tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4071432453896278632..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Compassion of Ayn RandDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41623823012668586002010-02-10T06:03:46.197-08:002010-02-10T06:03:46.197-08:00The good think about Nazis was that, when they des...The good think about Nazis was that, when they despised "subhumans" - like retards, gays, Jews, Roma, Slavs or anybody disagreeing with them - they at least took the responsability and effort to exterminate them.<br /><br />The good thing about Genghis Khan was, he didn't make 60-pages speeches to justify what he liked the best - butchery, pillage and rape - as highly moral achievements. <br /><br />AR is even worse. Lucky she did never had a powerful army of her own.Professor_Fatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53498894037229755682008-03-18T20:32:00.000-07:002008-03-18T20:32:00.000-07:00"There was a fifteen year old boy who had never le..."There was a fifteen year old boy who had never learned to speak..."<BR/><BR/>Is this the savage Galt referred to in his speech? "When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved.."<BR/><BR/>I like the part about the non-speaking savage who could somehow declare things. Because there are certain savages in the Objectivist community who should just learn to stop speaking.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88709474100029660762008-03-18T16:23:00.000-07:002008-03-18T16:23:00.000-07:00A couple more points regarding Rand as "utopian."D...A couple more points regarding Rand as "utopian."<BR/><BR/>Daniel cited the Playboy interview as evidence that -- in my description, to which Daniel then acceded -- <BR/>"she started with her ideal and then constructed a philosophy to give her that, i.e., that her philosophy is in essence a rationalizing support for the kind of person she'd like to see,"<BR/><BR/>Here's the part Daniel quoted from the Playboy interview:<BR/><BR/><I>Alvin Toffler:“Do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?” <BR/><BR/>Rand: ”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.”</I><BR/><BR/>I looked up the context of the question. As I suspected from memory, Toffler was specifically inquiring about her <I>fiction</I> writing. The full question reads (my emphasis):<BR/><BR/>"<I>As a novelist,</I> do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?” <BR/><BR/>Also, at the start of that interview, Toffler asks her specifically:<BR/><BR/><I>What do you seek to accomplish with this new philosophy?</I><BR/><BR/>I.e., there, he's asking about her philosophy qua philosophy not qua its role in her fiction.<BR/><BR/>She answers:<BR/><BR/><I>I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.</I><BR/><BR/>-<BR/><BR/>In my post immediately above I said that part of why I have trouble with the idea of Rand as "utopian" is because the description doesn't mesh with my own deep sense of her emotionality. If I had to put a single word to that emotionality, I'd choose the awkward "Gotterdammerung-ian," which I'd hardly consider "utopian."<BR/><BR/>I commented about her abiding pessimism about humans. At the end of the Playboy interview, she's asked if she's optimistic. She answers in the affirmative there, but something to keep in mind is the time frame in which the interview occurred. It was published in the March 1964 issue of Playboy, so it probably happened a month or more before then. 1963-64 is described by Nathaniel in Judment Day as having been a period when Ayn was on an upswing:<BR/><BR/><I>"I'm coming back to life," Ayn began saying with increasing frequency and urgency in the spring of 1963.</I><BR/><BR/>The upswing didn't hold as they then in the next year went into the prolonged pre-break period of Ayn's "counseling" Nathaniel. (His affair with Patrecia started in February 1964.)<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5237394584255168072008-03-16T17:16:00.000-07:002008-03-16T17:16:00.000-07:00Greg:As far as I can make out, one of the main rea...Greg:<BR/><BR/><I>As far as I can make out, one of the main reasons why you have trouble seeing Rand as utopian is that she does not believe in social engineering.</I><BR/><BR/>It's partly that. But it's partly my deep sense of <I>her</I>, as a person, emotionally. Whatever she sometimes says in print, she tended toward an abiding sense of pessimism about humans and an attitude that only exceptional heroes would make the grade of her sort of people. There are statements in print conveying this attitude as well.<BR/><BR/>I won't attempt to argue whether pure laissez-faire is indeed feasible; economics not being my line of thought, (a) I wouldn't be up to the argument; and (b) I tend to suspect you're right.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5303079887283483262008-03-16T11:33:00.000-07:002008-03-16T11:33:00.000-07:00Ellen,As far as I can make out, one of the main re...Ellen,<BR/><BR/>As far as I can make out, one of the main reasons why you have trouble seeing Rand as utopian is that she does not believe in social engineering. But why should the method advocated for reaching a utopian society determine whether that society is utopian? While most utopians nowadays wish to reach their ideal society through political means, there are a few who prefer other means. Rand believed that she could reach her ideal society through philosophical argumentation—more specifically, by refuting Kant's epistemology. <BR/><BR/>Is laissez-faire utopian? Yes, it is. Maybe it is not as utopian as socialism, but it is not a social order that is feasible. Conditions in the American West, for instance, don't really quality because of limited protection against fraud and force that prevailed on the frontier. For laissez-faire to work you need a political authority that can prevent violence and intimidation and enforce contracts. This, in short, is the main problem with LF. On the one hand, you need a centralized political authority to protect individual rights; on the other, once you have that centralized authority, what is to prevent it from infringing on the strict bounds of laissez-faire? Would a constitution work? Hard to believe that it would. Constitutions may limit political encroachments on "rights," but they don't stop them—particularly when large and powerful interests support such encroachments, as is inevitable in any society. Laissez-faire, then, is utopian mainly for political reasons.<BR/><BR/>In addition, let's not forget the social element in Objectivism. It is easy to assume that there are no social ideals in Objectivism because of Rand's stress on individualism, but there are tacit social ideals that would be attained in an Objectivist society simply from the greater rationality of the individuals that make up that society. Rand scholar Chris Sciabarra has summarized the ideal Objectivist society as follows:<BR/> <BR/>"People [in such a society] would not act on the basis of an uncritical acceptance of traditions and/or of tacit rules of behavior. They would understand the nature of their actions and the implications of their beliefs…Accepting their own uniqueness and potential, such people would have a benevolent attitude toward one another. Human communications, sexual relations, spiritual commitments, and material exchanges would not be masked by strategic lying and deceit, but by mutual trust and respect.”<BR/><BR/>Now even though this is a vision of society entirely based on voluntary action and "volition" (no social engineering), it is nonetheless clearly utopian (or at least it is utopian for those of us who hold to the constrained vision of society advocated by conservative thinkers like Burke and Hayek).gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82230139796782109052008-03-16T01:55:00.000-07:002008-03-16T01:55:00.000-07:00Ellen:> And I don't read the reply as saying that ...Ellen:<BR/>> And I don't read the reply as saying that she started with her ideal and then constructed a philosophy to give her that, i.e., that her philosophy is in essence a rationalizing support for the kind of person she'd like to see...<BR/><BR/>That's the way I read it. That's the basic line of Greg's argument in ARCHN. And I think that reading fits pretty well, actually, with the pattern of her thought. After all, she never really bothered to study humans in any remotely serious way. The most frequently cited source in her non-fiction work is her own fiction. Recall that she hints that even her epistemology is only truly accessible to superior men.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I'm not tired of the subject, but I am away for most of the week so will only get time to read further comments, and only that if I'm lucky...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63713950641524189502008-03-16T01:05:00.000-07:002008-03-16T01:05:00.000-07:00Daniel:> Alvin Toffler:“Do you regard philosophy a...Daniel:<BR/><BR/>> Alvin Toffler:“Do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?” <BR/><BR/>> Rand: ”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.”<BR/><BR/>> As a result, this is the way I see the arrow pointing.<BR/><BR/>Daniel, I see that quote as a shorter form of my description: "She says that the fundamental purpose of her novels is the projection of the ideal man; she says that she had to explicitly work out her philosophy in order to express her idea of the ideal." She's talking about her fiction (yes?) in the Interview context, not about her non-fiction work. And I don't read the reply as saying that she started with her ideal and then constructed a philosophy to give her that, i.e., that her philosophy is in essence a rationalizing support for the kind of person she'd like to see, which is what I understood you to have been claiming she'd said.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31667980910347725192008-03-16T00:57:00.000-07:002008-03-16T00:57:00.000-07:00Greg,I'm processing. ;-) Your definition of "utop...Greg,<BR/><BR/>I'm processing. ;-) Your definition of "utopianism" as "any idea of a social order that cannot possibly exist" at least makes sense to me, and is in keeping with my understanding of typical notions of "utopianism." I agree that "Rousseau [...] inspired most of the utopian theories on the left (and most modern utopian theories are leftward)." I agree that a "nurturing/plasticity paradigm [...] informs most of the modern left" -- "the 'we' in the machine," in one of Pinker's (numerous) felicitous phrases. I'd agree also that there was a considerable extent to which Rand shared the "plasticity" paradigm, though I think not the "nurturing" part. I've commented on the similarity/contrast elsewhere (on OL) in connection with her views on evolution -- haven't time to find a link just now; later. <BR/><BR/>I still find the idea of Rand as a "utopian" peculiar, however.<BR/><BR/>For one thing, she didn't see human nature as being AS plastic as the leftists; for another, there's her belief in volition, which would present a barrier to any attempt at social engineering's being successful.<BR/><BR/>Another reservation I have pertains to the phrase "cannot possibly exist." That's a big claim of knowledge. You soften it further in the post to "any social system that has never existed is probably not feasible." I wouldn't quarrel with this being a pretty safe bet. Presumably you're therefore arguing that pure laissez-faire capitalism is "probably not feasible." As to that, are you so sure it never has existed in local and limited contexts? Would primitive barter, for instance, have qualified? Conditions in the early American West? The Viking settlements in Greenland? And maybe other historic circumstances? I'm by no means expert in economics and wouldn't be the person to argue the case. But from reading persons on other lists who are expert I think it could be argued.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56174153014070711582008-03-15T23:31:00.000-07:002008-03-15T23:31:00.000-07:00Ellen:>Re point (4), where does she make this stat...Ellen:<BR/>>Re point (4), where does she make this statement? <BR/><BR/>Hi E,<BR/><BR/>Here's the Playboy interview quote. I've emphasised what I think is the money part:<BR/><BR/>Alvin Toffler:“Do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?” <BR/><BR/>Rand: ”No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man ‘as he might be and ought to be.’ <I>Philosophy is a necessary means to that end.”</I><BR/><BR/>As a result, this is the way I see the arrow pointing.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84153740728777316852008-03-14T22:15:00.000-07:002008-03-14T22:15:00.000-07:00Ellen,My linkage of utopianism with "blank slate" ...Ellen,<BR/><BR/>My linkage of utopianism with "blank slate" (in Pinker's sense of the term) view of human nature is not a definition, it's a generalized description. I'm not saying that <EM>all</EM> utopians believe in the blank slate; only that <EM>most</EM> do; and nearly all modern utopians accept that view in some measure or form. <BR/><BR/>Utopianism, definitionally, would be any idea of a social order that cannot possibly exist. The main reason why these utopias aren't possible is that they have false expectations about human beings. This is something that was not fully appreciated by Plato, because he didn't have a large body of psychological and sociological work to draw from. Hence it was easy for him to be naive about human nature. Not so with later thinkers, particularly Rousseau, who was a very brilliant and sophisticated thinker whose work, either directly or indirectly, inspired most of the utopian theories on the left (and most modern utopian theories are leftward). Rosseau's notions were interpreted and developed toward the nurturing/plasticity paradigm which informs most of the modern left. Hence we find that most modern utopian theorists believe that human nature is largely, or at least significantly, plastic. The alternative is to think that human nature is fixed, which would be tantamount to admitting history defines what people are, and that any social system that has never existed is probably not feasible. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, Locke is not a utopian because his version of the blank slate is confined merely to the cognitive sphere; it's not meant to include all of human nature. Pinker and I use it to cover the whole gamut of human nature.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-20229393772515549192008-03-14T21:23:00.000-07:002008-03-14T21:23:00.000-07:00PS to the above post: A further quick point re co...PS to the above post: A further quick point re confusing your meaning of "utopian," Greg, with typical connotations: Daniel already made this confusion further up the thread by citing Plato and his Philosopher Kings as an example of a utopian theory -- and I think Plato characteristically is taken as a prototype of such theories. But by your definition, he wouldn't qualify, since he's the big daddy original (in Western philosophy) NON-blank-slate theorist.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52074674863732627982008-03-14T20:48:00.000-07:002008-03-14T20:48:00.000-07:00Greg,If what you mean by "utopian theories" is "th...Greg,<BR/><BR/>If what you <I>mean</I> by "utopian theories" is "those that accept the plastic, blank slate view of human nature," then of course you win by definition. But I think you also produce a non-useful distinction -- and one in danger of being confused with connotations of "utopian" as belief in the possibility of achieving a perfect society (by whatever standard of "perfect" the theorist holds) through social engineering.<BR/><BR/>A question: Do you classify Locke as a "utopian" theorist?<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-89860144016792385662008-03-14T20:45:00.000-07:002008-03-14T20:45:00.000-07:00Daniel:4) Further, this can be understood if we ta...Daniel:<BR/><BR/><I>4) Further, this can be understood if we take as a starting point, as Greg does, Rand's statement the</I> the fundamental purpose of her philosophy is the projection of the ideal man.<BR/><BR/><I>5) We consider that in the attempt to "fully integrate" her philosophy she tried to make the beautiful the moral, and thus confused the two.</I><BR/><BR/>I have no more wish to prolong this than I think you have, but I can't let that go by in a discussion in which I'm involved without registering a protest.<BR/><BR/>Re point (4), where does she make this statement? She says that the fundamental purpose of her novels is the projection of the ideal man; she says that she had to explicitly work out her philosophy in order to express her idea of the ideal. But I think that the way you describe the process makes it sound as if she was using philosophy as a sort of handmaiden to aesthetics -- doubly so when you add in point (5) that she "tried to make the beautiful the moral." (She'd likely ask: "'Beautiful'? -- to whom?") I submit that she did quite a bit of the reverse of what you say in her theory of aesthetics, that she imported moral considerations into aesthetic judgment -- I've described this as her making aesthetics the handmaiden of ethics. So in that sense I'd agree that she produced a confusion between "the beautiful" and "the moral, but I think you have the directionality arrow opposite to hers.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33968552888307131702008-03-14T19:40:00.000-07:002008-03-14T19:40:00.000-07:00Ellen: "From that description, I can't at all see ...Ellen: "From that description, I can't at all see why Rand would be placed at 'the utopian end of the scale.'"<BR/><BR/>It all boils down to the issue of the plasticity of human nature: whether people can be fundamentally changed or not. Utopian theories are those that accept the plastic, blank slate view of human nature. Contrast this with the traditional notion of human nature, accepted by most of what passes for conservative opinion, which believes that there exist constant elements in human sentiments and behavior which allows one to judge ahead of time the feasibility of various social and politico-economic schemes. This view of human nature was defended by Pinker in his book "Blank Slate"; you also find it defended, in various forms, in the works of Machiavelli, Adam Smith, Burke, Mosca, Pareto, Hayek, and countless other thinkers on the right. It's expressed within traditional Christianity in the myth of original sin. <BR/><BR/>Now Rand, of course, disagrees, and disagrees vehemently, with this view of human nature. She does, in effect, believe that human nature is plastic. The volition she equates with human nature is not just the ability to choose between going to the movies and going to the mall: it's the ability to choose one's character, one's personality—in effect, the <EM>ability to choose one's nature</EM>, although Rand would never have expressed it in such terms. In any case, it's definitely a plastic view of human nature. Human beings, Rand insisted, have no tendencies of character (as the traditional/naturalistic view of human nature asserts) because, as she argued, a free will saddled with a tendency would not really be free. Volition, for Rand, means not having any tendencies. In other words, complete blank slate view. Human beings are, then, self-determined. Yet as we examine her theory in more detail we find that what she really preaches is the contention that <EM>human beings are a product of their ideas</EM> (i.e., their conclusions, their basic premises, etc.). So, in effect, she is arguing, ultimately, <EM>that human beings are a product of ideology</EM>, either their own ideology or, as in the majority of cases, of the predominant ideology of the intellectuals. When Rand's theory of history is brought into this mix, it's surprising how deterministic her views start to appear, despite her theoretical commitments to an extreme volitionalism.<BR/><BR/>Also keep in mind that both Rand and Peikoff believe (or believed) that, one day, Objectivism would win out and become the dominant ideology in the culture. In the early sixties, Rand seems to have believed that it would happen within a few decades. Of course, she did hedge her bets a bit by drawing on the free will card and insisting it wasn't inevitable, but she still thought it would happen, because "reason" was on her side. Peikoff also believes it's likely to happen, although he projects its occurence well into the future (at least 300 years, he once said on his radio show). Now that view, irrespective of Rand and Peikoff's commitments to volition or realism or anything else, is patently utopian. Anyone who has the least insight into human nature knows that the majority of human beings will never buy into Objectivism, because Rand's ideas can never appeal to the innate needs and sentiments of the broad majority.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-43808741145776087152008-03-14T12:11:00.000-07:002008-03-14T12:11:00.000-07:00Ellen:>This is becoming such a multi-leveled tangl...Ellen:<BR/>>This is becoming such a multi-leveled tangle, I'm having trouble tracking even what I'm saying, let alone what you're attempting to demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>That's art for you...;-)<BR/><BR/>But seriously, we're <I>both</I> trying to do a bit of mind-reading here, guessing at an artist's motives. A job that is made doubly difficult in that often the implications of what is written are not fully grasped by the writer.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, I will outline how I see it.<BR/>1) The symbolism of defiling the Temple of the Human Spirit by with intellectually handicapped kids and their artwork seems pretty obviously to say that such children, their creativity, and the motivations of their caregivers, are a defilement of the human spirit. <BR/>2) This attitude is Rand's Vulgar Nietzscheanism - a basic contempt/disgust for the weak and helpless as a "new morality" to challenge the Judeo Christian tradition - which revisionism has attempted to consign to juvenalia, shining through in her later work.<BR/>3) This attitude shows up in other things she's said about handicapped people late in life<BR/>4) Further, this can be understood if we take as a starting point, as Greg does, Rand's statement the <I>the fundamental purpose of her philosophy is the projection of the ideal man.</I><BR/>5) We consider that in the attempt to "fully integrate" her philosophy she tried to make the beautiful the moral, and thus confused the two.<BR/><BR/>I think the confusion you're feeling is related to 5). I'm not going to say that there is always a deterministic program behind utopianism, although it is a common element. Utopianism is often a mixture of things, and sentimental aesthetics, such as the back-to-Medievalism of the late 19th century in the face of the uncharming aspects of England's industrial revolution, is one of them. <BR/><BR/>I see what you're saying, I think, that Toohey is merely manipulating these kids in his game, but if this was the case one would expect Rand to offer a note of sympathy for these innocent pawns, and their crippled creativity, to fully illustrate her point. And she does, in fact draw a sympathetic portrait of some children in this scene, but it is not the handicapped ones. It is the little anti-social ruffians of slums, eyes "bright with a roaring, imperious, demanding intelligence" who the altruistic do-gooders shoo away and call "little gangsters". I think given the background we might hazard a leap here, and call them "little Hickmans." <BR/><BR/>At any rate - I have to wrap this up quickly as I'm about to go away overnight - while Rand is very good at demonstrating the consequences of altruism in extremis she is perhaps not so good at seeing where its VN opposite leads.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-892077263791133542008-03-14T10:03:00.000-07:002008-03-14T10:03:00.000-07:00Daniel,This is becoming such a multi-leveled tangl...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>This is becoming such a multi-leveled tangle, I'm having trouble tracking even what <I>I'm</I> saying, let alone what you're attempting to demonstrate. If your only claim is that what you call her "Vulgar Nietzscheanism" didn't vanish with her "juvenalia" (including the first edition of <I>We the Living</I>) -- AND if all you mean by the description "Vulgar Nietzscheanism" is an attitude of contempuousness and distaste for weakness, including mental subnormality -- then I agree not only that this attitude appears in later work but also -- contra your description of my views a couple posts above -- that it appears in the scene about the Temple's fate. What I disagree with about the latter is that this attitude is the <I>point</I> of the scene, as it seemed to me you were claiming. I also disagree with what appears to me to be wider charges you're making, though I'm not getting any clear picture of what those charges are -- intimations that she might, for instance, have supported euthanasia for retarded children and/or that she disapproved of anyone's willingness to provide care for such children and/or...exactly what?<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the issue has become entwined with what you refer to -- borrowing, I gather, from Greg Nyquist's usage -- as Rand's "utopianism." As I said, I haven't yet read ARCHN; thus I'm vague as to Greg's meaning of "utopianism" and his reasons for classifying Rand as "utopian."<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/><I>In the ARCHN intro Greg talks about view of human nature as being a scale with "naturalistic" at one end and "utopian" on the other. The naturalistic view is that man's nature will be, in at all forseeable future, pretty much as it has been in the past. The utopian view, however, is that human nature can be radically modified through changing social or ideological conditions. On this basis he puts Rand down the utopian end of the scale."</I><BR/><BR/>From that description, I can't at all see why Rand would be placed at "the utopian end of the scale." Nor do I understand the comparison/contrast between Greg's usage and what I'd think of as traditional usage. Rand's most basic view of "man's nature" I'd say is stated in a sentence in Galt's Speech -- a sentence I puzzled over for literally years: "Man is a being of volitional consciousness." I won't digress into my reasons for finding the exact wording peculiar. I'll just state that I think that Rand really, really, really meant her belief in volition. On the other hand, as I understand utopian programs from Plato onward, all of them entail belief in some form of determinist premises. So for now I'll have to leave a large question mark as to what Greg is arguing, and as to the plausibility, given his usage of "utopian," of his classification of Rand.<BR/><BR/>A further, though far less potentially significant, point of possible contention arises in your most recent post, wherein you describe <I>The Fountainhead</I> as being:<BR/><BR/><I> [...] along with Atlas, considered one of the two basic texts of Objectivism.</I><BR/><BR/>If all you mean, as you continue to describe, is that <I>The Fountainhead</I> doesn't deviate "in any major way" from her later views and that Roark is taken as a "common role model" by "enthusiastic Objectivii," maybe even more so than John Galt, I agree. At least in the old days, there were three main routes by which people came to Rand, routes described as "Fountainhead O'ists," "Atlas O'ists," and "non-fiction O'ists." The third category had many fewer respresentatives than the first two, and probably the first was the most populous; I think Howard Roark remains very much a prime image for the majority of O'ists -- I have no "hard data"; this is just an impression. However, I wouldn't describe <I>The Fountainhead</I> as being thought of by O'ists as a <I>philosophic</I> "text," if that's what you meant, though she does include a few excerpts from <I>The Fountainhead</I> in <I>For the New Intellectual</I> and the idea of the first-hander versus the second-hander (subsequently called by Nathaniel's term "social metaphysician") became part of the official philosophy.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88376019980892572352008-03-13T12:44:00.000-07:002008-03-13T12:44:00.000-07:00Ellen:>...she was not Ayn Rand the originator of O...Ellen:<BR/>>...she was not Ayn Rand the originator of Objectivism when she wrote The Fountainhead. <BR/><BR/>While this is true, it is worth noting - putting aside all hyperbole as to her coming to all her philosophical principles at age 12 - that despite the chronology, The Fountainhead is, along with Atlas, considered one of the two basic texts of Objectivism. I would even hazard a guess that Howard Roark is a far more common role model among enthusiastic Objectivii than John Galt. While we had to wait for Galt's speech to hear it explicity, The Fountainhead does not seem to deviate from the principles articulated later in any major way. At any rate, I am not aware of any intellectual caveats laid on it by Objectivist officialdom, but perhaps I am wrong.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63639374736366684842008-03-12T23:17:00.000-07:002008-03-12T23:17:00.000-07:00Ellen:>However, I think you're engaging in overkil...Ellen:<BR/>>However, I think you're engaging in overkill, given what The Fountainhead is about..<BR/><BR/>Hi Ellen,<BR/><BR/>The original point of the post was there have been attempts to conveniently consign the the Vulgar Nietzsche factor to Rand's juvenilia. I use the example to demonstrate that it is, "while less overt, still clearly visible in her later work." While we agree on this visible influence remaining in this book - so we aren't too far apart - clearly we differ in that I tend to think the Temple's fate is one of those moments when it shows through, whereas you do not. Regardless I think the important point is that we agree that it is not quite so easy to relegate the VN factor purely to her more impressionable days. She is 38, as you say.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>I have only a vague idea of the basis on which (Greg N is) classifying her as "utopian."<BR/><BR/>In the ARCHN intro Greg talks about view of human nature as being a scale with "naturalistic" at one end and "utopian" on the other. The naturalistic view is that man's nature will be, in at all forseeable future, pretty much as it has been in the past. The utopian view, however, is that human nature can be radically modified through changing social or ideological conditions. On this basis he puts Rand down the utopian end of the scale.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-20523036048366093882008-03-12T21:31:00.000-07:002008-03-12T21:31:00.000-07:00Daniel: [...] b) they don't take place within the ...Daniel:<BR/><BR/><I> [...] b) they don't take place within the context of an overall philosophy that says altruism is evil.</I><BR/><BR/><I>The Fountainhead</I> isn't about altruism, or about Objectivism either. It was published shortly after AR turned 38; she was not Ayn Rand the originator of Objectivism when she wrote <I>The Fountainhead</I>. That there are attitudes in <I>The Fountainhead</I> which are continuations of what you call her "Vulgar Nietzscheanism" I agree with; that there are harbingers of her mature philosophy I agree with. However, I think you're engaging in overkill, given what <I>The Fountainhead</I> is about: what she calls first-handedness versus second-handedness, with the strong and sometimes dominating co-theme of artistic integrity.<BR/><BR/>(Aside to Jonathan, in case you remember a comment I made, though I never got around to pursuing it, on an OL thread about my finding the "name that theme" approach to literature mostly an interference with understanding literature: In the case of AR's novels, naming the theme is useful, since her novels -- including <I>Anthem</I> as a "novel" -- all have deliberate themes.)<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Picking up on a post of yours I missed the other day. You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I think we can resolve Ellen's observation about Rand's aesthetic imperatives with mine, David's and others comments about the unpleasant consequences of those imperatives. This is because the utopian vision is very often aesthetically driven.</I><BR/><BR/>I can't sign on to that resolution, since I wouldn't classify Rand as a "utopian" theorist. I'm aware that Greg argues that she was; I still haven't gotten around to reading ARCHN and I have only a vague idea of the basis on which he's classifying her as "utopian." I thus can't debate the point at this time.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38823293585317413782008-03-12T21:28:00.000-07:002008-03-12T21:28:00.000-07:00Dragonfly:I described Catherine's enthusiam as "fa...Dragonfly:<BR/><BR/>I described Catherine's enthusiam as "faked" and "cynical."<BR/><BR/>You ask:<BR/><BR/><I>Anymore than the enthusiasm expressed by a parent or a teacher about</I> any <I>drawing or collage of a "normal" child?</I><BR/><BR/>Do you seriously read that scene -- given the characterization of Catherine Halsey and how she's been developed up to that point in the book and how she's described in the scene in question itself -- with eyes that people would rather not see -- as depicting the kind of enthusiasm a parent or teacher would display about any normal kid's youthful attempts?<BR/><BR/><I>I can imagine that it really would be a remarkable achievement for such a "monster" like Jack[ie] to create a recognizable image of a dog. BTW, the fifth leg was probably not a leg at all, that was just a misinterpretation.</I><BR/><BR/>I can imagine also that it would be a remarkable achievement, but from the text I'm doubtful that anyone except Catherine Halsey "recognized" the figure as being that of a dog. The sound to me is that not only was the "fifth leg" but the whole figure "a misinterpretation."<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71449172197286963912008-03-12T21:25:00.000-07:002008-03-12T21:25:00.000-07:00David:Also, Ellen, your experience working with di...David:<BR/><BR/><I>Also, Ellen, your experience working with disabled kids and their caregivers seems to have been nearly the opposite of mine.</I><BR/><BR/>Did you perchance misread what I reported? I didn't say that <I>all</I> of the volunteers were of the twisted "do-gooder" type, just that some of them were. Are you saying that you've <I>never</I> encountered such types?<BR/><BR/>One of the caregivers at the Crippled Childrens' Center of which I spoke was me. I was not a twisted do-gooder; nor were the majority of the other volunteers. The advising doctor of the establishment was my father, whom the kids adored: he knew how to help them, and the kids could tell he knew. If not for the excellent ministrations of my father, I myself might have been one of those kids -- I had childhood polio, like several of them. I am not knocking help for the handicapped, if anyone is misinterpreting me as doing that.<BR/><BR/>EllenEllen Stuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04425361354790876694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80733062132054337992008-03-12T12:53:00.000-07:002008-03-12T12:53:00.000-07:00I should also add that "twisted do-gooders" exist ...I should also add that "twisted do-gooders" exist in reality too. One of my sisters had a school dental nurse that picked mercilessly on her as a child. It was like something out of a Stephen King novel. She was eventually dismissed. We think now she had a kind of Munchausens.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73496028293032924902008-03-12T12:50:00.000-07:002008-03-12T12:50:00.000-07:00Ellen:>Some of those who volunteered were just the...Ellen:<BR/>>Some of those who volunteered were just the cynical, twisted "sob sister" do-gooder type which Catherine is depicted as having become.<BR/><BR/>Of course this is true. Twisted do-gooders (and wretched inmates) have been a staple of fiction since Dickens and earlier, right up to Kesey's Nurse Ratched. But these portraits are quite different in a) there are usually contrasting sympathetic examples of both included and b) they don't take place within the context of an overall philosophy that says altruism is evil.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-18265608883523990182008-03-12T12:32:00.000-07:002008-03-12T12:32:00.000-07:00Ellen: "And, yes, I certainly do get that Catherin...Ellen: "And, yes, I certainly do get that Catherine's enthusiasm is faked and is cynical."<BR/><BR/>Anymore than the enthusiasm expressed by a parent or a teacher about <I>any</I> drawing or collage of a "normal" child? Should they condemn or ridicule it while it isn't quite the equal of a Vermeer painting, or should they encourage the child knowing its limitations and realizing that it would be silly to apply the standards of judgment they'd use for an adult? <BR/><BR/>I can imagine that it really would be a remarkable achievement for such a "monster" like Jacky to create a recognizable image of a dog. BTW, the fifth leg was probably not a leg at all, that was just a misinterpretation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-36601914132550796062008-03-11T16:47:00.000-07:002008-03-11T16:47:00.000-07:00Also, Ellen, your experience working with disabled...Also, Ellen, your experience working with disabled kids and their caregivers seems to have been nearly the opposite of mine.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053206301930599116noreply@blogger.com