The Randianesque Quasi-Nihilism of Penn Jillette

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Yes, everyone knows there's a huge difference between a mere nihilist on one hand and a raving, sex-crazed, whim-worshipping coke head on the other. A huge one.

Beautiful, Ted. I love it.

“Penn can’t be a nihilist because he is kind to his mother, blah-blah-blah….”

I have no intention of wasting my time spelling it out to you, Adam. You’re obviously too busy yukking it up to give a damn.

Dennis,

I just think Penn is incredibly superficial. There is a brand of libertarian that really does believe in liberty that doesn't really care deep down about human greatness. I put Nick Gillespie in that category, too. They are libertarians because they want to be able to carry guns and ride motorcycles without helmets, but when it comes to really caring about human achievement, it doesn't reach them at some level. If they did a segment on Einstein, they'd get hung up on his wild hair or make jokes about marrying cousins.

Of course he'd think Rand was a whack job, she was too busy writing great novels and building a philosophical system to go to a comedy club and listen to crass jokes about things the comedian really should care about. The comedian is too cool not to get in a cheap laugh at the first opportunity.

Jim

[Jonathan]

The difference between Penn and any other nihilist is that he pays cynical, patronizing lip service to some of the values that he sneers at.

Which "values" did Penn "sneer" at? The only things I saw him sneer at in the video were Rand's nutty views on Hickman, and the cult-like mentality that she helped cultivate (intentionally or not) among her followers. So, are you saying that you value (and that Penn should value) the romanticizing of murderers whom Rand romanicized, and that you value discouraging independent thought or disagreement with any of Rand's beliefs, no matter how wacky?

J

[kiaer.ts]

The difference between Penn and any other nihilist is that he pays cynical, patronizing lip service to some of the values that he sneers at.

Which "values" did Penn "sneer" at? The only things I saw him sneer at in the video were Rand's nutty views on Hickman, and the cult-like mentality that she helped cultivate (intentionally or not) among her followers. So, are you saying that you value (and that Penn should value) the romanticizing of murderers whom Rand romanicized, and that you value discouraging independent thought or disagreement with any of Rand's beliefs, no matter how wacky?

J

Well those are some whacky ideas, Jonathan, but I'll bet you're great in bed.

In fact, I'd fuck you at the drop of a hat. whoa, sniffle, sniffle.

[Jonathan]

Well those are some whacky ideas, Jonathan, but I'll bet you're great in bed.

Really? You think it's wacky of me to believe that Rand's romanticizing of a butcherer of a little girl was a bit nutty?

In fact, I'd fuck you at the drop of a hat. whoa, sniffle, sniffle.

If you're a true Objectivist, then it would make sense that you should want to fuck me at the drop of a hat. I'm a real-life Objectivist hero -- a living, breathing Howard Roark -- so all rational valuers should see me as their ideal man and be very sexually attracted to me. Anyone who's not highly sexually attracted to me probably has some serious self-esteem problems and other mental issues.

J

[9thdoctor]

In fact, I'd fuck you at the drop of a hat. whoa, sniffle, sniffle.

If you're a true Objectivist, then it would make sense that you should want to fuck me at the drop of a hat.

You're such a cute couple!

[kiaer.ts]

You obviously didn't watch that disgusting video, ND, or you'd recognize the irony, sniffle, sniffle.

I didn't say I found Jonathan sexually attractive, only that, were I like the pig in the video, I'd fuck him, sniffle, sniffle.

Jonathan's response, further mocking Rand, makes it a bit more clear to me why Newberry despises him.

[BaalChatzaf]

. Anyone who's not highly sexually attracted to me probably has some serious self-esteem problems and other mental issues.

J

And is probably a Krypto Kantian. (Which is worse? Being a Krypto Kantian or a Hidden Humean?)

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 26, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Kimmler]

I think Penn and Teller should be banned until they are given a compulsory humour injection.

[BaalChatzaf]

I think Penn and Teller should be banned until they are given a compulsory humour injection.

If you like humor which is hostile and vicious, they are pretty funny. I like humor that cuts and kills.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

Can you care deeply about something and spit on it at the same time? He appears to give it a shot.

There are a few facets to that, aren't there?

When you get 'caught out' concerning something you admire that it's not 'hip' to admire, you can quickly resort to a laugh at yourself and the subject, to show you really didn't mean it.

Also, when some principle, or principled person, stands in stark contrast to your own deficiencies (and you secretly know it),how many have the integrity to resist diminishing the principle to themselves, rather than live up to it?

Adding in the common and over-used comedic trick of taking on the high and mighty - since audiences always enjoy seeing the mighty fallen - and you get a hip, neo-modernist, quasi-nihilist comedian, Mr Penn.

Tony

[9thdoctor]

You obviously didn't watch that disgusting video, ND, or you'd recognize the irony, sniffle, sniffle.

Which disgusting video? Must have missed it. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8805&view=findpost&p=101425

I didn't say I found Jonathan sexually attractive, only that, were I like the pig in the video, I'd fuck him, sniffle, sniffle.

Ah, I see, make ‘em squeeeeel!!!

Not such a cute couple, after all.

[equality72521]

My question is did Rand really say that about the serial killer and if so what was the context. I don't ever remember reading that and I have read most of Rand's works.

[Selene]

My question is did Rand really say that about the serial killer and if so what was the context. I don't ever remember reading that and I have read most of Rand's works.

Yes, she did. I have not read the Heller book, probably will start it this next week, but the Goddess book documents it quite well.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

The comments are published in her Journals. They don't bother me at all when read in context. Surprising Harriman and the estate trusted the public enough to let them read such comments.

[Jonathan]

Jonathan's response, further mocking Rand, makes it a bit more clear to me why Newberry despises him.

I don't doubt that part of what irritates Newberry about me is that I sometimes enjoy laughing at idiocy. But it's really not the primary issue. Even when I've been very polite with Newberry he's whined that I'm a big nasty meanie for disagreeing with him. So, his biggest problem with me is that I correct the untrue statements that he makes and challenge his hypocrisies. He doesn't really detest me so much as he detests being wrong and being put into situations where it's obvious to everyone who is following along that he should change his opinions and apologize for his errors. I'm just the messenger whom he likes to attack as a means of avoiding accepting reality.

J

Edited October 27, 2010 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

The comments are published in her Journals. They don't bother me at all when read in context.

Seriously? You're not bothered by Rand's expressions of contempt for the 'masses' who were outraged by Hickman's crimes? She claimed that they had committed worse sins and crimes than Hickman had (presumably the crime of being average), and that it wasn't his crimes that had upset them, but his daring individualism. That's nutty. It's whackjob.

I wonder, do any of you who are disgusted by Penn's comments think that he too has committed worse crimes than Hickman's? Do you think that mocking Rand for having romanticized the Hickman case is worse than mutilating a little girl?

J

Edited October 27, 2010 by Jonathan

[anthony]

The comments are published in her Journals. They don't bother me at all when read in context.

Seriously? You're not bothered by Rand's expressions of contempt for the 'masses' who were outraged by Hickman's crimes? She claimed that they had committed worse sins and crimes than Hickman had (presumably the crime of being average), and that it wasn't his crimes that had upset them, but his daring individualism. That's nutty. It's whackjob.

I wonder, do any of you who are disgusted by Penn's comments think that he too has committed worse crimes than Hickman's? Do you think that mocking Rand for having romanticized the Hickman case is worse than mutilating a little girl?

J

Jonathan,

That's apples and oranges you're comparing there, and unjust.

The Hickman thread on OL said it all: nobody - the greatest admirers of Rand included - was not astonished and disgusted by what she was thinking (what was she thinking?!) out loud in her Journals.

But back to Penn; aren't you missing the fact that while damning Rand with faint praise, he managed to fit in this very early (in her career) abberation of hers ...without one mention of her values and over-riding greatness? Does he presume that all his viewers are fully aware of the context and perspective regarding Rand's work in toto, as we are?

It is possible, but not credible.

This is like, say, a short TV insert on Ronald Reagan, that dedicates a portion of the air time to his inept delivery of a line in one of the 'B' movies he acted in, or something unrepresentative of his complete life.

Tony

[PDS]

The comments are published in her Journals. They don't bother me at all when read in context.

Seriously? You're not bothered by Rand's expressions of contempt for the 'masses' who were outraged by Hickman's crimes? She claimed that they had committed worse sins and crimes than Hickman had (presumably the crime of being average), and that it wasn't his crimes that had upset them, but his daring individualism. That's nutty. It's whackjob.

I wonder, do any of you who are disgusted by Penn's comments think that he too has committed worse crimes than Hickman's? Do you think that mocking Rand for having romanticized the Hickman case is worse than mutilating a little girl?

J

Jonathan,

That's apples and oranges you're comparing there, and unjust.

The Hickman thread on OL said it all: nobody - the greatest admirers of Rand included - was not astonished and disgusted by what she was thinking (what was she thinking?!) out loud in her Journals.

But back to Penn; aren't you missing the fact that while damning Rand with faint praise, he managed to fit in this very early (in her career) abberation of hers ...without one mention of her values and over-riding greatness? Does he presume that all his viewers are fully aware of the context and perspective regarding Rand's work in toto, as we are?

It is possible, but not credible.

This is like, say, a short TV insert on Ronald Reagan, that dedicates a portion of the air time to his inept delivery of a line in one of the 'B' movies he acted in, or something unrepresentative of his complete life.

Tony

Well said.

[Xray]

Every apparent nihilist is necessarily a quasi-nihilist, since he cannot live without values of some kind. Frankly, I doubt if Penn has the slightest clue what his real values are (other than grossly offensive behavior and principled irreverence for everything). No doubt he would try to piss on them if he did.

No person can live without values, since we are all, qua humans, valuing, goal-seeking entities.

A nihilist who decides to stay alive obviously still values life over death. If on the other hand, someone chooses death, he/she values non-existence over existence.

It is impossible for us not to attribute value to this or that.

As for Penn, he is irreverent, pretty crude, cynical and sarcastic, but I don't think he is a nihilist.

Frankly, I doubt if Penn has the slightest clue what his real values are (other than grossly offensive behavior and principled irreverence for everything). No doubt he would try to piss on them if he did.

We may not agree with someone's hierarchy of values (even vehemently disagree with their choice), but a person's "real" values are always the values he/she holds highest.

Anyone else notice he's high on coke in this clip?

What exactly indicates to you that he is on coke (and not on some other drug, like e. g 'speed')?

Edited October 27, 2010 by Xray

[Jonathan]

That's apples and oranges you're comparing there, and unjust.

The Hickman thread on OL said it all: nobody - the greatest admirers of Rand included - was not astonished and disgusted by what she was thinking (what was she thinking?!) out loud in her Journals.

So why is upsetting to people that Penn also expressed astonishment and disgust at Rand's comments on the Hickman case? It's okay for others to express their opinions, but Penn is a "nihilist" for saying the same things?

But back to Penn; aren't you missing the fact that while damning Rand with faint praise, he managed to fit in this very early (in her career) abberation of hers ...without one mention of her values and over-riding greatness?

Huh? Penn said that he's a real fan of Atlas Shrugged and a real fan of Rand. He said that he agrees with a lot of what she said. Why do you label his admiration of her as "faint praise"? It's the negative stuff in the clip that was faint and sort of parenthetical.

Does he presume that all his viewers are fully aware of the context and perspective regarding Rand's work in toto, as we are? It is possible, but not credible.

Are you saying that if a person wishes to be critical of Rand in any way, then it's also his duty to give a speech on the value of Rand's work in toto? In the middle of his little youtube clip, Penn was supposed to stop everything and provide an outline of her philosophy and its value to him?

And does the same apply to anyone else, or is it just Rand who can't be criticized without also being overwhelmingly praised at the same time?

This is like, say, a short TV insert on Ronald Reagan, that dedicates a portion of the air time to his inept delivery of a line in one of the 'B' movies he acted in, or something unrepresentative of his complete life.

So, your view is that any comment that anyone makes about any other person must be "representative of his complete life"? God, what dull and pedantic world we'd live in if we had to summarize others' lives and works in toto any time we said anything about them.

J

[rodney203]

Not taking any sides, but rather just putting this out as a look from a slightly different view point.

A "news story/commentary" was produced to function as a vehicle for advertisment of a game software company. There is even a "game" out there that, ostensibly, has "objectivism" as a theme in the game. I would be willing to bet that the software company who sponsored the clip (and paid Penn) is the same company who makes the game. The "objectivist" game was made, itself, because certain young people have picked up on some of the tenents and ideas of Objectivism; though I am sure that most of them understand Objectivism little. This was done to sell a game. We know that in the advertising world NOTHING appears, or gets done, by accident. Everything is planned. Everything that was said, and the manner in which it was done, in the ad, was designed toward the targeted consumer group, including the choice of Penn as the speaker. As such, the clip was at least as much, if not more so, a commentary on the target consumer audience as of the speaker, Penn.

[Selene]

Not taking any sides, but rather just putting this out as a look from a slightly different view point.

A "news story/commentary" was produced to function as a vehicle for advertisment of a game software company. There is even a "game" out there that, ostensibly, has "objectivism" as a theme in the game. I would be willing to bet that the software company who sponsored the clip (and paid Penn) is the same company who makes the game. The "objectivist" game was made, itself, because certain young people have picked up on some of the tenents and ideas of Objectivism; though I am sure that most of them understand Objectivism little. This was done to sell a game. We know that in the advertising world NOTHING appears, or gets done, by accident. Everything is planned. Everything that was said, and the manner in which it was done, in the ad, was designed toward the targeted consumer group, including the choice of Penn as the speaker. As such, the clip was at least as much, if not more so, a commentary on the target consumer audience as of the speaker, Penn.

Damn! I sure missed that, Rodney.

"There is even a "game" out there that, ostensibly, has "objectivism" as a theme in the game. I would be willing to bet that the software company who sponsored the clip (and paid Penn) is the same company who makes the game."

What is the name of that game? If you know.

[rodney203]

The game out there is something about "bioshock". It seems that objectivism is some kind of theme in the game. Of course, you know it's all perverted up and such; un-philosophical, crass, etc.,,,,,,,,, kind of like the ad with Penn.

[Selene]

The game out there is something about "bioshock". It seems that objectivism is some kind of theme in the game. Of course, you know it's all perverted up and such; un-philosophical, crass, etc.,,,,,,,,, kind of like the ad with Penn.

Ahh ok - I have heard of it.

I am a chess and Avalon Hill military game person, primarily. Cards, backgammon. Not an on line or video game player.

[anthony]

I wonder, do any of you who are disgusted by Penn's comments think that he too has committed worse crimes than Hickman's? Do you think that mocking Rand for having romanticized the Hickman case is worse than mutilating a little girl?

J

Jonathan,

It's these queries I first picked on. "Has Penn committed worse crimes than Hickman?" "Mocking Rand worse than mutilating...?".

Huh? That's silly, and you know it.

It seems you are mixing up four different things - in order of increasing wrong:

a. The "disgust" here at Penn's lack of honesty and consistency.

b. His overbalanced criticism of Rand regarding Hickman,

c. Rand's temporary (and largely inexplicable) admiration of Hickman,

d. Hickman's vile actions.

One thing does not compare with another; for the purpose of this discussion it makes no sense to go past 1 and 2.

What I've seen of Penn - albeit, only two episodes - convinces me that he is a cheap-shot merchant, with little integrity, and humor. He's just not in the same class as the best comedians of the US I've heard.

And I don't think he's worth going to war over.

B)

Tony