allow other people to do it.

I agree. I would've felt a lot better about the story if they'd let him have his turn at bat, since they sort of promised that, but when he struck out, reacting with a "that's OK, good try," since it is "only a game." The way they did it was just lying to the kid. Now he might have a false impression that he's actually good at baseball, and I find that disturbing, not uplifting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you guys are saying that making an exception in the normal course of things to perform an act of kindness is evil?

Hmmmmm...

EDIT: btw - I think turning baseball into kindness and making it no longer a competitive sport as a normal thing would be evil. I do not think taking advantage of an opportunity that arose to make an exception and practice, for that moment, another moral value like kindness is evil.

I also want to know why I and others get choked up with this story. Are we all evil at root? :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have doubts about the truth of the story. However, accepting it at face value for the sake of illustration, it presents a stark contrast to an attitude expressed by Leonard Peikoff, as quoted in a post by Joe Maurone:

[Here]

Dividing Lines

Submitted by Jmaurone on Tue, 2008-06-10 06:07.

Leonard Peikoff had a relevant question that he answered on his podcast today. The question was: did Ayn Rand ever regret using the kind of provacative tone that may have made it harder for some people to warm up to her philosophy? To which he replied, emphatically,

"NO!TO THE CONTRARY! SHE WANTED TO BRUSH THOSE PEOPLE AWAY OUT OF HER DOMAIN! SHE WANTED TO SAY WHAT SHE KNEW EXACTLY AS IT WAS! AND IF PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IT, TOUGH ON THEM! THEY WERE EVIL FOR NOT WANTING IT TO BE SAID ACCURATELY!"

"They wanted was the same idea but put deluded, soft, without controversy, blurry, without clear definition, without offense." (rest at peikoff.com, podcast June 9th.)

This explains a lot, doesn't it? "Objectivist living, indeed.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self-immobilization is infinitely easier to do than the work it takes to bring out your best.

. . .

Added edit: Do you think Rand would have written a novel with the climax being the "success" of that boy? Isn't that story, a call for people to fake reality--lie to cover up one's weaknesses?

Michael,

There is a dichotomy here that I reject. It is that competition and faking reality to cover up one's weakness are the only values involved and these ideas are being accepted or rejected for all time when one practices kindness.

When those boys decided to stop competing and give a mentally incompetent person an intense once-in-a-lifetime experience of feeling what it is like to be normal, I do not believe they suddenly decided that this was a greater value than winning the game when they were normally competing. It was only for that moment because the opportunity arose and the situation was right. That kid will probably nurture this memory for the rest of his life. How many of the players do you think would remember the game years later if it had progressed as normal?

I do not think Rand would have written about this, much less made it a climax of a work since she wrote very little about kindness as a value. I am writing about it to chew on it precisely because she didn't. (btw - Rand was much kinder than people give her credit for. She simply didn't write about it, but she practiced it as a virtue in her own life. The bickering she did does not negate this. It merely shows that moral values need to be chosen time and time again—that one can be kind one minute and bicker another and value both.)

The feelings this story evokes and the values involved are totally ignored in Objectivism. I see some very nasty people take advantage of the gap to practice cruelty, spit on kindness as a value, and pretend they are being virtuous. They miss the boat and I do not they are being virtuous. I think they are practicing evil by doing that.

Those boys merely changed value gears for a moment. They did not suddenly change the rules of baseball and the competitive mindset for all time. I have no doubt they went back to the next game more willing to annihilate the opponent than ever.

Isn't pretending that faking reality is the only thing that happened actually faking reality?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may have been an act of kindness for a mentally disabled boy, but the story sounds trite and contrived. But for an unathletic, normal boy the father's answer should have been: "I don't know. Ask. They may say yes and they may say no. The important thing to do is to have the courage to ask and to deal with the real answer, not the answer you now fear. Life is all about courage."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you guys are saying that making an exception in the normal course of things to perform an act of kindness is evil?

Is it really an act of kindness to fake reality for someone else?

An act of kindness is something benevolent you do for someone else, right?

Is faking reality benevolent, under any circumstances?

Brant: Nice! I was surprised that the father asked for him. I don't think that is wise and strikes me as coddling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am evil. I come here because many of you are as well.

With that out of the way...

I think a big part of this equation being left out is these other kids essentially agreed to play at Shaya's level. It was an even playing field, more or less, and so Shaya's running the bases wasn't entirely a fake experience. Further, there are self esteem issues for these kids, in being given this opportunity the child may be inspired to join one of the many leagues for the disadvantaged.

I agree with MSK that a major contribution for the world that can be given by Objectivism is a kindness toward the better among us (in whose ranks I do not include myself). Objectivism would need a lot of its hatred for the "subhuman" removed, as well as its blind Hero Worship but there is value there.

Sigh.

I spoke to an Objectivist about the Inuit once, about the challenges they face in the modern world like land theft, alcoholism, poverty... he said "They should study Aristotle and get with the program!". If not the "primitivists" shouldn't cry when they are consumed mercilessly by the global economy and the Canadian government. There is a major lack of empathy among Objectivists, a feeling that everyone ought to spontaneously become "normal" and if not, "Who cares why, just let em burn."

I have perfect confidence many of you will not understand what its like to be genetically lesser than 'normal' people and how the invitation to 'normal' activity can be a very good thing, regardless of the 'life crippling immolation upon the shameful altar of altruism' that the other kids on the team 'surely' experienced.

Empathy is something Objectivism needs a bigger dose of. Of course, that's depressing isn't it? All those people we won't feel as readily superior too, heck, we might even mistake our birth into a privileged portion of society as something other than our own doing. Oh NOEZ!

Don't worry though, I'm just engaged in an evil attempt to rob you of your Galtness.

Edited by Joel Mac Donald
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

That is what my head says, too, and probably what I would do in that situation.

But I am curious. Were you totally unaffected by the story at the moment you read it, or did you choke up, then reject that as silly?

I choked up, as many do. There has to be a reason and I would like to know what it is.

I was completely unaffected. To see something along these lines that I did enjoy watch "Rudy" staring Sean Astin. Also, "My Bodyguard," staring, I think, Chris Makepeace (and a delightful Ruth Gordon). There may also be a movie staring a very young Corey Haim I can't remember the title of. I'll check on it. EDIT: that film was "Lucas."

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a snooper?

More O-ists need to show more empathy... Empathy = identification and understanding. I doubt I can understand Shaya's situation but maybe I can identify with being left out and excluded. I've had that happen. Living in Japan for four years was one big exclusionary experience. But I'm struggling to find some situation that could be equated to that of Shaya and the baseball game.

Help me empathize, Joel and Michael. What's a comparable situation for a person that doesn't suffer from a learning disability?

How about if my wife walks into an MLB practice game, asks the players if I can play, and they play the same way the kids played with Shaya (because relative to them I'm about at Shaya's level). Ridiculous. And I would be insulted by it. I would walk away from that in shame. What's the point?

A story that hits me right in the tear gland is The Shawshank Redemption. The part where the main character crawls through a sewage pipe to freedom .... that is inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I experienced the story early into it as contrived, which precluded me getting into an emotional reaction to Shaya's success. The only thing in Atlas Shrugged that really reached me emotionally as opposed to intellectually was the death of the "Wet Nurse." Re Rand I'd have to go back from that to We the Living to be similarly engaged.

--Brant

edit: Not quite true. The boy on a bicycle in The Fountainhead was very affecting to me. So too were some other scenes from the same novel, for instance, Roark months after losing his job with Francon and unable to find work walks home or Wynand, broken, thinking about the leash he held on the public: "A leash is only a rope with a noose on both ends."

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's a snooper?

George,

It used to be anyone who said Rand had an affair with Nathaniel Branden. That has changed over time. Now you have to ask Peikoff for the current meaning. :)

As to your request for help in understanding empathy, you have to do your own thinking. You have a good mind and I am sure you will do OK.

A story that hits me right in the tear gland is The Shawshank Redemption. The part where the main character crawls through a sewage pipe to freedom .... that is inspiring.

I agree. I love that film.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your request for help in understanding empathy, you have to do your own thinking. You have a good mind and I am sure you will do OK.

You clearly misunderstood me as I demonstrated that I know what 'empathy' is. And I did NOT request that anyone do my thinking for me. You border on the insulting to suggest otherwise.

I am simply suggesting that those who demand empathy provide a similar situation in which the recipient of the 'kindness' is a person who does not suffer from a learning disability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reminds me of the story Barbara Branden wrote about telling a comforting lie to her mother on her deathbed. I didn't like that either. Intellectually, I can see that it doesn't matter if you lie to someone who's going to be dead in a matter of days anyway; they don't have time to make any mistakes in life because of having an inaccurate picture of reality. But, for me, there is a visceral "ick" reaction to the idea of planting a false idea in someone's mind. Even if the false idea probably can't lead to any bad consequences. George, do you have the same "ick" reaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, do you have the same "ick" reaction?

I think it's a similar reaction, yes.

I lied without a second thought when I was a kid as a mechanism to avoid what I considered wrong but wasn't strong enough to combat openly, and no one could ever explain to me why it is one should not lie. AR's explanation is compelling though.

I have a 2 yo boy and I take all efforts not to fake reality for him. He has a favorite aunt who visits us once a week. He cries when she leaves so she tried to leave when he wasn't looking in order that he wouldn't cry. I would not let her and instead called my son so he would know. He cried but I think that is better than him crying after the fact - when he finds out - and not only because his aunt left but also because he was tricked by his own parents!

I remember being lied to and tricked as a child in order to get my cooperation or just to shut me up. I hated it. It's an ugly kind of laziness that prompts people to fake reality, instead of just being upfront about things.

btw Michael I know little or nothing about ARI or Peikoff or the scandals, schisms and factions. I'm quite blissful in my ignorance at the moment. I've read all of AR's fiction and philosophy (or 98% of it) but I stay away from the BS around it because I don't currently consider it a productive use of my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like George, Laure, Brant and me are together on this one. :)

This story was told as a morality tale, or a parable. There are connotations. The father asking the group of boys to forgo the objective of the sport to accommodate his son. What is equally plausible is that the father was more concerned about getting the healthy young boys to compromise and fake it by bringing themselves down to level of his son. Perhaps the father works at the Post Office (I am thinking a recent and ongoing nightmare with them,) so that his world view is to make everyone wait on him. ;) ahhahahaha.

There is also a very weird implied false accusation that George, Laure, Brant, and myself are not empathic or kind. You can go to the Manhattan tennis courts ask anyone there if I am empathic or kind when it comes to helping out others around the courts. Or ask anyone on my mentor program.

Perhaps, it is you Michael and Joel who are neither kind nor empathetic? ;)

Or, perhaps, it is fear of success? That one will never rise in the world unless they are artificially helped by people higher up? ;)

Or, perhaps, some people identify more with the retarded kid, and feel that is how they are in life?

Or, perhaps they are social manipulators like the father? And don't want to see it that way?

I think that is enough questions for now. ;)

Michael

Edited by Newberry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivists tend to mistake the eventual silence of their critics on their own unyielding and superior grip on reality.

Its usually because their critics often see them as missing the point of everything entirely.

Good Bye.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

There is also a very weird implied false accusation that George, Laure, Brant, and myself are not empathic or kind....

Exactly. It's not about kindness. I think we would seek a way to be kind without being dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a morality tale, but the morality demonstrated is altruistic. I don't see any convincing arguments to the contrary but I'm open to discussing any.

If kindness is benevolence, isn't honesty more benevolent than dishonesty? That seems irrefutable.

P.S. Joel - and what was your point? If you don't make it clearly you don't get to huff and puff when you leave. :)

Edited by George Donnelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps, it is you Michael and Joel who are neither kind nor empathetic? ;)

Or, perhaps, it is fear of success? That one will never rise in the world unless they are artificially helped by people higher up? ;)

Or, perhaps, some people identify more with the retarded kid, and feel that is how they are in life?

Or, perhaps they are social manipulators like the father? And don't want to see it that way?

I think that is enough questions for now. ;)

Michael

Folks,

Could you try from both sides not to turn this into slurs on the other side's motivation?

Perhaps it ISN"T any of the negative suggestions raised above -- and perhaps not feeling touched by the story doesn't indicate lack of empathy either.

I expressed doubt above that the story is even true. But imagining it as true gives me something of both sets of reactions being described. On the one hand, I find the details of the story not only implausible but not a good way to have handled the circumstance if the father really had made the request.

On the other hand I feel the pang of being moved by it, though I think not as much so as MSK -- and I, like him, find the question of what's the source of the emotion perplexing.

I think that at least part of the answer pertains to evolution and to the competing competition/compassion, conquest/mercy proclivities. The sports scene is one where the former proclivities are usually uppermost. In this story they're set aside in favor of the second -- compassion and mercy. So there's a shift of priorities, with a twang at the heart strings in the shift. Or something to that effect.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
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