henry_cameron

making the strike a reality

Recommended Posts

Here is a question which I've recently sent to Leonard Peikoff, but he didn't answer it in his podcast. Maybe it was asked previously, but I didn't find. In the meantime, the question really bothers me.

So, has Ayn Rand ever thought of making the strike a reality? Of actually stoping publishing books and going with a bunch of businessmen to a valley in Colorado mountains?

And now, shouldn't we all instead of discussing ObamaCare go to strike?

Because if not, then it turns out that all this Atlas Shrugged thing is just fiction, nothing more, and has nothing to do with reality, isn't it?

You know, now there are thousants (if not tens or even hundreds of thousants) people in the world who claim to be objectivists. So what? The first thing one would hope to read on this forum is the discussion of an appropriate place for valley. Yet, I do not see anything like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, has Ayn Rand ever thought of making the strike a reality? Of actually stoping publishing books and going with a bunch of businessmen to a valley in Colorado mountains?

Welcome to OL. You're from Russia, wow.

Ayn Rand answered basically the same question in the Q&A period following her talk “Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World”. Here’s a link where you can listen for free. I’m not sure where in the Q&A it was, but if you’re new to her work (I gather that’s the case) you’ll certainly enjoy the whole thing.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_faith_and_force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question which I've recently sent to Leonard Peikoff, but he didn't answer it in his podcast. Maybe it was asked previously, but I didn't find. In the meantime, the question really bothers me.

So, has Ayn Rand ever thought of making the strike a reality? Of actually stoping publishing books and going with a bunch of businessmen to a valley in Colorado mountains?

And now, shouldn't we all instead of discussing ObamaCare go to strike?

Because if not, then it turns out that all this Atlas Shrugged thing is just fiction, nothing more, and has nothing to do with reality, isn't it?

You know, now there are thousants (if not tens or even hundreds of thousants) people in the world who claim to be objectivists. So what? The first thing one would hope to read on this forum is the discussion of an appropriate place for valley. Yet, I do not see anything like this.

For every one who goes on "strike" there will be a hundred clamoring for his job. The Scabs outnumber everything.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikhail:

Welcome to OL. Добро пожаловат.

That is an interesting choice of OL name - Henry Cameron.

I have always been a proponent of the strike as a tool and tactic. Yes, as Ba'al stated, in the beginning there would be hundreds taking the vacated jobs.

However, if Ayn's theory is potentially valid, eventually the incompetent would be elevated and the system would collapse.

Your country is a classic example of the brain drain in action. Russia cannot even maintain its population. If it was not for the Muslim reproduction rate, the population collapse would be accelerated.

How did you come to reading Ayn's works and what career are you pursuing in Russia?

Adam

Are there any good hidden valleys in Russia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikhail,

Welcome to OL.

What's wrong with a fiction book being fiction?

Are you claiming that just because people are not collectively following a plot device in a fiction work, the individualistic philosophy presented in it is not based on reality?

Isn't that a bit of an oversimplification?

Incidentally, I did go on a one-man strike as a musician. I gave it up even though I was very good at it. This was one of the most excruciating things I have ever done in life.

You should only do something like that if you believe your effort will make some kind of difference. I learned that lesson the hard way. My strike didn't make a difference to anyone but my enemies, who then had a clearer field for them to advance than before.

I now regret doing it.

Notice that Objectivism is not a philosophy of self-sacrifice.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider Objectivists Paul Ryan, representative from Minnesota, and Rand Paul Senator from Kentucky, The Tea Party, and others. You could argue for withdrawal and survivalism, political activism, or ever revolution, but don't burn out just yet.

Change is coming.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best things about OL is it doesn't take GG very seriously.

Ouch! Good one!<< this was to the band post before your edit.

Edited by Selene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody seen that Ridley video about Nullification, on OL. It sounds like a succession movement if taken to its extreme.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider Objectivists Paul Ryan, representative from Minnesota, and Rand Paul Senator from Kentucky, The Tea Party, and others.

About 2/3 of Tea Partiers are conservatives protesting Obama, rather than libertarians protesting an intrusive State. Although yes, the 1/3 remaining are, if not fully consistent libertarians, strongly libertarian-leaning. As conservatives infiltrated and undermined the Tea Party movement it became much lower quality.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, yet alone an Objectivist. He's religious, socially conservative in many respects as well.

Paul Ryan is a Rand-admirer but hardly an Objectivist since he's a Roman Catholic. However, out of all the people you mention, Ryan is the most likely to be sympathetic to Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starship Trooper studiodekadent soberly wrote:

Quote

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, yet alone an Objectivist. He's religious, socially conservative in many respects as well.

Paul Ryan is a Rand-admirer but hardly an Objectivist since he's a Roman Catholic. However, out of all the people you mention, Ryan is the most likely to be sympathetic to Objectivism.

End quote

In hindsight, considering her later years, I could (half to three-quarters) seriously argue that Ayn Rand was religious about Objectivism.

She was socially conservative in many respects as well, though not in conservatism’s main issue, abortion.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary:

con•ser•va•tism NOUN:

The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.

A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

End quote

Ayn was for keeping, but fixing the American Constitution. Both Ryan and Paul are fans of Rand, and they agree with her.

Without cynicism I can say that election in America currently requires at least infrequently going to a “church” and it requires that you not profess to “being an atheist.” Both of these gentlemen belong to churches and they were elected. I can state positively that their religion will no more interfere with their reason, than would Ayn Rand’s (arguable) religious attachment to Objectivism.

Paul Ryan spoke at a ceremony honoring Ayn Rand. (was it dedication of a statue?)

Paul is named Rand and is influenced by that choice of descriptive name. During his campaign he quoted her from memory, and even adopted one of her stances to disastrous results (the right of a businessman to serve whom he chooses.)

All in all I will enthusiastically support Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.

Most Social Conservatives in the Tea Party have agreed to put their social agenda on the back burner. Then once elected they will prudently push their social agenda. And other Tea Party members are free to tell them to cool it.

It is called “The Tea Party,” not “The Tease Party.” I have seen countless sham, class acts throughout my life, and I am rarely fooled. It is the real deal.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And she got abortion wrong anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> And she got abortion wrong anyway.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam wrote:

Quote

And she got abortion wrong anyway.

End quote

Philip Coates responded:

Quote

Nope.

End quote.

Rand’s original stance is expressed in, “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, 58–59.:

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”

End quote

What many fail to acknowledge is that her stance DID BECOME MODIFIED CONTEXTUALLY. She later wrote in “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3.

quote

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .

End quote

I truly think that with what we now know about the growth of a human inside its Mother, that Rand would hold a closer proximity to the position of the brilliant, philosopher and musician, Roger Bissell. Once again, this proves that true contextual change to Objectivism will come from outside The Ayn Rand Institute.

Here is a quote from Roger Bissell's article, "Thoughts on Abortion and Child Support," that appeared in the September 1981 issue of Reason Magazine:

Quote

"Much earlier than previously suspected, according to recent findings, Neurophysiologists have made EEG measurements of developing fetuses and prematurely born babies and discovered that the patterns of electrical brain activity prior to the 28th week of development are radically and fundamentally different from those occurring *after* the 28th week.

In, "The Conscious Brain," Steven Rose, a British neurophysiologist, observes that ‘before 28 weeks the patterns are very simple and lacking in any of the characteristic forms which go to make up the adult EEG pattern.' Then, between the 28th and 32nd weeks, the theta, delta, and alpha waves of the adult make their appearance - at first only periodically, ‘occurring in brief, spasmodic bursts; but after 32 weeks the pattern of waves becomes more continuous, and characteristic differences begin to appear into the EEG pattern of the waking and sleeping infant.'

American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura concurs with Rose. In a recent interview, Purpura defined ‘brain life' as ‘the capacity of the cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of the brain, to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness and other genetically recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits.' Brain Life, said Purpura, begins between the 28th and 32nd weeks of pregnancy."

end quote

Adam and Phil, and all readers of what I now write, I think that in the contexts of Ayn Rand’s life at various times, her positions on abortion were *justified* though they were not *true belief* which is what we also call a *fact*. To this day pro-abortion proponents will argue that Consciousness in a baby that has gestated for 28 week is not a valid prerequisite for the imputation of rights; it must be born. I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence inside its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. The baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotle’s and Rand’s law of identity is one that is based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect Mr. Bissell’s argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*.

A study of personal identity is not mysterious if you are talking about yourself. And it is still child’s play if we are talking about someone else. To be a bit silly let me posit a case of uncertain identity: “Mom? Is that you? Well, Mom, I can ‘t be sure. What is the password?”

How do we know a person’s identity persists from the 28th week of gestation? And how do we re-identify ourselves in the morning after awakening, or another person if we have not seen them since last month? Human beings have the least trouble re-identifying themselves or someone else, yet once again, pro-abortion rights group say there is no rights bearing entity present until after birth.

If it looks like a baby human, and it thinks like a baby human, it is a baby human. If it can be demonstrated that many of the modes of thinking are present at the age of 28 weeks of gestation, that are also present in a mature, conceptually thinking adult, then it obviously is a human person at a younger age.

To reiterate: fMRI’s show that a conscious fetus, sleeps, dreams and can redirect its attention. The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist. You are conscious. You remember. Outside of Science Fiction, personal identity in yourself or others can be demonstrated, through brain wave patterns and physical presence.

Sound is present in the womb and the baby pays attention to the sounds it hears, and remembers them. When my daughter Sarah was born a tray was dropped by a nurse, over to baby Sarah’s left. She instantly turned her head left to look at the source of the sound. The nurse assured me that was normal unless a baby was lethargic from anti-pain shots given to the Mother.

The persistence of consciousness from its inception onwards, is self-evident. It exists at some point and does not cease to exist until death (which could also be complete and irreversible mental loss, though the body lives on.) A conscious baby in the womb is the same conscious baby out of the womb, and it will grow into the same conscious adult: this embodies the Law of Identity.

Oh, if I could speak to Ayn Rand today! SHE WOULD AGREE WITH ME! What a wondrous time it would be if Ayn revisited all of her works and within her PRESENT context she could make her writings *justified* and *true*.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, she got it wrong. No big deal.

I worked in research during the summer that I turned sixteen with a cardiovascular and thoracic surgeon who had just finished working on a project involving intelligence and dolphins and we had long discussions about the nature of intelligence and brain formations.

He was way ahead of his time. This was 1963.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter and Adam,

With fast developing knowledge, Objectivism should stand the test of time and truth, and be adaptable - in application - not, in principle. It has and does, in my opinion.

As science identifies more about consciousness, so should the philosophy adjust, happily, in those applications. (What Peter calls "modified contextually"). In the mean time, before achieving omniscience, it might be wise to give a lot of benefit of the doubt, and enough leeway, to life in all its forms, don't you agree?

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter and Adam,

With fast developing knowledge, Objectivism should stand the test of time and truth, and be adaptable - in application - not, in principle. It has and does, in my opinion.

As science identifies more about consciousness, so should the philosophy adjust, happily, in those applications. (What Peter calls "modified contextually"). In the mean time, before achieving omniscience, it might be wise to give a lot of benefit of the doubt, and enough leeway, to life in all its forms, don't you agree?

Tony

It should be the default position for a rational philosophy to preserve life. Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WhyNOT Tony wrote:

With fast developing knowledge, Objectivism should stand the test of time and truth, and be adaptable - in application - not, in principle. It has and does, in my opinion.

End quote

I am standing in front of Trevi Fountain with three coins.

I toss a coin in. I wish for an (Ayn Rand inspired) Objectivist Lexicon based on Ayn’s words if they are still justified thinking, at this time, but if her words are contextually muddled or incorrect, they can be changed.

I toss another coin in. The movie “Atlas Shrugged was a huge success. The various institutes of Objectivism unite with David Kelley as their head.

You may toss in the third coin, Tony. Make a wish.

Tony wrote:

In the mean time, before achieving omniscience, it might be wise to give a lot of benefit of the doubt, and enough leeway, to life in all its forms, don't you agree?

End quote

I agree. Treat all life-forms with respect, and do it for rational reasons. Especially for all human or sentient life forms, no matter the state of their development, even as far back as just after fertilization. An egg is still NOT a person but I would treat it with respect for its humanity and its potential.

The exceptions in my book would be those life-forms that harm humans. Germs that cause major illness in us, I would eradicate or inoculate against.

Go back to the time of early sapiens and forward to the time of the last ice age. What killed and ate humans? Just in case a catastrophe occurs driving us back into the stone age I would get rid of tigers, Polar and grizzly bears, and most importantly, the leopard. We find leopard bite marks in the skulls of proto humans and in the skulls of homo sapiens quite frequently.

Peter Taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starship Trooper studiodekadent soberly wrote:

Quote

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, yet alone an Objectivist. He's religious, socially conservative in many respects as well.

Paul Ryan is a Rand-admirer but hardly an Objectivist since he's a Roman Catholic. However, out of all the people you mention, Ryan is the most likely to be sympathetic to Objectivism.

End quote

In hindsight, considering her later years, I could (half to three-quarters) seriously argue that Ayn Rand was religious about Objectivism.

She was socially conservative in many respects as well, though not in conservatism’s main issue, abortion.

Social Conservatism in politics is characterized by the advocacy of the use of the State to prevent, essentially, gays and abortion. Rand may have been anti-homosexual but she was AGAINST the idea of the STATE being used to ban homosexuality. Thus, even if it MIGHT be argued she had some socially conservative LIFESTYLE OPINIONS, she certain't wasn't a social conservative. She also was polyamorous and an atheist.

Religious about Objectivism? Depends on what you mean by religious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Starship Trooper studiodekadent soberly wrote:

Quote

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, yet alone an Objectivist. He's religious, socially conservative in many respects as well.

Paul Ryan is a Rand-admirer but hardly an Objectivist since he's a Roman Catholic. However, out of all the people you mention, Ryan is the most likely to be sympathetic to Objectivism.

End quote

In hindsight, considering her later years, I could (half to three-quarters) seriously argue that Ayn Rand was religious about Objectivism.

She was socially conservative in many respects as well, though not in conservatism’s main issue, abortion.

Social Conservatism in politics is characterized by the advocacy of the use of the State to prevent, essentially, gays and abortion. Rand may have been anti-homosexual but she was AGAINST the idea of the STATE being used to ban homosexuality. Thus, even if it MIGHT be argued she had some socially conservative LIFESTYLE OPINIONS, she certain't wasn't a social conservative. She also was polyamorous and an atheist.

Religious about Objectivism? Depends on what you mean by religious.

That said, I'm on record as being a strong opponent of the cultish nature of the early Objectivist movement and I clearly have never endorsed the closed-minded idolatory that some so-called Objectivists engage in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody noticed that the person from Russia who started this thread has only made that one post? I mean three days have passed.

I wonder if he is one of those folks who shows up, starts a thread with what he considers to be a gigantic put down and uses it like a glass dome he can set down over a bunch of insects so he can study how they crawl around.

You get all kinds in life.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody noticed that the person from Russia who started this thread has only made that one post? I mean three days have passed.

I wonder if he is one of those folks who shows up, starts a thread with what he considers to be a gigantic put down and uses it like a glass dome he can set down over a bunch of insects so he can study how they crawl around.

You get all kinds in life.

:)

Michael

I think he's pissed LP hasn't answered his question and doesn't differentiate among subsects of Objectivism, the biggest being ARI and everybody else. I'd therefore not go along with this part of what you wrote: "and uses it like a glass dome . . . " He's only 25 and probably an intellectual hot head, not a troll.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subject: always look for the most benevolent interpretation

Living in Russia under Putin and the conditions he sees in the world, it's pretty reasonable in his context to ask why we are not going on strike, looking for a place to hide or run.

So I'd lighten up on him and not come up with cynical explanations based on not much. (One reason not to post further is not getting his question answered specifically.)

Edited by Philip Coates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(One reason not to post further is not getting his question answered specifically.)

Phil,

Did you notice that by your very observation, you had two things on your mind you could have posted about? Not one, but two. And one you did post about and the other you did not.

Let's start with the "did not."

How about specifically answering the question yourself?

Don't know if the dude's coming back, so no guaranteed attention payoff? Not worth risking the effort?

:)

About the other... well, we already know all about the other...

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...