Seamless Objectivism


caroljane

Recommended Posts

>

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life.

Not in this world, no. Plenty of Eddies do live moral, happy and fulfilled lives. But there was no place for him in Galt's Gulch, and Ayn Rand knew it. Her great philosophical and creative imagination was directed against the world she did not want to live in, filled with people she did not want to live with. She created the fictional heroes she needed, and sketched the things that would not happen in an ideal world. To ask her to build and populate that world with bricks and mortar, and flesh and blood, would be too much to ask of any human being, however brilliant, however correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

>

Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life.

Not in this world, no. Plenty of Eddies do live moral, happy and fulfilled lives. But there was no place for him in Galt's Gulch, and Ayn Rand knew it. Her great philosophical and creative imagination was directed against the world she did not want to live in, filled with people she did not want to live with. She created the fictional heroes she needed, and sketched the things that would not happen in an ideal world. To ask her to build and populate that world with bricks and mortar, and flesh and blood, would be too much to ask of any human being, however brilliant, however correct.

There was a place there for a truck driver.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a place there for a truck driver.

--Brant

As well as the brakeman (I think he was a brakeman) who was whistling Halley's symphony on the train.

No, the brakeman was Halley's pupil. We don't say there was a place for laborers because Galt worked as one in the Taggart tunnels.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a place there for a truck driver.

--Brant

As well as the brakeman (I think he was a brakeman) who was whistling Halley's symphony on the train.

No, the brakeman was Halley's pupil. We don't say there was a place for laborers because Galt worked as one in the Taggart tunnels.

--Brant

I don't remember that at all but ok.

What do you mean "we" don't say there was a place for laborers? I don't understand that sentence.

Edited by pippi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a place there for a truck driver.

--Brant

As well as the brakeman (I think he was a brakeman) who was whistling Halley's symphony on the train.

No, the brakeman was Halley's pupil. We don't say there was a place for laborers because Galt worked as one in the Taggart tunnels.

--Brant

I don't remember that at all but ok.

What do you mean "we" don't say there was a place for laborers? I don't understand that sentence.

If I don't say and you do say then I apologize for saying "we." If you still don't understand the sentence, I must refuse further elaboration and go pour out some more whiskey.

--Brant

regardless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason Nathanial Branden couldn't have become the de facto intellectual heir anyway. Unfortunately, he seems content to rewrite the same book over and over, and is otherwise unwilling to step up to the plate. I don't even mean this as a knock on him, his life is his own after all, but it is an opportunity lost.

I have stated more than once that a serious Objectivist intellectual, with balls and with charisma, could throw a pass over the heads of the squabblers, and reunite the "Objectivist Movement", but Objectivism unfortunately (again) seems to produce mostly intellectuals afraid of their and Leonard Peikoff's shadows. Witness, for instance, the McCaskey affair from a few months ago, where virtually nobody of stature stepped up to the plate to support him. If, say, the Atlas Shrugged movie were to become a wild ass success, the context might be such that somebody could fill the role I am describing.

Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

Interesting speculations. But, unfortunately, despite the fantasies of the numerous "alternate history" writers, history cannot be (in reality, of course!) rewritten. However, not a bad pasttime for brief periods, especially as a diversion from real world catastrophes such as the situation right now in Egypt.

So,... back to some comments made:

1) An alternate history with either of the Brandens leading the Objectivist movement only makes sense if the supposition used is that the break with Rand had not occured at all. Once that happened, it was too late. You can't really expect those that have been publicly expelled - and excoriated - to be eager to try to assume the leadership of a movement whose founder/creator was still alive. If either of the Brandens had done that, they undoubtedly would have been hit with a torrent of abuse (i.e., SHITSTORM) from you-know-who. Sort of like pouring gasoline onto a fire, to use a less graphic metaphor. Anyway, Nathaniel quite sensibly wanted to re-establish his own career based on his specialty, psychology and psychotherapy.

2) However,... if the scenario is that the break had never occured, that's another story. Contrary to the speculations of her recent biographer, Jennifer Burns, I think that the movement would have continued to grow at an exponential rate if NBI had continued. That was definitely the trend of growth prior to the break.

3) "Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena."

Now that observation is definitely a showstopper. My guess is that they were already "pre-formed Eddie Willers." By that, I mean that many aspects of Objectivism struck them as intellectually sound, but had considerably more problems when it came to applying them in action in the actual practice of their lives.

Some people might bridle at that observation. Some may have easily "changed their lives" by putting in practice the principles in Rand's writings. And if that is true, more power to them! Go for it!

But, I think most or many people have had difficulty along these lines. Despite certain implications in Objectivism (e.g., "the moral is the practical"), I don't see where O'ism has created a lot of highly successful innovators in their chosen fields. In fact, most of the people who have been fabulously successful (techno-geeks, businessmen, scientists, etc. are not only not Objectivists, they give all indications that they are, instead, fanatical altruists (e.g., Gates, the Facebook creator - I forget his name, Steve Jobs, and others that have signed Warren Buffett's public pledge to give away most of their earned wealth). If Objectivism had been a major, no,... essential factor, in their rise to success and prominence in their fields, where are the testimonials? Wouldn't a substantial number of "real world" Roarks/Reardens/d'Anconias and proto-Galts be instead funding foundations to spread Objectivism, instead of signing the Buffett pledge? (In this context, someone might point to ARI or even TAS....please!!,...the efforts are insignificant compared to the billions that have been given by the wealthy to philantrhropic foundations, many of which have directly funded the Left.

The only statement that I am aware of by a self-created billionire, that a philosopher's writings were a major factor in creating success is George Soros, the super-rich funder of many "liberal" activities in the United States. He has directly credited Karl Popper for his success.

Jerry: your observations are unfortunately pretty well on the mark, especially as relates to "pre formed Eddie Willers", which also implicates issues such as sense of life, and the like, too complicated too discuss here. I am reminded here of the line from Achilles in the movie Troy, when the young boy admitted to Achilles that he, unlike Achilles, would never have the courage to fight Thesaly giant. Achilles' response: "That is why your name will never be remembered." Let's just say nobody ever became an Objectivist because of anything Eddie Willers had to say...

Objectivism was neutered when Rand died and Peikoff took over--this much is obvious. When the leader of a movement is no more than a cranky phd with a podcast castigating other leading Objectivist intellectuals as "pretentious ignoramuses" and others as "phds with podcasts", it is a fair to say that a strong wind is the face of the movement. When nobody of note steps up to call Peikoff on that sort of thing, one may fairly conclude that most of the leading Objectivists are more or less pussies, concerned most about their grant monies and a rough draft of something or other. My advice to them would be to put down their Harriman and pick up their Neitzche, or The Fountainhead.

My reference to Eddie Willers is really not meant to knock the Eddie Willers of this world. They (we?) are more than able to lead, as Phil says below, fulfilling and moral lives--just like many Presbyterian elders singing hymns to the lord in their nice churches on this Sunday morning. Eddie Willers would make a great usher in the balcony, but, as Achilles would say, his name will never be remembered.

My main problem with the Objectivist movement is that has lost its swagger. I see some Objectivist websites, run by supposed intellectuals giving day to day thyroid updates and the like and I just want to shout "are you shitting me?, but I am afraid that sort of thing is a metaphor for the movement.

Once the moxie goes, so does the momentum.

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: IN DEFENSE OF EDDIE WILLERS

> Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life. [Phil]

> So you think Ayn left Eddie with the skills to have a happy and fulfilling life by weeping and banging on a dead locomotive? [Adam}

> By Rand's reckoning without the Dagnys and the Hanks, Eddy is nothing. [baal]

> Eddie wasn't very happy [brant]

> Eddie Willers would make a great usher in the balcony, but, as Achilles would say, his name will never be remembered. [PDS]

I'm amazed at the thoughtless deprecation of Eddie. And at the view that Rand would share this deprecation.

"Nothing wrong..in terms of" means he -could- live a happy and fulfilling life. But not necessarily during social chaos or economic collapse. Eddie is not "nothing" without the great creators and producers (and law makers like Madison with the Constitution), but life is simply much harder. Eddie is simply not a productive genius. He is a hard and conscientious worker. We see him doing that and - those of us who work hard and conscientiously - can infer the happiness that leads to. He doesn't have the woman he loved, so that existentially detracts from his happiness. But, remember, the book is already quite long -- you can't include all sorts of family issues, children issues, the inner psychology of Eddie.

It's a slander against Eddie to call him the equivalent of an 'usher'. He's an executive and has risen to a high place in a major corporation. People like him pull down big bucks in good companies that reward their value. Did you read the article about Tim Cook, Jobs's second in command at Apple, who fills in for him when he is absent? He's not a creator but a brilliant organizer, supply chain and logistics guy. Enormously hard-working and relentless in focus. Always on top of the details. Maybe sort of a super-Eddie, as he's more than just an assistant.

[ Aside: We actually would be better off in the Oist movement if places like TAS had more Tim Cook or Eddie Willers type dudes in managerial and organizational positions and were a bit more egghead-philosopher lite in terms of balance of skills. It's not just too many chiefs and not enough indians pulling the train along the track, it's a certain hubristic-contempt for spending inordinate focus on nuts and bolts, those vital second order tasks and skills. As opposed to endless debates on particle physics. ]

Eddie is very appropriately a minor, semi-cardboard character in -this- story. You want to write a book about Eddie Willers, be my guest.

That might be valuable, actually, if done by someone competent and inspired. the Eddie factor is of *massive* importance in the running of a successful, prosperous capitalist economy. At least in principle, the kind of systematic and details-oriented "Atlas" who carries many if not most companies in the world on his shoulders. Most companies and organizations are developed to implement existing technology or to make things that have long existed work smoothly and cost-effectively whether they be the delivery of groceries or of nursing home care. They don't require that a new motor or metal be invented. Just that the existing ones be used with competence and sytstematic thoroughness.

> there was no place for him in Galt's Gulch...people she did not want to live with [Daunce]

I don't think so. Rand deeply admired him and never thought that everyone had to have the world class intellect of the greatest producers. Note the admirable traits she gives to other second level of productivity or insight characters, such as the Wet Nurse and Cherryl and Dave who walked off his railroad job rather than help the train run through the tunnel. (And similar characters in The Fountainhead.)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Note the admirable traits she gives to other second level of productivity or insight characters..."

I should have said, more accurately:

"Note the admirable traits she gives to other second or third or fourth level..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: IN DEFENSE OF EDDIE WILLERS

Eddie is very appropriately a minor, semi-cardboard character in -this- story. You want to write a book about Eddie Willers, be my guest.

This is how you defend his characterization? It's not even true. In any case, Rand didn't write "semi-cardboard" characterizations. There were a lot of two-dimensional characterizations--there had to be--but she made them come alive to the extent needed to justify their presence in the story. So much for the "cardboard."

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I want to say thank you to all the Little People who made the Big People possible.

Very Hollywood. No surprise that.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> "Eddie is very appropriately a minor, semi-cardboard character in -this- story." This is how you defend his characterization? It's not even true. In any case, Rand didn't write "semi-cardboard" characterizations. There were a lot of two-dimensional characterizations--there had to be--but she made them come alive to the extent needed to justify their presence in the story. [brant]

Word choice correction accepted:

Instead or "minor" or (even semi)"cardboard", I should have more precisely called him a secondary or "second-level" character. Important and present throughout the novel from childhood till the end of the story compared to a third-level character such as Cherryl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> And I want to say thank you to all the Little People who made the Big People possible. Very Hollywood. [baal]

Very snarky. The difference is that "little people" - usually meaning the person who carries the grip or paints the sets or gets coffee - is not as important as an executive who makes operational details happen.

Or as a Tim Cook is to Apple. Did you read the NYT business article this week? --->

" While Mr. Jobs obsesses over every last detail of Apple’s products, Mr. Cook obsesses over the less glamorous minutiae of Apple’s operations. Their complementary skills have helped Apple pull off the most remarkable turnaround in American business...he will have to compensate for the absence of Mr. Jobs — and his inventiveness, charisma and uncanny ability to predict the future of technology and anticipate the wishes of consumers....

...his job — making sure Apple could produce, assemble and ship its breakthrough products around the world, and do so profitably — was not considered sexy, he quickly removed inefficiencies from Apple’s supply chain...“He is Mr. Spreadsheet. If things weren’t right, he would torture the suppliers and demand improvement. At the same time, he had good relationships with them.” Apple was smaller then and largely focused on making PCs. Its operations were a mess. Apple was still running its own factories in California, Ireland and Singapore. While more profitable and efficient companies like Dell had moved to a just-in-time manufacturing model, Apple still held 90 days of inventory. Mr. Cook closed Apple’s factories and outsourced all manufacturing to a far-flung network of suppliers in Asia. Inventories decreased to 60 days, then to 30 days, then to the just-in-time model. Mr. Cook virtually lived in airplanes, traveling the world to meet with suppliers and browbeat them into meeting his demands...he had a reputation for his focus. “He was a very quiet, unassuming individual and very, very intense,” "

That's why I called him sort of a super-Eddie Willers, as he's more than an assistant.

But on the other hand, Eddie operated at times as more than an assistant. Note that, like Cook, Eddie basically ran Taggart Transcontinental and kept it above water when Dagny went on strike to her cabin in the mountains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> "Eddie is very appropriately a minor, semi-cardboard character in -this- story." This is how you defend his characterization? It's not even true. In any case, Rand didn't write "semi-cardboard" characterizations. There were a lot of two-dimensional characterizations--there had to be--but she made them come alive to the extent needed to justify their presence in the story. [brant]

Word choice correction accepted:

Instead or "minor" or (even semi)"cardboard", I should have more precisely called him a secondary or "second-level" character. Important and present throughout the novel from childhood till the end of the story compared to a third-level character such as Cherryl.

That's much, much better. I'd personally put him a little higher apropos his interaction with both John Galt and Dagny for most of the novel. That's a quibble.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: IN DEFENSE OF EDDIE WILLERS

> Besides, there's nothing wrong with Eddie Willers morally and in terms of living a happy and fulfilling life. [Phil]

> So you think Ayn left Eddie with the skills to have a happy and fulfilling life by weeping and banging on a dead locomotive? [Adam}

> By Rand's reckoning without the Dagnys and the Hanks, Eddy is nothing. [baal]

> Eddie wasn't very happy [brant]

> Eddie Willers would make a great usher in the balcony, but, as Achilles would say, his name will never be remembered. [PDS]

I'm amazed at the thoughtless deprecation of Eddie. And at the view that Rand would share this deprecation.

"Nothing wrong..in terms of" means he -could- live a happy and fulfilling life. But not necessarily during social chaos or economic collapse. Eddie is not "nothing" without the great creators and producers (and law makers like Madison with the Constitution), but life is simply much harder. Eddie is simply not a productive genius. He is a hard and conscientious worker. We see him doing that and - those of us who work hard and conscientiously - can infer the happiness that leads to. He doesn't have the woman he loved, so that existentially detracts from his happiness. But, remember, the book is already quite long -- you can't include all sorts of family issues, children issues, the inner psychology of Eddie.

It's a slander against Eddie to call him the equivalent of an 'usher'. He's an executive and has risen to a high place in a major corporation. People like him pull down big bucks in good companies that reward their value. Did you read the article about Tim Cook, Jobs's second in command at Apple, who fills in for him when he is absent? He's not a creator but a brilliant organizer, supply chain and logistics guy. Enormously hard-working and relentless in focus. Always on top of the details. Maybe sort of a super-Eddie, as he's more than just an assistant.

[ Aside: We actually would be better off in the Oist movement if places like TAS had more Tim Cook or Eddie Willers type dudes in managerial and organizational positions and were a bit more egghead-philosopher lite in terms of balance of skills. It's not just too many chiefs and not enough indians pulling the train along the track, it's a certain hubristic-contempt for spending inordinate focus on nuts and bolts, those vital second order tasks and skills. As opposed to endless debates on particle physics. ]

Eddie is very appropriately a minor, semi-cardboard character in -this- story. You want to write a book about Eddie Willers, be my guest.

That might be valuable, actually, if done by someone competent and inspired. the Eddie factor is of *massive* importance in the running of a successful, prosperous capitalist economy. At least in principle, the kind of systematic and details-oriented "Atlas" who carries many if not most companies in the world on his shoulders. Most companies and organizations are developed to implement existing technology or to make things that have long existed work smoothly and cost-effectively whether they be the delivery of groceries or of nursing home care. They don't require that a new motor or metal be invented. Just that the existing ones be used with competence and sytstematic thoroughness.

> there was no place for him in Galt's Gulch...people she did not want to live with [Daunce]

I don't think so. Rand deeply admired him and never thought that everyone had to have the world class intellect of the greatest producers. Note the admirable traits she gives to other second level of productivity or insight characters, such as the Wet Nurse and Cherryl and Dave who walked off his railroad job rather than help the train run through the tunnel. (And similar characters in The Fountainhead.)

Phil: are the comments you refer to above really "thoughtless", or simply thoughts you do not share? There is a difference, you know. In terms of fundamentals, Willers is an intentionally secondary figure. Is this a great controversy?

Don't let my usher comment throw you off, Eddie could have just as easily been compared to the Assistant Scout Master who works in the church basement for Troop 777. This is not a knock either. There is a difference between a highly competent functionary and those who move the world. The former is still a functionary.

It is a strange sign or our times that, in an Objectivist forum, a distinction--in terms of essentials--needs to be explained between the Howard Roarks of the world and the Eddie Willers of the world, and that offense is taken over this distinction. Although I know your views aren't thoughtless, to use a phrase, it occurs to me that perhaps you need to pick up your Nietzche too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This set me to wondering, where would the Objectivist movement be now if nothing had ever happened between the Brandens and Rand beyond continued intellectual partnership, and Nathaniel had remained her intellectual heir?

In his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosphy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path." (NB)

http://nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

Ths marks Objectivism as a closed system, and no closed philosophical/ideological/religious systems can survive without coercions being exerted on the followers.

If a closed system were just left to itself, it would naturally be transformed into something else, sometimes even to the point of disintegration.

Closed systems mean standstill and since there is no such thing as standstill in life, trying to keep a system closed against the resistance of those who want to open it up violates what I use call the vita in motu principle, and is doomed to fail in the end.

The Catholic Church is a classic example of a closed system whose leaders continually have had to resort to coercion to keep the organization from losing influence. Without this coercion, the Catholic Church (and other dogmatic religions) would long since have ceased to exist.

I think that NB, had there never been a break between him and Rand and had he remained her intellectual heir, would still have emancipated himself from Ayn Rand's influence after her death and have come to pretty much the same assession as he did in his detailed essay linked to above.

For NB (as opposed to L. Peikoff) is too diferentiated a thinker not to realize that dogmatism comes at too high a price, a price I'm convinced he would not have wanted to pay.

Imo Objectivism would have been subdivided in several groups, where people would pick some elements, discard others, etc. It is also thinkable that completely new movements and philosophies would have evolved from an Objectivist substrate.

Xray says: "Imo Objectivism would have been subdivided in several groups, where people would pick some elements, discard others, etc. It is also thinkable that completely new movements and philosophies would have evolved from an Objectivist substrate."

Not exactly going out on a limb there, Xray. Isn't this what in fact has happened?

I had actually written more or less the same thing in in the draft of my post but then decided to save it for a later post where I wanted to discuss the phenomenon of "patchwork philosophy" in more detail.

It can indeed be observed that people mostly quilt their own "patchwork philosophy" from various sources.

I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy which to me it is the very expression of invidualism.

And isn't one's life itself 'patchwork' as well? too. One continually works at it, discards some ideas, changes values by adopting new ideas, etc.

No philosophical system or ideology can come remotely close to covering life's complexities, and this is the reason why I adhere to none in terms of adopting it as a complete 'package'.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray says: "Imo Objectivism would have been subdivided in several groups, where people would pick some elements, discard others, etc. It is also thinkable that completely new movements and philosophies would have evolved from an Objectivist substrate."

Not exactly going out on a limb there, Xray. Isn't this what in fact has happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xray says: "Imo Objectivism would have been subdivided in several groups, where people would pick some elements, discard others, etc. It is also thinkable that completely new movements and philosophies would have evolved from an Objectivist substrate."

Not exactly going out on a limb there, Xray. Isn't this what in fact has happened?

I had actually written more or less the same thing in in the draft of my post but then decided to save it for a later post where I wanted to discuss the phenomenon of "patchwork philosophy" in more detail.

It can indeed be observed that people mostly quilt their own "patchwork philosophy" from various sources.

I'm an advocate of patchwork philosophy which to me it is the very expression of invidualism.

And isn't one's life itself 'patchwork' as well? too. One continually works at it, discards some ideas, changes values by adopting new ideas, etc.

No philosophical system or ideology can come remotely close to covering life's complexities, and this is the reason why I adhere to none in terms of adopting it as a complete 'package'.

Objectivism seems to attract intellectuals because of the likes of Howard Roark and Hank Reardon, and then turns them into the likes of Eddie Willers. I have really never understood this phenomena.

N. Branden commented on the problematic of expecting others to be like the heroes/heroines in Rand's novels:

N. Branden, The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand

http://nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

Her readers come to me and they say; “Boy, it was so great. I read her books and I got rid of the guilt that the Church laid on me. I got rid of the guilt over sex. Or wanting to make money.” “Why have you come to see me?,” I ask. “Well, now I’m guilty about something else. I’m not as good as John Galt. Sometimes I’m not even sure I’m as good as Eddie Willers,” they respond.

Rand might respond, “But these people are guilty of pretentiousness and grandiosity!” Sure they are, at least some of the time. Although when you tell people, as Rand did, that one of the marks of virtue is to value the perfection of your soul above all things, not your happiness, not your enjoyment of life, not the joyful fulfillment of your positive possibilities, but the perfection of your soul, aren’t you helping to set people up for just this kind of nonsense?

A man came to me a little while ago for psychotherapy. He was involved in a love affair with a woman. He was happy with her. She was happy with him. But he had a problem; he wasn’t convinced she was worthy of him—he wasn’t convinced she was “enough.” And why not? Because, although she worked for a living, her life was not organized around some activity comparable to building railroads. “She isn’t a Dagny Taggart.” The fact that he was happy with her seemed to matter less to him than the fact that she didn’t live up to a certain notion of what the ideal woman was supposed to be like.

If he had said, “I’m worried about our future because, although I enjoy her right now, I don’t know whether or not there’s enough intellectual stimulation there,” that would have been a different question entirely and a far more understandable one. What was bothering him was not his own misgivings but a voice inside him, a voice which he identified as the voice of Ayn Rand, saying “She’s not Dagny Taggart.” When I began by gently pointing out to him that he wasn’t John Galt, it didn’t make him feel any better—it made him feel worse!

Interesting about Eddie is that nearly every reader of AS seems to like him as a person. That's why the fate he meets is so hard to bear.

Eddie is a nice guy, both loyal and smart, and one of the few characters in AS who comes across as empathetic person. Imo this is the main reason why so many like him.

In terms of trying to model oneself after the character of a novel, or to expect others to be like characters in novels - imo it is mostly younger persons who are inclined to do this.

I recall being quite impressed by the main character Dr. Rieux in Camus' novel "The Plague" which I read at the age of sixteen. In my eyes, Rieux was such a noble character and a 'courageous altruist' as well; he perfectly represented the picture of the 'ideal man' I had in mind back then. :)

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his early-70s Reason interview, Branden said that Peikoff had flirted with heresy and had been put on probabation or sent into temporary exile more than once; some day, Branden speculated, Peikoff might "break free" (an allusion to Branden's then-current book). We all know what happened to that. Getting the heave-ho seems to be a necessary condition of leaving behind Objectivism's dark side. If Branden had stuck with Rand for the remaining 24 years of her life, I'm afraid, he would have become just what Peikoff became.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re:John & Dagny et al

Thinking about the many readers who become interested in Objectivism through admiration of her heroes and heroines, I wonder if this isn't one reason that Objectivism attracts relatively few women compared with men.

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I had been told it was a great novel by someone whose literary judgment I trusted. I finished it feeling alarmed and depressed. I didn't want to emulate the women or sleep with the men. I knew, with gloomy certainty, that I was definitely a second-hander, probably a moocher, and would possibly descend to looting if I got the chance.

Those are hard facts to face when you are 18. It took me quite a while to get my self-esteem back.

And I eventually married a guy named Eddie.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re:John & Dagny et al

Thinking about the many readers who become interested in Objectivism through admiration of her heroes and heroines, I wonder if this isn't one reason that Objectivism attracts relatively few women compared with men.

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I had been told it was a great novel by someone whose literary judgment I trusted. I finished it feeling alarmed and depressed. I didn't want to emulate the women or sleep with the men. I knew, with gloomy certainty, that I was definitely a second-hander, probably a moocher, and would possibly descend to looting if I got the chance.

Those are hard facts to face when you are 18. It took me quite a while to get my self-esteem back.

And I eventually married a guy named Eddie.

My favorite author has always been Graham Greene. Luckily, I never became a whiskey priest or anybody's Man in Havanna...And, sorry about your hubby's name :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite author has always been Graham Greene. Luckily, I never became a whiskey priest or anybody's Man in Havanna...And, sorry about your hubby's name :lol: :lol:

That's OK - the jury seems to be out on Eddie Willers, but Eddie Lynam was a hero's name.

But imagine the though of John Galt as a boyfriend - a guy with only two conversational modes: brusque imperatives ("Get out of my way") and three-hour monologues. Definitely a winner on the speed-dating circuit.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re:John & Dagny et al

Thinking about the many readers who become interested in Objectivism through admiration of her heroes and heroines, I wonder if this isn't one reason that Objectivism attracts relatively few women compared with men.

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I had been told it was a great novel by someone whose literary judgment I trusted. I finished it feeling alarmed and depressed. I didn't want to emulate the women or sleep with the men. I knew, with gloomy certainty, that I was definitely a second-hander, probably a moocher, and would possibly descend to looting if I got the chance.

Those are hard facts to face when you are 18. It took me quite a while to get my self-esteem back.

And I eventually married a guy named Eddie.

I've never returned to Atlas Shrugged, since my first time.

Now, it is about time, after 30-odd years, to read it again.

Back then, it was too overwhelming for a (let's say) susceptible young man.

Come to think of it, I have never thought of it as a novel, more like a final statement consuming every last ounce of mental and spiritual energy of its author.

It is a great novel in its scope and depth, but it hurt to read. I prefer Objectivism 'straight up', in her non-fiction.

And, I also didn't want to emulate the men, or sleep with the women :rolleyes: Maybe after seeing the film...

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re:John & Dagny et al

Thinking about the many readers who become interested in Objectivism through admiration of her heroes and heroines, I wonder if this isn't one reason that Objectivism attracts relatively few women compared with men.

I remember reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. I had been told it was a great novel by someone whose literary judgment I trusted. I finished it feeling alarmed and depressed. I didn't want to emulate the women or sleep with the men. I knew, with gloomy certainty, that I was definitely a second-hander, probably a moocher, and would possibly descend to looting if I got the chance.

Those are hard facts to face when you are 18. It took me quite a while to get my self-esteem back.

And I eventually married a guy named Eddie.

I've never returned to Atlas Shrugged, since my first time.

Now, it is about time, after 30-odd years, to read it again.

Back then, it was too overwhelming for a (let's say) susceptible young man.

Come to think of it, I have never thought of it as a novel, more like a final statement consuming every last ounce of mental and spiritual energy of its author.

It is a great novel in its scope and depth, but it hurt to read. I prefer Objectivism 'straight up', in her non-fiction.

And, I also didn't want to emulate the men, or sleep with the women :rolleyes: Maybe after seeing the film...

Tony

I'm with you on AS. I read The Fountainhead at least a dozen times, but AS maybe twice. Poor, poor pitiful me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

X-Ray brought up Nathaniel Branden's article:

"In his article "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosphy of Ayn Rand", Nathaniel Branden wrote:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. "

Reading what he wrote here, it is obvious that he mis-interpreted what Ayn was saying. That may have been caused by his exposure to her controlling personality, but these words that he attributes to her and which are repeated else where by her actually make perfect sense. Her philosophy is described as an integrated, non-contradictory philosophy for living on this earth. And it sure looks that way to me. Sometimes posters here say that there are contradictions in Objectivism. But I can't see them myself. I would like to have them pointed out.

As to Branden's claim that her statement leads to a religious following by her fans - that obviously happened, but that is more a statement about the fans under Rand's direct influence than about Objectivism.

And another thing - Rand herself expected Objectivism to be expanded upon by others. Why is there so much talk about open and closed systems of Objectivism? Of course it is open - all knowledge is open ended.

If I could make one wish about the split, it would be that it had not happened - that the players would have worked things out like the intellectuals they were but didn't live up to, and helped each other reach even greater heights - including Leonard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now