There’s a cluster of writers (generally science fiction, libertarian, and atheist, with a little Tom Paine and Blake and Joyce in the mix) who were really good at inspiring me to be less automatically servile, more willing to stand for things on my own, less excessively guilty. I actually knew some people who were like that in real life, and would say things to the effect that they’d rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
Trouble is, there are things in life where being servile and shutting up about your complaints is the only sane thing to do, and standing up for yourself would be a self-destructive act. Someone who consistently lives by the principle you cite will almost inevitably end up prematurely dead or in prison.
Of course, in many cases you’ll benefit from standing up for yourself, and in fact, the willingness to do so is one of the main things that sets successful people apart from losers. However, the problem is not only how to tell these cases apart in practice (which can be very difficult by itself), but also how to manage inconsistent attitudes that you’re supposed to have. Ideally, you’d like to suppress your aversion against servility in situations where it’s rational be servile, to eliminate the temptation for self-destructive rebellion and avoid the unhappiness of being reminded of your subjugation and low status. At the same time, you want to feel bad about being servile in situations where it’s rational to snap out of it and stand up for yourself—but only in those. It seems to me that one of the marks of very successful people is that they’re extremely well calibrated in this regard.
Well, the very thing about the exhortatory (sp?) mode is that it tells you that some kinds of behavior are admirable and others shameful—not what’s practical.
This site is not particularly fond of exhorting people to behave any one way, except to behave rationally. I suspect that is not because LW readers have no beliefs about what admirable behavior includes; I suspect there is even some overlap in their beliefs. I think it’s more likely that they already take their own values for granted and are no longer looking to be preached at.
SarahC:
Trouble is, there are things in life where being servile and shutting up about your complaints is the only sane thing to do, and standing up for yourself would be a self-destructive act. Someone who consistently lives by the principle you cite will almost inevitably end up prematurely dead or in prison.
Of course, in many cases you’ll benefit from standing up for yourself, and in fact, the willingness to do so is one of the main things that sets successful people apart from losers. However, the problem is not only how to tell these cases apart in practice (which can be very difficult by itself), but also how to manage inconsistent attitudes that you’re supposed to have. Ideally, you’d like to suppress your aversion against servility in situations where it’s rational be servile, to eliminate the temptation for self-destructive rebellion and avoid the unhappiness of being reminded of your subjugation and low status. At the same time, you want to feel bad about being servile in situations where it’s rational to snap out of it and stand up for yourself—but only in those. It seems to me that one of the marks of very successful people is that they’re extremely well calibrated in this regard.
Well, the very thing about the exhortatory (sp?) mode is that it tells you that some kinds of behavior are admirable and others shameful—not what’s practical.
This site is not particularly fond of exhorting people to behave any one way, except to behave rationally. I suspect that is not because LW readers have no beliefs about what admirable behavior includes; I suspect there is even some overlap in their beliefs. I think it’s more likely that they already take their own values for granted and are no longer looking to be preached at.