Objectivism vs depression

[jts]

It seems perhaps almost normal for Objectivists and students of Objectivism to have psychiatric problems (from OL, OO, HPO, etc.). Like for example depression. And there was an Objectivist in HPO who was paying $900 per month on Zyprexa and he sang the praises of Zyprexa to high heaven.

What's with this? Is being depressed heroic? Is it a status symbol? Is it a Mrs. Drysdale snob culture kind of thing?

I would expect most Objectivists and most rational people in general to have their act together and to be super successful at everything they do and to live heroic lives, like the heroes in Atlas Shrugged.

Can you imagine John Galt taking Zyprexa?

Ayn Rand:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

That doesn't sound like being depressed.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

I think one of the most interesting things about Objectivism is the people it attracts.

They tend to be interesting people. Some of them are outcasts, others are rogues, others are eccentrics, others are warriors, others are tall poppies, others are intellectuals, others are students, and the rest are a mixture of all of the above. And still others may only have some of the above qualities and also have qualities not listed.

It isn't far-fetched to think at least some of these people may be depressed.

Additionally, wouldn't people who tend to be depressed be drawn to a philosophy that promises to be a guide to happiness?

Can Objectivism be the cause of depression? I don't know enough about depression to say whether one's worldview can influence one's brain's biochemical composition. I mean, I know thoughts are biological in nature, but I'm not certain if beliefs can cause the chemical imbalances necessary for clinical depression. For a depressed mood, however, I think one's beliefs have a role in that.

I don't think anyone considers being depressed to be heroic, but I think you're just being coy here. It's hard to tell with you, sometimes...

[caroljane]

Becoming clinically depressed is the same as breaking an arm, or developing benign tumours. It has no conjunction with philosophy

[BaalChatzaf]

Becoming clinically depressed is the same as breaking an arm, or developing benign tumours. It has no conjunction with philosophy

Seritonen re-uptake is totally oblivious to philosophy. You are quite right.

[jts]

Becoming clinically depressed is the same as breaking an arm, or developing benign tumours. It has no conjunction with philosophy

That depends on whether it is a hardware problem (brain) or a software problem (mind).

[anthony]

Kyle, You touch on several valid points there. Irrespective of jts' unserious approach, based (as far as I can tell) on a highly selective sampling of Objectivists - who probably average no less or more depressives than the general community - there are still questions to be asked.

Personally, I've speculated to myself that Rand went through some sort of existential angst in her very early years. (In part, possibly demonstrated by her brief attraction to Nietzsche, the genius depressive). Depression on her part? Not necessarily, but something close. I do believe that some sort of price has to be paid for seeing so much and knowing so much (especially, young) with unimaginable clarity - before some perspective on that apparent chasm between one's consciousness and all of existence kicks in. To draw the two together - as they in fact are - isn't that the primary object of Objectivism?

Next conjecture is that she created a whole philosophy from her desire to free herself of that 'angst'...

But I'm guessing too much as it is. I really know very little about her early life. Or her motivation.

[BaalChatzaf]

Becoming clinically depressed is the same as breaking an arm, or developing benign tumours. It has no conjunction with philosophy

That depends on whether it is a hardware problem (brain) or a software problem (mind).

Depression is purely a nuero-chemical matter. It has to do with seritonin re-uptake.

There are no mental illnesses.

There are physiochemical malfunctions and bad habits (we call them neurosis).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Tony, your speculation is interesting and imo valid. It is documented that Rand got depressed after finishing Atlas. This could be a bookend to a possible early "existential angst". (I did not consciously intend that pun btw).

Depression is often described as "anger turned inwards". Rand had a lot of anger, and it was for most of her life directed outwards.

[caroljane]

In re heroism, in Objectivism to struggle in pursuit of one's own happiness is heroic, if the struggle is against proper targets. Thus to struggle against bad premises, wrong actions etc in trying to defeat one's own depression would constitute heroism. Of course being depressed in and of itself cannot be heroic.

[caroljane]

Kyle, you are right, Jerry is being coy in his usual endearing fashion. What he is saying is, "If Objectivists are so smart, why aren't they happy?"

[anthony]

Tony, your speculation is interesting and imo valid. It is documented that Rand got depressed after finishing Atlas. This could be a bookend to a possible early "existential angst". (I did not consciously intend that pun btw).

Depression is often described as "anger turned inwards". Rand had a lot of anger, and it was for most of her life directed outwards.

Carol, Your "bookend" portrayal is pretty - if, of course, my suppositions have any validity.

Though her depression after completion of AS *could* be attributed to a post partum exhaustion, after 13 years of labor. I don't know.

I definitely don't recognise her "anger". That's some leap. For the most part Rand gave a lot of herself, with what may be perceived as passion and, well - love: of reality, and the mind of man.

Really, all I've indicated is that it happens with a few brilliant individuals who understand early on, that life has much more to offer than is envisioned by drab societal norms; grasp the unnecessary agony that mankind suffers; and see clearly how simple it is to overturn those states of affairs. That's a lonely road with a load to carry.

Rand's shortness on many occasions could as well be an impatience to impart all of it, and quickly, to enough people. One person's 'anger', is another's 'caring' - I suppose.

(An absorbing theory - related to this topic- is 'Depressive Realism'. Check it out on Wiki if you don't know about it already.)

[caroljane]

I admit \Tony, that when I mentioned her anger I was thinking mainly of something I read about her notations in books of people she did not agree with, eg "Bastard! Evil! Liar " etc. Intellectual anger.

Your postpartum metaphor so aligns with something I was thought of writing, but didn't, that I will say no more.

Already MSK has noted that I use the jargon, and I fear the slippery slope. What if my hair turns orange? I have an irrational repulsion to orange hair a it always reminds me of pureed squash.

[anthony]

I admit \Tony, that when I mentioned her anger I was thinking mainly of something I read about her notations in books of people she did not agree with, eg "Bastard! Evil! Liar " etc. Intellectual anger.

Hah! I hadn't known of those epithets. It all still fits, though.

All I know is what I feel like when I hear terribly wrong or nasty ideas blandly put about. It's an instant vision of misery and piles of bodies. I get, let's say, rather cross.

(The scourge of a few dinner parties I won't be invited back to).

Sorry to be sobering.

[caroljane]

"Instant vision of destruction and piles of bodies" due to wrong or nasty ideas?

Well, at least it makes you cross. Such visions make some so=called Objectivists jubilant.

I do not agree with Oism it is true, and oppose its practical political ramifications. But I never have thought of its advancement as resulting in mass murder or its proponents as advocating it.

Rand's early trauma at the hands of the Bolsheviks really did a number on a lot of people.

[anthony]

It isn't limited to "intellectual anger", Carol. It's also knowing the logical consequences of irrational ideas when picked up by a Leader and his mobs of followers, and put into action. How many examples do we need?

Objectivism isn't some dry and dusty ivory tower'd philosophy out of touch with life.

I quite firmly cannot believe that old 'saw' of Rand being raised under Communism in Russia - and so this, and so that... Rubbish.

The "drab, societal norms" (I wrote) existing almost anywhere in the world, then and now, would have been more than enough for this girl's consciousness. It wasn't just the effects of politics, it was the state of man I believe she clearly comprehended. You don't have to-literally- see piles of bodies.

[caroljane]

Ah, but you do literally have to see them, if you read her novels. Not piles but enough "essentialized" bodies to get the message across. You can see the piles of looters and moochers who may not choose to live the Gulch , and therefore will live a subhuman life or no life at all. and serve them right.

[anthony]

Ah, but you do literally have to see them, if you read her novels. Not piles but enough "essentialized" bodies to get the message across. You can see the piles of looters and moochers who may not choose to live the Gulch , and therefore will live a subhuman life or no life at all. and serve them right.

That's not even right enough to be wrong - it must be that good ol' arbitrary assertion.

But if you advocate that men and women should stick around at their most extreme

moral/spiritual/material cost, for the sake of those who bleed them as sacrificial animals, then look to your own morality, not Rand's.

The theme of AS at its most elementary, I think :- of individuals saving themselves. Period.

Sub-theme, the 'justice in reality' that irrational ideas and acts will get you, when the rational people up and go.

Anyway, last time I looked, the body count was:

Objectivism - 0;

Socialism - uncountable, and rising.

Venezuela (where the nationalized oil wealth has resulted, today - somehow - in milk and bread shortages for the mindless citizens who supported Chavez).

Zimbabwe, whose economy has dropped 40% in ten years (and now the thug in charge has warned of a 51-49%cut to the State for all present and future investment (some fantasy!) in the country, and will go broke, finally).

Greece, Spain and even relatively solid Germany (e.g. recent news reports of a few hundred German industrialists and creators who are leaving for Canada and NZ...)

I won't even cite N. Korea, and all the rest.

All in one week of news channel watching.

You watch the News - tell me, what do you see?!

Misery, hunger and resentment - and in the ensuing instability, strife and death.

Socialism, or its watered down version 'Social Democracy' cannot ~ ever ~ be sustained without being propped up by capitalism (even that sorry excuse for it that it is now). Like altruism, which one can only perform - and remain alive - a fraction of the time. Somebody else pays for the indulgence of those finer feelings.

[caroljane]

Tony, do you not realise that socialism and capitalism are evolving all the time, in all their permutations, and do you deny that they coexist and interact in places like Scandinavia and, well, Canada?

Sometimes I think you torment yourself unnecessarily with pure reason and inevitable absolutes. You are a photographer. Is black and white the only option.

[anthony]

Tony, do you not realise that socialism and capitalism are evolving all the time, in all their permutations, and do you deny that they coexist and interact in places like Scandinavia and, well, Canada?

Sometimes I think you torment yourself unnecessarily with pure reason and inevitable absolutes. You are a photographer. Is black and white the only option.

Carol: Coexistence, for now.

The only evolution I notice is an intricate adjustment and balancing of some economies so as not to kill off the golden goose which keeps pragmatic nations afloat. That's not evolution, that's slow poison.

For other nations, it is a headlong rush to take away liberty, in the name of "the social good".

I think the more stoical and patriotic the people and their culture, the more inclined are they to put up with carrying the weight of others. It has defined the forbearance of our, and our parents' and grandparents' generations. That's in flux now.

Ideas are moving faster than ever before, and yes, here is that "evolution". Many businessmen are already questioning Why? Where is it 'written' that I must be saddled with the welfare of my 'brothers', who endlessly claim more from me? Without the slightest acknowledgment of what I do for them?

If the most industrious, obedient and stoical people, the German businessmen, have rebelled against their culture - what of other nations?

'Culture' runs dry quickly, by itself.

In the mean time, the trend of the younger generations is to demand ever more from their governments, without limits, it seems.

Political parties will and do emerge who'll promise it to them - for power - cynically in the knowledge that they can't deliver a fraction of those demands.

(You can't perceive this in Canada in some future? Perhaps - but never say never. I have the notion it will happen to Scandinavia.)

Next, the tipping-point will arrive where just sufficient Capitalists move their ideas and money away to find relative freedom elsewhere.

The powers-that-be will have to nationalize industries and corporations to make up the shortfall, to keep the populace content.

And in their ineptitude, unoriginality, corruption and simple bureaucratic wastage, fail, and the country becomes bankrupt.

There can't be greys 'til you can have, and comprehend, the black and the white.

Human compassion can't exist long outside the structure of reason and objective principles.

[caroljane]

Tony,

To take your last sentence first, I believe, though of course cannot prove, that human compassion existed long before any structures of reason and objective principles; before humans consciously reasoned, probably before they even talked; ever since, in fact, they became human as distinct from their primate cousins. I believe it will remain, as long as we remain human as we are now, until we evolve into a species in which the quality of compassion is no longer necessary.

Your bleak determinist prophecy is powerful and sad, and of course I hope it is not the inevitable outcome of current conditions. I know you would take no pleasure in being proved right.

When I spoke of black and white, I was not thinking of the alternative as grey. I was thinking of colour, living colour.

[caroljane]

At least, I hope you will not take pleasure if Armageddon arrives. But as there will not be much pleasure for anyone then, I guess you should take it if you can.

There are others on this forum, not to mention the Other Place, who will pretty much explode with glee watching the rubble from their aeries. They will hire all the world's surviving aircraft to skywrite across every inch of the celestial firmament: Told You So! Serves You Right! Brother You Asked For It, etc.

[anthony]

Tony,

To take your last sentence first, I believe, though of course cannot prove, that human compassion existed long before any structures of reason and objective principles; before humans consciously reasoned, probably before they even talked; ever since, in fact, they became human as distinct from their primate cousins. I believe it will remain, as long as we remain human as we are now, until we evolve into a species in which the quality of compassion is no longer necessary.

Your bleak determinist prophecy is powerful and sad, and of course I hope it is not the inevitable outcome of current conditions. I know you would take no pleasure in being proved right.

When I spoke of black and white, I was not thinking of the alternative as grey. I was thinking of colour, living colour.

Yes, I know compassion, even among dogs.

No, we won't lose it in a hurry - and shouldn't.

Then again, as my dogs did recently and shockingly when they bloodily tore into each other with little apparent cause - their usual instinct of caring for their pack-brethren, was instantly replaced by some other, equally as primal instinct.

When people do respond with their compassion or empathy - indeed it is warming to see (or experience). As you say, it predated reason, evidently an instinct for the survival of early animal-man.

NOT because it was 'morally good'.

Otherwise, every chimp that grooms another chimp is morally good.

But live by one instinct, and then you have to accept ALL instincts as a valid code for men to live by. The brutish ones included. After all, they're all justified by the same root: animal survival. You can't have it both ways, live as animals or as rational men.

An occasional irritant for me is the presumption by my liberal acquaintances that they hold the monopoly on compassion and on emotions. To ostentatiously display their 'caring and feeling' gives them, I observe, a sense of moral superiority, smugness and elitism - over everyone else, but especially a 'logical egoist'. (Not to mention, Capitalist) They have no idea of the interflow between thought and emotion, and apparently never will. Or that man must be free of other men - and not the least, ALL the "instincts" of those men - to find and hold, real, sustainable goodwill for them.

So we have a (altruist)morality and (Socialist)politics that descended from a feel-good instinct for pack survival... Hilarious.

You know your TSE: "...they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves".

When an elementary human feeling for others' pain, is metamorphosed into a vehicle to gain that self-ness all men fundamentally require, and then many admire it as a "selfless" pursuit - it becomes quite sick: Blindly groping to find one's Self via other people's suffering...

But, I absolutely agree with one thing - "self-less" it most certainly is.

[jts]

When I spoke of black and white, I was not thinking of the alternative as grey. I was thinking of colour, living colour.

On the subject of getting unlimited colors from mixtures of capitalism and socialism:

First let's start with a definition.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

Every student of Objectivism should have a bookmark to the Ayn Rand Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/

From this definition, we can get the idea of degrees of deviation from perfect capitalism: some rights recognized, some not; the same right sometimes recognized, sometimes not.

All colors that the human eye can see can be derived from 3 primary colors: red, green, blue. The color of each pixel on a computer monitor is derived from RGB (R = 0 to 255, G = 0 to 255, B = 0 to 255).

To make the analogy work well it would be nice if there were exactly 3 primary rights, but that is probably not correct.

Anyway let's take the 3 most important rights (whatever they are) and for each one estimate the degree of recognition of it from 0 to 255. Zero is no recognition of the right; 255 is total recognition of the right. (0,0,0) is black and is total tyranny. (255,255,255) is bright white and is perfect capitalism. In between these 2 are more colors than the human eye can distinguish and these are the virtually unlimited possible mixtures of capitalism and socialism.

[anthony]

At least, I hope you will not take pleasure if Armageddon arrives. But as there will not be much pleasure for anyone then, I guess you should take it if you can.

There are others on this forum, not to mention the Other Place, who will pretty much explode with glee watching the rubble from their aeries. They will hire all the world's surviving aircraft to skywrite across every inch of the celestial firmament: Told You So! Serves You Right! Brother You Asked For It, etc.

Carol,

After all your time on O-Lists, you see only the belligerence of a few?

Could you appreciate that there is sometimes a knowledge gap between Objectivism and Objectivists?

O'ism is a most *rationally* pacific philosophy. As distinct from Pacifist.

It holds that self-defence is a right, but more - a moral right. (For individual and country).

It is the nature of Objectivism, that everything has to be worked through individually. If a person makes a mistake, he has the methods to correct it, and often mostly will in his future, I think.

If some small number of Objectivists still have (e.g.) neo-conservative premises, and fiddle the parameters of self-defence into an aggressively violent posture - then they should look to themselves.

How often have you read of the 'NIOF principle', that you simply ignore it?

For the rest, it is - humanly (instinctively)- tempting to "take pleasure" when wrong, anti-life ideologies fail, and their proponents pay the price. Tempting, but I think, (if extreme) also irrational, and even altruistic. It is one's own life that must be lived, even despite the conditions one is surrounded by. And again, those are still humans, some who may not have understood the ideologies' immorality.

Now, I'm fully aware of the potential error I can make in getting so pissed off, lately. As someone wisely reminded (I think S'Nerd at O.O): you have to live (passionately)for something, not (passionately)against everything. That's the largest aspect of Objectivism, one you seem to have missed.

[caroljane]

I said, "there are others", I should have said "a few." Of course I do not see only the belligerence - surely you must realize that by now!

As to for/against, I do know how integral that is in the philosophy. But even Stephen Boydstun has expressed doubt that the percept love demands an equal-opposite percept hate. (Mangling his analysis I am sure, but forget where he said it). And of course to struggle for what you love is usually about opposing others. But I personally do not subscribe to the theory that love is only real when counterbalanced by hate, or even that love and hate are exact opposites - or indeed, that everything must necessarily even have an exact opposite.