Those worthy of esteem must be selected by popular opinion for the esteem to have value, but if all consider themselves esteemed, then the worth of the esteem becomes void because the value of esteem is in it's intrinsic state of being held above the average or mundane abilities of the populous.
You have to be selective about who you hold in high regard, because if you just regard everybody highly then, really, your regard is invalid because there is nothing that separates those you hold in high regard compared to others (another example would be that if you loved everyone then you may as well love nobody because there's nothing to make a loved one special.).
Respect is built from scratch. If it is shared amongst all, it is no longer respect.
Basically, plaster thick, some will stick.
*
The meaning can be discerned from Rand, “The Nature of Government,” in The Virtue of Selfishness book) where Rand's definition is given thus:
Rand described self-esteem as “the inviolate certainty that [one’s] mind is competent to think and [one’s] person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of life.” These two elements, self-confidence and self-worth, are indeed crucial elements in valuing oneself. But they have to be acquired. They have to be earned. In particular, at least in Rand’s conception, self-worth is essentially a moral appraisal of oneself, based on the character one has acquired through a consistent practice of acting on principle. In our view, this aspect of valuing oneself is neither broad enough nor fundamental enough to be considered a cardinal value. Why should we seek to acquire character? What motivates the effort to achieve this value? If life is our ultimate value, why do we need to prove ourselves worthy of life?
And what about aspects of ourselves other than competence and character, attributes such as temperament, personality, interests? Are these aspects of our identity not to be valued?
There must, it seems, be a more fundamental commitment to oneself, a commitment that explains the need for self-esteem as a specific spiritual value and motivates us to achieve it. On our analysis, this commitment is to oneself as the beneficiary of all the actions one takes in pursuing one’s life. If the root of the cardinal value of purpose is an esteem for and commitment to my life as an ultimate end, the root of the cardinal value of self is an esteem for and commitment to my life, to myself as an ultimate beneficiary of my actions. The concept of value, Rand noted, presupposes an answer to the questions, “Of value to whom? and for what?” The point of the first question is that there are no intrinsic values, i.e., no things that are valuable in themselves apart from the benefit they confer on a valuer. As volitional beings who must seek these benefits for ourselves by deliberate, self-motivated action, we need to act from a profound esteem for ourselves as beneficiaries.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Those worthy of esteem must be selected by popular opinion for the esteem to have value, but if all consider themselves esteemed, then the worth of the esteem becomes void because the value of esteem is in it's intrinsic state of being held above the average or mundane abilities of the populous.
You have to be selective about who you hold in high regard, because if you just regard everybody highly then, really, your regard is invalid because there is nothing that separates those you hold in high regard compared to others (another example would be that if you loved everyone then you may as well love nobody because there's nothing to make a loved one special.).
Respect is built from scratch. If it is shared amongst all, it is no longer respect.
Basically, plaster thick, some will stick.
*
The meaning can be discerned from Rand, “The Nature of Government,” in The Virtue of Selfishness book) where Rand's definition is given thus:
Rand described self-esteem as “the inviolate certainty that [one’s] mind is competent to think and [one’s] person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of life.” These two elements, self-confidence and self-worth, are indeed crucial elements in valuing oneself. But they have to be acquired. They have to be earned. In particular, at least in Rand’s conception, self-worth is essentially a moral appraisal of oneself, based on the character one has acquired through a consistent practice of acting on principle. In our view, this aspect of valuing oneself is neither broad enough nor fundamental enough to be considered a cardinal value. Why should we seek to acquire character? What motivates the effort to achieve this value? If life is our ultimate value, why do we need to prove ourselves worthy of life?
And what about aspects of ourselves other than competence and character, attributes such as temperament, personality, interests? Are these aspects of our identity not to be valued?
There must, it seems, be a more fundamental commitment to oneself, a commitment that explains the need for self-esteem as a specific spiritual value and motivates us to achieve it. On our analysis, this commitment is to oneself as the beneficiary of all the actions one takes in pursuing one’s life. If the root of the cardinal value of purpose is an esteem for and commitment to my life as an ultimate end, the root of the cardinal value of self is an esteem for and commitment to my life, to myself as an ultimate beneficiary of my actions. The concept of value, Rand noted, presupposes an answer to the questions, “Of value to whom? and for what?” The point of the first question is that there are no intrinsic values, i.e., no things that are valuable in themselves apart from the benefit they confer on a valuer. As volitional beings who must seek these benefits for ourselves by deliberate, self-motivated action, we need to act from a profound esteem for ourselves as beneficiaries.