- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
An anecdote here. About 1966 I was attending one of several taped lectures series from the Nathanial Brandon Institute. A stringer/reporter showed up to talk to those attending, working on an article that appeared (IIRC) in Saturday Evening Post. With the title (again IIRC) "The Angry Cult of Ayn Rand". Eventually she asked me what I thought about Ayn Rand. My response: "I find her a brilliant woman. She has come to many of the same conclusions that I have". That summed up the essence of Rand's philosophy, think for yourself! BTW, this went right over the reporters head, she didn't get it at all. But most of those around us broke into big smiles, they understood exactly what I had said.
Jan
in my first paperback copy of AS. . it was my "I could
have written that ... I wish!" -- j
.
"The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand: Followers of The Fountainhead Philosophy of Selfishness are Out to Lead Us Back to a 19th Century Paradise", by Dora Jane Hamblin, LIFE Magazine, April 7, 1967. Hamblin understood more than what she led you to believe. She knew what she wanted to kill. It was a planned hit piece for which she "found" what she wanted to find.
Jan
So, you can see why Rand was wary.
And rightfully so, as she insisted in her condemnation of the "Libertarian" Party, which stood for your right to use heroin and work as a prostitute. Indeed, you have those political rights. But Objectivism teaches something far different.
Jan
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I am someone who will study a philosophy and embrace what is personally meaningful and discard what is not.
I am a free thinker.
A free spirit.
I am also an old dog.
MountainLady's reply about being an individual has been moved several replies above.
I've seen my replies get shuffled around like that.
I also like to examine those challenges that you call "certain topics." Ayn Rand could be - no other word for it - idiosyncratic. She was happy being Ayn Rand, but not everyone can (or should) be someone else. I am not able to agree with all of her political opinions - but those are the minor ones, like whether women should wear midi-skirts or be President.
Because of DNA coding and evolution the chances of 2 individuals with the same DNA are astronomical. Interestingly, even identical twins are never exactly alike. They have yet to explain that phenomenon.
2. As far as my use of "certain topics" I leave that to the individual to discern for himself.
The thing that's so neat (Ancient word) about the Rand diatribe is that most of us know some "Randoids" and it is clear that they have diverted themselves onto a dead end path. You (or I) might want to get them back if they are not concretized, and point out their problem to them. However, if you use this as a weapon against them without being on solid ground, you become them.
Look at the problems here. Someone watched Atlas Shrugged in a theater and likes it because it expresses what they always believed. But aesthetic reflection is not philosophical agreement. The line of (ahem) logic goes like this:
I liked Atlas Shrugged.
I believe X.
Therefore X is supported by Objectivism.
Then they claim things that Ayn Rand never did. (What she would say now is arguable, perhaps.)
One clue is the focus on politics and the ignoring of of metaphysics and epistemology.
I am not sure about the physical reality of "randroids" today. It had some meaning in the 1970s. I am not sure about today. Even Leonard Peikoff has found his own voice. I recommend highly Understanding Objectivism by Peikoff and Berliner.
My first question on that was to my own natural father a World War II veteran. "If it was worth fighting for why did all of you return and vote it into being here in our own country?" Took him s number of years to formulate an answer and articulate it because he had to admit for the first time he was wrong about something. "Because it came so slow just one little thing at a time that we never really saw it coming it until it was too late. Because we kept saying, 'That will ever happened here'."
My point is that the facts were there. I stand by my mother's family. Staunch Republicans, they were opposed to US entry in World War Two. One time, when my mother told me about the concentration camps for Japanese, I asked, "Why didn't they put us in concentration camps?" and she replied: "Because they needed our labor for their steel mills." Republican.... back then...
I refer to the XXth century as the Century of the Great Socialist Wars when reason is too often shoved aside to feed the emotions of the moment. I found my perspective was wholly reinforced after 24 years infantry.
Another reference that predates Rand and AS is Caldwell and Devil's Advocate. But unless you are lucky it's a $40 some odd dollar expenditure to get a paperback copy. these days. 1952 a decade ahead of AS.
Near as I can tell they never knew each other but may have known of each other.
Man's Got To Know His Definitions....Words have meanings.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
And, yet, who else speaks up at all for individual initiative, enterprise, and limited government, except the conservatives?
The basic problem, of course, is that with those positives come a package deal to support any war at any time and the abrogation of certain rights if not the fundamental concept of rights. That is the fundamental problem: conservatives only want to hang on to the glorious past - granted that parts of it were glorious - rather than to define first principles and follow them where they lead.... wherever they lead...
So the problem is either returning to first principles as they were and seeing who fits or redefining first principles to fit those who abandoned the first version. On balance I would make the first choice. i did that rather easily one day by realizing the center was the Constitution and what should have been and not the center of the left which is a fair definition of the center de facto
Rand spoke well of unions 'then' not unions as they are now as similarly to the Republicans just part of the left. So who speaks for them now and first principles abandoned by or never really believed in by the 'big two' and are they really 'two' or really 'one?'
I've been a career soldier and a union member. In the former role we were treated as cannon fodder and the survivors abandoned in the latter as factory fodder and then likewise abandoned or worse for many ignored and not allowed in those particular temples of labor. Add to that another group that abandoned itself the baby factories but I see the military itself is changing that .(2016 all combat jobs open to women but the military is demanding full equal rights and responsibilities meaning women to sign on the dotted line for benefits when turning 18. Women should be glad for that full acceptance which means they are no longer considered mere baby factories even though it means when the time comes so might their number.)
Side point. Gung Ho is more properly translated as 'moving forward together harmoniously.' It's very collective in that sense. I hold A thousand points of light and it takes a village in the same basket - collectively.
The foregoing not as an argument but as statements that come to mind by your remarks.
Who speaks for the forgotten might be another way of putting it. Another way when examining the current voting system is who speaks for the Constitution and the idea of voting freely and not having a vote once cast turned into something else?"
And why are none of those except perhaps two, momentarily, represented amongst the candidates?
More unanswered questions but your statement as to who speaks for the forgotten, those who no longer bother to tregister, to vote to participate? The 35% to 45%? No one.
No one and most who might are too busy squabbling or living in the past unable to accept the reality of the present.
Well that's my serious 'vent' for the day. I shall retreat to using my Fiorini/Jindal slate as a way of finding a way....since nothing else has been offered.
Yet.
So who speaks for them now?
.
Second is diving deep into the books of Rand and some of her associates with a view point of seven decades versus one or two.
And recently the discussion on open and closed objectivism
Having spent some time going over the site itself I know consider it daily reading material and one where I don't participate but take sustenance..
Thanks for that....7
I agree also that our six or seven decades of experience give us a wisdom that we did not have all those decades before. Is the wisdom of age "better" than the passion of youth? Would you trade the one for the other, if it were either-or?
That aside, I do agree that the wisdom gained from a lifetime of experience provides a standard against which to re-evaluate the choices of our youth. Largely, I find agreement.
Rand will some day be recognized as one of he greatest thinkers in history - with her words "immortalized."
She was however, subject to the same aspects of human nature as he rest of us. Though she could conceptualize and convey said conceptions on an almost unprecedented intellectual level, she encountered the same obstacles that each of us do when at times she behaved in a manner inconsistently with her words.
One example: A cardinal principle she advocated was to always strive to understand reality and act accordingly. Yet when engaging in "politics," she would invariably allow herself to become focused on metaphysics (God) instead of politics (individual rights). There are other examples as well.
Regardless, she was truly an incredible writer, teacher, intellect, and, from my personal experience, INSPIRATIONAL!
She was a philosopher, not a politician or political policy wonk, and deliberately did not restrict herself to political commentary as the a-philosophical libertarians did and still do. She wrote in the first issue of The Objectivist Newsletter in1962:
"Objectivism is a philosophical movement; since politics is a branch of philosophy, Objectivism advocates certain political principles- specifically, those of laissez-faire capitalism - as the consequence and the ultimate practical application of its fundamental philosophical principles. It does not regard politics as a separate or primary goal, that is: as a goal that can be achieved without a wider ideological context."
"Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics - on a theory of man's nature and of man's relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as 'conservatism.' Objectivists are not 'conservatives.' We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish."
She quoted that again in 1971 and added:
"I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows."
Throughout her writing you find explanation based on relevant principles and concepts and the facts that give rise to them. Such a principled, philosophical approach is not a "focus on metaphysics (God)" (and "metaphysics" does not mean "God").
As an advocate of reason she did not focus on religion at all (as some contemporary 'professional atheists' do today), she dismissed it as not worthy of further intellectual efforts as a philosophy -- other than in the context of posing a specific threat (such as some prominent politician promoting it to impose restrictions) and in a few key articles like those revealing the meaning and consequences of the papal encyclicals. Those articles explained the destructive meaning of religion for human life on earth, which she emphatically regarded as the good, with an emphasis in those articles in showing the contrast and the consequences of the religious advocacy for man's life in reality. That, too, was not an inappropriate "focus" on God . Libertarians and conservatives wishing for something else is not relevant.
"WHAT?"
"Thats what she said."
YOU MUST KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING, and a key aspect of that is knowing your audience! Stop your POLITICAL arguments at the point of agreement and not wade into that with which you KNOW going in, you have “irresolvable” disagreements.
Rand nudged the seemingly inert and “dead” philosophical ball with an irresistible force resulting in ever-increasing momentum that is ultimately unstoppable. She did so by ALWAYS integrating her ideas using reason, thereby MAKING them unstoppable. However, she did little to move the POLITICAL ball (except as it will inevitably move concurrent with the philosophical one). I am not faulting her just recognizing reality.
Most on the conservative political Right, admittedly in an inconsistent fashion, endorse the idea of individual rights. While you and I both understand said rights emanate from facts – from reality, they believe they come from their creator – in most cases “God.”
When I have chosen to engage one of these many, many people, I always direct the discussion in a manner that appeals to their sense of said rights, leading them to the point where the political issue becomes a MORAL discussion – tied to their fundamental belief in morality – that Man is an autonomous moral agent – with which I demonstrate we agree. I never let it progress more deeply, and will cordially end the discussion ( in most cases) if I am unable to prevent it from doing so
If as an Objectivist, possessing the rational understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, morality, and politics – and their inextricable relationship, you decide you do not wish to engage in such a waste of your time as current political discourse demonstrates, fine. You get no quarrel from me. But if conversely, you choose to enter the political arena, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING! In my judgment, Rand, no doubt in part owing to the power and focus of her mind, seemed to “drop context” when entering said arena.
If you rationally (?!) think you are going to convince someone that they should not be (politically) concerned with how someone else chooses (morality) to live their life, by convincing them that they are irrational and evil (epistemology and morality) because they believe God (metaphysics) told them to be concerned with same, we simply disagree.
When I have to engage in political activism, which has been extensively and much more than I ever wanted to, I ally with people who remain intelligently ifocused on the issue at hand and who don't try to turn it into a religion or a side political issue. I don't confuse this kind of activism seeking to change specific government policy with fundamental change and I don't need to be lectured on it by bystanders.
I have no interest in trying to convince the irrational that they are irrational or anything else. They are irrational, cannot be reached, and accomplish nothing positive. But when someone is attracted to the world of Atlas Shrugged for proper reasons and is interested in the broader cultural trends and what must be done, it is imperative to explain the philosophy that makes it possible and what is destroying it, and not pander to the irrational or ignore the destructive premises driving the culture as if they doesn't exist.
Very important. Not at all unlike the need for all valid concepts to accept humor and be the butt of a joke.
I believe it is a axiom that any dogma can be demonstrated to be fundamentally wrong in a context for which it was not conceived.
In this essay, the main point was about writing from the subconscious. No one commented on that. No one questioned why the supreme Left Brain Intellectual would advocate writing from your subconscious -- especially when writing non-fiction.
If I learned one thing from Rand's fiction (which I read when I was 15), it is that your own individual reasoning ability (and value system, based on your emotions) are to guide your own life, not the views of any other person or people.
Remember in Anthem, at the end she writes: It is MY eyes that give beauty to the world.
Parent says: I want you sit there for awhile and think not only about what you have done, but why you have done it. The beginning of a value system.
You didn't learn that from Ayn Rand. Individual responsibility for reasoning in contrast to relying on other people yes, but not "value system based on emotions". Your emotions versus what others tell you is a false alternative. Proper values comes from reason and are objective. Pursuing values based on emotion is hedonism, not rational self interest. Personal subjectivism versus the collective subjective are both subjectivism.
if you think the rule was wrong or too harsh or too lenient ask for a discussion.
When she figured out on her own that 'all the kids do it' cut no ice we had that discussion. When she figured out that 99.99 this week only was a scam we had that discussion. When she figured out on her own (watching the 30 year mark of the JFK assassination without comment from us...and asked about the Secret Documents commenting. How do we know they are original, real, haven't been tampered with?" Big discussion. She later tore the Warren Commission report to shreds in a University debate. When she .....well it continued. She's now a shrink. The road wasn't easy but she developed a great BS detector. As for values? She learned on her own and that was before I really bothered to study philosophy or new what objectivism was. But it all went back to watching thee standards and rules we set were fair, needed, and not hypocritical.
Remember, children time to themselves in order to internalize right, wrong and individual values.
A value system begins long before a child has learned to reason.
How then do YOU define reason?
We have innate responses to life/social situations. They are shaped by our thinking and bootstrap themselves into values, which we articulate into principles and morals.
I am, therefore I'll think.
It is true that your value system is based on your emotions. Most people stop there. They absorb the values around them. If they are "thinkers" after a fashion, they find ex post facto reasons to explain and justify their values. (Most people never do.) Very few people throw everything out and start fresh with new ideas, and build their personal value system from a foundation of reality and reason.
The key is that while your values are based on your emotions, your emotions are automatic summation of your ideas. Your continuous and continual self-experience determine your emotions. Thus, Dagny was different from James -- and Dominique was not Roark. Those contrasts are highly cogent. James was evil. Dagny was good, but her expression of it was - as Rand's own - idiosyncratic: ruled by itself. "It" (she) had a self. James Taggart did not.
One can not say, "It makes sense or it is reasonable for me to feel happy during this particular event; therefore I will be happy.
If that were the case, how much easier it would be to manipulate people! It's easy enough as it is.
As I said, emotions precede reason, they do not follow it.
Emotions are not tools of cognition no matter where someone establishes his values from. No one can talk himself out of an emotion but he can examine it to see if it is appropriate and choose whether or not to act on it. If he corrects his values where necessary, more appropriate emotional reactions will follow.
Do you know of the psychological defense mechanisms known as rationalization and intellectualization?
In any particular moment, we feel whatever we feel. We can't change what we are feeling because we are already feeling it.
However, we can certainly inquire into why we are feeling it - what do we believe to be true about the world such that we are feeling X in response to our understanding. Then, we can question that understanding and find a better understanding, one that is more true. Then, we will feel the feelings appropriate to that more truth.
In the process, we reason through our emotions.
Right?
My dog is my best frriend. My dog is faithful. I kinow that because of his actions. My dog dies, I am despondent.I am sad. I have lost my best friend. What are my actions. Perhaps a symbolic funeral in the back yard which serves to bury the past and my emotions then I look for a new best friend. OR I burn down the dog house and vow never to have another best friend again but mourn for the rest of my life. Reason controls emotion or emotion negates the use of reason.
"A well ordered soul has the reason in charge of the passion."
But
"If the reason has charge of the passion then passions become trained and then when they are trained every good choice is an interplay of thinking and desiring and the whole soul comes together to produce it."
Sorry, reading an annotated copy of the Federalist papers and this topic, which I found interesting, came up.
The emotions rage to react..There is no time. Assistance arises a verbal report made. A traffic accident specialist arrives same thing. the ambulance takes the driver of #2 the victim's car away too the hospital where a BA blood alcohol is ordered as a matter of routine. The driver of #1 based on evidence is removed from the vehicle, handcuffed and placed in a patrol vehicle
Photos are taken the whole system is in gear. The supervisor orders the responding officer to do ttwo things.
Go behind a bush..... and then when ready go to the hospital to supervise the BA procedures.
At that point emotion takes over....accompanied by vomiting....the mental image of the infant now being peeled off the inside of the windshield rules... For a few minutes. Then he states she was not wearing a belt, the child was not secured, they both need their rights read and proceeds to do that. Reason has taken control. The investigative procedure has turned into a double arrest. Who is ultimately responsible? That went to the court. Both were charged. The officer returns to the stations writes a report and asks for a ride home. Emotion has returned....but reason is still in control.
The difference. Emotion is a body function, an automatic control mechanism....with time and experiences much the same it
does a better job but then the officer is viewed as seasoned...and the vomiting takes longer to occur.
High stress situations combine the two. But the situation...the ground truth test demands reason.
Add a few additional elements such as a hostile crowd.... it's volatile. The only hope is reason.
Add 'no witnesses, no one saw anything' adds frustration.
Not a made up story....
What saves the day for all concerned is proper training and constant preparation and testing of one's abilities. The autopilot function of the brain takes over. No one remembers writing down the time or any number of other key but small points.
At least until after three or four of these situations. Paramedics and police face this sort of thing until it becomes routine an they try not to be calloused.
The woman driver in #2 was not drunk. She had taken some medications that induced drowsiness and had a clearly labeled warning.
She was still charged with reckless endangerment contributing to the death of her own child. i's dotted, t's crossed it went ot he court system and the jury, two lawyers, a judge and ... at least one psychiatrist. She later took some other medications..... too many of them. Some one elses turn
That was decades ago - the images are gone. But not the memories. Those are part of the function of reason and no amount of wishful thinking or mystical experience will change what happened.
Very few people throw everything out and start fresh with new ideas, and build their personal value system from a foundation of reality and reason.
I'm still not sure you get it. Convictions are based on values, which one cannot have unless one knows, simply put, his own desires---emotions. Reason follows; it does not precede.
(That's a feeling: my (reasoned) action is to ignore you.)
However, it is possible to systematically challenge some core assumptions and build rational understanding based in reality. More importantly, it is possible to set this as a standard against which you will judge the status of any other thought/feeling.
It is a reverse bootstrapping. We question the given/habitual/inherited values/desires we wake up with today. We interrogate them. We challenge them. We discover the premises on which they are built and check them (against our best rationality). We correct/adapt/evolve/transform/replace them with increasingly rational/beautiful ones.
Then, we wake up tomorrow and inherit a different (more rational) set of thoughts/feelings values/desires.
Rinse. Repeat. But only forever.
At the bottom of this are basic desires - which are "prior" to our reason. They are our natural values - our values of human qua human. We don't choose those. We can (if we are rational/smart) choose to identify and integrate them into our value system and thereby integrate our desires and our value system - Reason.