Sunday, May 13, 2007

The Shorter ARCHN: Chapter 1, "Theory of Human Nature"

A series of handy short summaries of the main arguments of ARCHN for those unfamiliar with the book. For more detail, you can read ARCHN online here:

1) There are two basic conceptions of human nature: utopian and naturalistic. The utopian considers how man “should be”. The naturalist considers how he is. I argue that Rand’s view of human nature is utopian to the core, and her philosophy is a mere rationalization of her romantic notions about how man “should be”.

In an interview with Alvin Toffler, he asked “Do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?” Rand replied, ”No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man ‘as he might be and ought to be.’ Philosophy is a necessary means to that end.”

To admit that philosophy is a means to some end other than discovering the truth is to admit that one is merely rationalizing one’s existing beliefs. This, in essence, is what Objectivism is all about. And it is in the vast gap between the Randian ideal of Howard Roark or John Galt and real human beings that the rationalistic, utopian nature of her philosophy becomes most striking.

2) Rand’s theory of human nature is based on the idea that the human mind enjoys complete sovereignty over the body and the will. “Everything we do and are proceeds from the mind,” Rand once declared. ”Our mind can be made to control everything.” Man, we are told, is given his body, his mind, and the “mechanics of consciousness.” The rest is up to him – “he must create himself.” This suggests that man begins as a sort of of empty vacuum which through some mysterious process creates a specific character ex nihilo – out of nothing!

This conviction that man creates himself is fundamental to her entire philosophy. In order for a man to be genuinely ideal in Rand’s eyes, he had to be able to take full credit for all his characteristics. He couldn’t merely have been endowed with them at birth – no, he had to create them out of nothing with his own unaided effort, like Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of the mire by his own hair.

The most interesting part of this unlikely theory is its moral and psychological consequences – for as a result, man must be entirely responsible for what he becomes. Everything about his character, including his emotions, impulses, desires, motivations, passions is the product of his own choices. So if a man feels improper emotions or immoral desires, it is his responsibility to make the effort to change them by reprogramming his subconscious using reason. “Nothing less than perfection will do,” she declared. This personal Nirvana was what she called being “fully integrated” – where one never experiences any inner conflicts between what one thinks and what one feels, a blessed state where “mind and emotions are in harmony.”

This emphasis on ideas necessarily preceding emotions, when combined with her rejection of the existence of innate ideas, forces Rand into a number of absurd positions – for example, that people have no pre-existing emotional dispositions. One also must conclude that babies have no emotions at birth! There is also the impossible situation of how man makes any fundamental choices, seeing he has no existing motivations. This leads to the rather desperate measure regarding what Leonard Peikoff calls “primary choice” – “…the root choice, the choice on which all others depend…the choice to focus one’s consciousness.” But if man has no existing predispositions, why would he make this choice, one way or the other? Peikoff’s reply: Don’t ask! “It is invalid to ask: why did a man choose to focus? There is no such ‘why.’" This is simply a causa sui – something that causes itself, and is a typical mystical argument, used in defence of the Deity. It is, in short, a miracle; thus to defend this theory, Peikoff has had to resort to the miraculous.

Similar problems affect her version of “free will.” Since man is born completely tabula rasa there can be no innate psychological tendencies. In other words, to the neutral consciousness at birth, one choice is just as likely as another. Thus all human behaviour arises as a result of habit and accident, and therefore is completely inexplicable and unpredictable. Since no-one, including Rand, actually regards human as utterly inexplicable, this position is hard to take seriously.

3) A theory stands or falls on whether it can be corroborated by empirical reality. So we must ask: what is the evidence for Rand’s theories of human nature? We will look at three issues:
  • Do innate predispositions exist? All scientific evidence to date suggests it does. There are general emotional predispositions, such as aversions to incest, general cognitive predispositions, such as the tendency to learn language, and individual predispositions, such as handedness. ARCHN contains a lengthy summary drawn from scientists such as E.O. Wilson and Steven Pinker. In contrast, what evidence does Rand bring in support of her theories? Nothing whatsoever.
  • Are emotions purely the products of thinking? While this view may contain an element of truth, it is wildly exaggerated. Not only that, it entirely ignores physiological effects - such as hormones - on human emotions. There is also the fact that newborn babies experience emotions, yet clearly have little in the way of ideas. She even claims man’s thinking “determines his desires” – as if the desire for food was the product of rational cogitation. Once again, we look for her evidence in support of this theory and find nothing.
  • Finally, is it possible for men to subject every aspect of their lives to the dominion of reason? Rand is simply confused. She advocates the “supremacy of reason”, whilst at the same time regarding it as a “tool” of knowledge. But no man can live for the sake of a hammer or a broom. She has muddled means and ends. Reason, being a mere tool, can never originate the desires it serves. At best it allows some method of adjudicating between our competing desires.
4) To conclude, although Rand adamantly denied advocating a utopian vision of society, she nevertheless believed in what amounts to the same thing – namely, the “ideal” society of free and rational individuals living under a social system of perfect laissez-faire capitalism. The magic formula through which man can perfect himself for this secular salvation was her philosophy, via which all the conflicts - both external and internal – that have plagued mankind could be banished once and for all. Unfortunately, her philosophy is based on an entirely imaginary view of human nature; thus I contend it is her most serious flaw.

(Summary of "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" by Greg Nyquist, Chapter 1)

28 comments:

Mark C. said...

Excellent summaries of ARCHN chapters, there! To my mind, another very important mistake Rand made that should not be overlooked is her juxtaposition (I think that's the correct term) of "life" with "the proper life of 'man qua man'". I hope that enters into these summaries somewhere.

Daniel Barnes said...

Hi Mark

Many thanks for your kind comment. Glad you're enjoying the site.

Your point is an important one; in "The Objectivist Ethics" Rand clearly equivocates between "life" as in survival, and "life" as in "life proper to man qua man."
"Man qua man" is a vague term, but in Rand's hands it really means being a Objectivist. Thus her argument is circular. Rest assured we will cover this in our summary of Rand's ethical theories.

David said...

Meanwhile, in the world of empirical science, Robert Lee Hotz writes in the Wall Street Journal (I'd provide a link but don't know how) that a recent experiment suggests a neurological basis for morality, with scientists noting that only individuals with BRAIN DAMAGE make moral decisions based on "pure reason."

The article is entitled "Scientists Draw Link Between Morality And Brain's Wiring." Is is available on-line.

Dragonfly said...

Rand's surreptitious switch from "life" as in survival to "life proper to man qua man" is a glaring error in her argument, the circularity of which is quite obvious to every non-Objectivist. Rand's followers are tying themselves into pretzels trying to defend it, however. They just can't imagine that Rand could make such a logical error, so they have to find some rationalization, which of course doesn't make sense at all.

David said...

dragonfly wrote, "They just can't imagine that Rand could make such a logical error, so they have to find some rationalization, which of course doesn't make sense at all."

I think one reason for this is their emotional connection to Rand. Most people I know who discovered Rand at all discovered her during their narcissistic teen years and found that her ideas justified and rationalized their adolescent egotism. I know that's how I felt when I read "The Fountainhead."

Those Objectivist who have the intellectual honesty to admit that many aspects of Rand's ideas just don't square with reality (or even with other of her ideas) tie themselves into mental knots trying to explain, justify, excuse, or otherwise rationalize those ideas. Perhaps they are just too emotionally connected to calling themselves "Objectivists" to fully separate the wheat from the chaffe and say, "This idea is good. This idea is bunk - and whether or not that still qualifies me as an Objectivist is of no concern to me!"o

Anonymous said...

Daniel,
I think you're really twisting Ayn Rand's words on all of your points.

If understanding the nature of man as he is, naturalism, does not provide any insights on what man can be and what he should be (utopianism) of what use is naturalism?

Rand does not say man can be anything whatever. She explicitly points out that man cannot avoid existence or reality, that he must therefore use his mind (his senses and reason) to understand reality as it actually exists, and must act within the possibilities and constraints of existence. That isn't twisting anything into a pretzel, is it?


Why do you deny that a theory that explains how a thing is (naturalism), is incompatible with a theory that describes what it can do (utopianism). For example, it is naturalistic to say that a car is a dangerous, transportation machine with four wheels and an internal combustion engine. It is utopian to say that it should be driven safely to places you want to go. Having the naturalistic understanding allows for a rational utopian statement. It would be irrational for example to state that you should make a utopian use of a car as a cure for cancer, because that is inconsistent with its nature.

That's what Ayn Rand is very clear about in her detailed writings. She was, to amend your label, a rational utopian.


Taking a handful of partial quotes out of context doesn't disprove what she said, or my summary of it above.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anon:
>Daniel, I think you're really twisting Ayn Rand's words on all of your points.

Hi Anon

Firstly, welcome to the site.

Secondly, as we get a few "Anon" Objectivist commentators - why they don't use their real names I don't know - we tend to ask that they adopt a number or something so we know which ones we're responding to. Thanks in anticipation.

Thirdly, while I have written these ARCHN Chapter summaries, the book itself is written by Greg Nyquist. So the arguments are his,not mine. You can read the full length chapter free in the sidebar if you want more context.

Nonetheless I will respond briefly to some of your points.

a) Re: your "Rand does not say man can be anything whatever."

Well you're quite wrong on that score. For example she says in the intro to "We The Living."

"No one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

If no-one is born with any talent, we can therefore be anything we merely will ourselves to be. I can be as good a golfer as Tiger Woods or as good a physicist as Einstein, both of whom's tabulas are just as rasa as my own according to Rand.

2) Re: Your "For example, it is naturalistic to say that a car is a dangerous, transportation machine with four wheels and an internal combustion engine. It is utopian to say that it should be driven safely to places you want to go."

There is very little "utopian" about trying to make a safer car or establish safer driving standards. On the other hand, it is clearly utopian to promote John Galt is the perfect man and Galt's Gulch as the perfect society - particularly as neither have, nor are likely to, ever exist. (Or they are about as likely as a car curing cancer at least).

3) Re your "She was, to amend your label, a rational utopian."

I put it to you that you are merely playing with words, sir.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about not leaving my name and contact information on some site I've never been to before.

I did read chapter 1, as well as the introduction to the book, after posting my comment. If I had read it before I would not have bothered commenting. The book itself is quite lame and just makes vague accusations that something is wrong without going into particular detail.

As to your reply (and I don't intend to go back and forth with you, so your next reply will be the last word) you accuse me of playing with words by trying to focus on your meaning, yet you consistently drop context or change meaning. Quoting Ayn Rand as saying that "every skill has to be acquired" and then saying that that means that she believes that "we can therefore be anything we merely will ourselves to be" is either very dishonest or indicates that you lack a basic understanding of some pretty simple English. Her words are not "any skill can be acquired by anyone merely by willing it". She is saying that not anyone can have any skill. Her books are elaborations on how you must think and work hard to develop a skill and how you may in fact not have the capacity to be as great as someone born with greater potential who works harder. You are in fact playing, quite poorly, with words.

Farewell.

Daniel Barnes said...

Anon:
>Sorry about not leaving my name and contact information on some site I've never been to before.

Of course no-one asked you to do any such thing. I said "we tend to ask that (Anons) adopt a number or something" like our dear old Anon76 or Anon57.

>The book (ARCHN) itself is quite lame and just makes vague accusations that something is wrong without going into particular detail.

That is just a weird thing to say. Actually, it's usually Rand who makes vague accusations that something is wrong without going into particular detail. ARCHN is packed with detail, much of it solidly empirical, and certainly far more factual evidence than you will ever find in any Rand book. In fact there is probably more detail in an ARCHN chapter than in any Rand book. Anon, next you will be telling me that up is down, and black is white!

>Her books are elaborations on how you must think and work hard to develop a skill and how you may in fact not have the capacity to be as great as someone born with greater potential who works harder.

I notice you fail to mention someone with greater potential who doesn't work harder. I play guitar a lot, and am pretty good, but I know guys who never practice who can kick my ass. Why is that, Anon? Do you think they might be...born with that talent? And when you refer to someone "born with greater potential" aren't you just saying someone born with greater talent?

But recall Rand:
"No one is born with any kind of "talent" and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

I put it to you again, sir: aren't you just playing with words?

Andrew A said...

I am not sure how accurate Wiki is ? but here's what it had to say on Heritability. I think it adds to the discussion and demonstrates tabula rasa as a fallacious conflation of the complexities of human nature.

"While there are many examples of single-gene-locus traits, current thinking in biology discredits the notion that genes alone can determine most complex traits. At the molecular level, DNA interacts with signals from other genes and from the environment. At the level of individuals, particular genes influence the development of a trait in the context of a particular environment. Thus, measurements of the degree to which a trait is influenced by genes versus environment will depend on the particular environment and genes examined. In many cases, it has been found that genes may have a substantial contribution, including psychological traits such as intelligence and personality[13]. Yet, these traits may be largely influenced by environment in other circumstances, such as environmental deprivation."

My understanding is that environmental influences have a varying effect on different genes, some are more susceptible to influence. Fundamentally though, we have an innate construction, although we can improve our faculties through action- (studying, counseling psychology, social interaction, etc), we cannot radically alter our intelligence or personality based on "will". Whatever Rands concept of will entails anyway, presumably some sort of action she cannot be bothered to explain in any detail particular to the situation in which she uses the word.

Why do Objectivists cling to old concepts proven false? Rand is clearly fallible on many issues. The only way Objectivism could survive is if it was modified to actually represent reality, it which case it would no longer be Objectivism.

Anonymous said...

Dan here: I don't consider myself an Objectivist but I do agree with a number of Rand's posits even though I haven't read her extensively --- only various summaries. Going further, if my pursuit of rational self-interest, a guiding principle of individual rights and government free capitalism makes me an Objectivist then I'll gladly wear the label.

But to the point, I have to agree with anon[no number] --- I see nothing in the Intro nor Chapter 1 that goes to the meat of the subject. And the very basics of Rand's notions have NOT been refuted no matter how often such is repeated.

Consider these: Just where has there been a rational refute of the principle that consciousness and reality are separate entities? Just where has there been a refute of the notion that knowledge is gained through perception and the application of reason to that perception whereby we form concepts? Or that rational self-interest is not man's purpose?

And pleaaase --- don't come back with that nonsense about a person pursuing his own happiness to the point of going about murdering people. Rand held no such notion and there is no rational line that gets one there --- Rand tempered rational self-interest with the axioms of no direct harm to ones self nor to others.

Daniel Barnes said...

Dan:
>And the very basics of Rand's notions have NOT been refuted no matter how often such is repeated.
Consider these: Just where has there been a rational refute of the principle that consciousness and reality are separate entities?

Are you saying conscious is not real?...;-)

But seriously, Dan, I would first of all advise you to drill a bit more deeply 1) into the problems you are proposing and 2) into Rand's writings, rather than just summaries. For starters, you'll find the issue above is commonly referred to as the "mind/body problem" or more accurately the "mind/brain problem". The strongest refutation of the separation you propose (normally called a "dualism") is called physical determinism. The mind/brain problem is an open problem, ie there is no decisive refutation either way, including Rand's supposed contribution to this complex issue, which amount to little more than highly charged rhetoric. The determinists case, on the other hand, while not finally decisive either, amounts to all of physics and chemistry. So it is not to be easily dismissed.

Your other two points are likewise i.e. perennial philosophic issues the arguments for or against turn out to rest on mere word-games. Rand's theory of knowledge (she calls it "concept formation") is little more than a handwaving late-nite dorm session rave that ultimately rests on self-contradictory oxymorons eg "contextual absolute". A waste of everyone's time. Similarly arguments about rational-self interest are largely verbal when you break it down. There's plenty on this site about both these pseudo problems if you dig around.

Anonymous said...

Dan here again:

Are you saying conscious is not real?...;-)

But seriously, Dan, I would first of all advise you to drill a bit more deeply 1) into the problems you are proposing and [...]


That's not the context of Rand's position as I understand it. What she is referring to regarding consciousness being independent from reality is that through our consciousness we gain knowledge and this knowledge is perceived and as such is distinct from reality even though they may be one and the same they could just as well be different. In a shorter sentence --- the consciousness to which Rand referred was that of the ability to perceive.

Now, if you're saying that such is NOT what she meant then most, if not all, of the various summaries, including those from Peikoff, and quotations that circulate about are incorrect. To that end I'm not really interested in reading everything the lady has to say or of any other philosopher for that matter. I prefer to take their conclusions, the basic premises and propositions and turn my own rational mind to the matter.

That's why I stated the propositions that I did --- again, I've seen no rational refute of some of her basics, those that I've listed. However, I'm not close-minded....

...BTW, wouldn't it be fair to say that Rand is actually not original in her "work"?

Derick said...

”No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man ‘as he might be and ought to be.’ Philosophy is a necessary means to that end.”

To admit that philosophy is a means to some end other than discovering the truth is to admit that one is merely rationalizing one’s existing beliefs.

-

That's a terribly unfair statement. To say that because a principle isn't someone's reason for doing something isn't to say they're going to betray it. I don't go to the mall to protect children, but that doesn't mean I'm going to kill them all once I'm there. The *reason* she went into philosophy to discover truth there was an ulterior motive, but her motive would never allow her to betray what she actually believed was true.

You're far more intelligent than that statement.

Anonymous said...

>And pleaaase --- don't come back >with that nonsense about a person >pursuing his own happiness to the >point of going about murdering >people. Rand held no such notion >and there is no rational line that >gets one there --- Rand tempered >rational self-interest with the >axioms of no direct harm to ones >self nor to others.

Rational self interest dominates all... ...except when it interferes with Randian Commandments?

Unsatisfying in the extreme, but I've come to expect that from religion.

And for future reference, just how much am I allowed to hurt you before I violate the Randian Commandments? Can I rob you directly, or will I have to suffice with driving you and your family into poverty, indirectly shall we say?

Let me know, because I've totally got a job waiting for you in my cannery.

Motley Fool said...

Hello there

I dislike wearing labels as that impedes my freedom. Suffice to say that most of the work I have read of Ayn Rand's ( which is not all of it yet by a long stretch, specifically atlas shrugged and capitalism : the unknown ideal) I agree with. If you wish to label me as objectivist then so be it.

Your summary was an interesting read. Up until the fourth point your position seems valid. However at point four there is a error.

"...namely, the “ideal” society of free and rational individuals living under a social system of perfect laissez-faire capitalism."

"Unfortunately, her philosophy is based on an entirely imaginary view of human nature; thus I contend it is her most serious flaw."

The error in your reasoning is the following. Her reasoning for laissez-faire capitalism has nothing to do with what you have discussed up until this point. Never mind the fact that up to there you are correct, that if that is the position she held it is demonstratably incorrect.

Sincere regards

The Fool

Daniel Barnes said...

Hi Motley Fool,

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what the mistake is here. Can you outline what, in your view, is her reasoning for LF capitalism and how it significantly differs from what we've said?

Thanks.

whoever said...

Doesn't Rand also have to maintain that animals have no emotions, if concepts are required for thoughts and (according to her) only man rises above the "perceptual" to the "conceptual" level of consciousness?

RandalV said...

"Whoever," the idea that emotions are based on thoughts in humans is not particular to Rand. It's the cornerstone of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. All you have to do is ask why you're feeling whatever emotion you're feeling to validate this.

As to what is going on in animals, that's a scientific question, as we do not have direct introspective evidence. It seems that emotion and behavior are more hard-wired there (with some possible exceptions in higher-level animals).

To the "Anonymous" asking about how much you're allowed to hurt someone and still have it be rational self-interest, I think that what you're missing is that Rand argued that it's not in your interest to violate others' rights. So if you're asking how much you're "allowed" to bodily harm someone, then the answer is why do you want to bodily harm others if it's not a case of self-defense?

Motley Fool said...

Hi

Well the first part in her book Capitalism: the unknown ideal pretty much covers it but i'll try a short recap.

Man must think to survive. If not you must steal or beg to survive(temporarily). Man will not produce(use his intellect for creation) due to force.Man's basic right his is right to life. Property rights for example flows from this. Capitalism is the recognition of your right to life and reason for your own gain.

Maybe a bit too short but you seem to have the literature, read it.

Regards

The Fool

Ward44 said...

You’re missing her point about the purpose of philosophy. She was talking about the purpose of her writing and the role of philosophy per se – hers or anyone’s – in the identification of the ideal. Objectivism as purely philosophy is a system which has to be dissected into the actually objective elements which scientific evidence supports and the elements that are Rand’s own values being rationalized. In other words, we have to distinguish where there truth is and where the rationalizations are. That’s the real program in evaluating Objectivism.

Yes, her tabula rasa premise is her most vulnerable premise. Yes, the moral and psychological consequences are devastating - and immoral – as it puts complete responsibility on our power of choice even where it can be objectively proven that we have no choice – like saying that if you have blue eyes, you are immoral unless you choose to get them changed. And it would be contradictory – so much for full integration – if it were dropped there. But, it isn’t all there is to the logic as she points out in the difference between the metaphysical and the man-made (choice-created). Problem is, while Rand pays lip-service to the logic of evidence, she sometimes sounds contradictory to it – she does seem to get her own values mixed up with the facts of human nature over which we have no control and then confuses the issue by judging on the opposite (false ) premise. In effect the “human nature” she has abstracted as ideal and integrated into a full human being – one of her characters; in her imagination – becomes the standard of moral judgment for real, live human beings in reality. And her desiccated theory of emotions, (in fact, much of her theory of consciousness) which was formulated based on very little science, is only now being more objectively explained by current neuroscience. The import for moral theory is obvious and puts Objectivism in a defensive and very tenable position. Again, you can’t morally judge where there is no evidence of choice, or where there is evidence that no choice is possible. Rand easily confuses this fact and ignores or doesn’t believe such a fact exists. May be “Objectivist”, but it’s not objective…

The rest of your arguments are spot-on.

gregnyquist said...

She was talking about the purpose of her writing and the role of philosophy per se – hers or anyone’s – in the identification of the ideal.

True but irrelevant. I don't recognize the "ideal" as something that is objectively true, like a platonic Idea or an Objectivist moral end. It's simply a preference; and if the role of philosophy is the "identification of the ideal," then philosophy is merely "a desire of the heart that has been filtered and made abstract," as old Fritz Nietzsche suggested long ago.

Ward44 said...

I didn't say "the role of philosophy is the identification of the ideal", I said "the role of philosophy...in the identification of the ideal".
The role of philosophy is to identify a basic template for living. As to ideals, they are just standards of measurement of what is possible. And there can be objective evaluation of "preferences" as choices which have real consequences.

Anonymous said...

Wow a whole site running for years devoted to pointing out why Rand is irrelevant

Daeros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daeros said...

hate break it you Objectivist but the moment most of us figured out Ayn rand was trying sell us her “fantasy boyfriend” as the “Ideal” Man we Decided become everything she most hated on purpose.

for the life of me I can’t imagine why anyone would Want to be “just like ” John galt.

I can’t imagine a More hideous creature, if Rand was a Utopianist I myself “trying mold” human nature in her direction then her “Ideal” is hideous, Were such a species ever born I would do everything in my power wipe it out of existence

What Rand looked at and saw Beauty in I see Hideous ugliness.

What Inspired her and nurtured her I find only moral disgust for.

Don’t just sit there though and tell me that “her ideas are a threat” or “I wouldn’t be so hostile”

Seriously?? Is that the best you have? I would earnestly Vote for Human Extinction before “perfecting” them into John Galt.

Free will.

The fact that Nyquis exposed for me that what Ayn rand was describing was never human nature at all was a relief because it mean in effect all Objectivist were were Sociopaths who thought Falsely we would admire them and want tobe ”just like them”

I would rather burn. And if that makes me “stupid” in the eyes of objectivitst then I wouldn’t want to be ”smart” in their opinion. Whatever the FUCK that means? (because Frankly I think when they judge me stupid it’s the dunning kruger effect on full display)

I would revel in my "irrational stupidity" as they would put it as if they Were positive traits.

John Galt is FAUX Ideal. He’s a hideous monstrosity that Moral Decent people would go out of their Way to avoid resembling.

Daeros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daeros said...

Daeros said…

hate break it you Objectivist but the moment most of us figured out Ayn rand was trying sell us her “fantasy boyfriend” as the “Ideal” Man we Decided become everything she most hated on purpose.

for the life of me I can’t imagine why anyone would Want “just like ” John Galt.

I can’t imagine a More hideous creature, if Rand was a Utopianist I myself “trying mold” human nature in her direction then her “Ideal” is hideous, Were such a species ever born I would do everything in my power wipe it out of existence

What Rand looked at and saw Beauty in I see Hideous ugliness.

What Inspired her and nurtured her I find only moral disgust for.

Don’t just sit though and tell me that “her ideas are a threat” or “I wouldn’t so hostile”

Seriously?? Is that the best you have? I would earnestly Vote for Human Extinction before “perfecting” them into John Galt.

Free will.

The fact that Nyquis exposed for me that what Ayn rand was describing was never human nature at all was a relief because it mean in effect all Objectivist were were Sociopaths who thought Falsely we would admire them and want tobe ”just like them”

I would rather burn. And if that makes me “stupid” in the eyes of objectivitst then I wouldn’t want ”smart” in their opinion. Whatever the FUCK that means? (because Frankly I think when they judge me stupid it’s the dunning kruger effect on full display)

I would revel in my “irrational stupidity” as they would put it as if they Were positive traits. But Take note, that just because they would “label it as such” does not mean the “label” is “descriptively accurate”

John Galt is FAUX Ideal. He’s a hideous monstrosity that Moral Decent people would go out of their Way avoid resembling.