Debating the definition of "Second-Handers"

Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
28 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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 :)


All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, gawd....

    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"...

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I gave you a +1 for that earlier, but no comment. Had I written something I would have like written something that I would have regretted. I don't disagree with you. Let's just say that I successfully checked my temper.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes using their own judgment, coupled of course with reference standards for the product..

    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".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Is the individual using their own judgement? Are they part of the productive process? Are they given value for the skills they bring? That's a producer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by overmanwarrior 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm glad you brought that up about the Keystone pipeline. That is very true--and is at the heart of why the pipeline is frozen. Even Ted Turner behaved as a capitalist while he built his media empire--in the beginning. But after the guilt given to him from the Witch Doctors over the years, and his marriage to Jane Fonda--he was pulled further and further to the left over a long time. Gates is a similar story. He changed a lot after his case against the government seeking to break up his monopoly. It seems as though he is frequently concerned about showing what a giving person he is to the parasites--so that he doesn't have to deal with the guilt of being wealthy. All those examples are different examples of how second handers have gained control through different methods. Obama is a second hander to protecting Buffet's wealth and investments, Turner became a second hander to his relationship to the communist sympathizer Jane Fonda, and Gates to the many groups who turned him from a producer to a philanthropist--through guilt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago
    I doubt that any specific individual is purely a second hander. I think all looters and moochers are second handers, which means all dictators, emperors, crime bosses, etc are second handers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 10 months ago
    I seem to remember AR writing that her highest values were Reason, Purpose, and Self-Respect. A producer is someone who thinks and then tries to bring those thoughts into existence. A second rater is someone who chooses not to think but assumes everyone else is smarter than they. Hence the intersect of producer and second rater would be the null case.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't see them as the same thing. The second hander is always looking for approval not for knowledge. The thief steals because he wants the feeling he's produced, the benefits and accolades, respect. It's enough that others give him the respect rather than actually earning the respect morally.
    http://www.veooz.com/photos/HHIbaRk.html...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago
    The last paragraph in LetsShrug's opening to this post is the most important. The second-hander requires others' approval. This is an area I struggle a little with. In my areas of technical expertise, I am definitely not a second-rater. However, in areas that are not my areas of expertise, ocasionally I want confirmation that I am on the right path, as opposed to approval. In those areas, I apply truth, facts, reason, and logic, but am willing to admit that on occasion I might be wrong.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think they might have been producers at one time, but once they engage in second-hand actions, they are no longer producers. I think of Warren Buffet influencing the non-start of the Keystone pipeline because of his shares in the railroad which makes big bucks transporting that oil currently. Or a Microsoft who that no problem lobbying against small inventors and stealing inventions. that included Steve Jobs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I know he is rabidly anti-patent, but of course he wants his IP in the Mavericks protected. He claims to be a strong supporter of the free market, but it appears to me that his conviction changes based on his financial interests.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The businesspeople that Mike lists are all producers and not second-handers. Not all producers are Objectivists. Nice summary, Mike.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 10 months ago
    The iconic stories are of the architects in _The Fountainhead_. They were "producers" in that they created designed structures that people willingly bought as values. The hapless tool, Hopton Stoddard, was described as a businessman who was successful in several lines of goods. People willingly bought his products because of the value they delivered. So, again, yes, even Hopton Stoddard was a producer.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If a producer is not required to be self actualized/motivated, sure some of them. If on the other hand they are self directed rather than group think drones, then they aren't second handlers.

    Producers as action is not contradictory always to second handed ness, producer as Philosophy label would be
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo