Debating the definition of "Second-Handers"
Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
In my quick research I could not find any references to Ayn Rand stating that being a second-hander had anything to do with being a producer or not. I think they come in all forms. What say you?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/second...
"They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason."
"...By seeking self-esteem through others. By living second-hand. And it has opened the way for every kind of horror. It has become the dreadful form of selfishness which a truly selfish man couldn’t have conceived. And now, to cure a world perishing from selflessness, we’re asked to destroy the self. Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You’ve wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he’s ever held a truly personal desire, he’d find the answer. He’d see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He’s not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander’s delusion—prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can’t say about a single thing: “This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me.”"
(Galt's Speech, The New Intellectual)
"A [second-hander] is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a [second-hander] that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a [second-hander] who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: “But people won’t like you!”"
Discuss :)
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/second...
"They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They’re concerned only with people. They don’t ask: “Is this true?” They ask: “Is this what others think is true?” Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull. What would happen to the world without those who do, think, work, produce? Those are the egoists. You don’t think through another’s brain and you don’t work through another’s hands. When you suspend your faculty of independent judgment, you suspend consciousness. To stop consciousness is to stop life. Second-handers have no sense of reality. Their reality is not within them, but somewhere in that space which divides one human body from another. Not an entity, but a relation—anchored to nothing. That’s the emptiness I couldn’t understand in people. That’s what stopped me whenever I faced a committee. Men without an ego. Opinion without a rational process. Motion without brakes or motor. Power without responsibility. The second-hander acts, but the source of his actions is scattered in every other living person. It’s everywhere and nowhere and you can’t reason with him. He’s not open to reason."
"...By seeking self-esteem through others. By living second-hand. And it has opened the way for every kind of horror. It has become the dreadful form of selfishness which a truly selfish man couldn’t have conceived. And now, to cure a world perishing from selflessness, we’re asked to destroy the self. Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You’ve wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he’s ever held a truly personal desire, he’d find the answer. He’d see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He’s not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander’s delusion—prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can’t say about a single thing: “This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me.”"
(Galt's Speech, The New Intellectual)
"A [second-hander] is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a [second-hander] that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a [second-hander] who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: “But people won’t like you!”"
Discuss :)
This touches deeply into something that many here in the Gulch and many Objectivists wrestle with. Many advocates of capitalism hate George Soros and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Ted Turner... They are producers, but we want them all to be Objectivists.
Some successful business people are: Mark Cuban, Fred Smith, T. J. Rodgers, Ed Snider. Many more are under the radar. At the 50th Anniversary for _Atlas Shrugged_ Ed Snider told of how he learned about the book. He was at a meeting of hockey team owners. A proposal was on the table. He turned to Patrick O'Malley and asked "How can these men endorse something so contrary to their self interest?" And O'Malley wrote "Atlas Shrugged" on a piece of paper and passed it to him, and said "Read this." So, Patrick O'Malley, too, must have been influenced by Atlas Shrugged, but he minds his own businesses and has not come out of the closet, so to speak.
And then, there is the question of who is "creative" and who is not. We all believe that we are creative at work. Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises would demand proof because they held the same special definition of a creator. If you work for a living, you do what other people want. That is not what drives a prime mover.
A prime mover, a creator, is not a second hander.
Does anyone know much about Mark Cuban? I know that back in 1985 I sent his company (Compuserve) $30 per month to be the first person in my county to get on to the Internet. I also know he is the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and see him occasionally on Shark Tank (one of the few TV shows that I actually like). I don't know about how his philosophy, however.
I couldn't care less whether people like me or not. People who matter (are Gulch-worthy) will likewise not care what others think of them.
http://www.veooz.com/photos/HHIbaRk.html...
Will you amateur psychiatrists PLEASE go away?
Nothing personal khalling, but there's no deep, clever psychological profile here:
The thief steals in order to acquire stuff. Period.
And I say this as a "second-hander"...
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/1b...
Producers as action is not contradictory always to second handed ness, producer as Philosophy label would be
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/...
Scenario - Someone works at a large company, say a defense contractor. They work in a technical job, with responsibilities in ensuring product quality.
Are they a producer?
They do not actually produce a product. If a product is not up to standard they send it back to be brought up to standard. To do this they have to exercise their judgment.
They are the go-no go of the productive process.
As an added bonus, the opinions of the people in other work cells and management tends to run the gamut of negativity. After all they can be a "road block".