To say “I love you” one must first be able to say the “I.”~Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Technorati tags:
objectivist round up, blog carnival.
To say “I love you” one must first be able to say the “I.”~Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
Technorati tags:
objectivist round up, blog carnival.
I just got back from the Atlanta Objectivist Society‘s Mini-Con (which was an awesome time, the subject of a later post), where I gave two talks: one about practical benefits of epistemology and one about regulation in the medical device industry. I recorded both and am posting them here, but I have two disclaimers first: 1. These were informal talks and I make no guarantees about any accuracy. Particularly with the medical devices talk, the particulars I discuss may not be perfect reflections of what actually is in the real world and are more reflections of my memory. 2. I have not edited these, nor listened to them all the way through. Some questions in the Q/A sessions may be difficult to hear; if you want me to try and clarify what was asked at that point give me the time in the lecture and I’ll see if I can remember.
One of the most important practical ideas of Objectivism’s ethical theory, and sadly one that seems to be misunderstood by many Objectivists, is the notion of a central purpose in life (a CPL). The purpose of this post is to discuss the misunderstanding as I see it, but before I do so a general review of the idea is in order.
A CPL is the central, guiding purpose around which one’s entire value hierarchy is shaped. Acting in accordance with that purpose is the primary goal of one’s days, the value to which all other values are subordinated. While many proper values (such as the joy of relaxing on the beach or watching a clever television show) are not productive in nature, the CPL must be a productive pursuit and such non-productive values must only be pursued if they are in harmony with the central purpose. As Ayn Rand explained in her 1964 Playboy interview, having a CPL enables man to live a happy, integrated life whereas its lack ensures conflict:
A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find . . . .
Now you hopefully have an idea of what a CPL is, and probably why it’s so important. So now, something that a CPL is not: A CPL is not synonymous with a career. This is really important, so I repeat: a CPL need not be a career! This is something I’ve seen quite a few Objectivists get wrong, and it has led to misled advice given by some and frustrated negative self-images by others.
Don’t get me wrong, a CPL can be, and often is, a career. Your central purpose can be working as a database programmer peopleguy, or a lawyer, or a novelist, or many other such pursuits. Moreover, I think for most of your life your CPL should be a career, so long as your society is the kind willing to pay for your work. But there are two important points missed by those who think a CPL must be a career: first, your CPL can change over your lifetime, and second, everyone at every stage in life needs a CPL (at least implicitly). To see the first point, consider the fact that Ayn Rand herself probably had two major CPLs in her adult life: first, to portray man as he could and ought to be (which work culminated in Atlas Shrugged), and second, to flesh out and spread her philosophy of Objectivism (which work consisted of several anthologies, speeches, lectures, newsletters, and at least one significant book). Or, for another example, consider Leonard Peikoff, who has announced plans to switch from philosophy after the culmination of his work on the DIM hypothesis into the field of science fiction writing. Before I address the second point, I want to clarify something about the scope of a CPL.
A CPL exists to guide your actions in the present. A CPL will certainly imply taking actions with long-range effects, and in most cases will even involve long range planning, but qua CPL its purpose is to guide your choices here and now, today. Should I pick up that physics text or reread ItOE? Should I apply to grad school or start looking for jobs after college? Should I sign this 99 year contract as a representative of my company? These are the types of questions that a CPL helps answer. A CPL is not something you just refer to when thinking about your future, it should be there (implicit or explicit) in every choice and judgment you make.
So now, back to the second point missed by equating a CPL with a career: Everyone at every stage of life can, and should, have a CPL. A child who integrates acts with the ultimate goal of learning how the world works has a central (implicit) principle “serv[ing] to integrate all the other concerns of [his] life.” A teenager working to form his character and determine which ideas he wants to guide his life can’t be said to be “drift[ing] helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment.” A young adult taking various jobs and exploring his passions in order to determine a career to which he wants to dedicate his life is surely able to “enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind.” Indeed, all of these (learning how the world works, forming ones character, figuring out ones career) ARE valid central purposes.
So why does this all matter? Because it is important to know (especially, though not exclusively, for younger Objectivists) that one is NOT stuck with the false alternative of either having a central, fulfilling career goal or being consigned to an aimless, purposeless existence. If you have a career and it is your central purpose, awesome and great for you. If you don’t or it isn’t, though, don’t worry! There are other productive purposes that could never be considered a career (such as “shaping ones own character”) or don’t work as a career in today’s world (such as “writing rational screenplays for big-budget films” may be given the state of Hollywood) that CAN work as valid central purposes. Of course, you need to survive, so if you need to take a job to support yourself you should, but it doesn’t need to become your central purpose. By all means, work as a waitress during the day and audition for plays on the weekends. Or finish your science degree while considering becoming an artist. Or move to Atlanta and make money doing various odd jobs while soul-searching and figuring out what you really want. You can still be happy and purposeful, and your worth is not lessened in the least.
Introspection, like its more fundamental counterpart external observation, is primarily a cognitive process. The main goal in introspecting is to discover things about one’s self. Ultimately, just as with all knowledge, the reason to seek introspective knowledge is to guide action, but the first purpose is to gain knowledge.
Unfortunately, some people seem to use introspection as a primarily evaluative tool. Rather than looking inward to answer questions like: what am I thinking? what am I feeling? what’s causing this subconscious response?, etc. they instead focus on: Am I thinking properly? Is this feeling appropriate? Did I make some (possibly immoral) error to cause this subconscious response?, etc.
Now, don’t get me wrong, those questions ARE important, but they are NOT the only or even primary purpose of introspection. The first step is to figure out what exactly is going on internally, THEN you evaluate it, but you evaluate it while considering your knowledge as somewhat metaphysically given, e.g. “OK, I get mad at clowns, and that’s due to an improperly integrated experience from my childhood, now how can I go about fixing it or living with the anger?” rather than “Jeez, something’s just WRONG with me for having this clearly irrational emotion, I should have known better when I internalized that experience from my childhood, why haven’t I fixed it before now?” Of course, if you really did make a mistake and especially if you should have known better, then you should take that into account, make amends to anyone wronged, and recognize any immorality that played a role, but primarily you should recognize that the only thing in your control NOW is now and the future, and your focus should be on learning what your internal state is like NOW and how to apply that knowledge in making your life better now and in the future.
I have some speculations as to why so many people put the wrong focus on introspection. From day one, we are learning to observe the external world. Our culture puts a (proper) major emphasis on knowledge of the world, even when practical applications of that knowledge are not obvious. Introspection, on the other hand, necessarily starts later in life. Moreover, possibly due to a general acceptance that the internal world is an inherent mystery with no causal explanation, there is much less emphasis on introspection as a valuable tool, especially for children. As a result, if people learn to introspect at all they usually learn it AFTER they already have (at least implicit) moral standards and BECAUSE they have noticed a particular problem in themselves. This could easily resulting in having a mistaken association of introspection as a tool for morally evaluating oneself in order to fix problems, rather than a general tool for knowing one’s self.
EDIT June 29: Since writing this, I thought of a good analogy: think of your own character/psyche like a skyscraper. It was partially made by man (though the base elements are metaphysically given), and thus the making of it must be judged accordingly. However, now that it HAS been made, it is what it is and its nature must be accepted, even if the goal is to change it. Just as one does not modify the structure of a skyscraper by simply recognizing an error and condemning the man who made it, so one does not change his psyche by simply finding a flaw and condemning himself for the choices leading to it. One must act in accordance with the nature of his mind, often with the aid of the findings of psychology, in order to change it.