« Back to Philosophy in Practice
JUDGEMENT IN PRACTICE
Contents:
Ultimately, ideas are inseparable from actions, be they implicit ideas or explicitly stated ones. However, the exact nature of the relationship between ideas and actions is more complex, especially in more specific contexts. We shall look into their relationship to understand when and how to judge someone (including ourselves) based on ideas and actions.
Ideas do not necessarily translate into actions, and the way they do is complex due to the following factors: (1) having an idea does not mean you have internalised it, (2) you cannot internalise an idea unless you concretise it through repetition and/or observation and/or action, (3) a complex idea that needs to be consciously brought to focus cannot be wholly internalised and automatised, (4) having and validating an idea does not necessarily mean you know how to translate it into action effectively (as an example, consider how proving a theorem in mathematics does not necessarily give you the skills to apply it in real-life problems; application is, in general, a different skill than validation), (5) ideas may be implicit, i.e. internalised subconsciously, hence making the ideological basis of your actions unclear or ambiguous.
Hence, we see that explicitly stated ideas are not necessarily internalised and not necessarily automatically translated into action (especially if they are more complex ideas), Furthermore, we see that actions may be based not on one’s purported beliefs but on unstated perhaps unknown premises. Therefore, it is not necessarily valid to judge a person’s character and actions based on his purported beliefs nor is it necessarily valid to assume a person explicitly (i.e. consciously) endorses the viewpoint implicit in his actions.
Virtue is the right philosophy put in practice. However, a philosophy by itself is not necessarily put into practice consciously nor is it automatically internalised just by learning it or even just by validating it. Furthermore, one’s actions may be based on an implicit philosophy that has not been validated explicitly and may be apart from or at odds with one’s explicit (i.e. conscious) beliefs. Hence, a person’s virtuousness cannot be judged necessarily by his purported philosophy, nor can a person’s explicit viewpoint be inferred necessarily by his actions and/or virtues. For example, despite the mystical philosophies of most religions, a given religious person may have and practise life-affirming “this-worldly” virtues. As another example, a self-proclaimed subjectivist may in fact be a proponent of science and reason in practice.
Having a standard of what is good (which is essential to have in any pursuit of value) necessarily implies relative superiority and inferiority with respect to the standard. As examples, consider: someone may be superior to someone else in mathematics, a mystical worldview is epistemologically inferior to a scientific one, the actions of a soldier fighting to defend his land are (all else equal) morally superior to the actions of a murderer, etc. We can also judge a character, culture, an aesthetic approach, etc. as inferior or superior to another based on the right standard. Acknowledging superiority or inferiority in the right context and wherever it exists is rational, i.e. in line with objectivity, and hence, it is right and moral to acknowledge superiority or inferiority where valid and necessary, since such acknowledgement is the extension of our acknowledgement of the good and of our rejection of the bad.
However, there are errors that can be made in such judgement. A superiority complex is the invalid assertion or assumption of superiority in one area based on superiority in another area. Of course, if the areas are related in a way such that superiority in one area implies superiority in another, then the assertion or assumption of superiority is valid. However, where such a relationship between the areas does not exist, the assertion or assumption of superiority is invalid, i.e. illogical. For example, a mathematical genius has a superiority complex if he assumes that his superiority in mathematics implies his superiority in intelligence as such. As another example, having a superior philosophy does not imply having superior virtues in every respect; even if you were consistent in the practice of your philosophy, you neither internalise every virtue more than someone else necessarily nor gain superior cognitive and practical ability in every area of life necessarily.
Similarly, an inferiority complex is the invalid assertion or assumption of inferiority in one area based on inferiority in another area. Again, of course, if the areas are related in a way such that inferiority in one area implies inferiority in another, then the assertion or assumption of inferiority is valid. However, where such a relationship between the areas does not exist, the assertion or assumption of inferiority is invalid, i.e. illogical. A well-observed example may be a child’s feeling of inferiority in character and worth based on his academic inferiority. As another example, being inferior in some character traits does not imply being inferior as such, i.e. as a whole, and it certainly does not mean you cannot shape your character for the better.
A superiority or inferiority complex is wrong because it is irrational, i.e. non-objective, which means it clouds your judgement and thus your ability to know the reality of your capabilities, your achievements and your potential. In fact, the practice of these complexes results in vices; a practised superiority complex leads to the vice of vanity whereas a practised inferiority complex leads to the vice of humility. The virtue to strive for is the virtue of pride, i.e. moral ambitiousness (a term coined by Ayn Rand to define the virtue of pride). Note that moral ambitiousness derives from the virtue of rationality, i.e. objectivity in one’s approach to life, which means that pride is an extension of rationality. Furthermore, pride being based on objectivity implies that key to the virtue of pride is the feeling of pride where it is valid, i.e. where it is the objective acknowledgement of one’s own achievements and virtues. I shall expand on pride in Pride and Moral Perfection, but just to clarify what I mean by pride as opposed to a superiority or inferiority complex, pride is essentially the pursuit of what is best for you. Hence, having people superior to you in one or more virtuous respects is an advantage to you, a fuel for your pride and not a knock on your pride in any way, since by the example of observably superior virtuousness, you get a directly observable grasp of what is right and possible in the pursuit of the good.