Marcus

Objectivists should come off as charming and charismatic

Recommended Posts

A perfect demonstration of the great man theory in recent history is Martin Luther King, Jr.

If the young King had pursued another path in his lifetime, inevitably there would have been other African-American civil rights leaders, perhaps other martyrs.

But King's unique contribution was to import Mahatma Gandhi's tactics of non-violent resistance in order to overturn Jim Crow laws in the deep South. Without King, the civil rights movement might have run a much slower course through political campaigns and congressional lobbying. Or it may have taken the violent course that Malcolm X at one time advocated.

Notice that in the aftermath of King's death, despite many contenders, there has been no U.S. civil rights leader who has ever commanded the same amount of respect and influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect demonstration of the great man theory in recent history is Martin Luther King, Jr.

If the young King had pursued another path in his lifetime, inevitably there would have been other African-American civil rights leaders, perhaps other martyrs.

But King's unique contribution was to import Mahatma Gandhi's tactics of non-violent resistance in order to overturn Jim Crow laws in the deep South. Without King, the civil rights movement might have run a much slower course through political campaigns and congressional lobbying. Or it may have taken the violent course that Malcolm X at one time advocated.

Notice that in the aftermath of King's death, despite many contenders, there has been no U.S. civil rights leader who has ever commanded the same amount of respect and influence.

I don't think that there will be another equal in any future civil rights movements (i.e., gay rights, youth rights maybe, etc.) since his civil rights movement was kind of the first the one, or rather it sets the stage for future civil rights movements.

What's kind of surprising to me is the portion of the positive changes in laws that are brought about by people of the left. Not the wacky Marxist or Stalinist or postmodernist left, but rather the more humanist left. Universal suffrage in Europe during the 1800s in Europe was a plank of the democratic socialists, for instance. King himself was something of a socialist, I believe. The Dalai Lama--a Marxist. This world is such a strange place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...since his civil rights movement was kind of the first the one, or rather it sets the stage for future civil rights movements.

Hmm, so I guess the Abolitionist movement and the Suffraget movement does not count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in my opinion it is not rational to condemn as evil an otherwise honest and decent religious person. But Ayn Rand did, and to call yourself an Objectivist many believe that you must also. That is a fundamental idea of Objectivism, and when you ask an Objectivist to temper that, you are asking them to stop being an Objectivist.

Where do you get the idea that Rand did that? The analysis of "the soul of the mystic" in Galt's Speech I think implies condemnation of everyone who's ever believed in a god or gods, but Rand in practice didn't condemn "otherwise honest and decent" religious people she knew, and I'm unaware of any context in which she explicitly said what you describe as "a fundamental idea of Objectivism."

Ellen

Ellen,

I concede your points regarding what Rand said outside of her fictional works as well as what she practiced in her life. However, we're talking about a proposed Objectivist movement for the general population and what would be required of the leaders of such a movement. My original point was to highlight the difficulty such a leader would face. Atlas Shrugged, at least among the people I know, is the best known Rand work, and as you noted, Galt's Speech does condemn religion and faith. Also, Objectivists, in the main, exhibit disdain for religion. Any leader of an Objectivist movement would surely find this a challenge.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not atheism is fundamental to Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...since his civil rights movement was kind of the first the one, or rather it sets the stage for future civil rights movements.

Hmm, so I guess the Abolitionist movement and the Suffraget movement does not count?

Oops! That one went through my head but for some reason I failed to put it down. I think I was parroting someone else I read with that part you quoted. My mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, in my opinion it is not rational to condemn as evil an otherwise honest and decent religious person. But Ayn Rand did, and to call yourself an Objectivist many believe that you must also. That is a fundamental idea of Objectivism, and when you ask an Objectivist to temper that, you are asking them to stop being an Objectivist.

Where do you get the idea that Rand did that? The analysis of "the soul of the mystic" in Galt's Speech I think implies condemnation of everyone who's ever believed in a god or gods, but Rand in practice didn't condemn "otherwise honest and decent" religious people she knew, and I'm unaware of any context in which she explicitly said what you describe as "a fundamental idea of Objectivism."

Ellen

Ellen,

I concede your points regarding what Rand said outside of her fictional works as well as what she practiced in her life. However, we're talking about a proposed Objectivist movement for the general population and what would be required of the leaders of such a movement. My original point was to highlight the difficulty such a leader would face. Atlas Shrugged, at least among the people I know, is the best known Rand work, and as you noted, Galt's Speech does condemn religion and faith. Also, Objectivists, in the main, exhibit disdain for religion. Any leader of an Objectivist movement would surely find this a challenge.

We can agree to disagree on whether or not atheism is fundamental to Objectivism.

I agree that a leader of "a proposed Objectivist movement for the general population" would have difficulties over Objectivism in relation to religion - and I disagree with people who say that it's possible (non-contradictorily) to be a Christian Objectivist. What I was taking you to be saying is fundamental to Objectivism is a requirement "to condemn as evil an otherwise honest and decent religious person." I don't think a requirement to do that is fundamental despite the overstated psychologizing condemnation in Galt's Speech and despite Rand's prefacing Galt's Speech with the sentence "This is the philosophy of Objectivism" (in the book For the New Intellectual). I think there are things in Rand's writings which a person could reasonably set aside as hyperbole while still calling him- or herself "an Objectivist." Atheism isn't one of those things, but the blanket condemnation I think is.

Sounds like we're basically saying the same thing but the words got in the way. :smile:

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early 1970s at the Ford Hall Forum a bunch of nuns were seated on the stage with her--they put some overflow seating up there. I don't recall if they were stage right or right behind her but the contrast was something else--to see her deliver her address with those nuns up there.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...since his civil rights movement was kind of the first the one, or rather it sets the stage for future civil rights movements.

Hmm, so I guess the Abolitionist movement and the Suffraget movement does not count?

Oops! That one went through my head but for some reason I failed to put it down. I think I was parroting someone else I read with that part you quoted. My mistake.

Lol, New York City rules, no harm, no foul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My original point was to highlight the difficulty such a leader would face.

Atlas Shrugged, at least among the people I know, is the best known Rand work, and as you noted, Galt's Speech does condemn religion and faith.

Also, Objectivists, in the main, exhibit disdain for religion. Any leader of an Objectivist movement would surely find this a challenge.

Deanna evaluates the field that no "Objectivist" had been able to "fill."

That field will remain unfilled because no one that I have observed has the knowledge, money, discipline and passion that is willing to throw themselves on the social/psychological barbed wire and demand that the state cease and desist.

Levin's book provides a generational philosophy that is intellectually demanding.

How many OL members have read the Federalist Papers?

A....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early 1970s at the Ford Hall Forum a bunch of nuns were seated on the stage with her--they put some overflow seating up there. I don't recall if they were stage right or right behind her but the contrast was something else--to see her deliver her address with those nuns up there.

--Brant

The talk Rand gave on that occasion was the one against the Papal Encyclical, titled, as I recall it, "Of Living Death." I felt sorry for the nuns. How awkward a place for them to be seated! They managed to maintain mildly pleasant countenances. They were all - seems to me there were three, but maybe only two - in the modern-style habit. Also, as I recall it, they were left of the podium, same side I was seated on in the audience facing the stage. I think they'd have been partly blocked from my view if they'd been on stage right. Would be fun to have a film so the details could be checked.

Ellen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "leader" I did not mean a "leader" of the movement, but that the average Objectivist should represent the highest and best that humanity has to offer. This includes qualities such as agreeableness, charisma, kindness, humor etc,. (when appropriate). What I meant is that the "average" Objectivist should actually be "above average" in comparison to a non-objectivist and that this would readily show itself, to the point where Objectivists would begin to gain a reputation as great people.

Contary to popular belief, Howard Roark, if you examine the Fountainhead carefully, was a kind, gentle, relaxed and respectful man. He was completely capable and comfortable with social interaction. He was highly respected (implicitly atleast, even when he was being denounced). He did not denounce. He did not moralize. He simply and consistently followed through on his personal goals and held his work in high esteem. Others were not his primary concern, but he did'nt exclude them entirely either.

On the issue of Objectivism's need of "religion", Brant, that is another post. But I agree and Rand touched upon this in the preface in the Fountainhead. The problem is religious emotions have it been abrograted by religions for nearly all of human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "leader" I did not mean a "leader" of the movement, but that the average Objectivist should represent the highest and best that humanity has to offer. This includes qualities such as agreeableness, charisma, kindness, humor etc,. (when appropriate). What I meant is that the "average" Objectivist should actually be "above average" in comparison to a non-objectivist and that this would readily show itself, to the point where Objectivists would begin to gain a reputation as great people.

Contary to popular belief, Howard Roark, if you examine the Fountainhead carefully, was a kind, gentle, relaxed and respectful man. He was completely capable and comfortable with social interaction. He was highly respected (implicitly atleast, even when he was being denounced). He did not denounce. He did not moralize. He simply and consistently followed through on his personal goals and held his work in high esteem. Others were not his primary concern, but he did'nt exclude them entirely either.

On the issue of Objectivism's need of "religion", Brant, that is another post. But I agree and Rand touched upon this in the preface in the Fountainhead. The problem is religious emotions have it been abrograted by religions for nearly all of human history.

Well said, Marcus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early 1970s at the Ford Hall Forum a bunch of nuns were seated on the stage with her--they put some overflow seating up there. I don't recall if they were stage right or right behind her but the contrast was something else--to see her deliver her address with those nuns up there.

--Brant

The talk Rand gave on that occasion was the one against the Papal Encyclical, titled, as I recall it, "Of Living Death." I felt sorry for the nuns. How awkward a place for them to be seated! They managed to maintain mildly pleasant countenances. They were all - seems to me there were three, but maybe only two - in the modern-style habit. Also, as I recall it, they were left of the podium, same side I was seated on in the audience facing the stage. I think they'd have been partly blocked from my view if they'd been on stage right. Would be fun to have a film so the details could be checked.

Ellen

Stage right is the left as you view from the audience. It's a theatrical term and one command to move them around he stage during rehearsal. So you the director tell an actor stage right he'll move to the right side of the stage as he sees it looking out to the audience.

If it was "Of Living Death" I think it was 1968 then. 1969 was Apollo 13. Both dates seem much too early to me. In 1968 she was all alone on the stage, as I recall, the first talk there since the break with NB.

--Brant

I was seated on the stage once too--from the other side of the stage (stage left ) a cute little girl asked Rand a rhetorical question about excellence in education for students and Rand applauded her--those were the only two times--the girl and the nuns--I recall audience on the stage with her, though there may have been another or even others, earlier in the 1960s when I wasn't there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By "leader" I did not mean a "leader" of the movement, but that the average Objectivist should represent the highest and best that humanity has to offer. This includes qualities such as agreeableness, charisma, kindness, humor etc,. (when appropriate). What I meant is that the "average" Objectivist should actually be "above average" in comparison to a non-objectivist and that this would readily show itself, to the point where Objectivists would begin to gain a reputation as great people.

Contary to popular belief, Howard Roark, if you examine the Fountainhead carefully, was a kind, gentle, relaxed and respectful man. He was completely capable and comfortable with social interaction. He was highly respected (implicitly atleast, even when he was being denounced). He did not denounce. He did not moralize. He simply and consistently followed through on his personal goals and held his work in high esteem. Others were not his primary concern, but he did'nt exclude them entirely either.

On the issue of Objectivism's need of "religion", Brant, that is another post. But I agree and Rand touched upon this in the preface in the Fountainhead. The problem is religious emotions have it been abrograted by religions for nearly all of human history.

Well said, Marcus.

He juiced it up in bed.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Roark was handsome, despite the hair. Optics matter. Look at Lenny P. just look at him. He looks kind and friendly, but also utterly weak and a little bit goofy. And his voice....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Branden looked strong, and many have attested he was charismatic. (Never heard his voice). But maybe he just did not photograph well, I do not see him as handsome - he looks a bit pudgy and smug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carol, Spoke on the phone with him once, 4-5 years ago. Strong and kind voice, nice accent. (S. Californian, Canadian?) A few women I know who've seen his photos in middle age called him hot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that interesting anecdote Tony. I would imagine he had a good voice. Lower tenor-baritone.

Fun fact, I spoke to Adam on the phone once. He has a good voice with an eccentric accent. I did not get much of a sample since I woke him up in the middle of the night to help me get back onto the forum with his techpertize. He was very nice about it however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam loves women, period. he was a perfect gentleman on the phone, and if you think men are hard to deal with, try horses and buggies - all that weird leather!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible I suppose, that if Churchill had delivered his immortal wartime speeches in a guttural shriek, like Hitler's, that the Allies might still have won the war.But how fine that that did not need to be so.,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early 1970s at the Ford Hall Forum a bunch of nuns were seated on the stage with her--they put some overflow seating up there. I don't recall if they were stage right or right behind her but the contrast was something else--to see her deliver her address with those nuns up there.

--Brant

The talk Rand gave on that occasion was the one against the Papal Encyclical, titled, as I recall it, "Of Living Death." I felt sorry for the nuns. How awkward a place for them to be seated! They managed to maintain mildly pleasant countenances. They were all - seems to me there were three, but maybe only two - in the modern-style habit. Also, as I recall it, they were left of the podium, same side I was seated on in the audience facing the stage. I think they'd have been partly blocked from my view if they'd been on stage right. Would be fun to have a film so the details could be checked.

Ellen

Stage right is the left as you view from the audience. It's a theatrical term and one command to move them around he stage during rehearsal. So you the director tell an actor stage right he'll move to the right side of the stage as he sees it looking out to the audience.

If it was "Of Living Death" I think it was 1968 then. 1969 was Apollo 13. Both dates seem much too early to me. In 1968 she was all alone on the stage, as I recall, the first talk there since the break with NB.

--Brant

I was seated on the stage once too--from the other side of the stage (stage left ) a cute little girl asked Rand a rhetorical question about excellence in education for students and Rand applauded her--those were the only two times--the girl and the nuns--I recall audience on the stage with her, though there may have been another or even others, earlier in the 1960s when I wasn't there

Thanks for the clarification re "stage right."

I was there also the time when the cute little girl asked the question.

The nuns and the little girl time were the only two I recall audience being on stage.

1968 is the first time I went - I'd moved to the NYC area that fall. There wasn't audience on stage that time. So if "Of Living Death" was in 1968, it wasn't that talk when the nuns were sitting on stage. It was something wherein negative remarks about religion were made.

Ellen

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...