The Will to Be Myself

[ericjherboso]

The class was an utter disappointment. I had had such high hopes for that class. Every time a new semester begins, I always find myself optimistic that this time I will find the class that turns everything around for me. Every time, I fool myself into believing that I've finally reached that point in my academic career where I will find a class

Comments

[picarpo]

I had several reactions while reading this. Despite the fiction of parts of your entry I assume that you stand behind the substance. (I get the feeling that you intended to stand behind the substance, but in focusing on making your entry more exciting you sacrificed some accuracy in your statements.)

The Wind and the Sun. As an aside, I have seen the moral translated as either "Kindness effects more than severity" or "Persuasion is better than force", which really are very different. I unfortunately am unable to read the original text.

"A man is what he repeatedly does." (Aristotle) I agree with you here, and also hold disdain for people, especially myself at certain times in the past, who maintain that subconscious desires are "real" as opposed to actions. I nevertheless believe that Freudian slips and general observations of the subconscious are a valuable insight into one's character, since subconscious feelings very often drive actions. But this is really consistent with the view that actions are more important than intentions. I actually believe that we can misinterpret our own actions, that is, do or say something and think it means something different from what it actually would if we were a detached observer. For example, pretend that you jokingly insult someone's intelligence. While consciously you may think that you are being friendly and just making a joke, your comment may actually be driven by your subconscious belief that the other person is truly unintelligent, and you are really insulting them.

[picarpo]

"I often think that he's the only one of us who's achieved immortality. I don't mean in the sense of fame and I don't mean that he won't die some day. But he's living it. I think he is what the conception really means. You know how people long to be eternal. But they die with every day that passes. When you meet them, they're not what you met last. In any given hour, they kill some part of themselves. They change, they deny, they contradict--and they call it growth. At the end there's nothing left nothing unreversed or unbetrayed; as if there had never been an entity, only a succession of adjectives fading in and out on an unformed mass. How do they expect a permanence which they have never held for a single moment? But Howard--one can imagine him existing forever." (AR, The Fountainhead) Your entry reminded me of this excerpt so I thought I'd post it.

I recall that a couple of years ago you wrote an entry on how difficult you found it to "be alone". Apparently, after reading your entry, things have changed--or not. You seem proud that you do not bend to others' expectations (or at least, your essay is structured this way, perhaps only for dramatic effect). Yet you also imply that donning many masks is just as valid as what you do. There is nothing wrong with having unjustified personal pride--there is in fact much right with it I believe--but first of all, it is not philosophically accurate (again, for dramatic effect?). And secondly, I'm really curious, because it seems unlike you. I would have expected you to believe that what you're doing is actually just donning the same stale mask all the time, out of necessity and not choice, because you are lazy and too inconsiderate to care about what other people think.

Speaking egotistically, I think I have a case, stronger than yours to the contrary, that donning many masks is better. I have long noticed that I adapt my whole personality depending on what environment I'm in--from what I say and do, to even my tone of voice and writing style. In fact, I'm in a different mindset, so the analogy of a mask is poor. I think you will agree, as having a mask implies that there is a real or true desire underneath, different from the mask's. It is actually very difficult to switch nimbly between masks/mindsets and to wear them well. I'm glad I try to do it, because it makes me feel more at home and thus happier, and makes it easier to deal with most situations. More importantly it gives me the chance to define what I think is right: It is simply too difficult to act as Rand's Roark does, to always act consistently, because we do too many things to consciously think about all of them. By consistently slipping into different mindsets I allow myself to choose when to slip out of them, and do things which I believe are right; and these things become more important than all the rest. If you always wear the same mask there is no difference between your choice of coffee brand and your choice of woman. But because I am wearing a mask when I choose my coffee brand, but not when I choose a woman, the latter choice stands out.

Of course, you should believe that what you do is right.

[ericjherboso]

Y'know, I was thinking of Roark when I wrote this entry. So either that's a big coincidence, or else you really caught on to what I was trying to say.

I find myself going back and forth on many ideals that I cannot realistically consistently hold. For example, I think that as of this moment I may be severely depressed, to the point where others actually take medication But I shun medication, and I also know that at other times, I get this kind of feeling that isn't quite what I think Roark feels, but is rather what someone who longs after his position imagines him to feel... Say, Peter Keating at the very end of the book. (Or, paradoxically, Keating at the very beginning, when he wishes he knew what he wanted the way Roark seemed to.)

The other day, I watched a video podcast where a stereotypical wrote in to Kevin Rose and said (I'm paraphrasing): "I'm the kind of nerd that plays WOW all day sometimes, always keeps up to date on the latest tech news, and dresses up like a ninja at cons. My fiancee and I are getting married soon, but one thing she's told me is that I need to be more normal and stop doing all these crazy things. What should I do?"

The consensus was that, in fact, he really shouldn't be marrying a girl that doesn't accept him the way he is. At first, I thought it was really bad to say this to the guy--after all, he's about to get married, so they're obviously very close. But as they continued discussing his problem, I realized that they're right. He _shouldn't_ marry someone like that. He shouldn't settle for someone that thinks his nerd side 'isn't normal' and 'needs to be fixed'.

I think that watching that got me into a more positive 'groove', if you can call it that, and I ended up writing this entry in that frame of mind. I wanted to think that I should be proud to be who I am, and that to think any differently would be for me to be less of who I am.

But, it has been less than a week since writing it, and I've reverted back into what is perhaps a lesser depression where I think I disagree with most of what I said in this entry.

So if I sound self-contradictory, then you're right; I keep going back and forth on these deep issues.

[ericjherboso]

I agree that the 'mask' terminology was a poor choice. 'Mindset' does indeed work far better.

But slipping into different mindsets so that you can do two 'right' things sequentially when they may in fact contradict one another? If you're going through all that trouble, why bother with doing what is 'right' in the first place?

Once what is 'right' is relegated to something that is changeable over time, there ceases to be any strong incentive behind doing what is right. I have nothing against you donning different masks--to each their own--but if what is right changes with each donning then you are no longer talking about any kind of 'right' that I know.

As for the coffee brand distinction, may I remind you that one of my premises was that there is NO such thing as the maskless scenario, and so not wearing a mask when choosing a woman is not possible under my original construction. That said, I do see your point. But it implies that one of your mindsets is primary, while all other mindsets are secondary (or tertiary). Your base mindset would be the one you choose your woman with, while a lesser mindset would be in place while choosing coffee.

While such may be easier for you, I don't see it as 'better', except in that it is easier.

For me, it is literally easier to NOT do this kind of thing. If I have to change mindsets to choose a brand of coffee, I'll probably just go without. Again, not because my way is better, except in that it really is easier for me.

[picarpo]

Like you were, I was trying to justify my intrinsic personal dispositions, and decided not to consider both sides of the argument in order to make the strongest case I could in favour of my situation. In fact I'm not sure exactly where I stand on my ability to change mindsets. I agree that it does in a sense give me a weaker sense of self, since I change more often (than say you). This bothers me especially when I feel I don't have control over my changing mindset. For example, I unconsciously limp when I go to the washroom in the middle of watching an episode of House. (In case you don't know, the protagonist, Dr. House, has a limp.) While this is by itself more amusing than a serious concern, it is concerning how much I may be imitating people with whom I interact without noticing it. At the moment I'm trying to do things moment by moment that I approve of, not necessarily what subconsciously feels natural.

However one benefit of this is that I am able to assimilate certain mannerisms and gestures that I appreciate in others into my own personality. I suspect I do this a lot subconsciously, but probably still to a net benefit, since I generally assimilate only things I approve of. (I also assimilate things from people if I see them a lot, which incidentally is not good considering I am majoring in Pure Math.) Now that I come to think of it this is precisely how I imagine a young child develops. I'm sure most people retain this ability to some extent so perhaps I am vain to think myself unique.

To continue my argument from last post: I meant that in most cases I don't see a "right" action. I find this view to be necessary for any practical moral system, since in any given time interval we complete infinitely many actions, not all of which we can consciously know are right. Thus I feel that I should choose only some finite number of issues to determine what is right. Thus I may, as you say, at one time think rap music is good and later think it is bad, depending on my mindset. However, I do not see this (necessarily) as changing what I believe is right, since I (can) believe that rap music is too insignificant to deserve moral consideration. For issues which I consider worthy of determining what is right, my "primary mask" will assert itself over whatever mask I'm currently wearing. My observation in the last post was that my changing opinions on issues such as rap music is in fact a demonstration that I consider them unimportant, and gives more weight to issues which I consider of more importance to give a consistent answer. From my perspective, it also allows me more time and space to give consideration to issues which I consider important.

Really, I think that my approach is not morally optimal. When I at one time said I didn't like rap music and later said I did, I believed it (or so I thought at then) both times. This discredits my consistency. Morally I should both times have said "I don't know", but as you say, this is much more difficult. So I choose the easier option as opposed to the moral one, which again discredits the choices I want to matter.

But speaking practically, by passing through different mindsets, I am able to believe different things at different times. Thus I can more fully explore different beliefs than if I were just to think hypothetically.

And while slipping through mindsets makes everyday social interaction easier, it also creates problems, since I can change my mind about things overnight. Sometimes mindsets can last for several days leaving me making important decisions during that time that I later regret. Nonetheless I will keep doing what I have been, and enjoy it.

[ericjherboso]

In summary (since I know I rambled a bit back there), donning many mindsets is NOT better because it allows you to do the right thing more consistently, since the real right thing must be the same under a single mindset.

BUT donning many mindsets is easier for you; as you say, switching between them makes you more comfortable and more at ease in many situations. In this way, donning many mindsets is good for you.

On the contrary, for me, I am more at ease when I stick to just one mindset. At the time of writing this entry, I was unjustifiably proud of this fact; now I am ashamed of it. But either way, the truth remains that it is easier for me to not don many mindsets but to just keep a single one. Changing mindsets is rather difficult for me, you see. It takes effort that I think you never need to expend. Thus, for me, donning many mindsets is not good for me, due entirely to the ease issue.

BUT I will admit that I do (now though not then) wish I could don add'l mindsets so that I _could_ be happy in other situations. Instead, I find myself back to depression again after a rare fleeting moment of unjustifiable pride.

[picarpo]

I think I agree with this, at least in the mindset I'm in now. ;)

[ericjherboso]

I am just a beginning greek reader, but....

πείθων is definitely best translated as 'persuasion', but in greek, it had the triple meaning of persuasion via kindness, trickery, and force. (Like in english, we say to persuade by kind words, to persuade by trickery, or to persuade by force. Come to think of it, I guess it's exactly like we use it in english.

The way the final sentence is worded feels weird.... I guess it's a form that aesop used in all his morality lines, though.

Regardless, 'persuasion is better than force' is vague in english, because you imeediately think persuasion via trickery. What is meant is kindness, I think, although the text isn't clear on that. Then again, don't listen to me. I've only had one year in greek, and I had to look up three words in that sentence, so I'm not the best person to analyze such things. (c:

[picarpo]

I for one do not think immediately of trickery when I see persuasion, especially after reading the fable. I really like the moral "persuasion is better than force". It represents my philosophy of learning/teaching. In short, I think teachers should teach not facts, but give convincing arguments, and students should learn in this way. In the end if the student accepts the teacher's argument he does so voluntarily and independently. This argument is fully and convincingly given in the Preface to Allan Bloom's translation of Plato's Republic (which, probably not coincidentally, I read on your recommendation). More generally the moral represents one perspective on how I approach my interaction with other people. When I give opinions I try to word them as opinions and not statements, and try not to impose them on others. I detest literal use of the imperative voice.

[ericjherboso]

I definitely agree ion misinterpreting our own actions, which does seem to negate the idea that _all_ we are is what we do. Maybe... _most_ of what we are is what we do?