Ayn Rand and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Recommended Posts

She did portray her views on the morality of sexuality in ATLAS SHRUGGED, but none of it had to do with the type of sex involved. She said only that your choice of lover should be a reflection of your highest values and that you shouldn't regard such a sexual relationship as impure or vulgar.

Do you believe Ayn Rand was of the opinion that values are subjective?

What are you driving at?

Since I'm not sure of your interpretation of Rand's stance on this, I asked the question to get a clear answer. TIA for your reply.

Like I said, I'm not going to get dragged into the objective/subjective debate again. But to be clear: values are subjective. The worth of these values is linked to how they relate to Rand's objective morality, however. Valuing independence, self-esteem, yadda yadda is rational, because it lines up with the objective morality which ensures man's survival and flourishing in relation to reality.

I think that it is best to say that given the desire to live a happy life, the appropriate values are (objectively) relative to your nature. The values you happen to choose may be described as subjective, in that they are a matter of choice, and we can choose perversely or foolishly.

We need but do not have conventionally accepted different words to describe the objetively appropriate values for our nature and choice to live and the actual values that we freely choose as an autonomous subject.

Oh, and the underlying debate here is frivolous. Rand was not expounding a scientific theory, just an entirely reasonable optimism for human nature. We will find some option, moving to another solar system or building colonies on the outer planets using fusion as our local power source. Of course the pissants provocateurs already know this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If her characters are overly idealized, they help provide strong role models for young men and women who love their lives and want to live a rational and purposeful existence.

Rand clearly places the male above the female. For example, she calls Dominique "the perfect priestess" for Howard Roark, thereby giving Roark a status above her. Are such gender role models not outdated today?

[Michelle R]:

Like I said, I'm not going to get dragged into the objective/subjective debate again. But to be clear: values are subjective. The worth of these values is linked to how they relate to Rand's objective morality, however. Valuing independence, self-esteem, yadda yadda is rational, because it lines up with the objective morality which ensures man's survival and flourishing in relation to reality.

My question was whether you believe Ayn Rand was of the opinion that values are subjective.

Imo the subjective/objective discussion is absolutely essential when analyzing a philosophy which is explicitly named "Objectivsm".

As for "morality", what is it other than a selection of subjective values?

Therefore isn't "objective morality" a contradiction in terms?

As for terms like e. g. "independence", the subjective factor is evident here too. For example, a wife leaving her husband and children behind to seek "self-fulfilment" elsewhere may feel independent and tell verybody how she is flourishing now. But the independence she considers as a value is viewed differently by those she left behind. Again the subjective value aspect factors in.

How to proceed if person A's wish for independence in one field clashes with person B's wish for the same independence? I don't think Rand's approach was utilitarian (greatest amount of happiness for largest amount of people).

However you slice it, you have subjective value landing at your doorstep each time.

Interesting also what M. Shermer wrote in that context (quote from Dennis Edwall's # post on the thread "Are there moral standards?"):

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry54892

"Certainly the commitment to reason is admirable (although clearly this is a philosophy, not a science); wouldn't most of us on the face of it, agree that individuals need to take personal responsibility for their actions? The great flaw in her philosophy is the belief that morals can be held to some absolute standard or criteria. [my emphasisbold type mine] This is not scientifically tenable. Morals do not exist in nature and thus cannot be discovered. In nature there are only actions - physical actions, biological actions, human actions. Humans act to increase their happiness, however they personally define it. Their actions become moral or immoral only when someone else judges them as such. Thus, morality is strictly a human creation, subject to all sorts of cultural influences and social constructions, just as other human creations are. Since virtually every person and every group claims they know what constitutes right versus wrong human action, and since virtually all of these moralities differ from all others to a greater or lesser extent, reason alone tells us they cannot all be correct. Just as there is no absolute right type of human music, there is no absolute right type of human action. The broad range of human action is a rich continuum that precludes pigeonholing into the unambiguous rights and wrongs that political laws and moral codes tend to require.

"Does this mean that all human actions are morally equal? Of course not, any more than all human music is equal. We create hierarchies of what we like or dislike, desire or reject, and make judgments based on those standards. But the standards are themselves human creations and cannot be discovered in nature." (end quote)

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it is best to say that given the desire to live a happy life, the appropriate values are (objectively) relative to your nature. The values you happen to choose may be described as subjective, in that they are a matter of choice, and we can choose perversely or foolishly.

We need but do not have conventionally accepted different words to describe the objetively appropriate values for our nature and choice to live and the actual values that we freely choose as an autonomous subject.

Could you provide an example of each. TIA.

[Ted Keer]:

Oh, and the underlying debate here is frivolous. Rand was not expounding a scientific theory, just an entirely reasonable optimism for human nature. We will find some option, moving to another solar system or building colonies on the outer planets using fusion as our local power source. Of course the pissants provocateurs already know this.

Have you read what Ba'al Chatzaf said about the second law of thermodynamics? The whole universe will finally reach the point of entropy. Those "pissant provocateurs" as you call them, are scientists. :)

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to be clear: values are subjective. The worth of these values is linked to how they relate to Rand's objective morality, however.

Michelle,

This is a premise you need to check for consistency.

Rand mostly used ethics and morality as synonyms. She defined ethics as "a code of values."

If, as you claim, values are subjective, then how can can there be an objective code of values (objective morality)?

As the saying goes, it is good to define your terms.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If her characters are overly idealized, they help provide strong role models for young men and women who love their lives and want to live a rational and purposeful existence.

Rand clearly places the male above the female. For example, she calls Dominique "the perfect priestess" for Howard Roark, thereby giving Roark a status above her. Are such gender role models not outdated today?

[Michelle R]:

Like I said, I'm not going to get dragged into the objective/subjective debate again. But to be clear: values are subjective. The worth of these values is linked to how they relate to Rand's objective morality, however. Valuing independence, self-esteem, yadda yadda is rational, because it lines up with the objective morality which ensures man's survival and flourishing in relation to reality.

My question was whether you believe Ayn Rand was of the opinion that values are subjective.

Imo the subjective/objective discussion is absolutely essential in regard to or a philosophy which is explicitly named "objectivsm".

You're reading sexism into the books.

She gives Roark a status above every other character in that book. Not just Dominique.

What about Dagny Taggart? Fiercely independent woman who practically runs an entire railroad on her own, having to keep it from being destroyed by her idiotic brother. Sleeps with many men. Clearly not a woman tied down by sexism.

I'm not saying I agree with all of her views about men and women. I think she was bound by many aspects of the mentality of her time which she failed to question (such as her distaste for homosexuality and evolutionary theory). But Dagny Taggart is a strong role model for young women (notice I said the characters of ATLAS SHRUGGED, not THE FOUNTAINHEAD, were good role models).

You asked what my interpretation of Ayn Rand's opinion was. I gave it. It is not my own.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to be clear: values are subjective. The worth of these values is linked to how they relate to Rand's objective morality, however.

Michelle,

This is a premise you need to check for consistency.

Rand mostly used ethics and morality as synonyms. She defined ethics as "a code of values."

If, as you claim, values are subjective, then how can can there be an objective code of values (objective morality)?

As the saying goes, it is good to define your terms.

Michael

Rand's terminology was muddled.

I would say that the only way of making sense of her view is that morality is a code of subjective values which refer directly to the nature of reality. Self-esteem is both a subjective value and an aspect of an objective morality because the value relates to a condition necessary for dealing adequately with nature.

I, myself, have no definite view on morality as of yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Values are personal, pertaining to an individual's context. If vanilla tastes better to me than chocolate, my preferring vanilla is not subjective. However, another person may objectively prefer chocolate to vanilla.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're reading sexism into the books.

I'm reading it in the books. It is clearly there

What about Dagny Taggart? Fiercely independent woman who practically runs an entire railroad on her own, having to keep it from being destroyed by her idiotic brother. Sleeps with many men. Clearly not a woman tied down by sexism.

I'm not saying I agree with all of her views about men and women. I think she was bound by many aspects of the mentality of her time which she failed to question (such as her distaste for homosexuality and evolutionary theory). But Dagny Taggart is a strong role model for young women (notice I said the characters of ATLAS SHRUGGED, not THE FOUNTAINHEAD, were good role models).

Fictional characters always come as a complete baggage. So we have Dagny Taggart who is a "fiercely independent woman" but also a sexual masochist.

And the male heros have a sadistic streak.

Like you correctly observed in a prior post, it is logical to assume that the heros and heroine in the novel reflect the author's sexual preferences. Nabokov for example did the same in Lolita. But unlike Rand, he did not present his character Humbert Humbert as a role model to emulate.

I was answering in Ayn Rand's capacity, since values, by definition, are subjective (thus, one's highest values), and she believed morality to be objective.

My own view is a bit different.

Thanks for clarifying, Michelle. In what respect is your own view different?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, a certain amount of what you say, I don't take seriously.

Ellen,

I have already found this guy out. Bob's a quite reasonable sweet old man and who hides behind a gruff mask because he gets lonely and that brings him attention.

:)

71 is not the age of an old man. That's mature middle age!

--Brant

Brant; With all due respectt you are not going to live to 140. At 71 your life is definetly more than half over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, a certain amount of what you say, I don't take seriously.

Ellen,

I have already found this guy out. Bob's a quite reasonable sweet old man and who hides behind a gruff mask because he gets lonely and that brings him attention.

:)

71 is not the age of an old man. That's mature middle age!

--Brant

Brant; With all due respectt you are not going to live to 140. At 71 your life is definetly more than half over.

I think Brant wrote his "mature middle age" comment with a grain of salt, Chris. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Dagny Taggart? Fiercely independent woman who practically runs an entire railroad on her own, having to keep it from being destroyed by her idiotic brother. Sleeps with many men. Clearly not a woman tied down by sexism.

I'm not saying I agree with all of her views about men and women. I think she was bound by many aspects of the mentality of her time which she failed to question (such as her distaste for homosexuality and evolutionary theory). But Dagny Taggart is a strong role model for young women (notice I said the characters of ATLAS SHRUGGED, not THE FOUNTAINHEAD, were good role models).

Fictional characters always come as a complete baggage. So we have Dagny Taggart who is a "fiercely independent woman" but also a sexual masochist.

And the male heros have a sadistic streak.

Like you correctly observed in a prior post, it is logical to assume that the heros and heroine in the novel reflect the author's sexual preferences. Nabokov for example did the same in Lolita. But unlike Rand, he did not present his character Humbert Humbert as a role model to emulate.

I was answering in Ayn Rand's capacity, since values, by definition, are subjective (thus, one's highest values), and she believed morality to be objective.

My own view is a bit different.

Thanks for clarifyng, Michelle. In what respect is your own view different?

Again, I ask: what is morally wrong about rough sex?

Are you really justified in calling Nabokov a pedophile? I've not looked at his personal life, but you can't judge his person by one of his writings. All of Rand's fiction clearly demonstrate a taste for rough sex, but on the pedophilia front, there is only Lolita for Nabokov, right?

I wouldn't say that morality is objective. I firmly believe morality is SUBJECTIVE, but that experimentation and falsification can lead one to models of moral behavior which give one good results for the type of life one wants to live. A person who wants to live a joyous, rational life will obey a different code of values than someone who does not want to live, but only to make others miserable. I don't know that ideas of morality should apply to the latter category of people, however, since they're unreasonable. I make an enormous presumption, but one that I believe is justified: my morality would work for people who want to be happy and rational. There can be no appeal to the irrational. Nothing will change their most basic premises.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Values are personal, pertaining to an individual's context. If vanilla tastes better to me than chocolate, my preferring vanilla is not subjective. However, another person may objectively prefer chocolate to vanilla.

James,

Not only that, a subjective value like poison can objectively kill a person, whether the person subjectively values life or not.

The problem is not true understanding with this "subjective value" debate. What is really going on is a huge game played on the subtext level. (Not just in this thread, either. This is a game played all over the place.)

Here is the real subtext: Rand was wrong about most everything and she constantly contradicted herself.

The minor version is: Rand was wrong about XXX and she constantly contradicted herself about it.

The facts and ideas take second place to this... er... subjective value :) .

Then you take a phrase like "objective morality" or "objective value," refuse to look at the conceptual daisy chain leading up to those ideas and play semantics and word games while trying to befuddle people who have looked at the conceptual daisy chain. Then, while ignoring the meanings (concepts) on which these objective morality concepts were based, you start preaching Rand was wrong and you have proven it. Usually you start mocking the other person after that declaration. (I mean "you" general person, not "you" James.)

I have this pattern play out over and over and over. This is a perfect example of the stolen concept in action to fuel an agenda.

As you know, I have no problem with Rand being wrong. But I always try to back it up with concepts and first align my understanding with her standards and meanings for checking consistency, not merely parrot words with the wrong meanings and point to out-of-context examples and repeat the same words over and over, trying to convince by boring people.

Parroting words with the wrong meanings and refusing to define terms just to win some kind of silly game is an intellectual cop-out.

What's worse, this form of game never convinces anyone of anything on an individual level. It works with crowd psychology, though. Qua individual, even if a person agrees at the time with the semantic cartwheels, later the person will feel conned and most often go back to the old way of thinking. I have seen this pattern on forums for a long time. Without peer pressure, social proof, and a few other elements of crowd psychology, it's hard to get a person to turn his mind off.

So as a form of persuasion, playing this game on an individual level shows incompetence. Doing it on a crowd level in conjunction with other crowd skills shows persuasion competence. Bullies really like it and they can become quite skilled.

btw - Rand admirers play the same game from the other end with opposite subtexts. I intensely dislike this epistemological method and I know it well because I used to do it when I was younger. I hope you are starting to see where I come from when I discuss matters in my friendly-contentious manner. Facts first (proper identification), then evaluation. Cognitive before normative.

The subtext people (on both sides) often conflict with me because I take the covers off the intellectual con game and challenge the epistemology they use before accepting their judgments.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion. It just devolves into semantics without proper philosophical context.

So: I'm out.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

snip

btw - Rand admirers play the same game from the other end with opposite subtexts. I intensely dislike this epistemological method and I know it well because I used to do it when I was younger. I hope you are starting to see where I come from when I discuss matters in my friendly-contentious manner. Facts first (proper identification), then evaluation. Cognitive before normative.

The subtext people (on both sides) often conflict with me because I take the covers off the intellectual con game and challenge the epistemology they use before accepting their judgments.

Michael

Michael, sure I do. There is a problem generally, though, with what you are talking about: bandwidth. At a certain point you have to have to assume a standard dictionary definition and go with it. Rand redefined terms for the purpose of challenging people's assumptions, but I've never gotten upset by conventional terminology. It would be like getting upset at different computer operating systems. But sometimes it is helpful to suggest a term that better captures what people are talking about.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the best method for argumentation is to insist on defining terms in an orderly fashion first, and have all members of the debate agree to these definitions.

Otherwise, you get the confusion this whole objective/subjective thing has generated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the best method for argumentation is to insist on defining terms in an orderly fashion first, and have all members of the debate agree to these definitions.

Otherwise, you get the confusion this whole objective/subjective thing has generated.

Michelle,

This is absolutely the only way to do it harmoniously.

You will discover over time if you post much on forums that it is also the most difficult. When the rubber meets the road, people simply refuse to agree on terms for some reason.

I think they like to yell at each other and/or pretend they are better than each other...

:)

At least this is a fair assumption from observing such behavior over several years.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the best method for argumentation is to insist on defining terms in an orderly fashion first, and have all members of the debate agree to these definitions.

Otherwise, you get the confusion this whole objective/subjective thing has generated.

Michelle,

This is absolutely the only way to do it harmoniously.

You will discover over time if you post much on forums that it is also the most difficult. When the rubber meets the road, people simply refuse to agree on terms for some reason.

I think they like to yell at each other and/or pretend they are better than each other...

:)

At least this is a fair assumption from observing such behavior over several years.

Michael

Hee hee. I believe it. The number of keyboard warriors out there is absolutely astonishing. And most of them are completely unreasonable.

Although I've not met anyone here so far who I'd call 'completely unreasonable.' Which is a surprise to me, because all forums seem to have at least one or two people like that

Of course, maybe there ARE unreasonable people here and I don't notice. You see, I have a bad habit. I have a kind of morbid fascination with extreme political groups, so I've spent entirely too much time reading forums like revolutionary left, stormfront, free republic, and democratic underground, where almost all of the posters are completely insane. In comparison to the most sober poster on one of these forums, the most unreasoning person here is a model of rationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the best method for argumentation is to insist on defining terms in an orderly fashion first, and have all members of the debate agree to these definitions.

Otherwise, you get the confusion this whole objective/subjective thing has generated.

Michelle,

This is absolutely the only way to do it harmoniously.

You will discover over time if you post much on forums that it is also the most difficult. When the rubber meets the road, people simply refuse to agree on terms for some reason.

I think they like to yell at each other and/or pretend they are better than each other...

:)

At least this is a fair assumption from observing such behavior over several years.

Michael

Hee hee. I believe it. The number of keyboard warriors out there is absolutely astonishing. And most of them are completely unreasonable.

Although I've not met anyone here so far who I'd call 'completely unreasonable.' Which is a surprise to me, because all forums seem to have at least one or two people like that

Of course, maybe there ARE unreasonable people here and I don't notice. You see, I have a bad habit. I have a kind of morbid fascination with extreme political groups, so I've spent entirely too much time reading forums like revolutionary left, stormfront, free republic, and democratic underground, where almost all of the posters are completely insane. In comparison to the most sober poster on one of these forums, the most unreasoning person here is a model of rationality.

Don't call me a model of rationality! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I ask: what is morally wrong about rough sex?

I'm not morally judging anything. For what sexually turns people on is their own business. Also, personal opinions differ as to what people call "rough sex", "passionate lovemaking" etc. Which is why the picture person A has in mind of "rough sex", "passionate lovemaking" may completely differ from person B's etc.

So when people regard a sexually subservient heroine like Dagny Taggart as being a role model for themselves - again, it is their personal choice.

But when it comes to recommending her or her male counterparts (you themselves called them "bestial") as role models for young people to emulate - that's where I personally would draw the line.

Aside from that, I'm against the idea of adapting oneself to role models anyway.

Rand thought of her fictional created heros "as man should be". An entirely subjective choice, contradicting the very idea of individualism in that others "ought to" value what she preferred.

Like you accurately observed, the dominance/subservience theme is running through the whole novel AS. The male heros come and go as they please, often leaving "without a word" after the sexual act.

The mostly have "cold eyes", and a "mocking smile" on their face. I often had to laugh when reading that, getting the mental image of some comic strip figure in my mind. :)

Are you really justified in calling Nabokov a pedophile? I've not looked at his personal life, but you can't judge his person by one of his writings. All of Rand's fiction clearly demonstrate a taste for rough sex, but on the pedophilia front, there is only Lolita for Nabokov, right?

I'm not morally judging. But reason tells me that an author does not choose a major theme for a novel without being preoccupied by it on a personal level.

The topic of Lolita is an aging man's obsession with the budding sexuality of a minor, masterfully put in writing.

The novel is very complex; I conceive it as being about the fear of individual decay and, ultimately, death.

I wouldn't say that morality is objective.

I totally agree. Morality is not objective. It is a selection of ethical values, and since ethical values can't be anything but subjective, the logical inference is that morality is subjective too.

I firmly believe morality is SUBJECTIVE, but that experimentation and falsification can lead one to models of moral behavior which give one good results for the type of life one wants to live.

You are talking about the means to achieve an end, but your inference that testing those means can lead to "models of moral behavior" is an epistemological error imo.

We can go into detailed discussion on this if you like - it is your call.

A person who wants to live a joyous, rational life will obey a different code of values than someone who does not want to live, but only to make others miserable.

Again, what people think of as a "joyous, rational life" varies, given the fact that every individual being is a volitional, goal-seeking entity.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion. It just devolves into semantics without proper philosophical context.

So: I'm out.

Michelle: semantics is an essential part of every philosophical discussion.

Which is why I regret your choice of "being out" before we have gotten to the core of things.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion. It just devolves into semantics without proper philosophical context.

So: I'm out.

Michelle: semantics is an essential part of every philosophical discussion.

Which is why I regret your choice of "being out" before we have gotten to the core of things.

Read: semantics WITHOUT PROPER PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT.

Different than just "semantics."

But in all honesty, I'd like to work this through in my head a bit anyway before getting into it again.

The major problem with Rand is that she was only an individualist in regard to herself. Every good character, on some level, is most likely a reflection of some aspect of Rand's psyche. And she demanded that others accept her individuality as their own.

But can a person who forces their personality on others really be called a proper individualist? I think not.

Individualism is fundamentally incompatible with orthodox Objectivism. Orthodox Objectivists, I believe, are simply individuals who are weak and seek to be empowered second-hand through Rand's philosophy. The problem is that Rand wrote a lot about reason and individualism that appeals to people like me, who can never be an Objectivist, or a member of a group in any fundamental way.

Individualists are fundamentally their own role models, I think. This applies to me, at least. I don't seek my self-definition in others: I find it in my self, in my life, not the lives of others. This includes Rand and her supermen. Thus why I'll never be anything more than an 'admirer' of Ayn Rand.

Consider how Galt functions in Objectivist circles in the same way that Jesus functions for Christians. Christians seek to be 'like Christ.' They 'done the clothes of Christ.' Christ is their moral ideal, so they seek to emulate him. The same applies to Objectivists. Note the behavior of Rand's inner circle in New York. From what I remember, they actually berated people for not smoking because smoking was moral and a symbol of 'fire tamed by man, the fire of the mind.' In reality, Dagny and Galt smoked a lot in ATLAS SHRUGGED, and this was apparently so big a deal to Rand that she made it a point to introduce a special type of cigarette which had a dollar sign printed on it as an early plot device to add mystery to the story, so naturally the cultists took up this habit in order to more completely emulate Galt and Friends.

EDIT: If I even suggested on most other Objectivist forums what I have explicitly stated here multiple times, I would have been banned. In fact, I was, on some other Objectivist forum that I'd forgotten about. I see I made the correct choice in joining this forum: the people here are intelligent, rational, and devoted to reality, NOT to ideology.

Edited by Michelle R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I didn't want to get into this discussion. It just devolves into semantics without proper philosophical context.

So: I'm out.

Michelle: semantics is an essential part of every philosophical discussion.

Which is why I regret your choice of "being out" before we have gotten to the core of things.

Read: semantics WITHOUT PROPER PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT.

Different than just "semantics."

But in all honesty, I'd like to work this through in my head a bit anyway before getting into it again.

The major problem with Rand is that she was only an individualist in regard to herself. Every good character, on some level, is most likely a reflection of some aspect of Rand's psyche. And she demanded that others accept her individuality as their own.

But can a person who forces their personality on others really be called a proper individualist? I think not.

Individualism is fundamentally incompatible with orthodox Objectivism. Orthodox Objectivists, I believe, are simply individuals who are weak and seek to be empowered second-hand through Rand's philosophy. The problem is that Rand wrote a lot about reason and individualism that appeals to people like me, who can never be an Objectivist, or a member of a group in any fundamental way.

Individualists are fundamentally their own role models, I think. This applies to me, at least. I don't seek my self-definition in others: I find it in my self, in my life, not the lives of others. This includes Rand and her supermen. Thus why I'll never be anything more than an 'admirer' of Ayn Rand.

Consider how Galt functions in Objectivist circles in the same way that Jesus functions for Christians. Christians seek to be 'like Christ.' They 'done the clothes of Christ.' Christ is their moral ideal, so they seek to emulate him. The same applies to Objectivists. Note the behavior of Rand's inner circle in New York. From what I remember, they actually berated people for not smoking because smoking was moral and a symbol of 'fire tamed by man, the fire of the mind.' In reality, Dagny and Galt smoked a lot in ATLAS SHRUGGED, and this was apparently so big a deal to Rand that she made it a point to introduce a special type of cigarette which had a dollar sign printed on it as an early plot device to add mystery to the story, so naturally the cultists took up this habit in order to more completely emulate Galt and Friends.

EDIT: If I even suggested on most other Objectivist forums what I have explicitly stated here multiple times, I would have been banned. In fact, I was, on some other Objectivist forum that I'd forgotten about. I see I made the correct choice in joining this forum: the people here are intelligent, rational, and devoted to reality, NOT to ideology.

Great post, Michelle! I too perceive us all here as people who want to get fundamental questions answered.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

x-ray:

"I too perceive us all here as people who want to get fundamental questions answered." Damn so you converted from being an irrational nag!

I am ready to believe anything...

subjectively of course.

Adam :fear: <<<<< just a little D/s imaging for your map

Link to comment
Share on other sites

x-ray:

Damn so you converted from being an irrational nag!

Signor Selene, you'd do me a big favore if you would smetterla di brontolare contro me tutto il tempo. Mille grazie in advance. ;)

I am ready to believe anything...

subjectively of course.

Adam :fear: <<<<< just a little D/s imaging for your map

Thanks. That's for a start. I hope there's more to come.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Here is a quote that I owe to Michael. It is from -Atlas Shrugged- from the bottom of p 164 to the top of p 165.

Context: Hank and Dagny are at the construction site for the Taggart Transcontinental RR where Reardon Metal is being used to lay down track and build a new bridge on their Colorado Division (this is before Dagny had to separate this division from the rest of TTRR -- pre John Galt Line). They are noting how the economy of the country is running down, production falling and revenues falling. I will add in a little before to establish context.

Dagny:I think of the contrast all over rest of the Taggart System. There is less to carry, less tonnage produced each year. It's as if ... Hank, what's wrong with the country?

Hank: I don't know.

Dagny: I keep thinking about what they told us in school about the sun losing energy, growing colder each year. I remember wondering then what it would be like in the last days of the world. It would be ... like this. Growing colder and things stopping.

Hank: I never believed that story (sic!). By the time the sun was exhausted men would find a substitute.

Dagny: You did? I thought that too.

........

What is wrong here?

0. "That story" is a well established scientific theory. Evidence supporting it has accumulated over several centuries. Laboratory evidence made with expensive instruments.

1. A denial of the first law of thermodynamics, to wit, energy cannot be created out of nothing.

2. A denial of the second law of thermodynamics, to wit, in any closed system (like the universe) entropy increased until thermal equilibrium throughout is reached.

The only substitute sun is another star. The closest such is proximi centauri about four light years away and there is no evidence that it has any planets that humans can live on. One does not manufacture new suns without material and energy sources. From where? Blank out (to use a Phrase).

(bolding mine)

"Although accidents and failures are possible, they are not, according to Objectivism, the essence of human life. On the contrary, the achievement of values is the norm—speaking now for the moral man, moral by the Objectivist definition. Success and happiness are the metaphysically to-be-expected. In other words, Objectivism rejects the view that human fulfillment is impossible, that man is doomed to misery, that the universe is malevolent. We advocate the “benevolent universe” premise.

The “benevolent universe” does not mean that the universe feels kindly to man or that it is out to help him achieve his goals. No, the universe is neutral; it simply is; it is indifferent to you. You must care about and adapt to it, not the other way around. But reality is “benevolent” in the sense that if you do adapt to it—i.e., if you do think, value, and act rationally, then you can (and barring accidents you will) achieve your values. You will, because those values are based on reality.(Rand)

The sun becoming extinct one day and with it all human life would of course be no "accident", but natural law in effect.

The same goes for the whole universe as finally reaching the point of entropy.

Why was it so hard for Rand to accept that one day, all life on our planet may be extinguished because of the sun beig extinguished? If she was an atheist, why bother? If it is all natural law, why did this upset her? (At least it upset the figures in her novel, so one can assume it preoccupied Rand too).

The prospect seems to be troubling quite few other people too, and I ask myself why that is.

A Marxist I talked to would hear nothing of it and at once came up with the Rearden-like argument that by that time men would find a substitute. But this was evading the question. For what if it doesn't work out and no subsitute is found? Or when ALL life in the universe ends due to entropy?

Why is this possible development so dreaded by many, despite the fact we as individuals know very well that we are mortal and won't exist forever too?

Edited by Xray
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