RoR: Forum

Joe,

No dependency situation (outside psychological dependency, of course) will obviate or eliminate independent thinking. (None of your scenarios is correct.) I have a concrete situation below that makes this subject clear. I think it would be best to discuss aspects of that situation in the future to keep this topic focused on induction.

The spirit of what you are trying to say is correct: You can't have independent thinking without also achieving values, without focusing on your values. That is absolutely correct. But your statement that a dependency situation somehow changes that is wrong. In such a situation, we can still achieve "different" values with our longterm values still in mind -- via independent thinking.

Here is the dependency situation (one that many of us have found ourselves in):

When my parents divorced just days after my high school graduation, I moved in with my grandmother so that I could financially afford going to college full-time. She restricted my movements within the house, my hours I could be making noise, the kind of food I could eat, the amount of pot I could smoke (the cats found my bag under my bed and almost got me tossed on my butt by grandma) and the amount of money she allotted me for whatever she deemed important. I worked part-time, but that only paid for college stuff and a few minor things.

My short-term plans before the divorce had been to start college (with my parents paying) and to use my part-time work cash to buy a decent car, some better clothes, good food, good pot, good stuff for my girlfriend, etc. (The situation with my parents was also a "dependency" to some degree, but I won't go into that yet.) I also wanted to read a lot, play a lot and exercise a lot. My long-term goals were to get a degree, stay healthy always, get married eventually, write articles and/or books, have lots of friends, and make lots of money.

With my new predicament, I had to change my short-term values. I had to think independently about my new situation and determine what my new short-term values would be and whether my long-term values were still right. I determined that the long-term values were the same, and that to achieve them, I would need to obey my grandma's wishes around the house and alter my short-term values considerably. In order to start college, my short term values changed from the above list to the following list:

(1) Spend much of spare time doing as much for grandma as possible so she stays happy and I get to go to college full-time.
(2) College books paid for with loans and part-time cash instead of parents' money (my dad took off and took his money with him).
(2) A few new clothes at the end of the year, if I have some extra cash.
(3) Enjoy my beat-up car and fix it myself when necessary.
(4) Go partying, but be sure to dance a lot instead of drink a lot.
(5) Find activities that don't require much money -- like intramural sports.
(6) Continue to read but do less of it because I'll have less time for it.
(7) Continue to exercise, but back off somewhat because of less time.
(8) Spend less time with girlfriend(s).
(9) Cultivate friends who had pot. :-)

There were a lot of other minor value changes, too, but I don't think there's any need to go into them. This gets the point across. Being at the mercy of my grandma did not prohibit my mind from thinking about the situation, re-evaluating my short-term goals, and then executing them daily. (If anything, it reaffirmed my dedication to my long-term goals and gave them a fresh perspective -- and made my enjoyment of my short-term values more visceral.) If on a particular day, she wanted me to vacuum the whole house and pull weeds around her hedges again (instead of my being able to read or play or study), then I accommodated fully with my new values firmly in place. If my grandma had kicked me out (or I had voluntarily left), then I would've had to have gone full-time on my job and rearranged my short-term values again -- probably lengthening my college years to 5 instead of 4 and going during the summer sessions.

One problem I think you may be having on this topic, Joe, is that you think we must somehow be completely free of "dependencies" before we can fully think independently. But that is not true, and it is not reality. We are all in dependency situations virtually every day -- but it doesn't short-circuit our thought process. It can rearrange our short-term goals, but it can't stop us from our long-term goals, which is the only time our mind cannot think independently -- which is why I discussed the concentration-camp scenario in my first post. It's only when our life is futile that we cannot think independently.

Here are a few of the dependency situations we find ourselves in that are perfectly ordinary and do not undermine our independent thinking:

(1) Bosses want some things done differently than we want them done -- but we can think of how to get the most out of the situation and achieve all or most of our career values.
(2) Tractor-trailer rig in nearby lane could swerve into us and smash us to bits. In some of these situations, we are completely at the mercy of the rig driver, but it doesn't stop us from thinking independently about the situation or our values. In fact, we can reaffirm that our values involve driving and sometimes being in such brief situations, so we must endure it. (We are in dependent situations anytime anyone is in control of our bodies -- public transportation, intensive care unit, etc.)
(3) Spouse/partner stays home with kids while other spouse/partner brings home the bacon. The spouse at home would be staying at home because he wishes to in order to attain his values. The prospect of the bacon-bringer suddenly deciding against continuing to do so does not short-circuit the stay-at-home spouse's value pursuit and independent thought. If the stay-at-home spouse discerns a lack of responsibility in the other spouse's actions, then the stay-at-homer can take measures to ensure that her values are not altered much -- or if they will be, then she rearranges her values to still attain her long-term goals.
(4) Childhood -- in which parents usually have last say over much of the child's life. The child can freely think about what to do with his life now and after childhood. This is probably the most poignant example of how you are mistaken on this dependency discussion, Joe. All of us can remember how we thought independently as children about short-term and long-term values, but we were simply hindered to the degree of our parents' irrationality and had to decide to postpone or rearrange our short-term values.

Independent thinking is a mental action done with short-term values in place and being pursued -- with long-term values as their final goal.

If you want to continue this discussion on dependency and independent thought, I would like to use my "grandma" situation as the concrete from which to do so. I think it will keep everything on the proper level. But if you think another situation would be a better topic for concretes, go for it.

Post 21

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 3:08pm

David, I think you're just switching from context to context. Let's try your example.

What if your grandmother tells you you need to stay at home today to clean up the yard. You had plans to go study with your friends. Instead of blindly following her judgment, you think for yourself. You think "which is more important to me an my life". And you decide studying is what you should be working on. And then, you end up staying home cleaning up the yard.

I fully realize that you've thought your long term and short term values out, and given that you need to stay living with your grandmother or she'll boot you, you've decided that given the full context you should clean up the yard. But you're not doing it because you agree it's more important than studying. You're doing it because you're grandmother thinks it is, and you're living in a situation where you can't really refuse without massive cost.

You seem to think this is still "thinking independently", even though your conclusion is almost completely decided by the whim of the grandmother. How is that independent judgment? What do you think the word means if in practice you end up having to do what other people decide for you? And what point is there in deciding what you would want to do if she let you pick? The choice isn't yours. You can still think about the choice to move out onto the streets or do as she says, but that's switching the context. You're no longer addressing what you should do on that day. That judgment is made moot by your dependence.

If a mugger put a gun to your head and said give him your money, sure you can think about whether you'd rather lose $20 or die, and independently choose between the actions! But surely when he's in front of a judge you wouldn't accept his argument that you "independently decided to give you the money". And yet that's what you are arguing!

One problem I think you may be having on this topic, Joe, is that you think we must somehow be completely free of "dependencies" before we can fully think independently.

On the contrary, I think it's you that's in the "all or nothing" mindset. You seem to think unless we're chained to a wall for the rest of our lives, our ability to practice independent thinking is unaffected. I claim that wherever traditional dependency prevents us from making the choice we want because we have to follow the whim of someone else, independent thinking is subverted. If we have to go along with their choice, our own value choices are no longer important.

Do I think we need to be "completely free of 'dependencies'" in order to think independently? Of course not. I think the independent thinking only achieves values when we can put it into practice (day-dreaming is not putting it into practice). And I think the more dependent you are on others, the more often you have to go with their decisions instead of your own. And if you have to go with grandmothers decision instead of your own, you're not putting your independent thinking into practice.

What would a real person do who wanted to practice the virtue of independence? He would decide to judge things for himself. We agree on that. But I say he'd also attempt to reduce his traditional dependencies so that he can act on those judgments. Let me repeat as this is important. He'd also attempt to reduce his traditional dependencies so that he can act on those judgments.

If independent thinking is aimed at values, how does it accomplish it? Well in one way, it lets you figure out for yourself, given a better understanding of your context, what values are worth pursuing. You can then pursue those values instead of the values other people set for yourself. But traditional dependence prevents you from acting on these values. That should be so blindly obvious, I can't understand how you can still be arguing. The values you should be gaining from independent thinking are prevented by traditional dependence. That's why you need both.

You're working so hard to try to show that there's some remote, miniscule value left in thinking for yourself. But what would that prove? I say the point of the virtue of independence is that you can make your own choices and act on them. You're saying that it doesn't matter if you can act on them because in some tiny way, it may still be useful. Do you really think that's all the virtue of independence is for? Is that why Rand thought it was a major virtue?

I can't explain this any better than I have. Thinking divorced of action is not virtuous. Trying to prove that there's some miniscule value that is retained just comes off as an attempt to rationalize. It misses the blatantly obvious point that dependence means you can't act according to your judgement, but that you need to obey the judgment of someone else. Your example #4 is perfect. Instead of desperately trying to show that the child is still achieving something of value, why not recognize that the big values are being taken away. His independent thinking is being divorced from reality. That's not a good way to live your life.

Post 22

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 8:02pm

Joe, if we let someone else's value take precedence over one of our short-term values momentarily so that we can achieve a long-term value, then that is not an example of a lack of independent thinking. It would be an example of a lack of independent thinking if we pragmatically (irrationally) insisted on ACHIEVING our short-term value at the expense of our long-term value. (see the scenarios in previous post)

You said,

What if your grandmother tells you you need to stay at home today to clean up the yard. You had plans to go study with your friends. Instead of blindly following her judgment, you think for yourself. You think "which is more important to me an my life". And you decide studying is what you should be working on. And then, you end up staying home cleaning up the yard.

The arbitrariness of the person you are dependent upon does not eradicate your independent judgment. In fact, it means you have to stay focused on reality and not let your values escape you when making your spontaneous decision to either clean the yard or study. Because the dependency situation (my grandma's desires) are paramount within the context of the situation, then I would simply go clean the yard and do my studying later -- even if it meant studying till 3 a.m., which I did plenty of times in college. If, as you say, I decided that studying was more important, then that is what I would do -- with the understanding that my belongings may be on the sidewalk when I returned. Under this scenario, I think that somebody thinking independently would decide to obey the grandma, with the understanding that doing so would help him attain his long-term goals. That is practical, not pragmatic, and it is independently judging. I'm not sure, Joe, exactly how you could mistake the independence of judgment in this matter. It seems that you are conjoining the traditional meaning of dependence with the psychological meaning.

I fully realize that you've thought your long term and short term values out, and given that you need to stay living with your grandmother or she'll boot you, you've decided that given the full context you should clean up the yard. But you're not doing it because you agree it's more important than studying. You're doing it because you're grandmother thinks it is, and you're living in a situation where you can't really refuse without massive cost.

When you independently decide to live at the mercy of another in order to achieve your own long-term goals, then you realize that these types of situations will arise often and that you must either work around them or cater to the person you are dependent upon. This is an easy scenario to decide for the independent mind: "She wants it done; I need to study but I can do it later; my long-term goal is to stay with her so I can go to school full-time. I will do as she wishes in this instance because it is in my long-term best interests." Simply because someone can have temporary influence over our lives does not invalidate our independent thinking. It simply means we have to stay on our toes.

Remember that in this situation, I have placed myself purposely in a situation in which I have allowed another person some whim over my life temporarily with the understanding that I want to do so in order to achieve my long-term goals. When she practices the whim, it is expected and merely a very temporary obstacle to be hurdled on my way to my greater values. She is not in control because she is not in control of my long-term values. I am. She has some control over my short-term values and time in certain situations, but my judgment is always active and engaged.

If a mugger put a gun to your head and said give him your money, sure you can think about whether you'd rather lose $20 or die, and independently choose between the actions! But surely when he's in front of a judge you wouldn't accept his argument that you "independently decided to give you the money". And yet that's what you are arguing!

You are right (but you don't know you are right) and the mugger would also be right. I WOULD be independently deciding what my values are in that situation and willingly hand over my money to save my top value: my life. That is INDEED independent judgment. And the mugger would also be right in saying so. But I would not be voluntarily giving up my money, so he should therefore go to prison.

Do I think we need to be "completely free of 'dependencies'" in order to think independently? Of course not.

This morphs from what you said in your article about independent thinking being "pointless" in dependency situations.

What would a real person do who wanted to practice the virtue of independence? He would decide to judge things for himself. We agree on that. But I say he'd also attempt to reduce his traditional dependencies so that he can act on those judgments.

There are situations where NOT entering into a dependency situation would be irrational -- i.e. lacking independent thought. For example, in the grandma scenario, if I determined that moving in with her and being subject to her rules would be the only tenable way to get my college done in 4 years or less, then it would be irrational to do otherwise, if the education was a long-term value of utmost importance. To say flat-out that we must "reduce traditional dependencies" is simply wrong in many situations -- including a dependency situation at an undesirable job that is a crucial stepping-stone to your ideal job.

Post 23

Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 11:09pm

David,

This isn't going anywhere. I think you've missed the point of the virtue of independence entirely. I think it's because you treat it as a rule, instead of tying it to life as the standard. If you really thinking dependency is fine and doesn't make a difference to the virtue of independence, I am not surprised at all that you don't understand/appreciate the article.

Post 24

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:55am

Joe,

This should not be a difficult thing to grasp. You are confusing "material dependence" with "psychological dependence."

I suggest you refer to Rand's definition of independence: "one's acceptance of the responsibility of forming one's own judgments and of living by the work of one's own mind."

As long as that mind is not dependent upon another's for forming one's opinions of reality, then that mind will place the context of current situations into its short-term and long-term values. A material dependency has absolutely no bearing upon the use of the independent mind.

Dagny did not lose her independent thinking when she was Galt's "guest" in the Gulch.

Post 25

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 5:36pm

I hesitate to interject here since it appears as if this thread is winding down (at least it will if Joe is leaving the field), but I sometimes it seems that you two are using different definitions of "independence," or least focusing on different aspects.

It strikes me that David is talking specifically about independent thinking in the sense of thinking for oneself, as opposed to letting someone else do your thinking for you. In this sense, you can be dependent upon someone for your physical needs & comforts, and yet they may not be influencing your thinking to any great extent. (They are, of course, greatly influencing your range of actions.)

Joe seems to be focused on independence per se � broadly conceived as acting in an independent manner. In this sense, "independent thinking" is a necessary but not sufficient element.

There's still the sticking point of whether you can say that independent thinking is of value if it is necessarily divorced from action. Joe's position is clearly no. David's position might at first glance to be yes, but I suspect there's a temporal element involved. If one stated as a constraint of the scenario that no action would ever be forthcoming, I doubt he would favor that. Possibly David merely sees independent thinking as the necessary precursor to independent action, and as such, a value (or, at least, say, a "good thing") � because we won't know, at any given time point, that no action is ever going to be performed.

Post 26

Monday, May 16, 2005 - 7:52pm

Kernon,

You're pretty close. The only sticking point with what you said about my position is that I think the person in the grandma scenario IS taking an action to achieve a value. That action is to clean the lawn so the value of keeping the grandma happy is accomplished, and therefore the higher value of the college plan is kept.

-----

Another person sent me a nice private email suggesting that I state this case in the context of the trader principle instead of the "dependency" scenario. I had hesitated before to do this because I wanted to stay with the verbage of the original argument, but I will go ahead and do so now because I think he is right.

The "dependency" scenario with the grandma is indeed a trader principle scenario -- in that she is getting something from me and I am getting something from her and we have agreed upon what we must do to fulfill our ends of the trade. She DOES have the money, but I have the energy, the work ethic, the skills and the companionship she needs. She gives me the money and cooks me the food when I need it, and I do her work around the house and yard when she needs it. The "dependency" works both ways.

The "trader principle" scenario also applies to 3 of the 4 situations I mentioned in Post 20 (Nos. 1,3,4). You and your boss get a value from each other, even if you don't agree with your boss always. You and your spouse/partner have agreed upon a division of labor and depend upon one another. You and your children in a rational relationship trade equally: you get their affection and their help, and you get the joy of experiencing and helping them; they get exactly the same thing in varying quantities (read the pro-unschoolers' posts in the "Unschooling" thread for more details on a rational upbringing).

So, to break it down, the "dependency" scenario that Joe has been discussing is actually a trader principle situation in which both sides set their terms -- and both sides decide daily whether those terms are still valid and whether any changes in those terms are acceptable in the short term and long term.

Post 27

Wednesday, May 18, 2005 - 7:10pm

Kernon, it's not simply an argument over definitions, but an argument over the nature of virtues themselves. The definitions we pick are based on a very different view of what virtues are for. I'll write more in a future article on the topic.

David, now you're trying to define "dependency" away by saying it's just another kind of trade. What kind of mindset does one have to get into in order to try to dismiss the concept of dependency? You're working backwards from your conclusion that independent thinking is the only important kind of independence, and ignoring reality. For anyone still reading, this should be a huge indicator that something has gone terribly wrong with his position.

Post 28

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 12:45am

I really don't see a fundamental difference here, unless I'm missing something. It seems to me that this disagreement just comes down to difference over which point on the scale of "goodness" is something a virtue.

The way I see it is:

1. Independent thought is much better than non-independent thought, even if divorced from action. Clearly, there is a big difference between a dependent person who has a dormant, obedient mind, and a dependent person who has an "independent" mind which he nonetheless doesn't act upon. This involves non-material values like understanding and mental health. Or soul-health. The difference is magnified if you consider the converse situation: with someone who is independent *only* in action (he works and takes care of himself), but who is dependent in thought (say, he believes only what people tell him). Clearly, he's better than a dipshit welfare recepient.

2. Independent thought and action is MUCH MUCH better than merely independent thought. Those who merely pontificate on self-love are indeed committing mental masturbation. If they acted on that idea, they'd be committing actual masturbation.

So, the point here is self-sufficiency, of which there are two kinds: material and psychological. Joe thinks that only *totally* self-sufficient action can constitute a virtue, and I agree with him.

But clearly, a half-glass is better than an empty glass.

And in certain situations where independent action is impossible -- such as the concentration camp example -- independent thought can be the only saviour of soul.

But, is there really a disagreement here on something other than the point at which a good thing is considered a virtue?

Alec

Post 29

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 9:41am

David and Joe are reading into each other a great deal that isn't there.

David:

Joe asserts, correctly, that the ultimate goal of the virtues that comprise rationality is to enable one to live better in reality. There is nothing in Joe's article that says that the realization of intellectual virtues must be immediate. There are contexts in which the development of one's intellect as a tool for future action is the most virtuous present course - and your "living with grandma for the sake of one's college education" example is a case in point. Trading off one's existential independence for a few years, in order to acquire education for existential independence over the greater part of one's future lifespan, is indeed an exercise of virtue. So is trading off some of one's independence for other values, including the pleasures of intellectual development. I don't see anything to the contrary in Joe's position.

Joe:

Even in a Randian forum, it is not a good idea to leave the contextual grounding of a philosophical argument to the reader. Rand herself used examples, because without examples it becomes to easy to be misunderstood. I did not read David's comments as an attack against your argument, but rather as a query: How would the principle of your article apply in the cited context? How does your existential, as opposed to "purely" spiritual conception of virtue, apply to right judgement exercised for the sake of deferred action? For the sake of eventually possible, or choosable action - even if, in the context of how one's future actually turns out, the action for which that judgement prepares you is never actually chosen and carried out in one's (not fully predictable) future? Those are worthy questions, and I hope to read your thoughts on them.

Post 30

Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 11:59am

Alec and Adam, thanks for your posts.

I'm in the middle of some business in Atlanta today but will respond to your posts when I get back to Tennessee tonight or tomorrow.

Post 31

Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 5:26am

Outside of an absolutely hopeless situation in which one cannot achieve any values ever again, there is NO situation in life where independence (independent thought) is "pointless."

Joe Rowlands disagrees.

He thinks that for those who are in a "financial dependence" situation, independent thinking is pointless.

He thinks that for a spouse who is "financially dependent" upon his partner, independent thinking is pointless. He thinks that a child "financially dependent" upon his parents would find independent thinking pointless. He thinks that a college student financially dependent upon his grandma would also see independent thinking as pointless.

All of this is absurd, yet Joe keeps arguing it.

Why?

Because he has a misconception of the phrase "mind-body dichotomy." That phrase refers to the non-integration of the virtues and values of an individual -- regardless of the whim of others. Joe thinks that if others can have some power over you, then you have a mind-body dichotomy; it's a sort of second-handed mind-body dichotomy theory of his, I presume.

He doesn't realize that the independent-thinking person can actually take into account the fact that somebody else has financial power over him and accommodate his actions to meet his values in a flux until he is free of the situation. Interruptions in life do not a dichotomy make. In fact, independent thinking in such situations is VITAL to ensuring that virtues and values are adapting and integrating. Independence (thought) is NOT pointless, as Joe would say.

If the breadwinner in a spousal relationship takes a hike with all the cash, then the stay-at-home spouse gets a job, nannies the kids and re-adjusts his values.

If a child cringes at the authoritarian position of his parents, he sets his sights on what values he can achieve now that he would enjoy and that would build upon his long-term values. Because he cannot achieve the ideal right now does not mean he has a dichotomy. He would have a dichotomy if he DIDN'T deal with the oppressive situation and re-adjust his values.

If a college student bristles under the yoke of a stern grandma, then he decides daily whether it is worth it and always keeps his values in mind.

One more note on so-called "financial dependency." These are really "trader" situations for the rational person. Outside of childhood, there are virtually no legitimate situations in which a rational (independent) person would find himself in a "dependency" scenario -- in which he could not simply go get a job and be materially independent.

I defy Rowlands to outline a "dependency" situation for a rational person that would concretely show how independence in such a situation would be "pointless." He hasn't done that yet, and I don't think he'll try, because it is impossible -- and because induction will kill his case.

---------

Adam,

I agree about the point of virtues, of course, but Joe doesn't think the grandma situation is virtuous. He thinks that if you are the student, your "judgment is made moot by your dependence." (Post 21) I also agree with you that we need some "contextual grounding" from Joe.

Alec,

I hope the top part of this post made clearer the difference between Joe's and my positions.

If I understand you correctly, you're arguing for practicality in life in all situations (with the understanding that if you can take total action on your thoughts, that's great). I certainly agree with that.

And as far as that goes, I think that Joe is not seeing the practicality of "financial dependency" situations by rational people. But I think his error is a little more fundamental, as I mention above.

P.S. I don't think there is a "scale of goodness" per se considering virtue in situations. In other words, in any particular situation, something is either good for you or it is not good for you in sum. If it is a little better for you than bad for you, then it is good for you -- it furthers your life.

I do think that virtuous people can be graded on a scale of goodness. In other words, "that guy is pretty rational about most things, but he's off his rocker when it comes to women." Then you're grading how often somebody uses virtue, but not the grading of virtue in a certain situation.

Post 32

Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 9:47am

Dave,

If I may, I would like to mention an impression that I have from this difference between you and Joe.

I get the feeling that he is arguing against becoming accommodated with a mind set (and even comfortable with it), not against "thinking independently" when one is very dependent on another situation per se.

The message I got from his article was, if you are dependent, get off your ass and do something about it, not just think about it. Pretending that where you are at is OK by saying you are thinking independently is not enough and, for all practical purposes, this is an illusion used as an excuse.

That, to me, is the meaning of "useless" I got from the article.

Obviously one must think independently before one can act on it. As you rightly point out, there are situations where this issue is more complicated than simple, especially as long range values come into the picture. So there are situations where a very long time range or even a trade-off are the context.

But I don't think Joe is in disagreement with this. (I might be wrong, but I don't think so.) I think he is making a point against excessive complacency and using an illusion to justify it.

Michael

Post 33

Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 1:47pm

One more time, for those who still don't get it.

What's the point of the virtue of independence? Why not just blindly follow the whims of other people? Is there something valuable in thinking divorced from action? Or is independent thinking a duty, handed to us by the great Rand, and we must follow it in fear of being immoral?

The point of the virtue is to be able to live your life. The ability to choose your values and think for yourself have huge implications to your life. You're better able to approach everything in life when you do it from a position of understanding and personal growth as opposed to blind obedience. You alone understand your personal context better than anyone else, and so you are in a position to make the best decisions. You can decide which values are objectively best for your to pursue. The virtue of independence has a purpose, and it's to enable you to pursue values that promote your life, unimpeded by the need for other people.

Let's take two simple examples. Two men work at a company. One has no marketable job skills, no savings, a wife and family to support. He can't find a job outside of this company that can support his whole family. He must keep this job. The other man has a diverse range of skills, plenty of savings, and offers from other companies all the time.

Which of these two is more able to pursue his own values? Which of these two is able to decide for himself what's the right thing to do in his life, and act accordingly. Which of the two is practicing the virtue of independence?

Now the boss comes in and tells them both that they need to lie to their customers. Which of the two is in a position to say no?

My argument, from the beginning, was that traditional independence is tied to independent thinking. If the goal of the virtue is to determine how to live your life and act on it, without having other people as your middleman to reality (like having to ask them permission before acting), then the connection is obvious. The purpose of the virtue is invalidated. The thinking of what you'd like to do did you no good because you were dependent.

Say there's a person who always does what other people want him to do. He always acts according to their wishes, without exception. But he thinks about it first, and decides for whatever reason, like he doesn't want to upset them, that he'll follow them. Is this really what Rand had in mind when she discussed the virtue of independence? David seems to think so. He thinks as long as your thinking for yourself, you're following the virtue.

What happens when you're caught in a situation of dependency? By my argument, you should seek to free yourself from, to the extent that you can. I argue you should because dependency will prevent you from putting your independent judgment into practice. David disagrees. He thinks the independent thinking is good in and of itself, and doesn't matter if you put it into practice. He thinks that a situation of dependency is not a problem when it comes to the virtue of independence, because he believes thinking divorced from action is still morally virtuous.

David thinks that if, out of dependency, you choose to follow the whims of whoever owns you, that this is practicing the virtue of independence.

Now, a few more comments on some of these scenarios.

First of all, living with your grandmother for free so you can go to college may or may not be a dependent situation. The question is, do you have other choices? If you're doing it out of convenience, but you could go somewhere else, it's not dependency. David changed this from a vaguely dependent situation to a not-at-all dependent situation by suggesting you can always leave. He said the student could decided on a day to day basis whether it was worth it. Is it dependency when on any particular day, he can get up and leave? But this is just his attempt to ignore the question of dependency. He's made it a trade situation. Is it worth the benefits of staying with your grandmother for free, even when she asks you to do things for her? You decide.

But let's change it back. You have nowhere else to go but your grandmothers. You don't have any money saved up, or obviously you'd be able to go somewhere else. You may be able to work towards moving out in the long term, say in a few months of saving from the time you decide to start trying. But in the meantime, she owns you. If she decides you can't study for your tests, your "choice" is between staying there and doing her chores, or moving out onto the street. Your own value judgments are secondary to hers. You have to do what she demands.

One obvious issue here is that it's rarely 100%. Dependency limits your options, and makes the costs of not following someone else's views excessive. But you still have the choice. You still get to decide whether its worth it. The dependent man working at his company still gets to decide whether putting his family on the street is better or worse than lying to the customers. A man with a few more possible options would be less dependent. The man with jobs lined up to hire him is not dependent at all.

But again, this misses the point of independence, which is not an all or nothing rule, where you're either following it or you're not. Since the virtue is based on a moral principle connecting means to ends, you can pursue those ends to varying degrees. If you want to make your own choices in life, you can make that more or less difficult. The more traditionally dependent you are, the harder it is to go with your own judgment. Instead, you'd have to do what someone else says.

David disagrees. He believes that independent thinking is morally virtuous regardless of how it effects your life (moral rule), and doesn't think traditional independence has anything to do with it. He dismisses the connection between the two.

And this whole argument is over that connection. If you believe that independent thinking is good in and of itself, then dependency doesn't matter. You side with David and think that there's nothing wrong with financial dependence. Alternatively, if you recognize that independent thinking is aimed at pursuing values in your life, and that requiring permission from someone else means you're not really making the decisions, then you side with me.

Independence is supposed to be about dealing with the world directly, without a middleman. And that goes beyond mere contemplation of the world. Life is the standard of morality, and ultimately independence has to be aimed at pursuing your life. Having middlemen between your mind and your actions achieves the same results as allowing a middleman between your mind and reality. In both situations, it is the middleman who is running your life, not you. Only an accept of the mind-body dichotomy would let people like David see a problem with the latter, but not the former.

Post 34

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 7:57am